By Aakar Patel
What explains our inability or, if we are to be charitable, our reticence, to influence the world around us? Like the rest of the world, India is negatively affected by the American-Israeli war on Iran. Indeed, Indians have suffered and continue to suffer more than any other nation except Iran itself. The reason is, of course, that there are around one crore Indians in the Gulf, a population larger than the combined citizenry of five of the six GCC states.
The lives and livelihoods of these Indians are at risk due to the violence. Uncertainty looms over them, and this is especially hard for those who are not well-off. This is by far the majority, comprising members of the Indian expatriate working class in the Gulf, whether in services or industry.
The long-term future and economic direction of the GCC states are in question after this war, and the futures of these millions of Indians are tied to that outcome. This is why India is more deeply affected by and entangled in this war than most nations, along with facing shared challenges related to fuel and gas. Which brings us to the central question: Why the inability or even the unwillingness to influence the actions of the warring states, America and Israel?
Other than stating that shipping should be allowed to resume, our government has not meaningfully engaged with the problem. Why is shipping halted? We have made no reference to that. How can it be resumed?
No wisdom there either: merely a plea, demand, or request (it is unclear which, since the words are empty) that shipping be allowed to resume. It should be noted here that India has, by default, aligned itself with the position of the colonising nations of Europe, which want no part in the war, make no reference to its perpetrators, and only seek the uninterrupted flow of goods.
Let us try to answer the question. It is possible, and perhaps likely, that there is no single reason but rather a set of factors that have made silence more appealing than action. Let us examine them in turn.
There is incoherence in Indian foreign policy, which extends to national security. A basic example: we remain unclear whether China is a friend or an adversary, whether it should be engaged with through trade or disengaged from strategically. This lack of coherence stems from an absence of doctrine. Much of our foreign policy is aimed at domestic audiences, and once, as is the case today with this war, it becomes clear that claims of being a “world leader” are hollow, we retreat in embarrassment.
Abandoning the idea of national interest, we have become besotted with personal diplomacy, which is inextricably linked to personal interest. We assumed that chumminess was a solid foundation upon which to build foreign policy. Fittingly, we have either been betrayed in this endeavour (by Trump) or used (by Netanyahu), while the opposing side remains realistic and hard-headed. Our dilemma is that it is our friends who have caused Indians such misery, yet we seem to believe we lack even the capacity to ask them to stop.
Another reason is that diplomatic efforts elsewhere have alarmed us. It appears that we would rather Indians suffer than see the war end through the efforts of those we detest. This is not only mean-spirited and petty, which it is, but also deeply absurd. It reflects the actions of those who simultaneously lecture us with platitudes about the world being one family.
There is yet another reason, captured by the folk saying: “Mulle ki daud masjid tak.” The internet interprets this as “a person who only goes as far as their knowledge, resources, or interests allow,” or “someone whose actions always return to the same familiar circle or area of expertise.”
“New India” is characterised by a fiercely inward-looking nationalism. Open the newspapers or turn on the television, and this refrain becomes unmistakable. Minorities are blamed for the past, liberals are accused of obstructing the path to a glorious future, and both must first be “fixed” before progress can occur. As long as this remains our primary focus, we will remain absorbed in it. When there is such narrow clarity about the nation, the external world becomes a distraction, something that, if ignored, might resolve itself. This is where we stand today.
At a press conference on Friday, the spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs was asked:
“Trump is praising Asim Munir and may travel to Pakistan. How does India view Pakistan’s ceasefire role? Will India be okay with it if Trump visits both India and Pakistan on one trip?”
(Notice the focus of the question, which reveals much about us and our press corps.)
The spokesperson replied:
“I have a simple answer. India is closely following developments in West Asia.”
The word “following” has rarely been used so appropriately or so revealingly.