Foreign policy lacks humility

THAT Government of India's nominee for the UN Secretary General post had to withdraw from the contest does not come as a surprise. The unkindest cut was the 'no' from the United States, a country which we have been trying to woo by going out of the way.

Sashi Tharoor was never a winning candidate. He was not tall enough in Asia, much less in the world, to deserve the post. An eminent person, even a former minister, would have gone down better.

The reverse goes beyond the qualifications of the candidate. When even the Sri Lankan candidate withdraws in favour of the South Korean nominee, the entire foreign policy has a question mark against it.

If this incident makes us ponder over our policy on how to improve relations with other countries, it is probably a good jolt.

Our eight per cent economic growth has sent us soaring in the skies. We are considering ourselves a global power when our feet should have been firmly planted on the ground. A country where half the population goes to bed without food cannot gloat over its limited achievements.

We are making no impression in the international field because of our arrogance. We have superiority complex when we deal with next-door countries or comparatively less affluent nations.

Our prestige was high when we emerged from the 150-long-year slavery. Foreign countries looked at us with awe because we had freed ourselves from the mighty British without firing a shot.

Our biggest asset has been humility. That is lessening rapidly. Even if we had been a developed nation, we would have not gone far with our obsession of "spectacular growth."

Both politicians and bureaucrats throw the eight per cent growth at every international meet when they are in a tight corner or fail to make a point. Recently, an air delegation did so.

In a way, we are trying to become an America in the region, behaviour-wise and development-wise. Like Washington, we talk at other countries but not talk to them.

I am not referring to our dealings with Pakistan which itself is an intransigent country, nor about Bangladesh which is chaotically fundamentalist. I have in mind the South Asian and African countries with which we are developing economic relations. Why is there no emphasis on cultural or other ties?

This could help us fight against the western culture, consumerism. India has a long tradition of people-to-people contact. But our government is only particular about business delegations. The rest are way down.

We have been slipping down in international esteem for some time. But the worst period has been since our proximity with America. We have been so much focused on the Indo-US nuclear agreement that we are oblivious to other things.

In our anxiety to clinch it, we have even tilted towards America, knowing well that friendship with it would mean dotting i's and crossing the t's at Washington's bidding. True, we need nuclear energy but not at the expense of our dignity.

The manner in which America, particularly the State Department, has tried to impose on us certain conditions shows that Washington seeks supplicants, not friends. They come heavy when they are dealing with a democratic country.

I have my doubts on the treaty emerging unscathed from the US Congress. It is due to what the State Department has whispered into the ears of Senators and Congress men. The State Department wants its pound of flesh in terms of concessions on recycling used fuel. New Delhi has its own interests to guard.

But America's pressure is nothing new. I recall how India was treated in the early fifties when it requested the US for foodgrains. The US Congress dawdled over the bill for months, knowing well that thousands of Indians were on the verge of starvation.

The recent NAM conference, even though not relevant in the old sense, was our best opportunity. Yet we gave no thought how to go about the movement which Jawaharlal Nehru had initiated to stay non-aligned.

A meeting of 160-odd countries at Havana could have set into motion something special for the protection and development of small countries. Many looked towards us for guidance. But our eyes were fixed on the nuclear agreement discussed at Washington.

This is not because we do not have a fulltime foreign minister. This is because we have no foreign policy. There is ad hocism, no long-term thinking. Conditions have changed since the days of Nehru.

But we pursue the same old policies which gave good results during the cold war, but not 35 years later. When we fail to make even Sri Lanka or Nepal as our close friends, there must be something basically wrong with our policies and we need to think afresh.

Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri and even Indira Gandhi would appoint public men as envoys in leading countries and in the neighbourhood. Washington, Moscow, London, Beijing were closed to bureaucrats.

Similarly, Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka had tall men from India. These were sensitive posts, requiring non-official appraisal.

The Sonia Gandhi-Manmohan Singh nexus has only retired bureaucrats for such posts and they too are being extended, not because they are outstanding, but because they have someone at New Delhi to back them up.

A new foreign secretary cannot usher in a new foreign policy but Shiv Shankar Menon has in him the qualities to push through new ideas, new avenues and new ways of accomodation. But what will he do when our foreign policy is politicised?

By not rebutting President General Pervez Musharraf's claim that Pakistan had won at Kargil, the Manmohan Singh government has played politics. The credit of repulsing the mujahideen, along with the Paksitan forces, and clearing the Kargil heights goes to the Vajpayee-led coalition.

The Congress and its allies kept quiet at that time, just as they have done now after Musharraf's claim of victory in his book, In the Line of Fire - A Memoir.

The then Army Chief, General V.P. Malik has taken up the matter with the government. He wants a "systematic rebuttal" to be issued at the highest level, not the army but by the government.

He feels disappointed that it is not forthcoming. "We have become so reactive that we cannot protect our own strategic achievements.

I can't let this man to get away with the things he has claimed in his book," says Malik. The General has a point. But he should know that an all-party meeting after the ceasefire fell through because the opposition then thought that the Vajpayee-led government would take the credit. Little did they realise that the credit was that of the Army.

Such an approach is suicidal for a country's foreign policy which draws strength from the bipartisan support.