Opinion Sanjaya Baru writes: Rising India vs Sectarian India

In response to the events in Syria, India’s foreign ministry has issued a statement of pious hope and wishes. India has sought a “peaceful and inclusive Syrian-led political process” that respects “the interests and aspirations of all sections of society”. However, our credentials in this regard in the region have been weakened by the political process in our own country in recent years. What India can do to help preserve “the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria,” is unclear. If nothing, then they are mere words. Like declaring that “this is not an era of war”.

As it so happened, external affairs minister S Jaishankar was in fact present over the weekend in the region, visiting Qatar and Bahrain, and could have used the opportunity, provided by an address to a regional security conference in Bahrain, to do some loud thinking on India’s contribution to regional security. The foreign minister did refer to India’s increased maritime engagement and her stakes in regional security. In fact, India has defence cooperation agreements with many member countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

However, any further elaboration of India’s role in the region would have required a clearer exposition of relations with Israel. For years, India has tried to maintain a balance in relations between Israel, Iran and the GCC but that policy of “regional multi-alignment”, so to speak, has come under pressure after the recent Israel-Palestine conflict.

The foreign minister spoke at length about trade and investment links, the presence of close to 10 million Indians working and living in the region, the long historical, social and cultural links, and so on. He devoted considerable attention to the importance of improved “connectivity”, drawing attention to India’s desire to offer an alternative to China’s “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI) by linking the Atlantic to the Pacific through a southern Asian corridor, partnering countries all the way from Greece to Thailand.

Yet, the fact is that India’s plan to build the first bridge westwards through the India-Middle East Corridor (IMEC) has had to be put on hold because of the renewed conflict in the region triggered by the Hamas attack on Israel and Israel’s decision to launch an all-out war against its neighbours.

The elephant in the room when it comes to India’s relations with West Asia, and the Muslim world in general, is the direction of domestic politics. While the Indian foreign secretary was in Bangladesh demanding protection for “Hindu minorities” in that country, the rest of the world is watching closely the status and security of India’s minorities.

The Gujarat businessman, Zafar Sareshwala, a self-confessed “friend and long-standing admirer” of Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently told Barkha Dutt that he had successfully mobilised millions of dollars of investment out of the United Arab Emirates that has since been questioned after the recent revival of demands for the destruction of more places of religious worship of the Muslim community. Sareshwala drew attention to the assurances given both by the PM and by the RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat in this regard and said that not heeding their views would cost the country dear.

The revival of sectarian and extremist voices within the majority community in recent weeks, with all manner of people making remarks that could disturb domestic peace and security, weakens India’s standing in its wider southern Asian neighbourhood all the way from Syria to Indonesia. The best efforts of India’s best diplomats and its highly talented foreign minister will come to nought if domestic politics weakens their hand.

More importantly, as Sareshwala indicated, this contentious domestic social and political environment imposes an economic cost. The slowdown of consumption, investment and income growth and the rising tide of talent emigration draw attention to the economic cost of domestic social tensions. A positive and optimistic “Rising India” narrative cannot be built on a negative and worrying “Sectarian India” politics. India’s rise cannot be projected merely as an economic opportunity but has to be viewed as a contribution to regional and global peace, security and stability.

Twenty years ago, the then Prime Minister of Japan, Junichiro Koizumi, on a visit to India, asked Prime Minister Manmohan Singh a leading question. India is in the middle of the Asian continent, he said. There is “a Rising Asia” to her East and “an Unstable Asia” to her West. In which direction is India likely to move?

Singh was taken aback by that unexpected question. He quickly gathered his wits and spoke at length about India’s “Look East Policy” and linked India’s destiny to that of a Rising Asia. India would industrialise, develop and globalise like Asia to her East. Yet, 20 years later that Koizumi question still stares India in her face. In which direction are we headed? Will our country progress within a relatively stable polity like most of Southeast and East Asia or become increasingly caught up in domestic and regional sectarian battles that continue to characterise West Asia.

When I pose this question some reply drawing attention to the “stability and prosperity” of the GCC countries. So many of India’s wealthy are emigrating to Dubai, I am told. Not one of those “stable states” is a democracy. As Syria now and Bangladesh earlier remind us, authoritarian regimes remain vulnerable to the anger of the street.

The writer was Member, National Security Advisory Board of India, 1999-2001 and media advisor to Prime Minister of India, 2004-08