Headline: Action and Strategy
Given the importance of both the Indian Secretary of State hitting Europe and the US Secretary of State telling India, it must be understood.
Do not drag India into your problems and do not talk about religious hatred in India, it takes courage to say; Does it matter though?
Two such incidents took place for the first time last week. One is that our Foreign Minister Subramaniam Jaishankar is hitting Europe on European soil. “Europe needs to come out of the idea that our problems are the problems of this world,” he said. The second incident was a direct statement by US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken regarding the growing religious ambiguity in India. “Attacks on places of worship and some religions are on the rise in the world’s largest democracy,” Blinken said. It is not uncommon for a US Secretary of State to make such a statement against India earlier. Needless to say, there is a lot of difference between what small officials, NGOs or public representatives say about India and what policymakers like the Foreign Minister do. A State Department spokesman reacted strongly to Blinken’s statement. Given the importance of both the Indian Secretary of State hitting Europe and the US Secretary of State telling India, it must be understood.
First about the Jaishankar statement. Before that he said congratulations. His statement ‘New India’ etc. shows that he will be welcomed at the national level for this. This is true in the current patriotic frenzy. However, this raises some important questions, the answers to which should be sought through this lesson. Jaishankar’s statement that the world need not worry about the European crisis. He cited the example of China in this regard. He said China and India should not look at the issue from the perspective of Ukraine, Russia and Europe. In short, Europe must see us and we must see ourselves. Clearly, this role is appropriate. However, given the fact that not all problems in Europe are issues of trust, there is no reason to raise the issues facing India to the world. There is no difficulty in accepting ‘our’ character so dry. But there is an energy crisis in India, so Saudi Arabia cannot demand to consider it. This demand was made by India and made public to India by the Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Is the Saudi prince right according to this new principle? Since India is corona-infected, we cannot ask the world’s leading medical research institutes to exclude India from intellectual property laws. It happened through us and was rejected by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other European leaders. So would you say their character is right? Also, in view of the international exchange signals it is not possible to expect free trade between India and various countries. At the international level, we always complain about Pakistan-sponsored terrorism and demand that the world pay attention. Is it fair if someone tells you that India’s problem is not a reason for the world to buy it? Our demand is to include more Indian youth in Europe or America for educational purposes. Would you welcome her further refusal to follow the new ‘our’ principle?
The second thing is Bilken’s statement. He says the United States is making this statement through the politics of votes in international relations. The action behind this is truly admirable. But what is the politics of opinion in international relations? Broadly speaking, this means that America is trying to please Islamic countries. If you hate these Islamic regimes so much, what do you mean by that our official delegation has just set out to discuss the current hardline Taliban regime in Afghanistan? We try to persuade Iranian ayatollahs to get oil, what is it? Wouldn’t it be vote politics if America showed a historic political move to go ahead and declare ‘next time …’ before the by-elections? While acknowledging that answering such questions is nothing new in this ‘largest’ democracy in the world, the question is whether the new strategy is to make it easier on the international stage to blame domestic oppositions for ‘vote politics’.
Earlier, in February, the US commented on growing intolerance in India. We also raise the issue of growing racial violence and gun culture in the United States. That is true. But the difference is that in the United States, there are systems that calculate government. If we were to assume that we have such an efficient system, the debate over whether anything could be improved would be suffocating. However there are those who believe that certain factors need to be considered. Criticisms of gun culture in America are reasonable. But we do not seem to have commented on her public footsteps promoting this culture. The reason behind this is that Republicans in that country are strong supporters of this gun culture, aren’t they? Former President and close aide to Indian leader JK Donald Trump recently said that teachers should also be given guns after a school shooting. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs has not yet commented on the matter. If not, is it part of ‘international opinion politics’? The second point is that the United States strongly condemns racist attacks in the United States. So should we expect our national government to oppose religious attacks just as strongly? The third point in this context is that the US should not talk about religious hatred in India due to racist attacks in America, which is called ‘what’ botry ‘. It is a privilege to shut the mouths of the opposition in national politics. However, international forums, including the American media, have not responded to such claims. They say that ours is as bad as yours and that no matter how bad it may seem in the spirit of extreme nationalism, the credibility of the American media is far more important than any political argument.
So this is a very important point. But that may not be the policy. Such action on the international stage can only be used for domestic advancement. ‘See; How to tell them ‘This reaction was really fun for all of us. But the approach is beyond such effort, it should not be forgotten.
Web Title: S. Jaishankar responds to Anthony Blinken’s remarks on religious freedom in India zws