Grand Strategy: Using religion to achieve diplomatic, foreign policy goals

Just because religion and state are, and should be, separate, doesn’t mean state cannot leverage religion or leaders to achieve foreign policy objectives

Religion is often seen as complicating diplomacy, and the common tendency is to keep a secular country’s foreign policy free from religious influence and avoid involving religious figures in diplomatic affairs. In most cases, that is indeed the wise approach. However, religion—even in secular countries such as ours—can often serve as a powerful tool to support and advance the country’s diplomatic objectives. Just because religion and state are, and should be, kept separate, it does not mean the state cannot leverage religion or religious leaders to achieve diplomatic or foreign policy goals. The state must utilise all available resources, including religions and religious leaders, to effectively pursue its foreign policy objectives. Let me highlight some examples to support this argument.

The Grand Mufti of India made a personal intervention to prevent the execution of Nimisha Priya, an Indian nurse condemned to death in Yemen. (HT File)

A few days ago, a Kerala based Sunni Muslim leader Kanthapuram AP Aboobacker Musliyar, popularly known as the Grand Mufti of India, made a personal intervention to prevent the execution of Nimisha Priya, an Indian nurse condemned to death in Yemen. Musliyar leveraged his religious influence and connections in the Middle East, particularly in Yemen, to facilitate discussions among Yemeni religious figures, Yemeni authorities and Nimisha’s family to spare the life of the Indian woman on death row. Thanks to his efforts and his religious influence, the execution of the Indian national was temporarily paused. Further negotiations are underway to commute the sentence altogether by paying the victim’s relatives what is known as blood money.

Musliyar’s use of his religious influence to secure the release of the Indian national was a result of the outreach conducted by the ministry of external affairs. In other words, when official channels failed to stop the execution of Nimisha Priya, the officials turned to a prominent religious figure to stop the execution which appears to have worked for the moment.

There are several other instances where religion has played a role in diplomacy, even if not all of them were without controversy.

In 2014, the Catholic church in Kerala served as an intermediary in the wake of the Enrica Lexie incident, where two Indian fishermen were killed by Italian marines aboard the Italian oil tanker in the Arabian Sea, about 20.5 nautical miles off the coast of Kerala. The church facilitated negotiations between the Italian government and the victims’ families in Kerala, leading to a compensation agreement. While the church’s involvement was criticised later on, the incident showed the ability of the state to use religious leaders for foreign policy purposes.

The opening of the Kartarpur Sahib Corridor in 2019 between India and Pakistan is another example of religious diplomacy between rival states. The opening of the corridor helped moderate tensions between India and Pakistan, which had escalated following the Indian military standoff in February 2019 and the government’s decision to de-operationalise Article 370 in August that year. The opening of the corridor and the consequent easing of tensions led to several backchannel conversations between the two security establishments which eventually resulted in the ceasefire agreement of February 2021.

While religion influencing foreign policy is not befitting a secular state, diplomacy using religion, or for that matter any cultural asset, to meet foreign policy objectives must be encouraged. In fact, a country like India with its rich heritage of religions and cultures is uniquely placed to utilise them as tools to advance its foreign policy goals. If properly instrumentalised, India’s domestic religious pluralism can be a powerful instrument of cultural diplomacy. This is not unique to India, faith leaders across the world have contributed to assisting in a state’s diplomacy, peace building, and the like.

The lesson here is straightforward. Religions are not just a source of soft power, they can also come handy for policy makers when dealing with difficult diplomatic situations. If policymakers choose to think creatively in addressing diplomatic challenges, religion and faith leaders can serve as powerful and effective instruments in achieving their objectives. India’s Buddhist diplomacy, which leverages Buddhism to promote cultural exchanges, enhance soft power, and advance geopolitical interests, stands as a successful example of the use of religion in diplomacy. India should consider employing Buddhism and engaging Buddhist spiritual leaders to enable subtle yet strategic diplomatic outreach in the Southeast Asian region.

Religious figures can be carefully cultivated for diplomatic outreach in difficult situations as well. For instance, it might be a good idea to consider cultivating relations between Indian Muslim clerics and Taliban religious leaders with a view to temper the archaic religious views of the latter. Such conversations may have a lot more impact, with potential diplomatic outcomes, than efforts and demands by secular officials asking the Taliban to shun their religious orthodoxy. Encouraging carefully calibrated religious dialogues between Islamic clerics in South India, where Islam has historical ties to the Middle East, and those in the Middle East can significantly enhance Indian diplomacy in the region.

In fact, all of India’s major religions, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity, can be strategically utilised for foreign policy outcomes, provided they are carefully planned and thoughtfully employed.