Obama's comments on India: Whataboutery would be considered admittance

Credibility of Obama among global statesmen is undoubtedly on much greater pedestal than even most of the leaders holding formal statuses as heads of states. It would be immature to confront his opinion with juvenile arguments chastising him for his personality and background and his mistaken faith and also on irrelevant and connected topic of wars US fought in middle east under his presidency. It’s highly unlikely that global audience would consider Obama’s opinion as biased and based on hearsay just because we disagreed with him and countered with our rebuttal so clumsily.

Comparing his views about supposed atrocities on minorities in India to US bombing some middle eastern countries during his tenure is also highly questionable. Those bombings or invasions, even if not concurred by all nations, were part of formally declared wars with identified enemy countries of his nation for which he had authorisation and approval of his people. It was not against any ethnicity but against some nation his country considered working against their interests. We may differ with him on that account. However this can’t be used to form biased opinions and to counter argue his perception about atrocities on minorities in India.

Cow vigilantism, bulldozing of dwellings without waiting for court sanctions, letting private rogue crowds to inflict damages to persons and properties or even places of worship, instigating violence against people of different faiths and calling of general boycott of section of society based on religion or caste, all these accusations even if mere rumours in view of ruling dispensation here, must have been the background of Obama’s opinion which he expressed. He could be wrong. However this can’t be brushed aside with rather casual and loose views that he doesn’t possess authority to speak on these issues because of the reason that he allegedly, in our opinion, ordered under his authority killing of one particular ethnicity while actually on war with some nations or by using slurs about his faith as had been done by a senior ruling party politician. That kind of supposed rebuttal as some officials tried giving as counterpoise to Obama’s statement would not stand scrutiny of global opinion makers considering Obama’s status. It might actually give false impression that we agree to his views but don’t care because US did something similar during presidency of Obama. That’s laughable.

Obama was not making off the cuff statements on his own. He was rather responding to a question he was asked in an interview. If we disagreed with his opinion or doubted his sources, there should have been efforts to approach him directly with convincing facts and figures and reasoning using trustworthy diplomatic resources publicly or discreetly. That might have allowed him chance to correct himself being responsible statesman. He was after all former president of US and had worked for bettering of Indo US ties particularly during tenure of present governing party in India and has cordial relations with PM. This would have showcased maturity of our leadership.

Using whataboutery to counter him that too by some of the highest and formal ranking officials and even making of personal comments over his faith by people holding position of power would be counterproductive as it brings disrespect to country’s diplomatic credibility globally. This is avoidable.