been times that he has shied away from taking political charge, as was the case with Bangladesh and now threatens to be the case with Sri Lanka. At these junctures, his political colleagues and diplomatic aides did not always succeed in delivering. Hence, while he has had some success in mending relations with major powers, the less said about the neighbourhood, the better.
While UPA2ís handling of immediate foreign policy challenges can be criticised, it would be difficult to challenge the long-term relevance of the principles that define the Manmohan Singh Doctrine. A doctrine is for the long run. It need not always help in dealing with short-term problems and there is no substitute for clever diplomatic intervention. Criticism about what the doctrine ignores is either based on an excessive focus on the here and now or nostalgia for the then and gone.
Theorists of international relations will classify Singhís worldview as realism tinged with idealism. While it prioritises Indiaís immediate developmental needs and aspirations, it recognises the universal relevance of the values that define the Indian republic ó pluralism, secularism and liberalism ó in this new era of peoplesí power. Its full flowering, however, requires bolder political leadership.
The writer is director for geo-economics and strategy, International Institute for Strategic Studies and Honorary Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research, Delhi