Distortionists and Distorians ...... Power & Politics/ The Sunday Standard/ January 17, 2016

Distortionists and Distorians Shouldn't be Allowed to Dictate Indo-Pak Diplomacy

Distortions and disinformation are the spicy ingredients, which define Indian diplomacy today. In the past, ideological conviction anointed with commercial interests would dictate the direction of diplomatic engagement. But now the two Ds of diplomacy—Distortionists and Distorians (DDs), sorry, I mean historians—have taken upon themselves to influence the Indo-Pak dialogue process. Last week, the DDs were conspicuous by their presence in the media, pleading for a resumption of the dialogue. Their prattling portfolio of Pak promotion was incorrect and incomplete news with a fabricated fantasia of history. The Pathankot airbase attack was a reason strong enough to give a temporary pause, if not abandon, the proposed foreign secretary-level talks. But the dialogue supari mafia was choreographing an act to give fresh impetus to the restoration of jaw-jaw. The action started in Pakistan with Geo TV flashing the detention of Masood Azhar and his colleagues. On cue, the DDs activated the Indian media to carry the footage prominently. For the next six hours, almost all Indian channels harpooned pro-dialogue peaceniks to build a case against the cancellation of talks. Even NaMo baiters joined the chorus to convince the PM that his Lahore mission had paid dividends and its benefits shouldn’t be diluted by the Pathankot incident. None of them bothered to check the facts from either Indian intelligence sources or their own Pak contacts. Only the external affairs ministry officials and National Security Agency were sceptical about the news of Azhar’s arrest. Even Pakistani agencies weren’t as confident as the Indian media about the “protective detention” of the most-wanted terrorist. Normally potential troublemakers are taken under preventive and not ‘protective’ custody. Sadly, 24 hours later, the phantasmagoria of falsehood, distortions and disinformation was exposed when the Pak Foreign Office stated that Azhar has not been arrested. As a natural reaction, India decided to postpone any further engagement with its nefarious neighbour until the nature of the action Pakistan had taken against the Pathankot perpetrators emerges from the fog of diplomatic smoke and mirrors.

Usually, it is the enraged Indian media that puts Pakistan on the mat over any terror attack, blasting the blubberers from the Pak establishment by questioning their ineffective insolence. The new game, however, that ensued last week showed the extent of Pak psychological penetration of the Indian media and its pet parakeets. For the first time, an attempt was made to influence the diplomatic narrative by planting incorrect stories on a gullible media, self-proclaimed opinion-makers and know-all experts on Indo-Pak relations. Undoubtedly, PM Modi has walked that extra mile to ensure peaceful co-existence between Pakistan and India. His overtures though have met with the same terror-torque contempt as Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s had, when he was PM. Then, India’s Pak policy was discussed around national interest and ideological justifications. Today, however, there is no shortage of professional prisoners of conviction lobbying for the continuation of dialogue irrespective of the number of terror attacks and Indian casualties. Many accept luxurious hospitality and junkets from across the border and then organise seminars and symposiums in India to promote Pakistan as a victim of terror, and terrorists as misguided mercenaries whose hearts bled copiously after the demolition of Babri Masjid and the 2002 Gujarat riots. The 2-Ds conveniently forget that the riots were also an unacceptable reaction to the burning of a train in which over 50 innocent pilgrims were reduced to cinders. As Modiplomacy takes some concrete shape, the PM will have to battle half-truths, blatant lies and distorted historical catechisms about India’s foreign relations, including J&K. 

Another diabolical design to shift the focus from the dismantling of terror camps is to confine the discourse to revolve around Azhar. Distorians are claiming that he turned to terrorism only after Babri Masjid fell. Some Distortionists even claim that he visited Faizabad before his arrest in Srinagar two months later. But web search doesn’t throw up a single reference to any Uttar Pradesh visit. Reports in the US and other Western media and think-tank websites reveal Azhar was fighting the US forces in Somalia and elsewhere at that time. Born in Bahawalpur, Pakistan, in 1968 as the third of 11 children of Allah Bakhsh Shabbir, a headmaster at a government-run school, Azhar studied at the Jamia Uloom-ul-Islamia in Banuri town, Karachi. It was during his stay here that he joined Harkat-ul-Ansar and participated in the Soviet-Afghan War.

According to various reports, he later became the general secretary of Harkat-ul-Ansar and visited Zambia, Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Mongolia, the UK and Albania. Reports say he came to India in early 1994 in the guise of a journalist travelling on a Portuguese passport. This visit had nothing to do with Babri Masjid as his only mission was to “liberate Kashmir”. His objective was to strengthen Harkat-ul-Ansar by sorting out tensions between its two feuding factions, Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. Indian intelligence agencies have enough evidence about his ISI connections. Pak state actors adopted Azhar soon after his release by India in 1999. Not only was he allowed to float Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) but also to roam around Pakistan and spew venom against India. Contrary to propaganda by Distorians and Distortionists, Azhar rarely mentioned Babri Masjid in his inflammatory speeches. He has always promoted jihad in Kashmir. Despite the US declaring JeM a terrorist organisation, Pakistan has taken little action against Azhar or his organisation. Since he is the most effective monster of mayhem in India and Afghanistan only, neither Pakistan nor the US bother to ensure his annihilation. Even after the 2001 Parliament attacks, he was detained for a year, but was soon travelling on the terror trail. Yet the 2-Ds treat him as a 3D aberration and are struggling to restore Pakistan’s credibility and prevent its international isolation.

Azhar is not the only blood and gore-covered irritant in the resolution of Indo-Pak disputes. He is the symbol of everything that is wrong with Pakistan’s DNA. Even after three wars and over 100 rounds of talks and summits, the situation on the ground hasn’t moved an inch. Yet, Indo-Pak diplomacy has always been influenced by glamorous adventurism. The past 14 Indian PMs have fallen into the trap of treating Pak as a respectable neighbour and not as a terrifying threat. Pressure is being mounted through distortions and disinformation on Modi, the 15th PM. He would, however, be well advised to deviate from the beaten path and chart his own course in history.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

For Modiplomacy to succeed, ....... Power & Politics /The Sunday Standard/ January 03, 2016

For Modiplomacy to Succeed, PM Should Either Include Pak Army in Talks or Neutralise  It

Trust without verification invariably proves fatal. Prime Minister Narendra Modi must be ruing the day he was persuaded to trust Pakistan’s political establishment led by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. To give innovative diplomacy a chance, Modi forgot the historical truth about the Indo-Pak peace dialogue. It keeps alternating between farce and tragedy in the space between one terror attack and another. In a blood-stained New Year message, Pak-supported terrorists massacred the budding friendship between the two leaders by attacking the airforce base station in Pathankot.  Coming barely a week after Modi’s bold landing in Lahore for Sharif’s birthday celebrations, the fidayeen attacks reinforced the harsh reality that the Pakistani political runway is obstructed by India-baiters whose only objective is to let its mammoth neighbour bleed. These saboteurs project the four meetings between Modi and Sharif in the past 20 months as a mere exchange of social pleasantries. They ignore the intent and content of External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj’s discussions with Sharif during her Pakistan visit in December 2015. The movers and shakers of Pakistan’s parallel establishment have treated the decisions taken at a meeting between the National Security Advisers (NSAs) of the two countries in Bangkok as needless notebooks meant for waste paper basket. Above all, the images of Sharif and Modi holding hands in Lahore or whispering in each other’s ears in Paris are acts of betrayal of their idea of fundamentalist Islam. They have returned every handshake with hand grenades and gunfire, killing Indian security personnel and civilians. For the blood-thirsty jihadists, the survival of a fundamentalist Pakistan depends on promoting terror and not adopting good economics. Terror is their most lucrative business. It gets them weapons and women, money and mosques, and the authority to dictate terms to a democratically elected government. Cocking a snook at the growing bonhomie between the two PMs, the terrorists have slain over 50 Indian defence personnel in the past year.

It would be facetious to expect any element of surprise over the weekend’s terror attacks. For Modi, such an ugly response to his gestures couldn’t have come at a worse time. He has already defied his core constituency, which wants war and not words with Pakistan. He has sent clear signals to his ministers and diplomats that they should walk the extra mile to give dialogue a chance; like Atal Bihari Vajpayee had done even after being betrayed umpteen times. From all indications, it is clear that both domestic and external interlocutors had assured Modi that Sharif was capable of ensuring the successful continuation of a comprehensive Indo-Pak dialogue. Successive Indian Prime Ministers have been given similar assurances by the powerful US, which treats Pakistan as its crony colony and its ambivalent army as ally against any selective terrorism aimed at America. No Pakistani leader, however, could deliver on any of the promises made to India. In 2004, the duplicitous Pervez Musharraf gave a written assurance to Vajpayee that terrorists wouldn’t be allowed to use any part of the Pakistan-controlled territory to operate against India. It was a mockery since more attacks, including the devastating Mumbai strike, continued to happen. According to diplomatic sources, Pakistan NSA Sartaj Aziz, a confidant of Pak Army chief General Raheel Sharif, gave his word to the Indian NSA Ajit Doval in Bangkok that the Army will tame all home-based terrorists and cripple their capacity to damage India. The assurance was repeated during Swaraj’s Islamabad visit. It was in this atmosphere of accord that Modi decided to land in Lahore and strengthen Sharif’s capability to rally the Pak Army behind him.

Peril in Pathankot has not only diminished Modi’s resolve to dismantle the tangled skein of Indo-Pak relations, but has also proved again that Sharif is not the appropriate person as he doesn’t enjoy full authority and command over the armed forces. He doesn’t have a comfortable political majority in Parliament. He is perceived by the people as a symbol of the aristocracy, the elite and big business interests. Since he comes from Punjab, which is emotionally closer to India than the rest of Pakistan, Sharif doesn’t inspire much support in other regions, except among the rich and mighty in Lahore. During his earlier stint in power, he was effortlessly ousted by a military coup because he and his party were considered ineffective and slaves to the US. During the past four years, he hasn’t been able to contain the ever-growing influence of fundamentalist forces in Pakistan. The number of terror attacks has risen substantially during his tenure because he doesn’t have the army’s full support. Those opposed to dialogue argue that Sharif, who has failed to control jihadis in his own country, cannot be trusted to dismantle the terror establishment whose aim is to damage India.

For Modi the dove, however, hardly any escape routes are left to fly away to peaceful skies. He has too much at stake and can’t afford the rhythm of dialogue he has initiated to break at this stage. Peaceniks and ill-liberals will clamour that any interruption in talks will only strengthen the radicals. Modi will also be under pressure to disclose the content and contours of the dialogue, which he and his team have been holding with Pak leaders since the past few months. Since Modi practices unconventional politics, he will have to connect with the real power holders in Pakistan to take his mission forward. So far, all previous Indian leaders have stuck to conformist mediation by involving just diplomats and civil servants in engaging Pakistan. Perhaps, the time has come for the PM to co-opt Pakistan’s defence establishment, too, in open speak. India cannot ignore the reality that it is the Pakistan army, which dictates decisions in that country. If Modiplomacy has to succeed, Modi should either include the Pak Army in the formal dialogue process or neutralise it if it refuses to fall in line. After all, it is the Indian Army, which has borne the brunt of Pak-sponsored terror, along with innocent citizens. The presence of uniformed officers of both countries, sitting along with political leaders from both sides, will provide more than a photo-op and yield better results. So far, only meetings between the two unequals, Modi and Sharif, have taken place. While Modi represents the mandate of the Indian people and the might of the government, Sharif is merely the face, and not the force, of the government in Pakistan. Modi must verify Sharif’s credibility and clarity before reposing trust in him again.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com Follow me  on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

With His Networking Style, Modi ...... Power & Politics/ The Sunday Standard/ April 19, 2015

With His Networking Style, Modi May Well be the Hero who Defied Conventional Diplomacy

                                         Modi (left) with his Canadian counterpart Stephen Harper

A day is a long time in politics, but for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a year is a short time. He has become a record-holder as the first Indian PM to spend the maximum number of days abroad travelling to 16 countries in just 11 months. When Air India One bearing him and his delegation landed at the Indira Gandhi International Airport on Saturday morning after his eight-day visit to France, Germany and Canada, Modi earned the distinction of spending every eighth day abroad ever since he took over in May last year. In contrast, NDA’s previous Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, had made just three visits covering four countries over seven days in his first year in office. His successor Manmohan Singh was more active in international affairs. He spent 28 days outside India during his six visits to seven countries. Modi’s itinerary has been carefully planned by keeping his priorities in mind. His directive is clear. Connect with neighbours and do business with affluent nations. Barring Russia, Modi has visited most countries which influence international business. He has been to the US in the West, Japan in the East and Australia Down Under. When he wasn’t on board Air India One, Modi was unrolling red carpets for visiting heads of states from China, Great Britain and the Middle East. It is also a matter of record that most heads of states or foreign dignitaries made India their destination of choice in the first year of Modi’s tenure. Over 100 of them have met him so far, with the same purpose, to win his heart. The villain of 2002 has become the global hero of 2014.

The frequency of his visits is not the only difference between Modi and his illustrious predecessors. Both had travelled to other nations mostly for multilateral talks and not to settle bilateral issues as Modi is doing by engaging global leaders. The PM is known for his marketing mantras. He has captured a major chunk of the Indian political market using innovative sales pitches and mesmerising packaging savoir faire. He is using similar innovations to market India to the world’s powerful nations. Economic diplomacy is at the heart of his singular statecraft. Perhaps, he is actually putting into practice the famous saying that the best way to a man’s heart is through his stomach. Modi has understood the seductiveness of the gargantuan size of the Indian market which every nation with desperately avaricious multinationals are salivating over. He chooses his audience and the content of his speeches by playing to the economic hunger of host countries. He extols bullet trains, electronic El Dorados and infrastructure in Japan. He speaks about mining in Australia, makes deals on civil nuclear equipment with France, talks to the Americans about financial reforms and to India’s neighbours about the advantages of peaceful coexistence.

Modi’s strong emphasis on economic diplomacy is obvious going by the content of his speeches and the nature of his interactions during his foreign visits. His invariable meetings with the corporate aristocracy of the countries he goes to have become an essential feature of his travel diaries. If he is in Japan, he meets tycoons from Sony, Suzuki and top Nippon bankers. In the US, his visit is not complete unless he has addressed top American corporates. Previously, trade and commerce have rarely been part of Indian foreign policy. Former Prime Ministers were scared of meeting business barons during their official overseas visits. Now prominent Indian corporate leaders zoom off as advance parties to prepare the ground for Modi’s business meetings. Multinationals are finding it smooth going to do business with a country whose Prime Minister is not bound by administrative protocol and antiquated business baggage. In the sequence of priorities, trade now comes first on India’s new economic diplomatic agenda. Modi has made civil nuclear energy and indigenisation of the defence equipment manufacturing sector as the premier pillars of his diplomatic je ne sais quoi. Since he has converted Make in India into his messianic mission, he seems to be working according to a plan. No foreign company would like to make in India what it makes at home without irresistible inducements. For example, the deal for the supply of 126 Rafale aircraft had remained enmeshed in the bureaucratic web for over a decade. Allegations and counter-allegations of arms lobby adventurism were flying around like pilotless aircraft. Modi simply canned the prodigious pile of files and became the first Indian Prime Minister to announce a deal during a foreign visit without holding formal consultations with domestic stake holders. He invented a new mechanism of signing a government-to-government defence deals to prevent middlemen walking away with huge commissions. With a stroke of his pen, Modi obliged both the French government and French industry, showing his resolve to facilitate the entry of their companies into a sensitive sector. Only Modi could possess the flair to give an on-the-spot order for 36 Rafale fighter aircraft  worth over $4 billion. He wanted France’s Dassault Aviation to invest in India as fast as possible. Earlier, he had changed policy to allow FDI in the defence industry to reduce spending on arms imports in the long run. Already many Indian companies like Bharat Forge Ltd, Anil Ambani’s Reliance Group, Tata Group, Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL), L&T, Godrej Group, Mahindra Group, Astra Microwave Products Ltd, Dynamatic Technologies Ltd, Centum Electronics Ltd, Precision Electronics Ltd and Technologies Ltd have set up subsidiaries to produce defence equipment and have sent their top representatives to France, Germany and Canada to expedite follow up measures. In Canada, with his visit generating business worth 1.6 billion Canadian dollars, Modi made it a point to approach corporate captains of the insurance industry, as his NDA government had raised FDI limit in the particular sector.

But it is not the number of companies which flock to his meetings that matter. What matters for Modi is the kinetic gush of dollars which flood India to propel his favourite projects. Through his networking style and bold posturing, Modi wants to go down in history as the hero who defied the golden rule of conventional global diplomacy, which says that in the world of international engagement, some things are better left unsaid. But Modi by his tone, tenor and tendency says it all.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

No PMO's Parror, Swaraj stands tall... Power & Politics / The Sunday Standard/ Setpember 28, 2014

No PMO's Parrot, Swaraj Stands Tall with 'Maximum Outcome, Minimum Visibility'

Diminutive she may be, but indomitable she certainly is. External Affairs minister Sushma Swaraj, perhaps the shortest in terms of height in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Cabinet, has been setting an example for the rest to look up to, as she charms the world with her tireless but discreet diplomatic missions to various international capitals. While Modi has positioned himself as India’s most effective leader, Swaraj seems to have adopted the principle of maximum outcome with minimum visibility. In advance of Modi’s Madison Avenue address, the Big Apple had acquired saffron hues; Modi’s cut-outs were giving the skyscrapers competition and banners adorned with his smiling visage became the leitmotif of what promised to be a historic visit by a leader, once demonised by the same hosts who are hero-worshiping him now. But it is Swaraj’s persuasive iron hand in the velvet glove diplomacy—she chastised Pakistan for spoiling the talks by meeting with separatists—which reveals her training as a lawyer and educationist with the motto that the more you speak, the more attention you get. In Manhattan, Swaraj graciously allowed TV channels and photographers to capture her on camera with foreign guests, but refused to deliver one-liners to reporters hungry for sugary or bitter bytes. She is one of the five women ministers in Modi’s Cabinet. Yet Swaraj is following the leader in creating records.

She is India’s first female foreign minister since Independence, with the exception of Indira Gandhi, who for a brief period held the portfolio when she was the Prime Minister. Swaraj is also the first Indian woman foreign minister to lead her country’s delegation to the United Nation General Assembly, as well as being part of the Prime Minister’s team during his entire stay in the US.

In fact, for the first time, two women, Swaraj and Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh, who appear to be made for each other, lead the Ministry of External Affairs. They also seem to be perfect partners in delivering perfect diplomacy. Most of the time, they have been travelling together, strategising against India’s foes and partnering to project Modi as a global leader with a ‘vision and mission’, causing much dismay to those South Block mandarins who pose as walking encyclopedias of global statecraft.

Modi landed in New York with a purposeful agenda and a list of targets to achieve, while Swaraj had a clearly defined assignment. Unlike the previous foreign ministers, who were cocktail party captives of pin-striped diplomats, spending more time sightseeing and raising toasts with the high and mighty in global financial capitals, Swaraj’s meetings were restricted to those who matter and can contribute in helping her restore India’s stature in international politics and the global economy. Modi’s unspoken objective is to acquire the global status, which India’s first Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru enjoyed. Nehru, along with Marshal Tito of undivided Yugoslavia, forged an alliance of non-aligned nations to engage the contradictions of a bipolar world divided between the US and USSR. But now the world is divided by money and not ideology. Since India is where the fast buck starts, Modi is leveraging his economic ecology to place it in a better position to dictate international economic and strategic narratives. He has wisely chosen his political colleagues to aid him in this, instead of superannuated and supine babus or inane intellectuals sponsored by dubiously funded think tanks. Swaraj’s mandate is to network with both powerful and not-so-powerful nations. During her 10 days in the US—the longest ever visit by any foreign minister in recent times—she was expected to meet over 100 ministers from over 40 countries. While Modi spent his time impressing his fans and half-a-dozen heads of states, Swaraj was sorting out thorny issues with smaller but politically significant countries. For Modi, it was a visit to establish his superiority and triumph over a country that had treated him as a pariah. Hence, both leader and follower had defined their itinerary and objectives to achieve the maximum impact with minimum labour.

Swaraj was spending almost 10-12 hours every day to meet her official commitments. It was not a coincidence that she met foreign ministers from other nations, who could help further India’s current and future interests. Within a few hours of her arrival in New York, she met with seven of them. She had longish parlays with Philip Hammond, Britain’s Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Norwegian foreign minister Borge Brende, and Greek deputy Prime Minister Evangelos Venizelos among others. She didn’t leave out India’s neighbours and African leaders either. She met her counterparts from Sudan and Maldives. Her idea was to cover all continents and regional economic groups like BRICS, G4, IBSA, the Commonwealth and SAARC. She met ministers from West Asia to understand the contours of the ongoing conflict in the region. Her confabulations with her Chinese counterpart Wang Yi at the UN headquarters ended the military stand-off on the Indo-China border following intrusions by PLA soldiers. During all her meetings, she chose to speak extempore except on occasions when formal introductory speeches were required. Those who attended her events confided that they were yet to come across another person who could pick up the subtle nuances of complex diplomacy in such a short time. Since the Prime Minister always sets the tone and tenor of diplomacy, it was left to Swaraj to articulate Modiplomacy, at the same time without sounding like the PMO’s parrot.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Modiplomacy has hues of Nehruvian .....Power & Politics/ The Sunday Standard/ September 21, 2014

Modiplomacy Has Hues of Nehruvian Model Abroad and of Indira Gandhi at Home

So far India has heard and seen the Modi Mantra and the Modi Model of Governance. Now we see PM Narendra Modi’s ability to play diplomat by keeping diplomats away. He has always been told “a diplomat tries to arouse the nation whereas a politician lulls it to sleep”. Last week, he reversed the role, literally. While senior Foreign Service officers were lulling themselves and mulling over Indo-China policy, Modi set a few precedents for future diplomats to follow. He inspired his countrymen by making his Chinese guests keep aside fatuous formalities, and engaged them in a new diplomatic genre which displays the maximum but delivers the minimum. Modi converted the visit of Xi Jinping, China’s most power leader, with his elegant wife Peng Liyuan into a stellar marketing event. Though Xi’s visit was at the Indian president’s invitation, Modi ensured that the focus remained on him alone. From the selection of gifts to the dinner menu, everything reflected the unique Mo-Diplomacy. Most state visits are meant to fill diplomatic attendance registers. Many agreements are signed, numerous speeches are delivered and many discussions take place for analysts to give their verdict, which often turns out to be mere chimeras. Xi’s India sojourn, however, was one with a visible difference. Besides being a visual delight, it created global ripples for its timing and tenor. Since Modi has no inhibitions about calling himself a Gujju businessman, he won the hearts of China’s first couple with classy cuisine and a delightful dress circle in Ahmedabad. He replaced ping-pong diplomacy with swing diplomacy, leaving people all over the world guessing about the direction and impact of the Gujarati swing. Modi always thinks of new ideas for governance, conducting dialogues with ministers, corporate leaders and now foreign dignitaries. He sees symbolism and gestures as more powerful, effective instruments to achieve objectives than delivering formal speeches in purple prose. Ever since Modi took over, he has been engaging foreign leaders on his own terms. He is the first Indian PM to hardly ever use written notes for speeches when dealing with international visitors. He knows there is no better weapon than one’s own language to put counterparts on the defensive. For the past few months, Modi has interacted with over two dozen world leaders and has addressed as many meetings, but always in Hindi. His supporters take pride in claiming that Modi is the man of the moment whom the world is waiting to hear, even though it may not understand his language or politics. Modi believes in breaking records and conventions. Besides creating history by winning a parliamentary majority by a genuine non-Congress party for the first time, he has many innovations in diplomacy to his credit. Here are some unique examples of Modi’s swing diplomacy:

• Modi is the first Indian PM who has invited all SAARC heads to attend his swearing-in ceremony. He sprang a surprise on the foreign office by suddenly announcing his decision to unprepared diplomats, as the gesture involved engaging hostile neighbours like Pakistan and the not-so-friendly ones like Sri Lanka and Nepal. But Modi was quite clear in his mind. He wanted to start his innings, not as a PM who just favours peace in the neighbourhood but also one who acts to reclaim India’s regional leadership. With his first move, he disarmed his rivals.

• While his predecessors would always seek to begin their stint with a meeting with the global powers, Modi chose to embrace India’s neighbours to create a club of his own. The idea was to ensure that India would like to work with them in international affairs. Hence his diplomatic itinerary started with Nepal, Bhutan and later Japan.

• To make Gujaratis realise that he hasn’t forgotten them or their interests, Modi became the first PM to welcome the President of China not in New Delhi but in Ahmedabad, and the first PM to do so in a state capital.

• To drive home the point that he is not against the corporate and private sector, he became the first PM to welcome a head of state at the door of a privately owned five-star hotel outside New Delhi.

• Though it is not officially admitted, Modi created the unique convention of giving a personal touch to Chinese President’s visit by arranging it on his own birthday in his own state. No world leader has ever thought of such a novel idea of beaming and bonding.

• If that wasn’t enough, Modi is the first PM to host a lavish state dinner on a riverfront. Xi was served a 50-course Gujarati dinner, along with elegantly choreographed entertainment. About 50 guests, including Gujarat Chief Minister Anandiben Patel, attended the event. It was meant to create the ambience for a softer tone for the hard bargaining which followed during the official talks on the next day in New Delhi.

• Modi used his PM status to swing three agreements with China, involving billions of dollars for Gujarat. Never before has a PM presided over the signing ceremonies of MoUs for investment in numerous local fields.

• Modi replaced formality with informality, which is anathema to conventional diplomacy. By taking Xi for a leisurely walk along a specially curated Sabarmati riverfront, Modi set the tone for a personal bonding—rare between a Chinese president and an Indian PM.

• Modi sprang yet another surprise on the Chinese first couple with a Gujarati swing. He himself sat with Xi, and later requested the couple to amuse themselves on the swing so that he could swing a favourable deal for a promised $20 billion FDI in India. Xi appeared so impressed by Modi’s sartorial flair that he decided to wear a Nehru Jacket during his riverfront stroll.

• Since the Chinese First Lady takes pride in promoting Chinese brands and music, Modi ensured that Smriti Irani, the minister-in-waiting for the President, gave as a gift a Gandhi Charkha to underscore the importance of the Mahatma and his fight for Indian-made products. It was both a symbol and  warning that India would promote its hand-woven fabrics and prevent China from dumping its sub-standard products on our shores. Modi also ensured that Xi was the first Chinese president to visit the Sabarmati ashram and sign the visitor’s log.

It was obvious that Modi wanted to shift the headquarters of diplomacy from New Delhi to Ahmedabad for this big event. Even the official MEA spokesperson candidly admitted, “It’s no secret that the PM is very keen that India be showcased beyond Delhi. He has made it amply clear that the beauty and magnificence of India beyond Delhi should be seen by visiting foreign leaders, and we are beginning that process with President Xi’s visit.” But it wasn’t just about showcasing Indian beauty and magnificence beyond Delhi; Modi wanted to be the master of ceremonies himself. If Xi had landed in New Delhi, the spotlight would have been on the magnificence of Rashtrapati Bhawan and Hyderabad House. In Gujarat, it was Modi and the Sabarmati riverfront all the way, in all the frames. He is the only Gujarat CM who has visited China five times. He was determined to pay back his former hosts in the same manner and style which was accorded to him. Above all, with his manners, methodology and mechanisms, Modi has defined the road map for converting INCH (Indo-China) into MILES (Mega Indian Long-term Engagement Strategy). Indian Prime Ministers have always taken unusual interests in international relations and Modi is no exception. But there is a difference. Modiplomacy is acquiring the hues of the Nehruvian model abroad and that of Indira Gandhi in domestic politics.

Prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Modi must find formula..... Power & Politics/ The Sunday Standard/ July 20, 2014

Modi Must Find Formula to Dismantle Monstrous Diplomatic Machinery

In technical jargon, Track II always runs opposite to Track I. Moving parallel, they never meet. These trains of thought also end up at different platforms of the same station—precisely what has been happening with Indian diplomacy for the past few decades. Why and by who was Track II invented is anybody’s guess. While changes occur in governments, Track II members, promoters and financiers remain unchanged. In fact, it has become a sinecure for retired, tired and fired civil servants, diplomats, opinion-makers and recovering journalists. Last week, when the country was outraged over the flirtatious rendezvous between former hack Ved Pratap Vaidik and proclaimed terrorist Hafiz Saeed, questions were raised over the motives and intentions of Track II diplomacy. Vaidik may be justified in meeting Saeed as a former media maven, it was undeniably inappropriate for him to make out a case for J&K as an independent country.

His two-week undisclosed cross-border visit brought the spotlight on not just his hosts but also Indians who have been granted multi-entry visas to Pakistan. The Pakistan institute is run by former military officials, including a few from ISI. It has been inviting liberal and secular Indians for promoting peace and dialogue between India and its duplicitous neighbour. Some of them genuinely feel that India should engage Pakistan in a dialogue even if Pakistan-sponsored terror groups continue to kill innocents in India. On other hand, it is not a coincidence that those opposed to the idea of ‘Paki-Hindi Bhai Bhai at any cost’ are denied visas to visit even relatives or places of birth. ISI is so powerful that it can defy its heads of state or government when it comes to granting visas to independent journalists.

Instead of working towards a single mission, there has been a serious dissimilitude between Track I and Track II over the past decade. If the official line is to demolish terror camps working within Pakistan, Track II interlocutors have been espousing liberalising the visa regime and to give Pakistan free access to Indian market. PM Narendra Modi has been hinting at possible military intervention if terror attacks don’t stop, but India’s peacenik perambulators have been pleading for restraint so that they can grab more airmiles to Lahore for red carpet welcomes followed by biryani and bootleg Scotch. In fact, the new government is now examining the number of visits made by members of various think tanks to Pakistan and other countries, as well as their presentations. The idea is to ascertain whether these self-appointed ambassadors have taken a stand at variance with official policy. An analysis reveals that at none of the conferences or seminars in Pakistan did any of the Indian participants raise the issue of closing down terror camps. Strangely, many of these talking heads have much in common—conflict resolution, peace initiatives, terror and unknown sources of funding. The NDA government has started the process of identifying their financing patterns and ensuring that government funds are not being diverted through devious methods. They acquire legitimacy because Indian missions are obliged to organise receptions in their honour and even facilitate meetings with kindred souls in Pakistan. What has baffled senior ministers is that even after the change of regime in New Delhi, none of these interlocutors make it a point to brief the government before or after their visits, unlike their Pakistani counterparts.

Another revelation is that the number of these think tanks rose during UPA regime. Though it was Brijesh Mishra, a former diplomat and Principal Secretary to Atal Bihari Vajpayee— one of the most powerful ever—who encouraged Track II, the UPA under Manmohan Singh patronised legions of the intransigent interlocutors. Most were promoted by former diplomats and military officials, since serving officers who worked under them make it a point to oblige their former bosses by creating opportunities to indulge in non-stage diplomacy. This has dangerous implications. These retired diplomats get informal access to sensitive information from their colleagues in the government. There are many examples of individuals working as go-betweens for decades after their retirement—even after governments changed. The Track II establishment is so powerful that it can influence any government to follow its advice and ignore views of its ministers. Surprisingly, the composition of Track II phalanx defies any logic. It consists of individuals from all parties who are known for defiance of party or government line. Their only virtue is their consistency in keeping their honeymoon with Pakistan alive. They are found haunting residences of the Pakistan and UK High Commissioners and ambassadors of the US and China. They include senior media personalities known for their soft approach to Pakistan. But it is not that these think tanks are working only for a dialogue with Pakistan. Some have taken upon the responsibility of disarming the world by fighting against nuclear proliferation. Their only mission is to discourage India from becoming a nuclear power so that Western nuclear equipment manufacturing companies can capture Indian market. No wonder, their membership comprises those who share the doctrine of ideological junketing.

Surprisingly, these intellectual itinerants of both India and Pakistan are like MACs ( Mutual Admiration Clubs). They invite only those from each other’s country who are ideologically, culturally and politically compatible. For them, any change of government hardly makes a difference. An analysis of their writings or presentations reveals that all of them follow the same line of argument even if they come from different parties or outfits. They are so organised that if any non-MAC member makes a contrarian move, they move heaven and hell to gag the disagreeable point of view using their connections. Modi’s challenge is finding the right formula to dismantle the monstrous machinery, which has destabilised and undermined South Block with fraternal finesse. He has to take a call to merge both Tracks so that national interest prevails over culinary and travel preferences of retired apparatchiks who try to transcend oblivion with undying ambition.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Time to Adopt Modi Model ..... Power & Politics / The Sunday Standard/ June 15, 2014

Time to Adopt Modi Model of Walk the Talk with Pak, Without Bending

All’s well that ends well, goes the proverb. The inverse is also true. With each new government’s debut, Indian diplomacy’s flirtation with Pakistan always begins well but ends up in bloody and bitter encounters after a few rounds of flying kisses and gregarious handshakes. Prime Minister Narendra Modi began his diplomatic innings spectacularly by inviting his counterpart Nawaz Sharif for his swearing-in ceremony on May 26. The Pakistan delegation was not only given disproportionate media space and diplomatic attention, but the effort was also bruited about as India’s sincere desire to normalise relations with a perennially hostile neighbour. Modi was determined to erase the impression of a hawkish Right wing leader who is out to rewrite Indian boundaries with brute force. His election campaign speeches were projected as a mission to bring pugnacious Pakistan to its knees. But as PM, Modi avoided doing anything of that sort. He chose dialogue and reconciliation instead of confrontation and disengagement.

Recent border encounters, however, betray the trust the Modi establishment has placed in Pakistani political leadership. Soon after Sharif’s return home, Pakistani troops engaged in their usual incursions, attacking innocent jawans and civilians. During the last four-six weeks, seven such incidents have taken place, killing nine security personnel. Since Nehruvian fellow travellers with vested interests in keeping the Indo-Pak issue on the boil control Indian diplomacy, they habitually try to insulate any new leadership against contrarian opinion. These professional peaceniks will try persuading the new Prime Minister to see an opportunity in sari and shawl diplomacy, thereby giving Pakistan’s democratically elected government another chance at duplicity. Modi is yet to dismantle the dialogue-for-peace lobby, which dominates South Block and the think-tanks floated and financed by it. Millions of taxpayers’ money is spent on foreign junkets for the faux-peace-vaudeville performers to visit salubrious cities for secret parleys and Michelin menus, which have yielded only more gore and blood on our borders. Most of them are even more devious than the NGOs that promote their agenda at the cost of national interest. Even the Track Two, Three and the umpteen number of channels are now coming together to sabotage any possible attempt by the PM to institute a credible nationalist mechanism to deal with Pakistan and also the US. They were spectacularly successful during the NDA regime led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The composition of these unofficial institutions holding semi-official confabulations with invisible interlocutors hasn’t changed in the past 20 years. Prime Ministers and foreign ministers have changed, but the pacifist pundits stay on, loaded with perks and pelf. They have made more foreign trips than India’s Foreign Secretaries or even the foreign ministers. A cursory look at their reports, presentations, and newspaper articles reads like the manifestos of political parties; immutable except for the first page and the cover. They conveniently ignore the harsh reality that India’s every goodwill gesture is reciprocated with either war or a terror attack. Instead of recording Pakistan’s history of betrayal, our self-appointed global peace ambassadors counsel every Prime Minister to aim for a global role by adopting soft postures. None of their reports refer to the wars fought in 1965, 1971, Kargil in 1999, the 2001 Parliament attack, and the 26/11 Mumbai massacre. They don’t see anything wrong in the inhuman killings of over 80, 000 Indian civilians and uniformed forces in Jammu and Kashmir since 1990. They see the mass exodus of Kashmiri pundits from Jammu and Kashmir as just an accidental result of peccant administration by a hawkish governor.

Though Modi has a mind of his own and can hardly be influenced by extraneous factors, it is difficult for him to forget the ignobility he faced from some foreign nations during the past 12 years. He was shunned by the Western powers, and denied visas to address meetings in America and London. Handling sensitive international relationships is Modi’s big challenge. Like his many other colleagues, Modi may not be seeking an endorsement from the American establishment or from its desi megaphones. But they have already unleashed their well-oiled machinery to influence people holding key positions in the government. Ambassadors and high commissioners of the countries, which had declared Modi a social pariah, are already hosting dinner conclaves for newly appointed ministers and new articulate MPs. They are calling on ministers and opinion-makers. Their only objective is to ensure that the Modi government doesn’t take a hard stand against Pakistan, the West’s most dependable ally and a big market for their defence industry.

But Modi is aware of his campaign promises to the people of India. His success in taming Pakistan would depend on his ability to destroy the terror camps across the border, either with cooperation from the Pakistan forces or by the Indian Army. Modi has been advised that glamorous handshakes with a leader who doesn’t have the authority to deliver on a single promise he makes to India are futile. Pakistan is controlled by four different fief-lords, each working within boundaries defined by them. If Sharif enjoys authority over civil administration, the ISI governs and nurtures Pakistan’s terror network over which the Prime Minister has no control. The Pakistani Army chief decides the contours of foreign policy. The delay in Sharif accepting Modi’s invitation was primarily because of the ISI and Pakistan Army’s delayed clearance. Top of the heinous heap is the Taliban, which is allowed to operate freely from various Pakistani cities. Unless the Taliban facilitates a favourable climate for a dialogue with India—or with Pakistan’s other neighbours—Sharif cannot leave his country or send officials to break bread with other diplomats.

Modi’s uniqueness lies in his out-of-the box thinking. On Pakistan, too, he should reject the choreographed summit meetings with Sharif and his silver-tongued Savile Row diplomats. Manmohan Singh left the office as a failure and India’s weakest Prime Minister, because he was advised to chase the Nobel Peace Prize by dancing with Pakistan. Modi has got a decisive mandate to deliver his promises through his performance on the Pakistan front. The time has come to junk the Nehruvian diplomatic model of yadda-yadda with Pakistan, and adopt the Modi model of walk the talk—that too, briskly and without bending.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Behind Powell-Modi Handshaeke Lies US need .... Power & Politics/The Sunday Standard/February 16, 2014

Behind Powell-Modi Handshake Lies US Need to Capture Money Market Called India

Politics and diplomacy are poles apart. The former is the art of saying nothing while doing something, the latter practices the game of expatiating more than necessary. While politicians shout at each other to make their point, diplomats score victories through unspoken words and visible postures. This maxim was quite evident when US Ambassador Nancy Powell, of tomboy coiffure and pugnacious build, drove to Gandhinagar to meet CM Narendra Modi, who her country had been treating like a pariah for a decade. She didn’t utter a word to the media. Nor did Modi. But political supporters and opponents exchanged high-decibel verbal fire. Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid dripped sarcasm while observing he would “be interested in knowing what Powell tells Modi. In the past, countries on human rights have lectured us. It would be interesting to know what the US makes out of what happened in Gujarat”. The Congress appears to be convinced that the Powell-Modi handshake at this crucial juncture would swing the mind of voters in favour of the saffron party.

Plenipotentiary tourism to India proves that even diplomacy has no permanent friends or foes.

It was clear that diplomatic expeditions to Gandhinagar were acquiring legitimacy and significance. For the first time, political parties are gloating over foreigners endorsing their policies and personalities. Though there is hardly any commonality between politics and diplomacy, both swear to protect national interests. If Powell and other envoys before her had flown to Gandhinagar, it was meant to protect and project only the interest of nations they represent and not to promote their host or his political philosophy. The BJP leadership was vertically divided over the impact of Powell’s visit. Only those who directly or indirectly represent the interests of Dollar Power projected her sojourn as a victory for Modi. It is true that Modi has been resisting meeting the US representative at a place and time of her liking. According to party insiders, some Delhi-based Modi acolytes attempted to arrange a meeting between the two in Delhi. The idea of hosting a dinner where Modi would “just drop in” was proposed. But the Gujarat satrap torpedoed the plan, which led to panic in the US establishment. Finally they instructed Powell to fly to Ahmedabad. Though Modi has been seeking endorsements from Western powers and global corporations, he never allowed them to dictate terms. Tech-savvy campaign managers surround him. He has been enjoying the company of corporate czars. Besides attending packed, choreographed public rallies, Modi has not thrown away any chance to be seen schmoozing with the chatterati, who would dump him the moment he doesn’t make it to 7 RCR.

But the Americans also didn’t want to give the impression that Powell had exclusively gone to meet Modi. Before and after her visit, the US government made it clear that Powell has been on many pre-poll exploratory visits to many states and Gujarat was just one of her many halts to meet leaders of political parties. Interestingly, the Indian media made a big splash of the Modi-Powell parley but ignored a similar pow-wow she had with Congress leader Shankarsinh Vaghela. If she spent 45 minutes with Modi, she gave 40 minutes to Vaghela, having driven down to his home as well. He was much more forthcoming in his interaction with the media, saying “she had questions about the human rights situation in Gujarat and also wanted to know the probable scenarios in the event of either a BJP-led NDA or a Congress-led coalition winning elections”. Obviously, Powell had treated both leaders as equals. The US also announced that it looks forward to working closely with any government that the Indian people would choose. It announced that its ambassador would be meeting West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee. It is tragic that both the foreign establishment and Indian elite believe that voters can be swayed by green room interventions of a foreign hand. They seem to have forgotten that the power to influence the democratic verdict has moved away from metropolises to the caste-infested small towns and villages of India. It is obvious that foreign countries, particularly the West, are taking extraordinary interest in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. While tourist traffic may have stagnated, there has been a sharp spurt in the number of known and unknown diplomats and lobbyists from many nations descending on India. Earlier they were totally dependent on local missions, which would confine interactions to a select group of opinion-makers with savoir vivre. The Delhi-based ambassadors are finding it difficult to gauge the mood of the people as a new class and breed of leaders have sprouted in various parts of the country. For Powell and her ilk, the rise of AAP and its leadership was an unforeseen miracle. Similarly they were living under the illusion that Modi and other regional leaders could be manipulated through self-appointed promoters in Delhi. Americans and their camp followers have been spending resources and efforts on sending some Indian regional leaders to Washington to be brainwashed, but these captive megaphones failed to deliver except for organising a few seminars and chatfests. Now, they are under pressure from their leadership and business lobbies to capture the real on-the-ground situation in India, which is a big money-making market. For America, it is more important to capture markets than territory. For this, it can go to any extent. If the US is willing to talk turkey with the Taliban, which is responsible for killing 3,000 American soldiers, it can walk the extra mile in any part of the world to protect its economic interests. Plenipotentiary tourism to India proves that even diplomacy has no permanent friends or foes. The only constant factor is getting more bucks using a fleeting fake smile accompanied by a tepid handshake.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

US must realise that India can be a Friend ..... Power & Politics/The Sunday Standard/January 12, 2014

US Must Realise that India Can be a Friend, Only as an Equal and Not as a Follower

Agonised apologists for America are in angst over the angry objurgation against American arrogance over L’affaire Devyani Khobragade. Ever since the Indian government showed some spine by retaliating against the US government, America’s Indian megaphones are rising in fortissimo to counter the orchestra of domestic disgust. For them, money is more important than national pride. The class that adores the colour of the greenback over respect for the Tricolour are asking fustian questions like “Is Devyani more important than the Indo-US relationship?” In their lucre-driven bombilations, they have chosen to forget that Devyani, a Dalit diplomat, was representing her country and was not just some individual the Indian government had dispatched to the US. Forget amor patriae, an obstreperous campaign is on to undermine her reputation and underplay the colossal insult to the prestige of Indian state by a petty American official. As Devyani returned home in disguised disgrace, the government hit back by asking a US diplomat to be recalled. He was the one instrumental in getting Devyani’s maid Sangeeta Richard’s family ‘evacuated’ from their own country—India.

While Devyani was declared persona non grata, US authorities remained silent about the behaviour of her nanny and her family members who entered the US to avoid facing Indian courts. The inexplicably imperious US posturing on Devyani hides more than what it reveals. Otherwise both countries wouldn’t have adopted an eyeball-to-eyeball stance. It is perhaps for the first time that both India and the US have expelled diplomats in concert. Such an exceptional row comes at a stage when they were perceived as allies in global economic and strategic issues. For the past two decades, India has been bending backwards to mend its ways and means to suit American corporate and strategic interests. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is the only Head of State who has made the maximum number of trips during his two terms to the US than any of his peers. American diplomats in India were given exceptional waivers to open schools, clubs, import luxury goods and even employ Indians without following Indian laws. The American Embassy in New Delhi was shown the magnanimity of blocking the road behind it in the name of security, while the Indian Embassy in Washington was even denied two parking spots. American diplomats have been enjoying special facilities at various airports in India, unlike Indian diplomats in the US. American Embassy staff were given passes to enter official areas where even senior civil servants, ministers and chief ministers could not tread. The Indian Prime Minister and Union ministers have been liberal in granting visiting US junior diplomats an audience. But for our ministers, getting an appointment with even a Secretary in the US government, let alone President Obama, would be unthinkable. The UPA has been so eager to oblige America that it even risked a fall by getting the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement passed, facing charges of political misconduct.

If that wasn’t enough, the Indian government went out of its way to save American companies from sinking during the economic recession by placing huge orders on capital equipment. America has been treating India as a bespoke colony, expecting Indians to surrender their self-respect. Since India opened up its economy to become a global player, it has been granting American companies preference over multinationals from other countries. During the past 10 years, India has placed orders worth `50,000 crore with US corporations for defence equipment and aircraft. India is America’s largest but unreciprocated trade partner. It has invested over $60 billion in US treasury bonds, thereby becoming America’s 17th largest investor. Even on international issues, the UPA would invite the ire of its domestic constituencies by supporting US policy on Sri Lanka and Iran. Indian corporate Caesars have been liberal in funding American academia with millions of dollars, which they rarely do for Indian institutions. In America they perceive a natural ally who would fight against terror, dictatorships and communist expansionism for mutual benefit. Indians of American-origin contribute bounteously to parties during the US elections.

The Devyani episode has proved that America preaches democracy and peace but practices dictatorship and exclusivity. Anyone who questions their arbitrariness and arrogance would be treated as an enemy. Even after extracting maximum economic flesh from India, no American company or the US government has shown even a minor interest in protecting India’s dignity and security. In reality, they have been supporting the anti-India forces in our neighbourhood, closing their eyes against terror camps in Pakistan and imposing strict conditions on the immigration of Indian skilled labour to the US. They are tight-fisted while investing in India. According to official records, the cumulative FDI equity inflow into India was just $2 million until September 2013. About 20 per cent of it went to the services sector. Americans have refused to transfer technology and invest in immovable assets but are insisting on extremely liberal tax policies for their FIIs so that they could fatten their coffers by playing the markets.

Yet India has been magnanimous towards America. But the way they treated Devyani proves beyond any doubt that US policymakers are uncomfortable with India’s rise as an economic and military super power, which could challenge their supremacy one day. They have perhaps forgotten former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi who always showed them their place, whether it was over China or Pakistan. The US may have infiltrated the Indian establishment but it has wounded the heart of India. For Indians, protecting the prestige of the Tricolour is a matter of faith, which cannot be compromised by showering a bounty of dollars on a chosen few. The time has come for America to realise that India can be a friend, only as an equal and not as a follower.

Prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

In UPA Il's twilight, PMO takes wings..Power & Politics/The Sunday Standard /September 22, 2013

In UPA II's twilight, PMO takes wings for smooth takeoff of Manmohan's dream project

South Block’s current fatal obsession is not about engaging friends and foes of the world’s superpowers. For the past few weeks, the goalposts of Indian diplomacy have changed. All energies of the Indian establishment’s many paid and unpaid megaphones are being diverted to get the PM’s dream project airborne. Since the Nuclear Civil Agreement is Manmohan Singh’s single genuine achievement in his two terms in office, he wants to ensure that it takes off in with fanfare and fireworks. He couldn’t have chosen a better venue than Narendra Modi-ruled Gujarat. Suddenly, the diplomatic discourse that had moved towards peace talks with Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif has become just a footnote in the discussion papers in the dossiers prepared for the PM’s US visit next week. Since it is customary for all visiting Heads of State to carry gifts for their counterparts, the Indian PM has been advised to take along a copy of the pact between the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) and Westinghouse, the US multinational which supplies nuclear reactors to many.

Since the PM is an accidental politician who trusts more in his academics than political polemics, he doesn’t mind ignoring the electoral compulsions and fallout of his actions. It is not a coincidence that NPCIL was suddenly activated to seek legal opinion from the country’s top law officer on how to bypass nuances and legal bindings of the nuclear law passed by Parliament. The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) reports directly to the PM and all nuclear-related establishments like NPCIL and Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) fall under the ambit of PMO. According to reports and senior diplomats who facilitated the agreement in 2008, India promised various US globocorps over 10,000 MWs of power, worth over $20 billion in contracts. Five years later, not a single deal has been finalised because of the protective Clause 17 in the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act. It was understood that the Indian operator would insert a clause in the agreement which provides heavy compensation in case of any accident. But not only the US but also its corporates have mounted pressure on India to dilute this clause. For the past few months, top leaders like Vice-President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry have been protesting to Manmohan on the delay in the dilution of the liability laws. Even the heavyhitters in the Senate have been relentlessly attacking the UPA for its inaction.

Only last month, Mark Warner and John Cornyn wrote a strongly worded letter to President Obama: “Eight years later, the agreement has not been implemented and we have yet to see India provide a workable nuclear liability agreement that allows companies to move forward.” Curiously, US corporates are not mounting pressure on their own government to encourage the setting up of nuclear power plants at home. Even America’s steadfast ally Japan is dismantling its nuclear plants following Fukushima. Hence it was puzzling that Ashwani Kumar, the PM’s temporary special envoy to Japan, should boast about the assurance he claims to have received from the Japanese on extending help to India in our nuclear energy programme. Ironically, on the same day, Japanese PM Shinzo Abe had announced that the toxic remains of the Fukushima plant would be destroyed.  While the world can ignore the might of the greenback, it is India which dances to the tune of the American corporates.  

It is, therefore, not surprising that the government is determined to exploit the loopholes in the manipulated and mutilated mandate it got in Parliament to pass the nuclear agreement. Obama and the US nuclear lobby hustled the agreement through at home. But invisible and lucrative assurances given to the US during the 2008 negotiations through interlocutors are now beginning to surface. The mandarins of both White House and South Block with the backing of powerful business forums in both countries are now working overtime to finalise the fineprint of a draft which will allow Westinghouse entry in India’s nuclear energy business. But the roadblock is within. According to unconfirmed sources, the AEC which dealt with superpowers and the US to push the deal through is angry because DEA had bypassed it. Also, supporters of the well-tested Indo-Russian strategic relationship are of the view that the Americans can’t be trusted as they are guided by profit motives and would subvert any legal provision which ensures the security of Indian citizens. The fight between the pro-Russian and pro-American lobbies in India is acquiring dangerous proportions, leading to the leakage of several classified  documents. Even senior diplomats are surprised over the speed with which the PMO is promoting the nuke deal. Since most have been chosen for their ideological commitment to the US model and nuclear energy, they are likely to win in the end. On the other hand, those who are pleading for slow action feel that the next government may dilute the agreement. But these critics have been silenced by the PMO with the excuse that the BJP’s opposition to the unfolding revelations is pathetically feeble. Since the beneficiary of the dilution of the liability clause would be Gujarat—the palatine of BJP’s PM candidate—the PMO expects a rough but safe ride to Washington. Ironically, though Modi never misses an opportunity to attack Manmohan as a ‘maun pradhanmantri’, on nuclear projects for his state, Modi’s maunvrat has become Manmohan’s mantra for his mission. The PM may return to India wearing a broad smile and showing the V-sign even if it means an embarrassment to Congress and BJP leadership.

PS: Dr Rakesh Sood’s appointment as PM’s Special Envoy on Disarmament has stirred a hornet’s nest in the nuclear lobby within. As the PMO readies to take the N-deal forward, those who have failed to secure any post-retirement sinecures have started a whisper campaign. Their novel epiphany is that Sood would work against the deal. Some are even trying to restrain his responsibilities and minimise his say in any future nuclear engagement with the US. But the PM is in no mood to patronise the saboteurs.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

New dispensation will inherit... /Power & Politics /The Sunday Standard, September 08, 2013

New dispensation will inherit injured economy and diminished diplomatic legacy

Diplomacy is not just the art of sweeping difficult situations under the carpet. It is also an instrument to score invisible victories. Indian diplomats have acquired new expertise in converting inconvenient realities into inglorious heritage. Last week, when Defence Minister A K Antony was cornered for his ministry’s failure to contain the Chinese Army’s growing incursions along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), he blamed the 1962 war for India’s current border woes. Antony hardly speaks his own mind. But he was told by diplomats that sending strong signals of protest to the Chinese would provide fuel to warmongers and pseudo-nationalists. For the past few years, Indian diplomats have become internationalists who care more about how their words impact international community than their domestic consequences. Never before has the Indian Foreign Service been so concerned about kowtowing to aggressors like Pakistan and China as they are during the UPA regime. Absolving our hostile neighbours is their new mission. For example, for the past few months China’s People’s Liberation Army has been arrogantly establishing physical control over large areas falling on the Indian side of the LAC. But India’s Ambassador to Beijing Subrahmanyam Jaishankar is more concerned about his future responsibilities as India’s next ambassador to the US. It is during his three-year tenure that China successfully captured not only India’s markets by dumping cheap goods but also expanded her geographical girth. Yet he has been rewarded with a better assignment for failing to raise the alarm and advising the government to take corrective measures against our neighbour’s hostile intentions. Jaishankar represents the new breed of Indian diplomats who are successful in pursuing their own agenda even at the cost of damaging the political credibility of the government they serve. It is not surprising that not even once have the Opposition and foreign policy experts blamed our diplomats for ignoring the national mood. After some of them realised that in the New World Order, strategic and security considerations play an important role in their future prospects, they are succumbing to the pressure mounted by strategic thinkers. Since adopting an aggressive posture against Pakistan and China is deemed as going against global strategic considerations, South Block mandarins are willing to sacrifice good diplomacy to protect strategic dialogue, whether in India or abroad.

AK Antony's speech on China in Parliament reflects that Indian diplomats have become internationalists who care more about how their words impact the international community than their domestic consequences.

In the past decade, the offices of the National Security Advisors of countries, from the US to India, define the contours of diplomatic moves. Their objective is to ensure an unreal yet tenuous global peace even if the results are lethal economic and security blowbacks in the long run. It is not just a coincidence that both China and Pakistan have taken on India at a time when America is involved in containing or toppling regimes in West Asia using its military might. The US establishment is determined to ignore domestic opinion against military intervention in Syria. It’s no wonder that the US advises India to exercise restraint but ignores China and Pakistan’s military adventurism. Taking a cue from Big Brother, Indian opinion-makers and think tank “intellectuals” have maintained a diplomatic silence against US aggression in West Asia. New York was the centre for launching the US economic doctrine for the rest of the world. Now Washington has become the launching capital for defining the template for global security.

Last fortnight when I wrote about the collapse of Indian diplomacy, a failed and accidental diplomat launched a diatribe against me. Short of calling me names, he questioned my sources and logic, forgetting that I knew more about his kind of diplomacy and other shenanigans going on in South Block. There were a couple of factual errors in my column. The thrust of the article, however, was that cronyism is the key determinant for choosing diplomats to key positions. Some officers like Ashok Kantha and P S Raghavan mentioned in my column are outstanding officers with impeccable integrity, but their appointments were marred by the ad hoc selection of other colleagues for better sinecures. Now the government is moving fast to fill vacant posts and correcting past errors. For example, I questioned the absence of an expert to deal with the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Last week the Prime Minister chose Dr Rakesh Sood as his envoy to deal with disarmament. Sood is one of the rare diplomats who knows nuclear diplomacy and science like the back of his hand. Similarly, the foreign ministry finalised the appointment of the current Ambassador to Malaysia, Vijay Keshav Gokhale, a 1981-batch officer as India’s next envoy to Germany. His compulsory foreign language is Chinese, yet he has been picked to replace Sujatha Singh who took over as foreign secretary recently. T S Tirumurti, an Arabic-speaking officer of 1985 batch, replaces Gokhale. An excellent diplomat, Tirumurti has been “rewarded” for his rebellious nature; in 2011, he was moved from the key position of joint secretary (BSM). The Prime Minister, however, is yet to find a candidate for the UK because he has to make a choice between a person who can protect both the Indian market and security or one whose only concern would be to become a part of the diplomacy dictated by Big Brother.

As the elections draw near, the PMO is moving very cautiously, since the next government would scrutinise in detail the credentials and credibility of those diplomats who have been or would be chosen for important assignments. With half a dozen of them retiring within the next few months, Indian diplomacy is also likely to suffer much damage to its authority and effectiveness along with the political establishment. The new dispensation will not only inherit a mauled economy but also a diminished diplomatic legacy.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow  on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Diplomacy is More than just a Great Lunch/Power & Politics/ The Sunday Standard, April 8, 2012

India must realise that Diplomacy is more than Just a Great Lunch

When it comes to Pakistan leaders, India chooses to forget that country’s blood-stained politics and deathly diplomacy. Our fawning political leaders and cultural czars compete with each other in portraying visitors from Pakistan as our only hope for peaceful co-existence. President Asif Ali Zardari’s first trip to India with his son Bilal is billed as a turning point in Indo-Pak relations. South and North Block mandarins have been spending sleepless nights over the 20-hour visit of a head of state who has no control over even the geographical boundaries of his presidential palace. None of them were aware of the agenda or direction of discussion between Manmohan Singh and Zardari. The joke doing the rounds in South Block is that the discussion points for any meeting with a visiting dignitary from Pakistan can be found in the manifesto of political parties. The covers change during each election, but the contents remain the same. The Indian Prime Minister and Pakistan’s President have met over a dozen times in the past nine years. The venues may have changed. So have the costumes. But Pakistan has never delivered on the promises its leaders make to India. On the contrary, Pakistan-sponsored terrorists made Indian cities their killing fields, with Zardari and his army extending them safe haven. It would be an irony if India expects results from the visit of a person against whom the local judiciary has opened up many fronts, and is seen as the unauthorised occupant of an office which he doesn’t deserve and from where he can be ejected any day without fuss.

India is known for treating her guests as representatives of God. Zardari represents a country that does everything the Almighty never preaches. There are many in India who believe he represents the US which keeps him in power. Zardari’s visit makes a great event for those who are building castles of peace in sand dunes on the border, but in reality, is only a purposeless picnic by a powerless President of a failed state. Yet, Pakistan has many people in India who speak for its cause and interests.

Zardari is entitled to make a religious trip to any part of India. The government is expected to extend all the courtesies, which a visiting head of state deserves. But the government has nothing to gain by legitimising and raising expectations from the visit of a leader who can’t speak his own mind, leave alone deliver on anything. If key Union ministers and officials holding sensitive posts are in attendance for a one-on-one meeting, the country expects some tangible results. Already peaceniks and US-sponsored opinion-makers have declared that the visit would reduce the trust deficit between the two countries. If the track record of the Zardari regime is any indication, India would be wasting its time and energies on hosting a captive President. His government refuses to acknowledge the existence of terrorists and terror camps in Pakistan. It questions the meticulous evidence provided by the home ministry against Hafiz Saeed and his accomplices in carrying out the 26/11 terror attacks in which 166 people were slaughtered. It refuses to hand over 20 other fugitives responsible for murdering hundreds of innocent people in various parts of India.

Pakistan has been in denial for the past three decades. Undoubtedly, the country and its elitist establishment lay out the best of cuisine and seductive ambience to all important leaders visiting from India. They engage mehmans from Hindustan in 12-course dinners where music lasts till dawn. They send them home with expensive gifts. The same hosts also have powerful connections in the Washington establishment. Their only mandate is to manufacture confidential measures whereby Pakistan gets away with its murderous machinations against India while we keep living on false hope. There is no doubt that a politically stable and economically strong Pakistan is good not only for India but for entire Asia. The majority of Pakistanis would like to live peacefully and prosper but they have been suffering a military leadership that survives and thrives only on a hate-India agenda. On the other hand, the Indian leadership first talks tough following a terror incident only to later become a nation of peace lovers.

A luxurious lunch will not persuade Zardari or his controllers in Pakistan or elsewhere to dismantle the instruments and institutions of terror and hate. On the other hand, a red carpet rolled out for him by the Indian establishment will weaken his position further. In good diplomacy, results are never achieved through widely publicised luncheon meets. They are gained through hidden means and methods. India is yet to acquire and master that art. Pakistan has lost two wars, but it keeps chalking up decisive victories in the game of deceptive diplomacy.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Power & Politics/The Sunday Standard Magazine/ July 24, 2011

Our diplomats Speak for the Government, Not the Nation

Diplomacy is an abstract art; and diplomats across the world its perfect practitioners. They talk a lot but say nothing; they keep all options open. But Indian diplomats are fast becoming the exception to the rule. Of late, most of them have been specific, even explicit, in their assertions even if these are not in tune with national sentiment. The recent utterances of some of our senior-most diplomats make it clear that they enjoy being politically correct even it means being diplomatically incorrect. Consider the recent statement on Pakistan-sponsored terror by Nirupama Rao, our ambassador-designate to the US, on CNN-IBN. Rao asserted, “I think the prism through which they (Pakistan) see this issue has definitely been altered.” Later, she talked about the need to tackle only non-state elements and ignored the active support that the terrorists enjoy from official agencies. As if to prove her wrong, terrorists struck Mumbai just 10 days later and killed 18 innocent people. Two died later of their injuries. On what basis the outgoing foreign secretary gave the ‘character certificate’ to what Home Minister P Chidambaram calls the “global epicentre of terrorism” is known only to her.

Surprisingly, no global leader shares her perception or even the formulations on Pakistan expressed by External Affairs Minister S M Krishna during his interactions with Pakistan leaders and at various other international fora. Even visiting US Secretary State Hillary Clinton was much more indiscreet when she spoke about Pakistan. Despite the friendly and strategic US relationship with Pakistan, Hillary was quite harsh on our neighbour. In fact, she warned Pakistan that “they cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists anywhere” and “when we know the location of terrorists whose intentions are clear and need to work together in order to prevent those terrorists from taking innocent lives and threatening institutions of the state”. Interestingly, while Hillary was talking tough on Pakistan in New Delhi, back home the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested Ghulam Nabi Fai, executive director of the anti-India Kashmiri American Council. He was charged with being an ISI agent and involved in a conspiracy to influence key US officials on Kashmir policy. Compare this with our diplomats, who were not even willing to hazard a guess about the possible involvement of the ISI in the Mumbai attacks. For the past one week, Indian diplomats have weakened India’s case against Pakistan by letting an impression grow that the Mumbai incidents may not have been sponsored from across the border.

So, while the world is looking at Pakistan with suspicion, Indian diplomats and some leading politicians are still talking about dialogue and debate. From President Nicolas Sarkozy of France to Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain, most powerful world leaders have slammed Pakistan for harbouring and exporting terrorism. Last year, Sarkozy set the tone against Pakistan when he said, “It is unacceptable for the world that terrorist acts should be masterminded and carried out by terrorist groups trained in Pakistan.” Our foreign office mandarins, in contrast, can’t even ask Pakistan to wind up the terror camps operating inside the country. For the past few months, the foreign ministry has followed up the home ministry’s request to Pakistan to hand over the fugitives hiding there. Rao—while addressing a London-based think tank—made a strong case for a stable Pakistan which she hoped would act as a “bulwark against terrorism”, quite forgetting the categorical point made a few months ago by Hillary that “America cannot and shouldn’t solve Pakistan’s problems. That’s up to Pakistan.”

This stance of our diplomats baffles the political leadership. Some of them see it as the emergence of an alternative centre of power within the foreign office, which is following its own agenda. They see the diplomats taking advantage of a weak yet gentlemanly foreign minister and ignoring sensitive issues raised by the other ministries. While Pakistan diplomats are aggressively fighting for their country in global capitals, our ambassadors are either silent or making politically correct noises. Instead of isolating the country at world forums, our diplomats have allowed Pakistan to acquire the status of a victim of terrorism. Even after so many months, the foreign office hasn’t been able to get full access to Tahawwur Rana and David Coleman Headley, both accused in the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which 180 people were killed. The ministry has also failed in persuading the American establishment to force Pakistan to punish the perpetrators of the Mumbai carnage. None of them has made any impact on the American establishment in reviewing its relationship with Pakistan and supporting India on ISI-funded and sponsored violence in Jammu and Kashmir.

Indeed, with Indian diplomats becoming more vocal on international issues, there appears to be a reversal of roles. Earlier, it was the political leadership which would determine foreign policy and the diplomats would only implement it. India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who had veto power to decide on the contours of India’s external relations, allowed powerful diplomats to advise but not dictate to him. Those who succeeded him followed the same path, never allowing civil servants to take the lead. However, with the non-political Manmohan Singh as prime minister and a hands-off external affairs minister in South Block, the diplomats have

chosen to speak for the government but not for the nation.
prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com