Donald Trump in India: Pomp vs protocol was a slavish show, says Yashwant Sinha

US President Donald Trump’s visit to India has been a spectacle, an unprecedented show of all the time. It appeared as if God himself had descended on Indian soil. As a former External Affairs Minister and civil servant, I have never seen such a show.

I am a great believer in protocol and reciprocity in protocol between nations as it plays an important role in diplomacy. The reciprocity of protocol means equal treatment and nothing more and nothing less to any leader of any country.

However, the kind of spectacle we witnessed during President Trump’s visit is the manifestation of slavish mentality of Indians to white foreign dignitaries, especially from the US.

I mean we appeared completely in awe of the visiting US President. It was in full display during the entire visit. I don’t blame the government alone for this, unfortunately even the media displayed this same slavish mentality by reporting on things like what he ate, what he wore and what he said.

Does the Prime Minister of India receive similar treatment and attention during bilateral visits to the United States? That never happens. So, to me the Trump visit was a representation of continuing slavish mentality and not Atithi Devo Bhava as the government tried to project. If latter was the case, then even Maldives and Burkina Faso’s Prime Minister would have received similar treatment by the government.

I feel that India should have dealt with the US President’s visit politically and diplomatically like any other country on the principle of sovereignty and equality and not just gone overboard in showcasing it.

We now have a Prime Minister who believes in spectacles and spectacular shows. No other Indian Prime Minister in the past had indulged in making such a show of any US President’s visit and that too without getting much in return.

When I used to accompany the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to his visits in the US, he would attend town hall meetings and interact with people to convey our point of view. The same trend continued during the UPA’s tenure. None of the governments had bent over backwards to please the US President like Modi has done. I had never in the past observed such pomp and show at such a great cost to the exchequer.

President Trump came, did business worth 3 billion dollars in defence deals for US companies and has gone back. While we may take pride in ourselves in having bought helicopters and other equipment, the fact is that the US has been trying for many years to replace Russia as the major supplier to India of defence equipment.

For the US, the chief motive was doing business, but for us it has been a lot of sentiment and show of closeness. Trump has used this visit for sending signal back home about his efforts to sell US products and create jobs there, especially when the presidential elections are due next year.

Since Indian origin voters make a substantial part of the electorate, making a trip to India in the last year of presidency and getting a grand reception here would create an image of friendship that made great business sense for Trump. However, from India’s perspective by and large we watched as a bystander and not achieved much from the visit on which huge amount of taxpayer’s money was spent.

Another point that I want to make is that when Trump declared Modi as friend and CAA being an internal matter of India, a section of media gloated over this certificate as if it is everything.

It appears that we are seeking a good character certificate from the US while people are being killed in mob violence here, which is extremely shameful for any government. If they (the US) say something which is not agreeable, we tend to ignore it, but if they give us a good character certificate, we go all out to portray it as a great achievement irrespective of the ground situation.

Moreover, the trade deal between the two countries remained elusive. Since it has not been signed yet, it would be premature to comment about it. The discussions on increasing bilateral cooperation in energy sector, mental health and drugs are not of much consequence in the wider perspective.

As US Senator Bernie Sanders has pointed out that instead of focusing on defence, the leaders of two countries should have worked on issues like climate change, global warming etc. that would have impacted the future of the world. So, anything that Trump has taken back has not much consequence for the world at large.

Trump came to India and spoke about Pakistan and Imran Khan being a good friend. By saying this on Indian soil, he was trying to balance. On terrorism, Trump and Modi reiterated their earlier stand only.

Though I have not gone through details of the joint statement, from media coverage, it appears that Afghanistan and Taliban did not even come up for discussion. The deal that the Americans are planning to have with Taliban would make Pakistan a winner in the situation. Islamabad has always treated India as unwelcome competition in Afghanistan and if Pakistan gets that advantage, India’s everything—time, energy and investments- in Afghanistan would be put at stake.

Despite the call for a meaningful Code of Conduct in the South China Sea, Trump’s visit would not have much impact on bilateral relations with China. China has a very important place in Indian foreign policy, being the largest neighbour. Despite the historical disputes and disagreements, the two countries are making progress and have great economic cooperation. The relationship with China is independent of that with the US and the visit would not impact the region much. The Indian Ocean region rim countries concept is an old one and we have to build our own power and cooperate with each other to ensure rights and interest of all nations according to international law.