What are pals for if not to 'comment'?
democracies, especially when their leaders have grown to be such 'homies' across administrations, should feel comfortable enough to comment, even criticise, on the other's functionings as a democracy. Or, to put it more pointedly, they shouldn't feel prickly enough when such critiques are aired by pals.
This week, S Jaishankar pointed this out at a public event in Washington, effectively offering the proverbial shoe in the other foot — of America's, an evangelist of 'global promotion of democracy' known for its proclivity to comment on internal affairs of other countries, India's included.
Jaishankar underlined, perhaps wryly, that the US shouldn't 'feel bad' if India comments on its internal affairs. Considering that the interaction took place on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly — where all countries have a vote — the foreign minister's argument that one or a handful of countries do not have the unfettered right to comment while other countries remain passive consumers of such comments is spot on.
Democracies that are partners and friends, like the US and India, must be mutually respectful. This means understanding and respecting each other's domestic and international challenges, figuratively walking in the other's shoes before passing offhand judgements — or at least allowing that understanding to inform their comments.
Even as its global role has expanded, India has been reticent to comment on developments in other countries, treating them as 'internal matters'.
Nor has New Delhi been proactive in contextualising and explaining its own developments to ensure more informed commentary from abroad. If global leadership is what India seeks, then shaping the narrative must also become part of its diplomacy.
