The global power of India CENJOWS 23 Dec 19
https://cenjows.gov.in/article-detail?id=229
The global power of India CENJOWS 23 Dec 19
Post the abrogation of Article 370 there were comments from across the globe for India to lift all bans including the communication ban imposed in the valley and free all detainees, including political detainees. There were also comments that all juvenile detainees be released, based on fake information being spread by local Human Rights activists and Pakistan. Post the judicial commission of J and K visiting prisons and confirming no presence of juvenile detainees, there has been no retracting of statements.
Articles condemning Indian actions and demanding restoration of communication restrictions appeared in the New York Times and the Washington Post. The Indian foreign minister, S Jaishankar, commented, ‘I think it was a more difficult challenge with the media, especially the English-speaking liberal media [in the West]. Partly, because they were ideological about [Jammu and Kashmir], and they had strong pre-set views about it. My view was that they didn’t present a fair picture or absorb it.’ At one point he also stated that India is not influenced by editorials in US newspapers.
As recently as last week, the Indian foreign minister cancelled a meeting abruptly with senior US Congress members because of the inclusion of Pramila Jayapal, an Indian-origin member who had introduced a bill criticizing Indian actions in Kashmir. Mr Jaishankar stated, ‘I don’t think it (the report) is a fair understanding of the situation in Jammu and Kashmir or a fair characterization of what the government of India is doing. I have no interest in meeting her.’
He added, ‘I have an interest in meeting people who are objective and open to discussion but not the people who already made up their minds.’ Subsequent criticism of his decision was ignored. He subsequently met some members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and had a fruitful discussion.
The UN also commented on the passing of the Indian Citizen Act (CAA), an action India ignored. The spokesperson of the UN Secretary General stated on internal violence in India, ‘We are concerned about the violence and alleged use of excessive force by security forces that we’ve seen that have been taking place in the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act.’ The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights termed CAA as discriminatory. Their claims and comments were ignored.
Pakistan’s continuing to raise the abrogation of Article 370 on Kashmir had China seeking another closed-door meeting on it, which was rejected by other members of the UN Security Council, claiming the issue as bilateral. The earlier closed-door meeting in Aug had ended without a whimper.
Chinese People’s Daily also wrote an article on Indian actions of closing the internet for security reasons. It stated, ‘India recently ordered the closure of the internet to control protests over the controversial new citizenship amendment bill. It means that closing the internet in a state of emergency should be a standard practice for sovereign countries.’ Similar action adopted by other countries to control violence is generally unnoticed globally.
Evidently, Indian actions are now being monitored and commented upon. Similar observations are made on decisions being taken by other major nations, whether they be US, China, Israel, Russia or major EU members. This is because these are nations with international power and standing. At the same time, actions in nondescript countries like Pakistan, Turkey, Malaysia, Bangladesh or in Africa are generally ignored, though they may be more severe in nature.
As India grows in relevance and emerges as a global power, every action which it takes will come under scrutiny. This is expected and should not be a cause for concern. In nations, where the current government allies with India, there would be opposition groups which would attempt to display anger against Indian decisions.
Simultaneously, governments across the globe are aligning with India either for economic or military reasons and hence would back India despite criticism from some quarters. Inter-government interactions convey Indian concern, and these are accepted.
The recent India-US 2+2 dialogue had hardly any discussion or mention on Kashmir or CAA. Occasionally, US spokespersons do mention that they are monitoring the Kashmir situation or internal violence and desire India lifts all restrictions. The US government realises the importance of its relationship with India and seeks to enhance ties, rather than support comments being passed by a few members of its Congress.
Trump was a part of the ‘Howdy Modi’ rally in Houston, seeking to win over the Indian Diaspora and was witness to the global support which Modi possesses. His White House meeting with the Indian defence and foreign ministers post the 2+2 dialogue indicates his desire to enhance ties, ignoring irritants. This has rubbed off on his administration.
Similarly, in the UK, Boris Johnson stood by the Indian decision on Kashmir and countered the negative comments by his main opposition rival, Jeremy Corbyn. His visit to a Mandir, prior to the election displayed his support for India. It is believed that one of the causes of Jeremy’s Labour Party’s poor performance in the elections was the rejection of his anti-India approach by the Indian diaspora.
Saudi Arabia and UAE, two main backers of Pakistan have stood by India and refused to criticise it or back Pak claims. On the contrary they advised Imran to tone down his rhetoric. Pakistan was left almost alone in it seeking international criticism. As expected, it was backed by Turkey, Malaysia and China. The economic key which Saudi holds over Pak compelled Imran to call of his planned attendance to the Malaysian summit, an action no nation could ever compel India to do.
While India may not be a permanent member of the UN Security Council, its economic and military power have made nations which seek to enhance ties with it support its stance. The few nations who have criticised India for its actions matter little globally. Chinese criticism is solely to display solidarity with Pak, aware that India has ignored China’s own poor human rights record.
As India grows in strength and power, it will be closely observed by organizations and nations across the globe. Every action it takes would be subject to criticism and could be benchmarks for others to follow. India should ignore such criticism and avoid interacting with those who resort to it. Hence, the action by the Indian foreign minister to cancel his meeting with US Congress members is ideal as it displays that India has no time for who comment without being aware of reality. India is now firmly on the global stage.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army