Indian diplomacy falls flat in London

The junketing bandwagon of Indian MPs finally rolled into London on 31 May, still one of the world’s major media centres, over the weekend. The purpose, of what was officially dubbed a delegation of multi-party Indian Members of Parliament and a retired diplomat, was to convince the United Kingdom, one of the powerful, veto-wielding five at the United Nations Security Council and a constituent of the Group of Seven (G7) Western industrialised countries, about India being a perennial victim of terrorism exported by Pakistan and for it to act accordingly.

In the event, the exercise turned out to be underwhelming. A troupe led by the usually pompous former BJP minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad, arrived on 31 May and departed on 3 June, which — it is worth noting — consumed a weekend, when unsurprisingly no government official or Westminster lawmaker is generally available.

A press release by the Indian high commission in London stated that the ‘discussions centred on India’s zero-tolerance approach to terrorism and response to cross-border terrorism through Operation Sindoor’. So, who did they meet? And what was the outcome?

One interface was with the All-Party Parliamentary Group for India, which has members from the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Its co-chairs are Dr Jeevun Sandher, a ruling Labour Party MP, and Lord Karan Bilimoria, a crossbencher in the Lords. Baroness Sandip Verma, a Conservative, is its president and Mark Prichard, also a Tory, its vice-chair. At least 25 of its 65 members are of Indian origin; and they were conspicuous among the dozen-odd who showed up for the interaction with their Indian counterparts.

Most in the APPG have little influence on the British government. Bilimoria, Cambridge-educated, well-spoken, founded Cobra Beer, before he lost control over it. His allegiance to India — as opposed to loyalty to Hindutva, Khalistan or any other extremism — is not in doubt, as can be with a person who has abandoned his Indian citizenship to embrace British nationality.

He is a proud son of the late Lieutenant General Faridoon Bilimoria of the Indian Army, who in 1971 led the 2/5 Gorkha Rifles in liberating Bangladesh.

The Indian diplomatic mission’s media handout highlighted the discussion with the APPG in its lead paragraph, thereby giving the impression that this was the pinnacle of the visit to London. Actually, the tallest peak Prasad and company climbed was in obtaining a conversation with Sir Lindsay Hoyle, Speaker of the Commons. ‘He (Hoyle) unequivocally condemned terrorism in all its forms and stressed on the need to stand united against terrorism,’ the high commission press note claimed.

Such support has resided in British political circles — cross-party — for more than two decades; so, it was nothing really new. Hoyle did not, notably, criticise Pakistan; only expressed solidarity with India’s plight. Should India circa 2025 be venturing abroad to cry on foreign powers’ shoulders? And derive consolation from crumbs of sympathy?

Prasad described the visit by his team as “wonderful”. Perhaps because of the convivial climate and an un-taxing programme. He disclosed he and his colleagues met Priti Patel, a Conservative MP, who is now shadow foreign secretary and was recently mocked by the incumbent foreign secretary, David Lammy, for her uncaring stand on Palestinians in Gaza facing starvation, because of a blockade of food supplies by Israel — now partially lifted.

The MPs also called on Catherine West, a well-meaning, but lightweight junior minister in the British foreign office; Seema Malhotra, minister of state in the British home office; and Lord Dominic Johnson, co-chair of the Conservative Party which is facing an existential crisis.

A Google search did not elicit any reporting of Prasad and company in the international press. The Indian high commissioner in Britain, Vikram Doraiswamy, admitted to IANS, “I’ll be honest in saying that I don’t think Western media sees this with that level of clarity.” As for making an impact with British authorities, Doraiswamy told ANI, “The UK has its own position, it’s a sovereign government, it will take its own decisions.”

The curtain raiser of the MPs’ sojourn was a gathering in a parking lot at the rear of the high commission building. Typically, only Indians or people of Indian descent were present. It was testimony to the Indian high commission in the British capital in Modi’s dispensation being accredited to Wembley rather than Whitehall! The delegation felt at home. Some of the MPs even spoke in Hindi. They happily preached to the faithful, without any fear of contradiction.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s counter move — a sole delegation (compared to India’s seven) headed by former foreign minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari — was in motion in the United States. The American media didn’t pay any attention to it. But Indian media did; unlike Pakistani media, which has indicated limited interest in the Indian delegations.

For instance, PTI’s despatch on Bilawal’s press conference at the UN in New York suggested he struck a very different tune from the Indian MPs. He was quoted as saying, “I am completely confident that if ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s spy agency) and RAW (Research & Analysis Wing, India’s external espionage agency) were ready to sit down and work together to fight these forces, we would see a significant decrease in terrorism in India and Pakistan.”

A clever ploy, for it sounded conciliatory and solution-seeking; in contrast to India wanting the world to join it in blaming and blacklisting Pakistan.

India’s failure to find the perpetrators of the Pahalgam outrage, who killed 26 people, and to provide actionable evidence of Pakistan’s involvement in it has been a major shortcoming in the delegations’ discourse. Given the ISI’s track record, it is more than likely that it had a hand in the shocking incident. But while much of the Western world is convinced about Pakistan having been a terrorist factory, it wants proof of Pakistan being behind Pahalgam, before it can justifiably point a finger at Rawalpindi.

The West is also not oblivious to Pakistani allegations about India backing Baloch nationalists in a tit-for-tat. Modi’s 2016 Independence Day speech, which rather let the cat out of the bag, and the 2017 quite high-profile arrest and detention of ex-Indian Navy officer Kulbhushan Jadhav in Pakistan on charges of undercover work in Balochistan, have, in fact, not gone unnoticed.

By keeping the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance, India gave Pakistan an excuse to ignore the Simla Agreement, which bound the latter to a bilateral resolution of issues between the two countries. It has thereby potentially internationalised the Kashmir dispute all over again.

On 29 May, the Indian ministry of external affairs spokesman responded to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s proposal of talks by saying, “We are clear that talks and terror don’t go together. On terrorism itself we are open to discussing the handing over to India of noted terrorists, whose list was given to Pakistan some years ago.” He added, “I would like to underline that any bilateral discussion on Jammu and Kashmir will only be on the vacation of illegally occupied Indian Territory by Pakistan.”

That is effectively a rejection of dialogue and an abrogation of a previous commitment to a composite dialogue. By persevering with this position in the post-Operation Sindoor situation, India could be opening the door for meddling by a keen-as-mustard President Donald Trump, who not only fancies a mediatory function, but a focus on resolving the Kashmir imbroglio.

Bilawal milked the circumstances by emphasising that diplomacy and dialogue were the only “viable path to peace”. He echoed Pakistan’s willingness to participate in a broad exchange with India, counterterrorism not excluded. “You can’t have no dispute resolution mechanisms between two nuclear-armed countries,” he stressed, tempting Trump.

Next week, 36-year-old Bilawal, Oxford-educated and grandson and son respectively of erstwhile Pakistani prime ministers, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto, extends his diplomacy to Britain. We will soon know if he or Prasad and his merry band made the bigger impact.

Ashis Ray can be followed on X @ashiscray. More of his writings can be found here