In August 2023, from the ramparts of historic Red Fort, the Indian Prime Minister (PM), Narendra Modi, dubbed his country “Vishwa Mitra” (friend of the world). The diplomatic lexicon formed part of the Modi government’s larger foreign policy posture to project India as an emerging global power, which has de-hyphenated itself from regional rivalries, is the voice of the Global South, contributes to global governance, and shapes global trends.
However, during the recent Pahalgam crisis, the “Vishwa Mitra” virtually found itself diplomatically isolated. Although a significant number of nations condemned the horrific Pahalgam attack, as New Delhi sought to rally diplomatic support for military strikes against Pakistan, the global response was cautious and non-committal. After its military strikes against Pakistan, India once again scrambled for support, but could only elicit calls for de-escalation and restraint.
This raises the question of why India could not garner noteworthy diplomatic support during the military conflict with Pakistan.
Downside of Strategic Autonomy:
India has long cherished its strategic autonomy, which entails that it takes decisions based purely on its self-interest and is completely insulated from any external pressures. In practical terms, the policy means India would pursue economic and diplomatic relationships primarily to pull off gains, but would prevaricate when it comes to reciprocity.
The most recent case of India’s banking on strategic autonomy was during the Russia-Ukraine War. As the US-led West scrambled to sanction Russia out of the global economy, India capitalized on the opportunity by expanding its trade with Russia and purchasing billions of dollars’ worth of highly discounted crude oil.
For the US-led West, which has been supporting India’s integration into the international system, India’s approach was a mix of shock and dismay. To add, the Indian Foreign Minister sanctimoniously advised that the West should relinquish the mindset that “Europe’s problems are the world’s problems”. In all probability, post-Pahalgam fence sitting by the West implicitly conveyed to New Delhi that India’s problems are not Europe’s problems either.
India’s Diplomatic Hubris Backfired:
While it is quite normal for countries to grow in diplomatic confidence and assertiveness with the increase in their national power, India’s diplomatic posture reflects more hubris and arrogance rather than mere confidence. Apart from virtually acting as a bully in the immediate neighborhood, India’s diplomatic posture at the global level turned more sanctimonious, coarse, and sometimes even uncouth.
India’s Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar—who is a career diplomat and therefore well-versed with diplomatic nuances—personifies India’s hubris-laden foreign policy with his “savage” rejoinders and condescending moralism, often devoid of diplomatic niceties.
As the recent instances demonstrate, a pugnacious foreign policy approach is almost certain to backfire and is ruinous to a country’s foreign relations, partnerships, and international reputation. Although spearheading India’s pugnacious diplomacy did earn Jaishankar domestic plaudits—laser eyes, his country diminished in international goodwill and hence ended up in diplomatic isolation post-Pahalgam.
India Overestimated Its Global Relevance:
There is little doubt that India has taken economic leaps, and its strategic relevance has also increased. However, India’s foreign policy posture is based on a gross overestimation of its economic significance and strategic relevance, and is disproportionately overbearing and hubris-filled, corresponding to its national power. India is grossly overestimating its global relevance and, in the conduct of its foreign policy, appears to be jumping well above its weight.
India is neither an economic pivot nor strategically indispensable, such that it can consider unconditional diplomatic support (especially from the West) to be an entitlement, or that its diplomatic hubris could be overlooked.
Overestimations could lead to countries pinning unrealistic expectations and making miscalculations. India overestimated that its global relevance, even without any evidence against Pakistan, would be enough to garner the diplomatic backing of the international community. As the Pahalgam proved, this turned out to be a misjudgment.
Hackneyed Use of Violence-to-Votes Playbook:
Since 2016, the crises between Pakistan and India have adopted a certain pattern: deadly violence occurs in territories controlled by India, the Indian media stirs up war frenzy against Pakistan, the Indian government blames Pakistan, PM Modi promises “retaliation,” and subsequently authorizes strikes against Pakistan, leading to tit-for-exchanges—except for 2016. Most importantly, the Modi government uses the crisis to stir anti-Pakistan jingoistic frenzy to secure votes.
Strikingly, each crisis has been curiously timed ahead of major national or state elections in India, and the Modi government has used the violence-to-votes playbook in each case, which suggests that domestic political expediencies are the primary drivers of the Modi government’s conduct during the crises.
The hackneyed use of the violence-to-votes playbook causes the international sensitivity level to go down, and if the clichéd playbook is used multiple times for domestic political gains, the sensitivity level is likely to hit the nadir. The Modi government faced exactly this kind of reduced international sensitivity during the Pahalgam Crisis, and its repeated use of the violence-to-votes playbook is to be blamed for the diplomatic fiasco.
Declining Appeal of Terrorism Card:
After 9/11, India very cleverly linked the freedom struggle in Jammu and Kashmir to the global war on terrorism and ran a years-long diplomatic campaign claiming victimhood. India used the terrorism card to wage a mudslinging campaign against Pakistan and to deny holding talks.
However, as the global discourse shifts away from non-state terrorism to geopolitics, owing to intensifying US-China strategic competition and the outbreak of conflict in Europe, India’s terrorism card appears to be losing appeal for large parts of the international community.
To India’s further disadvantage, given that India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed states, during each crisis, the international community becomes more concerned about the risk of the crisis spiraling into a wider conflagration, while India’s hackneyed terrorism card receives even less attention, as demonstrated during the Pahalgam crisis.
Conclusion:
To summarize, the Pahalgam crisis is a reality check for India’s foreign policy. The self-proclaimed “Vishwa Mitra” found itself diplomatically isolated at a time when it anticipated the world to jump the gun and instinctively endorse its standpoint. The decision is now for the Modi government whether it undertakes a cold-hearted introspection of its foreign policy posture or further doubles down on the existing approach. Keeping in view its overall approach to statecraft, the Modi government is likely to opt for the latter.
Be the first to comment