AAKAR PATEL
I am not sure why but we find the idea of in ternational mediation distasteful. This distaste is both for those being me diated and for the media tor. We know this because of our insistence, under all of our governments it should be said, that things are bilateral and must be resolved bilaterally. This is of course with particular reference to one neighbour. And our contemptuous opinion of international mediators was expressed by the for eign minister who called them dalaal. What we are doing to solve a problem that in volves us and affects us is unclear at the moment. We are involved because we are suffering as the rest of the world is in terms of both prices and shortage but we are content to be onlookers and hoping that the crisis resolves itself, or someone else comes and resolves it, so that things go back to normal for us. That is the way India has decided to approach the ongoing war and we can agree or disagree whether India could have or should have done something more or something differ ent.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
That is fine. I wanted to write about the other approach, the one that is not being de ployed. We do not need to speculate about what that might be because the pre vious government left us a document that informs us what it should be. On November 4, 2013, then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh spoke to over 120 heads of In dian missions and out lined the five principles that defined his foreign policy. These were: First, recognition that India’s relations with the world — the major powers and Asian neighbours — were shaped by its develop mental priorities. Singh said that ‘the single most important objective of In dian foreign policy has to be to create a global envi ronment conducive to the well-being of our great country’. Second, that greater in tegration with the world economy would benefit India and enable Indians to realise their creative potential.
Third, to seek stable, long term and mu tually beneficial relations with all major powers. And to work with the in ternational community to create a global economic and security environment beneficial to all nations. Fourth, to recognise that the Indian subcontinent’s shared destiny required greater regional coopera tion and connectivity. Fifth, a foreign policy defined not merely by interests, but also by the values dear to Indians: ‘India’s experiment of pursuing economic devel opment within the frame work of a plural, secular and liberal democracy has inspired people around the world and should con tinue to do so.’ In short: India would use foreign policy to ad vance its economic de velopment; it would be friendly with global great powers and its neigh bours; and it would be helped in doing this by continuing to be a plural ist and secular democracy.
Because this was a clear exposition of what was sought to be achieved, we can apply it today to see what we would do dif ferently. Let us take them each in turn. If we are to agree that ‘the single most important objective of Indian foreign policy has to be to create a global environment con ducive to India’s well-be ing’, then it is obvious that we should have ensured that the environment is not vitiated. That means engaging with those who have the agency to harm our growth. India is one of the few nations, and perhaps the only nation, that has good relations with America, Israel and Iran. Pakistan is friendly with two of them. Know ing that a war in the Gulf would damage our econ omy, hurt supply of fertil isers and fuel, and cause general chaos, we should have tried to ensure this war did not begin. We chose not to do that. The second point on integration is one that we have become cautious if not wary about over the last decade. We chose not to enter the Region al Comprehensive Eco nomic Partnership that included about 15 Asia Pacific nations and the view of economists, in cluding those who adore the prime minister, is that India has become unnec essarily protectionist. The third point on seeking long term mutu ally beneficial relations with “all powers” has its meaning with relation to China.
How much agen cy we have exercised on this since 2020 and where things stand are clear and that need not detain us here. The fourth and fifth points Singh raised are to my mind the ones where there has been maximum departure since 2014. Borders in South Asia remain either rigid or closed, free movement is impossible and this is so because we as the only power that shares bound aries with the rest want it this way. Lastly, for the first time since 1947, we are faced with a large and popular political movement that is hostile to the idea of India as plural, secular and lib eral. Our newfound deep friendship with Israel is to be understood in this light. Israel is our 49th largest export and 48th largest import partner, one of the lowest. Why are we so besotted with Isra el? It is because we ache to do to our minorities what Israel it doing to its minorities. This is where we stand and this is what we have chosen to do. If we think we require to correct course, then Manmohan Singh’s wise, kind and measured counsel from a decade and a half ago is a fine place to start. (Aakar Patel is a writ er and columnist)
