Polarisation, deepening ideological divides, and a corresponding diminution of the power of the political centre have become the new normal around the globe. In the light of these developments, policymakers, diplomats, and leaders must tread cautiously in bilateral engagements and diplomatic messaging. Ideological consolidation on both sides of the political spectrum in some mature democracies, especially in the west, poses a challenge for countries like India, who have traditionally relied on bipartisan support for furthering ties. With the growing convergence of strategic interests as well as perceived threats, it becomes imperative for the drivers of Indian foreign policy to be seen as neutral and non-partisan.
There is a growing concern in the US and Western Europe about foreign intervention in domestic politics. Thus, it becomes crucial to assess the impact of foreign meddling in domestic politics and of explicitly endorsing one political outfit. Leaders using ideological similarities with one leader or party as an underpinning for growing engagement is not new. However, overtly suggesting the unsuitability of another candidate or party to India's interests, or even subtly dissuading or persuading Indian diaspora to align themselves with one side, threatens to erode the bipartisan support that India touts.
In 1947, Michigan Senator Arthur Vandenber, while trying to rally bipartisan support for the Truman Doctrine and NATO, asserted that "we must stop partisan politics at the water's edge" and not let domestic divisions affect foreign policy. Today, it is evident that the same underlying values that shape domestic policy attitudes and opinions held by individuals shape their foreign policy orientation as well. Partisan politics today does not stop at the water's edge. This polarisation and further divergence on these moral foundations and values reflect how favourably citizens see foreign policies of world leaders and bilateral relations with other countries.
This nascent but growing challenge was evident in Indian Prime Minister's 'Howdy Modi' event in Houston this year, when he shared the stage with US President Donald Trump, in an occasion that bore an uncanny resemblance to a political rally. Although the Indian Minister of External Affairs S Jaishankar denied that Mr. Modi had politically endorsed Trump by saying, “abki baar Trump Sarkar,” questions were swiftly raised. Excessive praises of Trump, and the absence of Democratic lawmakers, unlike at Modi's last mega-event at the Madison Square Garden, led to accusations of Indian “meddling” and interference in the US election.
India also has utilized the Indian diaspora as a diplomatic tool to promote India’s concerns and interests. For instance, in the UK, following the Labour Party's suggestion that "people of Kashmir should be given the right of self-determination”, there were reports of pro-BJP pressure groups–such as the Overseas Friends of BJP (OFBJP)–campaigning against Labour candidates in 48 marginal seats and even inviting Indian community members to a Tory campaigning meeting.
The Labour Party's subsequently backtracked, terming Kashmir to be a bilateral issue, and gave assurances of its support for the Indian community–and specifically for the Hindu community, who felt Labour's stance was “anti-Hindu". Thus, the successful attempts of the Indian diaspora–propelled by pro-BJP groups in the country–to force the Labour Party to change its stance on the Kashmir issue raises alarms of foreign meddling in British elections, albeit through unofficial, informal channels.
Moreover, the Indian leadership's reluctance to accept criticism indicates forced appeasement of the BJP's majority Hindu voter base and suggests the infiltration of domestic elements into its foreign policy, as Senator Vandenber warned. This was particularly evident in the immediate cancellation of a dinner by Indian high commission scheduled with Labour Friends of India, a group consisting of Labour members and lawmakers.
Furthermore, by aligning itself with one party or candidate, or distancing itself from another, India undermines its ability to gain bipartisan support. For example, in the lead up to the upcoming Presidential elections in the United States, Democrats have positioned themselves as an antidote to Trump's morally devoid “America First” policy. Hence, by publicly endorsing Trump, India risks its relationship with the United States should the Democrats emerge victorious. Not only could Democrats harken back to Modi's exclusion of Democratic lawmakers at his 'Howdy Modi' event, his proclamations of 'abki baar Trump sarkar' put the Democratic party in a moral and political conundrum; by denouncing Trump, they would have to denounce India by association as well. Such eventualities are made more likely by deepening ideological divides that have pushed the Democratic Party further left and positioned Modi's right-leaning government in opposition to their leftist and increasingly 'value-laden' agenda.
For example, congressional and public hearings such as the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission–led by Democrats–have focused on India's actions in Kashmir. In addition, although the Congressional resolution on restrictions and clampdown in Kashmir tabled yesterday gained bipartisan support, there is more visceral disfavour towards India in the Democratic Party. In fact, the resolution was introduced by Indian-born Congressman, Pramila Jayapal, one of the leaders of the progressive wing of Democratic Party.
The impacts of polarization in US politics is seen in the example of Saudi Arabia, whose humanitarian record in Yemen has led to even moderate politicians like Joe Biden calling for a re-examination of US ties with, and arms sales to, the country. It is possible that similar repositioning could be considered with regards to the US' relationship with India, particularly when Modi openly courts the support of Trump.
Enjoying a bonhomie with a leader of a country now considered to be a “natural ally” is clearly an asset–especially with someone like Trump, who demands over the top courtship–but there has to be some moderation. In the wake of the political left's resurgence and upcoming elections in the US and the UK, the Modi government, which is seen as one of the resurging global political right forces today, needs to be aware of these changes and the challenges that can come with it.
It is of vital importance that India navigates these divisions carefully and ensures that India does not get caught in the crossfire of deepening fault lines of Western democracies. Modi held a warm relationship with the Obama administration, despite Obama's indirect remarks on challenges facing Indian democracy. Still, one has to remember the democratic party today is not led by Clinton or Obama, but by forces who would question Obama’s progressive credentials and are sure to be more vocal in their criticisms of India.
Reference List
Abramowitz, A.I. and Saunders, K.L. (2008) Is polarization a myth? The Journal of Politics 70(2): 542—555. Accessed on 6 December 2019, from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1017/S0022381608080493
Bagchi, I. (2019). India faces challenge from new western left in the UK. The Times of India. Accessed on 6 December 2019, from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-faces-challenge-from-new-western-left-in-us-uk/articleshow/72204521.cms
Busby, J.W., Monten J., Tama, J., and Imboden, W. (2012) American foreign policy is already post-partisan: Why politics does stop at the water’s edge. Foreign Affairs. Accessed on 6 December 2012, from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137669/joshua-w-busby-jonathan-monten-andwilliam-inboden/american-foreign-policy-is-already-post-partisan
Chaudhary, D. (2019). Indian-Americans chip in to balance Kashmir hearing. The Economic Times. Accessed on 6 December 2019, from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/indian-americans-chip-in-to-balance-kashmir-hearing/articleshow/72080427.cms
John, Tara. (2019). Hardline Hindus are pushing the Indian government’s agenda on British voters. CNN. Accessed on 7 December 2019, from https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/25/uk/bjp-kashmir-tory-uk-election-ge19-intl-gbr/index.ht
Kaur, K. (2019). The Labour party’s Kashmir motion divides South Asians ahead of UK eections. The Caravan. Accessed on 7 December 2019, from https://caravanmagazine.in/politics/uk-elections-diaspora-vote-kashmir-labour-party
Lakshman,S. (2019). US lawmakers grills State Department officials on extended curbs in Kashmir. The Hindu. Accessed on 6 December 2019, from https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/us-lawmakers-raise-concerns-over-extended-curbs-in-kashmir/article29772244.ece
Maxey. S. (2018). Finding the Water’s Edge: When Partisanship Influences Foreign Policy Attitude. Accessed on 5 December 2019, from https://sarahrmaxey.weebly.com/uploads/4/5/4/2/45423839/maxey_finding_the_waters_edge_2.pdf
Sirohi, S. (2019). Kashmir blues from Capitol Hill. The Economic Times. Accessed on 6 December 2019, from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/letterfromwashington/kashmir-blues-from-capitol-hill/
Srinivasan, K. (2019). Meddeling in foreign affairs. The Tribune. Accessed on 5 December 2019, from https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/meddling-in-foreign-affairs/861400.html
Tandon, L. (2019). Pro-BJP group asks Indians in UK not to vote for Labour Party over Kashmir stand. India Today. Accessed on 6 December 2019, from https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/overseas-friends-of-the-bjp-labour-party-conservatives-1616071-2019-11-06
Walt, Stephen. (2109) America’s Polarisation is a Foreign Policy Problem, too. Foreign Policy. Accessed on 6 December 2019, from https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/11/americas-polarization-is-a-foreign-policy-problem-too/
Image Source: Hindustan Times