After the much anticipated 2+2 dialogue between the United States and India, much of the analysis has been devoted to the meeting that didn’t happen rather than the ones that did. India’s External Affairs Minister has been criticized by commentators at home and abroad for not agreeing to meet Ms. Primala Jayapal, US Congresswoman, a vocal critic of the Indian government’s abrogation of Article 370 in Kashmir.
Concerns being raised about the erosion of bipartisan support in Washington for India have been doing the rounds for months, but it has intensified during the last few weeks.
Jayapal and other democrats have led the charge against the Indian government’s handling of Kashmir by introducing a bipartisan House resolution asking for India to take steps to restore ‘normalcy’ in the valley. While it is true that the current Indian dispensation often displays contempt for criticism, suggesting that cancelling the meeting was silencing American voices is an unfair characterization of events.
Media reports suggest that the Indian delegation demanded Ms. Jayapal's exclusion from meetings. However, in truth, Ms. Jayapal and two unidentified lawmakers were added to the meeting list at the last moment, without the knowledge and consent of the Indian side. It has even been suggested that the Chair of HFAC, a Democrat, was also unaware of her presence on the meeting list. A foreign minister cannot be coerced into meeting three uninvited lawmakers at the last moment.
After the fruitful meetings between top foreign and defence officials from both sides, it was India who had requested to meet the leadership of both the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC), led by a Democrat, and the Senate Foreign Relation Committee (SFRC), led by a Republican. So, assertions that the cancellation of the HFAC meeting is tantamount to not engaging with critics are misleading, especially when Indian officials met lawmakers from both sides during their meeting with SFRC's chair and ranking members.
Engagement with leadership on both sides is essential, and the actions of Indian officials might have have been swayed by the draft resolution put forth by the Congresswoman. However, the reason why the Indian officials were right to cancel the meeting is not just because this was not something agreed upon beforehand but also the fact that Ms. Jayapal had no business being there as she is neither a chair nor a member of any of those committees. Valuing dialogue and dissent is essential, but individual American lawmakers need to remember that this can be done through proper channels and not by gatecrashing that goes against the standard diplomatic procedure and practices.
Furthermore, if India was not willing to engage and clear the air about few concerns of the American lawmakers had, why would it then voluntarily ask for a meeting with the chair and ranking members of both the committees?
Forcing a senior foreign delegation of such a vital ally to meet critics without any warning seems more of a political act aimed at playing to the gallery at home, and does not suggest a willingness to engage in honest discussions. What confirmed Indian suspicions was the fact that the story was leaked to Washington Post instantly. This story led to a series of tweets from Democratic Presidential candidates, such as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg, accusing New Delhi of trying to silence and suppress the voice of Ms. Jayapal.
Amidst the controversies, what a lot of detractors have missed or chosen to ignore is that the meetings that did take place. The External Affairs minister met Amir Bera, who heads the subcommittee on South Asia and is the newly elected co-chair of the Caucus for India. Brad Sherman, who presided over the October 22 Congressional hearings on Kashmir that irked a lot of Indian-Americans, was also in that meeting. The fact that both are democrats clearly suggests that Indian officials were not ducking questions and critics.
So, when Jaishankar suggests that he is “not open to discussion with people who have already made up their minds,” he is not entirely wrong in his assessment. The fact that in both hearings related to Kashmir, Ms. Jayapal critiqued India’s policy, listened to the detractors, and then left without listening to the other side, is a clear indication of her unwillingness to engage meaningfully. The Indian Ambassador to the US and the embassy officials also claim that they have made repeated offers to Ms. Jayapal and others where they can discuss issues but have not received any responses from the Congresswoman or her office.
Nevertheless, it must be said that Mr. Jaishankar’s response when asked about the cancellation, did not help India’s cause either. By saying that “he’s not interested in meeting her” displayed hubris. One of the core functions of diplomacy is to convince the unconvinced and not just preach to the converted. And it could be argued that there is no one better than the External Affairs Minister himself to mount government’s defence and allay fears and concerns at Capitol Hill.
On the other hand, the draft resolution authored and sponsored by Mr. Jayapal does not reflect a correct and complete understanding of India’s action in Kashmir, as the Indian minister has pointed out. Even the Joint Statement issued by the two governments after the 2+2 dialogue recognizes the complicated security situation and Pakistan’s role in Kashmir, unlike the house resolution, which as of now is supported by 27 Democrats and 2 Republicans. And one has to consider that this pushback by India was inevitable considering Democratic lawmaker Rashida Talib's attempt to put forth a resolution calling for Kashmiri “self-determination” earlier this year.
Despite that, Mr. Jaishankar confirmed that he was asked about the restrictions on Kashmir and the controversial citizenship-related legislations under the Modi government. Therefore, assertions that India evaded questions and criticism by the Trump administration officials and other lawmakers are false.
There is no doubt that the Indian government's domestic policies have raised genuine concerns across the globe and ought to be questioned. However, the Democratic party must decipher how much human rights and liberalism should matter in US foreign policy and to what extent they are willing to prioritize them. With rising dissent against the idea of Modi's “New India” and Trump's “New America” by the progressive wing of the Democratic party, it will be pertinent to see how important “shared values” in this bilateral relationship evolve.
There is also a growing school of thought in the United States that feels India is helpful, but not essential, as a check on China’s growing hegemony. But, US policymakers need to be careful and not see India as a dispensible partner in this era of great power competition. Relationships with Turkey and Saudi Arabia have been the recent casualty of an approach that essentially disqualifies countries as partners due to domestic illiberalism. Thus, questioning the Indian government, which has just won a massive mandate at home, should not turn into a case of excessive haranguing.
India, too, will only harm itself if it stops engaging in dialogue with different sections of the US polity who share a diverse set of values and opinions. Trump’s incoherent blend of hard bargaining on the trade front and increased cooperation on the security front, combined with his warm relationship with Prime Minister Modi, has served India well in recent years. New Delhi should not overtly display its preference for a Republican in the White House and continue to strengthen its relationship with both parties equally. That being said, this cancellation should not be seen as a snub to the Democrats. The decision by the Indian side was not because they bank on Mr. Trump returning to power as some have suggested, but to send a clear signal to the entire political class of Washington DC.
We must assess the trajectory of the relationship and the summit by tangible progress in terms of bilateral cooperation, and not let such meetings be overshadowed and marred by needless controversies.
The fusing of domestic and international politics is not unique to India. For all the debate about India’s slide into illiberalism and how democracy and shared values are also an essential part of this partnership, this also reeks of American condescension. India has to draw the red line somewhere and send a message that this is not a relationship of diction, and it is not only India that has something to lose if things spiral beyond control.
Reference List
Bureau, B. (2019). Shouldn't Be Pressurised, Says Sources On Jaishankar's Cancelled US Meet. Retrieved 30 December 2019, from http://www.businessworld.in/article/Shouldn-t-Be-Pressurised-Says-Sources-On-Jaishankar-s-Cancelled-US-Meet/21-12-2019-180913/
Delhi can’t duck. (2019). Retrieved 30 December 2019, from https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/india-united-states-s-jaishankar-kashmir-6180023/
Katju, V. (2019). The value of diplomatic engagement. Retrieved 30 December 2019, from https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/the-value-of-diplomatic-engagement/story-V5QGr2ZS1emA367bRu19SL.html
Needless face-off between dems and Jaishankar. (2019). Retrieved 30 December 2019, from https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/editorials/2019/dec/23/needless-face-off-between-dems-and-jaishankar-2079752.html
Raj, Y. (2019). A giant missed opportunity, says Jayapal on cancelled meeting with Jaishankar. Retrieved 30 December 2019, from https://www.hindustantimes.com/indians-abroad/a-giant-missed-opportunity-says-jayapal-on-cancelled-meeting-with-jaishankar/story-LwMLaKRe42AKex0jReO43I.html
RaJ, Y. (2019). Foreign Minister S Jaishankar explains why he cancelled meeting with US lawmakers. Retrieved 30 December 2019, from https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/foreign-minister-s-jaishankar-explains-why-he-cancelled-meeting-with-us-lawmakers-over-kashmir/story-fAHn99KRuaVtnZRXQfFSeJ.html
Sirohi, S. (2019). J+J Meeting That Didn’t Happen. Retrieved 30 December 2019, from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/letterfromwashington/jj-meeting-that-didnt-happen/
Sirohi, S. (2019). Stressed ‘Shared Values’ between India & US. Retrieved 30 December 2019, from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/letterfromwashington/stressed-shared-values-between-india-us/
Staniland, P. (2019). India’s New Security Order - War on the Rocks. Retrieved 30 December 2019, from https://warontherocks.com/2019/12/indias-new-security-order/
Story of a Washington meeting that was not to be. (2019). Retrieved 30 December 2019, from https://www.telegraphindia.com/world/story-of-a-washington-meeting-that-was-not-to-be/cid/1729640
Image Source: Sirfnews
