A quarter century ago a common complaint about the bilateral relationship between India and the United States used to be that the ballast was not heavy enough to steady the ship in uncertain waters. That is no longer true. A variety of factors have stabilised the relationship to the point where disagreements no longer disrupt. The ship is steadier and on course. Even if the Indian national security advisor has to remain at sea, giving up plans to arrive at an American port.
For the first time in a quarter century, since the creation of the office of the National Security Advisor in 1998, the NSA has not accompanied the Prime Minister on a visit to the United States. Therein hangs a tale. One of the problems with the close to one score strategic partnerships that India has signed up with all manner of countries is that they do not help clarify how to handle situations like the one that the Indian NSA, Ajit Kumar Doval, finds himself in. After all, he was only pursuing India’s core strategic interest in dealing with anti-national and separatist elements based overseas, including on American soil. Should a strategic partner not share such strategic interests?
The reason given for Doval staying home, according to media reports, is that he is required here to keep an eye on the situation in Jammu & Kashmir in the run up to the elections there. This does not sound convincing since, on the one hand, the all-powerful Union home minister and the experienced raksha mantri are there to do the job and, on the other, because the Union government has been claiming that the situation in Kashmir is normal and under control.
It would appear, therefore, that the NSA may have been advised to stay home to avoid any embarrassment that may be caused by the summons issued by the district court of the southern district of New York, in response to a lawsuit filed by the US-based Khalistan activist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun. The summons, demanding a response from the Indian government within 21 days, has specifically named the NSA, Ajit Kumar Doval, along with the head of the Research and Analysis Wing, Samant Goel and the alleged operative, the Indian businessman Nikhil Gupta.
To add to the diplomatic embarrassment caused by the summons and its timing, White House officials and members of the US national security council chose to meet a delegation of Sikhs on the eve of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s meeting with President Joe Biden. The delegation was assured that Sikhs in the US would be protected from any act of “transnational repression”.
On the one hand the ballast in the bilateral relationship is heavy enough to tide over such diplomatic storms. On the other hand, the manner in which this issue and many others on the bilateral agenda have been handled by the Biden administration suggests that there is still a lack of clarity on what exactly both countries mean when they speak of a “comprehensive and global strategic partnership”. It is one thing for the US to defend democratic freedoms and quite another for the White House to be commiserating with elements that seek the dismemberment of India.
This is not to defend the dubious and ham-handed operation allegedly carried out by Indian agencies on US soil. The latter have egg on their face. No one expects a mea culpa in such cases but a price is being extracted as a warning. If that price includes embarrassing the Indian NSA, so be it.
It is not just the Pannun case and US response to “Khalistani activism” that has raised questions about the scope and definition of the strategic partnership, but also a range of other issues that have come up with respect to defence equipment sales, the terms of engagement in critical and emerging technologies, policy regimes for trade and investment and so on. Differences on issues such as democracy in Bangladesh and the war in Ukraine have only added to this list.
Given the importance of the bilateral relationship it is time to set photo-ops aside and engage in some real hard-nosed conversations. It is such frank and honest conversations of the 1990s that laid the foundation for the relationship of the 2000s. None other than a longstanding critic of the US at the time, the strategic affairs guru K. Subrahmanyam, would speak his mind out to his American interlocutors, not ever being diplomatic, and give them a sense of Indian thinking.
It appears of late that a considerable part of the conversation is within echo chambers of mutual bonhomie with constant re-assurances being given, as in an uncertain love affair rather than a time-tested marriage. Both sides are responsible for this given some fundamental differences on a range of issues, including how they view relations with Russia and China.
It is not clear what Prime Minister Modi expects from his repeated, high profile love-ins with the Indian diaspora, apart from ego gratification, but the fact remains that whichever way they vote in US elections is not going to make a fundamental difference to the bilateral relationship. Perhaps Donald Trump would be more exuberant in expressing his friendship towards India but, as we have seen from his first term, that would not make much difference to policy. Kamala Harris may be more concerned about human rights, civil liberties and religious freedom in India but her trade, investment, defence export policies as well as her approach to China and Russia are unlikely to be very different from Biden’s.
If indeed the India-US partnership is “comprehensive, global and strategic”, and not just transactional — with India buying US defence equipment and US turning a blind eye to Indian misgovernance — then the two need to engage in wider and meaningful conversations, going beyond the partisan interests of one political party or another in either country.
As for Prime Minister Modi and his party, they have to manage the growing dissonance between the government’s foreign policy and the attitude of the “Sangh Parivar”, as manifesting on social media. While foreign affairs analysts from think tanks and in media sing one tune, “Modi bhakts” on social media are mouthing an altogether different one.
The writer was Member, National Security Advisory Board of India, 1999-2001 and media advisor to Prime Minister of India, 2004-08
