Judgement Day about National Security Strategy is no more a matter of planning, it has arrived!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior strategic intellectual Brahma Chellany recently mounted scathing attack on the “Governance Record” of the Indian state citing the deterioration of it has resulted as a biggest Security Threat ever. He says, “India confronts several pressing national security threats. But only one of them — political corruption — poses an existential threat to the state, which in reality has degenerated into a republic of mega-scandals. The pervasive misuse of public office for private gain is an evil, eating into the vitals of the state, sapping India's strength. When important decisions, from arms procurement to policy changes, are often tainted by corrupt considerations, it is inevitable that national security will get compromised. If India today is widely seen as a soft state, much of the blame must be pinned on the corrupt and the compromised that lead it. Such ‘softening' of India has made the country a tempting target for those seeking to undermine its security.”

 When India gained independence in 1947, the members of the Constituent Assembly took oath dedicating them for the quest of attaining the self-righteous place in the world and further for promotion of world peace and welfare of mankind. This was the historical base of India`s outlook towards the relation of outer world with the domestic policies and can be aptly described in the terms of “Enlightened Self-Interest” which seems to be guiding India`s recent initiatives in the realms of foreign policy making. How far India was successful in realization of the goal of this ‘enlightened self-interest’ is a matter of historical inquiry.

 What does the framing of India`s Security Strategy really means? Is it all about Defense Policy, Security Policy, Strategic Policy, Foreign Policy? There are big changes taking around all of us. The challenges in front of nation are urging to redefine the engagement with the continents and the countries. These are the moments to reflect on the past, these are the moments to visualize the future. By looking at the governance record of the Indian state in last 20 years we cannot resist ourselves from mentioning what Charles Dickens said, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way."

Change is inevitable. When we are talking about India to be a third largest economy in coming few years, it is inevitable that the diverse, versatile and all round kaleidoscopic dimensions of the national security strategy should entail multi pronged approach. A security strategy means mobilization of all national resources to achieve a political objective kept in front of nation. This is a grand exercise about how nation strike balances between means and ends. When we talk about managing resources and objectives in a grand way, fundamentally there is always room for change. Resources dwindle and resurge. We cannot abandon old and at the same time there should be no sympathy, mercy and scope for obscurantism. 

So apart from Defense Modernization, reassessment of non-alignment policy and adapt and guide the changing global geopolitical order, comprehensive domestic policies which can assure the Good Governance and developing capability to anticipate and respond to the dynamic and long lasting changes around us is the priority in front of such likely evolving Grand Doctrine of National Security Strategy. There should be prolonged, informed debate about the foreign, defense, security policies in the country. This enduring debate will certainly permeate, subvert the conventional wisdom in such a way that it will help to generate new ideas about prospective policy making. Questioning current policy must be the priority because questioning alone can make the discourse immune from complacency and stagnation in the dynamically spiraling stratosphere of the security environment of the country, domestically and internationally. Therefore it is very crucial to look back and check the contours of the foreign policy. There is a great deal of grave urgency to historicize the foreign policy of India. 

This brings us to the question of how think tanks influence all this process of journey of germination of idea towards blooming flower of policy. There are five areas in which India`s foreign/defense/security policy needs to look so as to have relook towards the changing strategic discourse and reality around the world. A) Challenge of consolidating Space and Territory. While doing this, there is a great deal of significance attached to generation of new resources, ideas, capabilities. There is need to break the confusion and persistent confusion between cooperation and regional integration. In the changing world, posing the problem in different possible ways and posing new questions is more important than dwelling great amount of time in debating the details of policy making. The age-old system of thinking is no more sustainable. 

The south Asian region is the most profound ring of strategic realignment, encirclement and geopolitical entanglement. What are the impacts of the initiatives of players like NATO, Russia and China will have on the south Asian region?   B) Structure of Foreign Policy- Ideas of nonalignment has undergone radical transformation. The energy and context for the conduct of this non-aligned foreign policy comes from the backdrop of start of the cold war. The relevance and references for continuing of that policy has lost all possible reasons to do so. Conducting international affairs in independent way is no more possible in today`s world; especially when India is poised to emerge as a responsible power or is expected to play a crucial role because of great success of Indian democracy, diversity and dedication towards the human welfare and civil rights of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality.  Attitudes of the policy making must be fundamentally different compared to the past.   C)  Attitudes towards power: Our approach towards the world has been greatly defined by the ethos and values of Indian Freedom Struggle.  The nation states liberal and progressive understanding has gone through consistent pressures, shocks and upheavals. Nature of International Relations is very brutal. There is scope for idealistic thinking but there is no scope to act upon them. 

D) Attitudes towards world order: So we have to face the diploma and struggle between moral politics & Indian thinking vis-a-vis pragmatic geopolitics deeply rooted in coalition, alliances of the forces along with the technicalities of international institutions.  India`s historical approach towards world has been influenced by perception of global order as transcendental, super national power. Nation went through different alternate phases which believed in intervention-non intervention strategies. India also stood against exploitation done in South Africa and in other countries. Country has always been pursuing the values of promotion of democracy. There is train compartment metaphor to explain behaviour of players who seek power status and mentality who enter the club of powerful players. No passenger inside full train compartment will allow the people running on the platform to enter the compartment even though realizing fully its own status some time ago on the same platform. There should not be any confusion about the approach “to do it or not to do it.” So India have to apply and enforce its prudence and judgement for the multilateral institutions and international policy making in different coalitions. 

E) Attitude towards political values: Is democracy a defining value of Indian existence. The country has to determine what are the consequences of conduct of foreign policy in the framework of promotion of democracy in the first, second and third world. India was anti-colonial state. Is India anti-imperialist? Does India wish to represent the third world in international fora? What are the guarantees that the changes desired will be brought in the line of quest of democracy. Will India intervene whenever there is unilateral invasion or threat to the democracy? These are the questions by which India needs to ascertain its status among the comity of the nations of east and west. These are the questions of power and alignment. History has taught us that circumstances matter rather than high philosophical thoughts. Any initiative on the front of introspecting the strategic discourse should be reflective, critical, self questioning and frightfulness.  Can we afford to have wishy-washy strategy? Can we afford to lose the opportunity to initiate and engage the dialogue process with pluralistic society across the world? Are we ready to distinguish the vital political ideology of the domestic discourse from that of vital interests of the nation state? Are we ready to locate this vastly dangerous chasm? 

What is the relation between foreign policy and strategy? Both are daintily not same. Upendra Bakshi very delicately deals with the virtues of judging about political situation. Though he is talking about capacity of delivering judgment, they are still relevant for understanding the necessary virtues to judge international situations. He says, “Judging is an act of will and that act arises through the political activity of ‘balancing’ and ‘conciliating’ conflicting interests (or repression). The taming, the disciplining of that political will, the will to power, is, ultimately enduring problem of human civilization. Informed evaluation of political action, a continuing expose of reality as it is untinged by ideal visions, proposing agenda of alternatives and the capacity to enter into an effective dialogue with those who wield power by those who do not are, ultimately, the basic ingredients in any exercise in the taming of political will in a free society. There are no doubt other strategies: terror, insurgency or revolution. Each one has to choose. And the choice is very, very difficult. That is why great Einstein had to acknowledge that ‘politics is harder than physics’. At any rate, the critic of the court is engaged in a phenomenon no less complex than nuclear physics; and he remains as responsible for its benign and sinister consequences as the scientist.” 

The urgency in the quest for Grand Security Strategy has arrived due to the systemic changes in the international order which is being visualized as 'Post American World.' The transformation in first decade of twenty first century marked by weakening of USA due to two wars and financial crisis has hinted to subtle, unavoidable, irreversible changes in the parity amongst economic, military and technological powers of the world. Identifying these changes without falling prey to the stagnating thoughts, rigid cold war mentality and by responding the responsible power status of the vast country like India remains the fundamental challenge ahead of strategic community. In last ten years political leaders led by former Prime Minister Vajpayee and current PM Dr. Singh have innovated more than compared to that of vast thickets of realists/liberal/centrist or any other kind of Strategic think tanks/commentators/thinkers. So, pivotal aberration in the thinking of scholars being the reluctance to invite/appreciate/debate new ideas. Radical ideas often come from minority group of thinkers. Defining various paradigm shifts in the making, analyzing/describing the nature of changes in the process, providing the diverse cause, effect framework and providing fresh solutions remain at the core of think tank`s role. Scholars need to do their work properly before complaining to the establishment that they have not initiated enough regarding the foreign policy and security policies. 

Again I cannot resist myself to refer to what Upendra Bakshi said while he was dealing with the scholars. Though his comment was about the legal scholars, the matter of integrity remains convergent in all walks of life. He opines, "This leaves us with legal scholars. My tribe too has been trigger happy. We look at the decisions of the court from time to time and criticize the court or praise it. We are in no hurry to analyze the court`s normative output. We, quite frankly, have more leisure than justices of the Supreme Court and most of us make use of that leisure in a creative grasp of the realities of judicial process only episodically. More than the politician and the lawyer , the lagal scholar`s responsibilities are gravest. It falls to his lot to study the court as an institution, not just a factory manufacturing legal and constitutional norms. What is worse, it also falls to his lot to develop a theory of evaluation of the judicial role. He has to develop a body of standards by which he evaluates the work of judges and courts. This is so difficult and daunting a task that some of us just do not want to do it."  Same goes with the Strategic Thinking in India. Senior Analyst Dr. C. Raja Mohan during the four days conference in IDSA highlighted this issue time and again to create the atmosphere of open, innovative and versatile debate in this direction.

We will continue to see what are the grand elementary evolutionary characters of the National Security Strategy are, in coming few days. (to be continued...)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Public Diplomacy in Information Age: Towards the Idea of Soft Power!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over the years, image of diplomatic community has been largely driven by what American Editor Caskie Stinnett said, “A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you actually look forward to the trip.” The times are changing, they would certainly do. To describe what lies ahead for Diplomacy of the 21^st century we will be guided by what Robert Frost said in 19^th century, “A diplomat is a man who always remembers a woman's birthday but never remembers her age.” In understanding shift in these two subtle quotes lays the emerging transition of diplomacy. Today we are debating whether death of Ambassador, of Foreign Correspondent and of an Editor is imminent or not. The embassies across the world are reinventing to engage the national citizens, Virtual Communities of respective Diasporas and groups mobilizing Public Opinion on vast cyberspace. So where we are heading? Is it really a border-less world as some religious proponents of globalization think? On the contrary, are we living in multiple concentric borders of social, economic and cultural spheres within the sovereign nation state which itself are subject to the vicious campaign of state and non-state actors through the strategies of war, humanitarian intervention and latest being the Public Diplomacy? 

Public Diplomacy is a seamless web which travels across different exercises of Public Affairs, Public Relations and Public Understanding of the Foreign Policy. Considering this phenomena thriving on democratic virtues, governments across the world representing the public which elect them to office cannot move on to exclude the massive energy, wisdom and emotions of the people they rule. On the other side, governments cannot afford to lose the opportunity to influence, engage and interact with the citizens of foreign country in which the foreign policy is being directed at. It is assumed that in the modern world like us, people should have freedom of expression which in a way includes right to know, right to disagree and right to share the ideas, goods and civilization values for which they stand for. So, relevance, interest and comprehension of the issues surrounding the livelihood of the citizens are taken into account to sustain the survival of the strategic priorities of the nations they represent. This process helps governments to connect to the key institutions, communities and nations in the outer world to form the core operational framework of the Public Diplomacy in the Information Age. 

Is Public Diplomacy another name for Propaganda? Hard power is exercised and soft power is evoked. If we are to understand the concept of soft power can we neglect how the hard power is exercised? End of cold war created the hope that now the Peace will prevail. Instead, we witnessed wars in Iraq, Kosovo, Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Georgia and at many other places. Increasingly states are using the ‘force multiplier ‘of humanitarian intervention to achieve the goals embedded in the strategic doctrine. Still, nations are feeling the urgent need to reach out to the civil society which constitutes the Public Opinion. So, increasingly engaging this significant public opinion which can create Public Pressure through mass media, social media, social platforms, institutional think tanks, academic institutions and cultural exchanges can certainly change the way foreign policy is conducted; from hard to soft ways. 

Governments are considering that Public diplomacy is public good for ‘Public Good.’ The success of it depends on clarity and persuasion of the information and argument. Challenge lies in real time interaction, advocacy and communication of the facts. We are witnessing dynamic media seeking relentless cooperation from the governments for true, comprehensive and sensitive feedback from time to time. We are flooded with the hyperactive mobilization of the anger and frustration due to the sudden events recorded and proliferated through Facebook, Youtube, Orkut, LinkedIn, and MySpace etc. World has witnessed enormous increase in mobile users.

 After developed countries, developing and least developed countries are fast catching up with the internet penetration. Direct to home technology is giving the citizens of the world the ease to access any news channel and source of dynamic developments at their remote doorsteps. There are more journalists outside media organization in the form of citizen journalists. It is interesting to note that in the times when Corporate India contend that privacy laws are being subverted by publishing tapes related to 2G scandal, in the outer world Jullian Assenge has stood for Whistle-blowing and went ambitiously ahead to expose the secret diplomatic conversation which he believed was within public interest. 

Well, Public Diplomacy is no abstract term. It is the same traditional the foreign policy practice with new packaging. It is about listening. After all, listening to the grievances, aspirations and thoughts of the people inside and outside the country is hallmark of this engagement. It is about planning the capacity building to anticipate and response to the events in the making. It is about avoiding the delays; because delayed message is lost message. To identify the source of the information creating the tensions and thus to locate the human and other logistical resources to respond to that information flow is the priority in this exercise. It is about advocacy and statesmanship. It is about promotion and strengthening of cultural bonds between two countries. It is about fostering the mechanisms of exchanges whether in commerce, education, research and development. It is about state supported news dissemination.
 
Even though scholars believe that Public Diplomacy term was invented by USA diplomat Edmund Gullion, it is noteworthy to note what legendary US reporter Edward Murrow said: “Truth is the best propaganda and lies are the worst. To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful. It is as simple as that.” Murrow worked in London for few years during the years of Second World War. Historians say that Murrow was only foreign correspondent who was allowed to report war from the rooftops when Germans were bombing London. Some even guess that Churchill deliberately supported Murrow to get the point across to USA so as to compel them to join war at the earliest. 

So, pyramid of Public Diplomacy comprises Advocacy, Profile raising and Relationship building. The new context of PD includes new players: International Organizations, Non Governmental Organisations, CEOs, Non State Actors, new social media, Scientists, Artists, Vice Chancellors of reputed Universities, Authors of legendary literature, thinkers, social activists, innovators, environmentalists and everyone who can influence this communication for definite purpose. When India launches campaign ‘!ncredible !ndia’, the credibility of the image of Indian society which can host, which can sustain the values of liberty, fraternity and equality with wide diversity of language, regions and cultures is at the stake. There is new vocabulary of Branding being cooked up outside there. But it comes with the emphasis on openness in sophisticated attitude, global perspective and political behavior. The new multilateral partnerships are being forged on the old limits of bilateral cooperation. New theory of soft power is being tested in the context of uncompromisable and unforgettable hard power reality. 

So, which are the things which matter for Public Diplomacy? Public Opinion matters because that holds the capacity to shape the social changes, create demand for particular action by the national government. Communicators need to spend more and more resources for that. Listening matters. Diplomat, bureaucracy surely do not have most answers. The expertise in the open society must be consulted and asked for advice. Transparency in the transactions of the communication is must prerequisite. Timing and coordination of delivery of the messages is most significant. Public diplomacy is all about relationships, so individuals matter. Connecting individual to address their interests can create stronger bonds rather than just harping on the rhetoric of power.

Diasporas matter because they are the virtual countries outside the sovereign boundaries. They represent the values the native land stand for. They propagate the assets, strengths, food habits, heritage and culture of the country they come from. They carry out messages. They are the biggest broadcasters of this diplomacy. Initiatives in the information dissemination matter because lack of it may create confusion and may lead toward creeping in of rival point of view which may not be of the interest of the country.

 Understanding, respecting and accommodating the spirit of dissent matters because it gives a strong message of democratic ethos beyond the borders. Dissent represents plurality, diversity of views in best way. Celebration of dissent is a best statesmanship. Mutuality matters because it leads towards reinforcing sympathetic and sensitive recognition of co-existence. Partnerships matters, by all means. Issues of development cannot be solved without partnerships. Policy matters as they are the backbone of what governments stand for. Small stories of the people interest matter because they magnify the realities of the rude world in a delicate manner. After all, eventually success matters, so efficient execution of the programs, initiatives and debate of the issues of interest to the concerned stake holders. 

Economic development, education opportunities, relation building across the borders, business ventures, transnational alliance for R&D are some of the powerful elements of Public Diplomacy keeps going. Architecture, Aesthetics and Beauty of the ancient, medieval and modern heritage remain the icon of this engagement. Pristine nature and exotic environment in the tropical countries are appealing for the tourism so as to consolidate the gains of being undeveloped so long. Emerging cities based on success of free market mechanism are en- cashing the fruits of globalization so as to attract talent and investment for their own sustenance.

 The discussion about Public Diplomacy inevitably leads towards that of quest of soft power. The term of Soft Power is coined by Joseph Nye who originally contributed to the idea of neoliberal institutionalism. Soft power has quality of attractiveness. It embraces media to explain change. It projects moral forces like His Holiness Dalai Lama, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King and others. When exercising hard power is becoming extremely hard roots of the soft power can be discovered in the culture people of the country live. In conveying the status of soft power, it is more important to express “Who we are...” rather than “What we want to show...” Other point of views also exists. Some believe that power cannot be soft at all. Soft power is a matter of projecting influence of self. ‘Cultural Diplomacy’ is a better way to put it. People anyway interact with each other, across the borders. But governments have the resources to achieve it in smooth manner. French invented the Public Diplomacy through celebration of their culture. Today Public Diplomacy seems more than relevant when there are ideologies are declining and state speech is becoming more and more blur. It may not substitute traditional diplomacy but it will certainly lead towards creating the vision of the new world in coming days ahead of us. 

Public diplomacy is not only about the conversation about the issues outside the country to people inside country or vice versa. Existence, sustenance, progress of the country depends on the country`s ability to address to the core pressing issues of development inside the country. So when NY Times reported that in the decade when USA should have been chasing China to compete with it, USA was chasing Al-Qaida. When President Obama comes India, biggest foreign policy issue for him was not nuclear energy or permanent seat in Security Council for India but the jobs, health care and the tax cuts back in the country. Everything is related to everything. So, when we attribute the mess in J&K to Pakistan, chaos in North East to Bangladesh & China, war waged by Maoists to Red corridor going through Nepal and further; are we convinced that we have solved all the domestic challenges and it is only famous ‘Foreign Hand’ which is involved in the conspiracy towards destabilizing India. Real Public Diplomacy starts with listening, talking to domestic speakers, dissent, anger and dissatisfaction about government and nation at large the constitution of which starts with the words “We, The People of India...!”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------