At times it is not clear whether the US administration is plain ignorant in its foreign policy dealings, specifically when it comes to India, or just duplicitous. Or is it actually a case of US government departments and individuals working in silos, running their own agendas, without caring for the fallout of their actions and utterances—one of the fallouts being offending allies and partners, including India.
The US Justice Department, for one, has been pursuing the supposed assassination attempt allegedly by the Indian government of known Khalistani extremist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, even though the Indian government has been clear that assassinations are not part of its policy. And now Justice is investigating an Indian entity to find out if it indulged in any bribery of any Indians on Indian soil, apparently because there is some US investment in that entity. That this is direct interference in a nation’s internal matters, does not bother this department of the US administration.
The latest trouble is with India’s Citizenship Amendment Act—now that the rules have been notified. The State Department is particularly concerned that the CAA has been notified and says that it is monitoring how the Indian government is implementing it, as, “respect for religious freedom and equal treatment under the law for all communities are fundamental democratic principles.” This resulted in a sharp rebuttal from the Ministry of External Affairs, which called the statement, “misplaced, misinformed and unwarranted.”
After that, US ambassador to India, Eric Garcetti went a step further by saying that the US opposition to the CAA was based on principles—that a democracy must follow the principles of religious freedom and equality. It is not known how, by expediting the process of granting citizenship to persecuted minorities coming from Muslim-majority countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan, any principle of democracy or human rights has been violated. It is not that Muslims coming from the neighbouring countries cannot apply for Indian citizenship or will not be granted citizenship under the Citizenship Act of 1955, if they have a valid case. In the normal course of things, following all the rules, they too can become Indian citizens.
As External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar mentioned, the US too has fast-tracked the citizenships of specific groups of people based on their faith and ethnicity. The Lautenberg Amendment fast-tracked the citizenship of persecuted Christians and Jews from Russia; the Spectre Amendment extended this to persecuted minorities from Iran. How is it that the US fast-tracking the citizenship of persecuted minorities is upholding democracy, but India doing something similar is muzzling human rights? Moreover, as it is being mentioned, the CAA cannot be seen in isolation. It has to be seen in the historical context of the partition, when some people belonging to certain faiths did not or could not come to India. Over time, as they were systematically oppressed, where would they find refuge, if not in India?
Also, what principle is Ambassador Garcetti talking about—the principle that cannot see the deliberate extermination of the minority communities in three of India’s neighbouring countries, so much so the minorities have more or less disappeared from Afghanistan, are about to disappear from Pakistan and will eventually disappear from Bangladesh? Shouldn’t Mr Garcetti’s lectures on democracy and principles be directed at India’s neighbours?
In fact, in India-US relations, it seems that the Defence and Commerce departments of the US government are serious about ensuring that this partnership lives up to the potential of being the most consequential of this century. But that is definitely not the case with departments such as State and now Justice.
At a time when the US has placed India at the centre of its Indo-Pacific strategy, the State Department has been railing against India on imaginary violations of human rights, apart from delaying visas for Indian citizens for hundreds of days. The Pakistani-influenced United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has been trying to get India blacklisted and sanctioned for being a “country of particular concern” for religious minorities.
The State Department reports on religious freedom take substantial inputs—a majority of them distorted and fake—from the USCIRF, including on India. But let us not impute any sinister motive to the State when it comes to India. Maybe its “concerns” about India are stemming from both ignorance and its own “wokeness”. However, what State needs to realise is that its mishandling of the India desk may impact India-US relations negatively, which is not in the interest of either country. The whole of government approach is missing in this and raises serious questions about the interests and agendas that are often working at cross purposes in the Joe Biden administration.
So who does this help? China, of course.
As for Mr Garcetti, he has been very closely linked to China for decades—this is reported and well known. As the US ambassador to India he should know the importance of not making statements that offend Indians and gladden the Chinese. It is the India-US relationship that is at stake here.