MODEST EXPECTATIONS

Narendra Modi’s visits abroad call for a sober assessment

KRISHNAN SRINIVASAN

21 Oct 2014

All right-thinking Indians will have hoped for high-profile and constructive results from the prime minister’s visits abroad. Despite the habitual and pointless carping of his political rivals, Narendra Modi won high marks for projecting India in a vigorous and positive light in Bhutan, Nepal, Japan and the United States of America, and even his critics must admit that none of their weathered leaders could match the prime minister’s abundant energy and ability to conduct himself in a manner appropriate to the occasion. In Bhutan, the traditional close ties have been reaffirmed; in Nepal, a certain degree of the trust dissipated over the decades has been restored; and in Japan, the prime minister, Shinzo Abe, went out of his way to emphasize that India is a valued friend, economic partner and possible strategic associate.

But the prime minister’s US visit attracted the most attention among observers and in the Indian media, owing partly to the visa ban imposed on Modi in 2005, and because a visit to the world’s leading power broker, with which India has always had a chequered relationship, carries its own special importance. Here, too, it was a case of undoing the stagnation and mutual unease of the past few years. Apart from inter-governmental ties, Modi’s economic programmes for India, and especially his ‘Make in India’ campaign, are seen as highly dependent on convincing American business to invest in India.

In a hectic few days in New York, the prime minister fared both weakly and impressively. His speech at the United Nations general assembly was mediocre, consisting of a few telling points, namely, the brushing aside of Pakistan, correctly stating that Kashmir would find no solutions in New York and had to be settled bilaterally, his references to no country or group of countries being able to determine the course of the world, and that international trade agreements required accommodation of others’ concerns and interests. For the rest, his address was forgettable, lacked vision, and laid down no short- or long-term agendas for our diplomats at the UN. The appeal for an International Yoga Day hardly constitutes such a mandate, and might in this context be considered trivial.

The prime minister fared much better in his speeches at Central Park and Madison Square Garden. He is a master in communicating with a wide variety of audiences, compelling and ‘cool’, with an astute choice of the right vocabulary. In Central Park, his pitch to the young hit the right notes, and in MSG he was addressing loyal NRI supporters and gave them what every Indian politician knows they yearn for, which is equal status with Indians in India. If precedent is anything to go by, the Indian home ministry will cavil at any open-door policy on visas and this will take time to come into effect. The presence of nearly four dozen American elected officials reflects the money power, and consequently the political influence, of the NRI community. It may indeed have been an over-the-top spectacle, but the event and Modi’s bonhomie, in general, gave overseas Indians the self-respect and self-confidence that they had been lacking for decades. But to expect them to volunteer to contribute to India’s socio-economic development will be wishful thinking.

In every gathering, the prime minister dwelt on the significance of Indian democracy, thereby subtly underlining his authority stemming from his massive mandate. He has achieved name-recognition, and India’s success with the Mars mission was timely and added to its prestige. As a first-time visitor to the USA as prime minister, Modi will never again attract as much attention there: so it was unfortunate that encounters with the American media were confined to the Wall Street Journal and the online piece with Obama in the Washington Post. As with every other Indian prime minister after Morarji Desai, Modi declined interviews with the TV majors ABC, NBC and CBC, and his outreach to Americans beyond the Tri-State area must be in doubt.

The main emphasis of Modi’s programme was economic, and his meetings with Obama were advertised as goodwill and courtesy. American corporate bosses are not swayed by charm, and the upshot of the prime minister’s discussions with the dozen or more economic giants can only result in greater awareness that much more has to be done in a competitive world by India to make this country receptive for big investments. Modi did not need to travel to New York to know that huge impediments confront the foreign and Indian investor; among them, restrictions on land and labour, regulatory barriers including investment ceilings, the green tribunal, inconsistent tax laws, parliamentary, high court and Supreme Court decisions, lack of infrastructure and power, and states that pursue idiosyncratic and hyper-nationalistic policies. Even the $35 billion and $20 billion promised by Japan and China — not big amounts by their standards and capacity — will run up against these hurdles. The last budget damped investor spirits, and the lengthy medical ailments of the finance minister will not inspire confidence. There is a narrow window of time available to this government before world capital looks elsewhere.

Whether Modi’s visit to Obama was ‘official’ or not, his meetings with Obama resulted in two documents, one of them the joint editorial in the Washington Post. These arid texts are scrutinized only by academics and bureaucrats, but some broad conclusions may be drawn, and the balance sheet is in favour of Washington. India did not agree to confront the Islamic State, which is anathema to all but fanatical Sunnis and is holding around 40 Indian nationals captive. Even Turkey, a Nato ally, did not join the anti-IS coalition until their nationals were released from IS clutches. India did not accept American regime change in Damascus, nor sanctions against Russia over Ukraine, but Iranian and North Korean nuclear programmes are mentioned with reference to security council resolutions, and Iran’s gratuitous inclusion is a concession to the US and Israel.

On defence cooperation, the pledge to treat the other at the same level as “their closest partners” is not helpful to Russia. The US ‘rebalance’ to Asia and India’s ‘Act East’ policy are curiously linked, perhaps to avoid Chinese hostility, but mention of safeguarding the freedom of navigation and over flight in the South China Sea will upset Beijing. Both countries agreed to reduce “the salience” of nuclear weapons, which is far from the complete elimination of such weapons that was traditional Indian policy. There will be “efforts” to bring American nuclear power technology to India, but the nuclear liability law is an insuperable barrier. There are US promises to support India’s membership in a reformed security council, to end technology denial regimes, and to enhance “India’s voice and vote” in international financial institutions. But these are mere promissory notes.

There are no US assurances on a Taliban-free Afghanistan, and Pakistan is referred to only for bringing to justice the Mumbai perpetrators and joint action against al-Qaida, Lashkar, Jaish, D-company and the Haqqani network, all of whom have bases and support within Pakistan. For the rest, numerous working groups are to be set up on a wide range of proposals, and there will be more discussions and dialogues. India made no headway on food security, more ICT professionals’ visas or repatriation of their social security contributions. The US earnestly urges India and Pakistan to engage in serious conversation, and it was no coincidence that during Modi’s Washington stay, New Delhi issued a conciliatory statement about Modi meeting Nawaz Sharif in Nepal during next month’s Saarc summit.

It was just as well that the Modi visit to Washington was preceded by modest expectations. The baggage of problems, some of it created by the Bharatiya Janata Party itself, left behind by the Manmohan Singh government was too cumbersome to be dismantled in one or several encounters. Together with the excitable Indian media, wizened India-watchers in the US like Ashley Tellis and Frank Wisner described his visit as memorable. It was hardly that, except to the doting NRIs. But restoring a modicum of normality with Washington after the deep sleep following 2008 is to be welcomed, because good relations between India and the US adds weight to India in its foreign-policy projections. As for Modi himself, he has justly returned well satisfied, having shown himself to be a strong performer in foreign fields. Now he has to attend to the much more difficult task at home of consolidating his advantage. Like Voltaire’s hero in the eponymous Candide, he has to turn urgently now to cultivating his own garden.

The author is former foreign secretary of India