Digging Deeper | Howdy Modi, and what it means for Indo-US relations

Rakesh Sharma | Harish Puppala

Howdy Modi is now stuff of legend – 50,000 Indians in a Houston stadium coming out to see a politician. It’s the sort of thing rockstars dream of; it’s the sort of thing Trump dreams of. And sure enough, where there are crowds, there comes Trump. Trump was the opening act for the main performance that was Modi. By now, you all know the Father of the Nation episode. Several primetime news shows have ensured that. But if you are of delicate constitution and want to avoid damage to your eardrums and therefore stay away from them, Trump called Modi the Father of India, and the rest is loud history. You have, by now, also read what happened to comedian Hasan Minhaj. (We suggest you look that up.)

But on this edition of Digging Deeper, we will try and examine the relationship between India and the US, but first we will focus on the evolving relationship between Modi and the US. There has certainly been a metamorphosis in this relationship since the Bush and Obama years. Just as there has been a studied change in the casting of Modi from a politician to now a statesman. How much does Modi need the blessing of the US, and how much does India still need to rely on the US for its own economic benefits? These are some of the questions we will address on this edition of Digging Deeper with Moneycontrol.

A riot, and a visa-ban

It is pretty much guaranteed now that Narendra Modi will never be able to shrug off the 2002 post-Godhra riots. He was  exonerated by the SIT, but the stain shall forever remain. A few years after the riots, Modi faced humiliation from a country that the UPA govt, and PM Manmohan Singh in particular, courted pretty aggressively in a post-cold war world. US-India relations hit a low after the Bill Clinton era, and Singh was attempting to bring the two countries closer, a proposition that George W Bush was not averse to.

As that relationship went from strength to strength, Narendra Modi was the one person in politics having a not-so-great time. He wanted to visit the Gujarati NRI community in the US.

Annie Gowen reported in the Washington Post, “Modi applied for and was denied a diplomatic visa to travel to the United States to address a hotel owners association and business leaders in March 2005. US officials said at the time that he was excluded under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that ‘makes any government official who was responsible for or directly carried out at any time particularly severe violations of religious freedom ineligible for a visa.’” 

That was a serious snub from the most powerful country on the planet. In fact, so severe was the decision that it wasn’t until Modi became PM in 2014 that it was overturned. Much like the US, the EU and the UK also denied him visas, a rule that stayed in place until 2012.

According to a report in the Huffington Post from 2015, economist Jagdish Bhagwati told NDTV, “The visa was denied to him at the request of the UPA government. And Modi is an informed and practical person. He knew it too.” The report goes on to explain, “Bhagwati is of the opinion that filing a ‘mild complaint’ by the Manmohan Singh government on the Modi visa issue was not enough.

He said, "The fact that they did not take a tit-for-tat approach means that they were not serious. The Americans were simply obliging.”

A report by The Hindu in 2012 stated, “After India urged the United States in March 2005 to reconsider its decision to revoke the visa of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, the US Embassy made an action request to Washington seeking a “review” of the case. However, the ‘action request' cable of March 18, 2005...also had a revealing accompanying note: “Post does not expect any change, but would appreciate a cable telling the…(Government of India) we took a fresh look and decided to maintain our decision.” The report adds that India's Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran took exception to such a rejection, and “conveyed that the refusal had already ‘incited a controversy and threatened to spark just the kind of divisiveness the US alleges Modi himself facilitated.’”

The US Deputy Chief of Mission at the Embassy, Robert O. Blake, reportedly clarified to Saran the two-part American decision: “the refusal of the A2 (visa), and the revocation of the B1/B2 (visa), “highlight(ed) that we had acted in accordance with our own law and democratic constitution.” The US had taken into consideration independent reports, including that of India's own National Human Rights Commission. “The decision was not taken capriciously, but involved many people in Washington.””

Courtesy Wikileaks, we now know that the US embassy gave its own view in a diplomatic cable, which was not inaccurate: “Congress has long viewed Modi as a vulnerable target and will, at the appropriate time, use the visa incident as further ammunition against him. Both Congress and the BJP particularly value the US-India relationship and Modi's America bashing has made many nervous. Both parties will likely move to ensure that the negative impact on the relationship from this incident is minimal. With Modi's position deteriorating, the BJP leadership could decide to quietly push him aside at the appropriate time. This could become a further liability for [BJP president L.K.] Advani, who [was] the senior party leader most visibly supporting Modi.” 

When Modi disliked America

That’s right. At that point in time, Modi was an America-bashing politician. Hard to believe, isn’t it? Let’s check out that angle for a bit, shall we?

After being denied a visa, an upset Modi lashed out. According to a report in the Asian Age in 2005, Modi said, “How can the US refuse me a visa and treat Musharraf as a state guest?" The report added, “the cancellation of the visa triggered a fierce reaction...with Mr Modi accusing the US of humiliating India’s Constitution, sovereignty and democratic traditions. An incensed Modi added, “No court of India, or the world, has passed any judgment against either the Gujarat government, or its chief minister...The American government, which prides itself on being a democracy, has indulged in the misdeed of insulting the Indian Constitution and the five crore people of Gujarat.” That wasn’t all. He even criticised the US’s intelligence gathering abilities. Modi said, “The WTC attack was a glaring example. The country was caught napping. The US is wielding the stick on selective information gathered by its network. It seems the same yardstick has been applied in my case.”

Pretty strong words from a man now touted as a great friend of the USA. Narendra Modi was the only Indian citizen ever denied a visa to the US under that provision. But he seems to have taken it on the chin and, in typically pragmatic fashion, moved on. Dr Bhagwati had noted, “Modi didn't come across as someone who held on to old memories and grudges.” That pragmatism would turn things around for Modi considerably.

2014, the game changer

After serving as Chief Minister of Gujarat from 2001 to 2014, Modi won the general election and became Prime Minister. That meant he could travel to the USA. It was unthinkable that the Obama govt would deny him a visa. And it didn’t. The Washington Post reported that “President (Barack) Obama put the visa issue to rest by calling Modi to congratulate him on his victory and inviting him to the White House. At his swearing-in, Modi made headlines by inviting all the leaders of neighboring South Asian nations, including Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif.”

In September 2014, Modi visit the United States for the first time as an Indian minister. He had been to the US a few times individually, but that was before entering the political arena. In 2014, he had a private dinner with Obama, toured the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in his company and headlined that famous event at Madison Square Garden in New York which was attended by approximately 20,000 members of the Indian diaspora. The following year, in the city of San Jose in 2015, he had a similar reception. While the rockstar-like appearances appeared over the top, with more than one cringe-inducing moment, it was like a triumphant tour for a man who was derided widely until May 2014.

More importantly, it was a turning point for India-US relations.

Let’s get down to how Modi actually affected a change in what looked like a redux of past failures. For that, we must examine what the experts say. In this case, a person who is part of the American establishment and also understands the way India functions - a man born in India and quite likely to become the next American Ambassador to India - Ashley J Tellis.

Tellis, a former senior advisor to the US Department of State, made an interesting observation. He claimed that as a consequence of a series of diplomatic disasters during the UPA era - the Devyani Khobragade fiasco, the liability clause in the Civil Nuclear deal, India’s rejection of American military aircraft in favor of the French Rafale - India-US relations suffered. Tellis wrote, “Not only were US–India relations completely rudderless during this period—as sceptics of the relationship like then Defence Minister AK Antony impeded further progress—but India’s own progress appeared hamstrung as myriad corruption scandals took the wind out of the government’s sails.”

Tellis, a senior fellow with the Carnegie Endowment  for International Peace, makes another trenchant observation: “Narendra Modi’s  political  instincts  allowed  him  to  quickly  appreciate the extent to which US–India relations had fallen around the time he took office. Despite his limited experience with Washington up to that point, he understood that the pervasive frustration in both capitals did not bode well for his larger project of revitalising India, balancing the threats posed by growing Chinese  power,  and  expanding New Delhi’s  influence  on  the  international stage.  Consummating India’s  resurgence  would  require  sustained American support  for  kick-starting  its  economic  growth  as  well  as  for  expanding  its sway  abroad.  Based  entirely  on  his  conviction  that  he  must  do  whatever  is necessary  to  advance India’s  interests, Modi,  brushing  away  any  wounded amour propre, set out to repair the US–India relationship with alacrity in three ways  that  would  affect  both  the  style  and  the  substance  of Indian  foreign policy.”

Firstly, Modi invested considerable effort in building personal relationships with his peers internationally.  We know, and mock, his gregarious gestures of friendship with men like Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu and Shinzo Abe. Remember that swing moment with Xi Jinping? Or  that whirlwind stop in Pakistan and walked hand in hand with Nawaz Sharif? Whatever his flaws, you can’t accuse Modi of lacking in effort.

Tellis explains, “He invested heavily in developing strong friendships with his American counterparts, first Obama  and  now Trump,  guided  by  the  logic  that,  even if US and Indian national  interests  did  not  always  cohere,  the  latter  would  always  come  out ahead if the individual steering policy in Washington were favourably disposed towards India. When  strategic  convergence  between  the  two  countries existed, warm personal ties could push the envelope to produce even better policy outcomes for India; when strategic dissonance persisted on some issues, the camaraderie between the two leaders would help to minimise the effect of frictions that would inevitably arise. By...focusing on developing a personal rapport with his American  counterparts, Modi  personalised  the  conduct  of India’s international relations in ways not seen in decades to the advantage of India’s interests as a whole.”

Secondly,  Modi  has,  “without  apology  or  embarrassment, emphasised  solidarity  among  democracies  as  a  leitmotif  of India’s  new engagement with the world.” Which explains his repeated outreach to Japan, Israel, and USA. Tellis observed, “...(Modi) has  more  openly  allied India  with  other  democratic  partners  and,  in  a remarkable  evolution  from  times  past, ...encouraged  his  counterparts  to consider  not  merely  increased  bilateral  economic  cooperation,  but,  rather, initiatives  aimed  at  bringing  security  and  prosperity  to  other  parts  of  the globe.  Such  enthusiasm  has  been  welcomed  by  his American  interlocutors, at  least  prior  to  President Trump.”

Thirdly, in a huge shift from, Modi jettisoned any remaining pretensions towards non-alignment. Tellis wrote, “...Modi has quietly but resolutely moved India away from the rhetoric of non-alignment to the practice of strategic partnership. This does not imply that India is content to be a camp follower of the US or, for that matter, any other great power. To the contrary, India has ploughed its own course in foreign policy, dictated by a sense of its own interests. As it has moved forward in its quest to become a  ‘leading  power’,  however, Modi  has  not  shied  away  from  developing  and nurturing partnerships with other nations, most importantly, the US. Unlike those  votaries  of  non-alignment  who  argue  that India  should  be  cautious about developing special affiliations with great powers—because that might possibly constrain India’s freedom of action in the future—Modi has freely reached out to the US (as well as Japan, Israel, Germany and France) in the hope of  building a robust  strategic  partnership  that  could  enhance India’s power and standing. In many ways, this represents a continuation of India’s traditional grand strategy—but with one important difference. India no longer exhibits  diffidence in affirming  its  special  relationships  with  some  critical partners...Given this refreshing change in Indian attitude, it is not surprising that leaders as different as Barack Obama and Donald Trump have been united in their pursuit of a new relationship with India.”

That, then, is the meat of the matter - Modi’s investment in substantive changes, policy-wise as well as personally, meant that India is seen, and indeed treated, differently. And that freshness Tellis speaks of has borne fruit. He declared, “...there  is  little  doubt  that  the US  and India  played  pivotal  roles  in the  discussions  leading  up  to  the Paris  Agreement.  Prime  Minister Modi, recognising  the  significance  of  securing  an  international  consensus  on mitigating climate change, pushed back against many in his own country to commit India to concrete pledges that made the final compact possible...Modi’s willingness to accept India’s global responsibilities in mitigating climate  change  was  equally  vital  to  success  in  the  lead-up  to Paris:  a concession unimaginable under India’s tradition of ‘Third World’ posturing.” It’s a separate matter that Donald Trump chooses to not engage with the international community on the subject of climate change.

The second example of remarkable success was India’s cooperation with USA in defining the security environment in the Indo-Pacific. While this term has taken on new life under Trump, the agreement between the US and India occurred under President Obama. Tellis claimed, “Modi’s  active  involvement  in  shaping  the  ‘US–India  Joint  Strategic  Vision for the Asia-Pacific and the Indian Ocean Region’ was couched in innocuous language, but its import was momentous.” He said,  “India not only reaffirmed its commitment to the freedom of navigation and overflight—especially in the South China Sea where threats from China are particularly acute - but it declared its willingness to contribute towards larger diplomatic and regional integration in order to ‘bolster long-term peace and prosperity for all.”

Tellis concludes by saying that the US–India  relationship  encompasses  the  most  intense  bilateral engagement that New Delhi enjoys with any nation. But he warns that the general reluctance within India to engage with the US could derail or, at the very least, slow down considerably the progress that has been made. He goes on to say that oversight of the relationship by the Prime Minister himself is advisable.

As Harsh Pant, a political analyst with New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation, explained, “Modi was pragmatic in his decision and decided that India and, he as prime minister, could not afford to ignore the US. He clearly understood that India needs the US to reach its goals.”

The camaraderie continues

All things considered, that is a massive change in stance by the US establishment. While Modi is still vilified by opponents and critics, especially after the abrogation of Article 370 in Kashmir, the fact remains that Modi’s friendship with Obama, which saw Barack Obama accept the invitation to be special guest at the 2015 Republic Day Parade, transformed the nature of India-US relations. And Modi’s camaraderie with the notoriously irascible and acerbic Donald Trump is commendable. Some might label  it obsequious but the benefits of such a close friendship are obvious - with no end in sight to the US-China trade war, India stands to gain from the Modi-Trump mutual admiration society. A Reuters/CNBC report yesterday claimed negotiators are trying to hash out a deal for Modi and Trump to sign at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Sept 27.

Another instance of benefit was pointed out in an op-ed in the Hindustan Times - “A new twist has been the rise of the US as a source of oil and gas. What matters less than actual shipments of hydrocarbons is that America’s shale story has suppressed energy prices to India’s advantage. This is a metaphor for what a closer relationship with the US provides India: the best possible geopolitical anchor in a time of remarkable international instability. Mr Modi has also understood it is the best external backer for his ambitious domestic agenda, ranging from the economy to technology. The US is the indispensable partner for the rise of India.” Let’s not forget the US’ considerable diplomatic support to India in the battle over Article 370. That, in itself, has been a huge win for a politician once blacklisted by the same country.

As one analysis noted, the United States is India’s primary source of foreign capital, technology and investments. It continues to be the most favoured destination for Indian students and immigrants. The US sells much of the cutting-edge technology for India’s defence forces. It is the primary external partner on intelligence and counterterrorism assistance. India’s foreign minister S Jaishankar has described India-US ties as “a glass which is 90% full rather than a glass which is 10% empty." 

A report about the Houston event in Mint noted, “The high-water mark was, of course, Modi walking arm-in-arm with US President Donald Trump before a packed stadium, chanting “Modi!", “Modi!" That both Trump and the US lawmakers sat through Modi’s almost an hour-long speech was a statement in itself.”