Headlines
Modi and soft power: No substitute for traditional diplomacy
By
By Amit Dasgupta When the chief minister of gujarat became the prime minister of India,
the personal interest he demonstrated in foreign affairs confounded
everyone. But what caught everyone by surprise was the ease with which
he brought his personal style to bear on his interaction with world
leaders. Establishing a one-to-one rapport became his distinctive
hallmark.
Whether through the bear hug or the 'shirt-fronting'
joke with the Australian prime minister or the first name reference and
the 'chai pe charcha' on the Hyderabad House lawns with US President
Barack Obama, Modi broke with convention and protocol.
This was
soft power at its best. Like a master magician, he demonstrated how soft
power could, most certainly, be an effective instrument of foreign
policy. Indeed, Indian foreign policy, under his brief stewardship, is
already seeing an unprecedented resurgence. After almost five years of
standstill governance under UPA-II, when the India charm rapidly
dissipated, there is now renewed interest in an India under Modi.
However, soft power diplomacy is successful only when it is sustainable and necessarily rests on certain basic principles:
First, soft power must complement and not attempt to replace traditional diplomacy.
Bear
hugs and bonhomie set the tone between world leaders but do not become a
substitute for the hard work and behind-the-scene fine-tuning that
translates vision and expectation into mutually agreed action areas.
Joint
statements impress but all they convey is intent. It is agreements that
set out how intent is operationalized. Without these details, intent is
rhetoric.
Take the case of the recent India-US "understanding"
on nuclear liability, which has been hailed as a "breakthrough". Clarity
continues to be elusive. US companies have expressed "scepticism" on
what precisely the contours of the "breakthrough" are. The Russian
ambassador to India has gone on record to refer to the "breakthrough" as
a coupling of "euphoria" with "promises".
This is seriously damaging and occurred because soft power far exceeded what traditional diplomacy could deliver.
Second, soft power only conveys a signal; it is not the entire story.
Take
Modi's recent visit to Australia. India-Australia relations were
under-performing and moribund, mired in old suspicions. Modi wished to
convey that he was committed to changing that scenario and in making
their relations a core element of his foreign policy. His extraordinary
efforts won hearts and dramatically changed perceptions.
But his
words are yet to be translated into any serious agreements, whether on
investments, two-way trade, security or defence cooperation.
It
is the same story vis-Ã -vis the US. Even on the ease of doing business,
which he publicly assured American business of, there is no clear
outline on the reforms undertaken or likely to be undertaken.
Modi's
soft power outreach, in other words, was not in tandem with the details
that traditional diplomacy first needed to iron out with American and
Australian counterparts. Indeed, it was so many steps ahead of
traditional diplomacy that it gave the impression that too many
unrealistic promises were being made.
Third, soft power can convey unintended and wrong signals.
The
reference to the South China Sea dispute during the Obama-Modi talks
outraged Beijing. Was this a strategic decision to set the tone for
Modi's forthcoming visit to China? This is debatable but surely it needs
serious introspection as to whether India is in a position to confront
Beijing in the South China Sea territorial dispute. If it is not, this
forceful and unprecedented reference was nothing but avoidable rhetoric.
Fourth, credible soft power wins friends; it does not alienate.
Apart
from the inappropriate pinstripe suit, the BJP has run a professional
PR campaign. Yet, there were two serious blunders in the recent Delhi
elections: first, the reference to Arvind Kejriwal's caste and second,
describing persons from the northeast as "immigrants" (and then, to
compound matters, in saying that it was a typo error). Were these
gaffes? Or were they, in fact, how they actually perceived others?
Perceptions
matter. The mishandling of the church desecrations and the consequent
silent protest by the Christian community on the eve of the Delhi
elections are a cause for serious concern, as indeed are the provocative
statements, by so-called "fringe elements", espousing Hindu supremacy.
The prime minister's silence is particularly worrying because it is
perceived as an implicit legitimization of the alienation.
India
is at a historic crossroads and this might well be a transformational
phase in our foreign policy. All eyes are on India because it could be
the game changer in the world economy and a crucial pillar in the new
security architecture. It is an extraordinary opportunity for the prime
minister.
However, Prime Minister Modi needs to recognize that
the magic of soft power works only when it carries traditional diplomacy
along. If not, it could well see the erosion of trust. Magic, after
all, is only fiction.
(15.02.2014 - Amit Dasgupta is a former
Indian diplomat. The views expressed are personal. He may be reached at
[email protected])