Tone-deaf in Delhi

Much as administrations like to portray themselves as radical departures from the disgraced regime that preceded them, for the rest of the world continuity is the name of the game. A Quartz article discussing India’s Republic Day rollout of the red carpet for Asean leaders mentioned Mahindra vehicles for the Philippine National Police and the procurement of cheap medicines, agriculture-related initiatives, together with the procurement of armaments as signs of Indian-Philippine engagements. The vehicles were a project rolled out by the previous administration; the agreements signed last year likely bridged the previous administration and its successor, and the agreement on medicines inked by President Duterte and the announcement of arms purchases during his Delhi visit in turn, represent policies that predate and will endure after the present dispensation.

But in terms of what the Delhi pilgrimage of Asean leaders represented, the Philippines was vocally the odd man out. The main event, put forward in an op-ed published under the name of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and reflected in official statements throughout the visit, was the containment of China, continuing the Delhi mantra of preferring a multilateral approach to settling South China Sea disputes. This is a jab at Beijing which prefers a piecemeal approach to the issue, all the better to intimidate countries one at a time. Here, India represents a partnership with Japan, Australia, and the United States to contain the global ambitions of China. The Americans, as one report put it, have put forward the term “Indo-Pacific” to replace the former term “Asia-Pacific,” which was shorthand for the security interests of the United States and its allies — the substitution of “Indo” for “Asia” suggests a broader canvas for strategic cooperation (and action).

From this perspective, the President’s remarks were remarkably — or obstinately — tone-deaf in Delhi. This was demonstrated by his pointed remark that if Arab countries objected to his appeal for better treatment for overseas Filipinos, he would ask China to take up the slack and accept Filipino workers. At the very least it showed that as far as he was concerned, the Indian pitch for Asian-Indian solidarity was falling on deaf ears; his crass remarks to Indian businessmen about virgins, in a country that at that very moment was experiencing public tensions over a movie depicting a love affair between a Hindu queen and a Muslim king, was equally off-putting.

We have a tremendous amount to learn from India. Aside from ancient cultural ties and our countries both having had a peaceful struggle for independence, both have wrestled with religious and ethnic tensions, red tape, corruption, dynasties, and authoritarianism in their modern history. At present, an interesting controversy involving the Indian supreme court, which has four justices publicly airing criticisms of the chief justice, offers a striking parallel to the airing of dirty linen in public taking place in our own Supreme Court, aided and abetted by our House of Representatives. Proponents and critics of federalism alike could do well to explore whether India’s federalism offers any lessons on the kind of problems current Charter change proposals are supposed to solve.

Aside from what Indian politics and governance could teach us, its resurgence will have an increasing effect not just in terms of Asean-China relations, but relations within the regional organization. The growing assertion of Indian economic and military power, together with Japan and Australia, compensates for the weakening of the United States and the rise of China. And here, Asean is a partner being actively wooed. In our part of the world, this raises India’s profile with Indonesia and Vietnam, while the Philippines drifts into the formerly lonely pro-China faction Cambodia once represented virtually on its own in Asean. It’s a pity that hardly any of these things ended up
reported on, or discussed, domestically.