Home

Featured Articles

Nov 26, 2024
Dr Ryan Baidya

Subhas Chandra Bose and Hitler: Pragmatism or Ethical Dilemma in the Struggle for Indian Independence?

As we approach Bharat’s true Independence Day, December 30, 1943—the day the Azad Hind Government was proclaimed—it is imperative to briefly revisit Subhas Chandra Bose’s journey to Berlin and back. At the same time, it is important to address and contrast his association with one of history’s most infamous figures, Adolf Hitler, with the interactions of Western leaders with the Nazi regime. Subhas Chandra Bose’s goal was Indian independence, not involvement in the broader Western conflict. His quest for support led him to Nazi Germany, as he sought any opportunity to uproot the British Empire, which had systematically exploited India and reduced a once-thriving civilisation to servitude. However, Bose’s relationship with Hitler was fraught with complexity, as his goals were fundamentally incompatible with Nazi ideology, despite his attempts to use Germany’s wartime position for India’s liberation. Bose’s Journey to Nazi Germany Escape from British India (1941): Subhas Chandra Bose was a prominent leader in the Indian independence movement, but his approach was more fundamental and active than that of the Indian National Congress leaders like Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, who favoured non-violent and passive resistance. Bose advocated for an armed struggle against British rule and believed that the British Empire’s involvement in World War II presented an opportunity for India to gain independence by allying with Britain’s enemies. In 1941, while under house arrest by the British, Bose escaped from India and made his way to Germany via Afghanistan and the Soviet Union. Bose’s Relationship with Nazi Germany Bose in Berlin (1941–1943): After arriving in Germany, Bose sought support from Hitler and the Nazi leadership for India’s independence struggle. He believed that by aligning with Germany, which was fighting Britain, he could secure military and political aid to expel the British from India. Bose was welcomed by the Germans, and Nazi propaganda portrayed him as a symbol of resistance to British colonialism. He was given the resources to broadcast anti-British radio messages to India from Berlin, urging Indians to rise against the British colonial rulers. Formation of the Free India Centre: In Berlin, Bose established the Free India Centre in November 1941. This organisation acted as a government-in-exile and worked to rally Indian expatriates in Europe for the cause of Indian independence. He also started the Azad Hind Radio, a communication tool that broadcasted messages to India urging Indians to support the Axis powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) in their fight against the British, the exploiter of India; to weaken the British’s grip over India. Indian Legion (Legion Freies Indien): With Nazi support, Bose raised the Indian Legion (also known as the Free India Legion), composed of Indian prisoners of war captured by German forces in North Africa who had been serving in the British Indian Army. The Indian Legion was formed to fight alongside German forces with the objective of eventually liberating India from British rule. However, the Legion was largely stationed in Europe and never fought in India. Challenges with Hitler Hitler’s View of India: While Bose was given some support by the Nazis, his relationship with Hitler was strained. Hitler did not see Indian independence as a priority and had his own racial prejudices against non-Europeans. In Mein Kampf, Hitler had expressed disdain for Indian independence and saw the British Empire as a stabilising force. When Bose met Hitler in May 1942, the meeting was not as fruitful as Bose had hoped. Hitler viewed India primarily as a theatre for weakening Britain rather than a cause for genuine support. Additionally, Hitler’s ideology, rooted in Aryan supremacy, was incompatible with Bose’s goals of liberation for non-European peoples. Hitler’s Speech on India: One of the most controversial aspects of Bose’s engagement with Nazi Germany was Hitler’s infamous speech about India, where he suggested that it was premature for India to gain independence and implied that Indians were not ready for self-rule. Despite these views, Bose continued to seek Nazi support, but the limitations of Nazi interest in India became evident as Germany focused on its campaigns in Europe and Africa. Shift to Japan and the INA Move to Japan (1943): As it became clear that Germany could not provide significant help in liberating India, Bose turned his attention to Japan, another Axis power that had a greater military presence in Asia. In 1943, with Nazi approval, Bose left Germany and travelled to Japan in a submarine. In Southeast Asia, he took command of the Indian National Army (INA), which had been formed from Indian prisoners of war and expatriates. The INA allied with Japan and fought against the British forces in Burma and India. Azad Hind Government: In 1943, Bose established the Provisional Government of Free India (Azad Hind), which was supported by Japan and several other Axis powers. The INA fought alongside Japanese forces during the Burma Campaign, with the goal of reaching India and inciting a popular uprising against British rule. Legacy of Bose’s Alliance with the Axis Bose’s alliances with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan remain controversial, given the atrocities committed by both regimes during the war. His supporters argue that he was a pragmatist, willing to seek help from Britain’s enemies to achieve Indian independence. To Bose, the cause of freedom outweighed the ethical compromises involved in aligning with fascist regimes. Yet, it is crucial to remember that Bose was not the only leader to engage with Hitler. Many Western leaders, including Neville Chamberlain of the United Kingdom, Édouard Daladier of France, and even American industrialists, engaged with Nazi Germany before and during the early stages of the war, often in attempts to negotiate or avoid conflict (see supplement below for details). For instance, Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement famously led to the Munich Agreement of 1938, allowing Hitler to annex parts of Czechoslovakia. (https://www.hitler-archive.com/index.php?t=diplomatic%20handshake) Munich Agreement: Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, and Neville Chamberlain (From left) Italian leader Benito Mussolini, German Chancellor Adolf Hitler, a German interpreter, and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain meeting in Munich, September 29, 1938 In short, Subhas Chandra Bose’s decision to seek assistance from Hitler was driven by a singular focus: the liberation of India. While controversial, his determination to free India from British colonialism is undeniable. Bose’s alliances, though ethically questionable, were part of a broader, complex strategy to achieve independence for India. In comparison, Western leaders who met with Hitler did so for various reasons, many under the pretence of preserving peace or maintaining political stability, often with tragic consequences. Bose’s legacy as a nationalist leader who fought for Indian freedom, despite his contentious alliances, remains one of courage and unwavering commitment to his country’s cause. Supplement Before the full extent of Hitler’s expansionist ambitions became clear, several Western leaders and diplomats interacted with him in an attempt to negotiate or influence Nazi Germany’s trajectory. These efforts, including the infamous Munich Agreement, were aimed at preventing war but often resulted in enabling Hitler’s territorial expansion. Neville Chamberlain (United Kingdom): British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met Hitler three times in 1938. The most famous of these meetings was in Munich, which led to the Munich Agreement on September 30, 1938. This agreement allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia, in a bid to avoid war, a policy later known as appeasement. Munich Agreement: Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, and Neville Chamberlain From left to right: Neville Chamberlain, Édouard Daladier, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Galeazzo Ciano, Munich, September 29, 1938 Édouard Daladier (France): The French Prime Minister also participated in the Munich Agreement talks alongside Chamberlain, Hitler, and Mussolini. Daladier was reluctant to go along with the agreement but did so to maintain peace. Benito Mussolini (Italy): Mussolini, Italy's fascist dictator, met Hitler numerous times throughout the 1930s and early 1940s as both were aligned ideologically and politically. Mussolini played a key role in facilitating the Munich Agreement. Kurt von Schuschnigg (Austria): The Austrian Chancellor met Hitler in 1938, under immense pressure. Hitler forced Schuschnigg to agree to various concessions, including appointing Nazi sympathisers to key positions in Austria, leading to the eventual Anschluss (the annexation of Austria by Nazi Germany). Arthur Seyss-Inquart (Austria): While not a foreign leader, Seyss-Inquart was instrumental in the Nazi annexation of Austria. He met with Hitler several times and eventually became a key Nazi collaborator. Francois-Poncet (French Ambassador to Germany): François-Poncet met Hitler several times during his tenure as French ambassador in Berlin in the 1930s. Although not a head of state, his meetings reflect the diplomatic efforts made to understand Hitler’s ambitions. Several more Western leaders, diplomats, and prominent figures met with Adolf Hitler, both in official capacities and during diplomatic efforts. Some notable examples include: David Lloyd George (United Kingdom): Former British Prime Minister David Lloyd George met Hitler in 1936. After their meeting, Lloyd George praised Hitler, calling him "the greatest living German," which reflected the complex and sometimes naïve views some Western leaders had of Hitler before the full extent of his ambitions and atrocities became apparent. Halifax (Lord Halifax, United Kingdom): Lord Halifax, the British Foreign Secretary, met Hitler in November 1937. Halifax was involved in the policy of appeasement, and during this meeting, Hitler outlined his territorial ambitions in Europe. Halifax's visit was part of Britain’s diplomatic efforts to avoid confrontation with Germany. Hermann Göring's meeting with Western leaders: Although Göring was not a Western leader himself, he met with several foreign leaders and diplomats, often as a representative of Hitler's regime. Göring met with British leaders and diplomats several times in the 1930s, discussing Germany’s rearmament and territorial expansion. Franz von Papen (Germany and Austria): Franz von Papen, a German politician and diplomat who served as Vice-Chancellor under Hitler and later as ambassador to Austria, played a key role in orchestrating Austria's annexation into Nazi Germany. He met many Austrian leaders, including Chancellor Kurt von Schuschnigg, as part of Nazi Germany’s political manoeuvering. King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson (United Kingdom): King Edward VIII and his wife, Wallis Simpson, famously met with Hitler in October 1937, after Edward had abdicated the British throne. The meeting was controversial, and some historians have suggested that Edward had sympathies toward the Nazi regime. Paul Reynaud (France): Paul Reynaud, who became Prime Minister of France in 1940, met Hitler in the lead-up to World War II. However, as Prime Minister, Reynaud was staunchly opposed to the policy of appeasement and warned against underestimating Hitler’s ambitions. Prince Paul of Yugoslavia: Prince Paul, the regent of Yugoslavia, met Hitler in 1939 as part of Germany's efforts to bring Yugoslavia into its sphere of influence. Hitler sought to pressure Yugoslavia into joining the Axis powers, but after Prince Paul's government signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany in 1941, a coup d'état overthrew him. Konrad Henlein (Czechoslovakia): Henlein, a Sudeten German politician in Czechoslovakia, frequently met with Hitler and Nazi officials to coordinate efforts to undermine the Czechoslovak government and promote the annexation of the Sudetenland by Germany. Pierre Laval (France): Pierre Laval, a French politician who became a key figure in the Vichy government that collaborated with Nazi Germany, met Hitler several times during the war. Laval’s government aligned itself with Nazi Germany after France’s defeat in 1940. These meetings reflect how various political figures across Europe and the West, at different times, tried to negotiate, appease, or align with Nazi Germany, often with tragic consequences as Hitler's expansionist goals became clear and led to World War II. In the USA U.S. Isolationism and Limited Diplomacy Despite these interactions, the U.S. government, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, remained largely isolationist during the 1930s and did not officially recognise the growing threat of Nazi Germany until the outbreak of World War II. By the time the U.S. entered the war after Pearl Harbour in December 1941, any form of diplomacy or personal meetings between American officials and Nazi leaders had ceased. Most meetings between Americans and Hitler occurred in the context of diplomatic missions, business dealings, or as part of isolationist or pro-German sentiment within the U.S. While the United States maintained a policy of isolationism throughout much of the 1930s and early 1940s, several American figures met with Adolf Hitler before the U.S. entered World War II. These meetings generally involved diplomats, businessmen, or public figures rather than government leaders, given the U.S.'s official stance. Here are some notable examples: William Dodd (U.S. Ambassador to Germany) William Dodd was the U.S. Ambassador to Germany from 1933 to 1937. During his tenure, he met with Hitler multiple times, as was customary for a diplomat stationed in Germany. Dodd became increasingly critical of the Nazi regime as he witnessed its brutal policies and was alarmed by Hitler’s rising militarism and anti-Semitism. He resigned in 1937 after warning U.S. officials about the dangers posed by Nazi Germany. Joseph P. Kennedy (U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom) Joseph P. Kennedy, the father of future U.S. President John F. Kennedy, served as U.S. Ambassador to the U.K. from 1938 to 1940. While he did not meet Hitler directly, Kennedy was a prominent advocate of appeasement toward Nazi Germany, believing that war should be avoided at all costs. His stance was controversial, and it led to his resignation when U.S. policy shifted away from isolationism. James D. Mooney (General Motors Executive) James D. Mooney, a high-ranking executive at General Motors, met with Hitler in 1939. Mooney was in charge of GM's European operations and had business interests in Germany. During his visit, he was awarded the Order of the German Eagle, a Nazi honour often given to foreign nationals who were perceived as sympathetic to the regime. Mooney later distanced himself from Hitler as the war escalated. Charles Lindbergh (American Aviator) Charles Lindbergh, the famous aviator, met Hitler in 1938 and was also awarded the Order of the German Eagle. Lindbergh’s views on Nazi Germany were controversial; he admired Germany’s advances in aviation and military technology, though he later became a prominent isolationist in the U.S., arguing that America should stay out of the European conflict. His perceived sympathies for Nazi Germany damaged his reputation. Hugh R. Wilson (U.S. Ambassador to Germany) Hugh R. Wilson was the U.S. Ambassador to Germany from 1937 to 1938. Wilson met Hitler as part of his diplomatic duties and reported back to the U.S. government on Nazi policies. Although Wilson initially supported maintaining diplomatic relations with Germany, his tenure ended abruptly following Kristallnacht in November 1938, an event that shocked the world and marked a turning point in Nazi Germany’s persecution of Jews. George Sylvester Viereck (German-American Journalist) George Sylvester Viereck, a pro-German publicist and propagandist in the U.S., met Hitler during the early 1930s. Viereck had close ties to Nazi sympathisers in the U.S. and played a significant role in disseminating pro-German and isolationist views in American media. He was later imprisoned for his work as a Nazi agent during the war. Senator William E. Borah (U.S. Isolationist Leader) While Senator William E. Borah of Idaho did not meet Hitler directly, he was an influential voice in the U.S. who advocated for non-intervention and was sympathetic to the idea of negotiating with Nazi Germany to avoid war. Known as "The Great Opposer," Borah's isolationist stance reflected a significant portion of American sentiment before World War II. American Industrialists and Businessmen Several American businessmen and companies, including Ford Motor Company and General Motors, had operations in Nazi Germany and met with German officials, including Hitler. For example, Henry Ford was known for his anti-Semitic views and received a medal from the Nazi government, though there is no direct evidence he personally met Hitler. However, the connections between American industries and Nazi Germany during the 1930s have been documented. Wendell Willkie (U.S. Presidential Candidate) Wendell Willkie, who ran as the Republican candidate against Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940, visited Europe, including Germany, before the outbreak of World War II. He criticized Nazi policies and Hitler’s regime but met with officials during his travels to understand the political dynamics of Europe. Several world leaders, political figures, and businesses communicated with or had indirect dealings with Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler, even if they never met him in person. These interactions often reflected the complexities of pre-World War II diplomacy, trade, and economic interests. Here are some notable examples: Franklin D. Roosevelt (United States) Franklin D. Roosevelt, the U.S. President during World War II, never met Hitler personally, and he was a vocal critic of Nazism. However, the U.S. and Nazi Germany maintained diplomatic and economic relations before the war. Roosevelt communicated indirectly with Hitler through diplomatic channels, such as letters and messages. For instance, in 1939, FDR sent a famous letter to Hitler (and Mussolini), asking for assurances that they would not invade certain European nations. Hitler dismissed Roosevelt’s request in a public and mocking speech. Roosevelt was also concerned about German-American sympathisers and Nazi influence in the U.S., which led to actions like investigating groups like the German American Bund, a pro-Nazi organisation active in the U.S. American Businesses (e.g., Ford, IBM, General Motors) Several American companies did business with Nazi Germany before and even during the early stages of the war: Ford Motor Company: Henry Ford, the founder of Ford Motor Company, was an infamous anti-Semite and vocal critic of Jews. Although there is no evidence that Ford personally met Hitler, Ford's company operated in Germany during the Nazi regime, and Ford received the Order of the German Eagle from Hitler in 1938. IBM: IBM had operations in Germany before and during World War II. Its punch card technology was used by Nazi Germany to facilitate administrative functions, including the census, which helped the regime identify Jewish populations. General Motors (GM): Through its German subsidiary, Opel, GM continued to manufacture vehicles in Germany throughout the 1930s. While some of these companies distanced themselves from the Nazi regime as the war escalated, they still played a role in Germany's economy before the U.S. entered the war. King Edward VIII (United Kingdom) After his abdication in 1936, King Edward VIII and his wife Wallis Simpson visited Germany in 1937 and met Hitler. Though Edward had no formal political power at this time, the meeting reflected a degree of personal interest in Nazi Germany, and there were rumours (though largely unsubstantiated) that Edward held pro-German sympathies. Edward never communicated directly with Hitler on official matters as king, but his trip to Germany raised suspicions about his political leanings during a crucial time for European diplomacy. Vichy France (Philippe Pétain) While Marshal Philippe Pétain, leader of the Vichy government in France, never personally met Hitler, the Vichy regime collaborated with Nazi Germany after France’s defeat in 1940. Pétain’s government communicated regularly with Nazi officials and facilitated German policies, including the deportation of Jews to concentration camps. The Vichy regime also worked with German businesses and cooperated economically with the Nazi regime. Swedish Industrialists and Diplomats Sweden, while officially neutral during World War II, had significant business dealings with Nazi Germany. Swedish companies exported vital resources, including iron ore, to Germany throughout the war. Göran von Otter, a Swedish diplomat, had notable communications with Kurt Gerstein, an SS officer, who tried to inform the outside world about the atrocities committed in concentration camps. While von Otter relayed this information to Swedish authorities, the neutral Swedish government avoided direct conflict with Germany during the war. Ivar Kreuger, a Swedish industrialist known as the "Match King," had business dealings with Germany, although he died in 1932, before Hitler fully consolidated power. Mussolini’s Government (Italy) While Benito Mussolini met with Hitler several times as a formal ally, some members of Mussolini’s government and Italian industrialists communicated and did business with Germany without necessarily meeting Hitler. Italy, as a fascist ally of Nazi Germany, was involved in joint military operations and trade with Nazi Germany. Italian arms manufacturers and businesses collaborated with German industry before and during the war. Neutral Switzerland Switzerland maintained neutrality throughout World War II but had significant financial and economic interactions with Nazi Germany. Swiss banks were used to hold and transfer Nazi gold, including gold stolen from occupied countries and Holocaust victims. Swiss companies also supplied precision instruments and other goods to Germany during the war, though Switzerland also traded with the Allies. Francisco Franco (Spain) Francisco Franco, the fascist dictator of Spain, never met Hitler in person but communicated with Nazi officials and allowed German forces to assist his regime during the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939). During World War II, Spain remained officially neutral but provided covert support to the Axis, including allowing German submarines to refuel at Spanish ports. Franco's government had economic ties to Nazi Germany, particularly through trade agreements and strategic cooperation, but Franco ultimately avoided fully aligning with Hitler. Portugal (António de Oliveira Salazar) António de Oliveira Salazar, the authoritarian leader of Portugal, maintained Portugal’s neutrality during World War II but communicated with both Nazi Germany and the Allies. Salazar allowed the use of Portuguese territory (notably the Azores) for Allied operations, but he also traded tungsten (a valuable war resource) with Germany. This delicate balancing act allowed Portugal to remain neutral while benefiting economically. Neutral Countries and Economic Relations Other neutral countries, such as Argentina and Brazil, also had trade relations with Nazi Germany, particularly in the early years of the war. While they did not officially align with Hitler, they continued to do business with German companies and maintained diplomatic relations. After the war, Argentina became infamous for allowing high-ranking Nazi officials to escape to South America, including Adolf Eichmann. References and Further Readings India Ought to Celebrate December 30 as True Independence Day https://myind.net/Home/viewArticle/india-ought-to-celebrate-december-30-as-true-independence-day Subhas Chandra Bose’s Strategy amid Global Conflict Sugata Bose, His Majesty’s Opponent: Subhas Chandra Bose and India’s Struggle Against Empire, Harvard University Press, 2011. Hugh Toye, The Springing Tiger: A Study of Subhas Chandra Bose, Cassell & Co Ltd, 1959. Peter Ward Fay, The Forgotten Army: India's Armed Struggle for Independence, 1942-1945, University of Michigan Press, 1995. Bose and His Engagement with Axis Powers Adolf Hitler (Germany): Romain Hayes, Subhas Chandra Bose in Nazi Germany: Politics, Intelligence and Propaganda, 1941–43, Oxford University Press, 2011. Peter Ward Fay, The Forgotten Army: India's Armed Struggle for Independence, 1942-1945, University of Michigan Press, 1995. Joachim von Ribbentrop (Germany): Sugata Bose, His Majesty’s Opponent: Subhas Chandra Bose and India’s Struggle Against Empire, Harvard University Press, 2011. Bose’s diplomatic interactions with Ribbentrop are also discussed in Romain Hayes' book Subhas Chandra Bose in Nazi Germany. Heinrich Himmler (Germany): Geoffrey Michael Brooks, Hitler's Terror Weapons: From V-1 to Vimana, Leo Cooper, 2002. Sugata Bose’s His Majesty’s Opponent also provides insights into Bose’s dealings with Himmler and Nazi leadership. Benito Mussolini (Italy): R. Palme Dutt, India Today, Oxford University Press, 1940. The Indian Struggle, 1920-1942 by Subhas Chandra Bose discusses his strategic attempts to gain Italy’s support. Japanese Leadership (Japan): Joyce C. Lebra, The Indian National Army and Japan, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008. Tilak Raj Sareen, Indian National Army: A Documentary Study, South Asia Books, 1990, provides a detailed account of Bose’s collaboration with Japanese leadership. Diplomatic Context and Key Figures Neville Chamberlain (United Kingdom): Keith Middlemas, The Life and Times of Neville Chamberlain, Doubleday, 1971. Martin Gilbert, The Second World War: A Complete History, Holt Paperbacks, 2004. Édouard Daladier (France): Julius W. Pratt, The Origins of the Second World War, W.W. Norton & Company, 1975. Richard Overy, The Road to War, Penguin, 2009. Joseph P. Kennedy (U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom): David Nasaw, The Patriarch: The Remarkable Life and Turbulent Times of Joseph P. Kennedy, Penguin Books, 2013. Doris Kearns Goodwin, Leadership in Turbulent Times, Simon & Schuster, 2018. William Dodd (U.S. Ambassador to Germany): Erik Larson, In the Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler's Berlin, Crown, 2011. George Messersmith, Diplomat of Democracy: The Selected Papers of George S. Messersmith, University of Delaware Press, 1998. Paul Reynaud (France): Julian Jackson, The Fall of France: The Nazi Invasion of 1940, Oxford University Press, 2004. Memoirs of Paul Reynaud: In the Thick of the Fight, Viking Press, 1951. Konrad Henlein (Czechoslovakia): Ronald Smelser, The Sudeten Problem, 1933-1938: Volkstumpolitik and the Formulation of Nazi Foreign Policy, Wesleyan University Press, 1975. Elizabeth Wiskemann, Czechs and Germans: A Study of the Struggle in the Historic Provinces of Bohemia and Moravia, Oxford University Press, 1938.

Nov 24, 2024
Ramaharitha Pusarla

Modi’s Guyana Visit: Bolstering Shared History for A Shared Future

On the final leg of his three-nation visit, PM Modi arrived in Georgetown, marking the first visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Guyana in 56 years. Making up more than 40% of the Guyanese population, the people of Indian origin, separated by huge distances sharing similar cultural values hold India in high esteem. The British imported Indians as indentured labour to Guyana 186 years ago. They form one of the “Oldest Diasporas” to have migrated from India. To commemorate the high-level visit of an Indian PM, breaking diplomatic protocol, Guyana President Mohammed Irfaan Ali, PM Mark Anthony Philips, and the entire cabinet received PM Modi at the airport. A ceremonial welcome was also extended at the airport. PM of Grenada, Dicken Mitchell, the co-chair of the 2nd India-CARICOM Summit, and Barbados PM Mia also received PM Modi at the airport. As a mark of great honour, the Mayor of Georgetown presented the key to the city of Georgetown to PM Modi. The South American country began to receive marked global attention since the discovery of significant oil reserves offshore Guyana by Exxon Mobil in 2015 in the Stabroek block. With a staggering 62.3% real GDP growth hike, in 2022, the impact of the increased oil production began to kick in. With an annual average of 6,45,000 b/d production, the third largest by a non-OPEC nation, after the US and Brazil, Guyana’s economic trajectory surged. Over the years, Guyana has partnered with the US and Chinese companies in its offshore explorations. Currently, Exxon Mobil has 45% stakes and China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) has 25% stakes in the Stabroek block. The economic boom has potentially changed the economic outlook of Guyana, one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere. With the discovery of the oil deposits, Venezuela intensified its claims over the oil-rich Essequibo territory that accounts for two-thirds of Guyana. Through relentless military buildup, Venezuela has ratcheted up tensions in the region. In December 2023, holding a non-binding referendum in December 2023, Venezuela heightened the threats to annex the region. Oil discovery has opened up new opportunities for development and investment. Endowed with rich reserves of gold, diamond and bauxite, Guyana is planning to expand mining significantly. Besides, the US, with a marked presence in Latin America, China a partner in oil exploration is an active player in Guyana. Beijing has steadily cemented ties with Guyana inking a slew of infrastructure development projects. Guyana’s ties with China can be traced to 1972 when the country’s first President Arthur Raymond Chung of Chinese-descent established diplomatic ties with Beijing. Ever since, China's presence increased in Latin America and the Caribbean. Keen to attract diverse investments, Ali in response to a query on Guyana-China bilateral ties said, “We see China as an important part of the energy equation of our country. We continue to encourage China, as we encourage everyone, to participate fully in the bidding process of this energy platform that we are developing at a global scale”. Post oil discovery, toying with several options, President Ali encouraged bids and investments from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and the UK. He reposed an interest in strengthening ties with his ancestral country, India. Though India and Guyana established diplomatic ties in 1966, New Delhi hardly invested any diplomatic capital to rejuvenate ties with a region populated dominantly by people of Indian descent. India regularly invited Guyanese leaders for the Pravasi Bharatiya Diwas and PM Modi met the leaders along the sidelines of the BRICS Summit in Fortaleza, Brazil and UNGA annual meetings. Most recently, India bestowed the Pravasi Bharatiya Samman Award, the highest award for overseas Indians on President Irfaan Ali during his visit as Chief Guest for the 2023 Pravasi Bharatiya Divas. While India attempted to maintain a strong cultural connect, it hasn’t focused much on bringing to bear the untapped potential of broadening ties with Guyana. India-Guyana ties registered a marked uptick in the past couple of years. In April 2023, India delivered the GRSE-build ferry MA Lisha commissioned by Guyana. The launch renewed the 185-year-old connection with Guyana when Indians departed from the shores of Kolkata. Both countries commenced negotiations on a five-year agreement for oil supplies. Guyana is in the throes of a resource boom. With 11 billion barrels of proven offshore petrol reserves, India, the third largest consumer of oil can circumvent uncertainties of supply chains by partnering with Guyana in terms of exploration, refining and tech support. This potential win-win situation can be mutually beneficial. Through prospective bids for exploration, India can gain entry into a region dominated by China and the US. Guyana’s economic fortunes have escalated conflicting claims over Guyana’s maritime waters by Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela and Surinam. This has reinforced the need for bolstering the country’s defences. A strong defence cooperation with India can be beneficial to Guyana. PM Modi held restricted and delegation-level meetings with President Ali to take stock of the bilateral ties. In all, India and Guyana signed 10 MoUs on cooperation in the hydrocarbon sector; agriculture and allied sectors; cultural exchange programme; recognition of Indian Pharmacopoeia regulations; implementation of Jan Aushadi Scheme; cooperation in medical products; INDIA STACK; deployment of UPI like system; broadcasting and training of defence forces. PM Modi paid homage at the Arrival Monument, visited the Arya Samaj Monument and Saraswati Vidya Niketan. Infusing a fresh momentum to the ancestral connect, PM Modi addressed a gathering of the Indian Community and called them “Rashtradoots”- ‘the ambassadors of Indian culture and values’. Speaking about Cricket, an interest that binds India and Guyana, PM Modi interacted with famous cricketers of Guyana, including Clive Lloyd, Alvin Kallicharran, Shiv Narayan Chanderpaul, Devendra Bishoo, Hetmyer. Receiving the ‘Order of Excellence’, the highest national award of Guyana, PM Modi said, “This honour does not only belong to me but also to 1.4 billion Indians”. Hosted to a seven-curry traditional meal by the President, PM Modi thanked him for the hospitality and planted a sapling as part of “Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam”. Latin America is a Chinese den and Guyana is a part of the BRI. As a late entrant into the region, emphasising Indian foreign policy attributes, PM Modi addressing the special session of Guyana Parliament said, “We have always stayed away from the feeling of occupying resources and grabbing resources. I believe be it land or sea, these shouldn’t be objects of conflict but of universal cooperation”. Expounding India's approach, he said, “If even one country, even one region is left behind, then our global goals will never be achieved. That is why India says -- every nation matters”. Speaking on geopolitical tensions, he noted, “Today there are many challenges like terrorism, drugs, cybercrime, and only by fighting them we will be able to improve the future of our future generations. And, this is possible only when we give centre stage to Democracy First- Humanity First”. This is the time for the Global South awakening and for developing countries to stay united. “There is an opportunity for us to work together and create a new global order. India has always worked on the basis of trust, transparency and principles. India stood for global peace and development”. In his tightly packed Guyana visit, PM Modi also co-chaired the 2nd India-CARICOM Summit along with PM Dicken Mitchell of Grenada, the current chair. The Summit was attended by heads of 11 member states and foreign ministers of 3 countries. CARICOM (Caribbean Community) with headquarters at Georgetown was established in 1973 to promote economic integration and cooperation comprising 20 countries. It has 15 Member states (Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Jamaica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Monserrat, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Lucia, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago) and 5 Associated States (Eel, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands). The first India-CARICOM Summit was held along the sidelines of UNGA in New York in September 2019. In his opening remarks, PM Modi said, “Relations between India and CARICOM countries are based on our shared past experiences, our shared present-day needs and our shared aspirations for the future”. He enlisted the seven pillars of CARICOM- C for Capacity Building; A for Agriculture and food security; R for Renewable Energy and Climate Change; I for Innovation, Technology and Trade; C for Cricket and Culture; O for Ocean Economy and Maritime Security and M for Medicine and Health Care. All of the pillars of cooperation encompass the issues that have relevance to CARICOM. By standing shoulder to shoulder in times of real need, especially during health emergencies and natural disasters, India earned the acclaim of a reliable partner. In recognition of India’s generous gift of vaccines and timely medical assistance at the height of COVID, the Commonwealth of Dominica conferred the highest national award, the Dominica Award of Honour on PM Modi. Expressing gratitude for India’s timely help Barbados along honoured PM Modi with an Honorary Order of Excellence. During the summit, India proposed to popularise yoga to tackle lifestyle diseases, increase 1000 Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation (ITEC) Scholarships for the next five years and organise Jaipur foot camps annually. India pledged to promote women’s cricket and supply passenger vessels and ferries for seamless transport in these Small Island Nations. Indeed, PM Modi assured that “For India, you are not Small Island States but Large Ocean Countries” and promised to enhance cooperation on drug trafficking, piracy, illegal fishing and human trafficking and to work together on maritime domain mapping and hydrography. India has offered to establish a Forensic Centre for CARICOM along the lines of India’s “i-GOT KARMAYOGI Portal” and set up Drug Testing Centres, ‘Bhishma’ mobile hospitals, provide the Siddharth Two cancer therapy machine developed in India and, Jan Aushadi Centres. Along the sidelines of the Summit, PM Modi met leaders of Guyana, Dominica, Bahamas, Trinidad & Tobago, Suriname, Barbados, Antigua & Barbuda, Grenada & St. Lucia. Evolving a framework that is in sync with the felt needs of CARICOM, PM Modi demonstrated an emphatic understanding of the concerns of countries of the Global South. A strong bilateral partnership between India and Guyana can be mutually beneficial. While Guyana can be a solution to India’s quest for energy security, the latter can tap into India’s expertise and political heft to navigate through the regional challenges amid its recent economic boom. Invoking historical connections and expanding the arenas of cooperation, PM Modi has revitalised and rejuvenated bilateral relations with Guyana, which can be India’s gateway to the Latin American and Caribbean region. References https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=62103#:~:text=Guyana's%20discovered%20oil%20and%20natural,project%20in%20the%20Stabroek%20block. https://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/38559/List_of_Outcomes__State_Visit_of_Prime_Minister_to_Guyana_November_1921_2024 https://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/38563/English_Translation_of_Opening_Remarks_by_the_Prime_Minister_at_the_2nd_IndiaCARICOM_Summit https://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/38564/Closing_Remarks_by_Prime_Minister_at_the_2nd_IndiaCARICOM_Summit https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/pm-in-guyana-house-india-has-refrained-from-expansionism/articleshow/115544331.cms