By Swapan Dasgupta
There was a brief period in the mid-1990s when
Indian newspapers suddenly began carrying front page reports of a conflict in
the Balkans that few readers understood and fewer were interested in. The
reason was quirky. Those were the days when cable TV enabled us to view CNN and
BBC but domestic regulations prevented the entry of Indian TV channels—apart
from DD. Consequently, impressionable chief subs imagined that the hierarchy of
news that resonated among the editorial classes in Atlanta and White City, London,
had to find reflection in India.
Mercifully, that era was short-lived and the G-20
summit with its preoccupation with the impasse over Syria attracts the
inevitable yawn from a readership that is too preoccupied with domestic
concerns. Mercifully too India is represented by a PM who is naturally
taciturn. Imagine the plight of the global leaders if, in addition to the cold
stares that Obama and Putin have exchanged, it was subjected to a moral sermon
on global iniquities by a Jawaharlal Nehru who had an opinion on everything and
never made a secret of them.
One of the more positive contributions to post-Cold
War foreign policy by P.V. Narasimha Rao—a canny, old fox—was that India
stopped being preachy and confined its focus to matters that directly affected
it. Of course, an escalation of the civil war in Syria following possible US
air attacks to punish President Bashar al-Assad for his alleged use of chemical
weapons against the rebel army will have a direct bearing on India’s limping
economy by driving up oil prices and unleashing another wave of jihad. Yes,
India has a direct interest in keeping the conflict localised. But the more
pertinent question is: are we in any position to influence the course of
events? Do we have the capacity to wag a finger at either the US, France and
Russia or, for that matter, the theocrats in Iran who are itching to take
advantage of an enlarged conflict?
Earlier this week, during the Australian election
campaign, Liberal Party leader Tony Abbott (who may well be PM next week)
advised his country to exercise exemplary caution on the Syrian crisis.
Australia shouldn’t, he said, “be getting ideas beyond our station.” This is
probably the most pragmatic and wise thing any politician has said in recent
times and it is one that, quite fortuitously, India must use as its guiding
principle in foreign policy.
This is not to thereby imply that Damascus and Delhi
are bound together by a ‘special relationship’ centred on dynastic rule. That
there is huge internal dissatisfaction against the Assad regime is undeniable. The
exasperation with one-party autocratic rule that began in Tunisia two years ago
has proved extremely contagious. But the outpouring of resentment has also
taken a direction that doesn’t correspond to enlightened values. Democracy and
human rights are not absolute principles as some Western leaders seem to
imagine; they are grounded in a political and cultural context that often defy
those very ideals.
The post-9/11 interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq
had a greater measure of support throughout the world. But this tacit
endorsement of intrusive and, very often, drone diplomacy, have today bred
greater scepticism. Perhaps this has got a great deal to with what historian
Niall Ferguson detected as America’s lack of an Empire mindset. Whatever the
reasons, India’s western neighbourhood is in a state of turmoil. More
important, the ‘baddies’ Washington sought to eradicate—partly as an extension
of its own homeland security—have regrouped and are likely to create problems
for India in the not-too-distant future. The only other country that is likely
to face even more serious consequences of the West’s inability to cope with
‘foreign’ problems is Israel. But political correctness has deemed that it is ‘not
done’ to be so forthright about the natural convergence of interests between
India and Israel.
Sunday Times of India, September 8, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment