The Great Game Redux: Western powers and the destabilization of a rising India

The recent BBC article mentioning the FBI’s involvement in matters concerning India and using the term “Khalistan” is more than a mere news report; it’s a subtle indicator of a larger geopolitical game. This game involves Western powers, notably the United States, and their perceived need to counterbalance India’s emergence as a formidable force in the Global South. Western powers are making strong and very strategic efforts to destabilize Asia, particularly India. These are not merely media narratives but part of America’s strategic endeavor to maintain global hegemony.

The ‘Great Game’ of the 19th century saw imperial powers vying for control and influence in Central Asia. Today, we are witnessing a modern iteration of this game, where the arena has expanded to include the Global South, with India as a central player. The West’s historical penchant for maintaining global dominance suggests a continuity in their foreign policy that now subtly manifests through economic, political, and media channels.

Western media outlets, consciously, often play a role in this geopolitical chess game. By portraying countries like India in a constant state of turmoil and conflict, they contribute to a narrative that suits the interests of Western powers. The recent BBC article, with its mention of the FBI, insinuates a deeper involvement of the United States in India’s internal affairs, a classic move in the destabilization playbook.

BBC article detailing the US’s foiling of an alleged assassination plot of a “Sikh Separatist” in New York reads more like a chapter from a Cold War-era spy novel than a piece of objective journalism. It narrates the story of Nikhil Gupta, an Indian national, accused of attempting to hire a hitman for a staggering $100,000 to assassinate a Sikh activist advocating for a separatist state. The article, laden with dramatic elements such as an undercover federal agent and high-level international intrigue, seems to conveniently align with a broader narrative of American propaganda. This narrative systematically portrays nations in the Global South, like India, as hotbeds of transnational terrorism and political conspiracy. The article quotes, “Mr Gupta, 52, is in jail in the Czech Republic pending extradition,” and “He was allegedly directed by an Indian government official who was not named or charged in the indictment,” casting a shadow of doubt and suspicion not just on an individual but on an entire nation’s government.

Furthermore, the article’s emphasis on the high-level US response, including the involvement of President Joe Biden and top US intelligence leaders, sensationalizes the incident, potentially exaggerating its significance in the larger geopolitical context. The article states, “A senior administration official said the murder-for-hire allegations so concerned President Joe Biden that he dispatched top US intelligence leaders – CIA Director William Burns and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines – to India to speak to officials there.” This portrayal feeds into a longstanding Western trope of demonizing and undermining the political entities of the Global South, particularly India, which is emerging as a significant global player. By focusing heavily on the alleged involvement of Indian government officials and the swift, decisive American response, the BBC article appears to be less about reporting facts and more about perpetuating a narrative that serves American geopolitical interests, casting India in a nefarious light while bolstering the image of the US as a global watchdog.

The revelation of Henry Kissinger’s derogatory remarks about former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and the Indian people is a stark reminder of the duplicitous nature of international diplomacy, particularly as practiced by figures in American politics. Reports indicate that Kissinger, a pivotal figure in US foreign policy, resorted to using highly offensive language, referring to Mrs. Gandhi with a derogatory term, “bitch,” and calling Indians “bastards.” This language, coming from a statesman of Kissinger’s stature, not only reflects a bias but also hints at a deeper, institutionalized attitude of disrespect and condescension towards India, a nation aspiring for its rightful place on the global stage. Such remarks are not just an affront to the individuals they target but also to the collective dignity of the nation they represent.

This incident sheds light on the broader issue of how nations like the United States, which often project themselves as “responsible global leaders” and “champions of democratic values”, can simultaneously harbor and express such biased, immoral, and unethical views in private. The contrast between public declarations of partnership and equality and private utterances of contempt highlights a troubling hypocrisy in international relations. It raises questions about the sincerity and integrity of diplomatic engagements, especially those involving countries from the Global South like India, which are often on the receiving end of such disparaging attitudes. This duality in American foreign policy, where “respect and equality” are preached but not always practiced, is a reminder of the complex and often contradictory nature of international politics.

The relationship between the United States and India, marked by strategic partnerships and diplomatic engagements, often presents a picture of mutual respect and cooperation. However, beneath this veneer of camaraderie, there lies a contrasting narrative, one that is frequently played out in the media. This narrative often portrays India in a less favorable light, raising questions about the true nature of the US-India partnership. Instances of American media outlets projecting India negatively, whether in terms of its internal policies, socioeconomic challenges, or its global stance, stand in stark contrast to the diplomatic overtures and agreements shared between the two nations. This paradoxical approach can be seen as a form of backstabbing, where public gestures of friendship and alliance are undermined by a media-driven portrayal that often lacks nuance and understanding of India’s complex socio-political landscape.

This duality is not just a matter of conflicting narratives but also reflects a deeper issue in international politics – the struggle between realpolitik and ethical diplomacy. On one hand, the United States recognizes India as a key strategic partner, especially in the context of balancing power dynamics in Asia. On the other hand, the portrayal of India in segments of the American media, and many times in political rhetoric, seems to echo a different sentiment, one that does not align with the principles of a healthy partnership. Such a contradictory stance not only confuses the international audience but also sows seeds of mistrust and skepticism within India. It challenges the integrity of the bilateral relationship and raises questions about the long-term sustainability of this partnership, especially if one side feels misrepresented or unfairly targeted.

India’s Rise as a Threat to Western Dominance

India’s rapid economic growth, its strategic geopolitical position, and its burgeoning technological and military capabilities pose a challenge to the established world order, predominantly led by Western powers headed by America. The notion of a democratic, economically vibrant, and independent India leading the Global South disrupts the traditional power dynamics favored by America and the West.

Counterarguments and Analysis

The narrative surrounding the alleged involvement of an “Indian agent” contacting the FBI raises more questions than it answers. If, as speculated, there was no actual initiative from the FBI’s side, then the motivation and authenticity of this “Indian agent” contacting such a high-profile international agency become subjects of scrutiny. This scenario could imply a deliberate attempt to fabricate a story, potentially to serve specific agendas. The lack of direct involvement or confirmation from the FBI in this matter casts doubt on the credibility of the entire narrative. It suggests a possible manipulation of facts or even a concocted plot aimed at discrediting India on the international stage. Such a situation would not only reflect poorly on the integrity of the information being circulated but also indicate a deeper, more complex game of international politics where narratives are strategically constructed and used as tools in geopolitical power plays.

The unfolding narrative, particularly the use of the term “Khalistan” without the crucial context of its history as a separatist movement, further complicates the situation. This omission in the Western media’s portrayal is not just a matter of incomplete reporting but seems to hint at a deeper, more strategic intent. By referring to “Khalistan” merely as a movement, while glossing over its past marked by brutalities and the killing of thousands of Indian civilians, there appears to be a deliberate attempt to sanitize its image. This selective representation is not just an oversight; it seems to be a calculated move to undermine India’s sovereignty and paint a skewed picture of its internal challenges. The conspicuous absence of the movement’s violent history in these narratives, and the uncritical use of the term “Khalistan,” point towards a targeted attack on India’s image. It suggests a concerted effort to portray India in a negative light, leveraging historical and sensitive issues to stir controversy and discord. Such a portrayal in the Western media not only misrepresents the reality on the ground but also serves as a tool in a larger geopolitical strategy aimed at weakening India’s standing on the global stage.

The narrative of Western powers attempting to destabilize a rising India fits into a larger historical pattern of global dominance. However, in the modern world, such narratives need to be approached with caution and analyzed in the context of a multipolar world where power dynamics are constantly evolving. While it’s important to be vigilant about neo-imperialistic tendencies, it’s equally crucial to base our understanding on nuanced analyses rather than one-dimensional narratives as regularly portrayed in the western media.