Diplomacy comes to Rescue India’s Foreign Policy: A Case of Tharoor as External Affairs Minister

I have for long held the view that India’s foreign policy lacks diplomacy. India has failed to realize that foreign policy is about protecting national interests while diplomacy is about how these interests are protected; foreign policy is more about objectives while diplomacy is about strategy. Foreign policy has a strong element of continuity; diplomacy is expected to be dynamic. So far India’s foreign policy has sought to achieve most of the traditional objectives that any nation-state aspires for – territorial integrity, augmentation of national power and prestige, carving a leadership role in international affairs. But there has been something amiss in India’s foreign policy. In my analysis what India lacks is the force of diplomacy in communicating her foreign policy objectives to the world and ensuring international support for the same. India has not been able to translate the strengths of her national democracy and economy as stimulants for generating regional and international respect and awe. India has for long aspired for a leadership role but has not been able to project itself as nation whose leadership the region and the world desires; former is the task of foreign policy, the latter of diplomacy.
Fortunately now it appears to me that diplomacy is all set to characterize the next phase of India’s foreign policy. My hope emerges partly from the recent mandate for political stability in the country but primarily from a related development. Shashi Tharoor has been elected as Member of Parliament from Thiruvanathapuram.

An introduction for Tharoor would run into several pages. For the purpose of brevity Tharoor is an author, peace-keeper, refugee worker, human rights activist. Tharoor became known to most Indians during his candidacy for the post of UN Secretary General in 2006. From 1978 to 2007 Tharoor has held important positions in the U.N. gaining diplomatic and political insight on several international issues. Before I present a case for Tharoor’s remarkable diplomatic skills I must confess my personal adoration the man. For me Shashi Tharoor is someone who can be critically appreciative of India. In his several writings Tharoor highlights the several oddities that in his words ‘makes India what it is’. His simple, matter of fact approach tinged with his subtle sense of humor creates a persona which cannot fail to impress.  �
So how will Shashi Tharoor’s election change the face of Indian foreign policy? If my political insights have any credibility Shashi Tharoor will be appointed as India’s External Affairs Minister in the new Government.�
Will Shashi Tharoor as a Minister be able to make such a great impact on India’s foreign policy? Shashi Tharoor’s task and skill as Foreign Minister will be to shape India’s diplomacy thereby impacting on the country’s foreign policy. So here’s why Shashi Tharoor the best man (in decades) for the job and what the world can expect from India’s new External Affairs Minister?
First and foremost, Tharoor is a career diplomat. Unlike previous ministers occupying this office Tharoor is not a politician who will have to solely rest on the advice of his aides. Diplomacy is Tharoor’s forte and he has proven his skills several times.
Secondly, Tharoor’s vast experience in international diplomacy provides him with a ready and huge network of back-door diplomacy which he can use to India’s advantage. The value of back-door diplomacy and personal contacts in international politics can hardly be over-emphasized. �
Pakistan is expected to be the top priority for the Foreign Office after the new Government takes charge. Tharoor’s views on Pakistan are exemplified here to highlights his diplomatic insights and abilities.
Tharoor’s approach with regard to Pakistan has been calculated and categorical. He understands the internal situation in Pakistan and can clothe India’s demands in less threatening language. Tharoor is of the view that the moderates in Pakistan (themselves the targets of Islamist terror) should seize the opportunity to crack down upon the extremists and murderers in their midst, in their own interest. But since the political leadership fears the wrath of the military sustained pressure through U.S. military and intelligence will have to continue. No one in India has been able to comprehend the position of moderates and the extremist-military nexus in Pakistan so precisely. The standard demand from India has been that Pakistan’s political leadership should stop supporting terrorists. Tharoor knows quite well how to frame a demand without sounding offensive or defensive.
Moreover Tharoor realizes the limits of U.S. pressure on Pakistan. In his own words, “the tyranny of geography gives Pakistan an indispensable role in fulfilling the logistics needs for 34,000 US soldiers, who must be supplied, rationed and redeployed through Pakistani territory.” So Tharoor will not allow Pakistan’s support for terrorism to emerge as an annoyance factor in Indo-U.S. relations.�
Given constraints on United State’s ability to pressurize Pakistan, Tharoor is in favor of utilizing other instruments. Among the large paraphernalia of international anti-terror laws Tharoor suggested the use of two specific mechanisms created by the Security Council. One, the Sanctions Committee established under resolution 1267, has already been pressed into service to proscribe Jamaat-ud-Dawa. The other is resolution 1373, adopted immediately after 9/11, which imposes, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, binding requirements on all member states to take a whole range of actions against suspected terror organizations. According to Tharoor international sanctions against Pakistan should target the country’s military establishment. The UN could, for example, exclude the Pakistani army from future peace-keeping operations, a vital source of both prestige and lucre for Islamabad’s military
Tharoor was among the few in India who realized the larger implications of the terror attacks on Mumbai in November last year. According to him by singling out Americans, British and Israelis for their malign attention, the terrorists extended the global Islamist war against “Jews and crusaders” to new territory. This specific analysis of Tharoor, without explicitly saying so, globalizes the threats faced by India rather than simply employing the anti-Pakistan narrative as an explanation. In his analysis Tharoor refers to LeT (the terror group responsible for the Mumbai attacks) as an organization which considers U.S. Israel and India as existential enemies of Islam. Tharoor is thus merging India’s case against Pakistan in the wider international anti-terror campaign. Unlike India’s political leadership, Tharoor is not asking the U.S. to recognize that India is victim of international terrorism; he is simply presenting it as an existent fact. This is how diplomacy is expected to serve foreign policy.
Tharoor’s views on Pakistan are reflective of his deeper understanding of international politics. He can be expected to be an External Affairs Minister who simply does not react to immediate events without comprehending the deeper and wider geo-political forces responsible for the developments. Apart from his diplomatic and political acumen Tharoor possess one outstanding quality sadly lacking among India’s political leadership in general and External Affairs division in particular.  I would like to borrow Tharoor’s own words to highlight this quality. In his book Riot (friction) Tharoor through the character of an American businessman voices his opinion: “I’ll tell you what your problem is in India,” the American businessman says…. “You have too much history. Far more than you can use peacefully. So you end up wielding history like a battleaxe, against each other.”
I have referred to Tharoor’s views on Pakistan simply as a specimen of his diplomatic abilities. His views of other issues of international politics are equally insightful. This post was not meant to elaborate of Tharoor’s political ideology but was simply an attempt to highlight that the conduct of India’s foreign policy is destined to change in the hands of this man.