Modi Foreign Policy: Statecraft or Salesmanship?

He rubbed shoulders with global leaders, invited international business tycoons to ‘make in India’ and prompted the Indian diaspora that time will soon arrive to pay back to their mother land (Aachhey Din Aayengey). During 2015, Prime Minister Narendra Modi left no stone unturned on the diplomatic, military and economic front. One may call it ‘speed dating’ foreign policy, but for once – New Delhi has laid the foundation stone for the revival of India’s presence not only in the SAARC region, but also reached out to the satellite states in South East Asia, Far East and Central Asia, sending clear signals to China and Pakistan that New Delhi will not allow military and economic encirclement of its national frontiers.

Modi-critics lambasted his frequent foreign trips, but 2015 played a vital role in bridging the gulf between India’s capabilities, realities in the immediate neighbourhood and the global opportunities. His hectic schedule covering over 30 countries has been an indication enough that the PM was not on holiday. From his first visit to the Himalayan country Bhutan to smallest island Fiji to economic powers USA and Japan and now Afghanistan – Modi set the correct foreign policy priorities certainly aimed at catapulting India to a global power in the coming years. For the first time Indian foreign policy has started to free itself from the clutches of the Non-Alignment Movement of Pt. Nehru when India acted without any specific agenda to the NDA and UPA years of Pakistan- specific diplomacy.

Often mocked as the NRI Prime Minister, Modi’s critics forget that India’s crucial geographic location serves both as a security challenge and an economic corridor to the Central Asia via Afghanistan and sea lanes connecting Straight of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf to the Straight of Malacca in South East Asia via Hambantota in Sri Lanka have the potential not only to bring trade to Indian shores, but can control China’s crucial oil, gas and trade supplies.

Below I discuss that why the PM Modi chose to travel the world.

Pakistan: The Problem In Perpetuity

Away from the media glare – the increasing bonhomie between PM Narendra Modi and Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif has raised many eyebrows. Meeting between the two leaders at Ufa in Russia, talks on the sidelines of in Paris climate meet, secret meet between two NSAs in Bangkok and now Modi’s air dropping into Lahore is a diplomatic masterstroke to break the ice between the two sides. Certainly, Modi is delivering diplomatic bouncers. Pakistan army has always clipped the powers of the country’s PM, but Modi’s repeated outreach to Nawaz Sharif has worked to increase the latter’s image and value in Islamabad’s political corridors, especially in the eyes of the army. His Pakistan policy appears to go beyond the regular game of talking cross border terror and increasing cultural exchange. For once, his critics are quiet.

With Afghanistan getting back on its feet, Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) oil pipeline, China’s increasing presence in Central Asia and China-Pakistan economic corridor – for India the economic and military security stakes are very high.

Originating in Turkmenistan, the pipeline will run alongside the Herat-Kandahar highway, moving on to Quetta and Multan in Pakistan and finally ending in Punjab in India. But the success of the project depends on security assurance, which is yet to be provided by the Taliban in Afghanistan and trust deficit between Indian and Pakistan. To convince Taliban for its support and assure security for the pipeline’s safe entry into India, New Delhi needs Islamabad on its side. If Nawaz Sharif doesn’t seize the opportunity provided by Modi, Pakistan will lag behind in economic development, Afghanistan will further get grind in poverty and for New Delhi, China will strengthen its economic and security grip on the region. There is no doubt that for Islamabad, friendship with Beijing is more important than her own future and Afghanistan’s security. But for New Delhi, Afghanistan’s security is of prime importance as it acts as a base to control Pakistan and it also is an access point to the energy-rich Central Asia, where China is expanding its footprint.

China – In The Jaws Of The Dragon:

The China-Pakistan axis is not new, but the economic corridor between the two countries, which is planned to run through PoK is primarily aimed at allowing Beijing an access to Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean – allowing PLA to strengthen its encirclement of India. Linking Gwadar port with the Karakoram highway will have severe military security implications for India. Pakistan is not only a Chinese pawn, but will be a base of power projection for the Chinese.

A brief look at the history tells us that China has always filled the gaps in India’s immediate neighbourrhood and satellite states. Considering PoK’s strategic location as a connecting point of South, West and Central Asia, China’s move has implications for limiting India’s outreach to the critical Eurasian region. India always looked at the world through Pakistan, but missed out the crucial security points. Footprints in Central Asia and Mongolia will allow India access to China’s backyard.

Barack Obama entered office at a particularly difficult time. America was busy in Afghanistan and Iraq, and economic crisis followed soon. Taking advantage of the same, China expanded its reach in the Asia Pacific region. Losing ground in East Asia and South East Asia to Beijing’s economic and military power was never an option for Washington. New Delhi has never openly supported the American Pivot, but has quietly embraced it. Former PM Manmohan Singh’s ‘Look East’ policy did not deliver any results as the UPA-II was a dysfunctional government. But the Modi administration with the makeover of the ‘Look East’ to ‘Act East’ has worked quickly to join the geographically strategic dots that have historic animosity with China. Though the ultimate goal will be to militarily balance Beijing, the work has begun with economic efforts. India by engaging with Japan has become part of the same equation.

Domestic Audience:

Whether it is developed or developing nation, foreign policy rarely appears in the domestic politics of the country. What matters is, how big is the government wallet. During Bihar polls, the PM did open a big piggy bank, but animosity between Modi and Nitish Kumar was at the centre of the electoral battle, to which the Dadri incident and the ‘award waapsi’ campaign played the catalyst BJP’s defeat.

However, Modi’s surprise stopover in Lahore has gone a long way in rebuilding confidence between the two sides and detox domestic environment. It has sent a clear message to the minority community about the changing approach of the government. Keeping in mind the realities in the neighbourhood, Modi has scored a political masterstroke to woo the minority community and keep the Sangh Parivar away from the centre’s Pakistan policy.

The foundation for India’s dynamic foreign policy has been laid. Now is the time for the PM to give more importance to domestic issues. After two electoral debacles – Delhi and Bihar – if Modi wants to revive the BJP, his foreign policy efforts will need to bring in the investment promised by foreign leaders. Fortunately, political ‘vyabhichar’ (corruption) has not infected his government so far, but there is no guarantor for politicians in India.

The real test for Modi’s foreign policy begins now.

WHOSE TERROR IS IT ANYWAY?

If there is one mistake the West loves to repeat time and again is associating every act of terrorism with religion. Immediately after the ISIS terrorists brought Paris to its knees, almost every Western newspaper and news channels was filled with discussion on how one particular religion is terrorising the world with its violent acts. The media continues to discuss how Islam is directly related to terrorism. On the other hand, while Indian Prime Minister was on a state visit to England, The Guardian newspaper chose to link the entire Hindu faith with the Taliban. This is atrocious. Is this the freedom of expression the West practices? And, who will take the moral responsibility for further antagonising the extremist forces? However, one need not be surprised because the Western media’s fascination with Islam is not new.

The cultural fissure caused by the West’s verbal violence is no less than the bloodbath practiced by ISIS. A military action could well control the violent forces to a particular geographic area, but the irresponsible usage of words is spoiling the environment in all the societies across the globe. After every terror attack the media associates a religion to the act and the later – feeling ashamed of the acts carried out in the name of religion starts giving explanations on how their faith is peaceful and terror has no relation to it.

The West seems to enjoy pressing the wrong nerves at the wrong time. The Italian newspaper ‘Libero’ chose to splash words ‘Bastardi Islamici’ (Islamic Bastards) across eight columns on the front page. And now, France is ready with a movie ‘Made In France’ on terrorism, which may very well incite religious feelings. At the height of the America’s war in Afghanistan and invasion of Iraq, ex-American president George W Bush chose to use the word ‘crusade’ and invoked religious feelings of both the Christians and Muslims world over, reminding them of the past where the two civilizations fought seven battles.

While no religion is free from the violent episodes, what right the media and the contributing authors have to associate the entire faith with violent forces like Taliban? In 2011, when Anders Breivik slaughtered 69 innocents in Norway, the Western press conveniently picked words from his ‘A European Declaration of Independence’, to prove that Breivik has no connection with Christianity. Suddenly terrorism had no religion.

So far the debate on terrorism has been seen only through the prism of religion, but it would be pertinent to address the issue only as ‘criminality and psychopathism’. And, the Western fascination of looking at the problems through the barrel of the gun and Islam’s world view through ‘the book’ needs to change soon. No doubt the solution to ISIS lies in military operations, but answers to larger questions are outside of the military doctrine and words of god.

The (In)tolerance Myth

When was the last time India practiced intolerance? During the Dadri murder or during the Babri demolition, during Indira Gandhi’s draconian emergency years or Sikh massacre of 1984 or during Congress’ glorious corrupt years? The list is too long. And when was the last time India practiced tolerance? Did it begin with the Vedic age and end with Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent independence movement? No, tolerance has been ingrained in Indian culture, which finds its roots in Bharatiya Sanskriti (culture) and Hindustani Tehzeeb (Culture). It is the India of today that has turned a blind eye to its glorious past and choses to cherry pick certain events that are politically correct. If the so called intellectuals had chosen to speak in time and politicians had acted before time, the socio-economic picture of the country would have far too different. But it was more important to glorify the cruel Mughal rule and British Raj in the schools than establishing schools in remote areas of the country and create research facilities at university level that could have stopped Indian youth from running away to the West for better education and employment opportunities. But it was more important to not put the history in the right perspective, rectify the politically correct mistakes.

Bhartiya society was so deeply immersed in the idea of peace and universal brotherhood that it could not see the military advance of Alexander. Chanakya – the first Indian political realist shaped the country’s foreign and military policy, and gave birth to the concept of Akhanda Bharat (One Bharat). Surprisingly, while PM Narendra Modi is trying to weave-in India’s neighbourhood, the satellite states and the international community, his critics are calling him the NRI prime minister.

Babur – the first Mughal invader in 1526 plundered Bharat’s cultural and religious wealth (first Muslim ruler was Mohammad Bin Qasim who invaded India in 8^th century), and started the process of transforming Bharat into Hindustan. Later, the British Raj further plundered India’s Hindustani culture (also known as Ganga-Jamna Tehzeeb) for over 250 years, transforming Hindustan into India. The result – Bharat that spread from the hills of Hindu Kush in Afghanistan to Indonesia shrunk steadily and became Hidustan and today what we have is India, which has several unresolved border disputes and numerous social issues. It was a game of imperial politics for the Mughals and the British, something which the (scattered) Hindu rulers of the day couldn’t resist due to their lack of collective approach to foreign and military policy. It was foolishness on our part to have excessively practiced peace and universal brotherhood and not have a strong standing army. Religious tolerance was practiced to the extreme level, military & diplomatic foolishness had no boundaries, because of which this country has paid a heavy price for it. Neither extreme level of tolerance nor foolishness has any scope in Indian society.

How many Indian historians have countered the British version of Indian history that depicted India in a bad light? Remember, Max Muller - a German scholar - advised the British to enslave India with western education. How many Bollywood personalities have questioned the Western depiction of India as the country of slums and superstitions? Where were these artists when Charlie Hebdo portrayed Prophet Mohammad with a bomb in his turban and M F Hussain painted Hindu gods and goddesses nude? And why the intellectuals have kept quiet on Islam’s constant comparison with terrorism and when Congress leader P Chidambaram coined the word Hindu terror?

The so called ‘tolerance brigade’ argues that Hindu saints eat beef during the Vedic age, but have we not progressed and become more civilised than before? If eating beef is one’s choice, then respecting the religious feelings is also their duty. If the incident like Dadri has brought bad name to Hinduism and to India, then it is the intellectuals – the other fringe – who at a right time started shooting at the Modi government and fell silent immediately after the final phase of elections in Bihar was over. The intellectuals exceptionally did well in spreading a message of ‘intolerance’, but have miserably failed to suggest a concrete solution for making India tolerant. It was verbal violence. Violent exceptions are the realities of every society. But violence in the name of religion and colonisation through economic oppression has never been part of Hindu society. It is nearly impossible to cite an example where Bharat, Hindustan or India waged military invasion to expand territory and carried out conversion to increase its population. But the recent verbal rant of the saffron clad sanyasis (hermit) is in no way a call to protect the Hindu culture. They might think that they are doing service to the Hindu society, but unknowingly they are damaging image of the Hindu religion, which has survived the wrath of Islamic invasion and conversions by the Christian missionaries. But for the benefit of the Indian society, these sanyasis and mullahs will have to keep quiet and introspect what is wrong with their society. And the intellectuals will have to make constructive contribution than mere verbal violence. And finally, the political leaders will need to speak and act at a right time. Remember, the fault lines on both the sides.