At the end of G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh emphasized India's "principled position" on Iran's controversial nuclear programme. Having been ambushed by the Iran question in his first term as PM, Dr Singh has been quick to lay down an early marker for Indian diplomacy.

"Principled positions" are always interesting but rarely a guide to action in international politics. High foreign policy principles are both necessary and valuable in democratic societies. Moral-politick helps mobilize domestic political support for foreign policy and insures against attacks from within the ruling party and the opposition.

In the real world, however, "principled positions" tend to be of little help as all governments do not operate on 'principles'. Even when they do, the governments are not talking about the same principles.

Most conflicts in the world arise from the passionate pursuit of competing principles. Statecraft, then, is not about being merely "principled", but choosing the principle that is most appropriate for the pursuit of national interest.

Returning to India's position on nuclear Tehran, Dr Singh asserted that "Iran is a signatory to the NPT and as a signatory to the NPT, it has all the rights which go with its membership of peaceful use of atomic energy. But it must also carry out all its obligations. That is our position and that is the principled position we have taken in the last five years."

This is certainly a prudent posture. It agrees with Iran on its "rights" for peaceful nuclear energy but reminds it of its "obligations" under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Fine. But the international debate is no longer about Iran's nuclear rights and responsibilities.

... contd.