Fear, disagreement mark our approach to foreign policy

India's legacy problem: It is the slow pace of decision-making

I think, we, in India, sometimes create many myths, and one of the most interesting self-serving myths, which we have created for ourselves, is the belief that there is something called a bipartisan foreign policy.

I think anybody, who has seen and witnessed the proceedings of today’s debate, would have recognised that there is very little bipartisan, but there are a lot of fears and disagreements, which mark our approaches to foreign policy.

Sir, many years ago, I remember, in 1988 in Colombo, a very distinguished high commissioner of India, Shri J N Dixit, who, later, had the privilege of serving as national security advisor before his unfortunate death, pointed me to a huge map of Asia and said, “Do you know what is Indian foreign policy?” And, he said, “From Singapore to Eden, from Kashgar to Colombo, that is the natural reach of India.” What he did add was that it wasn’t being terribly original. But it was Lord Curzon, who actually said that.

But, Sir, that is one aspect of an approach to foreign policy, which we see that the primacy of the neighbourhood is what determines India. That is what gives India its power; that is what gave India always its power. 

There was a time, Sir, when the Indian currency was there in Eden, when the Indian rupee was the prevailing currency of the Gulf, when we had missions in Kashgar and when we had missions in Lhasa. Now, in search of a very noble ideal, we gave up the Kashgar Mission, we gave up the Lhasa Mission, we allowed Indians to be repatriated from Kenya and we allowed Indians to be repatriated from Sri Lanka, from Burma. That, too, was part of our foreign policy. 

There have been various people today, who have said that we have become a poodle of America and we have become subservient to some other forces. I think it is very important to realise certain things. 

In 1962 when we were confronted by the Sino-Indian war, we had our prime minister, in the face of military defeat rushing to the United States belatedly and saying, “Help us out”. And we had another approach, which was in 1971, when we faced an imminent war and when we forgot for a moment that non-alignment means whatever it meant and actually had a very pragmatic and expedient understanding with the then Soviet Union.

Sir, it is not a question of which alliance is where. It is a question of what suits us at which point. My friend, Sitaram Yechury, has been extremely critical about a particular defence agreement with the United States. Today, Sir, if we were in a world in which we faced no threats, where there were no competition, I would have said, “Well, frankly, this is a bit exaggerated.”

But what this government has done in Modi’s trips to the United States is basically a continuation of what the earlier government had done. And I compliment the earlier government for recognising that there is a time when you cannot cling on to an old shibboleth. There is a time when you cannot cling on to an idea whose time has long gone. I think that sense of pragmatism, that sense of flexibility, which has marked this government, is very, very important. 

The issue of Israel has again been raised. Again, I don’t think that this government can claim a degree of originality on this count because the relationship with Israel was, to begin with, negotiated around the time of Rajiv Gandhi. Then, it was taken to another level by Narasimha Rao, incidentally, perhaps one of the most pragmatic prime ministers we have had, at least, in the realm of foreign policy. 

And, Sir, the larger question is: Do we keep a relationship under purdah? Do we always insist that Israel is very important? Israel can supply us ammunition during the Kargil war. Israel can be our biggest friend, but we can say, “Oh, no! We don’t know you. Your prime minister can’t come to our country. Our prime minister can’t go to your country.” Sir, against this hypocrisy, and that is why, to celebrate the 25 years of diplomatic relations with Israel, I think, the Prime Minister did a very good thing because it is not merely Israel; Israel is a window to a larger opportunity, which I need not elaborate but which everybody knows about. And, it was done for the sake of our national interest, which is paramount and which everybody in the House agrees.

Sir, I would say that the real reorientation of our foreign policy has happened in different ways. Firstly, the emphasis has been, as various people in this debate today have pointed out, on developing capacity. If you don’t have capacity and you preach to the world, you will be left with what in the past we used to call a “ship-to-mouth existence” during the time of the PL480 when we used to denounce the United States and go begging for their wheat. If we can get Apple corporation to manufacture in India, it is not merely that we are opening our market, but we are sending a signal that we are in the forefront, we are at the cutting edge of technology. It is very important that foreign policy must also be used to develop capacity. 

But, Sir, we have a legacy problem which, I think, manifested itself in Colombo Port, which has manifested itself in our dealings with Iran, etc. It is the slow pace of decision-making in India. We have never been quick to take the appropriate decisions for various reasons. These may be historical reasons, these may  be our inherent systems of cumbersome bureaucracy, etc, with the result that often, including in Africa, we have been beaten to the post by a big neighbouring country, which seems to want to emulate 19th century imperialism. And, that is a systemic change which we have to inculcate — the quickness of decision-making.

Sir, finally, there is another point. Everybody has spoken about the relative importance of the diaspora. I think it is very important to stress this aspect more and more. The biggest ambassadors of India have often been overseas Indians, and till you can give them the pride, till you can make them stand tall, till you can give them a certain stake in our country, you won’t be able do it.

An edited version of a speech by nominated Rajya Sabha member Swapan Dasgupta, during a Short Duration discussion on India’s foreign policy and engagement with strategic partners in New Delhi on August 3