The flop ‘S-doctrine’

Optics are often as, if not more, important than the contents of foreign policy in an age of instant impact and political reverberations. Despite rendering seminal help and material assistance to the Mahinda Rajpaksa regime to eliminate the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and close out the civil war in Sri Lanka, India finds itself on the outs with Colombo.

The Sri Lankan government and people had plainly hoped to use the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) to showcase the country’s return to normalcy and the international mainstream, such summits being less important for what they achieve- which is usually very little- than because they give the host country the chance to preen itself on the world stage. With the event now robbed of its sheen and Rajpaksa denied his moment by an absconding Indian PM, New Delhi should brace for a payback with interest. China will, as usual, be the beneficiary. The CHOGM fiasco highlights the Congress coalition’s inchoate foreign policy and, for his role in it, undermines finance minister P Chidambaram’s credentials as PM to replace the hapless Manmohan Singh in an unlikely concatenation of future events.

If Manmohan Singh is remembered at all it will be for his personal qualities of servility and cravenness, his failure to push through the slate of economic reforms, and his uninspired views on what India can and cannot do in the external realm. Late in his tenure, the prime minister articulated the principles that have guided his foreign policy, which his former media adviser Sanjaya Baru, a trifle grandly, labeled “The Singh doctrine” (Indian Express, November 6, 2013).

Speaking to the heads of Indian missions, he said that the creation of “a global environment conducive to the well-being of our great country”, is the “most important objective”, followed by globalising the Indian economy, creating “stable, long-term and mutually beneficial relations with all major powers”, working with the “international community to create a global economic and security environment beneficial to all nations”, and forging connectivity with the subcontinental states. These principles came with the warning that foreign policy had to be configured not “merely by our interests, but also [our] values” with “democracy and secularism” helpfully identified as the values dictating policy direction and content.

With abstractions to handle-how is “well-being of the country” to be translated into a foreign policy metric, pray? -and improbable guidelines to hew to – would emphasizing secularism not require India to de-rate our relations with avowedly Islamic countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, say, in which case, how would the country cope with denial of access to Saudi oil and to Chahbahar, the Iranian entrepôt to Central Asia? – the audience of Indian ambassadors would have struggled mightily to make sense of this mushy presentation by the prime minister. It fuels the suspicion that Manmohan Singh doesn’t even understand the basics of foreign policy and diplomacy and the extent of practicability in this realm. What the “Singh doctrine” does do is bring confusion in its train.

Unsurprisingly, this “doctrine” without any delineation of national interests and any hints about the utility of military power, coercive use of force, or the emerging geostrategics that are tilting against India, seems entirely disconnected from the harsh reality of international relations where might is right. It presumes an ideal world in which interstate discord is absent as is interstate violence, and there’s no clash of national interests- as in a large, well-behaved, family- that cannot be conciliated. Thus, the injunction to craft “mutually beneficial relations with all major powers” assumes firstly that India’s national interests are aligned in the same way with all of them and to the same degree and, therefore, that China, for example, will not take amiss a security initiative with the United States. In a similar vein is the desire for a “global economic and security environment beneficial to all nations” -which, other than seeking to replace the United Nations is, in practical terms, a near nonsensical policy predicate. Has New Delhi, unbeknownst to the rest of us, taken the theka (contract) for the security of “all nations”?

Hearing such claptrap mumbled by Manmohan Singh in his usual low-decibel monotone, many of the envoys on the back benches would have dozed off, those in the middle rows tuned out, and those stuck in the front seats trying to look thoughtful, because transforming unimplementable rhetorical flourishes into actual policy measures is impossible business. No wonder, faced with such an exercise, “the foreign ministry and the foreign policy establishment” in the last decade behaved, according to Baru, as “a debating society” in which “everyone was holding forth on grand principles and no one devoting time or attention to getting things done the way [the Prime Minister] wanted” leading to a “wayward” policy. Did the MEA denizens have a choice, considering these “principles” read like a laundry list of dos and don’ts an international do-gooders’ society would happily own up to?

Meanwhile in the real world, India’s foreign policy is tanking. Bangladesh will be lost to the BNP-Islamist combo because Manmohan won’t shove Mamata Banerjee’s objections to the Teesta River Accord and the rationalisation of the border, aside. The Northeast will be lost to China because he won’t order the environment ministry under Jayanti Natarajan against taking a wrecking ball to the defence ministry’s plans for fast-tracking the construction of a border road network, and to Arunachal Pradesh’s plans for dams and hydroelectric projects to make it a prosperous, energy-surplus, state.

And MEA’s pigheaded refusal to permanently create an international shindig over reunification of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir with Jammu and Kashmir as the only unfinished business of Partition has ensured, moreover, that India’s claim to all of the erstwhile princely state of Kashmir is eroding fast, what with the transportation links being erected by the Chinese at their normal breakneck speed through Baltistan to Chinese-occupied Tibet.

At this rate, the Singh doctrine will leave for a successor government a foreign policy cupboard as bare as the treasury (courtesy the UPA regime’s slate of wasteful and corruption-feeding populist schemes).

[Published as “Toothless foreign policy of PM” in New Indian Express, Nov 15, 2013 at http://newindianexpress.com/opinion/Toothless-foreign-policy-of-PM/2013/11/15/article1891050.ece

About Bharat Karnad

Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, he was Member of the (1st) National Security Advisory Board and the Nuclear Doctrine-drafting Group, and author, among other books of, 'Nuclear Weapons and Indian Security: The Realist Foundations of Strategy', 'India's Nuclear Policy' and most recently, 'Why India is Not a Great Power (Yet)'. Educated at the University of California (undergrad and grad), he was Visiting Scholar at Princeton University, University of Pennsylvania, the Shanghai Institutes of International Studies, and Henry L. Stimson Center, Washington, DC.
This entry was posted in Asian geopolitics, Central Asia, China, China military, civil-military relations, Geopolitics, Great Power imperatives, guerilla warfare, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian ecobomic situation, Indian Ocean, Indian Politics, Pakistan, South Asia, South East Asia, Strategic Relations with South East Asia & Far East and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The flop ‘S-doctrine’

  1. RV says:

    Many years ago, MMS had a choice of either being the PM of India, or a domestic help in SG’s household. He consciously chose the latter. Granted the SLA has committed many acts of brutality and genocide against even innocent Tamil non-combatants. But, if MMS was so repulsed by genocide, why hasn’t he thrown the book at the Congress criminals who perpetrated the anti-Sikh pogroms?

  2. RV says:

    SB.’s eulogy of MMS’s “doctrine” is a case of “aho rupam aho dhwani”. Both worthies share common characteristics – incompetent and shallow, craven but vicious, and a shameless fealty to a certain US agency!

  3. Katyayana says:

    Mr. Karnad,
    You do realize that the entire union cabinet owes its allegiance to Mrs. Gandhi rather than the country. They are there at the favour of Madam not the people of this country. She has foisted undeserving persons of questionable merit (ex. a president), air bags (a person who dabled with money meant for physically challenged) and plain nincompoops ( too many to mention here) in key positions. Why does she do that? Simple : because she cares two hoots for our country. She is & will remain a foreigner. Her only interest is holding on to the levers of power without any responsibility or accountability. In the process if it harms the larger interest of the country, so be it. Country is beggared, so be it. As long as her & her family’s interest is secure, this lady will not hesitate to stoop to any level
    It is testament to the tragedy of this great land of ours, that we allow such a cynical & self serving person to lead us. When will we learn? When are we going to wake up?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s