A recent overseas visit by Prime Minister Narendra Modi was described by a prolific strategic affairs analyst as an occasion when relations were taken “to a new level”, while progress was achieved in component parts, “such as trade, investment, terrorism and strategic ties”. This commentary may well have been occasioned by the Prime Minister’s visit to Iran last weekend. In reality, it referred to his trip to Saudi Arabia a month-and-a-half earlier.

At first glance, this would seem immaterial. A catechism diplomats learn is that details may vary in relations with specific countries, but underlying interests remain unchanged. That of course would be a convincing argument, if the vocabulary of diplomacy were not subject to brutal and frequent bouts of torture to make it fit expedient situations.

Modi’s meeting with the Iranian spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei illustrated how perceptions that are widely adrift could be bridged in a formal sense, through the artful deployment of a vocabulary that conceals substantive differences. As reported by an Iranian news agency, Khamenei warmly lauded India’s economic progress and expressed his appreciation for its abstinence from the proliferation of global axes that claim to combat terrorism. Several western nations that seek ownership over the campaign, he said, had little serious intent and were instead seeding and nurturing terrorist groups in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Only those countries which were not camp followers of the US, said Khamenei, could meaningfully carry forward the battle.

Modi seemingly agreed and reminded his host that India had consistently opposed the practice of differentiating between terrorism in its “good” and “bad” variants. Where western double-standards were the sub-text of Khamenei’s words, Modi’s tacit reference was to the pain that Pakistan inflicts. India seemingly has no problem with western double-standards and indeed has been expending diplomatic capital in getting these to work to its advantage.

Diplomacy is about selectively revealing a part of the hidden meaning of words, in accordance with the audience. This imposes a burden in terms of identifying the terms of art appropriate for every encounter, though substantive progress would be negligible as long as words are used to obscure fundamentals.

How would the vocabulary of Modi’s meeting with Khamenei travel to a similar encounter with the top leadership of Saudi Arabia? A joint statement issued after the early-April visit to the kingdom, paid florid homage to the “custodian of the two holy mosques” of Islam, while laying down a template for military cooperation between the two countries. Among the objectives identified were the maritime security of the Gulf and the internal stability of littoral states. “Extremism and terrorism”, the statement pronounced, were a threat to all nations. There was no link between “this universal phenomenon” and any “particular race, religion or culture”.

Saudi Arabia has reason to be in a state of nervous anxiety. After years when it set down an agenda for the Arab world that had eager US endorsement, there are signs of a breach. Chaos in Syria, where the Saudis have relentlessly pursued regime change, are creating conditions that threaten blowback in the West. Russia’s strongly signalled resolve to defend the Syrian regime has compelled the US to sue for peace. The Islamic State militia, which almost certainly had Saudi sponsorship in its early years, has retaliated with waves of terrorist bombs.

Within the US, victim families have been lobbying the Senate for a law that will hold the Saudi government liable for material support rendered, by intent or otherwise, to the 9/11 hijackers. Though underway for some years, this effort has progressed incrementally in recent months, sufficient to provoke a threat that the Saudis would rather dump an estimated $750 billion in US treasury holdings than risk a judicial injunction.

Rancour has spread in the increasingly complex strategic entanglements of West Asia, infecting practices and observances that have so far remained immune to political animosities. Iranian leadership today does not hesitate to call out the Saudi regime for alleged inattention to the security of Shi’a pilgrims. More fiery leaders from the second and third tiers of the Shi’a theocratic hierarchy, call for the liberation of Islam’s holiest shrines from Saudi custodianship.

Israel, a third pole in West Asia’s complex geometry of power, is a challenge that pushes India’s diplomatic vocabulary to breaking point. What Israel disdains as “terrorism” is for India and much of the world, the entirely just cause of the liberation of Palestine. Obfuscation is the only recourse here, ever since India was possessed with the passion to acquire Israeli weapons in vast quantities.

For all its skill in turning the clichéd phrase, Indian diplomacy lacks the moral compass to negotiate the violent and embittered milieu it is stepping into. The big gain from Modi’s Iran visit was an agreement to jointly develop the Chabahar port in the southeast of the country. Located a few hundred kilometres west of Gwadar port — that visible symbol of China’s partnership with Pakistan — Chabahar is expected to give India strategic access to Afghanistan and other Central Asian markets.

With Afghan President Ashraf Ghani joining the deliberations in Tehran, the Chabahar agreement was advertised as a decisive power shift, making India a heavy hitter in the great game in Central Asia, while leaving Pakistan out of the loop. Given all the other complexities involved — and the capital costs that India would have to meet — it could well be asked if a better purpose might not be served by just talking to Pakistan.

Sukumar Muralidharan is an independent writer and researcher based in Gurgaon

Related Topics
comment COMMENT NOW