EVERY time an Indian official meets somebody from the US State Department there is and cry all over the country and the Indian side is accused of giving in to American am-twisting on Kashmir or NPT or missile technology or some other issue. The government is called upon to reiterate its known position and in the end it tums out that the tears about Indian interests being compromised were without any basis But the hue and cry is repeated another time when some other Indian meets another American.
Some people tend to attribute this touchiness to the breakdown of the so-called Nehruvian consensus on foreign policy as in other fields. It is forgotten that even in Nehru as times there was no consensus in the political caste inside and outside Parliament.
Minoo Masani Lohia Kripalani Jayaprakash Narayan and Ambedkar to name only a few were bitter critics of Nehru is foreign policy fundamentals If these protests have now become more shrill and generate more bitterness than in those days it is because our political system has developed certain instabilities from which it did not suffer when it was being shaped under the guidance of the veterans of our freedom struggle. Even then the Kashmir issue was there and building relations with Pakistan was a problem. Nor were any questions asked when the Saudi King visited India and distributed gold watches to those attending on him.
Jawaharlal Nehru’s experience during his first visit to the USA was not very exhilarating but it was not he who was criticized for the odd behavior of the Americans as is now being done in the case of Mr PY. Narasimha Rao Nor did anyone walk Out of parliament even when it was admitted that we had to depend for arms supplies on the UK because of the historical links between the Indian and British armed forces.
Even in the aftermath of the 1962 Chinese aggression when Nehru agreed in the course of the talk with the UKs Duncan Sandys and the USAs Averrel Harriman to initiate a dialogue with Pakistan on Kashmir no screechy noises were heard as recently when Indian and American officials met in London for a quiet chat
Is it because Mr Narasimha Rao does not enjoy the same amount of trust of his countrymen as Nehru did?
No it is not a question of trust and Indian diplomacy has become more mature and more as assertive in upholding national interests in the intervening decades The most glaring change that has come about is that now the Mayawati is and Sadhvi Rithambaras the Kanshi Rams and Murli Manohar Joshis have captured the political platform in the country Foreign policy then as now and hopefully in the future is an extension of the domestic scene and reflects the strengths and infirmities of equations and alliances which determine internal politics.
Domestic and external pressures have direct bearing on each other. Were it not for the demolition of the Babri Masjid India would not have faced the situation which it encountered: at the Geneva UN Human Rights Commission meeting earlier this year notwithstanding the involvement of Pakistan in the Insurgency in Kashmir It was a pity that Indian diplomats had 1 caution the Islamic countries about the consequences for Indian Muslims if Pakistan tad its way in Kashmir.
Even our economic refer is on which Left is terrific set much store will be affected and no foreign investors would Come if communal bloodshed and now caste violence makes this country took ungovernable Whatever the reaction in the West to the Tiananmen Square happenings in Beijing. China continues to attract foreign investments because it i looked upon as a governable country. But Americans were told by their government to avoid going to India in the wake of the communal bloodshed followed by RDS serial explosions in Bombay.
Not only has the country been governable. It has also to appear the outsider’s as a governable where rule of law prevails that is only way external pressure can be resisted. The present cacophony of protests when the government is holding fast to its known positions will make any kind of dialogue impossible even to resist pressures a dialogue has to be carried on.
Article extracted from this publication >> June 10, 1994
