Mirage Of Influence: Rise Of Indian-Origin Leaders In The West Brings No Real Benefits To India

The rise of Indian-origin political leaders in the West has often been met with a mix of pride and anticipation in India. 

However, the reality of their impact on India's interests is more complex and less favourable than often perceived. While their achievements are commendable, it can be argued that their rise does not always translate into tangible benefits for India.

Kamala Harris's ascendance to the role of Vice President of the United States was a historic moment, celebrated alike by Indians and Indian-Americans.

As the daughter of an Indian mother, her rise was seen as a new milestone for Indian-Americans in US politics, where they have done fairly well in recent years. She was a part of the small but significant "samosa caucus" — Indian-origin representatives in the Congress.

However, her politics, shaped by the Democratic Party's 'progressive' turn, has not always aligned with India's interests, to put it subtly.

Take, for instance, the curious case of Harris's niece, Meena Harris, whose unfair criticism of India over the farm laws triggered a mini diplomatic storm.

Meena's shrill rhetoric against India on Twitter (now X), perhaps an attempt to prove her American credentials and build a constituency among progressives in the Indian American diaspora, hurt India's interests by providing ammunition to those protesting against reforms in the country.

The fact that this happened even when the US government backed the reforms makes it more intriguing, and it couldn't have happened without Vice-President Harris's approval.

Indian-origin politicians in the West must prioritise their adopted countries' interests, which is natural. However, in today's highly divisive and polarised global political climate, they frequently have to prove their loyalty to their new homeland. This leads them, often intentionally, to adopt positions that are not in India's interests.

US Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal's stance on the Kashmir issue following the revocation of article 370 is a case in point. Her unfair criticism of India's policies in Kashmir, such as the suspension of Internet services to prevent the coordination of terror activities, hurt India's interests.

Jayapal, who was born in India and has immediate family, including her parents, living in the country, went so far as to introduce a misleading resolution in the US Congress against India on the issue.

Clearly, Jayapal had taken a page from the American establishment's playbook on using 'human rights' as a convenient tool for political grandstanding, and it was perhaps the same establishment that she was trying to impress.

It took a pointed rebuke from External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar to remind Jayapal that India is more than capable of defending its interests, no matter how theatrically she's trying to undermine them.

Nikki Haley, Preet Bharara, Bobby Jindal, and Suella Braverman may not be as overt as Jayapal, but they're not significantly different in their approaches.

Nikki Haley's political career further illustrates the complexities faced by Indian-origin leaders. As a prominent Republican and former US Ambassador to the United Nations, Haley has often adopted positions that resonate with her party's base but are at odds with India's interests. Her characterisation of India and China as "two polluters" in discussions on climate change is a case in point.

Such rhetoric, while politically expedient in the US, overlooks India's developmental challenges and efforts toward sustainable energy.

The case of Preet Bharara, former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, further illustrates this. His role in the prosecution of Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade, who had diplomatic immunity, for an alleged visa fraud, led to a major diplomatic spat between India and the US in 2012.

Khobragade was arrested and strip-searched, an action that enraged Indians. Bharara later justified the strip-search of the female Indian diplomat as "regular procedure". He said in his book that he was "proud of the case and how we [the US] upheld the rule of law." It is no surprise that Bharara is often seen as a self-loathing Indian immigrant who targets individuals from his own ethnic background.

Suella Braverman, the UK's former home secretary, was notorious for her anti-migrant stance and statements. She once described migration as a "hurricane that would bring millions more immigrants to these shores, uncontrolled and unmanageable".

The irony? — Braverman's parents emigrated to the United Kingdom in the 1960s. In the past, she opposed a trade deal with India, complaining that the Indians are infamous for overstaying their visas in the country.

Bobby Jindal, the first Indian-American governor in United States' history, once remarked that when his parents arrived in America, they wanted to be Americans, and not 'Indian-Americans'. A Hindu by birth, he converted to Christianity, perhaps to aid his rise in Republican politics, and rose through the ranks in Louisiana.

However, not all leaders of Indian origin in the West succumb to the pressure of giving up their roots to prove their allegiance to their countries. Despite this, their rise may still not lead to any tangible benefits for India.

For instance, Rishi Sunak's tenure as prime minister of the United Kingdom was marked by a conspicuous absence of progress in securing a UK-India trade deal. Sunak, who proudly displayed his Indian roots and Hindu heritage, was unable to address the many issues that plague India's relations with the UK.

The phenomenon of Indian-origin political leaders achieving prominence in foreign nations is undoubtedly a testament to the success and influence of the Indian diaspora. However, it is crucial to recognise that their rise does not necessarily translate into benefits for India. In fact, it is often the opposite.

These leaders operate within the constraints of their respective political systems and must rightly prioritise the interests of their constituents. The heightened scrutiny they face regarding their dual identities often compels them to take stances that align more with their nations' policies rather than with India's interests.