The price of looking inward

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 are suffering, more than any other nationality except Iranians themselves.

The reason is straightforward. There are roughly one crore Indians living 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 from the violence. Uncertainty hangs over them, and this is especially hard for those who are not well-off. By far the majority fall into this category: members of the Indian expatriate working class in the Gulf, employed in services, construction and industry.

The long-term economic direction of the GCC states has been thrown into question by this war, and the futures of these millions of Indians are closely tied to that outcome. This is why India is more deeply affected by the conflict than most other nations, in addition to sharing global concerns relating to fuel and gas supplies.

Which brings us to the central question: why this inability — or unwillingness — to influence, or even attempt to influence, the actions of the principal parties to the conflict, the United States and Israel?

Beyond stating that shipping should be allowed to resume, our government has not meaningfully engaged with the problem. Why is shipping halted? There has been no explanation. How can it be resumed? There has been little clarity on that either — merely the plea, demand or request (it is unclear which, since the words are empty) that shipping be allowed to resume.

It should be noted that India appears, by default, to have aligned itself with the position of the former colonial powers of Europe, which seek no part in the war, make no reference to its perpetrators and simply want commercial flows to continue uninterrupted.

Let us try to answer the question. It is possible — perhaps likely — that there is no single explanation, but rather a set of factors that have made silence appear more appealing than action. Let us consider them in turn.

There is a noticeable incoherence in Indian foreign policy, and this extends to questions of national security. A basic example is our uncertainty about China: is it a friend or an adversary? Should engagement be deepened or reduced? The absence of a clear doctrine has contributed to this lack of coherence. Much of our foreign policy appears directed at domestic audiences and, once — as in the present war — the claims of being a global leader appear hollow, embarrassment leads us to look away.

Having effectively abandoned the idea of national interest as a guiding principle, we have become overly reliant on personal diplomacy, often linked to personal equations. We appear to have assumed that personal rapport was a solid foundation for foreign policy.

Unsurprisingly, this approach has resulted in either disappointment or instrumentalisation: we have been let down by Trump and used by Netanyahu, both of whom operate from far more hard-headed perspectives. Our dilemma is that it is these very ‘friends’ whose actions have contributed to the hardship faced by Indians, yet we appear unwilling even to ask them to reconsider.

Another factor may be discomfort with diplomatic initiatives undertaken by actors we instinctively distrust. It appears, at times, as though we would rather endure the consequences of the war than see it resolved through the efforts of those we dislike.

This attitude is not only petty and mean-spirited, but also strategically self-defeating — particularly when it comes from those who regularly invoke platitudes about the world being one family.

There may also be a deeper reason, captured in the folk saying: mulle ki daud masjid tak. The phrase is often interpreted to mean that a person only goes as far as their knowledge, resources or interests allow — that one’s actions repeatedly circle back to the same familiar ground.

New India is defined by a sharp inward-looking nationalism. One only needs to read newspapers or watch television to recognise this dominant refrain. Minorities are blamed for the past, liberals are portrayed as obstacles to the present path toward a promised future, and the emphasis remains on settling internal scores before engaging meaningfully with the world beyond our borders.

So long as this inward focus remains the primary political project, external developments will continue to be treated as distractions — matters that will somehow resolve themselves if ignored. That appears to be the prevailing mindset today.

At a press conference on Friday, 19 April, the spokesperson of the ministry of external affairs was asked: ‘Trump is praising Asim Munir and may travel to Pakistan. How does India see Pakistan’s ceasefire role? Will India be okay with it if Trump comes to India and Pakistan on one trip?’

The focus of the question itself reveals much about the concerns of our media and political class. The spokesperson replied: "I have a simple answer. India is closely following developments in West Asia."

Rarely has the word ‘following’ been used so aptly — or so revealingly.

Views are personal. More of Aakar Patel’s writing may be read here