Why isn’t the U.S. addressing India’s regressive farming bills?
For years, U.S. leadership has remained largely silent on India’s human rights violations in order to maintain a strategic partnership between both nations.
By: Sahiba Kaur and Karandeep Singh
Upon the onset of the Hindu Nationalist BJP party’s win in 2014, Narendra Modi’s Prime Ministership has realigned India’s fragile political structure toward right-wing politics. Historically, Modi has been a divisive figure due to his lack of intervention as the chief minister during the Gujarat Muslim genocide in 2002. In 2019, the Modi-led Indian government further polarized its image after passing the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), deemed “anti-Muslim.”
In its latest political attempt to strip Indians of their inalienable right to life and liberty, the Indian government passed three farming laws that have further deteriorated the fragile state of democracy. While first world leaders have come out against these bills, the world’s oldest and most formidable democracy has been quiet. The strong alliance between the United States and India has a lot to do with American silence. The tactical relationship, continuously cultivated for decades, has resulted in the U.S. turning a blind eye to oppressive laws, all in the quest to maintain its hegemony.
Obama-Modi Era
The Obama Administration saw Narendra Modi’s election as an opportunity to forge a strong and resilient relationship between the world’s two largest democracies. Before becoming India’s PM, Modi was banned from entering the United States — the U.S. State Department’s visa refusal cited his involvement in the Muslim massacre as a violation of religious freedom. However, as it became increasingly clear that Modi would be the elected PM, the U.S. reversed its position. President Obama was eager to capitalize on the Indo-American partnership. During Modi’s U.S. visit in 2014, both nations renewed the 2005 Defense Cooperation Agreement Act for another 10 years, stating that the U.S. and India would remain close partners on defense and intelligence issues. DAA allows India to acquire U.S. defense technology, and reap the significant benefits of being a defense partner of the United States.
Furthermore, Obama’s welcoming embrace of Modi was a strategic attempt to assert dominance and curb China’s rising influence under the Belt and Road Initiative, a long term investment and policy program aimed at accelerating infrastructure development and economic growth of the countries along the historic Silk Road. Currently, both the U.S. and India are involved in rivalries with China.
Trump-Modi Era
While the Obama-Modi relationship was tactical, President Obama on occasion did raise concerns to Prime Minister Modi of religious intolerance exhibited in India. “A country shouldn’t be divided into sectarian lines and that is something I have told Prime Minister Modi in person…People see the differences between each other much too vividly and miss the commonalities,” Obama said. However, once President Trump assumed office, he used his new power to fuel Modi’s divisive rhetoric.
Trump has long held anti-immigrant stances including restricting immigrants from seeking refuge in the U.S. In 2017, by executive order, Trump issued a travel ban on Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen citing the need to prevent terrorism as a matter of national security. However, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Intelligence and Analysis Unit concluded that people from the nations listed above posed no increased terror risk. Since the travel ban was enacted, the U.S. has seen a rise in violence, prejudice, and hate crimes against people in Muslim majority communities. In 2019 the Modi administration, under the Hindu Nationalist BJP Party, passed the Citizenship Amendment Act offering fast-tracked amnesty to non-Muslim illegal immigrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan who entered India before 2015. The bill is inherently rooted in islamophobia and blatantly violates the “secular” principles of the Indian constitution.
Trump did not outwardly condemn this discriminatory act. Instead, in December 2020, Modi was awarded the Chief Commander Degree of the Legion of Merit Award, one of the highest military awards in the United States. Trump lauded Modi for his “exceptionally meritorious service” as the leader of India.
Renewing the Defense Cooperation Agreement Act provided the U.S. with a partner to assert its defense policy in a region dominated by Chinese influence. Additionally, the United States now accounts for 15 percent of India’s military equipment purchases. During the Trump administration, India signed lucrative defense agreements with the United States that eluded previous Indian administrations. The agreement included arrangements promoting the two countries’ interoperability covering everything from logistics to communications. Since 2005, the Indian armed forces have conducted more joint exercises with the U.S. military than any other state. In addition to military cooperation, parallel policies have fostered extreme nationalist movements in both countries, aligning Washington and New Delhi closer together than in previous administrations.
Both Trump and Modi have been viewed as fascist leaders for their hateful rhetoric against minorities and dissenters. The extraordinary events of the insurrection in Washington D.C., fueled by Trump’s incendiary words, perpetuate the same narrative Modi and his party has projected to incite terror and violence against minorities and democratic institutions.
Ambani-Modi Era
When President Trump visited India last year, he was approached by Mukesh Ambani, India’s richest man. Ambani pitched the president on why U.S. companies should invest in telecom and his digital service business Jio Platforms. Ambani caught Trump’s attention by mentioning, “We’re the only network in the world that doesn’t have a single Chinese component.” As the pandemic intensified the anti-Chinese sentiment within India and the U.S., Silicon Valley agreed on four deals with Jio Platforms early in 2020. These deals sparked another Ambani influence in the U.S., along with his current Reliance empire.
In 2009, Modi awarded Ambani the “Pride of Gujarat” award, which led Ambani to endorse Modi for prime minister publicly. Once Modi was elected, he strategically influenced the Indian government to privatize specific public sectors that Ambani directly profited from. In a recent example, Modi enacted controversial farm bills in September 2020 that allows Ambani to benefit directly from the deregulation of agriculture.
Potential Biden-Modi Era
President-Elect Biden is expected to apply the same approach as Obama’s administration in tightening the relationship between the U.S. and India. While the Biden administration is expected to pay more attention to domestic human rights injustices developing in India, primarily sparked by the farmer protests, most experts believe the U.S. will not drastically alter its relationship with India as Biden values New Delhi’s leverage in helping counter China’s increasing global influence. Additionally, during Biden’s senatorial days, he played a crucial role in improving the relationship between the two nations. As addressed in his agenda for the Indian American community, Biden, in 2006 stated, “My dream is that in 2020, the two closest nations in the world will be India and the United States.”
As the Modi administration continues to infringe on its citizens’ rights, the U.S. remains silent. For American leaders, it seems counterproductive for the U.S. to address human rights abuses given the priority trade and defense receive on the foreign policy agenda. The United States’ interests in establishing democratic institutions worldwide have been placed on hold as these other objectives have taken precedence. The strategic partnership between the two countries positively affects their pursuit of power. The Trump administration’s racist rhetoric and exploitation of the capitalistic capabilities have effectively trickled into India. And the Biden administration will not want to alter their tactical relationship at the cost of disrupting the unipolarity, even as the blatant abuse of life and liberty occurs in the developing world.
