When, in Washington last week, external affairs minister S. Jaishankar cancelled an engagement with members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee as it chose to include prominent Indian-origin Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal at the meeting, Indian diplomacy was shown in negative light.
Over decades, our diplomats have earned a name for dignified conduct. Even when the going was difficult, as in the aftermath of the Pokhran nuclear test, when this country was sought to be isolated by the West, our diplomats did not lose their cool.
It is therefore surprising that the minister, who is a very seasoned diplomat and a former foreign secretary, should cancel a scheduled meeting simply because a critic of New Delhi’s policy of curbs and detentions in Kashmir after the abrogation of J&K’s special status was to be a part of it.
Mr Jaishankar told the media he had “no interest” in meeting those who were “not objective”, and did not have an “open mind”. Was this his voice, or that of his masters in New Delhi? Is it not conceivable that the minister may have won over a critic if he went ahead with the meeting. Diplomacy’s basic principle is to meet and persuade — especially critics.
The minister sought to imply that he didn’t wish to interact with those whose criticism was ideology-rooted. But the impression he left is that it’s he who carried the burden of ideology.
Not long ago, the government hosted a clutch of European Parliament members of right-wing and far right parties in Srinagar. They were given a guided tour. A British MEP of the Liberal Party was booted out because he wanted to travel freely in Kashmir. The whole venture was troublingly ideological. Coming off that experience, the minister’s conduct appears defensive — aimed at dodging questions.
