Skip to main content

'Bad optics': Congressional briefing on Biden govt decision to sell India reaper drones

 
A Congressional Briefing on Capitol Hill, Washington DC, has taken strong exception to the Biden administration's decision to sell India reaper drones. Speaking on the occasion at the briefing, titled "US Arms Sales to India: The role of the US Congress," Human Rights Watch Asia advocacy director John Sifton criticized “bad optics” of the Biden administration’s intent to sell the Indian government 31 armed MQ-9 reaper drones with accompanying munitions. 
Sifton said, this is happening at time when drones are being "used to assassinate civilians in targeted strikes", that too "just months after the US uncovered a plot by the Indian government to to assassinate a Sikh American living in New York."
“The particularly bad optics of selling this particular weapons platform… [is that it] is best known for targeted killings, which some would call assassinations,” asserted Sifton. “That the US negotiated and prepared a proposal at the same period law enforcement and intelligence agencies were briefing them on an assassination by an agent of the Indian government on US soil suggests a disconnect that we find very concerning on the optics.” 
“These things have impacts on people's behavior back in India, including the Prime Minister himself,” he added. “Whether the Biden administration likes it or not, the message sent is we don't really care that much about the fact that India's human rights situation is deteriorating.” 
Speaking at the briefing, Carolyn Nash, Asia advocacy director at Amnesty International USA, pointed out that the proposed arms deal must also be considered in the light of the Modi government’s engagement in transnational repression, "including its recent attempt to assassinate a Sikh American living in New York."
“That case did not happen in a vacuum,” said Nash. “It emerged from domestic issues; from the misuse of laws, particularly purported counterterrorism and financial laws; from long histories of ethnic and religious violence and targeting; and from abuse of surveillance systems that allowed for this to happen.” 
“Think about [violence in India] as if you're talking about the Jim Crow south,” said Ria Chakrabarty, policy director at the diaspora group Hindus for Human Rights. “The communal violence, the misuse of state and local authorities… There's [an] active participation of local and state actors that also goes up to the federal level.”
“All of this violence, all of these attacks on human rights are about fundamentally reforming India from a secular republic to a Hindu nation,” Chakrabarty added. “The BJP’s election message is that Modi… has delivered this Hindu state to the world stage. And this arms deal is a good encapsulation of how he has done that.”  
“President Clinton [once] referred to the India-Pakistan border as the most dangerous place on earth, because that is the only place where there are three nuclear armed states who have previously fought one another are now bordering one another,” said Ari Tolany, Director at the Security Assistance Monitor for International Policy. “With that concern introduced, we see a stronger imperative needed for Congress to keep eyes on [arms sales to India].”  
The briefing was co-organized by Hindus for Human Rights, Indian American Muslim Council, Dalit Solidarity Forum, New York State Council of Churches, World Without Genocide, Justice for All, Federation of Indian American Christian Organizations of North America, India Civil Watch International, Center for Pluralism, International Commission for Dalit Rights, American Muslim Institution, International Society for Peace and Justice, North American Manipur Tribal Association, Association of Indian Muslims of America, Periyar Ambedkar Thoughts Circle Australia, and Alliance Against Islamophobia. 

Comments

TRENDING

A Hindu alternative to Valentine's Day? 'Shiv-Parvati was first love marriage in Universe'

The other day, I was searching on Google a quote on Maha Shivratri which I wanted to send to someone, a confirmed Shiv Bhakt, quite close to me -- with an underlying message to act positively instead of being negative. On top of the search, I chanced upon an article in, imagine!, a Nashik Corporation site which offered me something very unusual.  I don't know who owns this site, for there is nothing on it in the About Us link. It merely says, the Nashik Corporation  site   "is an educational and news website of the municipal corporation. Today, education and payment of tax are completely online." It goes on to add, "So we provide some of the latest information about Property Tax, Water Tax, Marriage Certificate, Caste Certificate, etc. So all taxpayer can get all information of their municipal in a single place.some facts about legal and financial issues that different city corporations face, but I was least interested in them."  Surely, this didn't interest...

Beyond the 'plum' posting: Why the caste lens still defines bureaucratic success

Following my recent blog on former IAS bureaucrat Atanu Chakraborty’s sudden exit as non-executive chairman of HDFC Bank, a few colleagues from the Gujarat cadre — mostly those I interacted with during my Gandhinagar stint (1997–2012) as the Times of India representative — reacted rather sharply. Most of them sent their responses directly on WhatsApp, touching upon on the merits and demerits of Chakraborty’s controversial move. One former IAS officer, a Dalit, however, went further, raising a broader question: why do some officials like Chakraborty secure plum post-retirement assignments, while others are overlooked?

Blaming RTE, not underfunding: Education groups hit back at NITI Aayog working paper

A preliminary working paper by Arvind Virmani, economist and member of the Government of India think tank NITI Aayog, has concluded that the Right to Education (RTE) Act — enacted to guarantee free and compulsory schooling for children between six and fourteen — has actually worsened learning outcomes rather than improved them. The paper, published in March 2026 and reported by The Print on 16 April, has drawn sharp pushback from education rights advocates, who argue it builds a politically motivated narrative against constitutionally guaranteed entitlements.