The Ministry of external affairs' (Mea) comment yesterday that it objected to Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's remarks on the criminal record of Indian parliamentarians, saying such remarks were uncalled for has snowballed with Kerala MP Shashi Tharoor criticising the reaction and noting that India should be less thin-skinned.
It is reported that the ministry conveyed India's reaction to the Singaporean high commissioner, saying that the remarks were uncalled for.
Will this incident become a self-limiting one, or could it drive a wedge in the ties with a country with India that has robust ties, which has assumed even more importance with India maintaining that India's Indo Pacific vision is based on the centrality of ASEAN? Singapore is an ASEAN member and India has good relations with Singapore both as an ASEAN member, as well as a nation. It is an important country for India from many perspectives, ranging from Act East to Indo Pacific. There is a strong Indian diaspora in Singapore, with one-tenth of the nationals of Indian origin, as well as a sizeable expat population, in both influential positions in areas like finance and medicine, as well as in the regular workforce.
Loong's comments were made during a parliamentary debate on how democracy should work in the country. Much of what Loong spoke was in glory of India, with him praising Jawaharlal Nehru. Loong noted that while most countries are founded on high ideals, things change over decades and generations, and many founding fathers would not recognise most of the political systems today. Taking forward his argument, he said that "Jawaharlal Nehru's India has become one where, according to media reports, almost half of the MPs in the Lok Sabha are facing charges of rape and murder. However, it is also said that many of these allegations are politically motivated.''
Tharoor tweeted that India should ``have handled the matter with a statement saying 'we heard with interest the PM's remarks. But we don't comment on other countries' internal matters, nor on debates in foreign Parliaments, & urge everyone to follow the same principle.' Far more effective & less offensive," Tharoor said in another tweet.
The happenings in India are often invoked in debates in other countries, even more often, groups of parliamentarians sign a statement against some development in India. In recent years, this has mainly been in the context of Kashmir, minorities, and recently, even over the farm bills. Usually, the comments are made by elected leaders, who represent a particular electorate. In general, the governments themselves have been careful about commenting pointedly, usually couching their opinion between phrases like "internal matter of the country'' and other comments about hoping the spirit of democracy and human rights will be kept alive. This is a rare occasion when a prime minister himself has remarked, that too, in a parliamentary debate. However, that remark was not targetting India as much as it was being used as an illustration to emphasise his point.
India is usually quick to respond to any comments made by leaders of another country about it, stressing that whatever happens within India is its internal matter. In the recent past, the Canadian envoy was summoned by the ministry when Justin Trudeau commented about "the farmers' right to peaceful protests.'' Trudeau's comments were politically motivated, aimed at pleasing the Sikh electorate, as he was speaking at an event to commemorate Guru Parab. India had informed him that such damaging comments could seriously impact bilateral ties. India, however, has issues with Canada regarding the Khalistani movement. With Singapore, on the other hand, the ties are warmer and more constructive. Loong was present as one of the chief guests at the Republic Day parade of 2018 when India invited the leaders of all ten ASEAN countries to the show.
The ministry has not issued any comment in writing on this controversy, all comments are based on sources. The controversy could therefore just die down naturally. Often enough a remark by a leader leads to an envoy being summoned to convey displeasure and then the matter is laid to rest. Last year, the Singapore government had summoned the Indian envoy to register a protest with Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal using the term 'Singapore variant' for a Covid 19 virus variant.
The 2002 Gujarat riots, however, were different, because both the UK and the US denied a visa to Narendra Modi, then chief minister of the state, holding him responsible for the bloodbath. UK lifted the ban in 2012, the US only after Modi became prime minister in 2014. In sharp contrast, Donald Trump refused to comment on the riots in Delhi in 2020 while he was visiting, insisting that it was an internal matter of India.
