top of page

By:

Correspondent

21 August 2024 at 10:20:16 am

Strategic Warmth

Donald Trump’s lavish praise of Narendra Modi on the sidelines of the G7 summit offered a familiar lesson that in international affairs, there is often a vast gulf between atmospherics and reality. Whether it translates into warmer U.S. policy towards India after a period of pretty intense frostiness is another matter. Trump, who only months ago was disparaging India with the sort of rhetorical abandon usually reserved for political opponents, suddenly rediscovered his affection for the...

Strategic Warmth

Donald Trump’s lavish praise of Narendra Modi on the sidelines of the G7 summit offered a familiar lesson that in international affairs, there is often a vast gulf between atmospherics and reality. Whether it translates into warmer U.S. policy towards India after a period of pretty intense frostiness is another matter. Trump, who only months ago was disparaging India with the sort of rhetorical abandon usually reserved for political opponents, suddenly rediscovered his affection for the world’s largest democracy. The American president described Modi as a “tough trader” while simultaneously calling him “an angel.” It was the sort of praise-soaked performance that recalled the heady days of ‘Howdy Modi’ and ‘Namaste Trump.’ Yet, seasoned observers of Trump know that his compliments are often as revealing as they are unreliable. Few world leaders have demonstrated such a remarkable capacity to oscillate between criticism and admiration as Trump. One moment India is a troublesome trading partner; the next it is an indispensable ally, never mind the U.S. willingness to indulge Pakistan’s anti-India machinations. The contradiction does not seem to trouble Trump. The question is whether Washington is genuinely attempting to repair ties with New Delhi after a period of growing strain. For all the noise generated by tariff disputes, immigration restrictions and occasional diplomatic irritants, the strategic logic underpinning the relationship has only strengthened. China’s growing assertiveness has convinced successive American administrations, regardless of party, that a stable balance of power in Asia is impossible without Indian participation. Trump may possess little patience for traditional alliances, but even he understands this arithmetic. His declaration that America would assist India if attacked was particularly notable, given that the U.S. rushed to shield Pakistan after Operation Sindoor. That said, the obstacles that have complicated the Indo-U.S. relationship have not disappeared. Trade remains a perennial source of friction. Trump continues to view international commerce through a mercantilist lens, measuring success largely through bilateral balances and tariff concessions. Indian professionals and students remain deeply affected by American visa policies. Modi himself raised concerns about the safety of Indian seafarers following recent American military actions in the Gulf of Oman that resulted in Indian casualties. Going by Trump’s record, personal rapport be mistaken for institutional trust. The history of Indo-American relations is littered with moments of enthusiasm followed by disappointment. What has sustained the partnership in recent years is not chemistry between leaders but a convergence of interests. That may ultimately be the most important takeaway from the latest Modi-Trump encounter. The meeting was less a revival of an old friendship than an acknowledgement of mutual necessity. Smiles and compliments make for good television. They may even indicate that both governments are seeking to lower the temperature after months of tension. But in the Trump era, warm words are among the cheapest commodities in international politics.

Lingua Pragmatica

Updated: Mar 20, 2025

As Southern leaders like M.K. Stalin rage against Hindi, Andhra Pradesh’s Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu offers a model of pragmatism over parochialism.

Chandrababu Naidu
Andhra Pradesh

Amid the cacophony of opposition in southern states to Hindi, Andhra Pradesh CM N. Chandrababu Naidu has taken a markedly pragmatic stance by remarking recently in the state Assembly that there was no harm in learning other languages. Hindi, Naidu noted, was useful for communication across India, particularly in political and commercial hubs like Delhi. His remarks, though avoiding explicit mention of the NEP, were widely seen as an endorsement of multilingualism and a rebuke to the linguistic chauvinism that has gripped parts of the South.


Few issues in India stir political passions quite like language. It is not merely a means of communication but a marker of identity, a relic of colonial resistance, and a source of political mobilization. In the southern states, where anti-Hindi sentiment has long been entrenched, the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and its three-language formula have reignited old tensions. No state embodies this defiance more than Tamil Nadu, where the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) led by M.K. Stalin has framed the policy as an assault on its linguistic autonomy.


Naidu’s words, welcomed by his ally and Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, mark a sharp contrast with the DMK’s position. Tamil Nadu’s hostility towards Hindi dates back to the 1930s, when C. Rajagopalachari’s attempt to introduce it in schools met with fierce resistance. The anti-Hindi agitations of the 1960s cemented the DMK’s ideological stance, with its first Chief Minister, C.N. Annadurai, famously warning that Hindi imposition could push Tamil Nadu towards secession.


The question, however, is whether this rigid opposition serves Tamil Nadu’s interests. While Stalin, with an eye to the upcoming Tamil Nadu Assembly polls, has been relentlessly portraying Hindi as a threat to his state’s regional identity, Naidu, a partner of the BJP-led Centre, is framing it as a tool for economic mobility. His argument is not that Hindi should replace Telugu or English but that it offers a competitive advantage.


The economic case for multilingualism is compelling. Indians who speak multiple languages tend to have better job prospects, higher earnings and greater geographic mobility. Andhra Pradesh’s Telugu-speaking diaspora is a case in point. Telugus make up a significant proportion of Indian-origin professionals in the United States, the Gulf, and Southeast Asia as Naidu pointed out, hinting that this success story was built not on linguistic rigidity but on adaptability.


In a country where inter-state migration is rising and where Hindi remains the most widely spoken language, refusing to learn it amounts to self-imposed isolation. Tamil Nadu’s approach, by contrast, risks limiting its youth. The DMK government has refused to implement the three-language policy, keeping schools strictly bilingual with Tamil and English. Its justification that Hindi is not necessary for global success could be true in a narrow sense but ignores the domestic context. If Tamil filmmakers can dub their movies into Hindi to expand their audience, why should Tamil students be denied access to the language that could open more doors for them within India?


The DMK has accused successive central governments, particularly under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), of pushing Hindi at the expense of regional languages. Yet, rejecting Hindi outright is an overcorrection. The reality is that Hindi is an important language in India’s economic and political landscape. Naidu’s position, one of accommodation rather than confrontation, offers a middle ground that other Southern leaders would do well to consider.


Some states already recognize this. Karnataka, despite its own history of linguistic pride, has allowed Hindi to be taught as an optional language. Kerala, whose migrants work in Hindi-speaking regions and the Gulf, has been less hostile to Hindi education. Naidu’s model, balancing regional identity with practical necessity, offers a way forward. Languages should be embraced, not politicized. Southern leaders would do well to listen to him.

Comments

bottom of page