Of the about >30 countries Narendra Modi has visited as Prime Minister , he has addressed big public rallies in seven. Yet, none can compare with the scale of London’s Wembley event, where an estimated 50,000 non-resident Indians (NRIs) and other Indians braved the cold to listen to him speak during his visit last week to the United Kingdom. And when he did, the crowds cheered with delight as he invoked the common threads between the two countries, neatly sidestepping the issue of British colonialism in India and instead referring to a “shared history” and values in which 1.5 million British Indians play a vital part. The fact that >Prime Minister David Cameron gave the introductory speech for him , making jibes on behalf of Mr. Modi against those who said a “tea-seller would never be PM”, and ignoring protests in London as well as >severe criticism of Mr. Modi in British newspapers , is a testament to the deep bond the two men have come to share.
Yet, personal equations between leaders and community bonds with the diaspora can only be the means to a better bilateral relationship, and cannot actually supplant the relationship. Despite three visits by Mr. Cameron to India in the past five years, the U.K.’s and India’s shares in each other’s exports, both goods and services, have steadily declined, and bilateral trade at $14 billion falls far short of their $30-billion goal announced in 2010. It is here that Prime Minister Modi’s visit to the U.K. had drawn the highest expectations, and fell short, as serious issues over trade, taxes and visas that have put a considerable strain on the economic relationship remain. While there were the right noises on policies, there was little to show that the problems of easing business regulations for British companies, and relaxing immigration and visa norms for Indian companies, professionals and students, have been resolved. The two sides made little visible progress on strategic and defence issues, no mention was made of the big-ticket defence deals that had been spoken of prior to the visit. And the civil nuclear agreement announced is only the natural conclusion of the treaty declared in 2010, and on which negotiations were launched in 2014. Perhaps the biggest takeaway from the joint statements came from the enhanced language on fighting terror groups, naming the LeT and Hizbul Mujahideen for the first time, jointly pushing for the UN comprehensive convention on international terrorism (CCIT), and strengthening strategic cooperation and intelligence-sharing through annual consultations. Reports of Mr. Modi raising the issue of groups that exist in the U.K. and foment separatism in Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab are significant in this context. Given that the >horrific attacks in Paris took place during his visit to the U.K., it is to be hoped that a more consistent and cooperative framework for dealing with terrorism will emerge to strengthen India-U.K. ties on a substantive level, beyond the warmth of their historically induced closeness.
