Become A Member

Author name: Chloe Schuber

Navigating US-India Relations in the Context of the 2024 Elections: Trump vs. Harris

Blog, Research Articles /

Author: Chloe Schuber, Research & Operations Assistant : Strengthening Democracy Desk As the 2024 US presidential election nears, US-India relations stand at a critical juncture, shaped by global events and the divergent foreign policy approaches of the candidates. Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris offer sharply contrasting visions for this key partnership. Trump’s strategy centres on defence and protectionism, while Harris appears to prioritise broader collaboration in areas like climate change, technology, and multilateral diplomacy. With China’s growing assertiveness in the region, the direction of US-India relations in the coming years will be crucial. Donald Trump and India: Strategic Gains, Economic Tensions During his presidency (2017–2021), Donald Trump deepened US-India relations, anchored in his personal camaraderie with Prime Minister Modi. This connection was highlighted by high-profile events such as the “Howdy Modi” rally in Houston (2019) – organised by the US Indian diaspora – and the “Namaste Trump” event in Ahmedabad (2020). These gatherings showcased a key mutual strategic alignment focused on countering China’s rise in the Indo-Pacific, and strengthening defence ties, economic cooperation, and regional security partnerships. Under Trump’s administration, US-India relations saw substantial progress in defence and security cooperation. Major defence deals and enhanced intelligence-sharing agreements positioned India as a key partner in the Indo-Pacific. This collaboration was institutionalised through the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), comprising the US, India, Japan, and Australia. India’s strategic importance in this alliance, aimed at balancing China’s military and economic influence, became central. As Trump campaigns for a return to the White House in 2024, his approach to US-India relations is likely to be shaped by the “Project 2025” initiative, which emphasises countering China’s influence as a one of its key strategic objectives. Defence cooperation would remain a central pillar, building on previous achievements such as enhanced arms sales, intelligence sharing, and agreements like COMCASA (Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement). This cooperation is particularly significant as it represents a shift away from India’s historical dependence on Russian military hardware, appearing to bring it closer to Western strategic interests whilst serving India’s goals of multi-alignment. However, Trump’s “America First” economic policies could again create tensions, particularly in sectors like high-tech and pharmaceuticals. His previous actions, such as imposing tariffs on Indian steel and aluminium and removing India from the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) programme, led to trade frictions. A second Trump administration might continue to push for greater market access and address trade imbalances, potentially leading to renewed economic challenges in the bilateral relationship. Kamala Harris: Potential for Re-Engagement Kamala Harris’s historic rise as the first female Vice-President of the US, with her Indian ancestry, initially generated enthusiasm in India. However, her personal heritage has not translated into significant diplomatic engagement with India. Harris has focused largely on domestic issues, leaving foreign policy, including US-India relations, to other officials within the Biden administration. A key moment of tension came in 2019, when Harris made remarks on the sensitive issue of Kashmir. She voiced concerns over India’s actions following the revocation of Article 370, stating, “We have to remind Kashmiris they are not alone in the world. We are watching.” This was viewed in India as undue criticism of the government’s domestic policies, which sparked backlash given the country’s sensitivity to foreign commentary on Kashmir. Her comments, while reflective of broader Democratic concerns around human rights and democracy, were seen as lacking in constructive engagement with India on this complex issue. Despite this friction, Harris’s remarks are unlikely to be a dealbreaker. US-India relations are driven by shared strategic interests—particularly in defence, technology, and trade—so while her comments were poorly received, they have not fundamentally altered the overall trajectory of the partnership. Climate Change as a Pillar of Future Cooperation Climate change is emerging as one of the most critical areas for US-India cooperation. For Harris, whose platform prioritises environmental sustainability, climate action could be a cornerstone of her foreign policy, especially in relation to India. Both countries are committed to global frameworks such as the Paris Agreement, and their shared goals in renewable energy present opportunities for deeper cooperation. Whilst both countries are part of the top three largest emitter of greenhouse gases (with the US often ranking first) is also, India is striving to transition to clean energy, aiming to generate 50% of its electricity from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030. The US could play a pivotal role in supporting this transition through technological partnerships, investment in green infrastructure, and clean energy technology transfer. Collaborations in solar power, wind energy, and electric vehicles would not only help India meet its renewable energy goals but also create new market opportunities for US companies. For India, like the US, climate change is more than an environmental issue; it is also a matter of national security. Rising temperatures, unpredictable monsoons, and extreme weather events threaten India’s agriculture, water resources, and infrastructure. US-India cooperation on climate resilience, particularly in areas like water management and sustainable agriculture, could mitigate these risks. In contrast, Trump’s past downplaying of climate change and his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement suggest that environmental cooperation would not be a priority in a second Trump administration. However, given the economic potential of the green energy sector, even Trump may recognise the value of engaging with India on clean energy projects, particularly as India looks to diversify its energy sources. The Strategic Importance of China Beyond climate change, US-India relations will continue to be shaped by strategic concerns, particularly regarding China. US-China tensions have become a bipartisan issue with both Trump and Harris acknowledging China as a significant geopolitical competitor. As a result, any future US-India partnership will need to effectively navigate this complex geopolitical landscape. A second Trump term would likely maintain a strong focus on this challenge, while Harris, though less directly involved with India to date, would also need to prioritize defense and security cooperation in response to China’s growing assertiveness. Conclusion: Shaping a Multi-Faceted Partnership The 2024 US presidential election offers two different approaches to US-India

Navigating US-India Relations in the Context of the 2024 Elections: Trump vs. Harris Read More »

Catalyst for Change: Addressing the Systemic Failures Behind the Tragedy at RG Kar Medical College

Blog, Research Articles /

Author: Chloe Schuber, Operations Assistant : Strengthening Democracy Desk The recent tragedy which took place on Friday 9th August, where a young female post-graduate trainee (PGT) doctor was brutally raped and murdered while on duty at the RG Kar Medical College in Kolkata, has deeply impacted and scarred the Indian nation’s conscience. What does this crime mean for Indian society, and what policy and societal reforms are being prioritized in response to this crisis? This incident has reawakened, with a newfound strength, calls to reflect on the failure of law enforcement as well as one for systemic change across multiple facets of Indian society. A Call for Immediate Government Action The need is clear for an immediate and robust response from the central government. Justice must be served effectively and in such a clear manner that this case becomes a genuine deterrent or sets a national precedent, rather than becoming just another instance of violence against women. The investigation has been transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) due to concerns over the local police’s mishandling of the case, potential evidence destruction, and the lack of progress in the five days following the incident. A statement by Prime Minister Modi was issued on 15th August, answering the nation’s at times adamant needs for a response condemning this violence, alongside ensuring that justice will be served and pushing for a united stance against gender-based violence. Modi said, ‘There is anger among the common people. I can feel this anger. […] The country, society and our state governments will have to take this seriously. It is important that those who commit demonic acts should be given severe punishment as soon as possible to build trust in the society.’ Protecting Healthcare Workers Following this incident, both women and the medical community as a whole have launched widespread protests. Healthcare professionals in India, especially women, are increasingly vulnerable to violence; a 2015 survey revealed 75% of this demographic had been victim of some form of violence. Unfortunately, no other significant data sets appear to address this prevalent issue, highlighting the need for further research. The need for a Union legislation to protect medical staff accordingly is ever so urgent. 25 of India’s States and Union Territories do have some laws in that regard, but they are poorly enforced with little to no convictions and therefore, no effective deterrent. The proposed Central Protection Act (CPA) – introduced in the lower house of Parliament (the Lok Sabha) in 2022 but never enacted – aimed to address these issues by making violence against healthcare workers a non-bailable offence, improving CCTV installations, conducting security audits, and even providing security personnel in hospitals. However, the CPA was not enacted. One reason for this was that, when presented in Parliament, then-health minister Mansukh Mandaviya stated that the government opted not to pursue it, since most of its objectives were already addressed by the Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance 2020. This decision highlights systemic issues within Indian governance, including a lack of sustained political will, bureaucratic barriers, and poor coordination between stakeholders, often at the expense of more immediate concerns. The complexity of state-level laws and the Indian healthcare system further complicates the creation of a comprehensive and enforceable national law. Reforming Healthcare Institutions The incident at RG Kar Medical College highlights the urgent need for reforms to ensure the safety of healthcare workers, particularly in government hospitals. India is experiencing a shortage of healthcare professionals, especially in these facilities, where staff are often overworked. To address this, the Prime Minister recently announced the addition of 75,000 medical college seats over the next five years, anticipating a 100 percent increase in demand for healthcare professionals by 2030. Beyond expanding the workforce, hospitals must improve working conditions by providing safe sleeping arrangements for female doctors, enhancing security through CCTV installations, and establishing quick response teams. Ensuring a supportive and secure environment is crucial for women in this demanding field. Education as a Catalyst for Changing Societal Attitudes Education is a powerful tool for combating gender-based violence, driving cultural shifts that can lead to lasting change. By focusing on consent, respect, and gender equality, comprehensive education can challenge societal norms like the objectification of women and dismantle patriarchal attitudes that contribute to misogyny and violence. A new generation raised with these values can elevate standards of equality and human dignity on a national scale. However, education alone is not enough; it must work in tandem with legal deterrents to provide a holistic solution. The issue of violence against healthcare professionals is part of a broader problem affecting all women in India, reflecting an entrenched patriarchal mindset that normalises such violence. To address this, we must challenge and dismantle the victim-blaming culture and outdated gender roles that persist in society. The challenge is that large parts of India still function with a 19th-century mindset, which complicates the nation’s progress on various fronts. This coexistence of different ‘centuries’ within the same geography makes it difficult to achieve uniform development, as the more advanced 21st-century ideals are often overshadowed by outdated norms and practices. Media, government, and civil society must collaborate to shift societal norms and attitudes, engaging local communities in discussions about gender equality and fostering grassroots movements. Involving men and boys in these initiatives is crucial. Additionally, fostering a sense of community responsibility is essential. By encouraging community vigilance, training individuals to recognize and intervene in situations of violence, and providing support to victims, we can create safer environments for women. A Path Forward The tragedy reminds us of both the stark reality of the vulnerability both women and healthcare professionals face in India as well as the immediate need for a systemic change. While the immediate focus is on rapidly ensuring justice for the victim and her family, hopefully setting a strong precedent, we must also focus more than ever on changing the systemic issues that contributed to this death. Strong policies are to be implemented to protect healthcare workers, education on

Catalyst for Change: Addressing the Systemic Failures Behind the Tragedy at RG Kar Medical College Read More »

Reflecting on Faith-Based Manifestos and Democratic Integrity

Blog, Research Articles /

Author: Chloe Schuber, Operations Assistant : Strengthening Democracy Desk With the UK general elections now over, it is maybe timely to reflect on the plethora of religious groups that have put forth manifestos, or general guidance trying to achieve a) awareness of their concerns, and b) lobbying MPs who were desperate to win votes often in marginal seats with ultimatums. While the goal may be noble and certainly common practice across the world, especially in secular countries, the question arises of where the intersection between religion and democracy becomes a problem or even oversteps boundaries. This article will compare and analyse the five published religious manifestos, their key demands, and if some stand out as more problematic, needing to be deconstructed further. I will provide an overview of the religious manifestos as well as their key verticals or demands. The Christian manifesto emphasises social justice, poverty alleviation, and equality. Supporting organisations such as Cafod call for the cessation of new oil and gas licenses alongside the restoration of the UK’s aid budget to 0.7% of gross national income (decreased to 0.5% since 2020), reflecting a strong commitment to environmental sustainability and a push for the United Kingdom to continue aiding low-income, vulnerable countries. All perfectly noble at first glance. The Sikh manifesto focuses on key and pressing issues such as hate crimes (against Sikhs), representation, and perceived historical justice, including the 1984 Amritsar conflict between the Indian State, and separatist militants who had barricaded themselves into the Golden Temple fully armed dreaming of Khalistan. There was an ask for representation in public and political life, alongside recognition of the Sikh’s contribution to British society. The manifesto calls for further safety measures against their perceived lived religious discrimination. It is worthy to note that Sikh Federation who authored the report themselves have tenuous links to what the Bloom report called Pro-Khalistan extremists (PKEs).  The Islamic manifesto, outlined by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), takes the form of a website. It presents both key commitments alongside an analysis of all candidates and their alignment with those commitments. Ten key commitments for candidates include a push for further inclusivity, support for international peace, and better access to housing and healthcare for the Muslim community. Specific issues such as combating Islamophobia, the recognition of Palestine and call for an immediate ceasefire, and the need for equitable access to all UK social services are highlighted. Like all other religious minorities’ manifestos, the call for further security regarding religious discrimination is placed at the forefront. Once again, it is worth noting that the MCB has had its fair share of controversy with apparent direct connection with, and tacit support for Islamists. The Home Office has generally kept the MCB at arm’s length for these reasons. The Hindu Manifesto, developed by Hindus for Democracy, an organisation we have analysed in depth in another article here, outlines seven key demands. These include the recognition of anti-Hindu hate as hate crimes, the protection of Hindu temples, and improved representation of the religion in education. A need for streamlined visa processes for Hindu priests and elderly dependents has been called for, as well as the need for Hindu places of worship to receive equal treatment regarding security funding. This is the first time that a Hindu group has arisen during a general election making demands, and highlighting what they consider to be the need of Hindus.  The Jewish manifesto focuses on combating antisemitism, supporting Israel, and protecting Jewish communities. It calls for government action to address hate crimes and heighten security measures. The manifesto advocates for policies to support Jewish cultural and religious practices. The community’s engagement seems to reflect the need for stronger legal and social frameworks to combat antisemitism. Now to cover a critical question, is it healthy for a democracy if religious groups campaign and deeply engage with politics on issues related to their faith, and their adherents rather than the ‘common good’? When religious groups mobilise around specific faith-based issues, a risk of societal fragmentation arises. At the end of this road lies sectarianism. Voting based on religious identity, especially when manifestos push for conformity to certain political choices straying from the core of religious values, undermines individual autonomy as it puts pressure and adds to the risk of division within these communities. The problem seems to intensify with specific demands put forth, whom, between the lines, posit voting a certain way makes you a ‘good’ member of a faith as community leaders have decided to advocate a particular policy, whether it may be through a specific interpretation of religious texts or even political opinions and biases formed over decades within the country at stake. I wish to outline two examples to demonstrate the point. to underline the conscient choice of these religious groups to include in their manifestos political and dividing opinion on certain issues.  Firstly, the Christian manifesto has a strong position of support on conversion therapy. Whilst explaining that they do not believe in the extreme tactics the LGBT communities have drawn it out to be, they believe this practice should be protected. On a very basic level, it is hard for many Christians to stand behind that as conversion therapy has proven to go against freedom from persecution and discrimination based on sexuality. Whether or not the actual practices go against human rights is a more delicate and uncertain discussion, which is beyond the scope of this short piece.  Similarly, on another religious manifesto, the Jewish one, the choice to put as one of the key demands the support for Israel amidst heavy political debates and a certain nuance agreed upon by many, including international organisations and politicians, shows the refusal to take part in this constructive, nuanced solution-building process of this war. The same can be said about the Muslim manifesto which has significant overtones for Palestine. Whilst obviously some consequences related to this war are undeniable and factual such as the rise in antisemitism and murder of Israelis

Reflecting on Faith-Based Manifestos and Democratic Integrity Read More »

Rishi Sunak’s National Service: Insights and Discussion  

Blog, Research Articles /

Author: Chloe Schuber, Operations Assistant : Strengthening Democracy Desk 26th of May. Rishi Sunak proposes reintroducing mandatory national service for 18-year-olds where the ruling Conservative Party is reelected. This announcement was recent, politically, as well as electorally strategic, given contrasting statements from the party days before. This strategic move by Sunak has stirred controversy and criticism by both the public and opposing parties in the upcoming elections, casting a shadow over the Conservative’s already troubled campaign.    The plan aims to have every 18-year-old by September 2025 enrolled in armed forces placements or non-military volunteering. Community volunteering, equating to 25 days over a year would be within organisations such as the NHS, emergency services, and local infrastructures. The military placement is a more intensive and selective program with 30,000 placements intensive for the “brightest and the best” 18-year-olds in areas relating to cyber security, civil response, or even logistics.  This 2.5 billion-costing attempt at a renewed sense of purpose amongst younger generations and patriotism has been criticized by Labour amongst others as desperate and unfunded.   Who is this for, if not for the younger generation concerned with this policy?   This announcement has been analyzed to be a move for Sunak to appeal to the older Tory electorate especially with the Right dividing itself with the upcoming elections. Why the national service? Aligning with Conservative values such as the strengthening of a nation is key to winning over certain electorate demographics. A 2024 YouGov Survey on this very subject underlines the statistics.   Older Conservative individuals surveyed prevail as those who support this proposition. This demographic seems to view national service as a solution to bridging the generational and ideological divide, fostering a stronger connection to declining national identity and traditional values amongst youth. Only 10% of 18 to 24-year-olds strongly support national service. The data is clear on who Sunak made this promise to.  Criticisms from Military and Political Figures   Former military chiefs and Conservative figures (Admiral Alan West, former Chief of the Naval Staff & Michael Portillo, a former defense secretary amongst others) have been particularly vocal in their opposition, amidst an underfunded defense budget unable to maintain or even enhance the current professional armed forces. Fiscal responsibility and overall public demands on more pressing needs seemed to antagonize what Sunak’s campaigning agenda put forth with this announcement.  Imposing an underfunded government brand the inclusion of tens or hundreds of thousands of untrained teenage volunteers would strain the armed forces with no benefits or better funding in sight.  The policy is unlikely to be successful without first solving rooted structural issues in this institution.  Political and Public Reactions This announcement, characterized as optimistic electoral opportunism, is undefendable regarding the statistics and insights available to politicians on the current situation and views of UK Youth. (Richard Dannatt, former Chief of the General Staff) A sensible policy measure is needed rather. Fixing the current state of defense and further down the line, establishing a dialogue with youth on how to build a sense of civic identity with these generations who did not experience mandatory military service, most likely for the best, many agree on.  John Healey, Labour Candidate and Shadow Defense Secretary stated, ‘The Conservative made recruitment crisis is just one example of their failure in defense for 14 years.’  Conservative ministers during this past decade in power have repeatedly missed recruitment targets, leading the British Army to its smallest since the 1800s. (UK Defence Journal, 2023) Returning to the disconnect, lack of consensus, and strategic planning from within the Conservative Party, some Tory MPs applauded this policy as a bold and smart move, it was vastly acknowledged as very poorly communicated which sparked confusion and skepticism about the very foundation of this idea.  Broader Implications and Risks   The broader implications of Sunak’s proposal extend beyond immediate financial and logistical concerns. This initiative blatantly displays Sunak’s critical and somewhat impulsive political moves to appeal to more right-wing voters and respond to political pressures. The rise of parties like Reform UK has divided the Right and the Conservatives have seemingly resorted to more radical measures to try and reclaim voters. Alongside this, a more general fear and questioning has been brought up in light of geopolitical tensions, some seeing this push for more military conscription as the prediction of future conflicts and the use of national services as a tool for future military actions.   How will this impact the armed forces in practice? Financially, the proposal is contentious. The estimated minimum £2.5 billion annual cost by the end of the decade of the program alarmed many. In addition, the training of 10,000 volunteers would require additional officers, leading to this project costing much more. Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Andrew Murrison also highlighted the risk of unmotivated recruits being mixed with committed professionals, damaging morale, recruitment, or retention. This goal of bringing purpose and pride to their nation to 18-year-olds seems counterproductive considering the compulsory nature of the new system.   Societal Impact   The societal impact of the proposal reflects Conservative priorities. The fundamental motivation behind this promise Sunak made, was not to benefit younger voters but rather to please, target and rally votes from older generations. Young people typically unfairly feel to a deeper extent where UK society’s flaws come to light, underfunded education, cost of living crisis, and oversaturation of the workforce. Rather than addressing these issues through more effective or inclusive policies, 12 months of state-mandated national service or ‘compulsory volunteering’ does not prevail as the most thorough plan to help the youth. And perhaps, it was never meant to be. The youngest generation entering the electorate is predicted to vote Labour to an overwhelming extent. Rishi Sunak has already lost this battle of connecting with a youth who does not feel heard by the Conservatives.   Conclusion    To conclude, the overwhelming criticism of Sunak’s proposal for mandatory national services has sparked discussions in a diverse sphere of societal issues the UK faces. As Conservatives continue navigating this issue, criticisms regarding

Rishi Sunak’s National Service: Insights and Discussion   Read More »

Scroll to Top