Biden's statement: Battle of perceptions

Was President Biden's statement in Vietnam on discussing human rights and civil society issues with PM Modi perfunctory appeasement of his domestic constituency or another example of US interference?

US President Joe Biden held a press conference in Hanoi clarifying that in his personal meeting with India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Delhi, he had raised concerns about respecting human rights, the role of civil society and freedom of the press. The admission could signal a change in US perception of the policies and persona of the Indian prime minister and his regime.

Despite repeated requests from officials of the Biden administration, the US president was not allowed to address the US media corps accompanying him after meeting with Prime Minister Modi at his residence on the sidelines of the G20. Reuters reported that during the meeting, "the US press corps was sequestered in a van, out of eyesight of the two leaders – an unusual situation for the reporters and photographers who follow the US president at home and around the world to witness and record his public appearances."

Prime Minister Modi "has set out the protocols he's set out," said US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, explaining the denial of journalistic access. Claiming that the US considered this "a serious issue", Sullivan expressed his inability to do anything about it.

An assessment of President Biden's statements in Vietnam depends a lot on one's ideological and political predilections. Supporters of the government might dismiss them as a perfunctory appeasement of Biden's domestic constituency or as yet another example of US interference in the domestic affairs of other countries. However, in today's world, human rights, the role of civil society and the free press in democracies are no longer strictly domestic issues. They are institutionalised in various international protocols, declarations and treaties apart from the UN.

Biden's decision to publicly flag these as issues of concern with India could be attributed to the re-election he has to face within a year. They could indeed have been directed towards his Democratic support base of liberals, minorities and human rights votaries back home. The liberal media in the US was extremely critical of his close embrace of Prime Minister Modi, especially in hosting him at the White House in June this year. A mere sprinkling of headlines in the US press after the Biden-Modi Summit in Washington DC shows a tendency to see him as a controversial, if not authoritarian, personality – "The Biden-Modi meeting was a failure for democracy" (Time), "In hosting Modi, Biden pushes democracy concerns to the background" (The New York Times) and "Modi's White House visit tests Biden's democracy-vs-autocracy pitch" (The Washington Post).

US liberals did not buy into the argument that concerns about democracy could be traded for strategic interests, especially from a President who says that the defining struggle of our times is "the battle between democracy and autocracy". A US diplomat in Delhi is believed to have privately told some media persons that Biden had raised the issues of human rights, civil society and ensuring a free press with Prime Minister Modi in their one-on-one meeting in the US capital as well.

Another reason for US disenchantment may be that even on strategic partnership, India has not delivered on its concerns about China even while positioning itself as a bulwark against Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific. India even refuses to acknowledge that China has aggressively occupied territory claimed by it in eastern Ladakh. On Ukraine, the US would like India to take a clear position on Russian aggression instead of hiding behind clever diplomatese.

India has also not delivered to the US on Pakistan. Its belligerent posture is derived not only from Pakistan's continued role in sponsoring terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir but also because of the ruling party's ideology. However, given its past as a peace broker between the two countries, the US silence on the resurfacing of Pakistan-inspired terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir is intriguing. The US silence is particularly curious because Pakistan is at its mercy. It is standing at the doors of the IMF for a bail-out, having barely got out of the grey list of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

While the US clearly continues to see India as an important partner and global player, it may no longer be willing to do favours to a particular political party or leader. Signals emanating from Europe also underline this. The way Congress leader Rahul Gandhi is being feted in Europe not only by prominent universities and the Indian diaspora but even by European parliamentarians suggests a willingness abroad to listen to a different narrative about India than the official one. Taken together, it could be argued that the international community may not be averse to political change in India in 2024.

Similar shifts in the battle of perceptions may be taking place domestically as well. The Opposition alliance, INDIA, has already declared a boycott of 14 news anchors across nine national TV channels because of their "communal bias" and reportage "distant" from issues of public interest. Although the ruling dispensation has described this as "Emergency 2.0", by flagging the media's partisanship, the Opposition alliance is playing a bold game in the battle of perceptions.

Apparently, worried by the growing public acceptability of Rahul Gandhi (his press conference on the sidelines of the INDIA grouping's meeting in Mumbai saw nearly 300 media persons in attendance), a TV reporter was instructed by the head of a news channel owned by the government's favourite businessman, to disrupt it, to "create a ruckus" and "change the narrative". Although the TV channel has denied these allegations as "false" and "malicious", nevertheless, the reporter has resigned, refusing to follow the instructions given.

Quite subtly, international and domestic perceptions about India and the direction of its politics seem to be changing. The perceptions that the Indian government and its ruling party have advanced for the last ten years of India as an inclusive democracy and a key player in maintaining the international security balance, a "Vishwaguru" to boot, are losing ground.