BackA tempting minefield
By finding the right balance between instinctive antagonism and acquiescence, Modi could do better on the foreign policy front
Premium
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, according to a report in Mint, commands a very high approval rating at the end of one year. That must be reassuring to him and many others. This column focuses on India’s foreign policy, conceded one of the successes of this government, even by critics. However, it makes the case that he could do better in his remaining years in office, in finding the right balance in dealing with other nations—between instinctive antagonism and acquiescence.
In his interview to the TIME magazine, the prime minister did well on at least three counts, as far as this columnist is concerned. One is that he refused to respond directly to the question on President Barack Obama’s comments on the issue of religious intolerance in India. Second, he refused to use TIME magazine as an intermediary to send a message to the Chinese president. Third, he sounded sure of his economic policy roadmap for the next four years. So far, so good.
In a recent article in Mint, Brahma Chellaney questioned the purpose of the prime minister visiting China. Without being as explicit as Chellaney, veteran journalist T.N. Ninan had raised some questions on India’s China policy in his most recent weekend column. In a rather insightful and lengthy conversation with The Indian Express, Arun Shourie made an interesting observation about how the Chinese government would feel astonished and offended if their double-talk was held against them. They hold deception and double-talk as legitimate instruments of statecraft. The two anecdotes he cites are all that one needs to learn about statecraft.
Even as the American president was writing about his friend “Narendra" and hailing him as India’s reformer-in-chief, the annual US Congressional Report on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) singled out the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government in its findings saying that “since the election, religious minority communities have been subject to derogatory comments by politicians linked to the ruling BJP and numerous violent attacks and forced conversions by Hindu nationalist groups such as the RSS and VHP". This places India in Tier Two—a club of countries about whom there is particular concern. Other members of the club are Afghanistan, Russia, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and Cuba. Then, India learnt that it remained on the US’ priority watch list on Intellectual Property Rights.
Journalist Swapan Dasgupta tweeted that India should set up a permanent secretariat to monitor human rights abuses in all countries where Indians and People of Indian origin were present. It is not a facetious suggestion but a worthwhile one. That is what China has done.
In response to American criticism of its human rights, China produces its own report on human rights in the US. It set up its own credit rating agency. It downgraded the US from A+ to A with a negative outlook in December 2012 and the US currently has a credit rating of A- with a stable outlook. India has a BBB rating with a negative outlook. Not too far from that of the US.
Before 1989, India had an alternative, no matter how economically uninspiring it was. After 1989, India has had to adjust to a unipolar world. While China has responded in kind to the US, as mentioned above, perhaps, it too waited for its economy to attain critical mass before punching its weight. India might yet do so after its gross domestic product (GDP) crosses $4 trillion.
That might explain the attitude of Indian governments after 1991, when Soviet Union disintegrated. They might have rightly concluded that for India to grow faster, it had to be more accommodating of American concerns. The fear that that there would be consequences and that the economy would pay a price for it, is a legitimate one, especially in the absence of an international countervailing force to American dominance. It may not be a coincidence that India’s growth rate after 1989 has been better than what it was in the first four decades since 1947. The ones who have stood up to the US have been Cuba, North Korea and Iran—not a club that India would really want to belong to.
The beauty is that India might have options even now.
The US of 2015 is not the same as the US of 1985 or 1995. It is worth remembering that, even after 1989, India had not merely survived but even succeeded when it stood its ground. The nuclear tests and the sanctions fallout are a shining example. But Indian elites and politicians covet a pat on the cheek from the West too much. Apparently, all the US state department telegrams to their embassy in India in the 1950s and 1960s advised them to use lavish praise as a tool of seduction. One can verify this in their archives.
Modi, as the chief minister of Gujarat, handled his international pariah status rather well.
Most humans enjoy the advantage of having a grievance against the rest of the world, for it makes them feel that the world owes them something. Accounts Receivable is an asset. Praise is more dangerous. Worth remembering as he sets out to China in a few days.
V. Anantha Nageswaran is co-founder of Aavishkaar Venture Fund and Takshashila Institution.
Comments are welcome at baretalk@livemint.com. To read V. Anantha Nageswaran’s previous columns, go to www.livemint.com/baretalk
Follow Mint Opinion on Twitter at https://twitter.com/Mint_Opinion
Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!
