Name-calling dents India’s diplomatic legacy

Addressing the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in 2022, Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar rightly said, “We are on the side that calls for dialogue and diplomacy as the only way out”. It was a logical statement – made on the Russia-Ukraine war – for a proudly moral and internationalist nation. In such an interdependent world, mediation becomes a natural instrument for managing shared risks and stakes, and for resolving conflicts. India has been open to mediating if approached, as it is a “friend of peace” for both sides. Jaishankar also recalled a specific instance where Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi intervened to temporarily stop firing in Kharkiv and Sumy, respectively, to facilitate the safe passage for Indians stuck in the war.

Historically, India has had a strong and consistent record of mediatory and conciliatory moves in the international space. The anchorage of “non-alignment” afforded it respect that naturally accrues owing to practised neutrality. It was to deploy its neutrality in chairing the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission that oversaw the exchange of prisoners during the Korean War (1950-53). In the first Indochina War (entailing Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia), India chaired the International Control Commission (ICC) set up by the Geneva Accords. In the 1960s, India stabilised political negotiations amongst the warring factions and contributed significantly towards the UN peacekeeping troops in the Congo crisis. The global standing of internationally recognised leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri, and Indira Gandhi allowed it to act as the diplomatic “bridge” and navigate between the bloc politics of the Cold War era.

Traditionally, mediation was not perceived as dodgy “brokering” or a sign of sovereign weakness, but as an honourable and necessary path to resolving global conflicts. It did not militate against perceptions of assertive and powerful governance. Indira Gandhi, who oversaw the splitting of Pakistan into two, was still wise enough to recognise that, “You can’t shake hands with a clenched fist” – implying the criticality of engagement and promotion of active diplomacy over “sitting out”. This tradition of using India’s good offices and perceptions was a non-partisan reality as successive prime ministers from across the ideological divide offered to mediate in their own ways.

I K Gujral propounded the ‘Gujral Doctrine’, emphasising non-reciprocal goodwill amongst neighbours to emerge as the bigger, trustworthy, and reliable actor – a prerequisite for meaningful mediation. Stalwarts, including Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the doyen of the current dispensation’s ideological underpinnings, P V Narasimha Rao, and Manmohan Singh, have
furthered the image of India as a mature and dignified democracy.

Today, international mediation is a strategic identity for Scandinavian countries, particularly Norway and Sweden. They actively leverage their neutrality, credibility, and development assistance to facilitate peace processes in global conflicts, such as the Oslo Accords (between Israel and Palestine) and Sri Lanka (during the Civil War).

The deceptive neighbour

India’s neighbour and age-old nemesis, Pakistan, too, has mediated in global conflicts but in a starkly different manner. It has invariably had a dark or selfish interest to mediate, as opposed to doing so out of a sense of global responsibility. It had infamously facilitated Henry Kissinger’s clandestine trip to China, which laid the foundation for Richard Nixon’s historic visit to China in 1972. In return for its services, Pakistan received advanced weaponry and economic aid from the US, besides securing strategic leverage with the US against India. During the Soviet-Afghan War, Pakistan surreptitiously interfered as opposed to mediate, thereby creating the Mujahideen movement that later birthed the Taliban. Later, Pakistan continued interfering with the intention of creating its much aspired “Strategic Depth” in Afghanistan by resorting to amoral factionalism. This earned Islamabad the notoriety of being a duplicitous and untrustworthy country, one that was only invoked and resorted to when no other option remained.

Today, seemingly that situation has emerged when a former Pakistan baiter, the US President Donald Trump, seeks mediation in its hopeless and embarrassing war on Iran. Who better than an economically and diplomatically squeezed Pakistan to offer its services to mediate between two desperate nations: the US and Pakistan’s eastern neighbour, Iran? Both Washington and Tehran have had unreliable experiences with Pakistan, but the current situation warrants anyone who can step in and initiate mediation – even if
that mediator is a historically unreliable Pakistan.

But the uncharitable ascribing of the pejorative term “dalal (broker) nation” onto Pakistan by the Indian Foreign Minister (on supposedly mediating between Iran and the US) was uncalled for, coming from a diplomatically mature nation like India. It almost seemed that Pakistan’s fleet-footedness in grabbing the opportunity riled Jaishankar. The fact that Indian diplomacy had led Prime Minister Modi to make some overly saccharine statements in Israel just a couple of days before the breakout of the hostility hardly makes for great timing, considering that the war is not exactly going as per the wishes of the US-Israel duo. India, too, is seeking Iranian benevolence in ensuring smooth passage through the Strait of Hormuz for its own economic security.

So while the shadowy Pakistanis have offered their services to mediate, for India to call it a “dalal nation” is not keeping with the diplomatic refinement and professionalism associated with Indian diplomacy. The ostensible muscularity of name-calling, masquerading as diplomacy, may satiate the hardline partisan cadres, but it does not reflect a nation that has mediated honourably in the past and aspires to be the Vishwa Guru (world leader).

(The writer is a former lieutenant governor of Puducherry and the
Andaman & Nicobar Islands)