Opinion Knowing what’s good for us

After all P5 leaders visit India,we take our UN Security Council turn. Statesmen are now salesmen,greatly business-driven,still the procession symbolises our world role. The UNSC will test our ability to perform it. Our qualifications for being there are manifest,as are our weaknesses. Our apparatus for interacting with the world is inadequate,in concepts and in mechanics. US President Barack Obama’s Parliament speech summed up the international attitude: welcome to the high table,now show us what you can bring to it. His Myanmar reference,howsoever irritating,underlines the complexities and dilemmas major powers face. These call for objective,calculated judgment,forethought,a sense of proportion,finesse,diligence,persistence — everything disdained at home.Some handicaps are inherent. “Democracy… can only with great difficulty regulate the details of an important undertaking,persevere in a fixed design,and work out its execution in spite of serious obstacles. It cannot combine its measures with secrecy or await their consequences with patience” — since Alexis de Tocqueville’s observation,public opinion,and the media even more so,have become further complications. Other democracies develop palliatives — educating the public,interacting with opposition groups,insulating foreign policy from petty politics,even going ahead and taking a chance on domestic consequences. While that is beyond today’s India,we have a greater problem: we hardly know what our national interest is. Disagreements on specific issues — the Indo-US nuclear deal,or how to handle China — are healthy,but no country can survive,much less matter,without some sense of its strategic or security needs. Serious states — those capable of achieving calculated purposes — are distinguished from ineffective “banana republics” by the nature of the thinking that determines what they do. Drowning national needs in local politics,emotional or outdated ideological illusions,playing to the galleries or simple ignorance is mortally dangerous. Consider some random instances: Tamil Nadu’s parties competed to embarrass Delhi’s handling of Sri Lanka,states around Bangladesh connive at illegal immigration,UP has no thought for its responsibilities vis-à-vis Nepal. With visions so narrow,who cares about the security of the Persian Gulf or the stability of Central Asia?Take our permanent UNSC membership. India deserves it,but reform will take ages. The statesmanlike stance is: the entire international organisation system is out of date,and when recast,our UNSC rights must be incorporated,but until then let’s get on with life. Instead,immature yearning forces the government to make this a core national objective,wasting diplomatic capital on lollipops of empty support.A major world role means having to take positions on a variety of issues,inevitably upsetting someone. Our diplomats were renowned for straddling contradictions,but domestic pressures obviate professional skills. The irresponsible posturing of politicians and media hyperbole frequently force us to subordinate our own interests for some imagined cause — and in extreme language. One unforgettable illustration: our then foreign minister’s statement on the 1967 Middle East crisis. Given a carefully-worded draft,he succumbed to fears that Parliament would expect a bolt of thunder — one Arab ambassador asked why we wanted to outdo even the Arabs!Iran is a particularly telling case. Of course good relations are desirable,but adverse behaviour cannot be ignored. We get carried away by “civilisational ties” — as once by “2000 years of Sino-Indian friendship,” when we had virtually nothing to do with each other. History shows precious little Iranian benevolence towards us,periodic sackings of Delhi apart. True,Persia greatly influenced us — art,language,food,etc — we must also respect the sensitivities of our Shia population,reputedly second only to Iran’s. But are those reasons for ignoring Iran’s votes against us on Kashmir? We have consistently sought better ties,our IAEA vote was perfectly consistent with that approach. Iran tells us their Kashmir stand is not anti-Indian but part of a general policy; likewise,India is against proliferation,not Iran. We ourselves forget that proliferation,including Iran’s part in the A.Q. Khan nuclear bazaar,threatens our security interest. Howls against our vote were louder here than there. No foreign policy can further one’s interests if one does not understand,and stand by,one’s own priorities. Which leads to another great Indian weakness: our inability,indeed,refusal,to project our views persuasively. Issuing statements,or rushing around canvassing at the last minute,cannot substitute for timely,sustained advocacy. Our missions abroad mostly glean our stand from the press. Briefings,if given,are like the banalities we get away with at home,ineffectual with hard-headed foreign offices or media analysts.. Our domestic vices spoil our international image. Others treat you as they estimate you: a strong,well-organised state,seen as knowing what it is doing and able to do it efficiently,inspires respect,circumspection,even cooperativeness — an invaluable shield against mischief. The shorter we fall of such stature,the greater our vulnerabilities. Foreign policy hardly ever wins or loses elections. Governments have more latitude than they realise,and politicians need not indulge in one-upmanship. Rather they should attempt to work together on at least the main national security concerns. How hopeless that sounds here needs no elaboration. Selfish,narrow-visioned or corrupt leaders abound everywhere, but,in great states,work within a system where objective reasons of state both weigh on decision-making and ensure some conscientiousness in implementation.India Shining and Incredible India are hollow delusions if we cannot consolidate and safeguard our nationhood. There are states combining the capability and,in their eyes,reason for undermining that nationhood. That does not mean armed conflict is imminent or even inevitable,but state prudence demands readiness for it — indeed,to prevent it. Si vis pacem,para bellum — the old saying remains valid,peace is best achieved by your strength. We desperately need a national consensus on our strategic concerns. Our UNSC challenges are to our foreign policy capabilities,but gearing ourselves to meet them might also make us better equipped to cope with these greater national security challenges. Will our major parties see how essential their cooperation on these basic needs is?

The writer is a former ambassador to Pakistan,China and the US, and chairman of the National Security Advisory Board>/i>