President Biden and the Indian Reinvention

The Cold War period, many may contend, was a golden era in the history of the United States of America. Anterior as it was to the advent of the greatly polarizing social media, statesmanship in comparison with that in the present day appeared to be characterized with stately elegance; an air of aristocracy and chivalry in general. Americans felt great pride in their scientific achievements and celebrated the culture of work; the overarching disposition of earning one’s affluence, and politicians held political scientists in high regard; it was supremely portent for the United States to provide a theoretical framework for its values so as to efficaciously combat what it deemed the evil of communism.

It would perhaps not be polemical to state that Ronald Reagan was the most influential president of the U.S. in the Cold War period. In the contemporary era of unabating din of political extremities, his stately comportment in presidential debates with Walter Mondale and the reciprocity thereof by the latter serve as consequential lessons for political conduct. This rather prolix and arguably unnecessary exposition concerning elegant conduct assumes significance in light of the commodious acerbity that characterized the U.S. presidential elections of 2016 as well as 2020. I must hasten to add that, as an Indian, I do not exonerate Indian politics of its mammoth poignance and its alarming dearth of politicians who are prepared to debate substantively. However, given the sheer momentousness of the U.S. presidential elections, it is most apt to present arguments keeping the 2020 election in view.

Hardly would one impugn the observation that the incumbent U.S. president Donald Trump is a greatly dominating figure. To dominate is his natural assuetude, and it was therefore not possible for even a dilettante observer of global politics or international relations to not behold him with a curious blend of fascination with his candour and disapproval with his views in general; some of them at any rate. As opposed to other presidents, he was not part of the political establishment; he had no experience in politics and was not mirthful of being a “politician” even as president. Some lamented, perhaps justly, the loss of the archetypal presidential temperament in their new leader. That, and his determined stance against the increasing gravitation of youth towards socialist paradigms, may have been instrumental in adding to the general acerbity his opponents felt for him, which in turn amplified the same sentiment amongst his supporters. His presidency was thus replete with a flurry of allegations and counter-allegations, and both sides went to great lengths to discredit the other.

It was after a bitter contest that former vice-president Joe Biden, who held the said position under Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama, won the presidency but a few hours ago on the seventh of November. In light of nearly three thousand instances of electoral malpractices, including votes registered by some born in the 1850s to some dead for three and a half decades, all curiously in favour of Biden, Trump mounted legal battles in several state judicatures as well as in the U.S. Supreme Court. He is determined in his contention that he has won the elections by a great margin, and that a recount is thus necessary. However, some analysts view, perhaps rightly so, that the margin with which Biden triumphed was great enough to not be affected even in the event of subtraction of fraudulent votes. For all intents and purposes, therefore, Biden is the forty-sixth president of the United States.

We may have had our reasons for endorsing one candidate over the other. Given the largely pragmatic engagement of Trump in his policy with India, I was naturally inclined to view him favourably and thus hope for his re-election. The rather polarized nature of American politics — with Trump and his supporters being termed the “right-wing” and his opponents the “left-wing” not entirely as a matter of convenience — naturally evokes concern with regard to the future presidents’ conduct with foreign nations, pander as they must to the extreme and vocal factions in their electorates. In the form of self-proclaimed progressivism has arisen in the U.S. a political ideology nothing short of a dogmatic religion, and it is characterized with a globalist paradigm, unfettered concern for minority groups — religious, racial or otherwise — and active pursuit of historically oppressed groups so as to “intersect” and jointly agitate against what they perceive as institutionalized oppression against them all. This assuredly does not exonerate the conservative elements of American society from their own dogmatism, but it just so happens that the former faction wields tremendous influence, particularly in universities and amongst the American youth. To proclaim oneself a supporter of Trump, notes eminent analyst Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, is an action that entails grave consequences for one’s profession, particularly in the East and West Coast.

The Democratic Party of which Biden is a stalwart happens to cater to such “progressive” elements of American society. Almost cotemporal with the rise of progressivism in the United States is a resurgence of a cultural nationalist paradigm in India, commonly termed Hindu nationalism or Hindutva with the ascendance of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to power, erroneously viewed by the globally influential progressive faction as a threat to India’s Muslim minorities. It is an unfortunate view echoed by liberal elements in Indian society who have since Indian independence been very influential as well. I observe in a personal capacity that those we conventionally term liberals in India constitute but the gentry in the global empire of liberalism, supereminent wherein is a liberal U.S. president and the nobility whereof are western academicians. The infamous Indian inferiority complex is most conspicuous in the gentry’s emulation of what the nobility conforms to. It is incongruous that Indian liberals must not befriend India’s own heritage so as to lend potence to liberal thought, but must continually view it with contempt. In a column for ThePrint, contributing editor Shivam Vij made a few peculiar arguments which I deemed factually inapt. It was archetypal contempt for Prime Minister Modi’s “Hindu fundamentalist” base, deeming them effectively if not verbatim Islamophobic bigots. It repeats the self-same vexing arguments about India’s apparent loss of democracy under Modi perpetrated by the liberal intelligentsia hitherto deemed conscience-keepers of the nation, whereas the fact remains that India has not been desirably democratic ever since its incipience as a modern nation-state. Every political party has exhibited intolerance to free speech, and Modi is not singularly culpable.

The nation-state that is India is characterized with periodic prosecution of dissenters across the political spectrum, and a popular blend of apathy and antipathy towards free speech. That one as an Indian is not in prison is owed neither to the Constitution nor other laws that shield citizens in advanced democracies, but to the state that in its manifold and spurious wisdom has not deemed one’s incarceration a must. Contrary, nevertheless, to the conventional assertion that the advent of Modi is culpable, is the fact that society in itself has been so ever since the incipience of India as a modern nation-state. The prejudiced academic narrative depicting the Congress as a liberal emancipator notwithstanding, no prime minister, not even Jawaharlal Nehru, has ever accorded freedom of speech with a priority, and no government has truly been democratic. But this is representative of a cardinally chauvinist society, for no institution reliant on the masses is altogether any better or any worse than the masses themselves. Thus, my contention of Indian intolerance is most unlike the liberal narrative that depicts the incumbent government of Narendra Modi as fascist; erroneously depicted as intent on religious homogenization and therefore adversarial towards religious minorities, Muslims in particular.

The advent of social media has ostensibly led to the obliteration of nuance in the general public discourse. That it is anthropologically not in the Hindu tradition to persecute others on mere account of a different primordial identity is a facet most regrettably ignored by progressivist factions. The advent of Hindutva in India is very nuanced; the existence of a few sectarian elements amongst Hindus is inarguably no evidence of institutionalized oppression of Muslims. As the highly erudite authors Harsh Madhusudan and Rajeev Mantri note in their phenomenal book, “A New Idea of India: Individual Rights in a Civilizational State”, the resurgence of Hindutva is a process of India’s reinvention. I should hold that to abnegate or otherwise ignore the fact that the form of a modern nation-state is but a stage in the destiny of the civilization-state that is India, and thus that its identity is incipiently and inexorably coupled with its old culture, is to perpetuate intellectual dishonesty of supreme measure. While modern political theory may have effaced the old culture’s solecisms, none of it must serve to deny the nation’s civilizational heritage. India’s culture has every right to grandly thrive amidst the cultural diversity of global magnificence.

Such nuance is lost in the din of polarized politics. Given the increasingly extremist methods the progressive faction ostensibly resorts to, it may not be hyperbolic to state that it should like nothing better than the eviction of Prime Minister Modi from power and the gullible Muslims in India to take recourse to an armed revolt, having been scared into trusting that Modi seeks their extermination. It would rather see anarchy prevail than see an unapologetic Hindu wield power in India. It would not even appreciate seeing Muslims happy in India and living in harmony with their Hindu brethren. It thrives on conflict and conflict alone. The most concerning fact is that Joe Biden would inevitably have to pander to such elements. Should he be perceived so much as a little laggard in the implementation of what they desire, they would be prepared to, metaphorically of course, pounce on him.

With Trump, this was not a concern, for it was known that he would resolutely oppose them. As stated earlier, Trump’s relationship with India has been characterized with pecuniary interests and pragmatism. He did not concern himself with the nuances of the rise of Hindutva in India. The worst Trump did was to offer mediation between India and Pakistan with regard to Kashmir. However, it would justly be seen as an effort to be seen doing something for his own electoral benefit. Obviously, he could not have catered to Indian interests; his focus would have had to be the U.S. But save for a few protectionist policies implemented by Trump, it has by and large been a win-win situation for India and the United States. Given that foreign policy is invariably determined by myriad factors other than ideology, the concerns with regard to a Biden presidency being potentially hostile to India may eventually be discredited, but under no circumstance could such concerns be presently deemed inordinate. He had already expressed concerns with regard to the CAA, which as top lawyer Harish Salve has quite lucidly explained, is not in contravention of India’s constitutional principles, contrary to what India’s liberal intelligentsia had us believe. His vice-presidential nominee Kamala Harris had said that they “needed to remind the Kashmiri brethren that they were not alone”, fuelling speculations as to what she truly meant. Unfortunately, Mr. Shivam Vij in his article appeared to employ a commendatory tone for the disapproval expressed by Biden and Harris towards the CAA and situation in Kashmir, thus perpetrating the fallacy of conforming to the rather unfounded narrative that democracy has somehow withered under Prime Minister Modi’s tenure.

Now that Biden shall be president, what must India’s stance be? It would be unfair of us to assume that he would be incipiently hostile to India. As Abhijit Iyer-Mitra notes, Biden is affable as a person and open to differing viewpoints. It should therefore not be an arduous task for India to tactfully so align its interests as to render India a highly crucial partner to the United States. Indeed, this has been already ensured in a capacious measure, given that the markets of both nations are quite integrated. However, India would do well to not overlook an industry of great significance in the U.S. — the military manufacturing industry. What I proceed to enumerate are, of course, speculations as to what would be advantageous to India, and by no means are they supposed to be pedantic views, let alone meticulous policy.

Within a prudent period of time of Biden’s ascension to presidency, it should be felicitous for Prime Minister Modi to visit the United States, preferably with a business delegation, and negotiate a few agreements on an assortment of fields, chief among which as I see it would be a few military purchases, some agreements on joint defence manufacturing and commitment to green technologies. Concomitant with defence acquisitions could be India’s reaffirmation of partnership with the U.S. in oceanic security in the Indo-Pacific region. Abhijit Iyer-Mitra notes that Indian military systems are not interoperable with the Japanese, Australian and U.S. naval systems. Thus, in order to boost its productivity, India would have to cardinally ensure a preponderance of U.S. equipment in its naval ships. India must become an indispensable market for U.S. military technology. This would be pivotal in maintaining good relations with the United States. With Biden’s insistence on a green economy, India must do its best to persuade the U.S. to productively engage with the former’s project, namely, the International Solar Alliance. It may also invite American companies to build green towers and air purifying towers in India in collaboration with Indian companies. Every opportunity must be provided for bilateral business to prosper with environmental concerns simultaneously in view.

Back in India, the government must proactively engage in tempering the Hindu resurgence by being proactive towards its promises of textbook revisions so as to include an objective view of history — in consonance with India’s civilizational truth — and must also formulate a comprehensive outreach programme to assimilate the Muslims into the Indian mainstream. It must preferably be economic in nature, geared towards employment opportunities as opposed to reservations in academics, for a great percentage of Indian populace is already covered under the reserved categories and any further could potentially result in a pandemonium. This is significant given that the American historian Barbara Tuchman noted in her book, “The Calamitous Fourteenth Century” the proclivity of societies in economic decline to increase their infighting on grounds of primordial identities and keep longing for their imagined glorious past, whereas societies in economic progress invariably looked to the future and, while looking at the past so as to not repeat errors, did not dwell in it. The COVID-19 pandemic has indeed imperiled the economy, and the extant time is ripe for conflicts on ground of caste, religion, language and so forth. As the Sachchar Committee Report had noted, the Muslims are at a great economic disadvantage when compared to other sections of the population, and some are often further backward in comparison with the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is futile to expect the Biden presidency to not engage in potential rhetoric with regard to rising majoritarianism in India. The government must sagaciously recognize it as political rhetoric and continue with its endeavour. So that the rhetoric could be aptly responded to, it would be felicitous to include Muslims in important positions such as that of party spokesperson.

A pressing concern in the United States is Biden’s proposition to increase corporate taxes, whereby a few companies at any rate may be compelled to shift their manufacturing bases from the U.S. to other countries. Should such relocation happen, India must exigently seize the opportunity. Some analysts hypothesize that the commencement of a 3D printing revolution may bring back low-end manufacturing jobs from China to the U.S. but Biden’s implementation of increased corporate taxes may deprive such jobs of an incentive to find their way to the United States. Under such circumstances, India must emerge as the destination for low-end manufacturing. In a YouTube interview to the YouTube channel Defensive Offence, Major Gaurav Arya (Retd.) recommended that the Ministry of Finance form a special Task Force dedicated towards inviting such companies to establish their manufacturing bases or offices in India. The Union Minister of Finance must vitally be head of such Task Force so as to bypass the bureaucracy’s lethargy.

There are two prominent issues wherein engagement with the U.S. would be most onerous. The first concerns Indo-U.S. partnership inasmuch as Chinese belligerence is concerned. The second concerns Indo-U.S. geopolitical engagement inasmuch as the Middle East is concerned. With regard to the former, the possibility of Chinese dominance over Biden cannot be discounted in light of the disquieting allegations of Biden’s son’s pecuniary dealings with Chinese state officials and military. After all, India’s national interests are at stake. At present, we lack sufficient information so as to either hold valid or impugn such allegations. Should they be valid, it would be very herculean to solicit sufficient U.S.-support in containing China’s bellicosity, and India would imperatively be required to form its own coalition with such countries as are engaged in myriad territorial disputes with China. This is particularly crucial keeping Japan in view, given that it is engaged in a dispute with China over the Senkaku Islands. Japan is a country of great significance for India. The Japanese navy in particular is quite powerful. It may thus be propitious to sign a naval defence treaty with Japan so as to contain Chinese naval aggression.

The latter, namely, engagement with regard to the Middle East, concerns relationships with Israel and Iran. It would be reasonable to suppose that Trump was instrumental in getting a few gulf nations such as the U.A.E. to commence friendly relations with Israel. However, Iran and Israel are adversarial to one another. Given that Trump was inimical towards Iran, it may be presumed that Biden would choose to reverse this policy and initiate amicable relations with it. This, however, would bring the U.S. into a little friction with Israel. Biden may choose to gradationally reduce the sanctions on Iran, thus perhaps making it easier for India to resume oil imports therefrom. Concurrently, however, this could increase Iran’s capabilities to inflict infirmities on Israel. At first glance, therefore, the only possible solution is a comprehensive mediation effort between Iran and Israel, and given India’s good relations with both of them, it could play a crucial role in ensuring the same.

Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, however, is skeptical. Should his claims be held veridical, it would emerge that our serving diplomats harbour great malice towards the incumbent Indian government, and employ the self-same adjectives for it as wantonly used by the opposition — fascist, majoritarian, Sanghi and so forth. Indeed, diplomats are free to hold such views as they deem fit. However, it is of prudence to exercise caution once in the public sphere, particularly as a diplomat of whom it is the paramount province to represent his nation abroad and implement the government’s vision. In a previous essay titled, “Scientific Libertarianism and Its Eventual Triumph in India”, I wrote that I suspected them of viewing Modi’s cabinet as an assemblage of illiterate village simpletons. There has been a debate with regard to the elitism of bureaucracy, its lack of accountability, its Anglophilia and its affinity for luxury redolent of the colonial era. Therefore, should such a view indeed prevail amongst the bureaucrats, it should not be of great surprise though it must certainly be of grave concern.

Retired Additional Secretary Sanjay Dixit concurred with Abhijit, stating that as the Foreign Service viewed the government with disdain, so did the Administrative Service back home. The contempt of serving diplomats towards the Modi government would actively stultify its efforts at implementing requisite policies to a sufficient measure. It must therefore take proactive, direct interest in foreign policy and must do more than just transact business. Biden’s presidency may not be so amicable as was that of Trump. It shall invariably involve rhetoric reminding India of the need to preserve its pluralism and secular values. It is thus an opportunity for the Modi government to reinvent both itself and India economically and culturally, as well as to promote a healthy blend of industrial progress and green economy. Time is of utmost essence.

In conclusion, we would be remiss to not congratulate Joe Biden on his victory. With utmost chivalry must India look forward to so progress as to be not just a nation dependent on the United States, but an active security partner thereof. That he shall be subject to political compulsions from factions back home as must any politician, must not be viewed by India as an impedance in fostering good relations with the United States. We need not acquiesce to the Democrats’ paradigm of minority propitiation, but must endeavour in order to cultivate a nation that truly celebrates its diversity, taking inspiration from if not outright replicating the system of the autonomous city of Ceuta. We also need not justify the liberality intrinsic to the Hindu culture, but must understand that perpetual conflict on such sectarian grounds is evincive of a society in economic decline. It must be India’s endeavour to achieve rapid economic progress so as to ensure a vibrant work culture that would be indispensable in fostering a more cosmopolitan paradigm amongst its people.