Ideological Compatibility ....... Power & Politics/The Sunday Standard/January 04, 2015

Ideological Compatibility Among Ministerial Troika Strengthens Modi-fied Pak Policy

According to the great 6th century BC Chinese general Sun Tzu, who authored The Art of War, “Invincibility lies in the defence, the possibility of victory in the attack.” Now in 21st century India, for the first time since Independence, a strong defence and offence strategy is in place. This was evident on Friday when the Indian Coast Guard intercepted a Pakistani boat laden with explosives and terrorists whose ostensible purpose was to repeat the 26/11 attacks. The pre-emptive action was the outcome of a properly coordinated strategy prepared by the ministries of Home, Defence and External Affairs with the PMO fully in the loop on one of the most successful operations against India’s enemies.

Undoubtedly, the number of Pakistani incursions, LoC violations and terrorist infiltration has risen during the past six months, but the Modi government has decided to pay Pakistan back in the same coin, be it forceful retaliation to enemy fire or blowing up a terrorist boat. The wait and watch approach to Pakistan has been thrown into the dungheap. If comments made by the stakeholders of India’s security are indications, it is obvious that the PM has chosen to follow bullets-for-bullets tactics towards Pakistan.

The change in perception and strategy is not by accident. It is embedded in the composition of Modi’s Cabinet and the restructured security establishment. Earlier, various ministers and officials were able to impose their personal preferences when it came to dealing with Pak-led terrorism. There was little ideological connectivity between those who ran the ministries of Defence, Home and External Affairs. Modi has ensured that the Big Three—Home Minister Rajnath Singh, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar—complement, instead of confronting each other on national security. Not only are they die-hard Hindutva followers, but also none of them have been part of any kind of pro-Pak backroom diplomacy or belong to the peacenik club. No power player in any Western capital could ever have dreamt that an IIT-ian from a tiny state like Goa would be chosen to lead India’s gargantuan defence ministry. Swaraj and Rajnath are ‘fortunate’ victims of the class apartheid enforced by the Indian elite. Defence agents, international lobbyists and hawkers of Hawks jets, fighter planes, submarines and other defence equipment had thought it was below their dignity to include them on their mailing lists. Hence, the exclusivity of the three tigers has become India’s virtue.

The champions of dialogue and commerce with Pakistan would never have imagined the triumvirate occupying three of the five powerful corner rooms in South and North Blocks, where security strategies are evolved. Rajnath, Parrikar and Swaraj have acquired a reputation of a troika on a track, which means to destroy those hostile to India. They are working not for fame in Washington, London, New York, Mumbai or Lutyens’ Delhi but to make Pakistan an international pariah who breeds and feeds jihadists. Their mission is smooth, because the PM himself and NSA Ajit Doval have given them total support in their endeavour.

Defence analysts expect that ideological compatibility of the key players of Indian defence strategy will be able to restore some sanity to the Pak Army and its political leadership. Now, through Track-II brigade, they will not be able to infiltrate directly or indirectly Modi’s new fortress-like framework. Rajnath, Swaraj, Parrikar and Doval have minds of their own and directly report and discuss every issue with the PM. They have blighted the chances of many retired defence officials, superannuated diplomats, journalists and corporate leaders by making them irrelevant, and thus unemployable by any Janus-faced international agency or NGO, which encourages the arms race while propagating dialogue. Most of them were collecting commercial and strategic information during interactions with ministers and senior civil servants in previous regimes. All such informal espionage has stopped for the time being, since there are no conflicts of opinion either in the BJP’s political forums or the government hierarchy.

Modi, it seems, has learnt lessons from the past and has avoided choosing opportunists who pursued their own agendas without staying true to self-professed ideology. With promise of strong action against Pakistan during election rallies, Modi was deviating from the thinking of even Atal Bihari Vajpayee, whose political DNA made him evade confrontation in dealing with Pakistan. Kargil was forced on him. Vajpayee’s magnanimity was mistaken as weakness. During NDA I, there were differences between home minister L K Advani, foreign minister Jaswant Singh, defence minister George Fernandes and NSA Brijesh Mishra on Pakistan policy. Advani was overruled many times when he suggested strong action against the country whenever its terror plots were unearthed. The pro-US Mishra was always in favour of indulging Pakistan. Despite strong division within the Cabinet, Jaswant bartered with terrorists and accompanied them to Afghanistan to bring back a hijacked Indian Airlines plane in December 1999.

During the UPA’s rule, from PM Manmohan Singh to defence minister A K Antony, not one leader favoured an eye-for-an-eye approach towards Pakistan. Home minister Shivraj Patil, Antony and foreign ministers like S M Krishna, Natwar Singh and Salman Khurshid followed the diktat from the PMO or NSA Shiv Shankar Menon. The regime was habitually receptive to guidance from the US. Starting from 1950, none of the over three dozen defence, external affairs and home ministers had ever spoken—until now—in one voice on a decisive Pakistan policy. From Nehru to Manmohan, it was the acceptability among the classes and not the masses that dictated India’s response to its belligerent neighbour. All our leaders were influenced by non-state players of India or Pakistan while taking the final call. Modi has so far resisted all external pressures, which have tried to influence his strategic and diplomatic initiatives. The Modi-fied command and response mechanism has sent a clear message. The PM is convinced that any “strategy without tactics is the shortest route to victory”. Sun Tzu would agree.

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

PM's Lanka decision proves ...Power & Politics/The Sunday Standard/Nvoember 10, 2013

PM's Lanka decision proves he is no longer India's sole arbiter on foreign relations

The broth of diplomacy could turn out to be a noxious concoction made of “scale of dragon; tooth of wolf; witches’ mummy; and maw and gulf” if the pot is stirred sans care and caution. Throw in a dose of dilemma, and diplomacy is certain to cause undiplomatic trauma—the current mot juste for the Indian diplomatic community’s state of mind. For the past few weeks, PM Manmohan Singh is under tremendous pressure to choose between pleasant pastures of international diplomacy and the quirky quicksands of domestic politics. He has now discovered that good diplomacy could be ‘Adder’s fork, and blind worm’s sting’ for the Congress’ political interests. His indecisiveness on participation in the CHOGM to be held in Colombo next week reflected his vulnerability. Diplomats have always deplored the influence of domestic or regional politics on international relations and the PM has been a fellow traveller. But as the countdown to general elections begins, he is more concerned about winning the election than maintaining consistent faith in traditional diplomacy. The current contours of Indian diplomacy are being defined by those expected to be the kingmakers after 2014. The magic number of 40 (including Puducherry) Lok Sabha seats from Tamil Nadu is defining the UPA’s foreign policy. The PM’s conciliatory contortions to soothe Tamil anger over his Sri Lanka visit was quite droll, though he was bold enough to defy the BJP which demanded suspension of the Indo-Pak dialogue because of cross-border terrorism, since they are as unlikely to form a coalition in 2014 as Macbeth’s witches would brew elixir. The Indian PM has always dictated foreign policy from the days of Jawaharlal Nehru, one of those who midwifed the CHOGM—a result of Nehruvian romance with international diplomacy. In the age of coalition politics, even diplomacy has become an effective instrument of votebank politics. Currently, dialogue with Pakistan is a sign of secularism, which pays rich political dividends. Boycotting CHOGM is a regional weapon to capture votes and power. Even liberal Congress ministers who otherwise would have nudged the PM to defy regional parties advised him against any adventurism fearing worse electoral humiliation in Tamil Nadu. Even the BJP, ideologically in simpatico with Sri Lanka’s ruling establishment, prefers to beat around the bush because it, too, expects one of the Tamil parties to support its PM candidate.

PM Manmohan Singh with Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa

CHOGM wasn’t an important noting on Manmohan’s diplomatic diary in 2011. He had requested Vice-President Hamid Ansari to represent India. Though CHOGM can hardly influence international diplomacy, it has become an instrument for India to dominate dialogue; at least among smaller nations. With over a dozen other multi-nation platforms including ASEAN, G-20, BRICS and SAARC being prima donnas of South Asian diplomatic savoir-faire, CHOGM has lost its sheen and relevance since the same subjects are discussed at its venues too. Those opposed to Manmohan’s Sri Lanka visit had argued that CHOGM failed to guarantee that Sri Lanka adhered to principles when it blatantly flouted the 14-point 1971 Singapore Resolution which mandates members to ensure human rights protection. In the past, CHOGM had suspended Pakistan, Nigeria, Fiji and Zimbabwe for human rights violations. Unfortunately, none of its rich and powerful members have attacked Sri Lanka for the Tamil genocide. Most members take divergent positions at various forums, and no  important multilateral issue has been resolved because of differing loyalties. Sri Lanka has been wooing the Chinese for the past few years by granting increasing access to its ports and markets. It is not merit but pure politics, which is forcing Manmohan to surrender his only fief in the government. He attended three of the last four CHOGMs. Though not officially announced yet but with all indications implying the same, by deciding to miss the last one of his tenure, he would prove he is no longer India’s sole arbiter on foreign relations.

Come November, New Delhi becomes the salubrious rendezvous point for international meetings and seminars. Post recession, New Delhi has lost its global corporate clientele. Instead, it is now hosting diplomats from countries experiencing bad weather. Foreign secretary Sujatha Singh decided to invite 140 heads of Indian Missions for a four-day brainstorming session. Prime Minister, the Commerce Minister and the National Security Advisor addressed the jamboree. Unlike in the past, the meeting was more interactive. A short 450-word summary explaining the salient features of the PM’s speech was uploaded on the MEA’s website. As usual, the PM’s address was very high on principles and low on count. Most of those who participated found serious contradictions between what he meant by effective diplomacy to protect national interests and what the Congress was pursuing on ground. At the end, they were left wondering what their job would be—selling the ruling party’s line or that of their ministry and the PM’s. But their major grouse was that though they were flown first class to India, they were handed just Rs 5,000 a day to find accommodation.

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