I know of youths and middle-aged people now in Delhi or Kolkata, who do not have a very good opinion on 'parochial forces' of northeast

Conventional wisdom reflected in much of the commentary on the diaspora’s political leanings underscores the diaspora’s simultaneous support for the left-of-center Democratic Party in the United States and the right-of-center BJP in India.

This raises the empirical question of whether such a contrast actually exists: Could the same person have divergent views on the same issues when considered in different contexts?, said a survey report from carnegieendowment.org in 2021.

Probably we have come back to the same debate yet again both in American contexts and in India when the polity has entered the election season. 

Or do respondents’ policy attitudes remain stable across countries and contexts?

If political views are universal, then Indian Americans should exhibit similar responses to similar questions in both the United States and India. If, however, views are contextual, then Indian Americans might hold more liberal views about policy in the United States and simultaneously more conservative views on policy in India.

Now look at some of the crucial aspects of foreign policy framing by the Modi government. On a wide range of issues — from the war in Ukraine to the war in Gaza, and on issues such as Taiwan — India has continued to avoid articulating a coherent policy stand. 

Whenever New Delhi has been vocal, it has done so to defend its right to be silent and neutral. 

At the same time, in recent years New Delhi showed a neo-assertive and affirmative policy stands. 

PM Narendra Modi in the last decade 're-defined' certain trajectories as he has used 'foreign policy' to espouse Hindu nationalist causes almost exclusively.

He did not play it as a defensive tool either. Hence the 'export of ancient Hindu culture' got an added emphasis and this meant inauguration of Hindu temples in Ayodhya and also abroad.

Notably prior to his era, for decades, India had portrayed itself as the poster boy of liberal democracy in the developing world. 

Some of these were not required or not in India's own interest. Under previous regimes, the Indian government showcased India’s syncretic, multi-religious culture, and its unique ability to 'foster and embrace diversity'. This might have harmed the interest of the majority community.

The world's largest democracy played up a faulty line that Minorities had a greater degree of entitlement and right and the Majority/Hindus could be insulted and discriminated against. 

But the governance-crime towards minorities and Muslims thrived. The Sachar committee report only exposed the top 'sickulars' - the Marxists.

Of course, India's neighbors over the decades descended into civil wars and communal chaos, and at the same minorities in India - both Christians and Muslims - did not integrate emotionally with India's national interest to the level they ought to. 

On their own minorities always thought Art 370 was necessary. The national integration in north east probably only meant naming few institutes in the name of Gandhis and Nehrus - ensuring chunk of votes for Congress party. Corruption thrived and parochialism was the order of the day. 

The cry from Sickular brigade on Manipur was never seen in the past when states after states and on annual basis Bengalis, Biharis and other Indians were discriminated against. The 'local' majoritarianism was far dangerous and hateful. 

I know of youths and middleaged people now in Delhi or Kolkata, who do not have a very good opinion on 'parochial forces' of the northeast. If there was 'unemployment', the lack of industries was not debated; the northeast organisations got busy chasing out 'outsiders' - either Plain manu in Nagaland, Vai naupangs in Mizoram or Dhwakers in Meghalaya.  

I know elderly people - and a few who expired - had last wishes of visiting and staying for a while in Jail Road house in Shillong or in some Bengal--infested colonies in Nagaland. 

Blogger: Open sky .... often allowed Candid talks 

Take the debates to the foreign policy front yet again. In recent years, India’s domestic politics has given Narendra Modi increasing common ground (with countries like China and Russia) on issues such as the regulation of human and business rights, the expansion of state control over sundry policy domains, and the containment of Western values in global governance.  

"Modi’s extraordinarily successful management of these inherent tensions in his dealings with the United States so far is perhaps his biggest foreign policy achievement," says a piece in 'The Diplomat'.  

The article also aptly highlights a few other aspects which call for closer scrutiny. 

PM Modi has envisaged India as an 'independent pole' in a multipolar world. And in the pursuit of that goal, Modi has also retained India’s long-standing policy of neutrality, non-alignment, and fence-sitting.

On a wide range of issues — from the war in Ukraine to the war in Gaza, from Iran to Taiwan — India has continued to avoid articulating a coherent policy stand. Whenever New Delhi has been vocal, it has done so to defend its right to be silent and neutral.

As a corollary, Modi has also continued and expanded the efforts of past governments in seeking a series of alliances with countries that are avowed enemies of each other. 

India has therefore been extremely comfortable in being part of both the Quad (with the United States and its allies) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (with China, Russia, and their allies). It has also been able to extract advanced weapons from the U.S. while simultaneously seeking opportunities for joint defense development with Russia, says the piece in 'The Diplomat'.

snap: The Diplomat 

ends