As the 100-day mark of the Modi government approaches, report cards are being prepared. While it may be early to judge the efficacy of economic handling or developmental agenda, changes in both style and substance of diplomacy are easier to decipher.
In fact, Narendra Modi as Prime Minister-designate delivered a coup de grace by his surprise move to invite the other seven Saarc leaders, besides Mauritius, for his swearing-in. His tilt towards Japan, particularly his equation with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and his past visa trouble with the US were already known. The presence of the Prime Minister of Tibet at the same function was seen as signalling to China the rise of a different leader in New Delhi. But above all it was the meeting between the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan that elicited the most interest and overnight made Mr Modi a statesman.
First, on the positive side, Mr Modi’s quick visits to Bhutan and Nepal sent a clear message that he recognised the two buffer states were critical for Indian security and India was not ready to cede ground to China. Bhutan is transitioning to a greater diplomatic role in the world, including perhaps allowing China diplomatic presence in Thimphu. While India cannot and need not stymie Bhutanese outreach, it also cannot have Chinese penetration adversely tilt the balance in India-Bhutan relations. The mutually beneficial economic links based on tapping hydro-power potential of Bhutan are a model for Saarc.
The Nepal visit also went well as Mr Modi used reassuring rhetoric in his address to their Parliament to say India would not interfere in Nepal’s internal affairs. He said it was for Nepalese politicians to determine their future constitutional order. He buried the lingering allegation of the India-Nepal treaty being unequal by inviting Nepal to suggest changes. His rather extensive puja at Pashupatinath Temple underscored symbolically the shared heritage.
The visit left cooperation in the hydro-power field open as Nepal will continue to resist huge projects due to displacement of population, etc. The India-Bhutan model cannot be extrapolated to Nepal as it has a different terrain and population size. It would have been better if Mr Modi had returned via Lumbini, the birthplace of Buddha both to balance the Pashupatinath visit abd the proposed Chinese funding for developing it as a tourist centre.
The imploding India-Pakistan relations, however, exemplify the perils of half-baked, instant summitry. It was apparent even on May 27 that Nawaz Sharif had not yet surmounted either his Army problem, despite appointing a handpicked Chief of Army Staff, or the jihadi conundrum, unwilling as he was to declare war on terror per se due to his fear of retribution at the hands of the Punjabi groups.
Mr Sharif wanted a sentimental journey back to Lahore, forgetting Kargil, the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament, the 2003 Mumbai train bombings and, eventually, the 2008 Mumbai carnage. Mr Modi, on the other hand, assumed office promising a more muscular response to Pakistan’s selective use of terror. When the two leaders met and announced foreign-secretary-level talks, it was assumed that terms of engagement, modified or not, had been settled. Pakistan’s domestic political situation, meanwhile, grew muddied with Imran Khan and Tahir-ul-Qadri mounting marches on Islamabad seeking the government’s resignation. Simultaneously, the Pakistani Army increased ceasefire violations across the Line of Control and international border. The relationship was in free fall and India should have pulled the plug citing Mr Sharif’s slipping control. It chose instead the Pakistani high commissioner’s meeting with the Hurriyat leadership, despite Indian warnings to desist, to cancel the Indian foreign secretary’s visit.
While hardcore Modi supporters exulted in the clear redrawing of red lines, the issue is, could it not have been handled without India backing into a corner. Making “do not talk to Hurriyat” a new precondition may be a bar too high for any Pakistani government. Following the Delhi meeting of the Prime Ministers, there should have been a gradual buildup to a further meeting of the Prime Ministers on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly accompanied by quiet diplomacy to allow each side to measure acceptability of new ground rules, if any. India would also have bought time to see how Pakistan’s internal situation developed.
The handling of Japan has also been erratic. After letting it be known that Japan would be the first country Mr Modi would visit, its sudden postponement followed a call on the Prime Minister by the Chinese foreign minister as well as a Modi-Xi meeting on the sidelines of the Brics Summit. The Japanese have been left puzzled. It is good that Mr Modi is now rectifying this by adding a day to his Japan trip. The balance that India will have to maintain in the India-US-Japan-China quadrangle needs defter handling of all sides than so far demonstrated.
Chinese President Xi Jingping’s India visit in September, followed by Mr Modi’s visit to Washington, would complete the initial summitry by the new Indian Prime Minister. A successful visit to Japan will strengthen his hands in negotiating with China. But US President Barack Obama would be waiting with his own wishlist, on top of which will be Indian vetoing of the Trade Facilitation Agreement, modification of Indian nuclear liability law, defence cooperation and methods for strategic convergence.
Hopefully, Mr Modi has a grand vision that is guiding his diplomatic moves. Going by his handling of Pakistan and the WTO, the tactics have been erratic. The world is looking for a predictable India. Mr Modi has two vital months ahead to convince them. Meanwhile, on foreign policy he scores high on vision but low on implementation.
The writer is a former secretary in the external affairs ministry. He tweets at @ambkcsingh
