India’s post-Pahalgam global outreach, led by multi-party delegations, aims to rally support against terrorism—but at home, it has triggered sharp political divisions and accusations of partisan intent BY KUMKUM CHADHA
More than the all-party delegations that the Modi government has dispatched to different countries, it is Congress MP Shashi Tharoor — a part of one such delegation — who has grabbed the headlines.
Quite expectedly, his parent Party, the Congress, is speaking in a different voice. Far from changing the narrative, which it could and perhaps should have, the Congress indulged in petty politics. It sparred over names rather than questioning the purpose of the multi-party delegations.
But first the context: Earlier this month, the Modi Government had announced that it would send all party delegations to different countries to highlight India’s resolve to combat terrorism.
The Government handpicked MPs across parties to meet parliamentarians, ministers, government officials and think tanks in 33 countries: a move slammed by critics as “nothing but a travel and tourism program”.
There are two sides to this: the more popular being that this is a defensive approach: packing off delegations across continents is akin to an attempt to justify India’s action against the terror attack in Pahalgam last month wherein 26 tourists were shot dead in cold blood.
At another level, it was felt that the outreach was necessary, imperative and one that has precedents. Of course, one argument is that the Indian missions are well equipped to do and should do what the Indian MPs have been tasked with by the Government. But a counter to this is: Can diplomats do what MPs can? The answer perhaps is a NO. Parliamentarians are better envoys and have liberty, ability and flexibility to articulate the national point of view. As against this, diplomats are measured and constrained by official propriety. Again, India is not the first country to use Parliamentarians for engagement across countries, particularly on national issues. Governments the world over have used Parliamentarians as envoys to put their point across. On that count, one cannot find fault with this initiative.
Equally, there are precedents in India where Governments in the pre-Modi era have drafted in Parliamentarians to go abroad and engage with their counterparts. Just to give an example, when Rajiv Gandhi was serving as Prime Minister he had sent Atal Bihari Vajpayee to the UN General Assembly to explain India’s stance on nuclear issues.
As far as delegations are concerned, Dr Manmohan Singh, as Prime Minister, had deputed an all-party delegation after the Mumbai terror attack in 2008.
Of course, there are misgivings on whether this was the right time to send delegations abroad.
Operation Sindoor has left many questions unanswered and many are left wondering whether this is a bid to white wash some of the gaps the government seems ill equipped to fill. At least on the face of it.
There are unanswered questions that the people, more than politicians, are asking: Who won the war? Why did India agree to a hasty ceasefire? Why did it not demand its proverbial pound of flesh? Was Pakistan’s retaliation, in the measure that it was, unexpected? Was India on the backfoot and so on and so forth.
Given that there are no clear answers forthcoming, the delegations and the messaging by the MPs is being seen as a “hollow PR exercise” to woo the world that should have supported India during Operation Sindoor. But it did not. If anything, it equalized both India and Pakistan.
That said, the Modi government has succeeded in blunting domestic criticism on questions that the Opposition may have asked regarding the security lapse that led to terrorists sneaking in the Baisaran Valley, a few kilometres off Pahalgam.
And of course whether Pakistan actually managed to shoot down Indian aircraft, Rafale or any other, as the enemy country is claiming?
Having zeroed in on Opposition MPs to present India’s “case” abroad, the Modi government has in one sense killed two birds with one stone: on the one hand it has launched a major diplomatic initiative. But more importantly, it has blunted the Opposition tirade that it may have faced domestically.
Given that MPs across party lines went across flagging the “India message” as it were, it would now be difficult for the Opposition to target the Government on the issues its MPs amplified abroad.
But back to Tharoor and the Congress not having heft to stop its Party MP from turning down the govt invitation to lead one of the delegations.
Despite objections from his parent party, Tharoor stuck to his decision of accepting the Centre’s invitation: “National service is the duty of every citizen” Tharoor said.
The Congress angst: the MPs should “seek party concurrence before accepting official delegation roles” and the Government did not include the four MPs the Party had nominated: Anand Sharma, Gaurav Gogoi, Syed Naseer Hussain and Raja Brar.
Just by way of comparison, all four put together cannot match what Tharoor can do single handedly.
For one, he would place India above the Congress and would speak for the nation rather than toe the Party line. This is not something one can say about any of the Congress nominees. That apart Tharoor would not stoop to playing petty politics: something one cannot put past the Congress’ four. While Tharoor should have been the obvious and unanimous choice, he was not even on the list sent by the Congress.
Though grudgingly, one can charge the BJP of “playing politics” for handpicking Tharoor. But can the Congress be absolved? It made enough noises to embarrass Tharoor. Party General Secretary Jairam Ramesh went to the extent of saying that there is a difference between being in the Congress and being of the Congress. The message is not lost: Tharoor is an outsider-insider so to speak.
However, in this slugfest it is the Congress that has come a cropper.
Tharoor, it is well known, has often supported the Narendra Modi government on issues including the recent stand-off with Pakistan. His statements, quite in line with the BJP’s, have irked the Congress. Quite aptly, when Tharoor had shared the stage with Modi at an event in Kerala, the Prime Minister had remarked that this would give sleepless nights to “many”, read the Congress.
Clearly, there is a distancing between Tharoor and the Congress in recent years. A fourth term MP, Tharoor is reportedly “too hot to handle” for the Congress. He speaks his mind and often says things that go against the Party line.
Angling for a foothold in the Kerala unit of the Congress, Tharoor has been given a short shrift by the Congress.
Therefore, if the BJP were to woo him, the eloquent MP seems ready to play ball.
Unlike the Congress, the TMC ensured that its MP Yosuf Pathan withdrew from the delegation. TMC was miffed at Pathan’s inclusion because it felt that the Government had overstepped and handpicked its MP without its consent.
While on Muslims, the BJP did well by sending a sizable chunk abroad. Call it tokenism if you will, but the inclusion of Asaduddin Owaisi, AIMIM chief, did assuage feelings.
A prominent Muslim face, Owaisi’s pro India statements following the Pahalgam attack have blunted the criticism of his being perceived as anti-national. His referring to Pakistan as a “failed state” during his Bahrain visit reiterated that when it comes to the nation, he stands with India and Indians.
Owaisi apart, the inclusion of a sizable number of Muslims in the global outreach effort is also seen as a bid to cement the communal divide that haunts the legacy of the BJP and its Government.
Yet questions do remain on the how and why of Modi government’s outreach, but the truth of the matter is that when it comes to governments, BJP or any other, it is in a damned if you do and damned if you don’t kind of a situation.
