Harish Khare - The Doval doctrine — in high definition
The rest of the world
has noted — and, the outsiders are much more brutal in making such assessments
— that the Prime Minister has taken pride in dismantling the national
consensus, however tenuous and however fragile it was. And no new consensus has
been forged; nor has a need been felt for such a consensus.
IF there is not much
talk of a “Doval doctrine” it is perhaps because it has had a kind of a soft
launch. It can be reasonably suggested that the doctrine was first articulated
by the newly appointed National Security Adviser during his Beijing visit in
September 2014. In a chat with the China-based Indian media, Ajit Doval
saw the possibility of the Sino-India relationship undergoing “an orbital
jump” because both President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Modi are “two
powerful and very popular, very decisive leaders.” By way of elaboration he
added that both were “serious” leaders and both had “the mandate in the party
and parliament, besides sufficient time ahead of them.”
Though Doval was
careful to suggest that the relationship was not necessarily “only dependent on
[a] single factor”, he did betray the new collective thinking in New Delhi. In
the new in-house working wisdom it is understood that India’s strategic
autonomy and options stand maximised overnight just because we have a maximum
leader. Many of the diplomatic tantrums of the past one year can be easily
traced to this new internal operational maxim.
The new accent on a
decisive role for the “leader” fits in well with the overall political theology
of the Sangh Parivar. A leader’s deshbhakti alone is deemed to be more than
sufficient to overcome strategic structural limitations. Since the early Jan
Sangh days, this worldview has favoured a leader(s) who would be nationalistic
enough to take an aggressive, confrontational attitude towards one and all,
especially our neighbours, China and Pakistan; the Parivar is prone to prefer
someone who would not be afflicted with “Hindu cowardice”, an expression once
used by a Sangh affiliate for Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The quest
for such a leader has suggested itself in the last two decades as the Indian
middle class became more and more nationalistic. During the last Lok Sabha
campaign, Narendra Modi presented himself as just the man who would look world
leaders “in the eye” (Aankh me aankh daal ke baat karenge).
Not much is known of
the Doval-Modi relationship. Till the 2009 Lok Sabha elections when LK Advani
and the BJP got worsted by a “weak Prime Minister,” Doval was very much a part
of the “Advani crowd.” It is difficult to say when he switched allegiance.
However, among knowledgeable circles in New Delhi it is understood that by the
time Modi won a third term in Gujarat in 2012, “Doval Sahib” had become a
valued counsellor. His familiarity with the secretive world of “non-state
actors” and the shadowy business of intelligence agencies fitted rather well
with Narendra Modi’s own preference for taking a dark view of men and matters.
Doval is known to have been mentoring Modi in acquiring an appreciation of the
difficult and intricate world of diplomacy. Not surprisingly, the two got along
like a house on fire.
The Doval doctrine of
“a strong leader” became attractive because it dovetailed itself to the Prime
Minister’s immense faith in his own popularity, wisdom and capability. Much of
the ruddy vigour that is deemed to have been injected into our foreign policy
can easily be attributed to Modi’s penchant for event management. The Doval-Modi
duo has provided wonderful photo-ops, satisfying the Indian middle class’ newly
aroused need for global status and “respect”. And, India’s corporate classes
are only too happy to go along with Modi and play the 21st century version of
comprador bourgeoisie.
A year later, the
Doval doctrine’s limits are all too evident, especially in our neighbourhood.
And it is just as well. The world out there is far too complex to bend to
our current accent on the “leader” as the game-changer. Because of this preoccupation
we have failed to notice that the China-Pakistan jugalbandi has acquired a
sophisticated but deadly edge. There was, for example, no need to make
the Prime Minister take up with Chinese President Xi Jinping Beijing’s
vote on Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi; and, then going global with this
sophomoric spin — primarily for domestic consumption — of a “direct” message to
the Chinese leader from a no-nonsense Prime Minister. The next day, there was
an open rebuff — though dressed up in high-sounding invocation of principles —
for Beijing. A Prime Minister’s willingness to be blunt does not — and cannot —
go very far unless backed by the hardwired realpolitik.
A year down the line,
the others, too, have read Modi. Just as bowling coaches read and spot
weaknesses among new batsmen, strategic analysts have figured out the Prime
Minister, his strengths as also his weaknesses. The Chinese and the Pakistanis
are already exploring, in tandem, his vulnerabilities.
The rest of the world
has noted — and, the outsiders are much more brutal in making such assessments
— that the Prime Minister has taken pride in dismantling the national
consensus, however tenuous and however fragile it was. And no new consensus has
been forged; nor has a need been felt for such a consensus. The Chinese,
who every scholar tells us, take a long-term view, must be wondering how a
nation of India’s size and ambition can sustain a sensible foreign policy
without an elite consensus behind it.
What is more, previous
prime ministers’ respect for personal courtesy and diplomatic protocol is
mocked at as a sign of weakness. A willingness to be rude and rough on the
global stage may impress the domestic audience or the NRI crowd but it does not
create a lasting impression in any chancellery. As a seasoned strategic
observer put it bluntly, no one will give India a Security Council seat just
because the Prime Minister himself led the mega yoga event at Rajpath.
The problem with the
Doval doctrine is that it puts a disproportionate pressure on the “leader” to
compensate for the strategic weaknesses. As Henry Kissinger once remarked,
“Accepting the limits of one’s capacities is one of the tests of
statesmanship.” Additionally, the Doval doctrine tends to induce a kind of a
lazy approach that unthinkingly neglects the traditional tools of diplomacy and
instruments of statecraft. There is even an apprehension that the
“leader-centric” approach may encourage a dilution of our national defence
assets, assiduously built over the last fifteen years.
And, no leader is
immune from unfavourable political winds. Narendra Modi too will hit a rough
patch, sooner than later. That will be the time when we would need to firewall
our lasting national interests from getting entangled with personal foibles and
political frailties of the leader.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/the-doval-doctrine-in-high-definition/107623.htmlsee also
The emperor's masks: 'apolitical' RSS calls the shots in Modi’s government...
Six Outrageous Things BJP Leaders Have Said About Dadri Murder
NAUJAWAN BHARAT SABHA on attempts of 'Sangh Parivar' to foment communal tension in Delhi / Beef murder bid to stir hatred ahead of polls? / SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN: The fight is now over your right to not be killed for what you eat
NAUJAWAN BHARAT SABHA on attempts of 'Sangh Parivar' to foment communal tension in Delhi / Beef murder bid to stir hatred ahead of polls? / SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN: The fight is now over your right to not be killed for what you eat
The Broken Middle - my essay on the 30th anniversary of 1984
The Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi: Inquiry Commission Report (1969)
The Abolition of truth
RSS tradition of manufacturing facts to suit their ideology
The Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi: Inquiry Commission Report (1969)
The Abolition of truth
RSS tradition of manufacturing facts to suit their ideology
