Modi goes to D.C.

Published June 24, 2023

IN the aftermath of the 2002 anti-Muslim Gujarat pogrom, Narendra Modi, who was chief minister of the state at the time, was denied entry into the US. This state of affairs persisted for nearly a decade.

Now, as India’s prime minister, he is the toast of Washington, as his just-concluded state visit to the US showed. Indeed, time, geopolitics and realpolitik heal all ‘wounds’, and morality can quickly be dispensed with when needed in international relations.

There was much backslapping and grandiose praise for Mr Modi at his American lovefest. President Joe Biden termed ties with India as “one of the defining relationships of the 21st century”, while the Indian PM was given a rock-star reception as he addressed Congress.

However, a handful of members of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing boycotted the address, citing Mr Modi’s horrendous track record on human rights, while prominent press freedom groups collectively highlighted media restrictions in India.

The reasons why the US is courting India are obvious. These are times of seismic shifts in geopolitics, with alliances changing as Asia emerges as the economic engine of the world.

The US is keen to tap India’s massive market; agreements worth billions of dollars, including defence contracts, were signed during Mr Modi’s visit. As economies across the developed world stagnate, India’s growth rate is stable.

Moreover, for the past several decades, the West, particularly the US, is keen to prop up India as an economic and military rival to China, while Washington is also trying hard to wean New Delhi away from Moscow.

Yet in this rush to woo India, America’s, and specifically the Democratic Party’s, commitments to human rights, are quietly being put aside. When a reporter asked Mr Modi about human rights, he replied that in India, “there is absolutely no discrimination”. This contention is as laughable as it is tragic.

Millions of India’s Muslims, as well as other minorities, would beg to differ. Under Mr Modi’s rule, the BJP has unleashed a vicious brand of political Hindutva to reduce Muslims to second-class status and make them perennial untouchables in the rashtra, while the treatment of Kashmiris by the ‘world’s biggest democracy’ is an affront to democratic values.

Considering the BJP’s hateful rhetoric, the Indo-American joint statement released during the visit, which lectured Pakistan to do more in order to control militancy, rings hollow.

While Pakistan has had a problem with militancy, the critique would have carried more weight had the Biden administration also brought up India’s deplorable treatment of its Muslims, and its long subjugation of Kashmir.

Clearly, for the West, lessons on human rights are reserved for enemies and weaker states, while for more powerful foreign partners, rights abuses are no barrier when it comes to promoting national interests.

Published in Dawn, June 24th, 2023

Opinion

From hard to harder

From hard to harder

Instead of ‘hard state’ turning even harder, citizens deserve a state that goes soft on them in delivering democratic and development aspirations.

Editorial

Canal unrest
Updated 03 Apr, 2025

Canal unrest

With rising water scarcity in Indus system, it is crucial to move towards a consensus-driven policymaking process.
Iran-US tension
03 Apr, 2025

Iran-US tension

THE Trump administration’s threats aimed at Iran do not bode well for global peace, and unless Washington changes...
Flights to history
03 Apr, 2025

Flights to history

MOHENJODARO could have been the forgotten gold we desperately need. Instead, this 5,000-year-old well of antiquity ...
Eid amidst crises
Updated 31 Mar, 2025

Eid amidst crises

Until the Muslim world takes practical steps to end these atrocities, these besieged populations will see no joy.
Women’s rights
Updated 01 Apr, 2025

Women’s rights

Such judgements, and others directly impacting women’s rights should be given more airtime in media.
Not helping
Updated 02 Apr, 2025

Not helping

If it's committed to peace in Balochistan, the state must draw a line between militancy and legitimate protest.