These days, American diplomats in India have a lot on their plates. They find a lot of time to interact with the opposition in addition to their regular task of educating the Indian public about “disinformation” and “correct political discourse,” for which they provide a platform to social media influencers and content creators with a particular political and ideological slant.
Jennifer Larson, the US consul general in Hyderabad, has been in meetings with the chief ministers of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, the TDP leader and NDA partner whose support is still vital to the survival of the Narendra Modi government, and AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, with whom she has exchanged “informed and important views on a range of shared issues and concerns”.
Though no such information has been provided, it would have been interesting to know what those “shared issues and concerns” are that the US ambassador discussed at the Center with a scathing opponent of the administration.
Remarkably, Owaisi may be the first Indian politician to raise doubts about New Delhi’s choice to provide sanctuary to the ousted prime minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina—a decision that rarely garnered bipartisan support in India—after she had a disastrous fallout with the US. There has been an ongoing rumor that Washington was involved in her removal on the back end. The US disputes any role.
By the way, on the day the diplomats arrived, the NC and the Congress Party agreed to share seats in the upcoming Jammu and Kashmir Assembly elections. It is noteworthy that this was the first meeting between political leaders in J&K and the US side following the revocation of Article 370 and the division of J&K into two Union Territories. It occurs shortly before the pivotal elections, in which the NC is running on a platform of restoring Kashmir’s “special status” and starting talks between India and Pakistan on Kashmir.
To be clear, one of the main diplomatic roles of consulates is to engage in meetings with leaders of Opposition and to promote subnational diplomacy by interacting with the leadership of various Indian states. Communication lines with opposition leaders are often established by states, and it is expected of Indian diplomats working overseas to follow suit.
Additionally, the visit to J&K would have needed clearance from intelligence services and special permission from India’s Ministry of External Affairs, which translates into the reality that these meetings are held in plain view of the government.
Nevertheless, the US is not simply another nation, and Jammu and Kashmir is a delicate border region that is about to return to normal after decades of terrorist attacks and a violent separatist movement that Pakistan encouraged in an effort to take Kashmir from India. Given the rarity of such meetings in the past, American interest in meeting the major players at a pivotal moment is sure to spark curiosity and questions.
There is no denying that after the general elections of 2024, the balance of power has shifted. The Opposition is now more motivated than ever. These visits are a recognition of that altered world and its result.
However, there are concerns that these meetings are more complicated than they seem due to the meddling nature of America’s hegemonic liberalism, its activist impulse, and the particular circumstances of an unstable Indian subcontinent, for which Washington can rightfully take much of the blame.
New Delhi has no doubts about the US’s importance as a strategic ally, and a major factor in that calculation is the threat that China poses. In a talk on Friday at the think tank Vivekananda International Foundation in New Delhi, India’s minister of external affairs, S Jaishankar, described Washington as “indispensable for India’s multipolarity” and the US-India relationship as “invaluable” for “strategic and economic purposes.”
Even while it is obvious, there are other realities as well. The US does not act in a vacuum, and this is not an alliance. At the event on Friday, Jaishankar stated that the partnership is more about “overlapping interests and the ability to work together on issues, areas, and theatres which suit us” than it is about “congruence” or a “alliance.”
What he failed to mention is that there are domains in which interests diverge, and Bangladesh is a prime example of a situation in which the two parties cannot agree. For example, during a recent phone conversation where US President Joe Biden started to talk about Modi’s recent visit to Ukraine, both parties provided different readouts, and it is clear from these that they had quite different perspectives about the instability in Bangladesh following Haina.
The “two leaders expressed their shared concern over the situation in Bangladesh,” according to the Indian statement. They placed a strong focus on restoring law and order and guaranteeing the protection and security of minorities in Bangladesh, especially Hindus. The White House briefing made no mention of the unstable country or the crimes committed against Hindu communities.
This is not unusual. It serves as a reminder that there are other groups and rival power centers in Washington who are not hesitant to put the two countries’ relationship to the test. Defense ties are strengthening, but as I had argued in a recent column, the liberal internationalist faction within the Biden administration, for example, works nonstop to increase anti-government and pro-Opposition space in political discourse and prefers an India torn apart by internal conflict and structural weakness over political-ideological domination by a single force.
In situations where it believes that democratic principles or human rights are “endangered,” his hegemonic liberalism appropriates the right to meddle and intervene in the internal affairs of other independent countries. Frequently, this activism turns out to be ineffective and even harmful to the stability of the nations and the area.
In other regions, this American overstretch also causes problems for its partners. The idea that America’s bungling attempts at involvement have contributed to the instability of the Indian backyard, which includes countries like Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Afghanistan, may not be oversimplified, leaving India with a problem with national security.
Liberal internationalists who are willing to use force to advance their agenda in democratic portions of the world are undoubtedly troubled by complications in their moral crusade. Washington has made several forceful denials in response to accusations that the United States was involved in the toppling of Hasina under the guise of an organic student-led revolution. However, the evidence shows otherwise.
According to an article published in the South Asia Journal last year, on October 16, US deputy assistant secretary (South Asia and Central Asia) Afreen Akhter met with then-foreign secretary of Bangladesh Masud Bin Momen and gave the ruling Awami League government an ultimatum: either Hasina cedes power by November 3 or face the consequences.
The story, which cited anonymous sources, asserted that Hasina was effectively given two options by the US, which had accused Hasina’s government of violating human rights and weakening democracy. She can give President Muhammad Shahabuddin the reins, or even better, step down and appoint the Speaker to lead a caretaker administration charged with ensuring “truly free, fair, participatory, and inclusive elections.”
Interestingly, the “suggestions” from the United States closely resembled the requests made by the largest opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), which sought to appoint a caretaker administration to oversee the voting process. The US did not confirm nor deny the news that Washington had delivered an ultimatum when questioned about its accuracy. Instead, it asserted that it does not take sides or favor any political organization over another.
The dramatic breakdown of bilateral relations that transpired over the next few months culminated in Hasina’s resignation. Key Awami League figures faced penalties and visa restrictions from the US, which claimed that its embassy was not secure. Subsequently, US ambassador to Bangladesh, Peter Haas, met with the relatives of those who were allegedly pushed into disappearances in Dhaka, further straining relations between the two countries.
According to Hasina, there is an attempt to “carve out a Christian state like East Timor taking parts from Bangladesh and Myanmar.” She also said in May, during a post-election speech at Gono Bhaban, that a “white man” had offered her a “hassle free re-election in January if she allowed a foreign country to build an airbase in Bangladesh territory.” Hasina has refused to cede power until the very last minute.
Hasina accused the US of meddling in her farewell speech to the 22nd Parliamentary session in April of last year, claiming that Washington is so strong that it can topple any government in any nation if it so chooses.
