Undiplomatic fuss

The hubbub over India's vote on the Iran nuclear issue should have been expected, given that India has moved from its usual posture. That does not mean that India has done the wrong thing.

The simple fact, which the critics of the government's action ignore, is that it is not in the country's interest to have a nuclear Iran. That does not mean that India should not value the Iranian relationship. There are good and strong reasons for nurturing bilateral ties, including the supply of oil and gas, and the access to Afghanistan and Central Asia.

But Tehran has to understand that, just as it frequently adopts postures that do not please India in the UN, the Organisation of Islamic Conference and elsewhere, India too will not always act to Tehran's liking. Those who argue for an independent foreign policy forget that it should also be independent of Tehran.

India has not gone off at the deep end every time Iran has ignored New Delhi's wishes, and there is no call therefore for Tehran to start threatening India with denial of energy supplies or other reprisals. That is simply not the way mature countries behave.

Nor is there any virtue in pretending that the Indian vote at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was not made under American pressure. It was. The US made it clear to Indian diplomats a couple of years ago that, on the Iranian nuclear question, we simply would not be allowed the luxury of sitting on the fence, and would have to choose.

This could have been ignored if India did not seek anything from the US, but that is not the case because India needs uranium for its nuclear power programme. The American president has to battle with Congress to get approval for his deal with Manmohan Singh on civilian nuclear supplies.

The US also has to overcome certain opposition from China and other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, for lifting the curbs on nuclear supplies to India. Why should the US president do this and expend his political capital without a quid pro quo to show that India sympathises with American concerns? Viewed in this context, a vote on an Iran resolution that would have got majority approval regardless, is a fairly low-cost way of getting the goods.

Is India now in danger of becoming a lackey of the US (as the critics allege), and a less reliable member of the non-aligned movement and the G-77? By way of answer, the fact is that India has too often in trade diplomacy been the boy who stood on the burning deck while other members of the G-77 deserted the grouping. The non-aligned movement has been of little consequence for some time.

India has gained strength and confidence to deal for itself, without leaning quite so much on these old and weakened multilateral crutches. And its interests are aligned, more than traditional diplomacy allows, with the western countries who are India's biggest trade partners, the principal sources of external capital and technology, and (outside of West Asia) the main points of contact for Indians overseas.

Yet, the world knows and recognises that India will also seek independent ties with Russia, China and countries like Iran, who are not part of the western alliance. So India is going to be nobody's lackey; it is simply going to play the game differently, in recognition of its changing place in the world.