Mr. Taranjit Singh Sandhu, India’s ambassador to the United States, in conversation with Rtn. Manjeet Kripalani on the US elections 2024, and its impact on India and the world.
We have many questions for you. Thank you for coming out today on voting day in the US. I’m going to start right away because everyone is eager to hear your insights. I’m not going to ask you who will win, but the voting will begin in a few hours. What are the three or four main issues in this election? You’ve observed them all closely, Taranjit, over the last four years.
Firstly, a warm hello to all of you. It’s wonderful to be back at the Taj Mumbai after all these years — I last visited in 1995. I was a young officer at the time, managing the media for the then Prime Minister of Nepal, and I remember that Manisha Koirala, a young actress then, hosted a reception for the Prime Minister. It’s a pleasure to return, and I owe it to Manjeet, who persisted in inviting me. I asked her, “Are you sure you want to do this on election day?” But she insisted, saying it was important. So, on a Tuesday, a working day, I’m grateful to see you all here. My phone has not stopped ringing with requests from the media to talk with them later, but I’ll do my best to answer your main question.
Everyone wants me to predict the election outcome, even though no American outlet is forecasting it decisively. They’re all saying it’s a very close race. So let me take a moment to explain why this election is so complex. Many of us are already familiar with the nuances from media coverage. The US, like India, is a vibrant democracy with unpredictable elections. Indian elections often surprise us — we don’t even need to mention examples. In fact, I could ask all of you for your own analysis of what might happen in Maharashtra!
The first notable point about the US election system is that a candidate can win the popular vote but still lose the election. In India, whoever secures the popular vote generally wins, but the US has had four cases to the contrary — most recently in 2016, with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. This is why media outlets hesitate to make predictions. Furthermore, only seven states, the “swing states,” are expected to influence the outcome. Why should that be? Logically, larger states like California, with almost 60 electoral college votes, should have more impact. However, due to the American electoral system, which the framers established, certain states tend to cancel each other out. For instance, California generally votes Democrat, and Texas Republican. This pattern has led to recent elections where seven smaller states, representing around 80–90 electoral votes, make the ultimate difference.
Now, to address the main issues. As in any democratic election, this one has its key issues. Firstly, there’s the cost of living. The US is in a unique position where inflation is reportedly decreasing, yet the cost of living remains high. Economists could explain the specifics, but simply put, it’s an after-effect of COVID-19, which has impacted essential goods. Whether it’s in stores or at the petrol pump, when fuel prices are high, people often blame the government. So, cost of living works against the current administration, creating a kind of anti-incumbency effect that benefits the opposition.
The next major issue is immigration, which connects with law and order, racial dynamics, and foreign perceptions. Immigration itself has various facets — legal, illegal, and family-related. Public perception, however, is that immigration has increased the cost of living and made life more challenging. For example, law and order often link to immigration in people’s minds, and this perception has grown since the pandemic. During COVID, with cities under lockdown, crime was lower. But once the economy reopened, crime rates also rose, with certain groups often perceived to be responsible.
Another key issue is women’s rights, particularly around abortion, which is critical in this election. Women comprise about 54% of the electorate, and if turnout among women is high, it could favour the Democrats, which would be surprising to many. Historically, the assumption was that women would have low turnout, but they turned out strongly in 2022. So, bear this in mind.
Of course, foreign policy also has a role, though limited. Middle Eastern tensions, the US response, Ukraine, Russia, and the China issue are all important topics. There are many more issues, but these are some of the core ones likely to shape the election and potentially impact us as well.
Thanks, Taranjit. I’d like to follow up on two points you made. One is about gender. There is, indeed, as you mentioned, much discussion about the role of women in the US election. If Kamala Harris does become the first female President of the US, will that truly make a global impact? After all, many countries have had women leaders, and the US is lagging in this regard.
To put it in perspective: while many people may view a Harris presidency as simply a woman becoming President, I believe the issue goes deeper. I don’t think women are only voting for Harris because she’s a woman. I mentioned earlier the issue of abortion, which is very important to women in the US, and many of you have relatives there. Indian Americans are, in fact, the wealthiest minority community in the US, and I know some of you here today are US citizens. Abortion rights are deeply personal for women there, who view them as fundamental. And while it may be a matter of perception, with various nuances, the electorate often doesn’t grasp these subtleties, making it a powerful reality.
This perception largely stems from the Supreme Court’s ruling and former President Trump’s appointment of justices, for which Republicans are credited — or discredited, depending on one’s view. The party has struggled to convey the nuances around abortion rights. You may hear debates over whether it should be eight weeks, twelve weeks, or fourteen weeks, but these details need to be communicated effectively to the public. This is why, in 2022, it was expected that the Senate would shift to the Republicans, but it didn’t. Research suggests that women turning out to vote was a significant factor, following the overturn of Roe v. Wade.
In that sense, you’re correct that India has much to be proud of. We have had both a female Prime Minister and a female President, and our current President is from the indigenous community. When we share this with Americans, it seems almost unbelievable. So, our democracy has many accomplishments, including our voting system, that we can indeed be proud of.
This brings me to the second question. Could you explain the concept of the electoral college? Why is it so critical? People go out to vote, and then this separate group essentially decides the outcome.
The electoral college was created by the founding fathers with certain intentions, primarily to support smaller states. Though its relevance is debatable, and many question whether it should be reformed, changing it won’t be easy. Achieving a majority in the US Congress for such a change would be challenging. And, coincidentally, the US Congressional elections are also underway, with one-third of the Senate and the entire House, which is comparable to our Lok Sabha, up for election. Opinion polls suggest that the House may swing to the Democrats and the Senate to the Republicans, creating a power imbalance. This split means that even if a candidate wins the presidency, they may face significant challenges in passing legislation.
Regarding the electoral college, let me briefly outline the key states to watch tomorrow: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are often mentioned as “blue” states. Interestingly, if Kamala Harris can secure these three states, she could reach the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency — 269 is the halfway mark, so one vote over secures the position. As I mentioned earlier, it’s possible to win the popular vote yet lose the presidency due to the electoral college system.
Before we move on to the India-US bilateral relationship, in which you are an expert, let’s discuss America’s international standing. Clearly, America’s influence on global events has diminished, as seen with the Russia-Ukraine War, the Israel-Hamas conflict, the rise of BRICS, and other developments. How will the incoming President — or the incumbent, if they remain — have to address this? What steps will they need to take to either reverse some of these changes, move forward, or at least accept new global leadership dynamics?
My response will be extempore, not deeply premeditated. When COVID began, several Indian channels interviewed me, and there was a perception that the US had lost its power. I’d like to ask you a straightforward question, and I encourage you to answer it honestly in your mind. If you had to choose a scholarship for your child from Russia, China, or America, where would you send them? I think the laughter answers that. The United States is a technology powerhouse. When we discuss India-US relations, I’ll return to this point.
During COVID, many thought it was the end for the US. Yet, within a year, they developed the RNA vaccine — a technological milestone with the potential to impact not only COVID but also cancer and other diseases, as those with scientific expertise have observed.
We recently witnessed Israel’s advanced technology in the current conflict. Where do you think that technological innovation originated? Many articles have highlighted the advancements in defence systems, specifically air defence, which offers insights relevant to us as well, much like the technology seen in the Russia-Ukraine war. That said, the world is constantly changing, and the US itself recognises that it no longer holds sole dominance. This shift is evident in new multilateral alliances: the Quad, the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, the India-Middle East-Europe Corridor, and, of course, BRICS.
COVID demonstrated that international crises are not limited to any single country. Many countries attempted isolation, yet COVID still penetrated. The US today needs to approach international relations with an open, multi-country perspective, as demonstrated during the pandemic and beyond. Once we turn to US-India relations, I’d like to briefly discuss how that relationship has evolved into a partnership.
Thank you. That brings us to the US-India relationship, which now appears to be on stable footing with bipartisan support. There are several dimensions I’d like to explore with you, beginning with technology, then economics — especially China Plus One and de-industrialisation in the US. I’ll bring up a third area after these.
As you noted, I’ve had the privilege of serving three terms in the US, although it wasn’t planned that way. My first visit was in 1997, followed by the 1998 nuclear tests and resulting sanctions on India, and then the landmark 2000 visit by Bill Clinton. He visited your city, and I recall a New York Times photo showing Clinton dancing in Jaipur on one half of the page and taking a decoy plane to Pakistan on the other half. That 2000 image sent a clear message, and US-India relations have advanced significantly since then. I’ve observed this transformation over the last two-and-a-half decades.
In the early stages, Bill Clinton initiated a strategic realignment, which was further developed by George W. Bush through the nuclear agreement, then by President Obama, and later by President Trump, whom I accompanied on his 2020 visit to India. Trump was captivated by the crowds in Ahmedabad, as you’d expect. When he arrived, he remarked on it being “Modi’s hometown.” Finally, we have President Biden. In 2023, we witnessed an unprecedented level of support for the India-US partnership. Biden opened the White House to over 8,000 Indian Americans — unusual from a security standpoint, as even a few guests can be a challenge.
There are five main areas where the India-US relationship has matured into a true partnership. First, there’s the strategic dimension, which encompasses many aspects and is a work in progress. We share common ground on numerous issues and have differences on others, but the democratic nature of both countries is a key binding factor. Defence collaboration reflects this as well, from LCA engines to advanced drones and the co-development of defence systems, some of which may be sold to third countries.
The second area is healthcare. There is high demand for affordable healthcare, medicines, and vaccines. Towards the end of Obama’s administration, for instance, a Rotavirus vaccine for children cost about $60–65 per dose. With the involvement of an Indian company, the cost dropped to just $1. This partnership combines American innovation with India’s production capacity. Similarly, during COVID, Baylor College developed a product that BioE produced and Quartz distributed. If you go to a US pharmacy today and pick up a fever-reducing medicine, you’ll likely see “Made in India” on the label. This partnership has enormous potential, though challenges persist, including those from big pharma.
Third, we have the energy partnership, addressing India’s vast energy needs. For example, the world’s largest solar company is currently investing in Chennai.
Fourth, we see strong collaboration in IT, digital technology, start-ups, and emerging critical technologies such as semiconductors, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence.
Finally, education and knowledge-sharing are crucial. Many of you are aware of existing collaborations, such as IIT Mumbai’s partnerships. Various academic models, like 1+3 or 2+2, are being explored. India, as the world’s youngest country — with 50% of the population under 26 — can benefit immensely from these educational ties, especially as many other countries face ageing populations. Building skills through education will create vast opportunities for India’s youth.
Taranjit, these partnerships that have evolved from relationships will remain intact, regardless of who comes to the White House.
The positive aspect, and what I take pride in from my four years as ambassador, is that we transformed this relationship into a partnership that transcends political changes. While there may be some differences in nuance and perspective, the overall relationship will endure.
You ran for the Lok Sabha election from Amritsar shortly after retirement, taking the unusual approach of being the only candidate focused on attracting foreign investment to Punjab. Why is foreign investment such a challenging concept for voters to embrace in states like Punjab, which are already quite internationalised due to the large Punjabi diaspora in Canada? What makes it difficult for voters to see foreign investment as beneficial?
In terms of development, Amritsar is like any part of India where growth is essential. I ran a campaign with a limited time of only two months, facing various challenges. My predecessors, Mr. Jaitley and Mr. Hardeep Puri, had the advantage of an alliance with the regional party, and there was no farmers’ agitation at that time. Despite these obstacles, I came within 23,000 votes of success. This shows that development is indeed a priority. However, as in the US, perceptions are important and not easily changed. This is a well-educated audience, yet perceptions are still hard to shift.
The ultimate focus, as I often argue, should be the economy. We can get distracted by other issues, but it comes down to economic progress. Everyone has a responsibility to promote development. For example, in Amritsar, there is a variety of produce like the stone pear (patharnak), a fruit with unique qualities that allow it to remain fresh for two months without chemicals, making it ideal for export. However, Amritsar still lacks an agro-processing plant. Although it has an international airport, only 20% of its cargo facility is utilised.
And I can tell you that as part of the corridor, they are very keen to pick up stuff. So, vegetables and fruits from Punjab, from Amritsar itself can be sent. I can give you so many examples. You know, hero cycles, when they approached me to ask Walmart to put hero cycles in their stores, Walmart thought hero cycles, who will buy them? Technology and things like that. Anyway, we persuaded them. One million Punjabis diaspora, cycle chalate, nahi chalate, they bought Hero cycle. So Amritsar, Amritsari juttis, Amritsari papad vadiyan. So much stuff I can tell you, there is a huge potential.
ROTARIANS ASK
Two questions: First, as an Indian diplomat who has worked with both the Trump and Biden administrations, who would you prefer as POTUS from your perspective? Second, considering that the US is a technological powerhouse, why do they rely on an outdated voting system, with paper ballots and minimal security? India has a more sophisticated system in comparison.
My perspective is straightforward. We should be prepared to work with whoever the American people elect. I worked well with both President Trump and President Biden, each bringing different strengths and priorities. Our approach should be adaptable, as we don’t control the outcome; the American people do.
Regarding the voting system, the issue is complex and politically charged. While India requires an ID card to vote, this is still a contentious subject in the US. You may recall that, in some respects, technology in India, especially mobile technology, has advanced rapidly. This technology partnership between India and the US is indeed mutually beneficial. However, debates around voter ID requirements in the US show how political considerations can impact even technological adoption.
Who’s more powerful, Congress or the President? There are these special interest groups in Congress that get their way regardless. And I say that because of the Israel war; Biden was not for the bombing, but they still went ahead with it. So what’s your view? Who’s stronger or who will get their way?
I think you should ask the President of the United States this question, and he might not even know. I mean, we all think the President is so powerful, but I believe the answer lies in the balance of power. This balance was intentionally established by the Constitution’s framers to ensure checks and balances. Sometimes, this balance sparks a lot of discussion, just like in our country where we’ve often heard debates about whether there should be a presidential or parliamentary system. To an extent, people in the U.S. believe that this balance of power is beneficial. Whether it’s a good thing or not is subjective, but that’s a fact.
You mentioned education and why we would want to send our children to the U.S. My child is going to the U.S. next year, and we all want to pursue this. However, there is a big concern among parents when we discuss it, especially for those of us who have visited the U.S. after COVID. To some extent, we see the U.S. decaying due to this “woke” culture, guns, and drugs. Why has the liberalisation of these things been so easy? And where do you think the U.S. is heading? Believe me, it is a big concern for parents whose kids have recently gone or are about to go there. Your thoughts?
Let’s be candid. When I was ambassador, I often addressed this issue with my U.S. audience, much like you’re asking now. But I think all democratic polities have challenges, and a lot of politics influences these issues.
Now, regarding gun control, there are two views. Every time there are shootings, you’ll see top administrative authorities on both sides raise this issue. This is a democratic reality. But I think democracies have been accepted as the best system. Somewhere along the way, that begins to shape the system. The churning going on in the U.S. system is fair enough, and I believe it’s part of the process.
As for education, I am a strong believer that it should be available here. I often push for this in my own city. What I’m saying is that we should adopt the best practices from others, and collaborations are important. More than 90% of the population can’t afford to study abroad. In my city and state, there are countless cases where people sell everything they own just to go there. I’ve even seen cases where families couldn’t afford to bring back a loved one’s body after an accident. So I would strongly support an education and knowledge partnership that strengthens our institutions here.
I often told American businesspeople: you come to Mumbai, Delhi, and Hyderabad, but don’t forget tier-two and tier-three cities. The minds there are very sharp; they might require a bit more effort, but you can find a lot of out-of-the-box ideas there too.