Why Rishi Sunak as British PM doesn't change equation

Advertisement

Sandeep Dikshit

MANY emotions currently swirl around Rishi Sunak becoming Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The strongest is a sense of vindication.

Though it is not recently that persons of Indian origin have started taking over leadership positions in several other countries, what makes Sunak’s case extra special is that he does not share Britain’s dominant race and religion. An Indian-origin PM or President in Mauritius, Fiji or Seychelles is par for the course as unwilling Indians were transported in numbers large enough to constitute a majority. But here it was Sunak’s ability that got counted. His race was hardly mentioned.

The uplifting feeling of having your own man, steeped in Hindu rituals, in 10 Downing Street, however, must be tempered with celebration that is subdued and circumspect. Sunak’s elevation seems like the culmination of a phenomenon bubbling for the past 20 years of Indian talent making its mark in the developed world. Eyebrows are no longer raised when a Sundar Pichai, Satya Nadella or even the just-sacked Parag Agrawal make their way to the top of the ultra-competitive corporate pile in the west. Even in economics, Nobel laureate Abhijit Banerjee and also Raj Chetty and Raghuram Rajan have made their mark.

But corporate successes have so far heavily outweighed electoral triumphs for Indian-origin persons in the UK and the US. Top corporate posts have been won by the Pichais and the Nadellas who migrated straight from Indian taxpayer-funded IITs and IIMs. But new electoral success in the UK has gone to coloureds, including people of Indian-origin like Sunak and his Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who also migrated from Africa.

Yet, barring a handful of constituencies in the UK and the US, a Hindu, Indian-origin candidate has slim chances of winning in other parts of the G7 hinterland. This is what makes Sunak’s acceptance by the Tories so intriguing. It has also given rise to conjecture that easy acceptance of a brown man’s leadership by a generally racist Tory party rank and file could be a temporary holding operation entrusted to a man not from their ranks in terms of race and religion. Sunak appears more Indian than a Braverman only because he is married to an Indian and is demonstrably ritualistic in his religious moorings.

The white heavy hitters, goes this theory, would prefer Sunak to risk combusting his political career while leading a holding operation whose success is not guaranteed. Or is it that the city of London, the world’s premier financial sector that accounts for most of Britain’s wealth, was so angered by his predecessor Liz Truss’ economic missteps that it handed over the baton to a person, regardless of colour, who was one of them?

If and when Sunak and PM Narendra Modi undertake Hindu rituals together, the stupendous camera opportunity will gather eyeballs around the world. But there will be no meeting ground as far as national interests are concerned. Put simply, Sunak is and will be completely focused on pulling the UK out of the economic morass and defeating Russia. Like China, India’s rise will also be tolerated to a point. The presence or absence of Sunaks in the British political ranks will hardly make a difference in London’s statecraft.

It is for this reason that South Block and Sardar Patel Bhavan have taken Sunak’s elevation as PM in their stride. The inner voices of the establishment are already pointing to the structural hurdles in the UK-India relations that necessitate, as before, a heavy dose of realism in dealing with London rather than nostalgia and feel-good atmospherics. They fear that such leaders overcompensate for their minority handicap. As with Braverman, who extols the empire in a manner cringe-worthy in today’s world even for its ardent white backers. Or speaks of her dream of a plane full of illegal British immigrants being sent to Rwanda.

A Sunak party colleague, Saeeda Warsi, concedes that having a person of colour as PM is a step forward for visible diversity. And unlike some politicians, Sunak does not deny his heritage or faith. “But will he understand better historical and entrenched institutional prejudice?” asks Warsi, while reckoning that he would probably not because “he was a rich kid who’s now a very rich man”.

There is no denying that Indian talent is now preening itself on the world stage. It is just possible that the next presidential election in the US may see a straight fight between two candidates of Indian-origin, most likely Kamala Harris vs Nikki Haley or Tulsi Gabbard. Sunak’s priority, like that of a Harris or Haley, will be inward-looking — to resuscitate the economy and control inflation. All foreign policy initiatives will be in lockstep with the cousins across the Atlantic. Just like the AUKUS initiative in the Indo-Pacific that incidentally left India high, dry and unconsulted.

India’s bilateral ties with the UK are already on an upward trajectory on issues that matter — security and trade. The British, like their American cousins, have been talking up the China threat and the valuable role that India can play in this regard. The Indo-UK Roadmap 2030 for bettering trade and other ties, the large number of Indian students boosting the island’s economy and an easier investment climate in India all have the ingredients of bringing the two countries closer. But it is worth ruminating why this did not happen despite several other ingredients that have been in play for decades. PM Modi, aware of the lacunae, put the finger on the pulse. In his congratulatory message to Sunak, he underlined India’s expectations from the UK — with or without an Indian-origin person at the helm. It was to transform historic ties into a modern partnership. That clearly is a work in progress.

Sticking points

Action against Khalistanis

Rishi Sunak was Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Indian High Commission came under aggressive sieges by Khalistani separatists who were joined by British Pakistanis. There are no points for guessing the involvement of at least one foreign intelligence agency in providing manpower for the siege and the passive acquiescence of another in the open collection of funds in the UK for promoting separatism. Foreign Minister S Jaishankar, NSA Ajit Doval and successive RAW chiefs have flagged this issue with their British counterparts. The recent communal clashes in Leicester have also raised Indian suspicions.

Economic offenders in exile

For all the Indian state’s exertions, the British legal system conveniently shelters Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi and several others. The manner in which the extradition of Mehul Choksi from the Caribbean was thwarted has convinced New Delhi that there was more to it than just a local court intervening in the affair. For the Modi government, the inability to bring economic offenders sheltered in the UK to book has been a loss of face despite the trumpeting of the PM’s tours abroad as all-conquering charm offensives. If the PM’s visits really bowl them over, this ability clearly comes short against getting dodgy tax offenders back.

Dirty neighbourhood games

The links between the US-UK intelligence grid and the ISI have been deep and enduring and some of their joint ventures cause pain and discomfort to India. Its deep involvement with handpicked regimes of Karzai and Ghani, followed by their abrupt abandonment, has left Afghanistan as a ticking time bomb. Now, they are reportedly Taliban’s rivals in what looks like a grinding, low-intensity conflict that will make Afghanistan more ungovernable and more attractive for jihad enthusiasts. MI6’s involvements in violence and machinations elsewhere in the neighbourhood have sometimes been hung around India’s neck, leading to avoidable discord.

No change in inequity

The United Kingdom, as the rest of the G7, has largely paid lip service to repeated pleas by emerging countries, including India, Brazil and Indonesia, for greater representation in multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and the United Nations Security Council. Sunak’s ascent doesn’t change London’s positions on keeping the demands of emerging countries at bay as long as possible. In fact, as a product of the city of London, he would be doing the opposite: ensuring that western finance remains dominant in all avenues of greater profit.

Braverman vs Sunak

Suella Braverman has made adverse comments on immigration and the mobility agreement with India. As Home Secretary in the Sunak Cabinet, it remains to be seen whether she will hold aloft her disagreements on the mobility agreement. The difference between the two can cause another schism in the Conservative Party that could short-circuit Sunak’s stay at 10 Downing Street. If Sunak decides to side with Braverman, a rift with New Delhi is inevitable.