Foreign Hand

SUNITHA VISHWANATH HEADS AN ORGANISATION CALLED Women for Afghan Women, bankrolled by George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. Billionaire Soros has been an active player in fu­elling anti-India and anti-Narendra Modi sentiments for a while now. Vishwanath is also co-founder of the deceptively named Hindus for Human Rights, an organisation formed in 2019 by the Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) and the Organization for Minorities of India (OMI). Both organisations often use the alleged suppression of civil liberties as a ruse to take aim at the Modi govern­ment and India. Along with the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), all were involved with organising Rahul Gandhi’s recent trip to the US, where he interacted with academicians, members of think-tanks and a few lower-rung US government officials. One of the organisers of the event from Congress was Deepender Singh Hooda, three-term Congress MP from Rohtak and now Rajya Sabha member, and the son of former Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda.

Hooda, though, seems to have overlooked the screaming red flags uniting all of these organisations and individuals that set up the infrastructure for Rahul Gandhi’s much-touted trip to the US. Apart from Vishwanath, there were others in the mix with suspicious positions on India, including Tanzeem Ansari from the outreach committee of the Muslim Community of New Jer­sey (MCNJ), as well as Mohammad Aslam and Minhaz Khan. Khan is reportedly associated with IAMC which regularly targets India using the cover of human rights abuses. Aslam is linked to the Muslim Center of Greater Princeton, partner of ICNA. Besides IAMC and OMI, Gandhi’s 10-day visit was orchestrated through the close involvement of ICNA. Both IAMC and ICNA are seen in the US as fronts for the Pakistani deep state, something that definitely should not have missed the attention of Hooda and others who prepared the guest list and the itinerary of the Nehru-Gandhi family heir and de facto Congress chief.

ALL THE DRAMATIS personae associated with Gandhi’s US visit had one thing in common: they were peddlers of anti-India propaganda in the garb of pro­tecting the civil rights of Indians and have regularly targeted the Modi government. Despite the attendant tom-tomming and the stereophonic surround sound that accompanied it, Gandhi’s visit was quite low-key compared to the excitement evident dur­ing his earlier sojourns. The noise and the gushing on the part of Congress leaders proved, in fact, to be inversely proportional to Gandhi’s ability to attract numbers to his address and lure a varied representation of the diaspora audience. One analyst referred to one of the groups as one involved in Modi-baiting and India-hating: “[T]hat gives weekly warnings about the im­pending genocide of Muslims in India and runs a well-funded campaign on Capitol Hill.”

Outfits such as IAMC, headed by one Rasheed Ahmed, feature regularly in the US for attacks on India’s image, both before and after the arrival of Narendra Modi on the scene in 2014. IAMC had reportedly hired a lobbying firm to strike at India in Washington DC between 2013 and 2014. The same firm, Fidelis, was also hired by the likes of the Burma Task Force (BTF), another anti-India group, in 2018-20 to target India with the US Congress. Unsur­prisingly, ICNA was instrumental in thwarting Modi’s US visit in 2005. BTF has also reportedly served as a platform for Ghulam Nabi Fai, who lobbies for Kashmiri separatism and was booked by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for transferring huge funds to India through Pakistan.

The list of those spreading anti-India propaganda associated with Rahul Gandhi’s visit is both long and well-documented and should not have been overlooked by Gandhi himself. The Congress leader, it appears, found nothing amiss in enlisting their support for his US event. That he leaned towards indif­ference on this front as long as it served his political purpose was made clear even earlier when he shared space in proximity with the still incarcerated Umar Khalid, known to be part of the Jawaharlal Nehru University’s (JNU) “tukde tukde” gang and who has no compunctions about describing Jammu and Kashmir as territory occupied by the Indian state.

At a book release event in the capital last May, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar spoke about Modi’s visit to China when he was chief minister of Gujarat which was, as it happened, Jaishankar’s first encounter with Modi. The year was 2011 and Jaishankar was India’s ambassador to China. The book, Modi@20: Dreams Meet Delivery was released in May 2022 and Jaishankar was the first to speak on the occasion. Modi was among chief ministers visiting China and the Indian embassy was used by them as a base of sorts. “Mr Modi asked me to brief him on our security position vis-à-vis China. At the time, we were having problems. Some of you may recall—stapled visas, border, map projections, and terrorism. The point he made was—I may be the chief minister of Gujarat but I am a citizen of India. When on foreign soil, I will not differ one millimetre from our official and national position.”

RECALLING THE EVENT, Jaishankar said that Modi was “different” because he insisted on a detailed briefing on India’s foreign policy vis-à-vis China despite a hectic itinerary: “He arrived after midnight. He wanted his first briefing at 7 in the morning. He ran a 12-hour day with half-an-hour lunch break. And he proceeded to cover three cities in just four days.”

Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, often credited with shaping India’s foreign policy into a strong and decisive one, went out of his way and took opposition leaders into his confidence on policy issues so that both the government and its political opponents were on the same page on neighbours like Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and China, besides the US, the UK, and so on, especially when these leaders travelled abroad. Fol­lowing in his footsteps, Manmohan Singh also chose in 2007 to have opposition leaders briefed on India’s foreign policy. Top Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders like Vajpayee, LK Advani and Jaswant Singh were all participants and briefed by then External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and National Security Advi­sor (NSA) MK Narayanan so that a consensus could be crafted between the government and the opposition.

This was at a time when there were sharp differences between the opposition and the government on issues ranging from the Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement to New Delhi’s response to then-Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf’s four-point proposal to resolve the Jammu and Kashmir issue. After the discussion, which both sides agreed had to continue, the opposition allowed the government to issue a statement without itself speaking out of turn, except to state that they had given relevant inputs and would wait to see how the government worked on them.

As opposition leader, Vajpayee also chose to meticulously follow a practice of getting briefed by the government on policy issues, especially prior to travels abroad. However, Rahul Gandhi, who chooses to project himself, both inside and outside India, as the most important opposition leader—he is known to travel abroad quite often, many times at politically inappropriate mo­ments—is either unaware or totally disrespectful of this tradition.

The motive behind his rejection of all propriety, of being (at least generally) within the parameters of official policy positions of the Indian government, is not far to seek. Gandhi’s desperate quest in the US for an audience with a certain political and ideo­logical profile most closely suited to the content of his speeches, and for the most part defined by their interests, has been helped by a couple of powerful factors.

Islamism in the US has been mainstreamed for a multitude of reasons, including the fact that the horrific memories of 9/11 have become distant, giving way to an over-compensating re­sponse to “Islamophobia”. Being ‘woke’ (a term that originated in African-American culture and was mainstreamed in the US, implying someone socially and politically conscious) is now considered a sign of being aware as a citizen. And more recently, the critical race theory—something social scientists describe as a dangerous ideological pathogen—is enshrined in the cur­riculum where, in the name of attacking traditional privilege, worse is endorsed and normalised. All of this has meant that op­position leaders from India, the likes of Rahul Gandhi especially, anticipate a bigger foothold within the expat community and among NRIs to influence and sustain a counter-narrative against the dominant pro-Modi discourse.

Undoubtedly, foreign shores have always been a frontier of political battles. This was especially so in pre-independence times when people of different political persuasions became part of the overseas arm of the movement. Some did it gradually: Dadabhai Naoroji was a member of the British Parliament. In 1880, Naoroji, attacking the British government’s policies in In­dia, said, “It is not the pitiless operations of economic laws, but it is thoughtless and pitiless action of the British policy; its pitiless eating of India’s substance in India and further pitiless drain to England, in short it is pitiless perversion of economic laws by the sad bleeding to which is India is subjected, that is destroying India.” There were also leaders like VD Savarkar and Shyamji Krishna Varma, who organised a revolutionary centre at India House in London and propagated the cause of independence through publications such as The Indian Sociologist.

Then there was Madan Lal Dhingra. While in London, he came in contact with Veer Savarkar and his associates. He realised that sacrifices and action were needed, not words, in order to gain India’s liberation. He shot dead Curzon Wyllie, who was consid­ered an anti-India officer. During the hearing of the case, Dhingra himself asked for the death sentence. The list is long.

This continued even after Independence, in exceptional times. During Emergency, many leaders sought to enlist the support of human rights bodies and organisations like the Socialist International to highlight the suppression of democracy in India.

CONGRESS WAS THE first to have an overseas wing. That was only par for the course because Congress was the ruling party. Any Indian who was located in a for­eign country, out of concern for his motherland or to fulfil per­sonal requirements, had to be part of the Congress overseas wing. This changed when the profile of the diaspora and its concerns changed. When Indians abroad started doing well, they gained confidence and that was the time economic liberalisation came to India. India was becoming visible. Vajpayee leveraged this to lobby US lawmakers who, until then, because of a combination of factors, had given the advantage to Pakistan over India and al­lied with Islamabad. Islamic terrorism had not arrived in the real sense to end the advantage enjoyed by Pakistan.

The growing appeal of Hindutva contributed to the gradual change. Successful professionals who had by then established themselves in their respective spheres of work on foreign soil but continued to be emotionally attached to their land of birth were keen to contribute to India’s progress. These were, to a good ex­tent, people who were often guilt-tripped with the theory of brain drain and wanted to compensate one way or another. Vajpayee tapped into this emotion. After the Pokhran II nuclear tests of May 11 and May 13, 1998, this intent came into its own. The then US president went as far as to say “South Asia is the most dangerous place on Earth.” Heavy sanctions were imposed on India. Loans and grants from institutions, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), were suspended. Vajpayee was staring at a 1991 kind of situation. He then launched the Resurgent India Bonds (RIB) for NRIs on August 5, 1998. The NRI community opened its wallets to the government. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), which planned to bring $2 billion in invest­ments, got $3.1 billion in just two weeks. The blind sale ended with $4.5 billion in investment. This defeated the sanctions and gave Vajpayee funds for mega infrastructure projects.

Even after Manmohan Singh became prime minister, this love affair of the diaspora with BJP continued. It is unlikely that people who were aligned with organisations that hosted Rahul Gandhi would have been part of the support India en­joyed after the Pokhran tests. But at that point, they chose to fly below the radar.

Simultaneously, one could see political fissures developing in the UK which has a significant South Asian population. Grow­ing Islamic assertiveness manifested itself in incendiary rhetoric and bomb attacks but also in crimes like sex-grooming. Indians started identifying themselves as the Indian diaspora to distance themselves from Pakistanis, instead of being a part of the South Asian diaspora.

The situation is repeating itself now. And Rahul Gandhi’s men are trying to use this emerging divide to their advantage. Those who had remained silent (especially Muslims of Indian origin in the US) after the Pokhran tests, appear to now have gained enough confidence to assert themselves for what they subscribe to ideologically and to openly oppose the Modi government. The renewed confidence of this section is credited primarily to the upcoming 2024 General Election and the feeling that if Modi got a third term, he would be able to decisively close on his Hindutva agenda. Therefore, he has to be thwarted at all costs.

Congress seems to be more confident about tapping NRIs because of the sharp polarisation in the US polity. Islamophobia is now recognised officially and a committee has been set up to probe and redress cases allegedly coloured by it, as if to over-compensate for earlier times. There is a decline in the percep­tion among Americans of the threat from Islamist terrorism to their homeland because of the changed political gears under a Democratic administration, corresponding to an exponen­tial rise in wokeism. Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan has meant less involvement of US troops in Asia and the Middle East, thus creating a drastically reduced threat perception among the American public. This has, in turn, led to Americans now ignoring, or sweeping under the carpet, genuine concerns about Muslim exceptionalism. The outcome is a steadfast refusal by significant sections to come out against hate crimes. This has now become a force on campuses.

This socio-political environment has emboldened Muslim groups like the ones that hosted Gandhi to oppose Modi and his government in India. Ironically, Christian missionaries, who otherwise oppose wokeism and share the concern about the rise of radical Islam, also became willing partners in the Gandhi proj­ect. Since Hindutva stands against religious conversion through material bribes, it is only natural for these groups to go on the offensive against Modi.

A mature and responsible politician would have taken care to scrutinise the list, check with security and intelligence agencies, take a briefing from the foreign office and understand official policy posi­tions before criticising those on foreign soil. Rahul Gandhi did nothing of the sort, com­ing up, instead, with near-infantile pot-shots against Modi in America.

The contrast between Rahul Gandhi and both his grandfather and father, who put the unity and integrity of India first, is sharp. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, put down the Telangana Rebellion, popularly known as the Telan­gana Sayuda Poratam, an insurrection of peasants led by communists that went on between 1946 and 1951. The rebellion was quelled by the military at the behest of the Nehru government soon after the princely state of Hyderabad was annexed.

Rahul Gandhi’s father, former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, was assassinated by a suicide bomber and activist of the Velupillai Prabhakaran-led and now de­funct Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Seventeen-year-old Kalaivani Rajaratna, aka Dhanu, detonated a bomb on her person while standing close to Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991 at Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu. Rajiv Gandhi was killed by a group of people who believed in extreme violence and taking the law into their own hands to achieve their political goals.

On June 6, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington DC, Rahul Gandhi remarked on the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), calling it a “completely secular” party. The controversial statement set the cat among the pigeons in political circles, in­stantly inviting strong criticism. In Kerala, it may have cemented Congress’ alliance with IUML for the Lok Sabha polls in 2024, thwarting the plans of the Communist Party of India-Marxist, or CPM, for the same. But calling IUML—it morphed into its present state from the Muslim League that forced Partition and foisted the call for a separate Muslim nation on the subcontinent—a secular party cannot be perceived as a sign of political sobriety. If the comment stemmed from naiveté or ignorance, it would be understandable. If the remark was made to show gratitude to IUML for his election as MP from Wayanad, it would be prob­lematic. But one could still live with it. But the problem becomes both perturbing and vexatious when seen against the backdrop of Gandhi’s repeated endorsement of those whose ideological credentials are suspect and are dominated by a determination to undermine the unity of India.

Gandhi’s utterances at various interactions also amplified his reluctance to be part of the India story. At a time when infla­tion is being handled impressively (retail inflation dropped to a 25-month low in May), mega infrastructural work is underway, and India has successfully bucked recession, the Congress leader has insisted on hitting out at the country and the policies of its democratically elected government, time and again. Recently, US Ambassador to India Eric Garcetti maintained, “When I look at the digital payments and financial tech infrastructure that India has, India has rocked the world. A tea vendor in a village makes sure that she gets direct payment from the government on her phone… I recently had dinner with a group of multi-faith leaders in India, one of them said, ‘We hear all this talk about 4G, 5G and 6G, but here in India we have something more pow­erful than that—Guruji.’” Doubts had been expressed about Rahul Gandhi’s astuteness even before the day he went to JNU, shocking his own party members. It was reinforced when he maintained that India is just a federation of different states at all his recent political outings.

Modi, who has made many trips to the US, has never found the need to indulge in self-celebratory gimmickry to woo NRIs there. In sharp contrast to Gandhi’s desperate bids to appear as a grounded, sensitive man connected with ordinary people, Modi has tended to promote India and its advantages, rather than show­case himself, whenever he travelled abroad. Modi’s US visits— he has made seven trips in his nine years in power, the most to any country—have had massive and enthralled audiences from across the US filling whole football stadiums. His rock-star status among NRIs in the US for years was endorsed again recently, just a few days ahead of his impending visit. US National Security Advi­sor (NSA) Jake Sullivan said that President Joe Biden was “thrilled to see what is happening in India”. He also affirmed that Modi’s visit is designed to remove hurdles in defence and high-tech trade as well as obstacles that have stood in the way of better collabora­tion among Indian and American scientists and researchers, a clear sign of how far and how close Modi has brought India-US relations through his two terms. He is the first prime minister to navigate a seamless path to bust the myth that a Republican administration in Washington works best for New Delhi. His steering of India may rankle some but for the most part, Modi at the helm continues to bode well for India and the US. As a matter of fact, for India and the world.

Congressforeign political supportIndian DiasporaNarendra ModiNRIsRahul Gandhi