Opinion The foreign policy hand

Though uniquely combining the titles,Brajesh had predecessors who had also played both roles,notably P.N. Haksar and P.N. Dhar,the two principal secretaries who were also key advisers on what are called national security matters today. Government heads always feel the need of a personal expert to supplement — if not supersede — inputs on foreign affairs and related security concerns from the ministries directly responsible. Remember Krishna Menon’s controversial performance as grey eminence to Nehru; more happily,although not entirely without controversy,Indira Gandhi turned frequently to G. Parthasarthi. Such extra-official advisors cannot be excluded,but,granted the need for one,it is best to have properly established arrangements. Not only an NSA,but a significant support apparatus,is now universal practice — indeed,we need to expand ours.

But no matter how large or expert,no organisation can serve its purposes if the total politico-administrative environment is unreceptive,not to mention adverse. The Vajpayee/Mishra combination faced the same problem: the coalition may have been less difficult to manage,or the management more skilful,but there were rivalries and whimsies galore,as is our Indian way. The fiasco of the Indo-Pakistan summit at Agra is the most incredible example of personal brainwaves overcoming good judgement. Not even this top combination was able to control internal factional or egotistical pressures. But yesterday’ s aberration is becoming today’s daily danger.

A disturbing new danger is local leaders inflicting themselves on foreign policy. Democracy is inherently handicapped in the conducting of foreign policy. Public opinion,real or supposed,now adds difficulty,and federal systems must be sensitive to regional sentiments. America,for instance,cannot deal with Cuba without deference to voters in Florida,or with Mexico ignoring Texas. But India is now deprived of essential flexibility,with parochial politics in Kolkata ruining relations with Bangladesh,in Chennai with Sri Lanka. More generally,the political equations and atmosphere in the country as a whole have become so destructively paralysing,the dog-in-the-manger attitude prevails even over major issues on which there is no essential difference.

India is not the only democracy in the world; others must manage,and have somehow minimised,similar obstacles. Nor are we unique in the poisonous relations that develop within all power structures. When someone said former British home secretary Herbert Morrison was his own worst enemy,foreign secretary Ernest Bevin promptly growled “Not while I’m alive,he aint!” And the viciousness with which American president’s are attacked makes our infighting look tame. But despite major gridlocks,other democracies manage distinctly less messily than us. Perhaps because we have leapfrogged through the processes of democratisation so rapidly,we have not developed the infrastructures of statecraft and functioning habits,which the others had centuries to do. Mechanisms that are protected from the worst interference in the sober,balanced handling of our international concerns are essential,as is the readiness to risk the howling now automatic for all government initiatives. Hardly any foreign policy issue changes a single vote,and while nobody wants to add sticks to be beaten with,governments can afford to ignore our now constant hulla. Fortunately,no parliamentary system requires prior legislative approval of international engagements. Legislatures can vote governments out post facto,and obviously governments must make advance judgements on the acceptability of decisions,but previous concurrence would make diplomacy impossible.

India faces greater challenges to its security than most larger powers,far more than is in our public consciousness. Just because nobody is going to invade us tomorrow does not mean we can take it as carelessly as we are prone to. The minimum prerequisite for better functioning is an agreement among our major political parties to eschew cheap one-upmanship. In the last year,Brajesh and a half a dozen of us old hands had desperately racked our remaining brains to devise a scheme to urge some political leaders to cooperate on at least four or five specific national imperatives. Without him,it is beyond us. Maybe others will seek to pay our debt to him and to India.

The writer is former ambassador to Pakistan,China and the US and secretary,Ministry of External Affairs Ministry

express@expressindia.com