The Asian doctrine: Interpreting Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s foreign policy

Be it during the last government or for the first 100 days of the new one, foreign policy has been an interesting topic of conversation, congruence and connivance. Manmohan Singh, in spite of his appalling record, did have the intent towards a robust foreign policy vis-à-vis the neighbours and the West. Sadly, monumental blunders were made and India's strategic interests were compromised by making wrong statements and conceding positions like in 'Sharm el Sheikh'.

Our immediate neighbours Bhutan and Nepal were completely ignored; the Sri Lankan policy was a disaster when the government tried to please domestic Tamil parties and do a horrible balancing act which resulted in India shooting itself in the foot. Whether it was the Chinese aggressions that were not raised, the problems with the Teesta water agreement with Bangladesh, the lack of coordination with Israel, and an abysmal policy towards Myanmar, India has squandered the massive gains made since 1999. When the Modi government took over in May 2014, it was said foreign policy would be one of the most keenly watched areas, especially since the experienced Sushma Swaraj would be external affairs minister and ex-Intelligence Bureau (IB) chief Ajit Kumar Doval, who would now be National Security Advisor. 

What is unique about this government is that Modi, as chief minister of Gujarat, had already made trips to countries like Japan where he shared a great rapport with PM Shinzo Abe. Modi also met several envoys from various countries during the election campaign itself, as he was seen as the prospective PM. Hence, it was no surprise that a unique foreign policy doctrine would be followed and the PM's first trip out of the country would be keenly watched. But no one could have predicted what followed, stumping Modi's harshest critics.

Days before May 26, 2014, when the new government would be sworn in, an announcement was made saying invitations were being sent out to heads of state of SAARC countries to attend Modi's swearing in. Never before had such a step been taken to invite leaders of so many neighbouring countries to an Indian PM's inauguration, and never before was an attempt made by a government to begin a foreign policy initiative (in this case, the cause of a larger pan-South Asian alliance) even before it was sworn in. The move was hailed by many as revolutionary. The world, however, had their eyes fixed on one man, Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif and whether he would attend the inauguration. 

When Sharif did arrive in Delhi for the swearing in, it was heralded as a new chapter in India-Pakistan ties, and things were expected to move smoothly with the foreign secretaries scheduled to meet in August. However, things once again took a surprising yet predictable turn.

For the last 40 years, the Pakistani establishment has insisted on meeting separatist elements from Jammu and Kashmir despite the Indian foreign office taking strong objections to this. Over the years, it had become routine to go and meet them despite the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) raising valid objections that this surmounted to them meddling with India's internal affairs. 

Since the last visit, though, things had changed. On his two-day visit, Sharif did not meet any separatists and the government expected the same response from the high commissioner. But in a brazen act of diplomatic violation, he went ahead and met separatist leaders, resulting in India calling off the foreign secretary talks. 

Another interesting aspect of the new foreign policy was with respect to Nepal and Bhutan. For a long time, India has played the role a 'big brother' vis-à-vis its two immediate neighbours to the north-east, which also kept China's influence in check. But in the last 15 years, the relationship with these two countries had become strained, which reflected especially in Nepal, where the communists began taking over, their proximity to China growing. 

Culturally, Nepal and Bhutan have a lot more common with India than China. But strangely enough, flawed foreign policies had resulted in a strain in ties with these two nations. But the PM's trip and the response to his visit - his address to both parliaments and his personal popularity in both countries - have started to turn the things around. The promise of infrastructural investment in Nepal and the strategic help in Bhutan have shown positive impact. Similarly, with Sri Lanka, not building the Hambantota port was the one of the UPA's big mistakes, and flip-flop on the human rights stand in the United Nations worsened ties.

India's relationships with its neighbours should primarily be on economic and strategic issues. The nation stands at a precipice, with hostility staring at our face at its north-eastern and north-western borders. We can ill afford to anger our neighbours for domestic political reasons.

Ties with Myanmar, despite a favourable leader in Aung San Suu Kyi, the strained relations with Bangladesh over the Teesta water agreement and the lost opportunities with Sri Lanka could have all been avoided. So far, the steps taken by the Narendra Modi government have been positive and a major breakthrough was achieved when external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj visited Bangladesh. Coupled with the open channel talks with the Sri Lankan government, this marked a significant shift in the Asian doctrine. 

However, one of the most significant trips that Modi took was the one to Japan. Not only was his personal camaraderie with Japanese PM Shinzo Abe excellent, but the $35 billion commitment by Japan to invest in India, the technological partnership with India and an alliance against Chinese dominance in the region are some of the most significant achievements of the trip. There is a common myth propagated by Indian leftists that angering China by forming pacts with Japan will be counterproductive for India. Nothing could be further from truth. In fact it has been proven time and again that China respects countries in a position of strength rather than those that bow their heads in capitulation.

Other significant developments include Swaraj's visit to Vietnam, which resulted in a joint effort between the two nations for exploration of oil in the South China Sea; the Indian military's contribution in Afghanistan, especially with the US' imminent exit in December, and the opening of trade talks with various countries.

Any country's foreign policy has to be prioritised with regard to its economic and strategic interests. India is situated in such a troubled neighbourhood that its policy with its surrounding countries needed to be made a priority. Instead, the last 10 years saw a lack of focus in that area, and worse some historical blunders that resulted in us pushing away our friends.
But what is driving this change - is it just the new administration or something else as well? More than anything, the PM is committed to these changes in the foreign policy, and coupled with an effective MEA, these changes are being enforced. 

A foreign policy is and should be a reflection of the push and pull of an economy; by this engagement new relationships are formed with countries that were waiting to penetrate Indian markets with investments. This conviction is the reason behind these leaders flocking to meet and engage with the new India. Will this pay off? That remains to be seen. One can only wait and watch, but it can be undeniably said that a sincere effort is being made.