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.

Sacred Attire

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments


bottom of page