One of the many Communist era jokes in Poland featured an American and a Pole in animated conversation in Warsaw’s Old City, which has symbolism associated with the country’s blood-soaked history. The American tourist tells the Polish citizen: “I can stand in friend of the White House, shout slogans and protest against the American President. That is how we cherish our freedom.” Replies the Pole: “I can also stand in front of my President’s office, shout slogans and protest against the US President.”
Debate in India about this country’s foreign policy has become just like the above encounter between the American and the Pole. India’s think tanks and media thunder daily and incessantly against Pakistan, China, the regressive acts against women by the Taliban in Afghanistan, Islamists in Bangladesh and, occasionally, against US President Donald Trump. But rarely, if at all, can any meaningful or worthwhile criticism of India’s current external relations be seen anywhere on these domestic platforms.
Once in a while, foreign newspapers and other outlets are also at the receiving end of Indian public ire. When the foreign media demands accountability to truth from the Indian government, or when New Delhi’s policies are hauled over the coals in great detail, or if books and movies not to the liking of vocal—but splendidly ill-informed—sections of local society are brought out abroad, such critics are trolled as agents of India’s destabilisation.
This shameful and dangerous practice of keeping its own citizens in ignorance about real issues of national security and external affairs—as opposed to perceived interests and propaganda—is not entirely new or the product of the present ruling dispensation. When I returned to India three-and-a-half decades ago after working abroad for many years as a journalist, a joint secretary in the ministry of external affairs (MEA), whom I had known since my teenage years, called me home and gave some advice. Because I had started writing against the official MEA line, this well-meaning official was concerned as a friend. “Look, I can summon any journalist on the foreign policy beat, howsoever senior, and dictate a story to him. It will appear in print tomorrow without even a change in comma or full stop.” There were no TV channels then other than the sole official one.
K Subrahmanyam, who has long been considered in India as the guru of today’s defence and foreign policy analysts, was once approached by George Tanham of the RAND Corporation’s National Defense Research Institute for his views on Indian strategic thought. “What can I say about something that doesn’t exist!” Subrahmanyam had retorted to Tanham’s query. On another occasion, when Subrahmanyam was Jawaharlal Nehru Visiting Professor at the University of Cambridge, students at Wolfson College had asked him a question similar to Tanham’s. “That would be a good idea,” Subrahmanyam had said about strategic thinking in India, paraphrasing Mahatma Gandhi’s answer to his thoughts on Western civilisation.
Subrahmanyam’s son S Jaishankar was foreign secretary and is now the minister for external affairs. It may be unfair to speculate on what the father would have thought of his son’s foreign and security policies. But it is fair from an analyst’s point to view to argue that a low type of pragmatism has replaced ideology as MEA’s core policy today. Pragmatism brings success, but more often than not, such successes are short-lived. Pragmatism cannot substitute strategic thought, which alone can craft policies that reflect India’s growing stature in the world. Robust strategic thought must honestly take into account that India is a long way from fulfilling its destiny. The ‘ignorance’ mentioned in a previous paragraph disturbingly makes Indians in government and outside behave as if India is a global power. Damage done by such arrogance is immense and impedes the country’s progress towards any truly global role.
A combination of all this has brought a windfall for the MEA, which projects an unchallenged image of being perfect—an oracle of sorts. Last month, I calculated 68 press releases issued by the ministry. In addition, it transmitted to the public 34 speeches on foreign policy and nine documents—usually long reads—on external affairs. On top of these, the MEA held 15 briefings and issued four advisories. Together, they added up to 130 publicity initiatives. The MEA’s external publicity division recently began sending each of these outreaches to reporters on its news beat via SMS, WhatsApp and emails all at once. So, every reporter covering Indian foreign policy was bombarded by nearly 400 items claiming to be worthy of news in a span of 31 days. No other ministry does anything similar.
The calculation is that during such a publicity blitzkrieg, some of it will get through to its intended audience—the undiscriminating public. Reality has exceeded such calculations. Almost all of the MEA output has hit the mark for two reasons. One is the prevailing media environment, where access for reporters in the Executive and Legislative branches of government has been severely curtailed. Many ministries prefer silence or give out the barest minimum information. This offers fertile ground for the MEA’s DNA because it is willing to flood the media with information. Unlike most ministries, which have put a lid on media interactions, the MEA dresses up even its most inane developments as newsworthy and floods reporters’ inboxes with them.
The second reason is a precipitous decline in the quality of journalists who report on the MEA. Many media veterans have died or retired. Others have relocated abroad or joined non-media ventures. Their space has been taken by superannuated diplomats. Most editors in this country have their in-trays brimming with articles written by former ambassadors. By habit and training, with few exceptions, these writers continue to support their former ministry and its work.
Just as foreign bureaux have been cut to reduce costs, media houses have given up investing in new talent on the beat. A former MEA spokesman and international civil servant gave his diagnosis: “Why should they, when my former ministry is constantly spoon-feeding the media?” A few editors know what the problem is. But their voices are cries in the wilderness.
K P Nayar | Strategic analyst
(Views are personal)
(kpnayar@gmail.com)
