Do something, say something

As soon as something happens in any of the almost 200 countries around the world, a clamour of different decibels starts up in all the other capitals. Depending on the size, importance and nature of the regime, governments are importuned to do something or at least say something.

No sooner has the government expressed concern at the development, the media – and that includes analysts from the strategic community – immediately criticize it as inadequate and asks for a stronger statement especially of support for the brave people on the street.

Governments are of course restrained by their analysis of a) how things could develop, b) past relations with the incumbent government and c) their own past policies on that or similar issues domestically, regionally and internationally. This is especially true of countries with a history of having been colonized (though oddly it does not seem to restrain the colonizers). These days there is also the fear of contagion, as we are witnessing in the Arab countries.

Anti-regime protesters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square.

At the bottom lies the question: is every outburst by people inherently good? Is it spontaneous? Are the demands that are articulated fair to other identity groups or neighbouring countries? Some outbursts which may have been only momentary prolong themselves with outside approval – as in the case of Kashmir with Pakistani support of weapons, training and safe havens. Does saying and doing nothing alter the dynamic of the movement, slow it down or derail it? Are the demands articulated at all feasible for a government to accept and actually implement? Who is promoting and sustaining the action? Will having kept quiet be remembered forever by the people of the country in question? Does every country have to take a position on everything, including those events which happen far from their borders?

The answer to many of the questions above is ‘Yes,’ if you are a super power like the United States is today. Not only do its words count, but its actions, especially those behind the scenes, frequently decide the outcomes. The answer is obviously ‘No’ for tiny nations like the Maldives, except on the few issues that directly concern the country and about which it cannot do much. It can, however, at least voice the aspirations and, more often, the anguish of its people.

The choice is much more ambiguous for a big country like India, or a mid-sized one like Nigeria or a smaller one like Thailand. But the pressure to be on the right side of history – for the immediate moment at least – is a drumbeat, growing louder as civil society has grown more influential and the media more ubiquitous.

There was a time when India pronounced on everything, even though its capacity to influence events on the ground was relatively limited. Limited, that is, except in its neighbourhood where it often acted with dispatch and without too much regard for even its own policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of others. Apart from the brief wars with China and Pakistan – which were not of its making – India intervened militarily in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Maldives and has impacted strongly on developments in Nepal and Bhutan. Despite many supportive statements like those on South Africa, for instance, apartheid was actually abolished only after the West found it not worth its while to continue upholding an ugly regime which was tottering from the inside. Today what is remembered about India in international fora are not its rhetorical flourishes against the United States and in favour of Cuba, but the wrong positions taken on the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Afghanistan.

On the other end of the spectrum being on the wrong side of history does not seem to have hurt a big country like the US very much. For decades the US refused to recognize the People’s Republic of China. Today they could not be in a closer embrace. Closer to home, we may recall the negative role played by the United States to prevent the liberation of Bangladesh. Not only was every verbal support extended to its ally, Pakistan, but the Seventh Fleet even sailed into the Bay of Bengal to threaten India. Yet when the present Government of Bangladesh decided to set up a Tribunal to try those who fought against its liberation and committed massive crimes against humanity by turning 10 million of its people into refugees, murdering tens of thousands, using rape as a weapon of war, selectively targeting intellectuals and members of minorities from the Hindu and Buddhist communities, who does it turn to for assistance? Not India, but the United States.

Perhaps it depends on the time frame. Youthful Bangladeshis have no living memory of who stood by them, who opposed them and perhaps, even of their own terrible suffering.

The best touchstone for a country may be to react on the basis of its own interest and to stay as close as possible to its values. Thus in the ongoing unrest in Arab countries, world praise for the bravery of the Tunisians has not brought them any closer to democracy as they flounder with members of the previous regime holding all the positions of power. While we should definitely support the people of Egypt, it is becoming clearer that notwithstanding some fine rhetoric from the leaders of the UK and the US, events are being moulded by Generals from the American and Egyptian armies, not by the young protesters in Liberation Square in Cairo. There is not much that India or similarly placed countries can do to change the outcome.

Perhaps the biblical injunction to do unto others as we would have them do unto us may be a better guide than to jump on every bandwagon. India does better by sticking to its principles of not interfering in the affairs of other nations, as surely as it resents the interference of others in its internal affairs.

Neelam Deo is Co-founder and Director, Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations; She has been the Indian Ambassador to Denmark and Ivory Coast; and former Consul General in New York

This article was exclusively written for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. You can read more exclusive content here.

For interview requests with the author, or for permission to republish, please contact outreach@gatewayhouse.in.