Overseas Quarterly: On Internal Affairs and India’s Response

Following the government’s scathing summons to the South Korean ambassador over social media posts by private companies, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the Singapore High Commissioner after a speech by Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong earlier this week, where he told Prime Minister Political integrity has declined in India after the tenure of Minister Nehru. He warned that if Singapore “doesn’t have to go down that path” it must stop any political corruption. Despite the high praise for Nehru, the speech was an unexpectedly broad one, and one that deserved to take up the issue of “unnecessary” comments with the Singaporean diplomat. As suggested by the South Korean case, South Bloc is building a pattern of its “zero tolerance” towards any criticism of India. First, Prime Minister Lee’s comments, where he said that nearly half of all Indian Lok Sabha MPs face criminal charges, are not unfounded. Mr. Lee also cautioned that many of these cases may be motivated by political rivalry – indicating some understanding of Indian politics. Second, he spoke of a similar decline in Israeli politics, and the British “Partygate” scandal (to date, Israel and the UK have not objected). Finally, the speech was set in a broader context, as he invoked Confucian guidelines for social behavior that unite a nation: ritual, righteousness, honesty, and shame. His 5,000-word speech on the subject had just one Indian example where he praised the founders of the independence movement, and condemned the decline in values ​​since then. The comment, while harsh, doesn’t deserve a strong-headed response.

It is possible to argue that Mr. Lee’s examples were arbitrary, and included unusual criticism for a country with otherwise friendly relations with Singapore. Given that the issue was a breach of privilege in Singapore’s parliament, where an opposition member was found guilty of lying to the House, the mention of India was certainly not necessary. It is also possible to argue that Singapore’s very controlled version of democracy cannot be compared to India’s more vibrant democratic traditions. However, the strong response New Delhi showed only reflects an insecurity about these traditions. The fact that it comes on the back of a series of other summons, demarches and statements responding to other governments to speak about the “internal affairs of India” adds to the impression, especially given that The Modi government often comments on its internal issues. neighbors. While the event is unlikely to cause more than a ripple in wider, historically deep bilateral ties with Singapore, the government should avoid an international reputation that lends itself to Shakespeare’s line – that it is “very resists more”.