External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said he tries not to “do politics abroad” while on international trips, in an apparent reference to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s remarks on foreign soil. Speaking in South Africa’s Cape Town, the minister was responding to a query on how he would react to “what some people who go to the US say”.“There are sometimes things bigger than politics. And when you step outside the country, I think that’s important to remember,” he said, without naming Rahul Gandhi. “So I may differ strongly with someone, but how I counter it, I would like to go back home and do it, and watch me when I get back.”#WATCH | …”There are sometimes, things bigger than politics & when you step outside the country, that is important to remember…I differ with them but how I counter it, I would like to go home and do it. Watch me when I get back”: EAM S Jaishankar when asked about Congress… pic.twitter.com/7h0YutokpH— ANI (@ANI) June 3, 2023“I am perfectly prepared to argue very vigorously at home, so you will never find me wanting in that regard. But even a democratic culture has a certain collective responsibility… There is a national interest, there is a collective image,” Jaishankar added.Since last year, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been attacking Rahul Gandhi’s speeches and interactions abroad which they claim are harmful to the country’s reputation. Most recently, the senior Congress leader’s remarks during his ongoing US tour drew the party’s ire, when he said that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the BJP are controlling all instruments of politics in India.Union Minister Anurag Thakur, while speaking to news agency ANI, said earlier, “Rahul Gandhi on his foreign trips wants to insult the Prime Minister but ends up insulting the country. He doesn’t even consider India as a nation and calls it a Union of states. He raises questions over India’s progress. What does he want to achieve on his foreign visits? Is mud-slinging all that he has left to do?”
External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said he tries not to “do politics abroad” while on international trips, in an apparent reference to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s remarks on foreign soil. Speaking in South Africa’s Cape Town, the minister was responding to a query on how he would react to “what some people who go to the US say”.“There are sometimes things bigger than politics. And when you step outside the country, I think that’s important to remember,” he said, without naming Rahul Gandhi. “So I may differ strongly with someone, but how I counter it, I would like to go back home and do it, and watch me when I get back.”#WATCH | …”There are sometimes, things bigger than politics & when you step outside the country, that is important to remember…I differ with them but how I counter it, I would like to go home and do it. Watch me when I get back”: EAM S Jaishankar when asked about Congress… pic.twitter.com/7h0YutokpH— ANI (@ANI) June 3, 2023“I am perfectly prepared to argue very vigorously at home, so you will never find me wanting in that regard. But even a democratic culture has a certain collective responsibility… There is a national interest, there is a collective image,” Jaishankar added.Since last year, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been attacking Rahul Gandhi’s speeches and interactions abroad which they claim are harmful to the country’s reputation. Most recently, the senior Congress leader’s remarks during his ongoing US tour drew the party’s ire, when he said that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the BJP are controlling all instruments of politics in India.Union Minister Anurag Thakur, while speaking to news agency ANI, said earlier, “Rahul Gandhi on his foreign trips wants to insult the Prime Minister but ends up insulting the country. He doesn’t even consider India as a nation and calls it a Union of states. He raises questions over India’s progress. What does he want to achieve on his foreign visits? Is mud-slinging all that he has left to do?”
As Arvind Kejriwal drums up support among Opposition leaders against the Centre’s ordinance that wrested control of ‘services’ from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in the Capital, two former Delhi MPs have emerged as the voices and faces of the distrust the Congress continues to nurse against him.While other Delhi Congress leaders — who witnessed the AAP’s rapid rise in the city’s politics over the last decade and continue to smart from it — have maintained a low profile, Ajay Maken and Sandeep Dikshit have been publicly and aggressively vocal in cautioning the Congress high command against the Delhi Chief Minister’s direct and indirect overtures.Days after the Delhi and Punjab units of the Congress called on the high command and told them to “keep Kejriwal at arm’s length” for “intra-party cohesion”,Dikshit and Maken sharpened their attack on the Delhi CM over the ordinance.“Kejriwal is well aware that he will be sent to jail for 8-10 years if he does not get control of the Vigilance Department,” Dikshit said, adding that he supported the ordinance against the AAP government.Maken joined the chorus, alleging that the AAP convenor’s “true motives” stood exposed, as he had openly sought “enhanced powers over services, aiming to take control over the Vigilance Department”, thus challenging decades of established governance norms. This is a point he has consistently argued since the ordinance was issued.“He conveniently downplays his true intentions. Investigations into scandals like Liquor gate, ‘Sheesh-mahal (Kejriwal’s Rs 171-crore residence…), power subsidy scam, bus purchases scam and others, will reveal the extent of corruption within his administration. And this is what he wants to stop,” Maken tweeted.Speaking to The Indian Express, Dikshit said: “Any Congressman will be chucked out of the party if they make any statement against its national leadership. Then how can the party think of allying with the AAP, whose leader Kejriwal has made more vile statements against the Congress’s national leadership than even PM Modi?”Both Maken and Dikshit also questioned the AAP over its “support of the BJP” on critical issues like Article 370. “What about the removal of Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir by the BJP-led Centre, which he [Kejriwal] supported, or not signing the Congress’s impeachment motion against [former CJI] Dipak Misra, or not signing the no-confidence motion against the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairperson that immediately followed?” Dikshit added.A senior Congress leader said that following the duo’s example, other Delhi Congress leaders are “gradually emerging” with sharp criticism of Kejriwal, especially after the latter issued a public appeal to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, seeking a meeting.According to Congress sources, there are two main prickly issues standing between the AAP and Congress. The first is what the Congress insiders describe as “unforgettable, patently false and malicious propaganda” against both its national and local [Delhi] leadership, “on the basis of which Kejriwal came to power”. The second is a Delhi Assembly resolution after the AAP formed its second successive government, demanding retraction of the Bharat Ratna conferred on former PM Rajiv Gandhi – neither of which, the insiders say, will “change or be forgotten”.While senior AAP leaders acknowledge that a united Opposition is key to defeating the BJP, the role that the Congress will play in it is still not clear. The AAP has shared stage with the Congress in the past, but an alliance has not come through since 2013, when the Congress had extended outside support to let the AAP form the government in the city. Before the 2019 Lok Sabha polls, alliance talks between the two parties lasted for months, but ended in a deadlock.While Maken — a former Delhi and Union minister — has never minced his words regarding the AAP and its convenor, it is former East Delhi MP Sandeep Dikshit, the son of the late three-time Delhi CM Sheila Dikshit, who had taken the first potshot, in March this year.On a day when Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh marched to Parliament against the Centre, along with other Opposition leaders, on a host of issues, Dikshit and a group of former Delhi government ministers filed a complaint with Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena against the AAP government and Kejriwal over the now-defunct Feed Back Unit (the AAP’s rivals claim it was used to spy on them). Alleging sedition, they demanded a trial under the UAPA, the anti-terror law.Afterwards, when the CBI summoned the Delhi CM for questioning in the alleged excise policy scam, Maken tweeted that Kejriwal “should not be shown any sympathy or support”, and asked his party colleagues who are lawyers not to represent Kejriwal or the Delhi government in the case.Regarding the ordinance, a senior Delhi Congress leader said the party believed the BJP would “somehow be able to push the legislation through”, so aligning with the AAP on this issue was “not worth it”.Another leader argued that Kejriwal was merely “using the ordinance as a bogey” to make it “appear as if he is the lone voice” fighting for the Constitution. “He wants to look like a self-styled saviour of the Constitution, because he is embroiled in corruption charges that have dented his image. It’s a trap. He is seeking vindication,” the leader alleged.At a meeting with Kharge, Rahul Gandhi, K C Venugopal and others on Monday on the issue, leaders of the Congress’s Delhi and Punjab units argued strongly against extending any support to the AAP. “Delhi Congress leaders spoke against supporting the AAP on the ordinance. However, former Delhi Congress chiefs Arvinder Singh Lovely and Subhash Chopra held that supporting the ordinance was warranted, given the Congress’s previous demand for more administrative powers to an elected government in Delhi. However, both said the final decision was up to the high command,” a source said.On its part, not only did the AAP disparage Maken and Dikshit by questioning their current standing within the Congress, Delhi Minister Saurabh Bharadwaj also accused the duo of “misleading” their own leaders, given that Sheila Dikshit had herself introduced a motion as CM in the Delhi Assembly on September 11, 2002, demanding more powers for Delhi’s elected government compared to the LG.Bharadwaj also tweeted that the motion moved by Sheila Dikshit had made the exact same point that the AAP had made in the Supreme Court, saying, “Amendment in Rules or any order of the Centre cannot take away special status of Delhi which is provided by the Constitution under Art 239 AA. So why are Delhi Congress leaders misleading Mr @RahulGandhi?”Maken said he had never claimed that as Delhi CM, Sheila Dikshit hadn’t sought full statehood or more authority. Rather, he said, Kejriwal wants to gain “unique privileges previously denied to CMs like Sheila Dikshit, Madan Lal Khurana, Sahib Singh Verma and Sushma Swaraj”.Speaking to The Indian Express, he said, “This ordinance is a diversionary tactic by Kejriwal, whose public image has been severely dented after he was caught on the wrong foot on various scams. He is trying to divert public attention from these.”Sandeep Dikshit said, “Which political leader wouldn’t seek more power? But the fact is that when Mrs Dikshit did so, it was within the contours of the Constitution, just like her administration worked within the powers conferred upon her by the Constitution.”
As Arvind Kejriwal drums up support among Opposition leaders against the Centre’s ordinance that wrested control of ‘services’ from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in the Capital, two former Delhi MPs have emerged as the voices and faces of the distrust the Congress continues to nurse against him.While other Delhi Congress leaders — who witnessed the AAP’s rapid rise in the city’s politics over the last decade and continue to smart from it — have maintained a low profile, Ajay Maken and Sandeep Dikshit have been publicly and aggressively vocal in cautioning the Congress high command against the Delhi Chief Minister’s direct and indirect overtures.Days after the Delhi and Punjab units of the Congress called on the high command and told them to “keep Kejriwal at arm’s length” for “intra-party cohesion”,Dikshit and Maken sharpened their attack on the Delhi CM over the ordinance.“Kejriwal is well aware that he will be sent to jail for 8-10 years if he does not get control of the Vigilance Department,” Dikshit said, adding that he supported the ordinance against the AAP government.Maken joined the chorus, alleging that the AAP convenor’s “true motives” stood exposed, as he had openly sought “enhanced powers over services, aiming to take control over the Vigilance Department”, thus challenging decades of established governance norms. This is a point he has consistently argued since the ordinance was issued.“He conveniently downplays his true intentions. Investigations into scandals like Liquor gate, ‘Sheesh-mahal (Kejriwal’s Rs 171-crore residence…), power subsidy scam, bus purchases scam and others, will reveal the extent of corruption within his administration. And this is what he wants to stop,” Maken tweeted.Speaking to The Indian Express, Dikshit said: “Any Congressman will be chucked out of the party if they make any statement against its national leadership. Then how can the party think of allying with the AAP, whose leader Kejriwal has made more vile statements against the Congress’s national leadership than even PM Modi?”Both Maken and Dikshit also questioned the AAP over its “support of the BJP” on critical issues like Article 370. “What about the removal of Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir by the BJP-led Centre, which he [Kejriwal] supported, or not signing the Congress’s impeachment motion against [former CJI] Dipak Misra, or not signing the no-confidence motion against the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairperson that immediately followed?” Dikshit added.A senior Congress leader said that following the duo’s example, other Delhi Congress leaders are “gradually emerging” with sharp criticism of Kejriwal, especially after the latter issued a public appeal to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, seeking a meeting.According to Congress sources, there are two main prickly issues standing between the AAP and Congress. The first is what the Congress insiders describe as “unforgettable, patently false and malicious propaganda” against both its national and local [Delhi] leadership, “on the basis of which Kejriwal came to power”. The second is a Delhi Assembly resolution after the AAP formed its second successive government, demanding retraction of the Bharat Ratna conferred on former PM Rajiv Gandhi – neither of which, the insiders say, will “change or be forgotten”.While senior AAP leaders acknowledge that a united Opposition is key to defeating the BJP, the role that the Congress will play in it is still not clear. The AAP has shared stage with the Congress in the past, but an alliance has not come through since 2013, when the Congress had extended outside support to let the AAP form the government in the city. Before the 2019 Lok Sabha polls, alliance talks between the two parties lasted for months, but ended in a deadlock.While Maken — a former Delhi and Union minister — has never minced his words regarding the AAP and its convenor, it is former East Delhi MP Sandeep Dikshit, the son of the late three-time Delhi CM Sheila Dikshit, who had taken the first potshot, in March this year.On a day when Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh marched to Parliament against the Centre, along with other Opposition leaders, on a host of issues, Dikshit and a group of former Delhi government ministers filed a complaint with Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena against the AAP government and Kejriwal over the now-defunct Feed Back Unit (the AAP’s rivals claim it was used to spy on them). Alleging sedition, they demanded a trial under the UAPA, the anti-terror law.Afterwards, when the CBI summoned the Delhi CM for questioning in the alleged excise policy scam, Maken tweeted that Kejriwal “should not be shown any sympathy or support”, and asked his party colleagues who are lawyers not to represent Kejriwal or the Delhi government in the case.Regarding the ordinance, a senior Delhi Congress leader said the party believed the BJP would “somehow be able to push the legislation through”, so aligning with the AAP on this issue was “not worth it”.Another leader argued that Kejriwal was merely “using the ordinance as a bogey” to make it “appear as if he is the lone voice” fighting for the Constitution. “He wants to look like a self-styled saviour of the Constitution, because he is embroiled in corruption charges that have dented his image. It’s a trap. He is seeking vindication,” the leader alleged.At a meeting with Kharge, Rahul Gandhi, K C Venugopal and others on Monday on the issue, leaders of the Congress’s Delhi and Punjab units argued strongly against extending any support to the AAP. “Delhi Congress leaders spoke against supporting the AAP on the ordinance. However, former Delhi Congress chiefs Arvinder Singh Lovely and Subhash Chopra held that supporting the ordinance was warranted, given the Congress’s previous demand for more administrative powers to an elected government in Delhi. However, both said the final decision was up to the high command,” a source said.On its part, not only did the AAP disparage Maken and Dikshit by questioning their current standing within the Congress, Delhi Minister Saurabh Bharadwaj also accused the duo of “misleading” their own leaders, given that Sheila Dikshit had herself introduced a motion as CM in the Delhi Assembly on September 11, 2002, demanding more powers for Delhi’s elected government compared to the LG.Bharadwaj also tweeted that the motion moved by Sheila Dikshit had made the exact same point that the AAP had made in the Supreme Court, saying, “Amendment in Rules or any order of the Centre cannot take away special status of Delhi which is provided by the Constitution under Art 239 AA. So why are Delhi Congress leaders misleading Mr @RahulGandhi?”Maken said he had never claimed that as Delhi CM, Sheila Dikshit hadn’t sought full statehood or more authority. Rather, he said, Kejriwal wants to gain “unique privileges previously denied to CMs like Sheila Dikshit, Madan Lal Khurana, Sahib Singh Verma and Sushma Swaraj”.Speaking to The Indian Express, he said, “This ordinance is a diversionary tactic by Kejriwal, whose public image has been severely dented after he was caught on the wrong foot on various scams. He is trying to divert public attention from these.”Sandeep Dikshit said, “Which political leader wouldn’t seek more power? But the fact is that when Mrs Dikshit did so, it was within the contours of the Constitution, just like her administration worked within the powers conferred upon her by the Constitution.”
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s plans to address a gathering of the Indian diaspora in New York this week is likely to make explicit an important reality — the diaspora is where India’s domestic politics intersects with foreign policy. A deeply polarised Indian polity, in turn, sharpens the divisions within the diaspora.Until now, the dominant Indian image of the diaspora has been a simplistic one. According to the cliche, the members of the diaspora served as India’s unofficial ambassadors to the world – they celebrate and spread Indian culture, win friends and influence people for the benefit of the homeland.This romantic notion is increasingly at odds with the ground reality. The diaspora carries within it all the faultlines of the Indian society that find expression in their lives abroad.Several factors have come together to make the interaction between India and its diaspora at once more charged, contentious, and consequential. The Indian political class has never been as divided as it is today. India’s internal gulf is bound to envelop the diaspora in the run-up to the 2024 general elections. Rahul Gandhi’s engagement with the diaspora in New York on Saturday comes less than three weeks before Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrives for a state visit to the White House. The PM is also expected to address a diaspora event in the US.During his visit to the UK in March this year, Rahul Gandhi did not hold back on his criticism of India’s trajectory under the NDA government. He is unlikely to bite his tongue in the US either. The popular American notion that “domestic politics must end at the water’s edge” had some resonance in India too. The traditional Indian political reluctance to take domestic disputes abroad no longer operates.Meanwhile, there are many structural changes in India’s relations with its diaspora. For one it is growing bigger by the day. One estimate puts it at about 33 million. These include Indian citizens studying, living, and working abroad as well as the people of Indian origin who have settled in other lands. According to the United Nations, the Indian diaspora is the largest in the world. As many countries hunt for talent to run their advanced industries, the demand for Indian professionals will continue to grow. The Modi government is promoting “migration and mobility” agreements that will facilitate more substantive flows abroad of Indian scientists, engineers, doctors, accountants, managers, and bankers. The global footprint of India, then, will continue to widen and deepen in the years ahead.Second, the diaspora is richer and contributes in myriad ways to the Indian economy – from hard currency remittances to the air travel market, from consuming Indian goods to entertainment.Third, the Indian diaspora is getting active in the politics of the host nations, especially in the Anglosphere which is more open to immigrants than other societies. The prime minister of Britain Rishi Sunak and US Vice-President Kamala Harris are just two examples of the widespread Indian successes in electoral politics in the UK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The English-speaking world is also the preferred destination of Indians, and the Indian presence in Western politics is only likely to grow.Fourth, the diaspora’s engagement with Indian politics too has grown. Over the last few decades, the Indian diaspora has graduated from the passive role of extending support to presumed collective Indian goals or individual commitments to community development at home. The leaders of the diaspora now take active positions on the issues of the day in India. They mobilise their local political leaders and officials to take up their real and perceived grievances against Delhi. The retail politics of the English-speaking democracies make it easier to win support from local leaders, who might know little about the nuances of the issues they choose to speak on. Put simply, there is now a toxic interaction between India’s domestic politics and the activism of diasporic groups in the West.Fifth, active Indian political engagement with the diaspora raises questions about meddling in the domestic politics of host nations. This is already a problem with China, where the party-state is extending its authority into other sovereignties through the diaspora. Delhi, of course, is not a political monolith like Beijing and has no desire to emulate Beijing on this score.Sixth, the story is not just about India but of the Subcontinent. If you add the migrants from Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, the South Asian diaspora swells up to 45 million. You would think the shared culture between and across the subcontinent would bring the South Asian diasporas together in their new abodes. What we have seen instead is its deep fragmentation amidst competitive political mobilisation. Rallying Indian and Pakistani diasporas against the interests of the other homelands is only one part of the story. More troubling has been the resurgence of religious, ethnic, and caste solidarities that overwhelm the rich collective inheritance of the Subcontinent. Unconstrained by the nationalist framework at home, the other identities acquire much power.That brings us back to Rahul Gandhi’s visit to the US. Although the Congress party has a much longer history of mobilising overseas Indians, it had ceded the space to the BJP. During the struggle for independence in the early 20th century, the Indian National Congress led the mobilisation of the diaspora. Besides the Congressmen, socialists of various shades, and the communists developed significant connections to Indians abroad as well as progressive forces around the world. As the structures of these parties atrophied, their internationalist engagement became erratic and ineffective.Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was the first to see the value of the diaspora in the pursuit of Indian foreign policy interests in the US. The Narasimha Rao government persisted with the idea as it galvanised the Indian diaspora in the US to fend off the anti-India campaigns organised by Pakistan in Washington. The early 1990s also saw a more fundamental effort to mobilise the US political and business classes to support broader Indian interests. But it was the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government that gave the engagement with the diaspora a significant new twist – by altering the narrative of “brain drain” into one of “political and cultural gain” for “Mother India”. Then came the annual Pravasi Bharatiya Divas. For the nativist BJP, without a traditional internationalist anchor, the diaspora became a powerful new constituency.If the UPA government, which came to power in 2004, turned the PBD into a bureaucratic exercise, the BJP has seized the powerful new possibilities with the diaspora. Rallies with the diaspora have become an integral part of PM Modi’s engagements abroad. Extending support to Indians in trouble abroad had become a principal preoccupation of late Sushma Swaraj who served as foreign minister in Modi’s first term. Rescuing and bringing back Indians caught in danger zones around the world also became a high priority.If PM Modi looms large over the diaspora today, the non-BJP forces in the Indian community hope that Rahul will lay out an alternative vision for India. It remains to be seen though if Rahul Gandhi has the strategic acumen and organisational capacity to break the Modi spell over the Indian diaspora in the US and beyond.The writer is a senior fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute, Delhi and a contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s plans to address a gathering of the Indian diaspora in New York this week is likely to make explicit an important reality — the diaspora is where India’s domestic politics intersects with foreign policy. A deeply polarised Indian polity, in turn, sharpens the divisions within the diaspora.Until now, the dominant Indian image of the diaspora has been a simplistic one. According to the cliche, the members of the diaspora served as India’s unofficial ambassadors to the world – they celebrate and spread Indian culture, win friends and influence people for the benefit of the homeland.This romantic notion is increasingly at odds with the ground reality. The diaspora carries within it all the faultlines of the Indian society that find expression in their lives abroad.Several factors have come together to make the interaction between India and its diaspora at once more charged, contentious, and consequential. The Indian political class has never been as divided as it is today. India’s internal gulf is bound to envelop the diaspora in the run-up to the 2024 general elections. Rahul Gandhi’s engagement with the diaspora in New York on Saturday comes less than three weeks before Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrives for a state visit to the White House. The PM is also expected to address a diaspora event in the US.During his visit to the UK in March this year, Rahul Gandhi did not hold back on his criticism of India’s trajectory under the NDA government. He is unlikely to bite his tongue in the US either. The popular American notion that “domestic politics must end at the water’s edge” had some resonance in India too. The traditional Indian political reluctance to take domestic disputes abroad no longer operates.Meanwhile, there are many structural changes in India’s relations with its diaspora. For one it is growing bigger by the day. One estimate puts it at about 33 million. These include Indian citizens studying, living, and working abroad as well as the people of Indian origin who have settled in other lands. According to the United Nations, the Indian diaspora is the largest in the world. As many countries hunt for talent to run their advanced industries, the demand for Indian professionals will continue to grow. The Modi government is promoting “migration and mobility” agreements that will facilitate more substantive flows abroad of Indian scientists, engineers, doctors, accountants, managers, and bankers. The global footprint of India, then, will continue to widen and deepen in the years ahead.Second, the diaspora is richer and contributes in myriad ways to the Indian economy – from hard currency remittances to the air travel market, from consuming Indian goods to entertainment.Third, the Indian diaspora is getting active in the politics of the host nations, especially in the Anglosphere which is more open to immigrants than other societies. The prime minister of Britain Rishi Sunak and US Vice-President Kamala Harris are just two examples of the widespread Indian successes in electoral politics in the UK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The English-speaking world is also the preferred destination of Indians, and the Indian presence in Western politics is only likely to grow.Fourth, the diaspora’s engagement with Indian politics too has grown. Over the last few decades, the Indian diaspora has graduated from the passive role of extending support to presumed collective Indian goals or individual commitments to community development at home. The leaders of the diaspora now take active positions on the issues of the day in India. They mobilise their local political leaders and officials to take up their real and perceived grievances against Delhi. The retail politics of the English-speaking democracies make it easier to win support from local leaders, who might know little about the nuances of the issues they choose to speak on. Put simply, there is now a toxic interaction between India’s domestic politics and the activism of diasporic groups in the West.Fifth, active Indian political engagement with the diaspora raises questions about meddling in the domestic politics of host nations. This is already a problem with China, where the party-state is extending its authority into other sovereignties through the diaspora. Delhi, of course, is not a political monolith like Beijing and has no desire to emulate Beijing on this score.Sixth, the story is not just about India but of the Subcontinent. If you add the migrants from Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, the South Asian diaspora swells up to 45 million. You would think the shared culture between and across the subcontinent would bring the South Asian diasporas together in their new abodes. What we have seen instead is its deep fragmentation amidst competitive political mobilisation. Rallying Indian and Pakistani diasporas against the interests of the other homelands is only one part of the story. More troubling has been the resurgence of religious, ethnic, and caste solidarities that overwhelm the rich collective inheritance of the Subcontinent. Unconstrained by the nationalist framework at home, the other identities acquire much power.That brings us back to Rahul Gandhi’s visit to the US. Although the Congress party has a much longer history of mobilising overseas Indians, it had ceded the space to the BJP. During the struggle for independence in the early 20th century, the Indian National Congress led the mobilisation of the diaspora. Besides the Congressmen, socialists of various shades, and the communists developed significant connections to Indians abroad as well as progressive forces around the world. As the structures of these parties atrophied, their internationalist engagement became erratic and ineffective.Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was the first to see the value of the diaspora in the pursuit of Indian foreign policy interests in the US. The Narasimha Rao government persisted with the idea as it galvanised the Indian diaspora in the US to fend off the anti-India campaigns organised by Pakistan in Washington. The early 1990s also saw a more fundamental effort to mobilise the US political and business classes to support broader Indian interests. But it was the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government that gave the engagement with the diaspora a significant new twist – by altering the narrative of “brain drain” into one of “political and cultural gain” for “Mother India”. Then came the annual Pravasi Bharatiya Divas. For the nativist BJP, without a traditional internationalist anchor, the diaspora became a powerful new constituency.If the UPA government, which came to power in 2004, turned the PBD into a bureaucratic exercise, the BJP has seized the powerful new possibilities with the diaspora. Rallies with the diaspora have become an integral part of PM Modi’s engagements abroad. Extending support to Indians in trouble abroad had become a principal preoccupation of late Sushma Swaraj who served as foreign minister in Modi’s first term. Rescuing and bringing back Indians caught in danger zones around the world also became a high priority.If PM Modi looms large over the diaspora today, the non-BJP forces in the Indian community hope that Rahul will lay out an alternative vision for India. It remains to be seen though if Rahul Gandhi has the strategic acumen and organisational capacity to break the Modi spell over the Indian diaspora in the US and beyond.The writer is a senior fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute, Delhi and a contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express
Prime Minister Narendra Modi is right – when he said Sunday that Parliament is not just a building but a reflection of the aspirations and dreams of 140 crore Indians. That it is the sacred space where democracy gets to work, where elected representatives of the nation’s children, women and men, make laws that will make India walk more strongly on the path of justice, dignity and truth. That’s why as the new Parliament is dedicated to the nation by the PM, we, in the Congress, decided to stay away — our absence is our democratic response to the yawning gap between what the PM says and what he does.The Parliament is of the people, by the people, for the people. But the entire project, from Day One — its framing, planning, design, construction — has been closely guarded. It has been of the PM, by the PM, for the PM. Now, by not inviting the Rashtrapati Droupadi Murmu, by getting her message merely read out, the government has not only disregarded the Constitution but also the fact that Parliament — and, ironically, the Prime Minister kept underlining this during his speech — essentially belongs to the citizens of this great country. It does not belong to voters depending on whom they voted for, it does not belong to elected representatives depending on which party is in power. The PM and all his men and women, most of whom depend on him and him alone to ensure their position in the party or government, ignore this fundamental reality.Our 140 crore people, with a million dreams and hopes, even fears, with their astounding diversity, are held together not by a set of instructions, dos and don’ts, but by the living, breathing, Constitution of India enshrined on the bedrock of balance, delicate and enduring. A balance between different institutions, which draw power from the Constitution. And their powers are limited by the same Constitution. Any institution which transgresses the limits of the Constitution on the assumption that it reflects the popular will of the nation not only breaks this fragile balance but undermines the very concept of constitutional democracy, which our founding fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, sacrificed their lives for and which all of us, irrespective of party or ideology, worked so hard to cherish.This isn’t just a debating point. The Constitution is, indeed, constituted by several moments in our history. Who can forget April 8, 1929, when Bhagat Singh marched into Parliament along with his comrade Batukeshwar Dutt to hurl a bomb and yell Inquilab Zindabad so that the British would listen. It was here, at the stroke of the midnight hour, that Jawaharlal Nehru told a newly born nation about its “tryst with destiny,” stepping out from the old to new, “when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation long suppressed finds utterance”. It was here that 299 distinguished members put their heads together for 2 years 11 months and 7 days to write the Constitution, justify the assigned mandate laid by Babasaheb Ambedkar, the son of our new nation.And, more recently, on December 13, 2001, all of us, cutting across party lines, watched terrorists breach Parliament and I shudder to think what would have happened had it not been for our selfless, intrepid “watch and ward” and security personnel, nine of whom lost their lives to protect us, to protect Parliament, to protect the idea of We, the People.That’s a far cry from today’s dominant idea: I, the PM. Parliament doesn’t belong to one person, one person cannot, should not take credit. An edifice can be built on the whims and fancies of an Emperor but an institution is built only by the voluntary participation and persistent perseverance of the people. Not inviting the President to two of its key ceremonies, in the laying of the foundation stone and its inaugural, the government has reinforced the absolute primacy of the PM despite curbs laid down in the Constitution.Article 79 of the Constitution says there shall be a “Parliament for the Union which shall consist of the President and the two Houses to be known respectively as the Council of States and the House of the People.” Departing from the American precedent, the Indian Constitution, clearly makes the President a member of the Legislature. And although the various departments of government of India will be carried on under the control and responsibility of the respective ministers in charge, as per Article 77, the President remains the formal head of the administration and all executive action of the union must be expressed in the name of the President and authenticated in such a manner as many the prescribed by rules to be made by the President. Again, even though he/she may not be the real head of the administration, all officers of the Union shall be “subordinate” to the President (Article 53 (1)).The question is: Can these subordinates appropriate or infringe upon the Jurisdiction of President?By arrogating to himself the right to inaugurate the new Parliament building, to put his imprimatur on all aspects of it, Modi claims that he personifies the nation and, in fact, its democracy, too. Of course, he is the Leader of the House but we have all seen, over the past nine years, how little time he has to listen to those who disagree with him, they become distractions to be mocked or ridiculed. A majority of the Bills under his regime were passed without any scrutiny, many being arbitrarily marked as money bills to escape defeat in Rajya Sabha. The PM hardly attends Parliament, refuses to answer questions and if some member doggedly insists on answers, he is expelled from the House.All of this has been brushed under the carpet behind the glitter of the inauguration and the deafening applause of the party faithful celebrating the Naya Bharat. Just weeks ago, the Indian National Congress, led by Rahul Gandhi, did the exact opposite, connecting the country through the most humble of means, a foot-march of 3,500 km, listening to critics and supporters, in the heat and dust, the Bharat Jodo Yatra becoming a symbol of resistance against economic distress and inequality.Rahul Gandhi was also engaged in construction of a different kind: A display window for love in the bazaar of hate. At the beginning of the Yatra, the BJP and its digital partners chose to ignore it — until the Karnataka election results. Political analysts have been busy trying to underplay the win arguing that this is a freak result, suppressing the fact that the basic issues raised in Karnataka echo the ones in all parts of the country. And the win in Karnataka was a win for the Opposition, an assuring reminder that Treasury Benches alone do not — and can not — Parliament make. Old or new, 1927 or 2023.The writer is leader of the Congress in Lok Sabha
Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut on Sunday criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s move to inaugurate the new Parliament complex without President Droupadi Murmu, calling it “dangerous for democracy.”Accusing PM Modi of “sidetracking President Droupadi Murmu who is the head of this nation as well as the Parliament”, Raut wrote in his weekly column Rokthok, published in the party mouthpiece ‘Saamana’: “Trying to take control of the Parliament in this fashion is dangerous for the democracy.”Underlining that the Prime Minister’s move was the “biggest threat to our democracy”, he said, “The country is witnessing a daily fight to save democracy… As per the tradition, there is a demand that the country’s President is supposed to inaugurate the new Parliament building. The demand was first made by Rahul Gandhi. All Opposition parties supported his demand.”Raut wrote that Modi’s inauguration of the new Parliament building was “against democratic principles and laid down convention”.“The President has not even been invited for the function. Consequently, Congress and other Opposition parties have decided to boycott the inauguration function. Ignoring the Opposition, the Prime Minister will address the gathering and draw cheers from them. This is the biggest threat to our democracy,” Raut wrote.Stating that the Prime Minister was “insulting” the highest seat of the country, he added, “The President gets no invitation and the Opposition has been shown no respect… By keeping everything to himself, the Prime Minister is showing his arrogance. By behaving in this manner, the Prime Minister is insulting the highest post of the country. Rahul Gandhi has said that the Parliament is not raised through bricks of arrogance but on constitutional values… Similarly, when Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, who was brought to court for the hearing of his case, said that Modi was arrogant, he was dragged and taken away… Therefore, what are we going to do by inaugurating the new Parliament complex?”Raut said the new Parliament building was set up single-handedly by Prime Minister Modi. “The Prime Minister intends to show that the country’s capital was built by him after 2014 and that before it, Delhi was lying in ruins,” he said.
The stage at a torch rally organized by Congress, to protest against Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification from Lok Sabha, broke down in Chhattisgarh’s Bilaspur on Sunday, April 2, reported news agency ANI. No injuries were reported after the incident.However, everyone present on the stage, including Congress state president Mohan Markam fell down.#WATCH | Chhattisgarh: Stage breaks down during torch rally organized by Congress to protest against termination of Rahul Gandhi’s membership of Lok Sabha in Bilaspur. (02.04.23) pic.twitter.com/PjnXREl5JN— ANI (@ANI) April 3, 2023Gandhi’s conviction in a 2019 defamation case and subsequent disqualification as an MP have spurred a political firestorm between the ruling BJP and the Opposition parties, with Congress holding demonstrations against the BJP’s ‘dictatorship’ across the country.On March 23, while convicting Gandhi, a Surat court had suspended the sentence for 30 days to allow him to appeal and approved bail on a surety of Rs 15,000. A day later, Gandhi was disqualified as a member of the Lok Sabha.
The stage at a torch rally organized by Congress, to protest against Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification from Lok Sabha, broke down in Chhattisgarh’s Bilaspur on Sunday, April 2, reported news agency ANI. No injuries were reported after the incident.However, everyone present on the stage, including Congress state president Mohan Markam fell down.#WATCH | Chhattisgarh: Stage breaks down during torch rally organized by Congress to protest against termination of Rahul Gandhi’s membership of Lok Sabha in Bilaspur. (02.04.23) pic.twitter.com/PjnXREl5JN— ANI (@ANI) April 3, 2023Gandhi’s conviction in a 2019 defamation case and subsequent disqualification as an MP have spurred a political firestorm between the ruling BJP and the Opposition parties, with Congress holding demonstrations against the BJP’s ‘dictatorship’ across the country.On March 23, while convicting Gandhi, a Surat court had suspended the sentence for 30 days to allow him to appeal and approved bail on a surety of Rs 15,000. A day later, Gandhi was disqualified as a member of the Lok Sabha.
