IS India’s Narendra Modi administration guilty of reducing the country’s strategic foreign policy discourse to a pedestrian level so much so that New Delhi has turned into an object of ridicule in the international diplomatic circle?
With each passing day, Modi seems to be locking himself into an ideological-cum-diplomatic straightjacket. Unfortunate it is because many in India sincerely believed that pragmatism and reciprocal assertiveness would be the cornerstone of Modi’s foreign policy vision. India’s dual identity — that of being a rising power with growing economic clout and a developing nation with a multitude of socioeconomic challenges simultaneously — was considered to be the only stumbling block in her quest for attaining a high place in a new world order. India’s policy planning was supposedly hindered by capacity constraints and lack of adequate expertise in exploiting the full potential of public diplomacy.
Modi was seen as a messiah who would inject a healthy dose of realism into India’s foreign policy initiatives and provide a strategic direction in policy execution. But then, Modi’s foreign policy style and substance has been more self-aspirational (of positioning himself as the greatest Indian statesman of all time) and ignores strategic realities. Modi has infused sloganeering into pragmatic policymaking process even in the critical domain of external relations. The biggest challenge with Modi is his tendency to create unprecedented hype and rhetoric in every policy issue, thus deflecting the nation’s core priorities. For instance, the bitter domestic debate over Modi’s one million rupees “made in Britain” suit with his name inscribed all over, successfully diverted the national focus from the real issue during US President Barack Obama’s recent India trip.
Moreover, Modi’s showmanship, of serving tea to the visiting dignitary, in front of rolling television cameras trivialized the entire Indo-US bilateral discourse. Interestingly, some analysts believe Modi has used dramatics as a tactical ploy to hide his failures and suppress some vital truths. And with all the theatrics (that belittle the dignity of the Prime Ministerial position) in full display, what did Modi achieve at the end of the day? Despite the tall claim of a nuclear deal breakthrough, it was the Indian government that capitulated to sustained US diplomatic pressure. New Delhi has pledged to exempt American nuclear reactor suppliers from any liability — as enshrined in Section 46 of India’s Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 — relating to tort or civil suits in the event of nuclear accidents.
Modi, according to sources privy to negotiations, has even walked the extra mile to assure the American leadership that the Indian government would henceforth ensure that no Indian national can take any US supplier to court, despite the still haunting memories of Bhopal gas tragedy. Besides, in a move that would make India’s strategic establishment crawl, Modi has agreed to share even the minutest details (despite the claim of Obama using his executive power to waive intrusive checks) concerning nuclear materials and equipment with Washington bilaterally apart from complying with the additional protocol of the IAEA, which already provides for intrusive inspection of India’s nuclear installations. Then, the same Modi, whose paranoia over unproductive expenditure forced the government to trim critical social-security schemes, had committed himself to the setting-up of an insurance pool with Indian taxpayer’s money to provide financial immunity to suppliers. Though, America’s own national nuclear-insurance pool is industry funded and provides accident cover without any cost to the public exchequer and fault needing to be proven.
Unfortunately, Modi made some damaging compromises surreptitiously and very few leaders would betray such an appalling lack of sensitivity to the core national interest and safety of fellow citizens. Foreign policy or diplomatic discourse should ideally be delinked from any doctrine or dogma. But, Modi sincerely believes that the very concept of strategic autonomy is anachronistic. He has somehow injected his thought — of fitting India into America’s scheme of things in Asia at all costs — in the Indian foreign office establishment without weighing the strategic consequences.
Modi wants to break free from the popular American foreign office belief that India is a nation, which seeks friendly relations with Washington and yet shy away from, even, portraying herself as a loyal collaborator in all American foreign policy adventures. But a naïve Modi having failed to effectively nuance his radical policy shift toward America, ended up rubbing the Russians (a designated strategic partner and principal military hardware supplier to India) the wrong way. Adding to the woe, a perplexed Modi virtually allowed Obama to assail Russia on Ukraine from Indian soil unprecedentedly. And just days before, Russia and India agreed to hasten co-production of futuristic fifth-generation stealth fighter aircraft in accordance with Modi’s favorite “Make in India” scheme.
Regrettably, Modi has left even the staunchest loyalist in Moscow sulking and no wonder the ending of Russian-arms blockade to Pakistan is seen as a quiet retribution. In fact, Modi has also offended the Chinese leadership with his unwarranted reference to Beijing’s territorial aggression — during his Japan visit — after China courted India on the global stage wholeheartedly. Perhaps, in the eagerness to put his stamp on Indian foreign policy, Modi ignored the vital fact that diplomacy should be best left to professionals capable of handling diplomatic shadows and nuances with finesse. Otherwise, he will repeatedly end-up in embarrassing situations like the most recent one of quietly assuring the American leadership of restraining Indian intelligence, from carrying out covert operations within Pakistan using the Af-Pak corridor, on being confronted with an Islamabad-supplied dossier.
