Countries have finite resources and infinite concerns to support. This necessitates prioritizing those concerns with maximum impact, stakes, and moral imperatives. Socio-economic issues like employment, agrarian crisis, education, health etc., ought to draw maximum resources, but there are other issues like security, diplomacy etc., which too are critical, though the impact therein is usually enabling as opposed to being socio-economically accretive.

There are tensions of making ‘choices’ as budgetary allocations are often tempered with partisan priorities. So no sovereign can practically guarantee resources to all those beseeching the same, especially for an ‘emerging economy’ like India. The government makes choices. In democracies, citizens elect government, and the government is duty bound to protect a citizen’s constitutional rights, address legitimate concerns, and ensure safety, within and abroad. However, ‘choices’ made by the State are often influenced by postures that the State seeks to project, even if the same comes at the collateral and regrettable cost of denying legitimate needs to some others, inadvertently. One such impulse amongst large-but-emerging economies is to flex their ‘outreach capabilities’ beyond borders in terms of evacuation of citizens.

It makes for muscular optics of having ‘arrived on the world stage’ besides generating invaluable electoral tailwind by displaying purported concern and capabilities. Countries like China and India have routinely demonstrated such Superpower instincts. But because of the finiteness of resources, these ‘investments’ come with commensurate denial to some other, equally, or more deserving citizens, somewhere else. As this investment-denialism equation is not linear, it is not apparent. Therefore, instances of such cross-border ‘investments’ must be carefully weighed with the lens of competitive ‘legitimacy’, in each case. The relationship between a citizen and the State is of a reciprocal nature mandating respect for each other’s compulsions and suggestions.

A State that does not care about a citizen’s legitimate woes is unworthy of its trust, just as a citizen who is unheeding of the sovereign’s directive (worse, if such citizens expect equal treatment vis-a-vis other citizens, who do abide by the State’s directives) is. In a Kennedyesque pun, unilaterally driven citizens ask what the state can do for them, but conversely remain unconcerned about the State’s own pleas. Recent years have seen India invest heavily in rescuing its citizens from Yemen, Ukraine, Qatar, Iran etc. Each time these missions succeeded, it added to the image of the nation. The government even invoked the same towards bolstering its electoral prospects e.g., the video of an ostensible girl student rescued from Ukraine.

Obviously, the narrative then extended to suggesting that India had got Russia and Ukraine to halt the war to do the needful, clearly massaging reality beyond reasonableness. Now, there could be varying degrees of ‘legitimacy’ implicit in each of these evacuation cases that must be nuanced. In the latest case of negotiating with Iran to secure the release of Indian sailors aboard the seized commercial liner the narrative is genuinely compelling. These sailors are presumably from a disadvantageous economic background and that makes their misery especially pressing for the State to intervene. There is also an implicit innocence of these sailors, given the unrelated-to-them backdrop, besetting the issue.

As negotiations entail a friendly country like Iran, it makes it even more pertinent for Delhi to push hard given the high chance of success and presumably ‘low investment’ involved. Then there was the case of securing eight Navy veterans sentenced by a Qatari court. Though they were working in a commercial organisation at their own discretion ~ the Indian State was naturally and rightly concerned at securing a reprieve, irrespective of the accusations. The fact that they were from the Defence Forces entailed an unsaid pressure to go the extra mile for veterans who had earlier put their own lives to risk, to defend the sovereign. Even a compromise to Indian security imperatives with the sentencing of these sailors couldn’t be ruled out.

Again, like in the case of Iran, this case too entailed a friendly country with reasonable chances of success and presumably ‘low investment’ involved. However, two cases of ‘high investment’ entailed the evacuation of 4,640 Indians and 960 foreigners from Yemen under Operation Rahaat, and 25,000 Indians from Ukraine under Operation Ganga. While for the Government to step up and address the concern of beleaguered citizens abroad is a noble act and desirable ~ but in both instances, the Government had issued strong and multiple advisories to leave the countries respectively, which went unheeded by the Indians there. Certainly, there were economic concerns (with workers in Yemen) and career concerns (with students in Ukraine), but repeated requests and advisories by the Indian Government as it assessed the situation to be deteriorating, were knowingly ignored till the situation got out of hand.

In the Ukraine case, an unprecedented 76 dedicated flights to ferry Indians who hadn’t left in time (as mandated by successive advisories), were committed. A large extent of the cost towards this mammoth rescue operation was arguably avoidable if the Indians therein had respected the covenant of trust with the State. But they were aided at a substantial cost in the same way as some other citizens are treated (or denied, for lack of sovereign resources) as those who do abide with the State’s advisories and urges, in their own ways.

Subsequent initiatives like Operation Ajay (facilitating Indians in Israel post-Hamas attack) was fundamentally different, as the situation imposed itself without warning. Therefore, it is important to differentiate and distinguish between various situations to ensure that only those who uphold the reciprocal covenant with the State are prioritised. It is unfair to deny some, just because they are not in the news or frontlines. Just one statistic says a lot ~ India has regressed to 111th out of 125 countries on the Global Hunger Index, therefore it is important to keep some things in perspective before committing national resources. Many sections of citizens are in desperate need of sovereign support, but as the national kitty is limited, care to filter each situation with the lens of competitive ‘legitimacy’ is important.

(The writer is Lt Gen PVSM, AVSM (Retd), and former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)