It is difficult to recall another visit by an Indian president to any country that has caused so much controversy as Mr Sanjiva Reddy’s to the Soviet Union. Public attention has been focused on President Brezhnev’s absence from a return banquet which President Reddy was to host, but did not in view of the Soviet leader’s decision to stay away. The popular interest in this affair is understandable. For one thing such diplomatic incidents do not take place among heads of state of friendly countries. For another, no proper explanation has been offered for it either by Moscow or New Delhi. While the former belatedly put out a report which does not carry conviction, the latter has chosen to ignore the event. But the banquet episode, however painful, is only one aspect of the visit. The other relating to the nature of Mr Reddy’s discussions with the Soviet leaders also deserves attention.
Mr Brezhnev is head of government as well as of state. As such it is normal for him to engage in substantive discussions with other world leaders. Indeed, he has for years been the Soviet Union’s chief negotiator with important countries on important issues. But the position of the Indian President is quite different. Under the Constitution, it is like that of the King or Queen of Britain. His visits abroad are intended to be a goodwill affair. He is not supposed to engage in detailed discussions with other governments on policy matters. But reports from Moscow suggest that Mr Reddy has held such talks. Perhaps the timing of the trip – amidst the Iraq-Iran war – accounts for it. Perhaps Mr Reddy had had prior discussions with the Prime Minister, Mrs Indira Gandhi.
Perhaps she took the view that there was no harm in using the President’s visit to hold substantive talks with the Soviet leaders at the highest level. The choice of the minister-in-waiting would certainly suggest that New Delhi sought to combine business with goodwill. But it appears that this departure from the established practice has been ill-advised. Policies on complex issues such as the Soviet intervention and role in Afghanistan or the Iran-Iraq war have to be highly nuanced. This means that only those ministers and officials who are involved in their formulation and day-to-day implementation can present the Indian viewpoint with the appropriate care and finesse. President Reddy is kept informed of the government’s policies. But he is not actually involved in their formulation and implementation. And it was certainly wrong to use his visit to ask the Soviet Union for additional oil supplies. Mr Veerendra Patil should have gone to Moscow on his own and not as minister-in-waiting to the President.