The Hindu Business Line : A muddle on national security and foreign policy

Even those who support New Delhi's efforts to expand cooperation with the US are worried about the perceived readiness to accept American prescriptions on relations with Pakistan. One hopes the Manmohan Singh Government will allay these concerns, says G. PARTHASARATHY.

Dr Manmohan Singh's appointment as Prime Minister in 2004 was welcomed internationally. He was acknowledged as the architect of the economic reforms that had led to accelerated economic growth and evoked international and regional interest in India as an emerging economic power. He was respected as a person who observed the highest standards of financial probity in public life — an attribute in short supply in today's India. But with the passage of time, there is an acknowledgement that given his lack of a personal political base and the "compulsions of coalition politics," Dr Manmohan Singh does not wield the political authority of his predecessors. As an astute corporate chief remarked, Dr Manmohan Singh is the "Executive Director" and not the "CEO" of "India Inc". The nerve-centre of decision-making is no longer the Prime Minster's Office.

Most objective analysts agree that the July 18, 2005 India-US agreement on peaceful uses of nuclear energy is a well-crafted document. It signalled that after three decades, the US was prepared to work with India to end international sanctions on its nuclear programme. Dr Singh, however, failed to caution Parliament and the people that passage of this "deal" by the US Congress was going to be fraught with complications. He was also initially unwilling to assert that any provision that sought to restrict our nuclear weapons programme, or place extraneous conditions on fuel supplies for our reactors, would be rejected.

Nuclear Pressure?

The manner in which India voted at the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran's nuclear programme raised misgivings that the "nuclear deal" was being used to pressure India to fall in line with US global priorities. It was only after a sustained effort by the country's eminent nuclear scientists pointing out the serious implications of India accepting proposed US legislation that the Prime Minister was forced to yield to public and political pressure and unambiguously state in Parliament that any agreement with the US that did not guarantee fuel supplies for the lifetime of reactors, or sought to place unacceptable conditions on plutonium reprocessing, or bilaterally restrict our right to test nuclear weapons if needed, would be unacceptable.

Relations with major centres of power such as Russia, the European Union and Japan have developed satisfactorily under Dr Singh. Attempts have been made to build links with the Members of the European Parliament. The visit of the Prime Minister to Tokyo at a time when Japan has in Mr Shinzo Abe, a particularly India friendly Prime Minister, presents opportunities for forging a new strategic partnership with Japan, in the emerging strategic architecture of the Asia-Pacific.

India's Look East Policy is maturing with New Delhi participating in the East Asia Summit. India is today one amongst a small group of countries invited for G-8 meetings at the summit level.

Given the growing appreciation of its democratic credentials and economic potential, India was elected to the UN Human Rights Council by a thumping majority. But the fiasco of nominating Mr Shashi Tharoor for the high office of UN Secretary-General proved a diplomatic disaster, which sullied India's reputation and largely nullified the diplomatic gains from earlier victories in elections to UN bodies. It also exposed the fact that in undertaking such ill-advised diplomatic initiatives, Dr Singh yields all too easily to domestic political pressures.

No real China strategy

The Manmohan Singh Government has shown little understanding of issues of national security. It lacks a comprehensive strategy on how to respond to China's maritime encirclement of India through its "string of pearls" policies in the Indian Ocean, extending across Thailand, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Maldives and Seychelles. It has worsened the internal security situation by the revocation of POTA, the cease-fire with the ULFA at a time when the Army had the ULFA on the run and by the disastrous cease-fire with Naxalites in Andhra Pradesh.

The Prime Minister has severely eroded the effectiveness of our counter-terrorism strategy against Pakistan through ill-advised moves and statements, such as his equating India and Pakistan as "victims of terrorism". By his ill considered and hasty decision to set up a "Joint Mechanism" on terrorism with Pakistan, without giving any deep thought to even what the terms of reference of the Group should be, he has allowed Pakistan to put us in a position where, by participating in this ludicrous "Joint Mechanism," we are tacitly accepting that terrorist violence in Jammu and Kashmir is a "freedom struggle" and not "terrorism".

The Prime Minister's blunders in dealing with the issue of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism should be evident from the fact that while he empathises with Gen Pervez Musharraf as being a "victim of terrorism," Ms Benazir Bhutto proclaims: "Why is it that all terrorist plots in Madrid, London, Mumbai, seem to have roots in Islamabad? Pakistan's military and intelligence services have for decades used religious parties to recruit. Political Madrasssas (religious schools that preach terrorism by perverting the faith of Islam) have spread by the tens of thousands."

On March 15, Mr Pranab Mukherjee said: "While terrorism is perpetrated by non-state actors in most parts of the world, in India, militants and terrorists are also sponsored and aided by agencies across our borders."

Imaginative approach

It must, however, be acknowledged that the Prime Minister has taken an imaginative approach to dealing with Pakistan on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. By firmly proclaiming that there can be "no change in borders" Dr Singh has now got General Musharraf to respond with a set of proposals that constitute the beginning of a practical basis for evolving a framework for resolving the Kashmir issue, over a period of years. While moving in this direction, we should insist that what we are seeking is a "permanent" and not an "interim" solution.

Statements by Dr Singh suggesting that a withdrawal from Siachen was impending and that he would show "zero tolerance for human rights violations," without a word of praise for the dedication and restraint of our armed forces in defending our territorial integrity have only confused and demoralized our armed forces.

At the same time, the nuclear establishment has grave misgivings about the Prime Minister's commitment to the development of our nuclear deterrence and the growth of our indigenous fast breeder nuclear power programme.

During his tenure as Finance Minister, Dr Singh was unsparing in cutting the Defence budget and being parsimonious in allocations for nuclear power. We lost the strategic edge we had in the 1980s, thereby tempting Pakistan to embark on its Kargil misadventure.

While there may have been compelling reasons for these decisions, the perception does nevertheless persist that on issues of nuclear policy Dr Singh thinks more like fellow economist Dr Amartya Sen, rather than those who adopt a realist approach to national security.

Even those who support the Prime Minister's efforts to expand cooperation with the US are worried about what is perceived as his readiness to accept American prescriptions on conducting relations with Pakistan. One hopes Dr Singh will allay these concerns in the second half of his tenure as Prime Minister.

(The author is a former High Commissioner to Pakistan.)

More Stories on : Security | Foreign Relations

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
What price preference?

Reforms: Putting the horse before the cart

When politics trumps economics

A Standard, revised and deferred

Towards a less rigorous Standard

Who are `neutral CAs'?

For a business civilisation that is humane

A muddle on national security and foreign policy

Remunerative prices