The four-day India visit of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his charming spouse, Carla Bruni, evoked interest but not euphoria. More significantly, the exchanges with France are becoming frequent and thus each visit cannot be epochal. Mr Sarkozy was in India as the chief guest at the Republic Day celebration in 2008. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was a return guest at the Bastille Day celebration in 2009; and now the current visit. While frequency gives a fillip to diplomacy, it breeds public ennui, despite Ms Bruni’s public relations.
Unlike US President Barack Obama’s visit, which had the shadow of domestic US politics and Afghanistan war over it, Mr Sarkozy commenced his visit in Bengaluru and ended it in Mumbai. His messaging was also on the mark on terrorism, global trade and investment. He said he was not looking for contracts, he was seeking partnership. This was not only the President of France, but the Chair of the Group of Twenty, creating new space for a France in decline and domestically troubled over the non-sustainability of its social model.
French diplomacy is known for its adeptness. Unlike Portugal, they chose to negotiate the handing over of their former colonial possessions in India in 1954. Their withdrawal from the military command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) in 1966, and subsequent secret agreement on joint defence against Soviet attack, allowed them multiple options. For the developing world, throughout the Cold War, France was the counterweight to dependence on either one of the superpowers. If UAE bought F-16s from the US then the tanks came from France. They supplied defence equipment to India till President Charles de Gaulle recognised China in 1966, six years before the US. Last year France rejoined the Nato’s military command, realising that Nato’s role was about to be redefined. In Nato’s first out-of-area operation in Afghanistan, rechristened as International Security Assistance Force, France contributed 3,000 troops. Pragmatism has also dictated the growing convergence between UK and France for joint and cooperative defence so that they can maintain defence postures that their status as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) dictates but their budgets do not allow.
Franco-Indian relations have been on even keel since 1998, when despite India’s nuclear tests conducted while the French foreign minister was in India, they did not use condemnatory language. The seeds for close engagement had been sown earlier in 1998 when President Jacques Chirac visited India. They fructified when during Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s visit to Paris later the same year the two countries agreed to commence a strategic dialogue. Therefore, the present visit should be seen as the next step in a journey begun two decades ago. The French role is still the same. It positions itself as an independent arbiter, choosing allies in line with its national interests. India too benefits, i.e. as it counterbalances excessive dependence on any major power for four things: cutting edge technologies in defence and space; nuclear energy; dual-use technologies in chemicals, pharmaceuticals etc; and finally, an advocate for India’s inclusion in the global governance structures.
Repeatedly Mr Sarkozy articulated the need to admit India as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, which France had been saying for some years. He also endorsed Mr Obama’s proposal for Indian membership of the four dual-use technology export control regimes, i.e. Nuclear Suppliers Group, Missile Technology Control Regime, Wassenaar and the Australia Group. While India is compliant with the first two, one of the pre-conditions is membership of the Non- Proliferation Treaty. The last two do not have that condition but Indian chemical industry is reluctant to conform to the Australia Group. Therefore, though India would have to work on other members, France joining the US lead is significant and can get the ball rolling.
Cooperation in the civil nuclear energy field received much attention, though it is still some steps away. France too has reservations about supplier’s liability, as did US. We may hear the same tune from Russia. How does the government hope to square this with the law passed by Parliament? Additionally, the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) design is controversial. Two are planned at Jaitipur, each of 1,650 MWs and costing $9.3 billion. At present, only two EPRs are under construction, one in Finland facing quality and regulatory problems, leading to cost over-runs. This has led Siemens of Germany to sever their joint venture with Areva. According to the latest Economist, the demand for nuclear power is softening as gas prices have fallen and old reactors are getting life extensions. The question being posed is why is India rushing to pay such high prices when the indigenously-produced pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs) may be more cost-effective now that India can import uranium?
Mr Sarkozy did promise $14 billion foreign direct investment if India opened its insurance and retail sectors. Talleyrand, the father of French diplomacy, said “speech was given to man to disguise his thoughts”. Sometimes it appears the Indian government follows Talleyrand’s advice with the Indian Parliament. It is hoped that between the two there is enough space, despite WikiLeaks, for meaningful engagement.

The author is a former secretary in the external affairs ministry