Why is India so jumpy about words? The recent Indian strategic tradition as well as the popular discourse is so focused on the ‘semantics’ of joint statements that they have little time for the ‘grammar’ of global power politics.

When India was weak, rhetoric compensated for the lack of power. Our diplomats interpreted, then, their mandate as “defending positions”; they had little hope for “engineering outcomes” that could benefit the state. If the officialdom proclaimed the virtues of a “do-nothing” strategy, the intelligentsia couldn’t stop the prattle about “external pressure”.

India may have become much stronger in recent years, but its elites can’t kick the habit. Whether it is global trade, climate change, or nuclear non-proliferation, our mandarins and talking heads think glory lies in imagining pressure and standing up against it. The play for them must always be on the back-foot. Going on the front foot and scoring is taboo.

As Manmohan Singh, much like his predecessor Atal Bihari Vajpayee, nudges a rising India from “word play” to “power play”, there is unending catharsis in Delhi.

Take for example the latest brouhaha over the alleged “G-8 ban” on the transfer of sensitive uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing (E&R) technologies to India.

The G-8 babus should be flattered that someone in India reads their verbiage and takes it seriously. If G-8 words had the writ of law, India would have been hung dry after its nuclear defiance in May 1998.

If G-8 had the power to convert its babble into meaningful action, by now Africa should be rich with international aid, a frightened North Korea surrendered its nuclear weapons, and a chastened Iran meekly negotiated with the IAEA.

... contd.