Fretting over US resolutions critical of India would be naive and foolish

In the last two weeks or so, there have been at least three resolutions pertaining to India introduced in the House of Representatives of the United States Congress — the first calling to pull up India on its human rights record and designate it as a country of particular concern on religious freedom; the second calling upon New Delhi to formally investigate the arrest, detention and death of Reverend Father Stan Swamy; and the third calling upon the Biden administration to deepen strategic ties with India in the context of the troubles in the Indo-Pacific through an amendment in the National Defence Authorisation Act.

On the surface, it is easy to dismiss resolutions seemingly critical of India as agenda-based politics, especially with an election around the corner; and in an effort of certain lawmakers to come away feeling good on such issues as human rights and religious freedom so as to humor their constituents.

The same could also be said of lawmakers supporting India as wanting to be on the safe side of the Indian American community that has come to play a strong role in American domestic politics. But present-day realities do not come in black and white formulations.

The Democratic Congresswoman from Minnesota, Ilhan Omar’s resolution hammers away at India’s human rights record and “violations” of religious freedom “including those targeting Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Dalits, Adivasis and other religious and cultural minorities” and calls on the US Secretary of State to designate India as a “country of particular concern” on the lines of a recommendation of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom. Omar, a Somali-American, has been critical of India and recently visited Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Her Resolution has been co-sponsored by three of her colleagues.

Also Read: Article 9, military posturing: Shinzo Abe leaves behind unfinished business

On the first death anniversary of Fr. Stan Swamy, Democratic Congressman from California, Juan Vargas, introduced a resolution demanding the government of India to set up an independent investigation into the “arrest, incarceration and death” of Fr. Swamy. Vargas who has two co-sponsors, has maintained that Fr. Swamy faced “relentless abuse” and was denied medical treatment in custody. The “mistreatment and incarceration of individuals advocating for human rights cannot persist”, the Resolution said.

And of some relief is a bi-partisan amendment to the National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA) introduced by Indian American Democrat Rohit “Ro” Khanna of California with the support of another Democrat and a Republican that seeks to strengthen bilateral defence partnership to meet the increasing threats in the Indo Pacific. “As China escalates its aggression along the Indian-Chinese border, the oldest democracy in the world must stand with the largest democracy in the world to send an unequivocal signal that sovereignty and international law must be respected … I urge the Administration to issue a CAASTA waiver for India to prevent any weakening of that important partnership. Failing to do so will only push India closer towards Russia given their security needs,” Khanna said.

The Biden administration has not had the last word on the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) as far as India’s purchase of Russian S-400 missile system. “We cannot allow adversaries like Russia and China to take advantage of our lack of action or bureaucratic hurdles. I look forward to seeing this important, timely, and bipartisan amendment make its way through the House,” Republican lawmaker David Schweikert said. The proposed amendment will have to be voted on by the House Rules Committee if it is to be taken up on the house floor for a debate during consideration of the FY23 NDAA.

For starters, it has to be realised that introducing resolutions is not a be-all-end-all game for each one would have to go through a process that is complex and could, in some instances, be quite time-consuming. Some resolution may not come up at all. For instance, the resolution of representatives Omar and Vargas will be referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee which will then determine whether to forward it to the full House for discussion and vote. In early 2021, the house committee came up with a rule saying that except in extraordinary circumstances, the committee or sub-committee, will not consider a bill or a resolution unless it has 25 members as co-sponsors including 10 who are members of the committee. And what constitutes an “extraordinary circumstance”, will be determined by the chairman of the committee in consultation with the ranking member and other members deemed necessary by the chair.

Also Read: Windfall tax: Government gets the rationale terribly wrong

In the present instance, the resolutions of representatives Omar and Vargas do not meet the threshold set by the House Foreign Affairs Committee; and even if by chance did, the committee would have to consider and pass on the resolution to the full House before the expiry of the 117th Congress given that elections are scheduled for November 8. The House is not in session for the whole of August for “district work” with September and October also taken up for campaigning as unlike the senate, all members in the House are up for re-election. And here is the kicker: even if the resolutions pass the committee and the full House; it is not law; it’s only a sense of the members of the House.

What is happening on Capitol Hill pertaining to India-related resolutions is quite subdued compared to the full-fledged circus-like atmosphere that prevailed in the 1990s and the early 2000s that this writer has been a witness to as a correspondent for a major newspaper. For close to two decades, Republican lawmaker Dan Burton of Indiana used to taunt and haunt successive administrations in New Delhi and Indian diplomatic posts in the United States through mostly preposterous and outrageous allegations of abuses of official India and its armed forces in Kashmir, Punjab and Nagaland, to mention three. Even before the days of social media, Burton and his ilk were all over with gory pictures and accompanying ‘statistics’.

All of this Burton nonsense fizzled once the stature of India moved up the ladder in the House and the Senate. For instance, in the early 1980s and the start of the 1990s, there was only a lone voice that used to speak up for India in the Congressional hallway, Stephen Solarz. Then came the Frank Pallones and Gary Ackermans and the House India Caucus in 1993 which now has more than 110 members. This was followed by the Senate India Caucus formed in 2004 with Senators Hillary Clinton and John Cornyn as co-chairs and now boasting of some 42 members. To this, add the weight of the Indian American community of more than three million that has moved from an exclusive Democratic leaning to Republican households as well, and there is a totally different ballpark and a picture.

Also Read: Boris Johnson quits, leaving Conservatives crippled and battered

Resolutions for and against India will be a part of the continuing political dynamics in Washington DC; and official India will be giving out spirited statements as and when needed or to set the one-sided record straight. But it is important not to get obsessed with imaginary and self-styled crusaders of human rights. The critical thing to bear in mind is that members of Congress in the United States are subject to different degrees of pressure from their constituency; for that matter, it is unrealistic to think Indian American lawmakers will have a consistent pro-India stance. Such an expectation is naïve at best and foolish at worst.

(The writer is a former senior journalist in Washington covering North America and the United Nations)

(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not reflect the views of The Federal)