Make America Great Again Versus Make Hinduism Great Again

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Varghese K. George, associate editor at The Hindu, and till recently the newspaper’s U.S. correspondent based in Washington, D.C., has created quite a buzz in U.S. and Indian political and diplomatic circles with his book ‘Open Embrace: India-US Ties in the Age of Modi and Trump,’ particularly for his bold take on how these two leaders, both driven by notions of nationalism—Trump’s ‘Make America Great’ and Modi’s ‘Hindutva Strategic Doctrine,’ are reshaping their respective countries, and the impact of that process on their external ties.

In the introduction, George states that the book is a “broad exploration” of the question of whether Trump and Modi can “find common ground,” and on what happens to India-U.S. ties “when both countries appear to be under the spell of ultranationalism? Or, in Trumpian language, can Modi and Trump make a deal?”

But, he notes that what the book is not is a thesis of the strategic interests and calculations of the two countries, “or on the technical questions related to military equipment and tactics, the minutiae of trade deals and disputes, or on geopolitics.”

Open Embrace, according to George, is an attempt to offer “an unconventional approach to understanding strategy.”

Shashi Tharoor, Member of Parliament showers kudos on Open Embrace, describing it as “an outstanding work—a superb analysis of the state of Indo-U.S. relations in the Modi-Trump era, with a lucid explication of the Hindutva Strategic Doctrine and detailed discussions of Indian and U.S. policy differences on China, Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

Walter Andersen, Senior Adjunct Professor of South Asian Studies at the Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, and a former longtime State Department official, who co-authored ‘The Brotherhood in Saffron: The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Hindu Revivalism,’ says Open Embrace “addresses the impact of a growing nationalism in India and the U.S. on their conduct of diplomacy,” and lauds George’s “riveting” analysis of the foreign policy implications of Trump’s “Make America Great” and Modi’s Hindu nationalism.

Excerpts of the interview:

Q: What was the genesis of this book idea?

A: My posting in the U.S between 2015 and 2018 as The Hindu’s U.S. Correspondent gave me a unique vantage point. Before the U.S. posting, I was political editor of the paper and had covered the rise of Narendra Modi in India for several years. When I began covering the primaries for the 2016 presidential election, I could immediately feel some familiarity of topics and context. Though India and the U.S have different political systems, they are both multi-cultural and multi-religious societies facing anxieties triggered by globalization. I thought there is a book there.

Q: What’s with the title ‘Open Embrace’ and the book cover—Modi’s famous hug of all world leaders that seemed to catch Trump unawares during their White House summit, that wasn’t exactly reciprocated?

A: That is a bit of teaser, and reflects more on the hype that many people on both sides sought to project with the arrival of both Modi and Trump at the helm in India and the U.S. respectively. There was a narrative that while his predecessors were timid in displaying the affinity to the U.S, Modi was very open about it. After Modi’s five years and Trump’s two years, India-U.S.S ties are in turbulence due to the hyper-nationalist and protectionist politics of both. Still there is an open embrace - which is in terms of the values they promote. That is one reason why Trump said at White House that he and Modi were similar as in they spoke to people directly through social media, and not through intermediaries. That is an apt definition of the populism that they both share.

Q: Many analysts believe the rise of Modi and Trump as part of a larger global phenomenon of right-wing populist leaders coming to power by shrewdly exploiting the local economic and political situation. What is your take on that?

A: Yes, they are both part of the same phenomenon. Many people have, without any merit, compared Modi and Obama. But let’s take a quick look at the churn in India and the U.S. over the last decade plus. Obama was the first non-white president of the U.S, while Manmohan Singh was the first non-HIndu Prime Minister of India. Both were self-made people--scholarly, erudite, and extremely mindful of the need to accommodate different political constituencies within the borders and other countries abroad. The rise of the religious nationalism, in America’s case, a white Christian mobilization and in India’s case, a HIndu majoritarianism was in part a reaction to the fact that Obama and Manmohan Singh were in power. Trump and Modi became the faces of this reactionary majoritarianism. There were economic insecurities in both India and America and Modi and Trump channeled them into a sectarian politics. Both Modi and Trump believe and say that all their predecessors were fools and incompetent. Both of them say that they are the only ones who can deliver. Both of them have made their respective parties, the BJP and the Republican Party irrelevant in the scheme of things. Both of them have made consensus into a dirty word and rule by fiat rather than consultations. Both of them revile and dismiss experts and expertise from governance. Both of them are dismissive of the mainstream media. Trump at least faces the press frequently but Modi has not given a presser in his entire term in the prime minister’s office…I can go on. 

Q: Despite personal chemistry between the two leaders, lately, Trump, taking some hefty swipes at India and Modi on the issue of trade and Afghanistan. And, Modi has not responded to any of Trump’s comments so far. Why? And, how’s it being viewed in India?

A: Their parallel rhetoric and comparable demeanors apart, there is no chemistry between them. The Indian diplomacy was on an overdrive to project some sort of a soul connection between the two after they met at the White House in 2016. Trump also compared himself to Modi - as two leaders who talk directly to the people, without the media. But that said, their very personalities and politics make any chemistry between them impossible. In fact, I doubt either Trump or Modi can have any chemistry with anyone else, given their own self perception and insecure personalities. Their politics come in direct conflict. In trade, for instance, both are protectionist. Trump pushes a civilizational agenda; Modi’s Hindutva suspects Christian missionaries, and American charities and even non-religious organizations such as the Ford Foundation face severe restrictions under his regime. 

Q: Interestingly, you really go after in great detail about the hypocrisy of some Indian Americans, including progressives and heads of organizations that champion minority rights, human rights, civil rights, etc. in the United States, are in the forefront of cheerleading anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, anti-minority policies that the Modi government has been accused of. How do they rationalize it in terms of the probing you did for your book?

A: Indian Americans as a community, are mostly upper caste, middle class people from India, as a study by Devesh Kapur, Sanjoy Chakravorty and Nirvikar Singh has argued. Wherever in India they are from, this social group is generally the support base of Hindutva. In the U.S., Indian American community activism primarily had to respond to implicit and explicit biases and discrimination. America, generally speaking, essentialness India as Hindu. Racist attacks on brown people have often been laced with some abuses against Hindus. Indian American politics also, by design and default, essentializes India as Hindu. Modi’s politics also essentializes India as Hindu. The Madison Square speech of Mr. Modi where he spoke about India coming out of 1,200 years of slavery was premised on this argument that India is essentially Hindu. Indian Americans, at the receiving end of majoritarianism think that Modi’s majoritarian nationalism will make India progress and win them respect in America. Sunayana Dumala, the widow of Srinivas Kuchibhotla, who  was killed by a racist gunman in Olathe, Kansas, U.S. on February 22, 2016, for instance looks up to Modi’s ultra-nationalism for deliverance. She is a victim of racism and ultra-nationalism in America, but is effusive in her praise for Modi’s ultra-nationalism and in declaring her dead husband’s admiration for Modi. She is a Telugu, who in general are not supporters of Modi or BJP.

Q: In 2014, the U.S. establishment its hopes on Modi for taking the U.S.-India relations to the next level. During the time you were here in Washington, did you notice any buyer’s remorse among American business and industry that you included in your book?

A: Indeed. American businesses and fund managers thought Modi would have a benign social agenda and an aggressive reform-liberalization agenda. What has played out over the last five years is the inverse of it. A very aggressive social agenda, a Hindutva one, and a tepid liberalization push. In fact, a bevy of measures taken by him are market distorting, the starkest of them, demonetization. New restrictions on imports have been put. Overall, the buyer’s remorse in Washington D.C. and New York is unmistakable, though it is verbalized only in hushed murmurs.  

Q: At the end of your reporting tenure in Washington, what was your biggest takeaway?

A: I think the American establishment, the seat of which is D.C,, has little patience for the slow progress of things in New Delhi. I wish Americans - the State Department, the media, lawmakers, Congressional staff - were more appreciative of the complex ways of Indian democracy. In fact, they themselves know how difficult decision-making is in a pluralistic society--and they know things hardly move fast in Washington. But somehow, they always want some strongman in New Delhi who would be ‘decisive.’ That is a very fundamental lack of appreciation of Indian democracy.

Q: Back to the Indian American community and your perspective in terms of someone who was looking in as an outsider—are there are a lot of stereotypes about the Indian American community? Did you learn anything new about the community while covering it that you didn’t know already when you were first posted as your newspaper’s correspondent in the U.S.?

A: What is curious is the Indian American enthusiasm to fit into the stereotype of being a model minority. There is an argument that American lawmakers make without fail in all Indian American gatherings. That Indian Americans do well in America and not in India, because India is a dysfunctional place, with corrupt and inefficient politicians. Indian Americans themselves are the biggest promoters of this ahistorical, baseless stereotyping. Because that is self-validation, and self-justification for them. India’s underdevelopment has more complex reasons and the prosperity of Indian Americans also has complex reasons. But Indian Americans relish at promoting this stereotype about themselves and India. And, lo and behold, Mr. Modi himself promoted this stereotype about India as a dysfunctional place until he took over, and the reasons for Indian Americans’ success in America, in his Madison Square speech. if you listen to that speech carefully, it was an attempt to fit India and Indian Americans into prevailing stereotypes about them. 

Q: What your take on the recent shabby treatment and detention of Indian students in the U.S., who were all but accused by the State Department of gaming the systems? What does it say about the state of bilateral ties, particularly in facets of the relationship beyond politics and diplomacy, trade and business ties?

A: Many people thought because Trump was making confrontational statements about Pakistan and China he would be good for India. The Hindutva enthusiasts were also excited about his comments on Muslims and Islam. In the book, I discuss in detail about the fallacy of these arguments. Now after two years, we know that he is looking for a deal with Pakistan and China. India, in ‘America First’ politics, appears as an ally occasionally, but mostly does so as an other. On questions of trade, India and China are in same basket for Mr. Trump. On questions of immigration, India is an another in his politics.