Narendra Modi: The Rule Maker – An Extract from Rajiv Dogra’s ‘India’s World’
So far, New Delhi has resisted foreign mediation in its long-standing conflict with Pakistan on the Kashmir issue. Still, it has had to pay the price one way or another due to the intrusive interest from the US, which has all along been prodded by Pakistan to take a mediatory role in the matter.
An instance from the past is worth recalling. Starting in the late 1950s, when the US began to see great strategic merit in Pakistan being its partner, it was keen to somehow resolve the Kashmir issue to Pakistan’s satisfaction. Since India was proving to be obdurate in the matter, it switched focus to the Indus waters issue. The US found an opportunity to pressurize India because it was passing through economic difficulties. The rest was accomplished by the World Bank, which was appointed to act, on paper at least, as an honest broker. It came up with the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, which continues to remain the most generous water treaty in the world ever signed by an upper riparian state.
By the words engraved in this treaty, India gave 80 per cent of the waters of the six rivers to Pakistan. But what has not been realized so far is the sleight of hand by which the six rivers were apportioned between the two countries. India was given the control over waters flowing in the three ‘eastern’ rivers of India: the Beas, the Ravi and the Sutlej. These are Punjab-based rivers. Pakistan was given control over the waters flowing in three ‘western’ rivers that pass through Kashmir: the Indus, the Chenab and the Jhelum.
Is it any surprise that Pakistan got control over the rivers flowing through Kashmir? The US, the puppeteer behind the World Bank’s decision, had engineered this to strengthen Pakistan’s political claim over Kashmir. Sadly, the Indian side did not see through this deceit and did not protest. Nor has this mischief been remarked upon in the public domain so far. And it is a greater pity that India has made no move yet to fully claim the waters assigned to it.
The point in recounting this episode here is to stress that there is seldom an honest broker. And that the concession you make in a moment of weakness haunts the country for a long time.
Kargil and the post-Pulwama military standoff are the recent instances of American mediation. But as and when we ponder over the next one, it might be worthwhile recalling that once, in an introspective mood, Henry Kissinger had confessed, ‘It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.’
To illustrate this point in the present context, every move in dealings with the outside world must pass the test of ‘America First’. To that extent, there is a non-negotiable and unchanging fundamental of national interest that determines the conduct of the US under Trump. For instance, when commerce becomes the lens that the US sees the world through, India and China look similar; to Trump, both are trying to extract benefits from it. Trump pressurizes Modi for trade concessions every time they meet, though India’s surplus was only $24 billion in a total trade turnover of $88 billion in 2018. In contrast, India’s trade deficit with China in 2018 was a whopping $60 billion, in a total trade turnover of $76 billion. Yet, we do not make any great noise about it to the Chinese, or if we do, it has not had the desired effect because the deficit has only kept increasing. Our hesitation could be a part of the larger concern—that the bilateral boat must not be rocked at this stage.
At a time when the economy is growing at its slowest rate in five years and unemployment is at a 45-year high, India needs stability of external conditions, especially with regard to the security of oil supply and its pricing. At this stage, America’s heavy-handed tactics have driven up India’s oil import bill by stopping it from buying at concessional rates from next-door Iran. The US actions also risk undermining India’s relationship with Tehran, which is about more than just oil. The transportation corridor to Afghanistan that India is building via Chabahar in Iran, bypassing Pakistan, may be at risk. That would also snap the hopes that were building up of a route further north, to the Central Asian countries.
Despite this, Modi is likely to sustain the momentum in the Indo-US relationship in view of a complex international situation. The threats now are numerous, complex and dynamic. They are being charged by technological advances that will work in ways no one can fully comprehend.
But the road ahead is even more difficult because of Trump’s mercurial nature and limited interest in global affairs. As the book A Very Stable Genius reveals, ‘Trump seemed to alarm Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his aides by saying India doesn’t share a border with China.’ ‘It’s not like you’ve got China on your border,’ he said, and Modi’s eyes ‘bulged out in surprise… Modi’s expression gradually shifted, from shock and concern to resignation.’9
Still, Modi has been indulgent towards Trump, who has been getting his way so far. Sometimes, Trump seems to dismiss India’s security interests as secondary to US determination. Almost all through, Modi has been accommodative, but pushed beyond a point, the strongman in him puts up a wall, as in the case of the contract with Russia for supply of the anti-missile defence S-400 system.
That’s why being a friend of Iran and the US at the same time is getting more and more difficult. But what side will India take if US–Iran relations deteriorate further and Trump returns to the Bush motto of ‘with us or against us’? That it could happen is almost a given. Whether it happens soon or at some point in the future remains to be seen, because the US experience in wars in the Gulf has not been congratulatory. None of them have produced the results that had been hoped for initially.
However, the situation in the region is uncertain. Even if one crisis is somehow tided over, the differences between Iran and the Gulf Arabs are deep-rooted; they could bubble over again. As in the past, this next time too, the US could get involved directly or indirectly. And in all likelihood this would have ill effects on other countries like India; the American whims about sanctions at that point of time would determine the extent of damage it could do to the economies of these other countries. Therefore, a situation where fighting breaks out between them would add further to India’s dilemma of ‘with us or against us’. A war or warlike situation in the Gulf region would put not just its oil and gas supply at risk, but also the welfare of millions of Indians working in the region.
***
Since Independence, eight prime ministers, in particular, have been the principal architects of India’s rise. From Nehru, venerated as a resolute statesman and one of the great political minds of the last century, to Modi who is acknowledged as a determined doer, Rajiv Dogra’s ‘India’s World’ offers a crystal clear portrait of India’s leaders.
This lively volume celebrates the myriad ways in which they have made history. It asks and answers questions that people often debate about. Who was the great Indian prime minister, complete in every respect? If there was one, could it be Nehru, Indira or Rao? Or, is it Modi? Elegantly written by one of India’s finest strategic minds, it is a must-read for those curious about India’s place in the world.