Reaching Out To Our Neighbours

Prime Minister Modi’s bilateral engagement with heads of Government of SAARC nations and Mauritius within less than 24 hours of taking over, marks an unprecedented push in New Delhi’s relations with South Asian countries

 The inauguration of Narendra Damodardas Modi as the 15th Prime Minister of India on May 26 was a grand political spectacle, unlike any other that the world had witnessed in recent times. It was a fitting celebration of the world’s largest electoral exercise which had produced a historic popular mandate, of the kind that comes but only once in a generation, and whose strength cannot be undone by cheap pseudo-intellectual chicanery. Apart from the participation of a wide cross-section of Indian stakeholders, the invitation to regional leaders was a diplomatic masterstroke.

The presence of all eight heads of Government from Afghanistan, Bangladesh (represented by its Speaker of Parliament), Bhutan, the Maldives, Mauritius, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka at the swearing-in ceremony reiterated in no uncertain terms India’s civilisational role and position in South Asia. To use a term popularised by former Russian Foreign Minister Andrey Kozyrev in the early 1990s, the sub-continent has always been India’s ‘near abroad’, it’s ‘sphere of influence’. It is here that India’s global engagement will always be rooted, and it is here that India, as the largest social, political and economic entity, will set the agenda for regional discourse. In some ways then perhaps, the inauguration was akin to the Emperor’s coronation where all the Kings came calling.

Some may find this analogy to be imperialist in tone, and understandably so. In the past, India’s smaller neighbours have occasionally cribbed about the big brother. Yet, the fact that all eight South Asian leaders graciously attended the swearing-in of the new Prime Minister of India and his Council of Ministers shows that they all acknowledge the geo-political imperatives of the region. There is consensus that the region has the potential to become a global powerhouse if only there was greater cooperation among its members, none of whom (and this includes India) have unfortunately been able to capitalise on their inherent assets and advantages. 

And this is where the ball falls back into India’s court. As the big power in South Asia, it is India’s responsibility to engage more actively with its neighbours and lead the sub-continent towards greater regional cooperation and integration. Unfortunately, in this past decade, under the myopic guidance of the Congress-led UPA regime, India has failed in that effort. Hemmed in by decelerating growth rates and a political executive that lay paralysed for years together, New Delhi had somewhat turned away from its neighbours and isolated some of its closest friends.

In Nepal, India failed to provide enough support to that country’s fledgling democracy even as Prime Ministers walked in and out of the revolving doors of Kathmandu. In Sri Lanka, when President Mahinda Rajapaksa (after having militarily defeated the Tamil terrorist group) was bullied by the West, New Delhi did not have the spine to stand up for him. In Bangladesh, we kept ourselves at an arm’s length from one of our closest friends, even as Dhaka dutifully held up its side of the bargain. With Pakistan we frittered the hard-won gains from the previous decade and the relationship was hollowed out from within. Further out in Afghanistan, we did only slightly better in helping the war torn country rebuild, but still remained below optimal. Even in the Maldives and Bhutan, we were disconnected from our friends, a lesson that we learnt the hard way. In each of these cases, the space that was ceded by a listless Indian regime was quickly sought to be captured by other rising powers wanting to expand their footprints in the region. If India didn’t get its act together, it risked being alienated, and shall one dare say, even besieged, in its own backyard.

Thankfully, the new Government has already begun the process of course-correction. The invitation to the inauguration was the first step towards resuscitating the India Narrative in South Asia. The next step was the bilateral meetings that took place the day after the swearing-in ceremony. And if the reported outcome of these meetings is anything to go by, India is already on the right path.  According to the Ministry of External Affairs, Prime Minister Modi had ‘substantive’ meetings with all the leaders.

With Afghan President Hamid Karzai, he discussed the recent terror attack on India’s consulate in Herat and reiterated India’s commitment to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. To Bhutanese Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay, he assured India’s unflinching support to Bhutan’s socio-economic development. The duo also agreed to start four new joint hydro-electric projects and strengthen security cooperation.

Security issues were also discussed with President Abdullah Yameen of the Maldives. Islamists have been gaining a strong foothold there, and this has been a matter of concern for India. With Prime Minister Navinchandra Ramgoolam of Mauritius, Mr Modi highlighted cooperation in the maritime security sector as well as strengthening of the Indian Ocean Rim Association, which has been neglected for some time now. In the meeting with Prime Minister Sushil Koirala of Nepal, the focus was on ensuring that the democratic process in the Himalayan nation is taken to fruition with the adoption of the much-delayed Constitution. Additionally, Mr Modi also stressed on expediting the completion of the many infrastructure projects in Nepal that India was supporting, especially in the hydro-power and transmission sectors.

With President Mahinda Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka, the Prime Minister focussed on effective implementation of the national reconciliation process and also highlighted the importance of the 13th Amendment in delivering on the aspirations of the Tamil community for a life of equality, justice, peace and dignity in a united Sri Lanka. In his meeting with Speaker of Bangladesh Parliament Shirin Sharmin Chaudhury, Mr Modi acknowledged the cooperation extended by Bangladesh in all areas of mutual interest including security, power, border management, rail and road transport.

Of course, it was Mr Modi’s meeting with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan that received the most public attention. In this case, perhaps the issues that were left untouched were as important as the matters that were discussed between the two leaders. On the one hand, Prime Minister Modi’s strong stance on terrorism, his insistence that the 26/11 trial be taken to its logical conclusion and his simultaneous focus on improving trade ties offered a blueprint of how his Government will seek to map India-Pakistan relations. On the other hand, Prime Minister Sharif’s silence on the Kashmir issue and the fact he did not meet with separatist leaders (as Pakistani leaders almost always do) spoke volumes. Indeed, Mr Sharif, who defied Army pressure at home to make it to Delhi, cut a perfectly statesman-like figure during visit that included calling upon Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a significant goodwill gesture. That he did not embarrass his hosts with provocative comments (another Pakistani norm) was also much appreciated.

Expectedly, the Modi-Sharif meeting has come under a fair bit of criticism. Some commentators, who had opposed former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s meeting with Mr Sharif in New York this past September, have now also refused to endorse Mr Modi’s bilateral on the same principle — that without any change in the ground situation and no possibility of a concrete deliverable, a high-level meeting is empty symbolism. This, however, is an unnecessarily hawkish approach. First, the bilateral meetings were courtesy calls demanded by protocol, and refusing one with Mr Sharif (while entertaining all other leaders) would have amounted to insulting the guest. Second, it is unfair to use the same yardstick for Mr Modi and Mr Singh at this stage because the new Prime Minister has just started off with a clean slate. If he fumbles, like Mr Singh did at Sharm-el-Sheikh, and fails to make progress over time, he too will be called out for indulging in empty symbolism. But for now, this meeting is best viewed as a welcome, warm-up exercise. Third, by extending the olive branch to Mr Sharif, Mr Modi has effectively softened his own hardliner image and put a possibly worried neighbour somewhat at ease. Equally importantly, he has insured himself from being tagged a war-monger, in case he has to take strong measures against Pakistan at a later date.

(This article was published in the op-ed section of The Pioneer on May 29, 2014)

India poll: A view from Pakistan

Though fear-mongering about the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate and his Hindu nationalist credentials continues, many in Pakistan are of the opinion that a strong leader like Narendra Modi will, in fact, be good for bilateral relations

It is easy to see why John Oliver’s satirical take on the Indian election has gone viral in this country. The British comedian chastises the American media for ignoring the world’s largest democratic exercise and pokes fun at the apparent ‘Fox-ification’ of Indian media. Finally, he notes that the last time America heard a rags to riches story about a tea-seller boy from India, it threw an Oscar at it. This some may say is of the most sane commentaries on the Indian general election to have been produced by Western media.

But jokes apart, there has been much high commentary in the Western media about the Indian general election and expectedly much of it has focussed on Narendra Modi — widely expected to sweep the polls and become Prime Minister later this month. Several foreign magazines have written, often in depth, about Mr Modi, commonly described as a Hindu nationalist leader, and their reportage is used at home to gauge the ‘support’ (or the lack of it) that the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate enjoys on the international platform. Especially given Mr Modi’s chequered past with the West — the US denied him a visa for allegedly ‘sponsoring’ the 2002 violence in Gujarat and Europe effectively blacklisted him until recently — the coverage of his candidacy in the foreign Press has evoked much domestic interest.

And so it is no surprise that The Financial Times’s full throated endorsement of Mr Modi is the talking point this week much like The Economist’s criticism last month created ripples in Delhi’s commentariat. But while the attention paid to first world media is understandable, there has unfortunately been almost no focus in India on how Mr Modi is perceived by some of our immediate neighbours.

Let us take a look at Pakistan: As expected, sections of the Establishment there continue to take a belligerent line against Mr Modi and indeed, there is much fear mongering about him in the media as well. The most recent example of this is, of course, Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan’s statement that, if elected as India’s Prime Minister, Mr Modi will “destabilise” regional peace. The harsh comment was in response to Mr Modi’s statement on underworld don Dawood Ibrahim whose residence in Karachi is an open secret but for Mr Khan it was “touching last limit of enmity towards Pakistan”. Similarly, writing in The News newspaper, South Asia analyst Brian Cloughley warns in his April 14 article that, “it’s unlikely he’ll (Modi) be good for relations with Pakistan. The former tea-boy is a bellicose ultra-nationalist... Pakistan had better be prepared for sparks to fly.”

Such analysis is common but there has also been a tempering of the anti-Modi narrative in Pakistan. A good example of this is former Pakistani Ambassador to the UN Munir Akram’s article in The Dawn newspaper. He writes, that given the “disenchantment with the Congress party Government’s economic policies and performance, and Modi’s reputed credentials as an effective and business-friendly administrator”, Mr Modi is “being mainstreamed”.

He too warns that, “Modi’s rehabilitation... has potentially serious implications for Pakistan” as “although Modi has moderated his anti-Muslim rhetoric... he and the BJP could revert to the Hindu hardline if needed to secure their core fundamentalist base... leading to an early crisis in India-Pakistan relations.” 

Further, Mr Akram opines that a BJP victory will foment violent social unrest in India for which Pakistan will be blamed, “unleashing another crisis in bilateral relations”. Interestingly at the end of his article, he tones down and advises the Pakistani Government “not to take a public position against Modi or the BJP” and “open a security dialogue with India”.

A similar sense of duality is reflected in Amir Mateen’s piece in The News wherein the author notes that while, “Questions lurk about how Modi will impact India’s secularism; if he will escalate tension between India and Pakistan and roll back the existing confidence-building measures; how he might resort to jingoism in Kashmir, interfere in Balochistan or restart a proxy war in Afghanistan… not all Pakistanis think the same way. Tiny Pakistani intellectual elite also sees better chance of détente under a strong BJP leader than was possible under a weak Manmohan Singh.”

Interestingly, in recent weeks, Islamabad’s new envoy in New Delhi has walked the extra mile in favour of Mr Modi. After Mr Modi said in an interview that he will carry forward the foreign policy legacy of the BJP’s last Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee who took bilateral ties to a new high inspite of a military conflict, Pakistani High Commissioner Abdul Basit said he was “encouraged” by those remarks. Notably, he also downplayed Bihar BJP leader Giriraj Singh’s obnoxious comment that those who opposed Mr Modi would be sent to Pakistan. That statement played on the worst kind of political prejudices associated with the saffron party and, by dismissing it as high-pitched rhetoric, High Commissioner Basit made clear that he and his Government were not going to be taken in by the sound and fury characteristic of most elections.

Also, earlier this week, the Delhi correspondent of The Telegraph reported that senior Pakistani diplomats had said that Pakistan “wants the controversial Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi to become India’s next Prime Minister because it believes he will provide the strong leadership necessary for peace talks”. This, the paper noted was a considerable shift in the official line as put out by Mr Sartaj Aziz, Pakistan’s national security adviser and de facto Foreign Minister. In a previous interview, Mr Aziz had said that his Government was willing to “deal with” Mr Modi. Now, Pakistani diplomats say, that Mr Modi is in fact, “Islamabad’s preferred choice”. According to The Telegraph, Pakistani officials are hoping to grant India ‘Most Favoured Nation’ status which they hope will not only incentivise New Delhi to begin a fresh dialogue but also provide Mr Modi, who is known for his business-friendly policies, “an opportunity to open new talks without appearing weak”.

Of course, given India’s previous experience with Pakistan, be it with regard to peace talks or MFN status, these statements must be taken with more than just a pinch of salt. But that does not diminish the fact that this line of thinking, even if it is restricted to only a segment of the Pakistani establishment, is a positive development.

(This article was published in the op-ed section of The Pioneer on May 1, 2014)