Howdy Modi: The PM may be leading the Indian diaspora into uncharted waters. By Bharat Bhushan
Overseas Indians have
long been seen as strategic assets. They can act as mediators and facilitators
for improving ties with the countries they are settled in. In 1999, the Indian
diaspora in the US played an important role in the withdrawal of the Burton
Amendment which sought to cut US aid to India by 25 per cent over its treatment
of minorities and human rights record in Kashmir. In 2008, it played a
significant role in the smooth passage of the India-US Nuclear Agreement. It was not always so.
In the early 1990s,
the Pakistan lobby dominated Capitol Hill. India could count support among
Congressmen on its finger tips. Congressman Gary Ackerman and Senator Larry
Pressler were among the few well-known names who spoke up for India. Finally,
in the early 1990s, a young diplomat in the Indian Embassy in Washington DC
went to the US Justice Department and sought an open document -- a list of
people who made and mandatorily declared their donation to political parties.
Then he carefully sorted out the Asian-sounding names.
A letter was sent to
this shortlist irrespective of whether they supported Republicans or Democrats.
It praised them for leadership of their communities and enquired whether the
Embassy could occasionally seek their advice on Indian policy towards the US. There
was overwhelming response from US-based Indians. The first exhaustive
database of potentially politically influential US-Indians was created in this
way.
It was put to good use
in the 1990s. Each time a Congressman or Senator moved a pro-Pakistan resolution
or spoke critically of India, the US-Indian campaign contributors in his
constituency would be informed. They would flood him with protest letters. This
was one factor that contributed to the formation of an India Caucus on Capitol
Hill. Somewhat similar pressure-tactics were used to limit the damage of
critical reportage on India by US newspapers. Their editors received a flood of
complaints against their India-based correspondents from their US-Indian
“readers”.
“Howdi Mody!” rally in
Houston was an amped-up version of these tactics. PM Modi has till now
addressed stadia packed with overseas Indians during his visits abroad largely
to show-case his personal popularity. He has needed it in the past to wash off
the international opprobrium he received for his uninspiring record as Chief
Minister of Gujarat. Now he perhaps needs it to compensate for the ruinous
state of the Indian economy. However, these orchestrated events also serve as a
reminder to the host country of the power and size of the Indian diaspora.
Was the exchange
between Prime Minister Modi and the US President merely an over-the-top
reciprocation of flattery (“Abki baar, Trump Sarkar” vs. Trump naming
Modi “Father of India”)? Is it possible that PM Modi was trying to suggest that
he commands a block-vote in the American elections? After all the National
Asian American Survey shows that 77 per cent of Indian Americans voted for
Hillary Clinton in the last presidential election and only 16 per cent for
Trump. President Trump would certainly want help to reverse those figures in
2020.
India has always
assumed that its wooing of the diaspora does not bother bigger countries like
the US and UK. African countries and those which have a sizeable Indian origin
population like Fiji are very sensitive to Indian influence over its diaspora.
However, the UK has seen how exacerbated inter-ethnic or inter-community
tensions among diaspora communities can damage its internal peace. The two most
recent examples of this were clashes outside the Indian High Commission between
pro-Indian and pro-Pakistan demonstrators over developments in Kashmir.
Scotland Yard made four arrests on August 15 after the two set of protestors
threw stones and bottles at each other. On September 3, the Indian High
Commission was vandalised by anti-India protestors again over Kashmir.
After the Labour Party
passed a resolution on the humanitarian crisis in Kashmir, the “Overseas
Friends of BJP” threatened that “the entire Indian diaspora in Britain” will
not vote Labour. In equating Indian diaspora with the BJP’s policies, one can
already see how social polarisation of diaspora in the UK might influence local
politics.
Such influence is
unlikely to be tolerated in the long run. India should take note how worried
Australia is by China’s attempts to infiltrate its policy-making circles and
strengthen its influence over the Chinese diaspora. If that is the direction
India’s diaspora policy is headed then there may be trouble ahead.
This is especially
because Modi government’s attempt to use the Indian diaspora relies on
cynically reshaping the ethnic diversity of other countries for its partisan
ends. Modi’s manner of mobilising the Indian diaspora reaffirms Hindu
ethnocentric elements within it. Dividing the diaspora along communal lines
helps to normalise internationally the BJP’s targetting of religious minorities
in India.
Because of his
divisive influence on the diaspora, PM Modi’s high profile rallies overseas
could create anxiety in the host countries about threats to their internal
stability. Germany, for example, has already banned political campaigns on its
soil by non-EU foreign leaders after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan
attempted to hold a referendum among the Turkish diaspora in Germany in 2017.
Who knows how the endorsement of President Trump or of electoral candidates in
other countries will be viewed by their political class?
The domestic effect of
ethnocentric appeals to the diaspora are also double-edged. Those enamoured of
Prime Minister Modi’s politics will no doubt increase funding for his Hindu
nationalist politics. In the past, separatist movements (e.g. in Kashmir and
Punjab) have also received support from the diaspora. The Kanishka bombing was
masterminded by the Canadian Sikh diaspora. The Indian diaspora funds
organisations belonging to a range of extremist ideologies from right-wing
Hinduism to Islamic fundamentalism in India. Neigh-bouring Sri Lanka has borne
the consequences of diaspora support for Tamil separatists.
Diaspora groups when
they are polarised into sub-nationalist or ethno-nationalist divisions, can be
disastrous both for the host country as well as for their country of origin.
These are the uncharted waters where PM Modi may be leading the Indian
diaspora.
https://www.business-standard.