Rishi Sunak's elevation to UK PM is important. But not for the reasons most Indians in India are celebrating it

This is exactly what we saw when Kamala Harris became the vice-president of the US, in spite of the fact that throughout her long political career, Harris identified herself as an African-American and not an Asian-American, since her father is Jamaican. Lots of Indians believed that as vice-president, she would transform US-India relations. As we all know, that has not happened.

It's the same story whenever an Indian becomes the CEO of a big and famous US company. Many of us begin to think that Sundar Pichai of Alphabet/ Google or Satya Nadella of Microsoft would accord special importance and status to their operations and investment plans in India.

These expectations are plain naivete and magical thinking. Neither politics nor business works that way. Nor should they. In their professional lives, the loyalty of a Pichai or a Nadella or any of the many Indian-born persons who are running—and have run—giant US corporations such as PepsiCo, United Airlines, Mastercard, IBM, Adobe and FedEx, is to their companies and stakeholders. In fact, that is their ethical imperative. If they harbour a bias for the country they were born in, it would be wrong, and their boards and stakeholders would—and should—call them out.

This common Indian response—a mixture of irrational joy and unrealistic hope—may indicate an ingrained need for validation from the West.

Why do we have that need? Perhaps, whether we are conscious of it or not, our minds remain colonized, leading to a deep-seated inferiority complex. This usually finds expression in two ways.

One, many Indians who are ecstatic about Sunak’s win are the same people who adopt an apologetic tone when talking to people from the developed world, and readily agree with any criticism of India the person has to offer; in fact, we add our own negative comments about our country and its people to embellish the Westerner’s view. The messaging can be summed up as—Indians are like this only, but I am not like that.

A second form of expression is what has helped many Indians build successful careers in Western academia and media. Ever since the times of the Raj, there has been a large market in the West for research, books and media reports denigrating India, its culture, its social systems and its people. This India-bashing business has grown exponentially since Narendra Modi came to power in 2014.

Indian academics participate enthusiastically in international conferences devoted to discussing how India is on its way to becoming a horrific hell-hole, mostly without much basis in facts. A study by the Indian Institute of Mass Communication involving analysis of over 3,000 reports from leading Western media outlets found a clear prejudice in reportage—exaggerated negative headlines with minimal substance in the stories. Some of the most used words in the headlines were “fear”, “hate”, “violence”, “riot” and “mob”. And a large number of these stories were written by Indian staffers of these media firms.

These people perhaps believe that by telling foreigners that they are not like this only, or dissing India in international fora or media, they will be recognised as progressive global citizens. But many of them may be actually seeking approval from the West or inadvertently becoming “useful idiots” for those who wish to push an anti-India narratives.

However, I should mention here that I also find the hyper-nationalist rhetoric that India have conquered the world because Sunak is prime minister and Indians are heading some Western corporations rather silly.

Some Indian-origin people in Western governments even try to overcompensate. Soon after Russia invaded Ukraine, an American bureaucrat of Indian origin came down to New Delhi and publicly warned of “consequences” if India did not adhere to the sanctions regime imposed on Russia. Interestingly enough, after the Modi government protested strongly, Washington sacked him.

Also read: What leadership changes in a small island in Europe means for Indian investors

The most recent example is Suella Braverman, home secretary in the Liz Truss government. She said that she was proud of the British empire which had brought modernity and the rule of law to its colonies, and claimed that the largest number of people who overstayed their visas in the UK were from India. After she made some other controversial comments, she was finally sacked by Truss, but Sunak has now re-appointed her as home secretary.

Sunak, a third-generation Englishman—his grandparents had migrated to England and settled there—is as British as they come. Yes, he is a devout Hindu, and as he has told interviewers, he strongly believes in certain Indian values, such as the importance of a quality education to make something of oneself. But it is pure folly to expect that he will have a special place for India in his policies because of his ancestry.

There is enough reason for the UK to want to have better and closer economic and other ties with India. India is currently the second-biggest contributor of foreign direct investment in Britain, and Britain is the sixth biggest in India. The proposed trade deal between the two countries can be a win-win for both.

If Sunak attempts to improve India-UK relations, he will do so because he believes it will be good for Britain and its people. That is how it should be. We Indians have every right to feel happy when someone with Indian genes is exceptionally successful in the West, but it is also high time we stop seeking approval—consciously or unconsciously—from the West by either deriding India or through irrational exuberance.