Diplomacy is judged by outcomes, not by the venue
Opinion: this editorial reflects the editor's view.
A political storm has been built from a few lines: where a US Secretary of State would meet India's foreign minister, and who announced it first. The Ministry of External Affairs has answered plainly. India regularly hosts visiting dignitaries outside Delhi, and in recent weeks Dr S. Jaishankar has held engagements in Goa, Kevadia and Amritsar. Mumbai is India's financial capital, and Mr Rubio's programme also included Jamnagar, home to a major refinery.
In the same days, the minister was also hosting the UAE's deputy prime minister. That is what an independent foreign policy looks like: a country that speaks to Washington, Abu Dhabi and everyone else on its own terms. Mr Rubio was in Delhi as recently as May, when India hosted the Quad foreign ministers.
Calling a senior minister someone's 'employee' may win applause online, but it demeans an office that belongs to the nation and not to any one government. Questions about protocol are fair, and the ministry has answered them. Turning them into a charge of subservience is not serious politics. The real test is what India gets from the talks: energy, technology and defence cooperation, and the visa and tariff questions that matter to ordinary Indians. That deserves scrutiny. The venue does not.
The other side
Opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi and Jairam Ramesh, argue it was unusual for a foreign ambassador to announce an Indian minister's meeting before the ministry did, and note that Mr Rubio skipped New Delhi on his second visit in six months. They link the episode to a wider allegation that the government has bowed to US pressure on trade and foreign policy. The ministry has rejected the criticism.
