America India bhai-bhai?

The US, China, and India: The Realpolitik Equation

Unless America gets its act together, China could, in theory, move to take over Japan and Taiwan in the future. The goal would be to control key industries and dominate the Pacific.

There have also been media reports about a covert meeting between Rahul Gandhi and officials of the American administration. 

This has fueled speculation that the US may want a regime change in India.

But realpolitik will likely force America to choose differently.  

Washington will have to prefer even a non-acquiescent, often inconvenient, BJP government under Modi over a Congress government led by Rahul Gandhi.

Why Congress Doesn’t Fit the Moment

Culturally and strategically, the Congress does not have the mindset or the resolve to stand up to China, even when the situation demands it.

The Doklam crisis is proof. In the middle of a military standoff between Indian and Chinese troops, Rahul Gandhi was caught meeting the Chinese ambassador in secret.  

Then came the revelation of a secret MoU between the Congress Party and the Chinese Communist Party, an evidence of an unholy bonhomie.

The Congress’s pro-China tilt was on display again when senior leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury asked the PM to grant Taiwan the diplomatic recognition it deserves.  

One would have assumed this was meant to align with the national mood after the Wuhan virus leak, which caused a global pandemic, lockdowns, and massive disruption.  

Instead of irritating China, it caused instant discomfort within his own party.

The Congress was quick to distance itself, saying, "That may be Mr. Chowdhury’s personal view. The Congress recognizes the special partnership between China and India."

What America Actually Needs From India

The US needs a long-term, strategic partner in India to counter China.  

A strong India keeps China distracted. A weak India forces China to keep India busy by arming itself, draining funds away from infrastructure and governance.

Despite India refusing to toe the US line on Russia-Ukraine, and despite rejecting an offer to join NATO, India has still become indispensable to the West.

The American president’s geopolitical job is only getting harder. He needs all the help he can get.

What the US really needs is a new direction, a leader with clarity of the long-term, but with a worldview that puts America first without ignoring what some nations of the world can offer it. 

Historically, Republicans have understood India’s concerns better, especially on China and Islamic terror, two areas where the Indian and American interests converge. 

Putting America first would align with PM Modi’s India First. The European West, Japan, Israel, UAE, & Australia are on the same page. 

The Way Forward 

America needs to de-escalate.  

It needs to move away from endless wars and think out of the box with a more accommodative worldview.

Without the baggage of the NATO template, it should:

1. Work with India to build future-ready technologies.

2. Use India’s influence to manage Russia, save face, and secure energy cooperation from it rather than attempt to defeat it through economic sanctions and proxies.  

 

3. Jointly strategize with India to contain a more belligerent China or the global terror networks in the years ahead. 

Russia is aging. In a few years it will struggle to hold its massive landmass. But it has one of the highest stockpile of nuclear weapons. 

Like India and most of China’s neighbors, Russia also has contentious border issues with China. It may be willing to shift sides in exchange for a firm promise of no NATO expansion on its borders.

NATO, in any case, is a Cold War relic that America has kept alive well past its expiry date.

The Final Word

All of this must be done without America acting like the "senior partner" or giving India unsolicited advice publicly. That would defeat the purpose.

There’s wisdom in an old saying: It is better to bend than to break.

America needs to get that!

Your language decides the future performance capability of your entire team!

The defining moment in the recent legal and peaceful student protest at Jantar Mantar that overflowed onto the streets and transformed into an unlawful and awful anarchy was marked by verbal diarrhea by some of the protestors.

Young ladies and girls as young as 15 were heard hurling choicest abuses at the prime minister who is old enough to be their grandfather, including at his deceased mother. 

Prime Minister Modi noted the cultural shock that the nation was experiencing due to these depraved girls and young ladies, but still forgave them and urged the youth to reform themselves and take the higher path. 

If there was an award for name-calling, it would have to be shared by everyone on the opposition benches.

Sure, Madam Sonia Gandhi was called "Italy-ki-beti" or Italy's daughter (and therefore unfit to understand the civilizational moorings of Bharat) by the ruling NDA when it was in opposition. Mr. Rahul Gandhi has been called "Pappu" by the public.  

But all that pales compared to what Modi ji has been called and this was led by none other than the senior-most leaders of the opposition.

Yes, Modi has been vilified beyond comparison and comprehension.

In fact, the industry of name-calling was started by Sonia Gandhi herself. 

About decades ago, she was rarely seen in New Delhi or in her own constituency. 

She was busy campaigning in the Gujarat Assembly polls, desperately trying to stop the rise of Modi, then the CM of the state.  

Her clarion call was: Modi is a "merchant of death."  

What followed were "mass murderer," "intolerant," and "dictator."  

Soon the comparisons became Hitler, Mussolini, and Milosevic.

Despite all the venom, Modi won that election and kept rising. 

He has never lost an election.  

That name-calling of Modi by his detractors couldn't stop the beginning of history making for Modi - not just in Gujarat, but in New Delhi, and eventually in world politics.

Even after receiving 9 international awards, the Pakistani PM Imran Khan repeated some of those same phrases at the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, in front of world leaders. 

He started by saying he would not have come to the UN if he did not feel that some "urgent issues" needed to be addressed and then went on to say that Modi is a life member of the RSS, "an organisation inspired by Hitler and Mussolini."

None of that stopped Modi ji's ascent or the withering of those opposed to him. 

It begs the question: Why?

The answer is in the utility of language. 

Steve Zaffron and Dave Logan, in 'The Three Laws of Performance,' put it simply:

1. How people perform depends on how situations occur to them.

2. How situations occur to them arises in language.

3. Future-based language transforms how situations occur to people.

Politicians and people regularly use language in the present to sell fear or hope in the future. 

Communication is the most powerful asset for any person - especially for a politician who must mass communicate. It is also the only quickest way for the listener to judge the speaker. 

A politician’s language can show you a dream or a nightmare. 

It cannot show you reality, because reality is a matter of perception and differs for everyone.

It is all about the emotional context in which the words are spoken and heard. But one thing is common - everyone wants a brighter future!

Language gives us a clue about a leader’s intent and the goal he has in mind.  

Tone decides the tribe.  

A constant negative goal with a depressing tone makes people gather to fight what’s coming. A consistent positive goal with an aspirational tone makes people gather to claim what’s coming.

If the message is value-based and sharply future focused, it is less about eloquence and more about the consistency of engagement by the speaker that leads the followers to not just remain mute appreciators, but in fact turn volunteers and contributors to the speaker's cause, as it's as much their own. Individuals then coalesce to become an interest group, often a motivated, fused block.  

It explains why Modi enjoys an army of ardent followers - whom his detractors mock as "bhakts" or blind followers.

Even when patience is in short supply, implementation issues or slight delays matter less if the future is communicated with honest conviction and some results are already visible. 

The public does empathize with Modi as it understands: the future is a work in progress.

The public also knows this: if a person has no bright ideas about the future and shows no agenda based action, a dark outcome is almost assured.

That explains why Modi's opposition continue to fail - they are discordant and portray nothing beyond Modi's occasional temporary shortcomings or inadvertent errors. 

In politics, future-driven language is everything, including when leaning on evidence or experience from the past.

For the most part, the opposition is silent on the work done by it in the few states it is still in power or about their future development plans. Instead, it indulges in personal attacks.

And when it does talk about present problems at the center, it still faces flak, because "Today" is nothing but "Yesterday’s Tomorrow," when Today’s opposition was in power Yesterday. It was they that had promised this bright Today.

That long night of Yesterday is over. People now realize they were taken for a ride.

So, what exactly is Modi’s secret sauce?

What most people don’t understand about Modi ji is that it is not just his oratory skills but it is his rich value-based language and future-driven tone that wins him votes and fans alike. Who dosen't want a Viksit Bharat? 

Modi just dosen't talk, he communicates. Period. 

That’s why, instead of anti-incumbency, his pro-incumbency victories are worthy of great communication lessons. 

His slogans, "Achhe din aane waale hain" or Good days will surely arrive, and "Sabka sath, sabka vikas" or Together with all, development for all, are not just words - they are a complete and whole aspirational narrative of hope in themselves!