Our PM deserves credit for dealing deftly with an unpredictable individual.
President Donald Trump is the sixth US President to pay an official visit to India. The first was Dwight Eisenhower in 1959. The road from Palam airport to Rastrapati Bhavan was lined on both sides by tens of thousands of people the President stayed at Rashtrapati Bhavan. A public meeting was held at Ramlila ground. I was present as one of the junior IFS officials attached to the Eisenhower delegation. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru said it was the largest meeting ever held at the ground.
Next came Richard Nixon in June 1969. I would term it a non-visit. Indira Gandhi was correct but cold. Nixon was accompanied by Henry Kissinger, perhaps the most outstanding Secretary of State of the 20th century, but sophisticatedly slippery. He is alive, 97, but not kicking.
The other four were Jimmy Carter, 1978; Bill Clinton, 2000; George Bush Jr, 2006; and Barack Obama, 2010 and 2017.
President Trump arrived in Ahmedabad on the afternoon on 24.2.20 to a rapturous welcome. He was accompanied by Mrs Melania Trump, an elegant, stylish and not pushy first lady. The President made it abundantly clear of his close friendship with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his high regard for India and her global importance. His speech at the stadium could not have been better. Not a word, not a phrase was jarring or out of place. He said a lot and conveyed even more. He spoke with genuine sincerity.
A pilgrimage to Sabarmati Ashram had its own charm and significance. I doubt if Mrs Trump knew anything about Gandhiji or the President about a charkha.
The Modi-Trump hug has almost become a trademark. The two leaders obviously get on well and enjoy each other’s company.
The joint statement gives the minuses and pluses. The most important portion addressed political and security issues and the upgrading of bilateral relations to a comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership. The Indo-Pacific figures prominently, as does “Asean Centrality” and the “Quadrilateral”, which will ensure security cooperation among Australia, Japan, India and the United States.
Some forward movement is on the horizon for the purchase of six nuclear reactors under the Indo-US nuclear deal. Alas! The trade deal could not be clinched.
One saw a side of the US President, not so far known—verbal restraint and not putting his foot in his mouth. Our Prime Minister deserves credit for dealing deftly with an individual, who is not only unpredictable but also given to mixing up fact with fiction.
* * *
It was a colossal tragedy when Northeast and East Delhi exploded with communal fury, reminding of 1992, 2002 and 1984. This avoidable gruesome horror occurred when President Trump was still in New Delhi. A few thoughtless, over-zealous, irresponsible members of the BJP, by resorting to provocative utterances, were to a large extent to blame for the deaths and destruction in four localities in Delhi. Thirty eight died, hundreds injured, widows wept with inconsolable grief, young children lost mothers and fathers. The police could have, should have acted swiftly and mercilessly to control the riots. The media in India and abroad, particularly in the United States and the United Kingdom, gave to priority to the killings than to the President from mid-afternoon on the 25th.
How long will it take to heal these communal wounds, how to build the houses and shops destroyed.
The Congress party has not contributed anything constructive or realistic. To ask for the resignation of the Home Minister was neither. The customary march to the Rashtrapati Bhavan was an exercise in futility. What did the Congress delegation led by Sonia Gandhi expect the President to do? Sack Amit Shah? In the Congress delegation only two, Gulam Nabi Azad and Priyanka Vadra appeared lively, the rest appeared listless.
This is not the time for indulging in a blame game or scoring political points. A well thought through, calming statement from the Congress president was the need of the hour, not the use of ill-tempered vocabulary.
The BJP’s response was immediate and chilling. It asked, “What about 1984?” No answer.