The current betting odds projections show Vice President Kamala Harris holds a narrow lead over former President Trump to win the 2024 presidential election. If the predictions hold, Kamala Harris would not only be the first woman, and black woman president, but the first Indian-American president elected in American history.
Indian Americans make up the largest group of South Asian Americans and are the highest-earning ethnic group. They exceed most Americans in academic and professional fields such as medicine, software, and engineering. The U.S. benefits significantly from Indian migration.
Unfortunately, a Harris presidency would be a setback for U.S.-India relations. The general thinking surrounding foreign policy for the Cold War is now over. Administrations have come and gone and used foreign affairs as a partisan matter rather than what’s good for the country.
India, fortunately, does not fall into this category. Since the George W. Bush administration, every president has sought to strengthen the U.S.-India relationship through diplomatic, economic, and military means, particularly in countering the rise of China. The only consistent foreign policy agreement among Biden, Trump, Obama, and Bush has been the strategic partnership of India as an ally. However, Harris’s potential presidency could disrupt this status quo.
She’s limited her media appearances, and the campaign has produced vague policy proposals. However, selecting Minnesota Governor Tim Walz over more centrist choices like Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro or Arizona Senator Mark Kelly sends a message that she is deferring to the radical progressive base rather than appealing to mainstream independent voters.
As Vice President, Harris hasn’t delved too deeply into foreign policy matters, but given her leftward lurch, she’s not gaining much confidence that she will expand U.S.-India ties. In 2019, Harris threw her support behind Indian-American Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, who’s earned a reputation for criticizing the conservative Indian government in New Delhi.
Harris’s criticism of the Indian government stems from Rep. Jayapal’s exclusion from meeting with the external affairs minister, S. Jaishankar. His meeting was with the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a panel under which Jayapal does not serve. Still, Harris, a senator at that time, stood with Jayapal and even wrote on X, saying, “It’s wrong for any foreign government to tell Congress what members are allowed in meetings on Capitol Hill.” This public criticism of India’s diplomatic practices could lead to a significant deterioration in U.S.-India relations, as it undermines India’s sovereignty and could be seen as an attempt to dictate its internal affairs.
Harris’s unwavering support for Jayapal indicates her alignment with progressives in the Democrat party and their criticism of India’s democratic institutions. However, a Harris presidency could present a more significant problem for India. Her endorsement of the anti-India sentiment in the Democrat party, coupled with her support for the Kashmiri separatist movement, a militant Islamist group seeking independence from India and Pakistan, could have serious implications.
When India repealed Article 370, the clause that gave special status to the territory of Jammu and Kashmir, Harris released a statement saying, “We have to remind the Kashmiris that they are not alone in the world. We are keeping a track on the situation. There is a need to intervene if the situation demands.” Given the nature of the territorial dispute for India, it’s unwise for a potential U.S. president to wade into such matters or expect a working relationship with the leaders in New Delhi.
Former President Trump, despite his unorthodox governing style, is reported to have had a better working relationship with Prime Minister Narendra Modi than with Vice President Harris, most likely due to his right-leaning governing style in India. Trump is known to be eccentric in the Oval Office. Still, the U.S.-India alliance expanded during his term in office as he succeeded with bilateral negotiations and a sound national security team.
Vice President Harris has not shown good judgment in her political tenure, and there’s no reason to believe she would be a good president in foreign policy. Her impulses will lead her to fill the State Department with liberal activists rather than expert State Department officials. She cannot make independent decisions under the influence of Marxist academics that are pro-Khalistan and promote anti-Modi propaganda.
The Indian American community is a reliable voting block for Democrats, but they do not subscribe to extremist liberal ideology, which explains why Harris is having difficulty winning that group over. It’s unfortunate that Harris would be less Bush or Trump and more Trudeau of Canada, who accused Modi’s intelligence of killing a Khalistan terrorist in Canadian territory. Despite the Indian government’s compliance, it strained the relationship between New Delhi and Ottawa.
A Harris presidency would be a historic triumph for Indian Americans. However, it would be a setback for our alliance with India. The anti-India lobby running the White House and State Department would bring the U.S.–India relationship to its lowest point since President Clinton imposed economic sanctions in the 1990s.
video screen grab, edited.
Comments are closed.