Janarajkarana Column | Review of All-Party Delegations

Seven delegations representing all parties, which were sent abroad to explain India’s position on ‘Operation Vermilion’, have completed their work. They have returned to India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who met all the members of the delegations, has appreciated the efforts of the delegations.

This is a good time to review the developments surrounding this – the process by which the delegations were formed, the way in which they were assigned tasks, the information they were given on the issues they were to discuss, the fact that they held meetings in countries where the circumstances were not conducive, the interactions they had with the public, and the wider implications of the delegations’ visits.

The public attention in India on the visits of these delegations was remarkable. It is therefore not surprising that Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla has considered forming 'Parliamentary Friendship Groups'.

The seven delegations representing all parties had a total of 59 members. The delegations included MPs from different parties, politicians and retired diplomats. Two delegations were led by BJP leaders. The other two delegations were led by leaders of parties that are not affiliated to the BJP but are part of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). The remaining three delegations were led by leaders of opposition parties.

The central government, which took the initiative to form the delegation, had its own clear rationale while selecting the heads of delegations and the members of the delegations. In the case of Trinamool Congress, the representative who was initially selected refused to be part of the delegation. The party nominated another name. Thus, the representative of that party was replaced.

A major controversy arose over the nomination of Congress members to the delegations. Only one of the representatives from the list provided by the Congress party was appointed as a member of the delegation. The rest of the Congress members were chosen by the government. Except for minor differences of opinion, nothing adversely affected the functioning of the delegations. The credit for this must go to all the political parties. The statements made by some members of the delegations elicited some reactions from the parties they represented. But these reactions are not the crux of the matter.

When we look at the names of the countries visited by the seven delegations, it is clear that there is a very clear difference in priorities and a difference in strategy. It is on that basis that the countries to be visited by the delegations were finalised. This aspect was kept in mind while finalising the members of the delegations and their leaders. After the delegations began their foreign visits, the presence of some members in the delegations was effectively used to explain the purpose of the visit. More importantly, it is clear that the representation of the members in the delegations had the desired effect in the interactions with the public and during the discussions with the media.

A review of the media coverage of the seven missions reveals that some missions received more attention than others. The missions to the Americas and some Latin American countries seemed to receive more attention. This may be due to the person leading the mission and the countries visited. The other missions (except the one to Western Europe) received less media attention. However, public statements by some members of these missions did receive media attention.

Indian Union ministers held alternate meetings in the countries where all-party delegations were visiting. This is a very interesting fact. It is not clear whether it is a coincidence that ministers held meetings during the same time as the delegations visited, given the many developments taking place globally. There were also differences in who the delegations visited in the thirty-two countries.

The majority of the members of the delegations were parliamentarians. Thus, the delegations held discussions with parliamentarians from the countries they visited. There were also differences in the seniority of the ministers they met with in the countries they visited. In most countries, the members of the delegations held discussions with people of Indian origin. Such discussions were found to be important in terms of gaining the confidence of the Indian community and building a network of support.

After the delegations completed their visit and returned home, they had the opportunity to meet and hold talks with Prime Minister Modi. Modi hosted a banquet for the members of the delegations. Here, the media's attention was on how Modi interacted with the Congress party members who were in the various delegations! Beyond the eyes of the media, the members of the delegations certainly had the opportunity to hold further talks with Prime Minister Modi and senior members of the Cabinet.

It would have been even better if the leaders of all seven delegations had come together and held a press conference to provide information about the meetings they had held. While the fact that delegations from all parties visited different countries is a major development, it may be appropriate to take some such steps in the future as well.

It is very important to mention one thing here. The members of the delegations had made it very clear that they were representing India when they were abroad and that they were all unanimous in their views on the consequences of the 'Sindoor Operation'. Some members also said that after the delegations' work was completed and they returned to India, the work of representing their parties would continue as before.

Will it become the accepted norm in the future for members of all-party delegations to follow a mutually agreed-upon stance while abroad and to act in accordance with their political party's agenda in domestic politics? If so, all political parties and their leaders will need to recognize and respect this difference.

If this happens, it will be possible to prevent problems that arise due to not recognizing differences in positions in different situations. But is such a thing possible in a political system that is becoming increasingly polarized? Moreover, will such a position last for long? Will political leaders who easily forget to maintain differences in this way overcome the desire for political gain? Especially, will they overcome that pressure even when they know that it will benefit them politically? The pace of politics in the coming days will answer these questions.