US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio
Credit: Reuters Photo
United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s remarks at Hamilton, Canada, on November 12, following his meeting with External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar at the G7 summit in Calgary, have been selectively reported by the Indian media to project perceptions of Washington’s solidarity with India in the downstream of the Red Fort terrorist attack on November 10.
In reality, though, Rubio, a veteran diplomat, gave a nuanced statement, which was thoughtfully articulated, containing multiple templates if one were to run a fine comb through it. Simply put, was Rubio having the Indian government’s back, or, was he messaging with an eye on the developing situation?
First of all, at Hamilton airport, Rubio was answering a pointed question through an extended press conference that was dominated by Ukraine, Venezuela, and Gaza, specifically on how concerned the US was about the terrorist incident in Delhi and the ‘rising tensions between India and Pakistan, given the antecedent of the tension and the fighting in the spring.’
Rubio was upfront to acknowledge that ‘we’re aware of the potential that that [incident] holds.’ Then he abruptly pulled back to compliment the Indian authorities for the ‘very measured and cautious and very professional’ manner in which the Indian authorities are conducting the investigation.
Rubio noted that it was indeed a terrorist incident. Then, he proceeded to compliment the Indian authorities once again for ‘doing a very good job of carrying out an investigation.’ But he added, ‘I think when they have facts, they’ll release those facts.’
Washington is quietly pleased that there has been, for once, no knee-jerk reaction by India, the government's new doctrine that any acts of terrorism will be regarded as ‘an act of war’, et al, notwithstanding. Importantly, Washington remains engaged on the outcome of the investigation.
Rubio then reflected on the gravity of the situation — ‘clearly, I mean, we’re aware of the potential that it has, and so we spoke about that a little bit today – the potential that it has to become something broader.’ In effect, he disclosed that the topic figured in his meeting with Jaishankar.
Nonetheless, Rubio added, ‘But I think we’re going to wait and see what their investigation reveals.’ Then he disclosed that Delhi actually spurned an offer from Washington to ‘help’ — ‘We’ve offered to help, but I think they’re very capable in these investigations. They don’t need our help.’ Rubio probably sensed that it is a slippery slope if the US is seen as meddling. Indeed, once bitten, twice shy.
For the present, this works fine for the Modi government. But has Rubio spoken the final word? What if the investigation turns up evidence of a Pakistani role? Sections of the media have cited unnamed Indian officials naming the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM)’s complicity, the Deobandi-jihadist Pakistani militant group active in Kashmir. A prominent think-tank, wired into the Indian establishment, has stated that the lady doctor Dr Shaheena Shahid under detention is suspected to be heading the Indian operations of JeM women’s brigade, the Jamat-ul-Muminatis.
It is entirely conceivable that a steady build-up is under way pointing fingers at Pakistan’s complicity. Of course, there is also the counterpoint that the Delhi attack is ‘a symptom of a deeper malaise. It signals the quiet resurgence of ideological extremism in India’s urban underbelly — a phenomenon that has long simmered beneath the surface, particularly in parts of Jammu and Kashmir, but has now seeped into the social fabric of several metropolitan centres… it is travelling through cities, universities, prayer groups, and online echo chambers. The unchecked spread of extremist ideology is today the most dangerous multiplier of terrorism’ — to quote Lt Gen (retd) Syed Ata Hasnain.
The general was spot on in assessing that ‘Urban radicalisation does not require direct instruction from across the border; it grows locally, often through grievance narratives amplified online. The convergence of faith-based grievance, political polarisation, and online propaganda makes de-radicalisation extraordinarily complex.’
All in all, the government is approaching zugzwang where none of the follow-up is acceptable once the investigation concludes — estimation of the incident as a manifestation of ‘home-made’ terrorism, or yet another incendiary Molotov cocktail hurled at us from across the Pakistan border.
It's Hobson's choice, really. Why would the government admit that the entire security doctrine it built up around Operation Sindoor has become irrelevant? Again, why would the government admit the security establishment’s failure until the hydra-headed terror module spread its tentacles in the Indian hinterland over the recent years? Ironically, its habitat also happens to be BJP-ruled states.
To be sure, such a grotesque manifestation of terrorism can gather momentum only if a fertile ground exists in the country. That is a profound issue of political and ideological concern for India’s ruling elite.
Make no mistake, Washington is waiting in the wings for consultations with New Delhi and reserves its prerogative as a stakeholder to provide inputs. The extraordinary C5+1 chaired by US President Donald Trump in the White House on November 6 should leave no doubt that Central Asia is figuring for the first time at the core of the US’ regional strategies in Eurasia — and Pakistan (rather, Af-Pak) has a key role to play on the chessboard, where geopolitics is enmeshed with geoeconomics in a complicated dynamic.
The C5+1 summit not only announced a cascade of trade and investment deals, but revived the Abraham Accords, the signature Trump initiative loaded with geopolitics, with Kazakhstan’s entry into the security architecture that was originally designed to normalise Israel’s ties with the Arab states. Washington perceives that the Ukraine war is causing erosion in Russia’s dominance in the geopolitics of Central Asia bordering China. And the US’ return to Afghanistan, with Pakistan’s help, is now only a matter of time.
Suffice to say, Trump has appeared on the Silk Road with a backpack of highly transactional multi-billion dollar investments, which makes it imperative that there’s stability and predictability in the regional security situation. India’s adage that this is not an era of wars comes to haunt it. Trump’s delegation to the C5+1 summit comprised, apart from the US vice-president, treasury secretary, and secretary of state, the newly-appointed ambassador to India as well.
M K Bhadrakumar is a former diplomat.
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.