The US’ decision last month of approving a $450 million sustenance package for Pakistan’s F-16 fighter jets undoubtedly came as a rude shock for India. More so because it puts an end to the suspension of Washington’s military ties with Pakistan put in place by former US President Donald Trump in 2018, when he cancelled $300 million in military aid to the country and accused it of providing a safe haven to terrorists.
But what was no less surprising was India’s sharp response to the development. Instead of sticking to diplomatically nuanced expressions such as “strong concern” and “deep disappointment”, the Ministry of External Affairs decided to take the bull by its horns.
At an interaction with Indian Americans in Washington, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar indicated that the US’ argument that the F-16 sustenance package was to fight terrorism wasn’t convincing and underlined that it was well known against whom F-16 fighter jets were being used. “You’re not fooling anybody by saying these things,” he said.
Now, India’s decision to call a spade a spade has stood it in good stead in the recent past on some important strategic matters. In June this year, the External Affairs Minister, while speaking at the Globsec 2022 forum in Slovakia, took on the EU for being critical of India over its stance on the Russia-Ukraine war. Jaishankar rightly pointed out that the world cannot be as Eurocentric as it used to be in the past and there were a lot of issues in Asia on which Europe held its peace.
Jaishankar’s argument emphasised that there were unpleasant things happening across the world, including Asia, which Europe had ignored in the past, and, therefore, it should not be shocked if countries in other parts of the world did not react in the same way to a situation affecting Europe in a way that European countries did.
The re-buff was well timed as India made it clear that it would not be apologetic about its continued dealings with Russia despite the on-going war in Ukraine as it suited its economic needs.
This clearly worded argument established that India believed that it was entitled to carry on buying defence equipment and oil from Russia, without being continuously criticised for it and without having to make excuses.
However, directly questioning US’ intention in selling F-16 package to Pakistan may have been a harsher reaction than was diplomatically warranted.
Criticism of the US for supporting Pakistan was different from criticism of the EU for being Eurocentric. That is because, in the case of the US, what was being questioned was not its denunciation of India but how it was choosing to deal with a third country.
What we must remember here is that every country is free to determine the kind of relationship it wants to hold with another. This is what we have been espousing also in the case of Russia. While we may be unhappy if a friendly country intensifies relationship with another country we have a strained relationships with, it does not serve our purpose to openly condemn it or take a moral high ground on the matter.
Legitimate concerns over giving more arms to a country that could pose a military threat should now doubt be expressed, but it would not be the best option to chastise it openly.
Pushed into a corner, the country being blamed will of course end up defending its position and then there is also a risk of retaliation. This will hold particularly true if the country we are putting in a spot is way more powerful than us on all fronts.
Putting it on record
It was therefore on expected lines when, instead of going on the back-foot, Washington decided to put it on record that both Pakistan and India were its partners, although with different points of emphasis in each. It said that it had shared values with both countries and, in a way, refused to acknowledge India’s concerns on the F-16 deal.
Although Biden went ahead and called Pakistan one of the most dangerous nations in the world a few days later, but, to India, his administration gave a strong message that if made to choose between the two countries, it would not play ball.
Interestingly, as soon as Jaishankar returned from his US visit, a sanction was placed on an Indian firm, probably for the first time, for its alleged trading with an Iranian company.
Although, there is no way to establish a link between what happened in the US and the sanctions against the Indian company that followed, one cannot help but wonder if the needless bickering sealed the company’s fate.
At a time when the long delays in issuance of US visas for Indians is leading to whispers that it could be the US’ way of showing annoyance over India’s continued closeness with Russia during the on-going Ukraine war, increasing acrimony over issues which do not lead to direct gains is not a good idea. The travel advisory issued by the US earlier this month asking its citizens to exercise “increased caution” while travelling to India due to “crime and terrorism” without any immediate provocation also points towards the possibility that diplomatic relations are getting strained between the two countries. This certainly calls for more caution.
It is of course important for India not to submit to any form of bullying by rich nations or allow interference in sovereign matters. But at a time when the country is already walking a tightrope to maintain a balance between its relationship with Russia and the Western nations as the war in Ukraine continues to rage, it has got to choose its fights carefully.
With China appearing increasingly more ominous and unpredictable as a neighbour, especially in the light of its premier Xi Jinping’s latest speech stressing on the “rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” and intensification of “military training under combat conditions”, India must keep its allies as close to itself as possible.