Could a ‘Transactional’ Trump Leverage the Pannun Case to Get Modi to Buy US Fighter Aircraft?

Such a gambit would eventually depend on the culpability levels of India’s security establishment in the Sikh activist’s intended killing, and the credibility of its denials which, so far, has been somewhat questionable.

Chandigarh: Donald Trump’s comeback to the US presidency has spawned optimistic speculation in Indian security and defence circles – that a line is likely to be drawn by his incoming administration under the disquieting issue regarding the Modi government’s alleged involvement in Sikh separatist leader Gurpatwant Pannun’s planned assassination in New York last year.

But a cross section of senior military veterans and analysts believe that any US willingness to help Modi bury l’affaire Pannun could come at a heavy price under Trump, which they anticipate may well be the $25-billion purchase of 114 US fighters by the Indian Air Force (IAF) as part of its long-pending Multi Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) requirement.

“The MRFA is needed as of yesterday,” Air Chief Marshal A.P. Singh had declared last month in his annual presser, highlighting the criticality of timely platform procurements to sustain the IAFs operational readiness by boosting its fighter squadron numbers that had declined to 29-30 from a sanctioned strength of 42 squadrons. This former number will reduce further imminently, after the IAF’s two remaining ground attack MiG-21’Bison’ squadrons, comprising 40 legacy platforms, are number-plated or decommissioned next year.

Three US-origin combat aircraft are amongst eight overseas fighters potentially vying for the IAF’s MRFA buy. Analysts are of the view that the inbound Trump administration could possibly use the political leverage it clearly has over Delhi to acquire one such fighter type as an undeclared form of ‘blood money’ for Washington to diplomatically entomb the Pannun dispute. To be sure, legal proceedings on the Pannun case would continue in a New York court but care would then be taken to firewall the Indian establishment and its senior officials and leaders from embarrassing allegations of involvement.

The 78-year-old president-designate fancies himself as a master negotiator, capable of deploying his business acumen into the world of politics and diplomacy, especially by taking advantage of potentially profitable, but questionable, deals, including those involving allies.

In official circles in Delhi, Trump’s return to the White House is widely viewed as a boost for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP-led government that has faced a certain amount of unwelcome scrutiny from the Biden administration and Democratic lawmakers for avidly propagating Hindu nationalist policies domestically, and more, recently, allegedly planning and executing extra-judicial killings in the US and Canada.

A recent Bloomberg analysis of which world leaders would profit or lose from Trump’s return, anticipated that Modi would agree to deals with Washington, without the ‘finger wagging’ he has had to recently endure. It also goes on to state that a Trump presidency may not support Canada’s push to hold the Indian government accountable for the killing of Sikh separatist leader Hardeep Nijjar in British Columbia last June. Trump’s animosity towards and disdain for Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is well known.

Other diplomatic and policy analysts in Delhi suggest that, for assorted security, strategic and commercial considerations, and in consonance with Trump’s personal equation with Modi, Washington’s new administration would summarily move towards concluding the Pannun affair, albeit gainfully, perhaps in exchange for US fighters for the IAF.

No serving or retired Indian military or security official, or diplomat, was willing to be named in commenting on such a sensitive and speculative matter, but many privately conceded that such a ‘trade-off’ could ensue, given Trump’s widely acknowledged ‘transactional’ propensities. “Trump is a typical businessman, forever looking to leverage his advantage for profit,” said a retired three-star IAF officer. It’s quite conceivable that Trump, along with his like-minded cabinet, could foresee a ‘ripe deal’ in settling the Pannun matter to suit a panicked Indian government, by manoeuvring it to their pecuniary benefit.

But what, after all, is the putative MRFA procurement, who are the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) competing for it and how favourably does the US line up in this race?

Delays in inducting some 180 variants of the indigenously developed Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) to replace legacy fighters like the MiG-21’s and 100-115 ageing SEPECAT Jaguars has prompted the MRFA acquisition, the request for proposal (RfP) or tender for which is likely to be dispatched sometime in 2025 or early the following year. In his October presser, ACM Singh had declared that if the under development advanced LCA- Mk2 and the MRFA purchase progress as planned, the IAF could conceivably deploy 36 fighter squadrons over the next decade.

The MRFA procurement envisages importing a squadron of 18 fighters in flyaway condition from a shortlisted OEM, six of whom responded to the IAFs April 2019 request for information (RfI) offering eight fighter types. The remaining 96 platforms would be built indigenously, via a collaborative venture between the qualified OEM and a domestic strategic partner (SP) from either the private or public sector, with progressively enhanced levels of indigenisation in a deal, currently estimated at around $25 billion.

The OEMs who responded to the RfI include Dassault (Rafale), Eurofighter (Typhoon), Sweden’s Saab (Gripen-E), Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation and Sukhoi Corporation (MiG-35 ‘Fulcrum-F’ and Su-35 ‘Flanker-E’ respectively) and the US’s Boeing and Lockheed Martin (F/A-18E/F ‘Super Hornet’ and F-15EX ‘Eagle’ II and the F-21, principally an upgraded F-16 derivative, configured specially for the IAF).

In view of Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, evaluating the two fuel-intensive Russian fighters for eventual IAF acquisition was, according to senior officers ‘ totally irrational’, considering the grave spares and components crisis the force is facing with regard to its fleet of 259 multi-role Sukhoi-30 MKI’s and some 60 MiG-29UPG fighter-bombers.

“Delhi’s druzhba or friendship with Moscow, which sustained prodigious bilateral military commerce between the two, worth over $70 billion over nearly six decades, seems to have more-or-less run its course,” said former MoD acquisitions advisor Amit Cowshish. The materiel road for India, he added, now leads to Western vendors and towards fast-tracking ‘atmanirbharta‘ to indigenously develop weapon systems and platforms, or to a practical blend of the two, underscored by technology transfers.

The Typhoon had been rejected earlier during trials conducted 2010 onwards for the IAFs binned Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) contract floated in 2007, as were the Gripen-E and the US’s F-18 and the F-16 – the precursor to the F-21 – on multiple operational capability counts. Moreover, the Gripen-E and the F-21 were single-engine platforms, and though the MRFA RfI had not specified any preference for fighters with single or dual power packs, the IAFs intrinsic preference for the latter remains unstated. And though the OEM’s claimed that their platforms had since been equipped with newer and more advanced technologies and weaponry, the IAF, it seems, remained unimpressed.

Vajraang formation comprising of a C 130 Super Hercules transport aircraft in the centre flanked by two Rafale multirole fighters on either side on Republic Day, January 26, 2023. Photo: PIB

The Rafale, on the other hand, is favourably placed in the MRFA sweepstakes, due not only to its operational superiority over its competitors, as acknowledged by the IAF but more recently by the Indian Navy (N), that is negotiating the purchase of 26 Rafale-M (Maritime) fighters for deployment aboard INS Vikrant, India’s indigenously built aircraft carrier. Dassault had also recently secured clearance to establish a fully self-owned maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) facility near Jewar International airport in Uttar Pradesh to support not just the IAFs fleet of some-50-odd Mirage 2000Hs fighters and eventually 62 Rafales, including 26 of the IN, but also the 42 Rafale’ operated by the Indonesian Air Force, thereby enhancing its MRFA acceptability.

Once the purchase of 26 Rafale-Ms by the IN is completed, the Indian military would have an aggregate of 62 of these French fighters in its inventory. “Adding to these numbers makes eminent commercial, logistical and operational sense”, said military analyst Air Marshal V K ‘Jimmy’ Bhatia (retd). Besides, acquiring supplementary Rafales under the MRFA purchase, he added would also streamline the IAFs diverse fighter catalogue, which currently features seven different aircraft types, sustaining all of which was not only an enduring logistical challenge, but also a hugely expensive affair for the financially overstretched force.

But despite these obvious advantages favouring the Rafale, a slew of recent media reports, quoting unnamed official sources, ruled the French fighter out of the MRFA contest. These stated that the government wanted to ‘play safe’ by pursuing a ‘non-controversial path’ in executing the MRFA buy, since the IAFs 2016 purchase of 36 Dassault Rafale’s for around Rs 59,000 crore via a government-to-government deal, had become hugely contentious and a major parliamentary election issue in the 2019 polls. Allegations of wrongdoing in this purchase had also featured in the Supreme Court, where matters of national security were, perforce, made public, these reports claimed.

Moreover, these media accounts quoted unidentified defence officials as stating that even in the event of the Rafale being shortlisted as the IAFs MRFA choice, Dassault would be unable to supply the platforms for at least 10 years due to pending orders from various other countries. Such delays, the reports added, would undermine the MRFA programme’s urgency in making up IAF fighter squadron numbers swiftly, adversely impacting Rafale’s chances in the MRFA contest.

Hence, this process of elimination leaves only Boeing’s twin-engine F-15EX Eagle II all-weather multirole 4.5 generation fighter in the fray. Derived from the erstwhile McDonnell Douglas F-15E ‘Strike Eagle’ model dating back to the mid-1980s, the upgraded Eagle II conducted its first flight in 2021 and become operational in June 2024 with the US Air Force that, so far, has placed an order for 104 units.

Trump’s possible ‘aircraft-for-Pannun’ gambit would eventually depend on the culpability levels of India’s security establishment in the Sikh activist’s intended killing, and the credibility of its denials which, so far, has been somewhat questionable. If so, it’s conceivable that Trump’s scheme could prevail and perhaps lead to the IAF spending $25 billion to acquire a US-origin fighter.

‘Ludicrous’: India Rejects Canadian Media Report Alleging Modi’s Link to Sikh Separatist’s Murder

The report also claimed that not only Indian home minister Amit Shah, but also national security adviser Ajit Doval and external affairs minister S Jaishankar were “in the loop.”

New Delhi: India has dismissed a Canadian media report allegedly linking Prime Minister Narendra Modi to a conspiracy to kill a Sikh separatist in Canada as “ludicrous” and a “smear campaign”, warning that that such allegations would only deepen the tension in bilateral ties.

In a statement on Wednesday night (November 20), the Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, “We do not normally comment on media reports. However, such ludicrous statements made to a newspaper purportedly by a Canadian government source should be dismissed with the contempt they deserve.” He added that “campaigns like this only further damage our already strained ties.”

The Canadian newspaper, The Globe and Mail, reported on Wednesday that “Canadian security agencies believe Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India knew about the killing of a Sikh separatist leader in British Columbia and other violent plots,” citing an unnamed “senior national-security official who worked on the intelligence assessment of New Delhi’s foreign-interference operations in Canada.”

The report also claimed that not only Indian home minister Amit Shah, but also national security adviser Ajit Doval and external affairs minister S Jaishankar were “in the loop.”

“While Canada does not have direct evidence that Mr. Modi knew, the official said the assessment is that it would be unthinkable that three senior political figures in India would not have discussed the targeted killings with Mr. Modi before proceeding,” said the report.

The newspaper also added a statement from the Privy Council Office that while the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) said Indian government agents have been involved in serious criminal activity in Canada, there “have been no allegations made by the Government of Canada against Prime Minister Modi, External Affairs Minister Jaishankar, or National Security Advisor Doval.”

The Privy Council Office’s statement did not mention Shah, although Canadian deputy foreign affairs minister David Morrison told a parliamentary panel last month that he had confirmed to a US newspaper that the home minister was “involved” in the plot to kill Canadian nationals.

On October 14, the Washington Post cited Canadian officials who claimed that they had informed the Indian government that “conversations and texts among Indian diplomats” expelled that day “include references” to Shah and a senior official in the research and analysis wing “who have authorised… intelligence-gathering missions and attacks on Sikh separatists” in Canada.

India subsequently summoned Canada’s acting deputy high commissioner Geoffrey Dean and handed him a diplomatic note protesting Morrison’s statements as “absurd” and “baseless”. “It was conveyed in the note that the government of India protests in the strongest terms to the absurd and baseless references made to the Union home minister of India before the committee by deputy minister David Morrison,” the external affairs ministry spokesperson said at a press briefing.

The diplomatic stand-off between India and Canada escalated in October as both nations expelled six diplomats each, including their respective top envoys.

Also read: Delhi Court Grants Vikash Yadav Exemption From Case Hearing Citing Security Concerns

On October 14, India revealed that Canada had identified six Indian diplomats, including high commissioner Sanjay Kumar Verma, as “persons of interest” in a criminal investigation. In response, the external affairs ministry summoned Canada’s chargé d’affaires to announce the withdrawal of the diplomats and declared six Canadian diplomats as personae non gratae.

Simultaneously, Canada confirmed that it had issued expulsion notices to the six Indian diplomats stationed in Ottawa.

That same day, the RCMP held a press briefing, disclosing that their investigations extended beyond the Hardeep Singh Nijjar shooting and included evidence implicating Indian diplomats in allegedly using jailed gangster Lawrence Bishnoi’s gang to target Canadian nationals.

 

Rajnath Singh, Chinese Defence Minister Meet For First Time After Disengagement Deal

The two sides “agreed to work together towards a roadmap for rebuilding mutual trust and understanding”, the Indian defence ministry said.

New Delhi: Defence minister Rajnath Singh met his Chinese counterpart Admiral Dong Jun in Laos on Wednesday (November 20) for the first time since India and China reached a deal last month ending the border standoff between their troops in eastern Ladakh.

Their meeting on the sidelines of the ASEAN defence ministers’ meet in Vientiane came a day after external affairs minister S. Jaishankar met Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi and discussed, according to New Delhi, “the next steps in India-China relations”.

Referring to the deadly border clashes between Indian and Chinese soldiers in eastern Ladakh in 2020 as “unfortunate”, the Indian defence ministry said in a press release that Singh called for “reflecting on the lessons learnt” from the clashes as well as taking measures to prevent their recurrence and keep the border peaceful.

Singh underscored and looked forward to “greater trust and confidence-building between the two sides through de-escalation”, the defence ministry said, adding that both sides “agreed to work together towards a roadmap for rebuilding mutual trust and understanding”.

Political relations between New Delhi and Beijing froze after the 2020 clashes, which included a hand-to-hand skirmish that claimed the lives of at least 20 Indian and four Chinese soldiers.

A thaw in ties occurred as India announced on October 21 that it had reached a deal with China on patrolling arrangements between troops on either side at two remaining points of friction in Ladakh.

The deal, which involved disengagement between troops, paved the way for the first bilateral meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping in five years on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia.

During his meeting with Dong, Singh said that “amicable relations” between India and China would have “positive implications for global peace and prosperity”, the defence ministry’s statement said.

It quoted him as saying that as India and China are neighbours, the two sides “need to focus on cooperation rather that conflict”.

Meeting his Chinese opposite number Wang in Brazil, Jaishankar said on Tuesday that he was “glad to note that on the ground, the implementation of that understanding [of October 21] has proceeded as planned”.

This was the first time an Indian official had used the term “understanding” for the October 21 deal. Both the Indian foreign secretary as well as the external affairs ministry’s readout of the Modi-Xi meeting had referred to an “agreement” for disengagement.

Indian Aid ‘an Important Step to Undermine All Israeli Attempts to Eliminate UNRWA’: Palestine Embassy

The Israeli parliament passed two bills last month banning the UNRWA from Israeli territory.

New Delhi: The Palestinian embassy to India has thanked New Delhi for its contribution of US $ 2.5 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, noting that the move is an important step to fight Israel’s attempts to ban the primary relief agency in the region.

The Israeli parliament passed two bills last month banning the UNRWA from Israeli territory. Israel’s yearlong strikes on Gaza have been compared to a genocide and has led to the death of over 44,000 people officially, many of them children.

In a press release on November 19, the Palestinian charge’ d’affaires to New Delhi, Abed Elrazeg Abu Jazer expressed “sincere gratitude and appreciation” for the Indian government, and said, “We believe that this Indian contribution is a clear confirmation of its continued support to UNRWA services as the founding mandated in 1949.”

The $ 2.5 million is half of India’s promised annual contribution of $ 5 million for 2024-25.

This September, India notably abstained from voting in a widely supported United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution calling for an end to Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank within a year.

Abu Jazer added: “We consider that this financial contribution is an important step to undermine all Israeli attempts to eliminate UNRWA and ban its activity in the Palestinian territories.”

The release came on the day when leaders of the G20 countries, in Brazil’s Rio de Janeiro, called for a “comprehensive ceasefire in Gaza in line with UN Security Council Resolution n. 2735 and in Lebanon that enables citizens to return safely to their homes on both sides of the Blue Line”.

It also called for removing roadblocks to delivering humanitarian aid.

A report on The Guardian on the same day (November 19) said that Norway will ask the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion condemning Israel for ceasing cooperation with the UNRWA.

The Palestinian release said that Palestinian people, “who have real historical ties with India, appreciate the Indian contribution to UNRWA and look forward to continued Indian support at all political and material levels until the realization of their aspirations for freedom, independence, and the establishment of their independent state.”

G20 Leaders Soften Stance on Ukraine as Rio Declaration Drops Modi’s ‘War’ Remark

There was also no language condemning nuclear threats or demanding a cessation of attacks on essential energy infrastructure.

New Delhi: Within a year, the leaders of the world’s 20 major economies have further softened their concerns about the Ukraine war, with the Rio Declaration offering only general platitudes about the need to end the conflict.

As in Delhi, the G20 declaration in Rio was released on the first day of the summit after all countries reached a consensus on the language.

In September 2023, negotiators worked until the last moment on the language regarding the Ukraine war, with the final declaration including seven paragraphs on the conflict.

This time, however, there was only one paragraph addressing the Ukraine war, which referenced “recalling our discussions in New Delhi” to echo language about “human suffering” and the “negative” impacts on the global economy and food security.

“We welcome all relevant and constructive initiatives that support a comprehensive, just and durable peace, upholding all the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter for the promotion of peaceful, friendly, and good neighborly relations among nations,” stated the Rio Declaration.

Indian officials had previously highlighted the Delhi Declaration featuring the phrase “Today’s era must not be of war”, spoken by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Russian President Vladimir Putin, as a sign of respect garnered by India globally.

That phrase is no longer present in the 2024 Leaders’ Declaration.

There was also no language condemning nuclear threats or demanding a cessation of attacks on essential energy infrastructure.

Also read | G20 Declaration: As the West Scrambles to Justify ‘Softened’ Language on Ukraine War, Russia Exults

“The language is not strong enough But nobody wanted to push too far, otherwise it would have been a fight and there would be no statement,” an European diplomat told the Financial Times.

Incidentally, the Delhi Declaration was also criticised for being more lenient on Russia compared to the 2022 Bali joint statement, where “most members” had strongly deplored “the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine and demanded its complete and unconditional withdrawal from Ukrainian territory.”

It had also stated that “most members strongly condemned the war in Ukraine”.

In the Rio document, there was a longer paragraph on the Gaza war, which called for a “comprehensive ceasefire in Gaza in line with UN Security Council Resolution n. 2735 and in Lebanon that enables citizens to return safely to their homes on both sides of the Blue Line”.

It also called for removing roadblocks to delivering humanitarian aid.

“While expressing our deep concern about the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and the escalation in Lebanon, we emphasise the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance and to reinforce the protection of civilians and demand the lifting of all barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance at scale,” said the G20 declaration.

The New York Times recently reported that Israel had significantly reduced the flow of food and supplies to Gaza over the past month, despite warnings from the US administration to Tel Aviv to increase aid or risk a potential cutoff in military assistance.

Endorsing Palestine’s right to self-determination, the G20 declaration reiterated its “unwavering commitment to the vision of the two-State solution where Israel and a Palestinian State live side by side in peace within secure and recognised borders, consistent with international law and relevant UN resolutions.”

In Meeting With Wang Yi, Jaishankar Says Border ‘Understanding’ Being Implemented As Planned

India’s press release described their meeting, which comes four weeks after the resolution of the border standoff, as “focussed on the next steps in India-China relations”.

New Delhi: About four weeks after Indian and Chinese leaders met to resolve the military stand-off in eastern Ladakh, India stated that the implementation of their “understanding” was progressing as planned with other bilateral instruments to be resumed soon, while China called for “more positive signals” and “practical progress” to build trust.

The Indian and Chinese foreign ministers met on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where discussions, according to the Indian readout, “focused on the next steps in India-China relations”.

On October 23, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping held their first talks in five years in Kazan, Russia, paving the way for the normalisation of relations strained by the military stand-off in eastern Ladakh. The meeting initiated disengagement at the two remaining friction points: the Depsang Plains and Demchok.

Two days earlier, India had first announced that a “patrolling agreement” had been finalised for these areas. On November 2, it confirmed that “verification patrolling” had commenced in Depsang and Demchok, marking the “last phase of disengagement” agreed upon on October 21.

In his opening remarks at the meeting on Monday (November 19), external affairs minister S. Jaishankar said that at Kazan, “our leaders reached a consensus on taking next steps on our relationship, bearing in mind the understanding of October 21”.

“I am glad to note that on the ground, the implementation of that understanding has proceeded as planned,” he said.

This was the first time that an Indian official had used the term “understanding” for the October 21 deal. Both the Indian foreign secretary as well as the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA)’s readout of the Modi-Xi meeting had referred to an “agreement” for disengagement.

Incidentally, the original link of the press release on the MEA’s website does not show the document. It is not available in the list of all press releases either.

The Chinese side had usually referred to “resolutions” or “common understandings”.

The Indian press release offered more details into the discussions between Jaishankar and Wang Yi, which were described as “focussed on the next steps in India-China relations.”

“It was agreed that a meeting of the Special Representatives and of the Foreign Secretary-Vice Minister mechanism will take place soon,” stated the MEA’s communique.

The other items on the agenda included the resumption of the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra pilgrimage, data sharing on trans-border rivers, the restoration of direct flights between the two nations, and media exchanges.

The Chinese foreign ministry’s press release quoted Wang as describing the Kazan meeting as having “marked the restart of China-India relations”.

“Both sides should implement the important consensus reached by the leaders, respect each other’s core interests, enhance mutual trust through dialogue and communication, handle differences appropriately with sincerity and integrity, and push bilateral relations back to the track of stable and healthy development at an early date,” read the Chinese-language statement, according to a machine translation.

Wang also emphasised the need to “send more positive signals” to “enhance mutual trust more and reduce suspicion”.

“Strive to make practical progress as soon as possible in resuming direct flights, exchanging journalists and facilitating visas. Next year marks the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and India. Both sides should plan commemorative activities, encourage exchanges and visits in all fields and at all levels, and enhance understanding and mutual trust,” said the Chinese readout.

Jaishankar reaffirmed India’s “strong commitment to a multipolar world, including a multipolar Asia.” However, while Wang also spoke about global multipolarity, he characteristically omitted any mention of a multipolar Asia.

“Where India is concerned, its foreign policy has been principled and consistent, marked by independent thought and action. We are against unilateral approaches to establish dominance. India does not view its relationships through the prism of other nations,” the MEA’s statement quoted Jaishankar as saying.

Meanwhile, Wang highlighted that both Asian neighbours “pursue a non-aligned foreign policy, adhere to multilateralism and support the democratisation of international relations”.

Modi, Starmer Meet for the First Time; India, UK Agree to Restart FTA Talks Next Year

This year, which has seen a significant number of general elections, the G20 summit welcomed several first-time attendees.

New Delhi: In their very first meeting, the Indian and United Kingdom prime ministers have agreed to restart suspended free trade agreement discussions next year, even as Britain made clear that it will not concede to India’s call to relax visa restrictions.

This was announced after Narendra Modi and Keir Starmer met on the sidelines of the first day of the G20 summit in Brazil. Starmer has been in power since early July when he led the Labour party to a landslide victory in the parliamentary elections.

India and the UK have conducted 14 rounds of FTA (free trade agreement) negotiations over the past two years. However, the discussions were put on hold in May as both countries entered election mode.

A UK foreign office readout of the Modi-Starmer talks said that both leaders had agreed to take forward “an ambitious UK-India Comprehensive Strategic Partnership to take the relationship to new heights”. “As part of this they agreed to relaunch UK-India trade talks early next year,” it said.

According to UK government figures, UK-India trade was valued at approximately £42 billion in the 12 months leading up to June 2024, with UK exports to India accounting for £16.6 billion.

The Indian press release also talked about resuming the FTA, but did not give a specific time. “Both leaders underlined the importance of resuming the Free Trade Agreement negotiations at an early date and expressed confidence in the ability of the negotiating teams, to address the remaining issues to mutual satisfaction, leading to a balanced, mutually beneficial and forward looking Free Trade Agreement,” it said.

Following the announcement, the UK Prime Minister’s spokesperson told The Telegraph that “our position on migration has not changed”.

“Clearly, Government’s position on reducing net migration comes first and foremost. We will obviously only agree [to] deals that are rooted in the in the UK national interest,” he said.

India’s demand for an increased number of visas for Indian professionals had also been a key obstacle to reaching a deal under the previous Rishi Sunak government.

The Indian prime minister also announced that India will open two new consulates in Belfast and Manchester. He raised the issue of Indian fugitive economic offenders residing in the UK, whose extradition has been delayed as their cases progress through the legal system.

This year, which has seen a significant number of general elections, the G20 summit welcomed several first-time attendees.

Similar to his first meeting with UK Labour leader Keir Starmer, Modi also met Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto for the first time, just a month after Subianto assumed office after winning elections in early 2024.

According to the Indonesian press note, the two “discussed various strategic cooperation opportunities in the fields of health, education and trade, as well as strengthening bilateral relations between the two countries”.

“Indonesia and India have a long and very good relationship. We really value this relationship and are committed to improving it in various fields,” said President Prabowo.

They also discussed close collaboration within the G20 and called for “called for giving primacy to the concerns of the Global South,” said the MEA press release.

Besides, the Indian PM also held talks with leaders of France, Italy, Norway and Portugal. He will also hold talks with the Australian prime minister and the Presidents of Chile, Argentina and host Brazil on Tuesday.

Muhammad Yunus Announces Bangladesh’s Plan to Seek Sheikh Hasina’s Repatriation from India

This appears to be the first instance of Yunus making such a significant commitment in a public speech.  

New Delhi: Bangladesh chief adviser Muhammad Yunus on November 17 said that he will seek the repatriation of former interim prime Sheikh Hasina who is currently in India since her ouster from power in August.

Bangladesh state media broadcast an address to the nation from Yunus on the occasion of the completion of 100 days of his interim government, which took over after Hasina fled for India on August 5 after the students-led reform movement led to the fall of her government.

Bangladeshi news agency UNB reported that Yunus pledged the interim government would “seek the repatriation of the deposed dictator, Sheikh Hasina, from India.”

“Not only for the murders of July and August, but we’ll prosecute all the crimes committed over the past 15 years. Many people have been subjected to enforced disappearance and murdered during this time,” the chief adviser said. 

He announced that the number of enforced disappearances that took place during Hasina’s rule, which are under investigation, could “exceed 3,500.”  

This appears to be the first instance of Yunus making such a significant commitment in a public speech.  

In September, during an interview with the Indian news agency PTI, he had remarked that Hasina should remain quiet “till the time that Bangladesh wants her back.”  

Yunus appeared to be responding to Hasina’s August 13 statement, where she demanded “justice” and called for accountability for those involved in recent “terror acts,” killings, and vandalism.  

This statement remains Hasina’s only public comment since her flight. It was posted on the social media accounts of her US-based son, Sajeeb Wazed Joy.  

Indian external affairs minister S. Jaishankar had informed parliament in August that Hasina was allowed to enter India after seeking permission on “short notice.” However, no further clarification about her status in India has been provided since then.  

In answer to a question at a weekly media briefing, the Ministry of External Affairs’ spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal stated that “she had come here at a short notice for safety reasons, as she continues to be”.

US Congressional Research Service Report Explores India’s Worsening Religious Freedoms

‘After a decade of BJP rule at the federal level and expanded BJP power in state governments since 2014, Hindu chauvinism and bigotry are more visible in India, with rates of communal violence on the rise in recent years.’

New Delhi: Highlighting India’s worsening human rights records, a new Congressional Research Service report notes differing views among US policymakers and analysts on addressing this concern, while courting New Delhi as a strategic counterweight to China.

The report ‘India: Religious Freedom Issues’ released earlier this week charts the basis of India’s secular constitution and explains the religious and political fault-lines that have fuelled the growth in social disharmony and what it has meant for India-US ties.

“After a decade of BJP rule at the federal level and expanded BJP power in state governments since 2014, Hindu chauvinism and bigotry are more visible in India, with rates of communal violence on the rise in recent years,” said the report.

It also spotlighted the recent accusations made against the Indian government by Canada, as well as US prosecutors, of alleged transnational acts. “These developments severely disrupted India-Canada ties and could yet affect the tenor and trajectory of the U.S.-India partnership. They also have attracted congressional attention.”

Earlier this year, the Senate foreign relations committee chair had “explicitly linked his approval of a pending U.S. arms sale to India to Biden Administration assurances that India’s government was committed to a thorough investigation leading to ‘credible accountability’ in the case”.

The report underscores that for the past two decades, US and Indian officials “have consistently identified shared values as the basis of the bilateral partnership,” with democracy, freedom, human rights, and pluralism prominently featured in joint statements since 2000. Reflecting on independent analysts’ views, it states, “From this perspective, India’s poor human rights record could lead to a weakening of that country’s role as a US partner.”

It further went on: “A perceived Modi/BJP project to codify religious majoritarianism in the country through Hindu nationalist policy, if continued, ultimately may erode the credibility of the Indian state, in part by widening and even making permanent the existing fault lines among its religious communities”.

The “argument” goes, the report says, that India’s desired great power status requires societal harmony, and that the US should insist on it. At the same time, other analysts have said that the shared US and Indian interests, rather than values, would be at the core of policymaking. “The implications here may be most relevant to expectations among some in the U.S. capital that shared values alone would lead India to “ally” with the United States in a potential conflict in the western Pacific.”

Referencing a 2024 Carnegie report, the CRS noted that many analysts have said that there is also a view that “calls to “prioritize human rights” in US policy are based on a false assumption that values and security interests must be “balanced,” an alleged fallacy that inevitably leads to favoring the latter.”

Instead of a “misplaced deference to the defense establishment,” some analysts urge human rights advocates to emphasise the interlinkages between rights-respecting policies and national security interests while generating their own (non- militarised) conception of the US national interest. 

In its chapter on “considerations for Congress”, the report noted that the US Commission for International Religious Freedom had recommended since 2020 too designate India as a “country of particular concern”.

It also proposed nine suggestions for Congress to address freedom issues in India which include raising concerns through hearings, delegations, and conditioning aid on improved human rights conditions, encourage reforms to laws such as the UAPA and FCRA, support for facilitating USCIRF visits to India and advancing legislation aimed at addressing human rights issues both domestically and globally.

The report also noted that the “Indian government may become less inclined to maintain or deepen its partnership with the United States if the US government forcefully presses it on human rights”.

“Actions such as CPC designation, the targeted sanctioning of individuals (most especially government officials), and the conditioning of aid or defense sales to India likely would vex the New Delhi government and potentially be challenging to the goal of deepening a values-based US-India partnership,” the report observed.

Watch: What the Sri Lankan Election Results Mean

Ahilan Kadirgamar, senior lecturer of the Jaffna University, and B. Skanthakumar, co-editor of the ‘Polity Magazine’, discuss what the historic mandate could reflect.

Rising above ethnic, language and religious differences, Sri Lankan voters pushed the National People’s Power alliance to a landslide victory, giving the NPP of president Anura Kumara Dissanayake a total of 141 seats out of a possible 225 on Friday (November 15).

The NPP expected to obtain a two-third majority. A total of 196 seats were decided by direct election in the country’s proportional representation system with the remaining 26 members to Parliament being selected by eligible parties through a national list. With the NPP expected to gain 18 out of the 26 national list seats, their tally is expected to go upto 159 seats.

Amit Baruah, an independent journalist, is in conversation with Ahilan Kadirgamar, senior lecturer of the Jaffna University and B. Skanthakumar, co-editor of the Polity Magazine.