John Brittas writes: Taking India's message to world

Indian Express

21-05-2025

In 1994, when P V Narasimha Rao was Prime Minister, India sent a delegation to the United Nations headquarters in New York led by Farooq Abdullah. India's permanent representative to the UN at the time was Hamid Ansari, who would later become the country's Vice President. After the discussions concluded, the Indian delegation came face to face with Pakistan's permanent representative to the
UN, Jamsheed Marker, who posed a sarcastic question to Ansari and his team: 'Aren't there people in Hindustan other than Muslims?'
That question perhaps encapsulates India's syncretic and pluralistic culture — and how starkly it differs from Pakistan's choice of becoming a religion-based theocratic state after Partition. Notably, this was also the same year that Indian bipartisanship was showcased to the world in Geneva, where Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Salman Khurshid helped thwart a UN resolution against India on the Kashmir issue, returning home to a rousing reception.
The public outreach diplomacy under Narendra Modi today echoes that same bipartisanship, though in an unexpected form, as the Prime Minister broke his usual pattern to embrace cooperation and uphold India's foundational values of pluralism in both society and policy-making. The central aim of the multiparty delegations to various countries is to strengthen India's international relations and reinforce its stance against terrorism in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, by showcasing our diversity and plurality against a military-theocratic state that supports proxy wars and kills innocents. Truth be told, the decision to dispatch such teams raised eyebrows because the Centre 'deviated' from its usual approach.
The members of these delegations hail from parties with serious differences of opinion but are united by the larger cause of the country, embodying the spirit of our Constitution-inspired values and democracy. This is certainly a welcome development.
At the same time, questions persist: Could there have been a more coherent way to carry out the initiative? Why has the PM avoided calling an all-party meeting to discuss Operation Sindoor? Why is the Centre reluctant to convene a special session of Parliament? Would it have been more impactful if the delegations left after fruitful discussions in Parliament?
The Pahalgam incident, where innocent civilians were gunned down in a cowardly terrorist attack designed to cause chaos, has brought political parties together in solidarity with the Centre during this grave national security crisis. Meanwhile, purveyors of hate, especially media houses aggressively chasing TRP nationalism with bombastic and foolish rhetoric, are running amok. Can the government not act? Yes, but no such move has been made. Even within the government, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri became a victim of cyber mobs, forcing him to lock his X handle. I can list others, including Himanshi Narwal, wife of Navy officer Lieutenant Vinay Narwal — killed in the Pahalgam terror attack — who faced online abuse after she appealed to the public not to spread hatred against Muslims or Kashmiris. Colonel Sofiya Qureshi was targeted by a minister from Madhya Pradesh whose apology, the Supreme Court later said, lacked sincerity.
Our media — and, for that matter, social media — should not dictate foreign policy, especially during a national crisis. Our Ministry of External Affairs needs to explore the possibility of effectively using its social media handles to expose the fake news generated within the country aimed at vitiating our social atmosphere and influencing foreign policy narratives.
While the idea of dispatching outreach teams to defend the idea of India is understandable, the government could have adopted a more inclusive approach by consulting various parties about the composition of these delegations. Doing so would have enhanced bipartisan appeal. Genuine dialogue and consultations would have enriched the process. It would have been a far greater demonstration of unity across party lines and fortified our credibility on the global stage.
The treatment meted out to Ali Khan Mahmudabad, associate professor at Ashoka University, over a harmless social media post and flimsy charges is also deeply disconcerting. There is widespread condemnation of the incident, which could and should have been avoided, especially at a time when the nation stands united.
Frankly, we should not have merely denied the American claim that they mediated the ceasefire talks between India and Pakistan. When Pakistan's defence minister, Khawaja Asif, admitted to the country's long history of supporting, training, and funding terrorist organisations as 'dirty work' for the West, India lashed out at Pakistan but not at the West, which had enabled that work. In the case of the ceasefire, denial alone was inadequate — a firm rebuttal would have made more sense.
We are a pluralistic democracy and economically 11 times greater than Pakistan, while the latter continues to descend into chaos due to foundational missteps. And yet, Pakistan garners sympathy from multiple quarters, including global institutions that disburse loans at the behest of American interests.
To sum up, the outreach teams could be an initiative to engage with foreign governments, formal institutions, civil society, and opinion-makers to build support for India's commitment to social harmony and multiculturalism, which, from a Pakistani point of view, Marker once found perplexing. As is often said, while many countries have a military, in Pakistan, the military has a country. We embarked on a different path thanks to our founders and the spirit of our Constitution. And we must not only cherish it but uphold it. Bipartisanship is one key aspect of championing this cause.
The writer, a Rajya Sabha member from the CPM, is member of one of the seven multi-party delegations that will visit key nations after Operation Sindoor