How India Sees the World: Kautilya to the
21st Century
By Shyam Saran
Juggernaut Books, 2017
312 pages
Rs 599
Followers of writing on Indian foreign
policy have had a bonanza year. First, at the end of 2016, came Shivshankar
Menon’s thought provoking book “Choices:
Inside the Making of India’s Foreign Policy”. That was followed by Aparna
Pande’s “From Chanakya to Modi: The
Evolution of India’s Foreign Policy”, an eminently readable scholar’s
account. Now we have a cherry atop the icing on the cake, with Shyam Saran’s “How India Sees the World: Kautilya to the 21st
Century”.
Interestingly, all three authors adopted
different analytical tools. Mr Menon focused on five strategic turning points
in the last two decades, which forced New Delhi to choose between two divergent
courses; and then analysed why India made the choice it did in each case. Ms Pande’s
more chronologically ordered recounting illustrated an underlying civilizational
continuity even amidst geopolitical change. Mr Saran’s book, like Mr Menon’s,
is a practitioner’s account not an academic’s, but differs from the latter’s in
its broader focus on issues and geographies that Saran himself dealt with as a
career diplomat and, later, as a political points-man.
These include the pitfalls in dealing with
smaller neighbours, especially Nepal, the thorny challenges posed by Pakistan
and China, the Sino-Indian border dispute, the negotiation of the US-India
nuclear agreement and, finally, climate change.
Mr Saran, who is a superb raconteur in real
life, brings the same gift of storytelling to his book. He eschews strategic
and diplomatic jargon, explaining complex issues and incidents in language that
the lay reader can enjoy. Mr Saran has a wicked sense of the ridiculous, which
he does not hesitate to deploy, making the book even more enjoyable (Hint: turn
to page 114, where he describes the process of inviting his Chinese language
teacher home for tea).
Mr Saran’s insights come from a 36-year
career as a diplomat, which culminated at the highest rung of the foreign
service, followed by his appointment as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s special
envoy on the US-India civil nuclear negotiations; and then on climate change
negotiations. This provides much of the book a satisfying personal flavour and
a reassuring authenticity.
Where this personal touch is missing is in
the (thankfully) brief section at the start where the author wastes ten-odd
pages in trying to justify the book’s sub-title: “From Chanakya to the 21st
Century”. Fortunately, after a few
laudatory references to Chanakya/Kautilya and a two-page hop-and-skip through
the millennia, Saran reaches the 20th century and the contemporary diplomatic
playground where he more convincingly wields his masterful touch.
Mr Saran brings to light several issues
that have remained undisclosed so far. For example, it was known that, in 1992,
under Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, India and Pakistan had almost agreed for
both sides to simultaneously withdraw troops from the Siachen Glacier. This was
first described in detail by Lieutenant General VR Raghavan in his seminal book
“Siachen: Conflict Without End”. Now Mr
Saran describes his little known initiative in 2006, in coordination with his
Pakistani counterpart Riaz Mohammad Khan, to demilitarise Siachen.
All the key stakeholders including the army
chief, General JJ Singh, had cleared the proposal and its detailed withdrawal
procedures and safeguards. However, when this came up for the cabinet’s
clearance, Mr Saran recounts that the National Security Advisor, MK Narayanan
“launched into a bitter offensive against the proposal…” and the army chief
quickly jumped ship. Home Minister Shivraj Patil and Defence Minister Pranab
Mukherjee decided to play it safe and the prime minister remained silent. “My
defence of the deal became a voice in the wilderness”, laments Saran.
The friction between Mr Saran and MK
Narayanan that this incident highlights was clearly a running sore under the
United Progressive Alliance government. In a similar remarkable clash of views,
Saran recounts how Narayanan backed Nepali monarch, King Gyanendra, even as the
foreign ministry was squeezing him into granting concessions to the democratic
parties in Nepal.
Saran, however, does not convincingly
explain why a Siachen demilitarisation would benefit India. In one part of the
book he perceptively notes: “There was no doubt in my mind that any
understanding on Kashmir had to be part and parcel of a larger peace process
between India and Pakistan”. But he does not explain why Siachen should be
pursued in isolation.
The most delightful parts of the book, where
Mr Saran truly comes into his own, are on relations with China. He displays his
phenomenal grasp of the border dispute, an area in which he has walked large
sections, unlike many other experts. Although many scholars assume that China
has a stronger case than India over the Aksai Chin and other areas occupied by
China along the Ladakh border, Mr Saran makes a succinct and convincing case
for pursuing the return of at least some of this territory – the parts China
occupied after 1960. He also provides a fascinating, blow-by-blow account of
the border negotiations in the early 1980s, when he was posted in the Indian
embassy in Beijing and the two sides came tantalisingly close to an border
settlement that would recognise Arunachal Pradesh as a part of India, and
possibly some 3,000 square kilometres of Chinese-controlled territory in Ladakh
as well. When this proposal was put up to Indira Gandhi, she wanted to wait
until after the general elections in 1985. However, she was assassinated on
October 1984 and, the next year, the Chinese offer was off the table.
The author provides similarly riveting
accounts of the negotiation of the US-India civil nuclear agreement, the
Copenhagen climate change talks, and relations with Nepal where he was India’s
ambassador at a crucial stage of that country’s evolution from a constitutional
monarchy. Mr Saran is nothing, if not the quintessential realist. Five years
ago, he recommended a modern version of non-alignment, in which India would
build relations with every major power, each relationship being leveraged with
the combined weight of the others. Today, he describes China as “the main
adversary”. This is not inconsistency, but a measure of how far China has come,
and how unambiguously it has signalled its intentions vis-Ã -vis India. We will
have to navigate this changing world and there is no better place to start than
Mr Saran’s excellent book.
slay... dragon... get beauty... slay... dragon... get beauty... slay... dragon... get beauty...
ReplyDeleteYou have convinced me to read Saran's account.
ReplyDelete