• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

M. Rajesh

WHAT determines the international standing of a nation? Is it the ability to mould international events to its liking; or to have a decisive role in the decision-making apparatus of world bodies; or to act promptly and effectively in situations that are thrust upon it? Conversely, is it the ability to impose negative payoffs on countries or entities which affect its vital national interests? Perhaps, it is a combination of all these which determine the relative weights of countries on the world diplomatic front.

Success on the diplomatic front depends on these aspects. A country that fails to project itself positively on these fronts will fail to protect its national interest in international fora.

One of the primary tests for the prestige and diplomatic effectiveness is a country's responses when aspects of its vital national interests are infringed upon. A great power acts with intensity, aplomb and confidence, while a marginal state buckles under pressure. When the al-Qaeda-led terrorists attacked the World Trade Centre, it was treated as an attack on the sovereignty of the American people. Result: An assault on the Taliban regime, which was supposed to be the nerve centre of disruptive activities. No principle of caution and restraint was considered relevant by the Americans in their conduct of international affairs.

How does a soft state such as India behave in times of peril?

The hijacking of IC-814 was a direct attack on the country's ability to safeguard the life and personal liberty of its citizens. India's response was typically soft. We did not attempt to storm the aircraft or immobilise it even when it was in our territory. Ultimately, we capitulated by giving in to the demands of the hijackers. This emboldened our errant neighbour considerably. It went a step further and launched blistering attacks, first on the legislative complex in J&K and then on Parliament.

It should well be remembered that all this came after the Pakistani military's illegal occupation of the heights at Kargil and neighbouring sectors. Our response in both cases where our democratic symbols were attacked was also typically soft.

After the initial hard-talk by the political leadership, India's response mellowed down to initiating efforts on the diplomatic front, where our considerations received little attention. The international community is less receptive to India's outbursts, in spite of the fact that the links between the epistemic communities of India and the West is fairly strong. One can only understand this in terms of the current global psyche. The world community is more inclined to react with interest in cases where the negative payoffs of ignoring a country in the international fora are great.

India's responses have not been proactive enough for the world to fear it going on the offensive. This explains much of the "wise counselling" by the international community.

It is true that Pakistan is no Afghanistan and that any high-intensity conflict would entail huge losses (Business Line, December 12). But if events are to be perceived in the long run, the slow bleeding process imposed on India by Islamabad is more damaging to the economy and the psyche of the nation than a short-term high-intensity conflict. Moreover, the effect of a more proactive policy can be symbolic too — that we are no longer ready to take things lying down. This could be limited to the elimination of the infrastructure of militants on both sides of Kashmir. Thus, it need not result in a full-fledged war.

Moreover, if Pakistan is no Afghanistan, India too is no Palestine. Its military and technological might far over-rides that of Pakistan. In fact, that Pakistan has tasted unmitigated disasters on the military front in all encounters between the two neighbours since Independence will prevent it from going in for a full-scale war as a response to any pro-active policy adopted by India.

Diplomacy could be a good strategy in a scenario in which pay-offs from diplomatic efforts are encouraging. For the Lahore effort, we were stabbed at Kargil; for our Agra effort, symbols of democracy were attacked in J&K and later in New Delhi. The success of any diplomatic effort will depend on the degree to which we demonstrate our strength on the policy front.

The violation of rights by any side is deplorable. Just as the common people should be protected from this, it is the Government's duty to ensure that the rights of its armed forces are not infringed upon by subversive elements. One of the primary conditions for this to happen is to ensure their operational freedom, which also includes the right to attack and destroy those who aid and abet terrorist activities. The world acknowledges action and not inaction. Restraint is a virtue when universally practised, but a vice when practised in an isolated manner. Thus, let us look at the whole picture — world order — and not try to make virtue of a vice. If we aspire to be a great power, let us begin to act like one. The need of the hour is to act boldly and be proactive.

(The author is Assistant Regional Director, IGNOU, Karnal, Haryana.)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section
Delicensing dilemmas

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line