As we reach almost the end of the first month of the new year, the Congress government in Karnataka completes 20 months in office—a third of its 60-month (five-year year) term. The next 20 months will decide the fate of the government in the state. 

One notices that most regimes in Karnataka tend to slip perilously in the second phase of their terms, often due to a drift in governance and loss of focus. Ultimately, they find it difficult to recover from this non-performance and are shown the door. This explains the revolving-door politics seen in Karnataka since 1985, where no ruling party has been able to secure a clear majority at the end of its term.

Three principles define and decide the success of a state government: efficiency in governance, unity in the ruling party, and social harmony. A review of past governments would indicate that they failed to abide by all or at least two of these principles. 

Respond To Aspirations

There is enough empirical evidence to show that across the country, governments have been returned to power when voters perceive a dispensation to have performed reasonably well on key indicators of governance. A Lokniti post-poll study done in Karnataka after the 2024 Lok Sabha election shows that if the Congress was able to return to its 2014 Lok Sabha tally (nine seats), it had a lot to do with citizens’ perception of the implementation of its key guarantees. Its improved performance among women voters also underlines this trend. The Congress’s clean sweep in the recent by-elections was, along with other significant factors, also largely because of these guarantees. Thus, a focus on governance that responds to the aspirations of different segments of society is a sure route to success.

How public perception changes amid scandals and controversies involving the government and its leaders is also an issue. In the past, this factor has shifted the government’s attention away from governance to fire-fighting and damage control measures. The current government in Karnataka is facing a similar challenge currently. Will the next 20 months see it somewhat tiding over allegations of misuse of power, or will they further dent the image of the government?

Don’t Frustrate Voters

A second crucial element that has in the past derailed ruling parties is disunity. Electoral victories have been won on the basis of party unity. Sometimes, voters, frustrated by incessant infighting within a ruling party, may boot it out of power. The Congress had fought the 2023 assembly elections as a united force. Setting aside differences on who should be the Chief Minister, the focus was on coming to power first and then resolving the issue. On the other hand, divisions within the previous incumbent, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), were all too visible during its campaign for the elections. Now, though the ruling Congress has somewhat managed to resolve the leadership issue within its own ranks with an understanding between the top two leaders, internal strife has reared its head frequently and the top brass has had to intervene from time to time. The shadow boxing, mainly between the supporters of Siddaramaiah and D.K. Shivakumar, is patently visible. What has worked so far to the advantage of the Congress is that the state unit of the BJP is equally bogged down by infighting. 

The next 20 months would be crucial for both players. Past experience has shown amply that incessant internal squabbles can cost parties. While a stable leadership is important, it also needs to be smooth and demonstrate policy continuity.

Build Confidence—And Harmony

The third and final element of governance, social harmony, is a by-product of several factors. It requires maintaining law and order, the safety of women, religious peace, cordial relations between caste groups at the grassroots, and containing social acrimony. Achieving this implies that any ruling party will have to take a proactive approach and build confidence among all stakeholders. In the coming 20 months, one would look for indications of the same. Any lapse here can seriously erode public confidence.

(Dr. Sandeep Shastri is the National Coordinator of the Lokniti Network)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

In the lead-up to the recently concluded Haryana assembly elections, anti-incumbency sentiment was expected to surge, fuelled by farmers’ protests and other significant issues weighing on the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The Congress banked heavily on the unrest among farmers, wrestlers’ protests, and caste divisions to build a narrative that seemed poised to propel the party to the top of the state’s political landscape.

However, the election results told a different story. So, how much impact did the protesting farmers have on the assembly elections? In the Lok Sabha elections, the Congress saw an increase in both the number of seats and vote share in Haryana, largely attributed to the farmers’ discontent with the BJP.

Three years ago, when a coalition of peasant organisations successfully forced the rollback of three controversial farm laws, it was perceived as a significant blow to the Narendra Modi-led Union government. The euphoria of this so-called victory among farmer leaders soon transitioned into a political campaign against the BJP. Although their demands, including the legalisation of the Minimum Support Price (MSP), remained a focus, the protests took on an increasingly political tone.

A Mixed Outcome For Farmers

The Haryana assembly results revealed a mixed outcome for the protesting farmers. While the BJP’s popularity appeared to dip after the Lok Sabha results, the assembly election results signalled a change. Initially, the protesters succeeded in shaping the narrative. From staging pickets against BJP leaders during campaigns to public outreach and demonstrations, the farm leaders left no stone unturned. Protests at administrative offices and toll plazas further reinforced their message, but the overall mandate suggests their efforts had limited impact.

Gurnam Singh Charuni, a prominent farmer leader who played a key role in the protests against the now-repealed farm laws, managed to secure only 1,170 votes in Pehowa, finishing fifth. The seat was won by Mandeep Chatha of the Congress, who defeated BJP’s Jai Bhagwan Sharma by more than 6,500 votes.

Charuni, 64, who has faced multiple imprisonments since 1992 due to his activism, is the president of a faction of the Bhartiya Kisan Union. He contested the election under his political party, the Sanyukt Sangharsh Party (SSP). It is said that Charuni was initially seeking a Congress ticket to challenge the BJP but decided to contest independently when that didn’t materialise.

In contrast, state BJP leader and former Haryana minister Anil Vij managed to retain the Ambala Cantonment constituency despite facing significant farmer protests. He defeated independent candidate Chitra Sarwara, a former member of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), by over 7,000 votes, with Congress candidate Parvinder Pal Pari trailing in third place.

Vij – who was dropped from the cabinet when Manohar Lal Khattar was replaced as chief minister by Nayab Singh Saini in March – was heavily targeted by farmer unions throughout his campaign. They picketed his election rallies, and protests followed his campaign trail.

However, in Hisar and Ratia, where BJP candidates also faced intense protests over farm issues, the party suffered losses. In Hisar, BJP leader Kamal Gupta finished third, while in Ratia, Sunita Duggal lost to Congress candidate Jarnail Singh by over 21,000 votes. Gupta had previously won the Hisar seat in both the 2014 and 2019 assembly elections. In Ratia, sitting BJP legislator Lakshman Dass Napa quit the party after being denied a ticket.

The Border Impact

In constituencies bordering Punjab – a state that strongly rejected the BJP and has a robust base of farm unions – the election results were more polarised. Congress secured nine seats, while the BJP won three. Of these, the BJP managed to retain one but lost five to the Congress. The Congress kept two seats but lost one to the BJP. Dushyant Chautala’s Jannayak Janta Party (JJP), which was once allied with the BJP, lost the two seats it previously held in the Punjab border region – one to Congress and the other to the BJP. Notably, the JJP failed to win a single seat in this election.

Farm Politics And Political Leanings

Despite many Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) leaders being directly connected with anti-BJP parties, the group largely stayed out of the elections. In 2022, the SKM severed ties with the Samyukta Samaj Morcha (SSM) led by Balbir Singh Rajewal and Charuni’s SSP.

The poster boy of the 2020-2021 anti-farm law protests, Rakesh Tikait, previously contested elections, but without success. On the other hand, Hannan Mollah, a senior leader of the All India Kisan Sabha and former member of Parliament from the Communist Party of India (Marxist), won from West Bengal’s Uluberia eight times.

The political leanings of most SKM leaders are rooted in socialist or Left ideologies – traditionally anti-BJP. However, the peasant leaders likely missed a critical lesson from 2020 when, during the height of the protests, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) won a majority in the Bihar assembly elections, despite the anti-farm law sentiment.

Undeterred, farm leaders continued to campaign against the BJP in subsequent state elections. While the BJP won governments in Assam and Puducherry, other parties triumphed in states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal, where SKM leaders claimed some credit for the electoral outcomes, particularly in West Bengal, where Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress scored a major victory.

Despite these efforts, two years later it seems that while farm-related issues may have influenced voters in border areas, they failed to swing the overall mandate away from the BJP.

(Jayanta Bhattacharya is a senior journalist writing on polls and politics, conflict, farmer and human interest issues)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

The 2024 U.S. Presidential Election is being keenly watched around the world, both for the outcome and for the consequences. One month out, the polls suggest a virtual tie. Vice President Kamala Harris, a Democrat, had seen an increase in popularity after donning her party’s official nomination in August. But over the past two weeks, a series of events – a devastating hurricane in North Carolina, growing tensions in the Middle East, the Vice Presidential debate, and concerns about recurring inflation – appear to be shifting the momentum back toward former President Donald Trump. Much could still happen over the next month, but ultimately, the outcome will be determined by seven ‘swing states’ – Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, and Wisconsin – and each could be decided by only a few tens of thousands of voters. Although Democrats are likely to win more votes overall (as they have in seven of the last eight presidential elections), their ability to ensure higher voter turnout among their supporters in these swing states may well turn out to be the decisive factor.

Impressions Over Issues

This election campaign is being waged less on issues and more on impressions and attitudes. Trump is playing on dissatisfaction with the bureaucratic state, a scepticism of international entanglements, lower taxes for businesses and investors, curbs on immigration, and social conservatism, although he has attempted to dilute the latter to appeal more to moderate voters. Harris has positioned herself as appealing to youth, urban voters, ethnic minorities, responsible governance, and progressive social causes. Their competing worldviews reflect a rigid divide in American society across age and class lines, ethnic groups, and especially urban and rural constituencies, across which Republicans and Democrats have consolidated deeply entrenched if ‘big tent’ coalitions. Suburban voters, white women, second-generation Hispanics, and union workers are among the constituencies in which Republicans and Democrats are still battling to sway opinion.

The 2024 US presidential election outcome will matter to India, although less directly perhaps than it will to some other countries and regions. For US adversaries (China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea) the election will determine negotiations over future relations. For US allies (NATO members in Europe, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia), the election could signal changes to US force posture, assistance, and commitment. For those actively involved in current or prospective conflicts (Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan), the outcome will determine the nature of US military aid. And for major trade partners (Mexico, ASEAN, the UK), the election could have deep ramifications for their economies.

India Will Be Affected, But Not Directly

India is less directly affected than many of these countries, not being an adversary, a treaty ally, or a country dependent on military or financial assistance from the United States. To be sure, India is the United States’ ninth-largest trade partner and enjoys about a $30 billion trade surplus, but its economy is, at present, less dependent on manufacturing exports than some other large emerging markets, such as Mexico or Vietnam. While the direct implications for India might be less than for others, the 2024 US presidential election will undoubtedly have indirect effects on India.

Should Trump be elected, India will have to confront some difficult negotiations over trade and immigration. Trump and his economic advisors have been clear that they will impose tariffs on countries they believe are engaging in unfair trade practices, especially China. But India, which enjoys a trade surplus, will also be subjected to some, resulting in retaliatory measures by New Delhi. Questions remain about the degree to which a second Trump administration can refashion trade policy without negative repercussions for the US economy – particularly for inflation. Moreover, Trump’s advisors have pledged to stem immigration, especially by undocumented individuals, which may affect Indians too. Trump is also likely to impose restrictions on employment and student visas and cut funding for processing, contributing further to backlogs and delays. This will have implications for a variety of Indian businesses in the United States.

China Is Still The Big Question

For both Trump and Harris, whose views on foreign policy are still inchoate beyond a broad continuation of incumbent Joe Biden’s approach, a primary determinant of their outlook will be their policy towards China. While Trump’s national security, foreign policy, and trade advisors are overwhelmingly hawkish on China – suggesting a confrontational and competitive approach – some of his donors and financial associates have advocated for a more cooperative attitude and a cooling of US tensions with Beijing.

Meanwhile, Harris has to contend both with hardening national security and trade impulses, as also with a progressive agenda among some Democrats that seeks to disassociate the United States from international competition and conflict. Progressives – as well as veterans of the Obama administration who hope to return to influence under Harris – are also more likely to prioritise human rights over a balance of power in foreign policy.

A Lot Would Depend On The Supporting Casts

Ultimately, both Trump and Harris’s approaches to China – and, by extension, international affairs – will be determined by their selection, as President, of key advisors. The main Cabinet-level positions – U.S. Secretary of State, Defense, and Treasury, National Security Adviser, and U.S. Trade Representative – as well as second- and third-level political appointees will have an opportunity to set the tone for U.S. foreign policy for the next four years. Around Trump, figures such as Robert O’Brien and Robert Lighthizer are expected to play critical roles. The composition of a Harris foreign policy team is more uncertain, but it will likely be drawn from both Biden and Obama-era officials. Both Harris and Trump may also bring into their cabinets senior U.S. Senators, although that will be determined by margins in the Senate after this November’s election.

For all these reasons, developments of the next month – and the transition period between November’s election and the next president’s inauguration in January – will be observed carefully, in India and around the world.

(Dhruva Jaishankar is Executive Director of ORF America in Washington DC)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

The 2024 U.S. Presidential Election is being keenly watched around the world, both for the outcome and for the consequences. One month out, the polls suggest a virtual tie. Vice President Kamala Harris, a Democrat, had seen an increase in popularity after donning her party’s official nomination in August. But over the past two weeks, a series of events – a devastating hurricane in North Carolina, growing tensions in the Middle East, the Vice Presidential debate, and concerns about recurring inflation – appear to be shifting the momentum back toward former President Donald Trump. Much could still happen over the next month, but ultimately, the outcome will be determined by seven ‘swing states’ – Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, and Wisconsin – and each could be decided by only a few tens of thousands of voters. Although Democrats are likely to win more votes overall (as they have in seven of the last eight presidential elections), their ability to ensure higher voter turnout among their supporters in these swing states may well turn out to be the decisive factor.

Impressions Over Issues

This election campaign is being waged less on issues and more on impressions and attitudes. Trump is playing on dissatisfaction with the bureaucratic state, a scepticism of international entanglements, lower taxes for businesses and investors, curbs on immigration, and social conservatism, although he has attempted to dilute the latter to appeal more to moderate voters. Harris has positioned herself as appealing to youth, urban voters, ethnic minorities, responsible governance, and progressive social causes. Their competing worldviews reflect a rigid divide in American society across age and class lines, ethnic groups, and especially urban and rural constituencies, across which Republicans and Democrats have consolidated deeply entrenched if ‘big tent’ coalitions. Suburban voters, white women, second-generation Hispanics, and union workers are among the constituencies in which Republicans and Democrats are still battling to sway opinion.

The 2024 US presidential election outcome will matter to India, although less directly perhaps than it will to some other countries and regions. For US adversaries (China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea) the election will determine negotiations over future relations. For US allies (NATO members in Europe, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia), the election could signal changes to US force posture, assistance, and commitment. For those actively involved in current or prospective conflicts (Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan), the outcome will determine the nature of US military aid. And for major trade partners (Mexico, ASEAN, the UK), the election could have deep ramifications for their economies.

India Will Be Affected, But Not Directly

India is less directly affected than many of these countries, not being an adversary, a treaty ally, or a country dependent on military or financial assistance from the United States. To be sure, India is the United States’ ninth-largest trade partner and enjoys about a $30 billion trade surplus, but its economy is, at present, less dependent on manufacturing exports than some other large emerging markets, such as Mexico or Vietnam. While the direct implications for India might be less than for others, the 2024 US presidential election will undoubtedly have indirect effects on India.

Should Trump be elected, India will have to confront some difficult negotiations over trade and immigration. Trump and his economic advisors have been clear that they will impose tariffs on countries they believe are engaging in unfair trade practices, especially China. But India, which enjoys a trade surplus, will also be subjected to some, resulting in retaliatory measures by New Delhi. Questions remain about the degree to which a second Trump administration can refashion trade policy without negative repercussions for the US economy – particularly for inflation. Moreover, Trump’s advisors have pledged to stem immigration, especially by undocumented individuals, which may affect Indians too. Trump is also likely to impose restrictions on employment and student visas and cut funding for processing, contributing further to backlogs and delays. This will have implications for a variety of Indian businesses in the United States.

China Is Still The Big Question

For both Trump and Harris, whose views on foreign policy are still inchoate beyond a broad continuation of incumbent Joe Biden’s approach, a primary determinant of their outlook will be their policy towards China. While Trump’s national security, foreign policy, and trade advisors are overwhelmingly hawkish on China – suggesting a confrontational and competitive approach – some of his donors and financial associates have advocated for a more cooperative attitude and a cooling of US tensions with Beijing.

Meanwhile, Harris has to contend both with hardening national security and trade impulses, as also with a progressive agenda among some Democrats that seeks to disassociate the United States from international competition and conflict. Progressives – as well as veterans of the Obama administration who hope to return to influence under Harris – are also more likely to prioritise human rights over a balance of power in foreign policy.

A Lot Would Depend On The Supporting Casts

Ultimately, both Trump and Harris’s approaches to China – and, by extension, international affairs – will be determined by their selection, as President, of key advisors. The main Cabinet-level positions – U.S. Secretary of State, Defense, and Treasury, National Security Adviser, and U.S. Trade Representative – as well as second- and third-level political appointees will have an opportunity to set the tone for U.S. foreign policy for the next four years. Around Trump, figures such as Robert O’Brien and Robert Lighthizer are expected to play critical roles. The composition of a Harris foreign policy team is more uncertain, but it will likely be drawn from both Biden and Obama-era officials. Both Harris and Trump may also bring into their cabinets senior U.S. Senators, although that will be determined by margins in the Senate after this November’s election.

For all these reasons, developments of the next month – and the transition period between November’s election and the next president’s inauguration in January – will be observed carefully, in India and around the world.

(Dhruva Jaishankar is Executive Director of ORF America in Washington DC)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

The Congress party is gearing up for the Haryana assembly elections, which will be held on October 5 with results announced on October 8. The party is finalising its candidate list and has decided not to announce a chief ministerial candidate, opting instead for a combined leadership model.

The Congress has also resumed talks with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) regarding a potential alliance. Although the two previously contested the 2024 general elections together, early indications suggested they would go their own ways in the assembly polls.

Confident after its strong performance in the general elections, where it matched the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) with five seats each, the Congress believes it has a good chance in state elections.

In the general elections, the BJP led in 44 assembly segments, the Congress in 42, and the AAP in four. In terms of vote share, the BJP received 46%, the Congress 44%, and the AAP 4% votes.

No CM Face to Curb Factionalism

After the CEC meeting on Monday, Congress leader Ajay Singh Yadav announced that the party would not project a chief ministerial candidate for the upcoming Haryana assembly elections. The final decision on the chief ministership will be made by the high command after the elections.

AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh emphasised that defeating the BJP should be the priority for the INDIA bloc. He noted that the party’s National General Secretary (Organization) Sandeep Pathak would engage in talks with Congress if the proposal gained momentum. “The final decision will be made by Arvind Kejriwal,” Singh told reporters.

AAP’s Haryana chief, Sushil Gupta, stated his personal opinion that the party should not settle for four to five seats but left the final decision to Delhi Chief Minister and AAP National Convenor Kejriwal. Reports also indicate that AAP Rajya Sabha MP Raghav Chadha is involved in back-channel negotiations with Congress leadership.

Appealing To Broad Groups

Currently, former Haryana Chief Minister Bhupender Singh Hooda is leading the Congress effort, but a faction including Kumari Selja and Randeep Surjewala is reportedly unhappy with Hooda consolidating power.

Kiran Choudhury, who was part of this faction, left the party for the BJP after her daughter was denied a ticket in the Lok Sabha elections. The decision to not announce a chief ministerial candidate is seen as a move to curb factionalism and appeal to a broader electorate.

This strategy aims to avoid a Jat versus non-Jat contest. The Congress, under Hooda’s leadership, is perceived as representing Jat interests. The BJP has exploited Jat versus non-Jat dynamics to its advantage in previous polls. Congress is focusing on a coalition of Jats, Dalits, and Muslims. Dalits, who make up 20% of the population, are crucial. Kumari Selja’s role as a Dalit face and the non-announcement of a CM candidate help maintain hope within the Dalit community.

According to a CSDS post-poll study, 64% of Jats and 68% of Dalits voted for the INDIA bloc in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The Congress hopes this decision will help retain the majority of Dalit votes.

Possible Alliance With AAP

The Congress-AAP alliance performed well in the general elections, winning five seats and securing a 48% vote share. Although AAP contested the Kurukshetra Lok Sabha seat and lost, it led in four assembly segments and garnered a 4% vote share. The AAP’s solo run could split the opposition vote and potentially benefit the BJP.

The Congress aims to avoid a repeat of the 2019 scenario when the Jannayak Janata Party (JJP), led by Dushyant Chautala, seemingly spoiled its chances. The JJP’s 10 seats, largely from Jat-dominated areas, hurt the Congress’s prospects.

Both parties initially planned to go solo, but last-minute discussions at the high command level revived talks. The AAP is reportedly demanding 10 seats, while the Congress is currently offering two to three.

The Bania community, comprising 4% of the population, Aroras/Punjabis/Khatris (7%), and Sikhs (5%) are significant demographics in Haryana. The AAP has pockets of influence among these groups in Delhi and Punjab and is expected to gain some support in Haryana as well.

In the 2024 general elections, the BJP led in 19 of 23 urban seats, while the Congress led in only four. In rural Haryana’s 60 seats, the Congress led in 34, and the BJP in 22. The AAP is believed to have considerable influence in urban areas, particularly those bordering Delhi and Punjab, where Congress’s weak seats are located.

This strategy allows Congress to focus on strengthening its position in its strong Jat-dominated region while leveraging AAP’s influence in weaker areas to maximise gains in the assembly elections.

(Amitabh Tiwari is a political strategist and commentator. In his earlier avatar, he was a corporate and investment banker.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

As was widely expected in the UK elections, the Labour Party has registered one of its biggest victories, inflicting a huge defeat on the Conservative Party.

No one had expected this seismic outcome just a few years ago. But Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, who is going to be the next British Prime Minister, is being hailed by everyone for changing the fortune of the party. He promised to get Britain out of economic stagnation and claimed he would fix the ailing National Health Services. He even reached out to ethnic communities, including the Indian diaspora.

‘Namaste’, Starmer

In the last days of the election campaign, Keir Starmer visited the Shree Swaminarayan Mandir Kingsbury, a prominent Hindu temple in London, and said “namaste” with folded hands. His charm offensive included him wearing a tilak on his forehead and a floral garland around his neck. Starmer may have looked out of place, but it was an attempt to placate angry Indian diaspora voters, the majority of whom were expected to favour the Conservative Party. The temple visit was also intended to send out a strong signal of friendship with India.

Also Read | Labour Sweeps UK Polls, Rishi Sunak’s Party Ousted For 1st Time In 14 Years

Despite his awkwardness, Starmer knew he had to perform this political act, not only because his visit underscored Labour’s commitment to embracing and celebrating diversity within the UK, but also because he needed to repair relations with the influential Indian diaspora, and, by extension, India. It had been clear for quite some time that his party was returning to power after a hiatus of 14 years and he was going to be the next UK Prime Minister; that is why he needed to undertake an India outreach before assuming office.

The Baggage Of The Past

Starmer’s gesture of visiting the temple was particularly significant given the events of September 2019, when during its annual conference in Brighton, the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership had passed a motion addressing the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. The motion declared that there was a humanitarian crisis in the region and asserted that the people of Kashmir should be granted the right to self-determination. Additionally, it had called for the deployment of international monitors to the area to ensure the protection of human rights and the assessment of the situation on the ground.

Needless to say, the Labour Party had gone too far. And despite the clarification issued by Jeremy Corbyn, the damage was done.

The motion was met with significant backlash from the Indian diaspora, who felt that it was one-sided and did not consider the complexities of the Kashmir issue. The event marked a turning point as many members of the Indian community began to shift their allegiances to the Conservative Party.

Also Read | “This Is A Massacre”: Conservative Leader As Labour Heads For Massive UK Win

The Indian government also responded sharply to the Labour’s motion. It was reported that the Indian High Commission in London took the unprecedented step of cancelling a scheduled dinner for Labour leaders, signalling its strong disapproval. The Indian government officially rejected the motion, emphasising its concerns about what it viewed as interference in its internal affairs.

In an effort to mend relations, Starmer attempted to address the situation last year, when he asserted that the Labour Party would strive to maintain strong relations with India, indicating a desire to rebuild trust and cooperation. Despite these efforts, the episode highlighted the fragile nature of Labour’s relations with India and underscored the significant political influence of the Indian diaspora in the UK.
Labour’s image makeover under Starmer

A Changed Labour

Indeed, the Labour Party has now made a triumphant comeback, securing a thumping majority. We should keep in mind that the party is a much-changed one under Starmer. It wants to inject more depth and substance into Britain’s strategic partnership with India.

India is most likely to carefully monitor Labour’s policy stance on Kashmir, immigration and the proposed Free Trade Agreement (FTA). The Indian government may have apprehensions about Labour’s views on its internal matters, but on balance, the India-UK bilateral relations will not change much under Starmer. In fact, Labour supporters in the Indian community believe that under him, the relations are likely to improve. It is being claimed that the number of Indian-origin Labour MPs would double from the current six members in the outgoing Parliament. 

Will The Ties Improve?

Academics in the UK at times tend to romanticise the bilateral ties between the two countries, looking at it chiefly from the prism of colonial nostalgia. We are led to believe that it is in India’s interest to have a deeper strategic partnership with Britain. To be honest, however, India sees Britain as a middle power, whose influence on the global stage has been on the wane for long. One can only blame the Conservative Party for it, a beleaguered and divided house which presided over 14 years of stagnation. India under Narendra Modi, who was born after the country’s independence, is, whether rightly or wrongly, not in awe of its erstwhile colonial masters.

Also Read | UK’s Labour Party Commits To Stamping Out “Anti-India Sentiments”

Yes, the bilateral trade in goods and services is growing steadily, and stood at £39 billion last year, with the balance of trade heavily in India’s favour. Yes, we have a vocal, upwardly mobile Indian diaspora, which acts as a bridge between the two countries and it often works to India’s advantage. But the oomph factor in bilateral relations has been missing for a long time. For example, India and the US warmed up to each other and became trusted partners only after the Civil Nuclear Agreement between the two countries was brokered under President George W. Bush. It was a pivotal moment that added significant “oomph” to bilateral ties and transformed the dynamics of the relationship, fostering deeper strategic, economic, and technological cooperation. It set the stage for an enduring partnership in the 21st century. Even during the Obama and Trump administrations the bilateral ties never ran out of excitement. 

One cannot say the same about India-UK relations, which badly need to be injected with energy, excitement and a mega-deal. 

FTA: Starmer’s First Challenge In India-UK Ties

With regards to India, one of the first tasks on Starmer’s desk will be to reach a Free Trade Agreement. He has maintained his commitment to completing the FTA, but it is not going to be easy. India’s priority appears to be to finalise an agreement with the European Union (EU) first. The bilateral trade in goods and services last year stood at €113 billion. The two sides relaunched the negotiations in 2022 and the progress is said to be satisfactory.

According to a group of researchers, another stumbling block in the India-UK FTA is “the opposition in the UK to Indian demands for more visas for intra-company transfers and particularly to demands that social security contributions from Indian workers during such transfers be reimbursed”.

Immigration Policies

Brexit has led to record levels of Indian immigration. Of the 6.85 lakh immigrants in the UK today, the majority come from India. The Labour Party’s stated aim is to reduce legal immigration and curb illegal immigration. Many of the legal Indian immigrants are IT professionals on work permits, contributing to the UK’s technology sector. There is a small number of illegal immigrants from India as well.

The party’s policy seeks to balance the economic benefits of skilled migrants with the goal of controlling overall immigration numbers, reflecting broader political and economic priorities.
Human Rights and Citizenship Laws

Historically, the Labour Party has been vocal about human rights issues in India, particularly on laws like the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The Labour Party’s criticism has been viewed by the Indian government as interference and a misrepresentation of India’s internal policies aimed at addressing specific security concerns. Starmer will be under pressure from domestic human rights organisations to put forward liberal British perspectives. His diplomatic skills are bound to be tested in the coming months and years.

The relations between the UK’s Labour Party and the Indian government are complex, influenced by historical ties, diaspora politics, and divergent policy priorities. Addressing such challenges will require nuanced diplomacy, mutual respect, and an understanding of the sensitivities involved on both sides.

(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with the Western media)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author