New Delhi: The seven all-party delegations that were sent abroad to present India’s position on Operation Sindoor have completed their tasks and returned to India. The Prime Minister met all the delegation members and complimented them on their efforts. It is an opportune moment to review multiple aspects of the developments – how the process of forming these delegations, determining their itineraries, briefing them on the matters to be discussed, the cut and thrust of their meetings and public interactions in the assigned countries and their return home and the wider implications of the visits. The public attention that the visits drew was significant. It is no surprise that the Speaker of the Lok Sabha is contemplating creating `parliamentary friendship groups`.
The seven all-party delegations consisted of 59 members which included Members of Parliament from across parties, politicians and retired diplomats. Two of these delegations were headed by BJP leaders, two by leaders of non-BJP, NDA partners and three by those from the opposition. The government which took the initiative to form the delegations, had its own clear rationale for the choice of the heads of the delegations and the choice of the other members. In the case of the Trinamool Congress, the representative chosen was changed when the original member nominated declined and the party suggested the name of an alternate member.
A major controversy was linked to the nomination of the Congress members on these panels. Only one name from the list proposed by the party was included and other nominations were the choice of the government. It must be said to the credit of all political players that despite minor disagreements, it did not directly impact the work of the delegations. Tangentially, statements made by some delegation members did invite a response from their parties back home in India.
When one looked at the countries visited by the seven delegations, it was clear that there was a clear difference in focus, strategy and the clubbing together of countries a delegation visited. This factor was visibly kept in mind when choosing the Chairpersons of the delegations and their members. As the visits got underway, the presence of certain members in the delegations, was leveraged quiet effectively to project the purpose of the visit. Especially in public interactions and discussions with the media, the composition of each delegation clearly had the anticipated impact.
As one reviews the media reporting of the work done by the seven delegations, the focus was one a few delegations. The delegation which went to the United States and a few countries in Latin America appeared to get the lion’s share of attention. It could well be linked to the leader of the delegation and the countries being visited. The other delegations (save the one which went to countries in Western Europe) tended to receive less media attention, save the public pronouncements of a few delegation members. It is also interesting to see that coinciding with the all-party delegation`s visits, parallel meetings in these countries were being held by prominent Union Ministers. It is unclear whether this was by design or a mere coincidence in the context of emerging global developments.
The seven all-party delegations also saw important differences in terms of whom all they met during their visits to thirty-two different countries. As the delegations largely consisted of Members of Parliament, they did have interactions with parliamentarians in the countries they visited. There were also variations about the level of seniority of Ministers from the host country that the delegation met. The delegation did interact with the Indian diaspora in many of the countries. These meetings appeared critical in terms of taking the Indian community into confidence and building up the right networks for support.
Once the delegations had all completed their visits and returned home, they had an opportunity to interact with the Prime Minister over a dinner hosted by him. The focus of the media reporting was clearly on his interactions with delegation members who hailed from the Congress party! Beyond the media scrutiny, the delegation members would surely have had an extended opportunity to interact with the Prime Minister and other senior ministers. It would have been useful if the chairs of the seven delegations had addressed a joint press conference to present their individual assessment of the meetings that they had. While the visits of the all-party delegation was an important event, it may be useful to sustain the same as a process with the attendant follow up actions.
It is important to underscore the point that the delegation members made it clear that while abroad they were representing India and presenting a common stand on the impact and implications of Operation Sindoor. Many of them went on to add that once the delegation task is completed and when they returned home, their role in representing their political parties would continue with the same vigour as in the past. Will this distinction between following an accepted line as part of an all-party delegation when abroad and remaining committed to the political agenda that their parties pursue in domestic politics become an accepted norm? If it does, it would require all political parties and their leaders to consciously recognise and respect this distinction. This would avoid the possible crossfires the absence of recognizing such a distinction can result in. Would this be possible in an increasingly and sharply polarised polity be possible? More importantly would it be sustainable? Can political parties and their leaders avoid the temptation of scoring political brownie points by conveniently forgetting this distinction when it is to their political advantage? The way politics unfolds in the coming months would have the answer to these questions.