S R

What strikes me is not so much the original post by @suhasinih as the quality of the debate that follows. Almost immediately, a legitimate question about the balance between symbolism and substance in diplomacy degenerates into partisan point-scoring, personal abuse, and caricature. There are really three separate issues here. First, should a Prime Minister engage with the diaspora during overseas visits? Of course. Every major country does this in one form or another. Diasporas are strategic assets, sources of influence, investment, expertise and goodwill. Second, can cultural showcases be useful? Again, yes. Culture is part of statecraft. No serious diplomat would argue that projecting India’s civilisational heritage abroad is somehow illegitimate. Third, and this is where the real debate lies, has the balance tilted too far toward spectacle? Has the visual theatre of diplomacy begun to overshadow the less visible but more consequential business of diplomacy itself? That is a fair question to ask. It is not anti-national. Having served in diplomacy, I would say that foreign visits are ultimately judged not by the applause, the cultural performances, the stadium crowds, or the social media clips. They are judged by outcomes: agreements concluded, interests secured, crises managed, relationships strengthened, and strategic objectives advanced. The irony is that diplomacy requires both performance and substance. The problem arises when one begins to crowd out the other. What I find most dispiriting in these exchanges is the assumption that every question must be either wholehearted praise or total condemnation. Diplomacy is rarely so binary. One can appreciate the value of diaspora engagement and cultural projection while still asking whether India’s external messaging has become overly repetitive and choreographed. That is a conversation worth having. The insults in the replies are not. As for the dance performance in Nice, it seems to me a perfectly harmless cultural welcome. The more important question is what happened in the meetings behind closed doors. That is where diplomacy earns its keep.