
Atleast India's approach towards smaller, neighbour countries like Srilanka, Tibet or Malasiya could have been different. India took dont care whatever happens approach towards all these countries problems. In outer picture it gives good image for India for not interfering these countries. But India's image would have been different if it was involved in resolving resolving conflicts by mediating peace negotiation, atleast by voicing strong condemns. I am not sure why India couldn't have done better than Norway involvement in Srilanka !? I dont understand what is the problem in expressing condemn while another country killing Tibet freedom protestors? what will go wrong in suggesting Malasian govt to treat its foreign nationals better?
Even if small steps cannot be taken at regional level, what can be done by taking major role in UN? With this mindset,what it is going to achieve after getting permenant seat in UN? Being noncommittal in UN is waste of permenant seat which could be utilized better if given to another country.
I dont remember any significant achievement of MEA in the past decade. Kashmir issue with Pakistan, border issue with China, infiltration problem with Bangaladesh still exists. There is no policy shift happens in successive goverments atleast to resolve its own problems. Foreign ministry acts as a helping dept for finance and commerce ministries to establish trade and commerce relationships.
![]() | ![]() |



No comments:
Post a Comment