Opinion Indias Diplomacy: Between Semantics and Grammar
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.
-
Share -
-
-
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 couldnt stop the prattle about external pressure.
India may have become much stronger in recent years,but its elites cant 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.
The G-8 doesnt have the authority to either punish or reward. It is a talk shop. The grammar of power politics should have told us that the French and Russian self-interest in full nuclear cooperation with India is weightier than the semantics of the G-8 resolutions.
When it comes to our emotional approach towards Pakistan,words acquire a near religious significance. Since our Pakistani cousins are no different from us,framing and debating joint statements have become an all-consuming passion on both sides of the border.
There is trouble when the leaders of India and Pakistan cant produce a statement (Agra,2001),and even more when they do (Lahore,1999; Islamabad,2004; and Egypt,2009).
For the PM and India,is not the joint statement that should matter but a tangible change in Pakistans behaviour towards extremism. That is likely come about only when India can help alter Pakistans internal and external balance of power. The finest word play by the foreign secretaries cant substitute for that unfinished but consequential power play with Pakistan.
(C. Raja Mohan is a Professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies,Nanyang Technological University,Singapore.)
-
Share
-
-
-
Share
