“You Cannot Shake Hands with a Clenched Fist”

• 28 May 2025

In a world increasingly shaped by complex divisions: political, ethnic, economic, or ideological, Indira Gandhi’s statement, “You cannot shake hands with a clenched fist,” remains strikingly relevant. The metaphor represents a universal truth: sustainable peace cannot emerge from hostility. This essay will examine historical precedents, contemporary challenges, and policy-driven solutions to argue that dialogue is indispensable for lasting peace.  

At its core, the metaphor speaks to the emotional and psychological barriers to peace. A clenched fist reflects fear, anger, and defensiveness; traits that often escalate rather than resolve conflict. By contrast, the gesture of a handshake implies mutual recognition and a desire to coexist. In both personal and political arenas, real progress begins only when parties choose communication over coercion. Such psychological barriers manifest as geopolitical conflicts, underscoring the urgency of diplomatic engagement, as history repeatedly demonstrates. 

History provides numerous instances where diplomacy played a decisive role in averting large-scale disasters. During the Cold War, despite intense ideological divisions, diplomacy played a vital role in maintaining a balance of power. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, resolved through direct communication between Washington and Moscow, is frequently cited as a moment when dialogue triumphed over destruction. Likewise, the post-World War II formation of multilateral institutions like the United Nations and the European Union reflected a collective recognition of the necessity for rules-based international cooperation. More recently, the Iran Nuclear Deal (2015) showcased the potential, albeit fragile, of multilateral diplomacy to curb proliferation. Agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord, though often imperfect or critiqued,  institutionalize dialogue, creating platforms for incremental progress.  

While the ideals of diplomacy and cooperation are widely supported in principle, real-world applications are fraught with difficulty. Historical grievances, asymmetrical power dynamics, and political opportunism often obstruct genuine negotiation. The ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine illustrates how entrenched distrust, competing historical narratives, and cycles of violence undermine diplomatic efforts. Despite repeated international initiatives, a durable peace remains elusive. In another instance, the 2021 withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan exposed the limitations of prolonged military engagement without parallel political reconciliation. The eventual negotiations, though contentious, reaffirm that even adversaries must eventually embrace dialogue. 

India offers a particularly rich context for exploring the balance between coercion and cooperation. As a pluralistic democracy with immense diversity, the Indian state has often relied on negotiation and constitutional mechanisms to manage differences. Yet, the country has also experienced significant internal conflicts where diplomacy was either delayed or sidelined. India’s success in integrating over 500 princely states post-independence was not just a feat of administrative reorganization but also a product of diplomatic finesse. Figures like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel used a mix of persuasion, legal arrangements, and, where necessary, force to bring diverse regions under a common constitutional umbrella. While Hyderabad required military intervention (Operation Polo), Mysore’s accession via diplomacy preserved regional trust. With regards to prolonged issues which need diplomatic deliberation, the Northeast has long been marked by ethnic assertions and insurgent movements. For decades, the government adopted security-led responses. However, over time, dialogue became central. The Shillong Accord (1975) and the ongoing Naga peace talks are notable for attempting negotiated solutions. While not without setbacks, these efforts show that engagement, though slow, offers pathways to stability. 

India’s decentralized governance model especially after the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments has created formal mechanisms for conflict resolution at the village and municipal levels. For instance, Gram Sabhas in Kerala have mediated land and water disputes, while municipal ward committees in Bengaluru have facilitated community dialogues over infrastructure issues. In states like Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, local bodies have helped defuse communal tensions through inclusive decision-making. These mechanisms enhance social cohesion by fostering dialogue, accountability, and participatory governance in multi-ethnic and multi-religious settings. 

Even with institutions in place, diplomacy often falters due to factors like mistrust, imbalance of power, populist politics, lack of institutional support and cooperation, and autocratic tendencies. Historical wounds, such as those from Partition, communal violence, or caste oppression, continue to hinder reconciliation. Triggers of past incidents act as catalysts for reinforcing a lack of trust, thus distancing both parties involved further into hostile behaviours and practices. Dominant groups may resist dialogue, perceiving it as a concession rather than a strength. They also might try to use their dominance in terms of economic, military, or political strengths to weaken the opposing group, creating an imbalance of power. For example, China’s Belt and Road Initiative leverages economic clout to sway negotiations, often sidelining smaller nations’ interests. Populist politics has become another contributor to complicating national and international issues instead of solving them diplomatically. These leaders thrive on polarizing narratives that often undermine diplomacy by framing it as weakness. Where legal and bureaucratic structures are weak, even well-intentioned negotiations can collapse. Institutional structures need pillars of cooperation and unity to implement and initiate diplomatic reconciliations successfully.  

In India, for example, inter-community tensions, whether between Hindus and Muslims, upper castes and Dalits, or locals and migrants, persist partly because institutional mechanisms for trust-building are underdeveloped or applied inconsistently. To move from a clenched fist to actionable peace, several remedial policies and steps, like educational and political inclusivity, are essential.  India has implemented several policies that reflect the principles of dialogue, inclusion, and cooperative governance. In education, the National Education Policy 2020 promotes critical thinking, experiential learning, and civic responsibility. By integrating empathy training in curricula, the NEP cultivates future leaders inclined toward collaborative problem-solving. Programs like SEWA (Self-Employed Women’s Association) and NCERT’s peace education modules strengthen empathy, dialogue, and conflict resolution skills and cultivate a culture of understanding and peaceful coexistence.  

To strengthen federalism, the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments empowered local governments, while the Sixth Schedule granted autonomy to tribal regions. Financial devolution through the Finance Commission further supports regional governance. Inclusivity is advanced through reservation policies for SCs, STs, OBCs, and women, especially in local bodies. Schemes like Stand Up India and community radio promote marginalized voices in entrepreneurship and media. Judicial representation remains a critical area for reform. Visionary leadership is seen in efforts like the Naga peace talks, Punjab and Mizoram accords, and Vajpayee’s “Insaniyat, Jamhooriyat, Kashmiriyat” doctrine, emphasizing dialogue over coercion. Institutional reforms like the RTI Act, 2005, and Lokpal enhance transparency and civic engagement. These initiatives show that building peace and justice in India requires consistent investment in education, decentralization, inclusive politics, and leadership rooted in empathy and dialogue. 

Indira Gandhi’s words are not a call for pacifism but a recognition of practical necessity. The clenched fist may command attention, but it rarely earns respect or delivers lasting outcomes. Whether navigating international disputes or internal disagreements, the logic of diplomacy remains the same: no solution is sustainable unless all parties feel heard, respected, and included.  To address emerging threats like climate migration, India must institutionalize dialogue in multilateral forums, leveraging its pluralistic heritage to model inclusive diplomacy. It is a strategy, a principle, and a commitment to listen, to negotiate, and to build peace one conversation at a time.