india-must-redeem-political-consensus-over-foreign-policy

By and large, so far, there was complete consensus among different political parties in the country on the foreign policy. It was not just in 1994 when the then Leader of the Opposition Atal Bihari Vajpayee led the country’s delegation to the United Nations to defend the country against a Pakistan-sponsored resolution on Kashmir, even before that the ruling and the opposition parties would be on the same page on foreign policy matters.

 

Sadly, that no longer holds true anymore. Like in everything else, on the foreign policy matters also, the ruling party and the principal opposition party, the Congress, are taking different positions. While obviously the official government position will be deemed that of the ruling party, the opposition Congress has ensured that it is seen at variance or opposed to the official policy.

 

This has a lot to do with the overall mistrust between the BJP and the Congress. The two parties have never ever been so hostile towards each other. While the ruling party has a record of trying to blame the first Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru for all the ills facing the country today, the Congress has started returning the favour by holding the government responsible for everything that goes or is seen to be going against the Indian interests.

 

Two recent developments are examples as how the Congress rushes to blame the government for what it calls the “complete failure” of India’s foreign policy. On both the counts, the party had to cut a sorry figure later.

 

First was the delayed invitation to Prime Minister Narendra Modi by the Canadian government for attending the G-7 Summit. When PM Modi did not receive any invitation, while other non-member countries like South Africa got it, the Congress jumped the gun, pronouncing it to be yet another ‘foreign policy failure’. Although the Canadian government later invited Prime Minister Modi, but the issue at stake is different.

 

The Congress sought to blame the Modi government for the strained relationship with Canada that led to initially the Canadian government not inviting him (Modi). The Congress conveniently ignored the reasons for the relations getting strained. There was no personal issue between Modi and the Canadian government. The government of India took a principled stand by expressing strong resentment and reservations against the Canadian government, supporting and encouraging the extremists and separatists propagating against India on the Canadian soil.

 

Any government in India, irrespective of the party, would take the same stand. The Congress has done the same thing in the past by keeping the national interest at the top-most priority. Modi government did the same thing. It led to strained relations. In fact, the Congress even ignored the Khalsa parade last year in Canada where Ms Indira Gandhi’s bullet riddled and blood soaked floats were displayed atop a truck with her assassins pointing guns at her. The Government of India took strong exception to the glorification of her assassination, while the Congress kept quiet.

 

Rather, when Modi did not receive the G-7 invitation, the Congress rushed with its critique, blaming him for his “failed foreign policy”. Quite embarrassingly for the Congress, the Canadian government, the Prime Minister Mark Carney in particular, later invited Prime Minister Modi for the Summit. Carney said he could not ignore the World’s fourth biggest economy.

 

The second issue where the Congress again erred in blaming Modi for something that did not happen was the rumour that Pakistan army chief Asim Munir was invited for the ‘Military Parade’, organised by the United States to mark 250 years of the establishment of its army. The Congress, as usual, blamed Modi for the US administration inviting Munir, although he had not been invited. It does not need any diplomatic expertise to understand as to how the Indian Prime Minister be held responsible for something the US administration did and that too under Donald Trump, who has proved to be most unpredictable President. Later, much to the agonising embarrassment to the Congress party, the US administration denied that it had invited Asim Munir for the military parade.

 

When India abstained from the vote-seeking a ceasefire in Gaza, the Congress again went hammer and tongs against the government. India had about six months ago voted for a resolution seeking ceasefire in Gaza. But this time the country abstained for the obvious reason that it did not want to vote against Israel, a country that extended unconditional and unambiguous support to India in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack.

 

Again when Israel launched targeted strikes at Iran, to pre-empt its nuclear programme, the government issued a balanced statement, calling for restraint on both the sides. The Congress again took a contrarian position, not only condemning Israel but also the government of India for not standing by Iran.

The Congress may have its valid reasons for such extreme hostility towards the BJP, which has been no less hostile either, but on certain matters the principal opposition party will need to look beyond the domestic partisan interests to get even with the ruling party.

 

Obviously, there would be no dearth of issues on which the Congress can corner the ruling party, but on the issue of foreign policy and national interest, the Congress would do well by observing restraint. If it cannot support the official policy, it can at least observe silence.

But the temptation to condemn Israel and be seen with its opponents serves the party’s domestic political interests, which it finds difficult to resist even if it means taking a stand that goes contrary to the national interest. Israel, not Iran, stood by India during the Operation Sindoor. India standing by Israel is natural.

 

While the Congress must look beyond the domestic partisan interests when it comes to foreign policy matters, the government also needs to engage the party on such matters. India needs consensus, not confrontation, among its political parties on the all important matters like the foreign policy.