It's been close to two months since the standoff between the PLA( people's liberation army) of China and the Indian army in the trijunction in the Docklam region of Bhutan began. It's geo-political, economic and strategic crisis is being much discussed about, in most of the periodicals. But the crisis in the diplomatic conduct been the two Nation States is being is being ignored by the experts and actors concerned and engaged in this issue. The fact of the matter is India has taken a backfoot on the diplomatic front. There aren't enough of Lamentations about it.
Reflecting back in the history towards our engagement with the Chinese counterparts, in the historic panchasheel devised by Pt Jawaharlal Nehru, spoke about a highly intellectual principle,
" Mutual non interference in each other's internal affairs" though, an idealist provision, it potrayed the rich cultural heritage of our civilization. Chinese intellect was so limited that they were unable to read between the lines of panchasheel. Standoff is not something new to us, we have periodically been successful in blanketising such disputes through talks. But so far we have not been able to resolve the disputes which have had long-term political and economic implications mainly due to our poor engagement and least freedom being given to the career diplomats. In a private conversation with me, former ambassador to China Mr Ranganathan, confessed that "when we sat down with the Chinese diplomats for talks, they came up with 18th century maps to resolve the current disputes" this statement perhaps echoes the limited role, provided to diplomatic engagements in the country where political class tries not only trespasses the diplomatic arena but also hijacks the discourse.
One must remember that summit level engagements, would be more of political in nature and least diplomatic in it's conduct and outcomes. They would only be able to touch the surface of the existing dispute, which would later turnout to be a mere photo opportunity between the two Leaders.
Diplomacy is an institution that brings together the skills and resources necessary to translate foreign policy into practical working proposition. Qualitative Diplomatic negotiations would act as a confidence building exercise between two countries without compromising on the national interests. By amputating the diplomatic famework in the country, we are institutionally attempting to decay the classic tradition of the art of effective communication associated with it. Effective communication is indeed challenging, but by bringing in the diplomatic expertise, we can successfully engage in the process of thinking, sensing, understanding and transmitting the messages, to ensure that messages sent, must be the messages received, and not distorted at any cost.
We can issue economic sanctions on China and bring them to books. But for any action to be initiated and executed effectively, support of the institutional diplomatic framework is a must. Otherwise it will end up as an exercise of of navigating in troubled waters.
" Mutual non interference in each other's internal affairs" though, an idealist provision, it potrayed the rich cultural heritage of our civilization. Chinese intellect was so limited that they were unable to read between the lines of panchasheel. Standoff is not something new to us, we have periodically been successful in blanketising such disputes through talks. But so far we have not been able to resolve the disputes which have had long-term political and economic implications mainly due to our poor engagement and least freedom being given to the career diplomats. In a private conversation with me, former ambassador to China Mr Ranganathan, confessed that "when we sat down with the Chinese diplomats for talks, they came up with 18th century maps to resolve the current disputes" this statement perhaps echoes the limited role, provided to diplomatic engagements in the country where political class tries not only trespasses the diplomatic arena but also hijacks the discourse.
One must remember that summit level engagements, would be more of political in nature and least diplomatic in it's conduct and outcomes. They would only be able to touch the surface of the existing dispute, which would later turnout to be a mere photo opportunity between the two Leaders.
Diplomacy is an institution that brings together the skills and resources necessary to translate foreign policy into practical working proposition. Qualitative Diplomatic negotiations would act as a confidence building exercise between two countries without compromising on the national interests. By amputating the diplomatic famework in the country, we are institutionally attempting to decay the classic tradition of the art of effective communication associated with it. Effective communication is indeed challenging, but by bringing in the diplomatic expertise, we can successfully engage in the process of thinking, sensing, understanding and transmitting the messages, to ensure that messages sent, must be the messages received, and not distorted at any cost.
We can issue economic sanctions on China and bring them to books. But for any action to be initiated and executed effectively, support of the institutional diplomatic framework is a must. Otherwise it will end up as an exercise of of navigating in troubled waters.
Comments
Post a Comment