No Policy in Sight

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made sure that the deliberations of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and BRIC were overshadowed, for the Indian audience at least, by his meeting with Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari. The media accompanying him was so taken up by the rather rude and undiplomatic first statement by the Prime Minister to Zardari that all else seemed to pale in its wake as this was projected, by the scribes and the officials alike, as a great example of macho diplomacy.

The result was that little has come out about the two summits and India's participation and contribution to these. It is apparent that the briefings too were more about Pakistan, and less about SCO and BRIC that carry tremendous potential for the region. In fact, it is learnt that the SCO deliberations were over before the Indian delegation arrived to attend just the plenary. And we are still to hear what the Prime Minister thinks about the SCO, considering the fact that he has taken over five years to attend a meeting. Nor do we know why he decided to attend this time, and how does India plan, or does it plan at all, to take this initiative forward? In brief, what was the strategic thought that finally led to the Indian Prime Minister attending the SCO plenary, and what does it hold for the country's strategic future?

No answers. This columnist tried to put this question to senior diplomats, but no one really came up with a convincing answer. And the answers were so varied that one could not even evolve some kind of a consensus from these, making it apparent that South Block either does not have a policy, or has at least not informed the larger establishment about it. It seems to be the former, as the briefings to the media too did not seem to focus on SCO or for that matter even BRIC, with not a single newspaper reporting any details of consequence.

Of course, after the one line soundbyte for the benefit of the journalists was over, Manmohan Singh had a long closed door meeting with Zardari. Here, despite the hard comments, it was decided to start talking. The foreign secretaries are going to meet, and will discuss terrorism as well as all other issues of mutual concern. Of course, they are not going to resume the composite dialogue as that seems to be over with time and both governments have clearly agreed to re-jig the peace dialogue.

This then is the main development, sound bytes apart, as Prime Minister Singh has had little option but to start the talks even as he waits for Pakistan to exercise his mandate. The same bit on terrorism could have been said with more finesse, as India is a big country and the head of government does not need to, and is not expected to, throw aside polite and firm diplomacy for rude talk. After all he was meeting the head of another sovereign nation, and could have desisted from the temptation of scoring a meaningless brownie point.

What the government requires is a policy. On Pakistan, on its own dealings with the world. On China, Russia, West Asia, Africa. Where do we stand? What do we believe? Where are we going? What are our strategic priorities? Where do other governments fit in? No answers. Of course where the US is concerned we know of our Prime Minister's peculiar fondness for the country and former President George W.Bush, but are now waiting to be edified whether we are in tune with the policies of the Obama administration as well? And if so, to what end?

Take the one country that we as a government and a nation are so concerned about. Pakistan. What is the government policy? There is a line down the middle with one section of ministers and bureaucrats absolutely certain that the disintegration of Pakistan is "their business" and will not impact on India that is too big to feel even the reverberations. There is another equally large section that is positive that the stability and future of India is linked with the stability of Pakistan, and that chaos there will impact adversely on us. A policy is remaining evasive as the government has not been able to finalise its approach, and remains torn between the two schools of "thought" (!).

So the Prime Ministers first statement to Zardari really came from his desire to appease the first lot, and the decision to start the dialogue came from the second lot. It is these knee jerk responses that have reduced India to the level of Pakistan, where even our statements do not reflect the humility and astuteness of thought out diplomacy and strategy. The result is thoughtless action, reflected in the contradiction between the soundbyte and the decision to reopen the dialogue. This then lends the government wide open to the charge that it is bowing to pressure from the United States and entering into a dialogue with Pakistan even though little has been done on the terrorism front.

It now appears that Zardari is not too keen to meet the Prime Minister at Cairo, as was announced earlier. If this is true, are we happy? Was this the Prime Ministers strategic intention when he spoke out to make the television anchors happy? Is it a setback? Is it neither? Do we care? Do we not care? Does it help us? Or is it all just meaningless? It is obvious to even the novice that talks will begin very soon. That these will be followed by quick measures to ease tension between the two countries. That Kashmir will be taken up for discussion etc etc. So then what is this government doing? No one, not even the government seems to have an idea of the direction it is heading.

This happens when governments stop thinking for themselves and allow others to think and plan action. On Pakistan, the UPA government has been taking it cue from the US for quite some time now and there is no indication of a change. It is time that the government evolved a policy on Pakistan, as events there have become too violent and serious for India to even think it can escape from the repercussions without a policy based on peace and co-existence. The mandarins are never tired of telling scribes worried about the impact of globalization that the world has changed. Perhaps then a beginning can be made with the realization that war and enemies are terms that belonged to the Cold War era, and the new age is dependent on friendship and peace.