THE ‘BLINDNESS’ OF FOREIGN POLICY NEEDS TO BE TREATED

THE ‘BLINDNESS’ OF FOREIGN POLICY NEEDS TO BE TREATED

22-JULY-ENG 12

RAJIV NAYAN AGRAWAL

ARA----------------------You must have just read a news in which Russia, India's friend for decades, has signed an agreement to set up a steel plant in Pakistan. If you are even a little knowledgeable about international affairs, if you read news, then you must have been surprised to read this news. Pakistan and Russia together! The news is absolutely correct. In the coming days, Russia is going to set up a steel plant in Pakistan. What profit or loss India will have from this, we will discuss it some other time. But, you have to understand that Russia's decision to set up a steel plant in Pakistan is not so ordinary. Especially when 'Operation Sindoor' is going on right now.

If we recall Operation Sindoor, Turkey, China and Azerbaijan stood like a rock to support Pakistan. They are still standing with Pakistan. Turkey and China gave weapons to Pakistan. Azerbaijan gave support. The way Pakistan got the support of these three countries, its foreign policy, its attitude towards Islam is also clearly visible. The big question is which countries came with India? Was there even one country in the world that stood with India in full support? The answer is no. On the contrary, a decades-old friend of India like Russia is going to set up a steel factory in Pakistan. This means that India's voice is not being heard strongly on the international stage. In a limited war, none of India's friendly countries would stand with India. If it had been a large-scale war, would any country have stood with India? You will say, when it did not happen in a limited war of four days, then who would stand with India in a large war!

The Prime Minister's official website pmindia.gov.in says that in the last 11 years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited 49 countries. The figures of other websites show visits to 60 countries. We assume that the Prime Minister visited 49 countries. Not a single country among those 49 countries would have come out in support of India. Why is this so? What is the reason that whenever Modi goes to any country, slogans of Modi-Modi are raised? Why is India not talked about? This only indicates the indecisiveness of our foreign policy.

When Modi became the Prime Minister in 2014, there were talks of Modi Doctrine at the international level. Where is that Modi Doctrine now? Modi Ji invited SAARC countries to his swearing-in ceremony in 2014. Every effort was made to ensure that India's relations with all the countries remain good. Will the relations remain good, Bangladesh is threatening us. Nepal also does not refrain from threatening us from time to time. Our relations with Sri Lanka are well known. Bhutan's foreign policy has completely changed 360 degrees. The question is what happened to the Modi Doctrine? If our relations with our neighbours are not cordial, then why?

We will have to look at our foreign policy. Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar needs to listen, understand and analyze his words. He says that he had informed Pakistan before Operation Sindoor began. How could the main opposition party Congress stay behind on this? Rahul Gandhi took S. Jaishankar to task. Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera fired a question that Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar himself told the media agencies that we had informed Pakistan before the attack. Now what does this informing mean? Does the Foreign Minister have so much faith in Pakistan that the terrorists will sit quietly on his orders? What is the relationship of the Foreign Minister and why did he inform Pakistan before the attack?

Actually, India never had this kind of foreign policy. All this has changed in the last 11 years. 11 years ago, no Indian Foreign Minister used to say such things. Even the Foreign Ministers who were in the regime of late Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who was the three-time Prime Minister, also avoided making such statements. On May 30, Jaishankar's statement made headlines in newspapers, in which he attacked the US President. He said: It has now become a fashion for some countries to publicly declare themselves as deal makers and behave like deal makers between countries. Through this statement, Jaishankar was directly pointing towards US President Donald Trump, who was trying to take credit for the India-Pakistan ceasefire. Trump even said that he made India take this decision by putting pressure on trade. On the contrary, on May 30 itself, Trump has reiterated for the ninth time by giving an affidavit in the court that it was he who brought about the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. This shows that in fact it was America who brought about the ceasefire and Pakistan and India also accepted it. First, at 4:30, Pakistan announced the ceasefire and half an hour later, India's Foreign Secretary Mistry announced it.

If you remember, since the time of independence, it has been India's policy that no third country in the world will mediate on the Kashmir issue. India will never accept any such mediation. This has been our foreign policy written in one sentence since independence. Then what is the reason that we accepted the mediation of America? Jaishankar is repeatedly saying that the ceasefire was decided after talks on the hotline between the DGMOs of India and Pakistan. But, what answer does Jaishankar or the Indian government have to what Donald Trump said in his affidavit? The truth is that after Operation Sindoor, our foreign policy cards have been changed.

The country has collapsed like the leaves of the Indian National Congress. In these 11 years, it has become a trend to show the foreign tours of a person in the context of a particular person. Country on one side, individual on the other. This is the reason that no one comes with us despite having neighbours like Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Maldives. Neither Italy, nor France, nor England nor Australia came with us. Israel also did not come directly in support of India, nor did the United Arab Emirates. Many of these countries are also our strategic partners. When Russia itself withdrew its support, what can the rest of the countries do? Therefore, there is a need to rethink about foreign policy again by renouncing things like 56-inch chest and attacking inside the house. One narrative is also that we did not need anyone's help. We alone were enough for Pakistan. This has been the most destructive line of our foreign policy. Was Pakistan alone? China, Türkiye and Azerbaijan were also with it. Was the Foreign Ministry unable to see this? If it really could not see this, then it must be accepted that the Foreign Ministry's day blindness (not being able to see even during the day) and night blindness (not being able to see at night) will now have to be completely treated.