Indian Foreign Policy in Convulsions

Indian Foreign Policy in Convulsions

Indian foreign policy establishment received a big tremor on July 16, 2009 with epicenter at Sharm El Sheikh. Something unprecedented happened and Indians woke up to the reality that India’s stand against terror is put on the back burners to enable Americans fight their war on terror in Afghanistan­Pakistan. 26/11 was delinked from the dialogue with Pakistan in the joint statement issued by Dr.Man Mohan Singh and Yusuf Reza Gilani. Pakistan was already celebrating the diplomatic coup. Gilani’s stock zoomed up.

He managed to kick start the dialogue process and had the feather of Balochistan in his cap.

The explanations followed no end from Indian delegation in Egypt but Indian political as well as bureaucratic establishment was at a loss to understand the compulsions of a U­ turn on the stand that there can be no dialogue with Pakistan till 26/11 perpetrators are punished. India had sustained the international moral and political support since 26/11 with top diplomats briefing all the key countries. The Prime Minister had reiterated the stand several times and the last was when he virtually reprimanded President Zardari in Yekaterinburg stating the mandate he had vis a vis Pakistan. What happened in a week that the mandate had lost its relevance?

It seems the Indian side expected more of Yekaterinburg to happen in Sharm El Sheikh with Gilani on 26/11 issues. But something happened and as the reports suggest a hurried statement was drafted based on dictation of Gilani. The Prime Minister Dr. Man Mohan Singh conceded on the issue of de­linking terror and dialogue in larger interest of the peace process. May be the message conveyed to Zardari was strong enough by diplomatic standards and it was now time to move on.

Yekaterinburg Effect: Dr. Man Mohan Singh had departed from stated positions and made a major concession.

Neither the MEA nor political bigwigs had any clue to what was in store. Since it was a meeting on the sidelines of NAM summit, was there any compulsion to have the joint statement issued when talks were only peripheral to find a way out of the situation? It could have just been left to foreign secretaries to carry forward the process. It is quite possible that after Yekaterinburg there was pressure on India to get on with dialogue to provide a platform for Hillary Clinton which she reiterated when in New Delhi. The stamp of US was visible like watermark on the joint statement due to timing.

Sharm El Sheikh joint statement has left an impression globally that Pakistan can attack Indian Parliament and the culprit can not be hanged, Pakistan can attack Indian consulate in Kabul and India did not retaliate, Pakistan can attack Mumbai with unprecedented & obvious involvement of ISI and India can do nothing. India stuck to diplomacy. After

buying time, Pakistan has now admitted to involvement of LeT in Mumbai attack. The world too knows the obvious. However, it is a fact that nothing would come out on terror front until we talk to them and keep the pressure on. Talks should be pursued to get step by step action on dismantling terror and punishing the perpetrators. The joint statement should have been to enlist action plan of Pakistan leading to composite dialogue after milestones have been traversed. PM has made detailed statement in the parliament on the issue. Now our talks must be recalibrated by what PM said “Trust & Verify” approach.

We have to regain lost ground.

History Repeats Itself: I was reminded of the Tashkent agreement signed by Lal Bahadur Shastri under pressure from Moscow. We surrendered all the gains after reaching Lahore. Indira Gandhi signed Simla Agreement which has been broken umpteen numbers of times. Nawaz Sharif and Vajpayee signed Lahore declaration and we had Kargil. Now we have frittered away the diplomatic gains made since 26/11. What next Mr.Gilani?

Pakistan has made mockery since 26/11 changing statements every day if not by hour.

We know that no agreement with India signed by highest authorities in Pakistan is likely to be honored in implementation. The trust deficit is very high and Pakistan should be made to work to establish trustworthiness to move on. The onus of bridging the deficit should have been on Pakistan. We failed in nailing down Pakistan and on the contrary reversed our position.

Avoidable Balochistan: The PM has made clear in the parliament that no dossier has been given on Balochistan.

Whatever was discussed on the issue could have ended with demand for dossier from our end like Pakistan keeps asking us proof every day on 26/11. It is public knowledge that India has stopped overseas covert operations under what is known as Gujral Doctrine.

Where was need to introduce Balochistan in the joint statement? Pakistan will keep using it to their advantage trying to implicate India in fomenting trouble in Pakistan. Sharm El Sheikh joint statement will keep haunting us for long time to come just like UN Resolution on Kashmir. The PM has reiterated that India has nothing to fear and has no interest in destabilizing Pakistan. PM may be right but it will put unfair, avoidable & unnecessary pressure on us to keep defending ourselves in international fora.

Global Role, Global Pressures: Our approaches in dealing with NSG waiver, nuclear deal, and in recent times dealing with Pakistan have thrown up new dimensions to conduct of diplomacy with changing times and global perspectives. We should not forget that India’s place in global standing has changed considerably in last decade driven by our economic success. Our status as a nuclear power has added new responsibilities in conduct of foreign policy. As we occupy

positions in global institutions and fora with the shrinking digit after G, our responsibilities as a nation increase. We also become more susceptible to pressures of partners on international issues. Our overt positions and approaches to global issues define our trajectories. This perhaps was the driving factor for Dr. Man Mohan Singh to accept the proposal of “Trust & Verify” approach with Pakistan in going ahead with dialogue. He rightly defended stating if we do not talk to Pakistan, we have to talk to third party. But the departure from well established stand and joint statement could have been avoided. We could have even accommodated US concerns if any. However, this should have been done at time of our choice after visible action from Pakistan in terms of some high profile arrests. Even if we acted under pressures, it should have been made to be seen as independent decision in pursuit of our objectives. This is where the failure of diplomacy lies. The intentions may be fine but packaging has failed us miserably exposing chinks in our diplomatic armor.

The Paradigm Shift: In the new paradigm that diplomacy finds itself, one lesson is sure to be learnt and it is that we will be always under pressure to find new approaches and give up the familiar.

Indian foreign policy has to be firmly rooted in four tenets of our national priorities and ambitions. Foremost is to secure national interest, second is to be seen to be globally effective, the third is to bring fresh approaches to resolve international issues and last but not the least is to be seen to be carrying other nations with us. India has been leader of SAARC minus six nations. Pakistan would continue to be our Achilles’ heel. Unless we take neighbors on board, we can not aspire for a seat on UNSC. That is the recipe for new global leadership. That is a tall order, isn’t it?

Vijay M. Deshpande Corporate Advisor, Strategic Management Initiative, Pune July 31, 2009 Scroll down for my other blogs or visit www.strami.com

.