Three sailors dead, one strategic lesson: India needs leverage, not emotion

The targeted missile strike by the US Navy on the tanker MT Settebello to reinforce the point of a US naval blockade resulted in the deaths of three Indian sailors. It has become an emotive issue in India. As it should be. But does this incident define the current state of India-US relations? Not really. And yet it is more than a wrinkle in the state of India-US relations. The Ministry of External Affairs came up with a mildly strong response, and the American Chargé d’Affaires Jason Meeks was summoned to South Block to lodge a protest. And yet significantly, the top brass in the government so far has maintained silence on this issue. A perception is going around, whether it is true or not, that we want to put this incident behind us quickly and focus on more important things. Like, for instance, the long-pending trade deal with the US and an expected catch-up between the US President and Prime Minister Modi at Évian-les-Bains in France at the G7 meeting.

If this speculation turns out to be true, we would be making a mistake. Something fundamentally has changed in the manner the United States conducts its international diplomacy. The US has lost patience with all diplomatic niceties and pushes its 'America First' agenda with a ruthlessness and zeal never seen before. This has implications not only for India but the entire world. If we soft-pedal this issue now, what is the guarantee a similar crisis will not erupt sooner rather than later? The Gulf war is not ending any day soon.

More from Opinion

Critics of this government advance the argument that India is being particularly targeted. After all, why have Chinese tankers not been scalded with US firepower in the same region? The short answer to that criticism is that the perception is not correct even though we are the second biggest importer of oil after China in that region.

Take your mind back a few months when the Venezuelan crisis had erupted and the US launched aggressive moves against the then-Nicolas Maduro government. At that time several tankers carrying Venezuelan crude bound for China had been intercepted and boarded by US forces. Which shows a certain consistency in US military aggressive action. It has been democratic and not selective.

Not to be comforted by all this, it still begs the question of how we should respond to US aggrandisement. Our response to the killing of the three Indian sailors cannot be repeating historic precedence in these matters or taking seriously the advice of nutjob podcasters on our side who advocate sending the Navy into these troubled waters and standing up to the US Navy.

In 2013 the Devyani Khobragade incident flared up, creating a crisis in India–US relations. Indian diplomat Khobragade was arrested on visa fraud charges and underpaying her domestic help. India then responded by expelling US diplomats and withdrawing security cover for US diplomats and their families in Delhi. We then responded emotionally rather than strategically, and certainly our response placated enraged public opinion in India. But think about it. In the long term, did we achieve anything?

Nothing at all. India-US relations only plummeted after that, and only later, when a new political dispensation assumed power in New Delhi, did relations finally improve. The short point being those emotional responses of expelling diplomats or 'sending in the Navy’ rarely work.

In the current scenario there is so much at stake between the two countries that we should jettison the relationship with thoughtless emotionalism. Expanding the India-US economic relationship is a permanent occurrence. The American exceptionalism of different regimes in the US is temporary. That phenomenon will rise and ebb with the priorities of different regimes. In that spirit look at the positives. Ambassador Gor has worked tirelessly to bring this relationship to an even keel. That should be appreciated. The India-US economic and military relationship, despite setbacks, is booming. Both sides can create a $500 billion economic relationship in the next few years.

So, does that mean we maintain strategic silence pursuant to our policy of strategic autonomy in the face of US provocation? Not at all. We simply must chisel a more effective and mature response. In this context we can take a leaf out of China’s playbook. Every country in the world has a vulnerable point or a pain point. China knows how to press that. It uses leverage to get its way.

We don’t have to militarily become stronger in the next ten years, as some suggest, standing up to the US. We just need to find that right leverage and use it to make the US see our point of view, which should be taken very seriously. Like China leverages its way with its monopolistic hold on critical minerals and other supply chains, we need to aggressively put out our strengths and tilt the seesaw in our favour.

It could be the role of our medical personnel in the US healthcare system or that of our technologists in the development of Silicon Valley and US defence industries or even the role our blue-water navy can play out in the Indo-Pacific and the Malacca Straits. Not to forget that potentially we are becoming the world’s largest market of the middle classes for trade and commerce. We can use either of these strengths or a combination of all of these to get our way with the US.

We should also take comfort from the fact that the present government in India thrives in a crisis. Look at the way this government resolved the banking crisis when it came to power in 2014. Or the manner this government brilliantly managed the Covid situation at home and abroad. There is a precedent of robust action once this government makes up its mind. Yes, today there is a gap between expectation and governmental response to US actions affecting India in the Gulf. We need to bridge that gap quickly.

(Juggi Bhasin is a veteran TV journalist, author and geopolitical commentator. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.)