While Teesta River Treaty, Sri lankan Tamil issues, and bilateral relations with Pakistan will no longer be vetted by ‘local’ parties; Mr Modi should use this opportunity to put India on a strong global platform

In this age of globalisation, fostering and maintaining good relations with other nations is as imperative for sustaining a nation’s security interests as any other component of national governance which includes, among others, upholding robust defence preparedness and sustaining a strong economy.

As the Chief Minister of a major State in the Union, Mr Modi had all the capabilities as an administrator to foster sustained economic growth in the State, notwithstanding some adverse opinion about Gujarat’s economic growth among a section of the intelligentsia. Although defence and foreign affairs are listed in the Union list — exclusive preserve of Parliament — Mr Modi had been taking keen interest even in these subjects even though the State Government had any role. For instance, it has been reported that he was extremely helpful to the Indian Coast Guard, for example, in facilitating their access to State Government resources in augmenting their capabilities along Gujarat’s coastal belt. Similarly, although trade and commerce with foreign countries also figures in the Union list, Mr Modi was extremely successful in attracting foreign capital investment in Gujarat within the boundaries of the laws passed by the Union Government.

With globalisation being all-pervasive and the needed presence of India in the international forums, it is incumbent on Mr Modi to leave his mark on the broader foreign policy aspects of India both in respect of foreign affairs and trade & commerce with foreign countries. Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had laid the groundwork in these areas with initiatives in negotiating free trade agreements with a number of countries and deepening India’s strategic relations with major countries, as for example, in successfully negotiating the India-US nuclear agreement.

Mr Modi has already made an excellent start in foreign affairs by inviting the Heads of State/Governments of the neighbouring countries for his swearing-in ceremony. While there has been almost universal appreciation of this gesture of Mr Modi in all the invited countries with some minor opposition to the Pakistan Prime Minister’s visit to India, the situation was somewhat different in India where some regional parties had expressed strong reservations about some of the invitations — Tamil Nadu regional parties protested against invitation to the Sri lankan President, and Maharashtrian regional parties did the same for Pakistan Prime Minister. However, Mr Modi, quite correctly and firmly, considered and rejected these objections.

For the last one decade, regional parties and regional politics have been a major handicap to successful realisation of the Indian foreign policy objectives, particularly in the Indian sub-continent. For India to become a global centre of power and influence in the coming decades, as its economy takes the centre stage, it is essential that India consolidates its support in the regional context as well. If we want to become a major and influential player in the international arena, we cannot afford to have our major foreign policy decisions affected by the petty squabbles of the regional parties, be it in respect of agreements with Bangladesh (Teesta River Treaty), Sri lanka (Tamil problems) and Pakistan (general  improvement of bilateral relations).

Mr Modi has, therefore, done well to go ahead with putting India’s interest ahead of sectional and narrow partisan interests. This is not to say, however, that the sentiments of the States should be ignored. It rather points to the need for the Centre and the Prime Minister to brief, explain and amplify to the Chief Ministers of various States on Indian foreign policy objectives and how the States’ interests have been safeguarded in its negotiations with other countries. In this exercise Mr Modi will do well to follow the example set by India’s first PM, Mr Jawaharlal Nehru, who used to regularly update the Chief Minister on various foreign policy issues faced by the country. Mr Modi, himself a former Chief Minister, is no doubt well aware of the need for such regular briefings by the Central Government on these matters.

This will be increasingly necessary in the coming years as India expands its global interest and economic relations with foreign countries through a variety of free trade agreements, which might adversely impact the interests of one or more States. It will be of utmost importance for the Centre to allay such fears; and with the help of the States formulate plans to compensate for such adverse impacts on the broader interest of the whole country.

Mr Modi is well-placed to handle foreign affairs in a mature fashion. He has already established a good working relationship with sections of international capital. In addition, he is reported to have strong goodwill towards, and in, few countries such as Japan and Israel.

It is true that sections of the West, especially in the US and some countries of the EU, there have been some negative reactions to Mr Modi, for his alleged religious intolerance, so much so that Mr Modi is forever banned from entering the US except as the Prime Minister of India. It is fortunate that Mr Modi has so far expressed no great interest in visiting the US on a personal visit. Nevertheless, the US has to consider seriously the implication of banning permanently the visit — on an individual basis — of a person who heads the world’s largest democracy which is also a supposedly “strategic partner”. Mr Modi will, no doubt, treat these and other actions as being personal in nature and not let these influence dictate his approach for the sake of the greater national interests.

However, the west, the US in particular, will have to consider seriously the implication of responding in a Pavlovian fashion to the unsubstantiated allegations of the global and regional NGOs to level allegations of human rights/religious freedom/environmental, etc, abuses against leaders and governments in countries, more often than not, located in the third world.

(Dr G Balachandran is a Consulting Fellow at IDSA)