Its quietness is all the more surprising because Kamala Harris, as her first name shows, has an Indian background. Her mother was a Tamilian who married a Jamaican in the US. Some of her relatives still live in India.

There are reasons, therefore, for not only the liberals, but also Indians of all ideological persuasions to feel happy over her rise to very near the top in US politics. As Congress M.P. Shashi Tharoor has said, it is “thrilling” that a “half-desi” woman will be only the proverbial heartbeat away from the US presidency if the Democrats win the November 3 elections, as seems likely.

Yet, the BJP, which is never shy of flaunting its nationalistic credentials, has been holding its tongue. The reason given by the Indian government for maintaining a low profile is that it does not comment on the internal politics of another country. But, like many of the saffron camp’s observations, this assertion is not entirely true.

As the slogan, abki baar Trump sarkar, during the “howdy Modi” jamboree in Houston during the Indian prime minister’s US visit demonstrated, the BJP is not averse to letting its preferences show when the party believes that it is on the same page as a foreign leader.

The bonhomie between Trump and Narendra Modi is explained by their complementary right-wing beliefs. Trump has also been a favourite of the BJP because of his criticism of Pakistan as untrustworthy (before he met Imran Khan) and his government’s attempted bans on the entry of immigrants from certain Islamic countries.

Although the Indian diaspora in the US is known to vote for the Democrats, there has been a change since Trump’s and Modi’s almost simultaneous rise in the politics of their countries and shared ideological convictions. As this camaraderie has grown, the BJP has become more forthright about its pro-Republican and anti-Democratic tilt.

So much so that the BJP’s B.L. Santhosh had even tweeted (before deleting it) that the party might have to interfere in the American elections (as the Russians have been accused of doing) if the Democrats and their earlier presidential aspirant, Bernie Sanders, continue to criticize India on Kashmir.

During a trip to the US, the Indian external affairs minister, S. Jaishankar, had even declined to attend a Congressional hearing because of the presence of a member of Indian origin, Pramila Jayapal, who had taken a hard line on the Indian position in Kashmir.

It is unlikely that the minister will take a similar stance with regard to Kamala Harris because she, too, is believed to be critical of New Delhi’s Kashmir policy. It is also true that irrespective of whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the While House, the American proximity towards India will remain in view of their common antipathy towards China.

However, there is little doubt that a Democratic administration will generally be far more blunt in expressing its disquiet about the allegations of human rights violations in Kashmir or the harassment of the anti-citizenship law protesters than the Republicans.

At the same time, it has to be acknowledged that a bipartisan Republican-Democratic group recently expressed concern over the situation in Kashmir, suggesting that not all Republicans are willing to turn a blind eye towards what is happening in Kashmir like their president.

The rise of right-wing ideologues virtually all over the world such as Trump in America, Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, the Rajapaksas in Sri Lanka and Viktor Orban in Hungary had enabled the Modi government to function within a familiar ecosystem. It is not surprising that the government had facilitated a visit to Kashmir last October by a group of far right members of European parliament, some of whom were reputed to be neo-Nazis and Islamophobes.

The Joe Biden-Kamala Harris ticket marks an end, however, of the rightist trend in international politics which had ushered in a meaner, harsher world, according to the last Democratic American president, Barack Obama. Notwithstanding the convergence of views with America on China, it will be unrealistic of the Indian government to believe that it will have an easy ride henceforth on the issues of civil liberties.

It will take considerable diplomatic skill, therefore, on the part of the Indian diplomats to ensure that the relations between the world’s oldest and largest democracies do not enter an uncertain phase. Yet, considering that there is little chance of the Hindutva camp moderating its outlook on Kashmir or the citizenship laws, there are bound to be periods of tension between the Democrats and India. (IPA Service)