Devangshu Datta: Why Mr Modi travels
The peregrinations of Narendra Modi have provided much grist to the news mill for the past two years. Mr Modi goes to phoren; he takes selfies in interesting locales; he entertains NRI crowds; he meets captains of industry; he takes selfies; he changes clothes and takes more selfies, etc.
During this process, Mr Modi has also redefined diplomacy. Over the centuries, a multitude of thinkers examined the art of diplomacy through multiple lenses. Kautilya, for example, was one of the earliest muses on the subject.
Kautilya saw diplomacy through the lens of national self-interest. The Arthashastra advocates that a king should establish a ring of neighbouring allies with aligned self-interests, and also that a king should build strong intelligence networks. It also advocates being prepared to go to war continuously, and instantaneously, if those interests are threatened.
Carl von Clausewitz agreed that war was an alternative means of conducting diplomacy though the Prussian general was less hawkish than the Brahmin political philosopher. Lord Palmerston, who was a practitioner rather than a theorist, similarly believed that a nation has no permanent allies, it has only permanent interests. Henry Kissinger concurred with Palmerston and Kautilya.
By those standards, Mr Modi has failed. India's relationships with its neighbours has deteriorated. Nepal is bitter about the blockade. Myanmar is wary and embarrassed following the triumphant noises made after the "hot pursuit" incident, when India struck at NSCN camps inside the neighbouring country. Bangladesh did not particularly like the BJP harping upon "infiltration" in the recent campaigns in Assam and West Bengal. The relationships with Pakistan and China don't appear to be any better than they used to be.
Zooming out to a wider perspective, the trips to the US have not translated into better terms for trade, or more H-1B visas for Indian techies. There have been no particular concessions from other nations. Japan has agreed to pump in a lot of money into sundry projects but this hasn't really been seen on the ground yet.
However, these are not the parameters by which Mr Modi's diplomacy should be judged. In essence, his diplomacy is driven by other things. One is a deep and apparently genuine desire to continuously generate good PR about India's growth prospects and India's civilisational achievements. The other is a more pragmatic need to ensure alternate sources of funding, not only for India's infrastructure and industry, but also for the BJP's future election campaigns.
The trips have been remarkably successful in terms of outreach to the NRI community. It is a moot point whether the BJP would even hold on to its 2014 voteshare if a general election was held today. But it clearly has the endorsement of sundry well-heeled Americans, Canadians, Britons, et al.
More importantly, those relationships can now be monetised easily and openly. India's largest NGO, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), is already said to receive a fair amount of money from its overseas affiliates and the RSS provides the boots on the ground to campaign for the BJP.
Now, the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act , 2010, or FCRA has been amended with retrospective effect in the latest Finance Bill. This makes it much easier for any corporate with a foreign holding or overseas listing to directly funnel money to a political party. The amended FCRA also makes it easier for a foreign company to fund an NGO to carry out "activities of a political nature".
This alters the playing field. The Congress is in no position to complain about retrospective amendments since it was just as culpable as the BJP in receiving donations from the UK-listed Vedanta. However, Mr Modi is better placed to canvass for such donations than any of his rivals from any other party.
Seen from that angle of fund-raising, the diplomacy has been pretty successful. The irony is, a party, which screams loudly about one Indian passport-holder of Italian origin, is now well set to receive significant contributions from multiple citizens of many nations.
Source : BS
During this process, Mr Modi has also redefined diplomacy. Over the centuries, a multitude of thinkers examined the art of diplomacy through multiple lenses. Kautilya, for example, was one of the earliest muses on the subject.
Kautilya saw diplomacy through the lens of national self-interest. The Arthashastra advocates that a king should establish a ring of neighbouring allies with aligned self-interests, and also that a king should build strong intelligence networks. It also advocates being prepared to go to war continuously, and instantaneously, if those interests are threatened.
Carl von Clausewitz agreed that war was an alternative means of conducting diplomacy though the Prussian general was less hawkish than the Brahmin political philosopher. Lord Palmerston, who was a practitioner rather than a theorist, similarly believed that a nation has no permanent allies, it has only permanent interests. Henry Kissinger concurred with Palmerston and Kautilya.
By those standards, Mr Modi has failed. India's relationships with its neighbours has deteriorated. Nepal is bitter about the blockade. Myanmar is wary and embarrassed following the triumphant noises made after the "hot pursuit" incident, when India struck at NSCN camps inside the neighbouring country. Bangladesh did not particularly like the BJP harping upon "infiltration" in the recent campaigns in Assam and West Bengal. The relationships with Pakistan and China don't appear to be any better than they used to be.
Zooming out to a wider perspective, the trips to the US have not translated into better terms for trade, or more H-1B visas for Indian techies. There have been no particular concessions from other nations. Japan has agreed to pump in a lot of money into sundry projects but this hasn't really been seen on the ground yet.
However, these are not the parameters by which Mr Modi's diplomacy should be judged. In essence, his diplomacy is driven by other things. One is a deep and apparently genuine desire to continuously generate good PR about India's growth prospects and India's civilisational achievements. The other is a more pragmatic need to ensure alternate sources of funding, not only for India's infrastructure and industry, but also for the BJP's future election campaigns.
The trips have been remarkably successful in terms of outreach to the NRI community. It is a moot point whether the BJP would even hold on to its 2014 voteshare if a general election was held today. But it clearly has the endorsement of sundry well-heeled Americans, Canadians, Britons, et al.
More importantly, those relationships can now be monetised easily and openly. India's largest NGO, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), is already said to receive a fair amount of money from its overseas affiliates and the RSS provides the boots on the ground to campaign for the BJP.
Now, the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act , 2010, or FCRA has been amended with retrospective effect in the latest Finance Bill. This makes it much easier for any corporate with a foreign holding or overseas listing to directly funnel money to a political party. The amended FCRA also makes it easier for a foreign company to fund an NGO to carry out "activities of a political nature".
This alters the playing field. The Congress is in no position to complain about retrospective amendments since it was just as culpable as the BJP in receiving donations from the UK-listed Vedanta. However, Mr Modi is better placed to canvass for such donations than any of his rivals from any other party.
Seen from that angle of fund-raising, the diplomacy has been pretty successful. The irony is, a party, which screams loudly about one Indian passport-holder of Italian origin, is now well set to receive significant contributions from multiple citizens of many nations.
Source : BS
Comments