This article critiques the political approach of Narendra Modi, contrasting it with that of past Indian leaders like Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Mahatma Gandhi. It argues that Modi’s actions are often driven by emotional responses and a desire for cheap popularity, rather than thoughtful strategy. The text warns against emulating nations like America or Israel, asserting that India’s unique geopolitical position requires a different approach to foreign policy. It stresses the importance of maintaining strong relationships with neighboring countries and internal communities, advocating for unity and strategic wisdom over impulsive or aggressive tactics. It suggests that a path of collaboration and careful diplomacy is essential for India’s prosperity and standing on the global stage.
The Prudent Path of National Leadership
Prudent leadership, as discussed in this article, emphasizes thoughtful decision-making, a focus on long-term national benefit, and a cautious approach to both domestic and international affairs.
Key aspects of prudent leadership include:
Thoughtful Decision-Making: A leader should make decisions with careful consideration, examining various facets of an issue, rather than acting under the influence of emotions. Hasty actions taken in a state of agitation, even minor mistakes, can lead to significant downfall. A wise leader always considers the potential consequences of any major step, ensuring the situation does not backfire.
Prioritizing National Interest and Unity: Genuine national leaders prioritize the true benefit of the country and its people, guiding them to progress rather than inciting emotions for popular sympathy. This involves uniting different communities within the country rather than dividing them. Internationally, it means managing relations with neighbors and other nations with generosity and wisdom, even enduring some “whims” if necessary, to foster peace and prosperity.
Strategic Foreign Policy:Avoiding Misguided Imitation: Prudent leaders understand that each nation’s context is unique. The article strongly advise against blindly following examples of powerful nations like America or Israel, as India’s internal and external realities are different.
Attempting to imitate the US, for instance, has already damaged India’s relations with countries like Canada and several Western nations. Similarly, copying Israel’s aggressive responses to terrorism is cautioned against, as Israel benefits from being “America’s pampered child,” a position India cannot assume. India’s historical decision to accept a separate Muslim state is also highlighted as a contrast to Israel’s situation regarding Palestine.
Diplomatic Skill and Sensitivity: Foreign affairs require sensitivity and delicacy. Leaders must recognize that in today’s international system, nations are interconnected and have their own compulsions and demands. Support from other countries in areas like science, technology, and trade comes with expectations. A prudent leader monitors the nation’s interests constantly in a changing global landscape.
Avoiding Unnecessary Hostility: Prudent leaders refrain from increasing animosities, especially with neighbors, and should not give others an opportunity to attack them.
However, if war becomes unavoidable, a leader should not become a “Narinder Surrender” joke by succumbing to haste or pressure.
Patience and Restraint: In challenging situations, a prudent leader exhibits patience and courage, akin to Mahatma Gandhi, rather than rushing into enmity or reacting aggressively. This can lead to a “moral and principled victory,” which can be more significant than a military one.
Atal Bihari Vajpayee is presented as an example of a great and prudent leader. During the Kargil incident, despite calls for retaliation by crossing the Line of Control, he famously stated, “Then what is the difference between us and them?”. His decision not to retaliate militarily secured India a significant moral and principled victory in the eyes of the global community, surpassing any potential military triumph.
Mahatma Gandhi is cited as an exemplar of the “courage” and patience needed to avoid rushing into hostility.
Narendra Modi’s response to the April 22nd Pahalgam incident is critiqued. While his immediate return from Saudi Arabia and meeting victims were understandable, the author suggests it was more crucial for the government to meticulously pursue the perpetrators and their masterminds alive to gather evidence for diplomatic leverage globally, rather than engaging in election campaigning. His approach is described as that of a politician seeking “cheap popularity” rather than a “great leader,” making non-serious statements and attempting to elevate his stature through “showy and fabricated attacks”.
The article also criticize leaders who fail to understand global realities, leading to strained relationships, such as with Canada, Turkey, Iran, and Azerbaijan, due to an inflated sense of self-importance. The confusion between maintaining relations with traditional allies like Russia and new Western partners is also noted as a sign of indecisiveness.
Ultimately, the article advocates for leadership that is far-sighted, composed, morally upright, and strategically astute, focusing on real long-term benefits for the nation rather than emotional reactions or short-term gains.
Crafting Prudent Foreign Policy: A Strategic Guide
Foreign policy, according to the article, requires a highly sensitive, delicate, and strategic approach, prioritizing long-term national interest and avoiding emotional or misguided actions. It is an area where prudence in leadership is paramount.
Key aspects and considerations for foreign policy include:
Thoughtful Decision-Making and Long-Term Vision: A wise leader always considers the consequences of any major step in foreign policy, ensuring the situation does not backfire. Decisions should not be made under the influence of emotions. The goal is to guide the nation towards progress and peace, even enduring minor “whims” from others if it serves to foster prosperity.
Avoiding Misguided Imitation: The article strongly caution against blindly following the foreign policy models of powerful nations like America or Israel.
Imitating the US: India is advised not to consider itself America, as its internal and external realities are different. Attempting to mimic the US has already damaged India’s relations with countries like Canada and several Western nations. This “illusion” of self-importance has also led to strained ties with Turkey, Iran, and Azerbaijan.
Imitating Israel: Copying Israel’s aggressive responses to terrorism or its handling of neighboring states is discouraged. The key distinction highlighted is that Israel is “America’s pampered child,” a position India cannot assume. Additionally, Israel’s unique situation regarding Palestine, where a sovereign Palestinian state has not formed, contrasts sharply with India’s historical decision to approve a separate Muslim state seven decades ago, a decision for which India’s Hindu leadership reportedly feels no regret.
Diplomatic Skill and Sensitivity: Foreign affairs demand sensitivity and delicacy. Leaders must recognize that in today’s international system, nations are interconnected and have their own compulsions and demands. Support from other countries in areas like science, technology, and trade comes with expectations; there is no such thing as a “free lunch” in international relations. A prudent leader constantly monitors the nation’s interests in a changing global landscape.
Fostering Regional Stability and Unity: Prudent leaders should refrain from increasing animosities, especially with neighbors. Instead of dividing communities internally, foreign policy should also aim to mend relations with neighboring countries with generosity. If a nation truly wishes for progress, peace, and prosperity for its people, it may need to tolerate some “whims” of its neighbors and learn to manage affairs better with love, wisdom, and improved strategies.
Strategic Handling of Adversaries and Conflicts: While avoiding unnecessary hostilities and not giving others an opportunity to attack, a prudent leader also maintains composure.
In the event of an unavoidable conflict or war, the leader should not become a “Narinder Surrender” joke by succumbing to haste or pressure.
The example of Atal Bihari Vajpayee during the Kargil incident is cited as prudent foreign policy. Despite calls to retaliate by crossing the Line of Control, his refusal to do so secured India a significant moral and principled victory in the eyes of the global community, which was considered greater than any potential military triumph.
In contrast, the handling of the April 22nd Pahalgam incident by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is criticized. While his return from Saudi Arabia was understandable, the author suggests it was more crucial for the government to meticulously pursue the perpetrators and their masterminds alive to gather evidence for diplomatic leverage globally, rather than engaging in election campaigning. His approach is described as that of a politician seeking “cheap popularity” rather than a “great leader”.
Navigating Complex Alliances: India faces the challenge of balancing its relationship with traditional allies like Russia and the demands of new Western allies, indicating a level of confusion or indecisiveness in its foreign policy.
Awareness of Global Power Dynamics: Leaders must be aware of significant global powers like China, which is described as a rising global power asserting itself with pride, arrogance, and dictatorship, and maintaining border tensions with India. The reality is that no nation, no matter how powerful, can stand alone without partners and allies in today’s international system.
India’s Strategic Imperatives: Diplomacy, Unity, and Prudence
India’s position, as described in the sources, is one that requires prudent and sensitive leadership, especially in its foreign policy, to navigate complex internal and external challenges. The sources strongly emphasize that India is not America or Israel and should avoid blindly imitating their models.
Here are key aspects of India’s position:
Unique Geopolitical and Historical Context:
Unlike Israel, which is described as “America’s pampered child” and has not seen the formation of a sovereign Palestinian state, India’s Hindu leadership approved a separate sovereign Muslim state (Pakistan) seven decades ago, a decision for which the sources state there is no regret.
This historical context fundamentally differentiates India’s approach to its neighbors and internal communities from Israel’s.
India’s internal and external realities are distinct from those of the United States, meaning that following the US as an example for domestic and foreign affairs can be detrimental.
Challenges in Foreign Relations:
Damaged Relations with Western Nations: India’s foreign relations with countries like Canada and several Western nations have been severely damaged due to what is perceived as an “illusion” of self-importance, where India started considering itself like America.
Strained Ties with Other Countries: This “intoxication” (or inflated self-perception) has also led to deterioration or issues in Indian relations with Turkey, Iran, and Azerbaijan.
Confusion in Alliances: India is currently in a state of confusion regarding its foreign policy, struggling to decide whether to prioritize pleasing its traditional friend Russia or meeting the demands of its new Western allies.
Border Tensions with China: A significant global power, China, is described as asserting itself with pride, arrogance, and dictatorship on India’s northern border, maintaining continuous tensions.
Interdependence in the Global System: The sources stress that in today’s international system, no nation, however powerful, can stand alone without partners and allies. There are no “free lunches”; support in science, technology, and trade comes with expectations and demands.
Approach to Neighbors and Internal Unity:
Prudent leadership for India means mending relations with neighboring countries with generosity and wisdom. To achieve peace and prosperity, India might need to tolerate some “whims” of its neighbors and learn to manage affairs better with love, wisdom, and improved strategies.
Internally, rather than dividing different communities, India should strive to unite them, recognizing that even opposing ideologies can find common ground once a community is part of the nation. The sources warn against viewing a separated part (like a “cancerous limb”) as simply removed, as it can continue to fester and harm the main body.
Leadership Examples and Criticisms:
Atal Bihari Vajpayee is lauded as a “great and prudent leader” for his approach during the Kargil incident. His decision not to retaliate by crossing the Line of Control, stating “Then what is the difference between us and them?”, secured India a moral and principled victory in the eyes of the international community, which was considered greater than any military triumph.
Mahatma Gandhi is also highlighted for his patience and courage in avoiding rushing into hostility.
In contrast, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s actions regarding the April 22nd Pahalgam incident are criticized. The sources suggest that instead of engaging in election campaigning and making “non-serious statements” to appeal to “fanatical people” for “cheap popularity,” the government should have focused on meticulously capturing the perpetrators and masterminds alive to gain evidence for diplomatic leverage globally. His approach is depicted as that of a politician rather than a “great leader”. His government’s foreign policy is also seen as indecisive and confused regarding its alliances.
In essence, India’s optimal position is one of strategic prudence, diplomatic sensitivity, and a commitment to long-term national interest and unity, both domestically and internationally, while clearly understanding its unique place in the global order without inflated self-perception.
The Indivisible Nation: A Call for Unity
National unity, as discussed in the sources, is presented as a crucial aspect for a nation’s progress, peace, and prosperity, demanding a deliberate and inclusive approach from its leadership.
Key points regarding national unity include:
Integrating Diverse Communities: The sources emphasize that regardless of how opposing the ideologies of a specific community may be, once it is made a part of the nation, numerous ways emerge to remove mutual animosities and resentments. It is suggested that “101 ways” can be found to resolve differences.
Fostering Cohesion over Division: Prudent leadership should prioritize uniting different communities within the country rather than breaking them apart. This directive underscores the importance of internal cohesion for a healthy nation.
Consequences of Division: The sources use a strong metaphor when discussing the historical decision to approve a separate Muslim state. It suggests that if one considers oneself so benevolent as to have “cut off and thrown away a cancerous limb,” then not only does the nation become “maimed,” but that severed part can continue to fester and inject poison, even stinging like a snake when given the opportunity. This highlights the long-term, potentially harmful, implications of national division or unresolved post-separation issues.
Prerequisite for Progress: Achieving progress, peace, and prosperity for the people necessitates managing internal affairs with love, wisdom, and improved strategies, implying that national unity and internal harmony are foundational for a nation’s well-being.
Principled Statecraft: Navigating International Relations and National Interest
International relations, as described in the sources, necessitate a highly sensitive, delicate, and strategic approach from a nation’s leadership, always prioritizing long-term national interest and avoiding actions driven by emotion or misinformation.
Key aspects and considerations in international relations include:
Interdependence and Mutual Expectations: In today’s global system, nations are interconnected and interdependent. There is no concept of a “free lunch”; if countries offer support in areas like science, technology, or trade, they will also have their own expectations and demands. Every nation operates under its own compulsions and demands. A prudent leader must constantly monitor the nation’s interests within this changing global landscape. No nation, regardless of its power, can stand alone without partners and allies.
Thoughtful Decision-Making and Long-Term Vision: Any major step in foreign policy must be taken with deliberation, considering various aspects and potential consequences to prevent the situation from backfiring. Decisions should not be made under the influence of emotions. The goal is to guide the nation towards progress and peace, even tolerating minor “whims” from others if it serves to foster prosperity.
Avoiding Misguided Imitation: The sources strongly caution against blindly following the foreign policy models of powerful nations like America or Israel.
Imitating the US: A nation, specifically India, is advised not to consider itself America, as its internal and external realities are different. Attempting to mimic the US has already damaged relations with countries like Canada and several Western nations. This “illusion” of self-importance has also strained ties with Turkey, Iran, and Azerbaijan.
Imitating Israel: Copying Israel’s aggressive responses to terrorism or its handling of neighboring states is discouraged. The key distinction is that Israel is “America’s pampered child,” a position other nations cannot assume. Furthermore, Israel’s unique situation regarding Palestine, where a sovereign Palestinian state has not formed, contrasts with India’s historical decision to approve a separate Muslim state seven decades ago, a decision for which India’s Hindu leadership reportedly feels no regret.
Strategic Handling of Adversaries and Conflicts: While avoiding unnecessary hostilities and not giving others an opportunity to attack, a prudent leader maintains composure even in conflict.
The example of Atal Bihari Vajpayee during the Kargil incident is cited as a model of prudent foreign policy. Despite calls for retaliation by crossing the Line of Control, his refusal, based on the principle of “Then what is the difference between us and them?”, secured India a significant moral and principled victory in the eyes of the global community, which was considered greater than any potential military triumph.
In contrast, the handling of the April 22nd Pahalgam incident by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is criticized, suggesting that a focus on gathering evidence from perpetrators for diplomatic leverage globally would have been more beneficial than “cheap popularity” or election campaigning.
Fostering Regional Stability and Unity: Prudent leaders should refrain from increasing animosities, especially with neighbors. Instead of dividing communities internally, foreign policy should also aim to mend relations with neighboring countries with generosity. To achieve progress, peace, and prosperity, a nation may need to tolerate some “whims” of its neighbors and learn to manage affairs better with love, wisdom, and improved strategies.
Navigating Complex Alliances: Nations, like India, face the challenge of balancing relationships with traditional allies (e.g., Russia) and the demands of new partners (e.g., Western allies), which can lead to confusion or indecisiveness in foreign policy.
Awareness of Global Power Dynamics: Leaders must be aware of significant global powers like China, described as a rising global power asserting itself with pride, arrogance, and dictatorship, and maintaining border tensions with India. International relations also involve managing “clashes of interests” and disagreements, which should be handled with courage and patience, avoiding a rush to hostility.
Whether an ordinary citizen or a national leader, every decision must be made after thoroughly considering all aspects of the matter. Actions driven solely by emotion rarely lead to good outcomes. Even a small mistake made at the spur of the moment can result in devastating consequences. If we were to examine the disastrous outcomes of such errors in politics or warfare, an entire article could be dedicated to that alone.
I have long taken a deep interest in the affairs of both Jews and Hindus, which is why I have closely followed the approaches and policies of leaders ranging from Prime Minister Golda Meir to Benjamin Netanyahu, and from Mahatma Gandhi to Narendra Modi. A seemingly minor mistake by Pandit Nehru ignited a crisis of Himalayan proportions. There is no doubt that the tragic incident in Pahalgam, Indian Kashmir, on April 22 was a heart-wrenching moment for the entire country. Upon receiving the news, Prime Minister Narendra Modi cut short his visit to Saudi Arabia and returned home. Visiting the grieving families of the victims, consoling them, and encouraging the state government to apprehend the culprits were necessary steps—arguably more urgent than launching the election campaign in Bihar. Holding detailed meetings with security agencies to ensure a swift investigation was also entirely understandable.
What was truly required, however, was for the Modi government to work diligently and strategically—not just to capture the perpetrators, but especially to identify and apprehend the masterminds behind the attack. Capturing them alive was critical. As in the case of Ajmal Kasab, having a living, speaking source of evidence could have strengthened India’s position on the global diplomatic stage. Exposing links between the incident and a neighboring country would have revealed its sinister role and invited international condemnation. India could have gained both global sympathy in its fight against terrorism and respect for its restraint, patience, and principled stance.
From Pandit Nehru, Indira Gandhi, and Rajiv Gandhi to Lal Bahadur Shastri, I.K. Gujral, P.V. Narasimha Rao, V.P. Singh, and Manmohan Singh—India has seen many capable leaders. Yet my personal admiration lies with Atal Bihari Vajpayee. What a statesman he was, despite the devastating Kargil conflict, when urged to retaliate by crossing the Line of Control, he famously replied, “Then what difference would remain between us and them?” By choosing not to retaliate militarily, India earned a moral victory that far outweighed any short-term tactical gains.
In contrast, Narendra Modi often appears to act more like a politician seeking popular approval than a statesman. To appease certain segments of his base, he has made inflammatory statements and staged exaggerated responses that conflict with known facts—attempts that seem aimed more at personal image-building than national interest.
While public emotions naturally run high after tragic events, a true leader must channel that energy into constructive, long-term strategies that benefit the nation. Incendiary speeches might serve the ambitions of a power-seeking politician, but not the mission of a genuine national leader. Before taking any major step, a wise leader must weigh the consequences: Will this action serve the country or backfire?
Some may look to the United States or Israel as models for how to respond to terrorism, but this reflects a misunderstanding of geopolitical realities.
First, understand that India is not the United States. Emulating America in handling internal or external affairs can lead to serious missteps. A failure to recognize this distinction has already resulted in diplomatic embarrassments. Relations with Canada, once warm, have cooled due to an inflated self-image that caused India to overestimate its global influence. This same misjudgment has also strained ties with several Western nations. The deterioration of relations with Turkey, Iran, and Azerbaijan can likewise be traced back to foreign policy missteps rooted in misplaced confidence and insensitivity.
Now consider the so-called “Israeli model.” Israel, under the pretext of counter-terrorism, has repeatedly launched aggressive operations against its neighbors—storming Lebanon to strike Hezbollah, infiltrating Syria to destroy select targets, or conducting sweeping operations in Gaza against Hamas. While India might be tempted to mirror such tactics, it must resist this urge.
To the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Modi government: for the sake of the nation, do not fall into the trap of trying to replicate Israel’s strategies. India is fundamentally different—economically, diplomatically, and militarily. And let us be clear: Israel enjoys a unique position as America’s favored ally. India does not share that luxury. Even so, Israel has its own challenges. Its geopolitical success partly lies in the fact that, after more than seventy years, no sovereign Palestinian state exists alongside it. Had such a state been established, the perpetual tension between two parallel nations could have left Israel no better off than the Palestinians.
By contrast, seven decades ago, India’s own Hindu leadership agreed to the creation of a sovereign Muslim state beside it—something that many in India still do not deeply regret. No matter how antagonistic a community’s views may be, once it becomes part of your nation, there are always opportunities to resolve conflict and bridge divisions. But if you arrogantly treat that separation as the removal of a “cancer,” then not only do you become lopsided as a nation, but the severed part—now filled with venom—will hiss at you and, when the opportunity arises, strike back like a cobra.
In such a situation, if you truly seek peace, prosperity, and stability, you must learn to endure certain provocations and adopt more intelligent, strategic forms of engagement—with love, wisdom, and foresight.
Secondly, remember that a powerful and assertive China looms to the north, with unresolved border tensions. Thirdly, you face a strategic dilemma: should you maintain your historical alliance with Russia, or yield to the interests of your newer Western partners? In today’s global order, no support comes without strings attached. If foreign nations offer help in science, trade, or defense, they will also expect compliance with their political agendas. Empty gestures and symbolic embraces are not enough.
Every country, regardless of its power, is bound by mutual dependencies, demands, and pressures. This is no longer the age of empires—it is the age of nation-states. India must therefore avoid unnecessary hostilities. Just as it should unify its internal communities rather than divide them, it must also reassess and improve its diplomatic posture in the neighborhood.
In the global arena, conflicts of interest are inevitable. The wise path is not to let them escalate into enmity. Do not respond like Nathuram Godse, who believed violence could serve a higher cause but ultimately damaged that cause irreparably. Instead, emulate Mahatma Gandhi—respond with courage, strategy, and nonviolence. Avoid attacking others in emotional outbursts, and never give others a reason to strike you. But if war ever becomes absolutely necessary, make sure it is waged not in haste or under pressure, but with dignity—so that the nation never becomes a global laughingstock labeled “Narendra Surrender.”
By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog
Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!
Leave a comment