Republican Party candidate for the US Presidency, Donald Trump has spoken out against the persecution of Hindus and Christians under the current regime in Bangladesh. Considering the high probability that he barely knows anything about the history and politics of Bangladesh, it is obvious that the statement has been made mostly to gain support from voters of Indian origin in the US, who are generally known to be supporters of the Democratic party, though of late in decreasing numbers. People in India, particularly leaders of Hindu organisations, have reacted positively to these statements, highlighting the fact that there has been a general silence among leaders of western countries about these atrocities.
The Republicans will be hoping that Trump’s statement, coming at a very crucial period in the ongoing election campaign, could undercut Democratic candidate Kamala Harris’s Indian connection. This is particularly relevant because it is the opinion of many analysts that there was a US hand in the overthrow of the Sheikh Hasina government. Even though, as Vice-President, Harris would not have been directly responsible for this intervention, she would certainly have been in the know. So, did she make any effort to prevent this effort to undermine the democratic structure in Bangladesh? Or did she go along with the plot?
It is already believed that Donald Trump, however divisive he may prove as President in his own country, will be more favourable towards India than a Democrat in the White House. President Joe Biden’s tenure has not been very positive for India, as the usual anti-India tilt has been allowed to increase in most aspects of policy. Kamala Harris is not expected to make any serious change of course in this regard, considering the fact that her party’s support base comprises left-liberal extremists who believe they are entitled to tell other nations how they should conduct themselves. At the same time, Trump’s heavy dependence on evangelists and white supremacists may also influence him to overlook a different kind of interference in India’s affairs.
So, which side would India prefer to deal with on the diplomatic stage? How much should Indian origin voters in the US be factoring in ‘Hindu’ interests when exercising their franchise? From the Indian context, it is difficult to have preferences, even if one of the candidates is partially of Indian origins. Either way, it does not augur too well for the future of Indo-US relations. It will require other kinds of clout to deal with the still-existing bias in the Western mindset.
