The concept of diplomacy has changed: KV Rajan

Former member of the elite Indian Foreign Service (IFS) K V Rajan served as India’s ambassador in a number of world capitals, holding important positions in the ministry of external affairs (MEA) in a career spanning more than 35 years in diplomacy. In an interview to KS Narayanan, Rajan says that India has to stop behaving like a petty minded large power and not indulge in knee-jerk reactions. Instead, South Block should look at the opportunities and challenges in terms of globalisation, environment, education, food-energy-water security and climate change to serve the 700 million poor at the bottom of pyramid. Currently chairman of ITEE and ITEI, subsidiaries of UK-based ITE Group plc, Rajan is also engaged in editing the memoirs of several former diplomats titled ‘Ambassadors Club’ which is expected to be published soon.

India recently voted for a United States-sponsored resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHCR) in Geneva censuring Sri Lanka for alleged human rights violations during the war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). What will be the repercussions for India?
The way things are going, there will certainly be repercussions. What Sri Lankans find difficult to understand is how come India was carrying on business as usual kind of mode with the Sri Lankan government without placing its reservations or objections on the table even as a lot consultations and visits were taking place. It went ahead and did this. There are compulsions of coalition politics. State governments pressurize the centre on foreign policy up to a point. You cannot let that happen if it is going to affect your relations with your close neighbour. Our relations with Sri Lanka has attained a certain degree of maturity where there was cross party consensus about India with political parties actually vying with each other to show that they wanted good relations with India. But we have blown it. And there is no excuse for it.

Unfortunately, something similar has happened in case of Maldives where we had a friendly President going the extra mile to accommodate us. Then you do this kind of a flip-flop. So I believe that there is a pattern of India letting down its friends in our neighbourhood which has only created more problems for us. In Nepal too we supported democratic parties, we supported the movement for democracy and suddenly we switched over to supporting the monarchy and then we supported the Maoists. In a sense if India is to be respected as a credible major power in the region then people should know what you stand for. You cannot do these flip-flops.

After India voted against Lanka, do you think there could be similar resolutions passed against India and others might vote against us?
It may not happen. Lanka is mature enough to know where its interests lie. It lies with having good relations with India. But it is possible that Sri Lankans may show less sensitivity to India on issues of core concern than they have been in recent years. There had been extraordinary degree of warmth in Indo-Sri Lankan relations. We are ourselves to blame if they are showing greater accommodation to China and Pakistan. You hit them where it hurts them the most. There is no need for that kind of thing. You need to negotiate, and have greater understanding with coalition partners in India. We should remember that when Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi decided to send IPKF into Sri Lanka, it was not easy. There is the same kind of sensitivity in Tamil Nadu about Tamils in Sri Lanka. But we were able to explain to them and maintain some consensus.

So there was not enough thought applied before we voted against Lanka?
Enough thinking might have gone into it. But finally it was a knee-jerk reaction which catered to the dictates of coalition politics. That is not the way you run foreign policy of a big country.

How do you see the attack on Israeli diplomat? Does it signal that India is the new ground for global terror?
That is not the conclusion I would draw. What I would say is that India has to ensure that even if it wants to treat Iran with kid gloves, it should not be able to take liberties on Indian soil against diplomats of a third country. It would be wrong on part of Iran if indeed it has officially connived in this attack, to have assumed that India has so many interests in Iran that it will over look something like this. This is bad for many reasons. One, Israel is a country with which India has close and strategic relations. Second, it raises question marks about the safety and security of third country nationals in India: can India become a soft country for terror outfits? India has to watch out for this. There is no doubt India has to take serious action on this.

Whether voting Lanka or Tehran, India seems to sub serving United States interests?
I think there is a trend in the United States establishment, including the US Congress, that assumes if you do not agree with us you are against us. That trend has prevailed since the 1950’s. But India has the right to safeguard its national interests. At the same time it has the responsibility to ensure that the basis for Indo-US strategic relations is not affected by India’s apparent laxity or permissiveness towards other countries which the US does not have good relations with, for instance Iran. So again it is a track II balancing act. Indian diplomacy is quite capable. It has stand up to US if there is unrealistic pressure but at the same time it has to manage its relations with countries like Iran so that its interests are not affected adversely.

Has India’s foreign policy served its national interest?
I think so. Overall terms yes. But I also think one of the problems has been the government’s inability to consult with the opposition adequately. It is important that some semblance of political consensus is needed in India on the basis of which we can run our foreign policy on important issues. On issues like Pakistan, Iran and US. It is important that government consults the opposition and explore possibilities of arriving at some kind of basic consensus. Similar engagements must be conducted with coalition partners and state governments. Then formulate a policy with some boldness. What has gone wrong is that India sometimes takes a line which is correct in terms of its own national interests and then does a volte-face because of pressure from some quarters. This has happened particularly in the case of Iran earlier (on the IAEA vote) and in recent times in Syria and Sri Lanka perhaps. India cannot do that. She has to constantly look after its national interest. That is number one priority. It has to stand up to who ever is trying to pressurise its national interests. There are certain question marks now. Whether India is capable of doing that or willing to do that and we have to address it with a sense of urgency.

Are we addressing it?
I do not think so. It is too much of knee jerk reactions. There are good professionals advising the government and the Prime Minister. Whether the professional point of view is paid attention to or respected, we do not know. I think probably it doesn’t.

Pakistani President Zardari was in town in April. Your take.
Indo-Pakistan relations have to stabilise over a long period of time. It cannot happen because of a single visit or media excitement, a stray statement here or there or due to the arrival of new faces. None of it is going to help. I think the key thing is this: is Pakistan willing to create an environment on Pakistani soil so that it is not used against India? Will it cooperate with India in ensuring that those who were involved in the terror attack in Mumbai are brought to book, or will it continue to play games with us? The proof of pudding lies there. So far Pakistan has not shown evidence that it wants to play ball with us. That doesn’t mean we do not engage with Pakistan. We have welcomed President Zardari. We should welcome any other leader from there. Indian Prime Minister should visit Pakistan. But we should not be over excited or naive in expecting results.

The NAM summit is scheduled in Iran this summer. Does it need a revival?
I don’t think there is any future for the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). NAM has certain history and relevance to it. There was US and the Soviet Union. There was the Cold War which was going to affect our interests. The Nehruvian vision of foreign policy was India’s interest and that of the developing world, that we did not align with either of them. We would look after our own interests. We would also try to be the bridge between them. Today Soviet Union is gone. Russia is not a power. China is emerging. We have concerns on that. So, What is the use of NAM?

Can we reinvent it?
I do not think so. Now it is very clear that India is power on to itself. It is an aspiring great power. It has problems in terms of China and it has other issues with US. But there are also opportunities with the US. It has to have a series of strategic partnerships with different countries — US, Japan, EU, ASEAN. It has to compete with China occasionally. Sometimes it has to be firm with China or even with the US. India has to have self confidence like a big power. It has to stop behaving like a petty minded large power. It behaves sometimes like that. It has be clear on its aspirations and interests. Nobody can take us for granted any more. We sort of continue to behave like a soft power. We can be leader of the developing world but not NAM which has political connotations.

So do we stop attending NAM summits?
It is a concept which is already dead. It is waiting for a decent burial.

With increasing globalisation, does Indian foreign policy needs to emphasise on trade and economic issues?
I think so. The challenges for Indian foreign policy are different from what they were earlier. We don’t have to be obsessed with Pakistan or China. We have so many opportunity and challenges in terms of globalisation, environment, education, food-energy-water security and climate change etc. In terms of business of opportunities, the bottom of pyramid is waiting. These are bankable projects, world class technology at affordable price for the poor can transform 700 million lives in India alone.

Is South Block seized of the matter?
I don’t think so. But they should be. The whole concept of diplomacy has to change quickly and fast. Sending reports about what the Pakistan embassy is doing is important but not enough. You have to be proactive. What you need is a proactive Indian diplomacy to look after its growing needs, protect and promote its interests. We have serious issue in governance that needs to be sorted out.

India is trying hard. India can do much more to improve the lot of its own people, make the most of its presence on global stage. Rest of the world is waiting to listen to India. The global community has their eyes and ears open.