India’s vote against the US on Jerusalem was a result of its tendency to play safe. The time is right for India to shed the false mantle of idealism in foreign policy which has served no good
India’s vote at the United Nations in favour of a resolution which criticised the US’ decision to shift its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem took a lot of people by surprise, especially those who support the current dispensation.
This was so because traditionally, the Bharatiya Janata Party-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (BJP-RSS) ecosystem has been favouring Israel — as has been evidenced by open praise of the Israeli model of nation-building by the RSS chief himself. Israel too looked down upon comparison of the RSS with the Nazis.
Therefore, the only explanation to India’s vote is the act of diplomatic establishment. India’s external affairs are run by a mere 930 diplomats, compared to 20,000 of the US and 6,000 of the United Kingdom.
This establishment, because of traditionally being catered by a very few people, is averse to change. It also creates a pressure on the Government, irrespective of the political party ruling, to follow status quo. The initial position it seeks to conserve is determined by the Nehruvian approach to India’s foreign policy. Idealistic policies like the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which bore no pragmatic results, are still entrenched in the minds of the foreign services establishment. This can also be seen in a recent book written by a former Foreign Secretary, Shyam Saran, where he dedicates a considerable number of pages, defending NAM.
Not surprisingly, India’s foreign policy has not been up to the mark in its entire history. If one were to analyse objectively, it has fared worse than Pakistan’s foreign policy. Pakistan has nurtured an all-weather ally in the form of China; India hasn’t been able to do that.
Even otherwise, Pakistan very tactfully engaged with the US, China, Arab countries and Iran all at the same time, to extract favourable deals from these countries. India couldn’t do that simply because there is too much idealism and too less pragmatism in policy-making.
This development also makes a potent case for the reform of the Indian Foreign Services (IFS), as has already been recommend by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs. Its recommendations include a separate examination for the IFS and provisions for lateral entries into the service. This makes sense because the IFS requires special knowledge of international affairs, which can’t be tested through a generic examination, like the one Union Public Service Commission conducts right now. The requisite skill for an IFS officer is essentially required through knowledge of a particular domain and not through training, which may be true for Indian Administrative Service and Indian Police Service.
The vote at the UN is a result of the same idealism and a tendency to ‘play safe’. When 128 countries voted against the US, Indian diplomats must have thought that it is naturally safe to vote for that resolution, especially when it included strong allies of the US, like UK and Germany. It must be borne in mind that what the US is doing for India in the international arena is exemplary and taking strong exceptions for it. For instance, backing India’s claim to a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council, backing India’s claim to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement.
It is interesting to recall, US’ military aid to India at the time of China War in 1962 and a possible direct intimidation to China by the US in favour of India, which probably made China to declare an unconditional cease fire. Bruce Riedel, in his book makes a case that John F Kennedy in fact threatened to use nuclear weapons against China, which actually made China withdraw.
Israel too has been an important friend to India, being the fifth largest source of arms. It also aided India in the 1962 war with China, in 1965, 1971 and 1999 in wars with Pakistan.
This was, therefore, not a moment to play it safe, but to back the US and Israel when they were being singled out. India also needs to create strong exceptions for the US at a time when the US is doing the same. It may be pertinent to mention that the current political will is there, it is the diplomatic establishment which needs to be put in place by the political class.
If one were to legally analyse the merits of the US decision, one would certainly arrive at a decision that the act of the US was perfectly within the legal domain and was performed under its sovereign function. The decision of shifting the embassy rests with the sovereign, which is acted as per the US law.
It is pertinent to mention that the US derived the legal validity of its action from a 1995 law, The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which was passed by the US Congress. This law made it mandatory for the US Government to shift its Embassy to Jerusalem. The law includes a power to the President to waive the enactment of the law for six months. Subsequent US Presidents — Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama didn’t execute the law by exercising this power waiver.
The Trump Administration is basically doing a legal duty which he is mandated to do, when he ordered the State Department to shift the embassy. Interestingly, US President Donald Trump too has signed the waiver, contending that it may take years to actually shift the embassy. Hence, the UN condemning a legal act of a sovereign country is in itself very problematic.
It is certainly the right time for India to shed the false mantle of idealism in its foreign policy which has served no good till now. It is important that India becomes a friend to its friends. The current dispensation has the political mandate to take decisive decisions in terms of foreign policy as well as reform of the Indian Foreign Service. It can be hoped that this is taken up soon.
(The writer is Research Fellow with the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT Bombay, Mumbai)