Mosul, the second-lar-gest Ira-qi ci-ty, fell to the rabidly militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria on June 10, unleashing a serious security challenge for the Modi government as 85 Indians were trapped in areas it controlled. While 46 nurses were at a hospital in Tikrit, 39 workers were moved from their work site to an unknown Mosul destination.
Suresh Reddy, till recently ambassador to Iraq, was rushed back to assist his successor and Indian ambassadors to Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and other relevant countries were summoned by Sushma Swaraj, the external affairs minister. Understandably, some of the moves were veiled, as the government tapped all possible resources.
It was obvious from the beginning that critical to a resolution would be GCC countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and even the United Arab Emirates. Iran, Turkey and Syria were also vital, particularly as the last two reportedly allowed ISIS to rise as an antidote to the then radical threat from the Al Qaeda-aligned al-Nusra group battling the Assad government.
Unfortunately, in the first month and a half Ms Swaraj has been largely chair-bound, except one trip accompanying the Prime Minister to Bhutan. The GCC appeared lower on the to-do tasks of the debutante head of the foreign office. What she needed instead was to quickly retrieve the gains made during the Vajpayee government in this sensitive region, home to about six million Indians, besides being a source for energy and destination for expo-rts.
As the Gulf ruling families have acquired accoutrements of power and pelf, prominent Indians and diplomats no longer have easy access to higher echelons via the majlis system or directly. Diplomats contend with the bureaucracies of the foreign offices while the Indians operate through their rich Arab sponsors. This arrangement suited Congress-led governments as their Kerala supporters became facilitators in this arms-length tackling of the ruling families. However, the Indian businessman needs the Arab rulers more than the Indian government.
The Vajpayee government allowed these rules of engagement to be changed, empowering envoys to create direct lines of communication. When L.K. Advani, then home minister, arrived in UAE in July 2001 on a private visit, not only was he received by President Sheikh Zayed, but his favourite son, Sheikh Mohammed, and two brothers came to the ambassador’s house for lunch.
The Indian community welcomed this changing dynamics where the ruling families had begun to take the Indian government seriously. In fact, when Sheikh Mohammed, now the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and next President, visited India in 2003, the writer brought along three most prominent Indian businessmen in Abu Dhabi to get them access to the Sheikh. One of them used it subsequently to become perhaps the richest Indian in the Gulf.
Regrettably, over 10 years of United Progressive Alliance government, the Malayalee network in the Prime Minister’s Office and around Sonia Gandhi and select Indian businessmen assumed a quasi-diplomatic role in India-UAE relations. Ruling families are happier using someone dependent on their goodwill to be a buffer in dealing with India.
This would have happened in each GCC country, with MEA losing direct clout with the rulers. In addition, a series of UPA ministers had progeny employed or in business in these countries, making them more liable to pressures and less respected by the ruling families.
Ms Swaraj needed to be on the plane to befriend key interlocutors the minute the Iraq crisis dawned. In diplomacy generally, but with Gulf Arabs in particular, face-to-face engagement is critical. These 85 abductees may not be the last Indians held by ISIS as the battlefield may shift to new areas. Thus, while the Indian strategy in the short term can be to get Indians released, in the long term India has to prepare for a destabilised region.
The manner of release of the nurses raises questions about whether India is being tactical or has a broader game plan. If the nurses were brought to Mosul from Tikrit before being driven to the Kurdish Autonomous Region border, then why were the 39 workers held in the same city not released? That the ISIS controls Mosul is evident from the appearance on June 4 of self-proclaimed caliph Ibrahim in the Great Nurrudin Mosque to sermonise.
Employers of Turkish drivers, released just prior to the nurses, claimed the ISIS wanted a ransom of $50,000 per driver, though the Turkish government denied paying any money. The Turks too still have more citizens, including diplomats, held by ISIS. Some reports indicate that Turkey may have promised much-needed fuel rather than cash. There is talk of some Malayalee Gulf businessmen playing a role in the release. Hopefully the release of the nurses was part of a broader strategy to pressure ISIS through sponsors present or past and not the handiwork of privateers from Kerala.
The developing fault lines between Sunni and Shia Islam, which can affect their adherents in India, require attention. The move to sign Indian volunteers to defend Shia holy places needs to be contained. Although Samarra, which has the tombs of the 10th and 11th imams as well as being the birthplace of the 12th and last proclaimed al-Mahdi, may be more vulnerable than Karbala and Najaf. The Indian connection to the Shia holy cities dates from the Awadh endowments, which first created, in the late 1700s, the Hindiyya canal to bring the water of the Euphrates to a parched Najaf and then sustained clergy in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Can the Modi government resume the Vajpayee government’s success in directly engaging the rulers of GCC and Iran, as indeed now the emerging competing power centres in Iraq? A rising India cannot have a static world view, coloured by self-prescribed priorities. Ms Swaraj has to liberate South Block to deal not just with the world as it is, but with what it is fast becoming.
The writer a former secretary in the external affairs ministry. He tweets at @ambkcsingh
