Play all audios:
When our parliamentary delegations return to India, they, especially the US-bound team led by Tharoor, will have considerable difficulty answering the following question: WERE YOU ABLE TO
GET THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TO SUPPORT INDIA’S CASE AGAINST PAKISTAN? The answer would clearly be in the negative, because Trump himself has been repeatedly equating India and Pakistan in
all his public utterances. He has praised the Pakistani leadership in the same breath as he has praised Modi. Indeed, Trump has done something more to cause discomfiture to our MPs. In a
speech in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia on 13 May, as part of his three-nation tour of the Middle-East, Trump praised Pakistan as a US ally in the fight against ISIS terror. Furthermore, none of
the three fellow members of the Quad─the US, Japan, and Australia─has backed Operation Sindoor. After all, the Modi government has invested so much of its political and diplomatic capital in
forming and sustaining the ‘Quadrilateral’ as a platform to contain China. Quad’s supporters in India even billed it as the “Asian NATO”. Remember, the North Atlantic Treaty works on the
principle that "an attack on one is an attack on all". Obviously, Washington, Tokyo, and Canberra do not agree with the Modi government’s new tenet that "Any terror act on
India will be treated as an act of war." Parliament will have to debate these important questions on our foreign policy. Therefore, if there is indeed an in-depth discussion in
Parliament on Pahalgam and Operation Sindoor, four highly uncomfortable questions should be asked about India’s foreign policy: * HAS INDIA’S EXCESSIVE DEPENDENCE ON AMERICA SERVED OUR
NATIONAL INTERESTS? THE ANSWER IS NO. * IF “NEIGHBOURHOOD-FIRST” IS THE FOUNDATION OF ANY NATION’S FOREIGN POLICY, DID A SINGLE NEIGHBOUR OF OURS, EITHER IN OUR IMMEDIATE OR EXTENDED
NEIGHBOURHOOD, SUPPORT OPERATION SINDOOR? THE ANSWER IS, AGAIN, NO. * THIS WILL BE AS EMBARRASSING TO THE MODI GOVERNMENT AS THE FIRST QUESTION ─ “HAS INDIA SUCCEEDED IN ISOLATING PAKISTAN
GLOBALLY?” NO. * CHINA IS OUR IMMEDIATE, LARGEST AND MOST CONSEQUENTIAL NEIGHBOUR. BEIJING SURELY HAS A LOT TO ANSWER FOR ITS SILENCE ON, AND HENCE ITS TACIT SUPPORT TO, PAKISTAN’S
SELF-HURTING POLICY OF FEEDING THE SNAKE OF RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM AND TERRORISM. BUT RISING CHINA IS ALSO A COUNTRY THAT MATTERS A LOT IN TODAY’S WORLD. CAN INDIA AFFORD A TWO-FRONT HOSTILITY
WITH BOTH PAKISTAN AND CHINA? The answer, again, is no. Why then was an eighth delegation of MPs not sent to Beijing? After all, isn’t the overarching purpose of foreign policy and public
diplomacy to convert adversaries into friends through dialogue? This being case, a fifth question arises: WHAT IS THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF SENDING MULTI-PARTY DELEGATIONS TO COUNTRIES
AROUND THE WORLD? IS IT MEANT TO GARNER MAXIMUM GLOBAL SUPPORT FOR INDIA IN OUR CASE AGAINST PAKISTAN? OR IS IT DESIGNED TO CREATE A POSITIVE NARRATIVE FOR DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION?