Trump swears in India's participation – Daily Excelsior

By Professor (Dr) DK Giri
(Prof. NIIS Group of Institutions)

Donald John Trump has returned to office as US president for a second term after a four-year hiatus. He becomes the 47th president of the United States. There are many discussions across the world, particularly in India, about the nature of the inauguration ceremony and the participation of different countries. The media is full of who among the participants, especially those who participated and those who did not or could not do so. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, considered a close friend of Donald Trump, was conspicuous by his absence. Critics, admirers and parts of the media are making noise about the fact that Modi was ignored by Donald Trump's inauguration ceremony team.

Throughout 248 years of American political history, the convention has been to invite junior ministers or diplomats, not heads of government or state, to the inaugurations of American presidents. Trump, as usual, broke tradition and invited a few government leaders and politicians, mainly from the right of the ideological spectrum. He also invited some of his rivals, notably China's Xi Jinping. In both areas, Modi was an obvious candidate to serve on Capitol Hill.

Notable politicians included Argentine Prime Minister Javier Milali, a close Trump ally, Hungarian President Viktor Orban, a Trump admirer, Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni, a right-wing politician, President of El Salvador Nayib Bukele, former Prime Minister Boris. Johnson of Britain, a right-winger, Eric Zemmour, president of the French Nationalist Party of Reconquest, a staunch right-winger, Nigel Farage, leader of the anti-immigration British Reform Party, an ultra-nationalist. Australia and Japan were represented by their foreign ministers, as were India and China by its vice-president Han Zheng.

As expected, a large group of businesses were present at the Capitol. Besides obvious names like Sunder Pichai, Mark Zukerberg, Elon Musk (member of the Trump team), there were a number of Indian or Indian-origin businessmen. To name a few, Ashish Jain of a Pune-based real estate company called Kundan Space, Trump Towers project partner Kalpesh Mehta, Pankaj Bansal, M3M Developers and of course, Mukesh and Nita Ambani flew out of India to be part of the project. ceremony.

Why was Modi excluded? Was this a deliberate omission on the part of the Trump administration? It certainly cannot be an oversight. There could be two possible interpretations of Modi's absence from the big international event. First, in the case of India, the Trump team stuck to tradition and did not invite Modi to head the Indian government. This perspective flies in the face of the fact that Modi is supposedly close to Donald Trump. He had openly declared his support, breaking with Indian political tradition, for Donald Trump during the 2020 presidential elections.

US Ambassador Eric Garcetti said the interpersonal ties between Modi and Trump were surprisingly close. He said in an interview about the inauguration: I think it would be more meaningful for Prime Minister Modi to meet President Trump one-on-one rather than being part of a very large crowd. He also hinted that a White House invitation for Prime Minister Modi would arrive very soon.

The second interpretation is that Modi was deliberately not invited to the inaugural ceremony. This view deserves introspection and investigation as India-US relations grow closer or rather expected to strengthen in view of the emerging geopolitical scenario in the Asia-Pacific region. If we stick to Modi's theory of ignorance, it is so that the reasons for such an eventuality are identified.

In my opinion, three possible reasons appear; it is about India's strategic autonomy, New Delhi's criticism of American agencies in matters of democracy, etc. and its turbulent bilateralism with Canada in recent times. Let us expand on these points because it is time for a reality check, irrespective of Modi's absence from the ceremony and given Trump's ascendancy at the high table.

Some of us argue that strategic autonomy, a restatement of non-alignment or a euphemism for multi-alignment is not a tenable position in an interdependent world. Any country, large or small, cannot afford strategic autonomy. The great powers will neither appreciate nor accept such positions. Certainly not Donald Trump who likes to have friends and enemies. His team, since his last term, has openly declared China as a strategic rival, but has not made it clear that India is a friend the way Washington treats Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, the United Kingdom United, Canada and some other countries. New Delhi is paying a heavy price for its defense purchases to strengthen its deterrence in the name of strategic autonomy. In a poor country like India, this is absolutely not recommended.

Interestingly, New Delhi is paid in its own currency, so to speak, like other countries, its neighbors are certainly balancing their relations between Beijing and New Delhi, perhaps in the name of strategic autonomy. Consider the case of Nepal, which has been India's closest ally, Sri Lanka, again India's closest, Bangladesh, which balances India with Pakistan, and the Maldives . Pakistan entered the Chinese sphere of influence and almost became a satellite state. Can New Delhi blame its smaller neighbors when it did the same with the US and the former USSR, and now with the US (Quad) on one side and China and Russia on the other? the other (BRICS, SCO)?

Following the concept of strategic autonomy, India too began, wrongly, to behave like a great power. The fact that New Delhi has become the fifth largest economy in terms of GDP may have given this premature confidence. Politicians in power exaggerate this fact for political purposes. Yet, it is important to realize that India has not yet arrived on the world stage. A slice of statistics should dispel this misconception.

In terms of GDP per capita, India ranks 142nd in the ranking. The growth rate, which was 7.8 percent between 2004 and 2014, fell to 5.8 percent. This is not enough to become a developed country and a global power by 2047. Is India the fastest growing economy? Yes, that's true, but it's the second fastest in over 20 years. As China's economy, which was the fastest, slowed down, India became number one. In reality, the Indian economy has not galloped as claimed.

Concerning relations with Canada, the American government will be very sensitive because it considers that it is its backyard. In fact, Trump, in his inimitable style, suggested that Canada become the 51st state of the United States. Justin Trudeau, who argued with Indian leaders, is gone. The other party, namely Modi, might also have come under Trump's scanner. Added to this is the fact that New Delhi constantly criticizes US agencies for their comments on Indian governance and democracy, etc. Trump himself was the target of the American media, but he did not pursue them.

In conclusion, Modi being barred from the Capitol during the inauguration might be a trivial political issue. But this important event should prompt current Indian leaders to rethink some of the points raised here. Introspection and course correction are necessary for democracy and good governance. —INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
New Delhi
January 22, 2025