The Economic Times
5th November 2010
After some years of gloating over India's dehyphenation with Pakistan in relations with the US, all we might have left to feel good about after President Barack Obama's visit to India is that he gave our neighbour a skip. Certainly, we don't expect that he will bring to the table anything that will set the Yamuna on fire.
The world may have been in love with this athletic man, but with his resounding defeat at home in the midterm elections, the gloss seems to have worn off pretty quickly. Of course, the red carpet will be laid out, but the usual breathless anticipation is missing in India.
For once, Indians are not holding their breath over the visit of the most powerful man in the world. The decision to drop Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from the entourage is clearly aimed at keeping the spotlight on the first couple. But as things stand now, the suave Obama will find it hard put to follow his predecessor's act.
His predecessor George W Bush had steered the Indo-US nuclear deal. With it, India moved to the nuclear high table and came out of around three decades of nuclear isolation. If Obama thinks India is a rising economic and military power, he has done a good job of not articulating it in language we understand.
As Senator, he energetically opposed the India-US nuclear deal negotiated by the Bush administration, calling it a 'blank cheque' that was being delivered to India. Though he finally voted for the enabling of the Hyde Act, he opposed the flexibility it gives India to build fuel reserves to cushion it from any cessation of supplies.
He also supported and voted in favour of two 'killer' amendments to the act. Had they been adopted, it would have made it difficult for any Indian government to sign the agreement. He also found little credulity in India's unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing, saying: 'I take the Prime Minister at his word, but also believe in following Reagan's mantra of 'trust but verify'.'
As a presidential candidate, he strongly advocated the east for west policy, linking the resolution of the Kashmir problem to secure Pakistan's cooperation in the fight against the extremists in its border with Afghanistan. His administration may still be hoping to achieve this goal. His protectionist policies of withdrawing tax concessions to companies that outsource work to countries like India, H1-B visa curbs, and the refrain that Bangalore's IT prowess is a threat to US prosperity, have not gown well in India.
Long ago and far away, we would have grasped at straws to show that India and the US are best friends. One such straw was the fact that the first state dinner hosted by President Obama was in honour of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Another was that before the completion of his first term in office, Obama is visiting India. To underscore the point, they contend that President Bill Clinton visited India only in the closing days of his presidency, and George W Bush during his second term in office.
Even though the Indian Prime Minister was the first head of government invited by Obama for state dinner, it has done very little to the relationship. Obama is visiting India after he's graced the portals of virtually every major country and such notable international destinations as Ghana and Trinidad & Tobago. Even Nixon, who presided over the worst phase of India-US relations, visited India during his first term.
So, let's accept the reality. There is a definite trust deficit in the relationship. But this can be changed. There are many things that the Obama administration would do well to accomplish. First, it should be more forthcoming in its support for India's permanent seat in the UN Security Council. Second, he should be more sensitive to India's genuine security concerns and stop arming Pakistan with the weapons that are ill-suited to fight the terrorists.
Even Gen Pervez Musharraf has said that they are primarily meant to be used against India. Third, the Obama administration should abandon its policy of trying to intervene in the Kashmir dispute. Fourth, the US should genuinely work with India to develop its military industrial complex. It should encourage joint production of large platforms at a time when India is increasingly shifting its reliance on Russian arms to those from the US.
Fifth, it should relax the controls on the export of dual-use high technology items to India, especially when US companies are looking to India for the establishment of joint high-tech R&D centres. Sixth, the US should remove Indian organisations from the 'entity list' that imposes various restrictions on bodies so listed. This could really get the party started. Sixth, it should withdraw the curbs that have been placed on companies that outsource to India and ease visa norms for its IT personnel seeking employment in the US.
Of particular importance would be American cooperation with India in fighting terror. The US has so far shared intelligence selectively with India, making it hostage to its relations with Pakistan. The double-speak on David Headley does not inspire confidence. Bilateral counter-terrorism cooperation is a two-way street. We gave the US virtually unfettered access Ajmal Kasab, the lone surviving terrorist of the 26/11 carnage.
Yet, we are two peas in a pod on the fundamental level. We share the same core values of democracy and pluralism. The Indo-US economic ties are burgeoning. While India could not find a place among the 15 largest trading partners (trade in goods) in 2008, it became 14 a year later and today has climbed two ranks higher. And an upward trajectory is on the cards.
Though not publicly stated, ensuring that China's rise is 'peaceful' is of critical importance to both the countries. In the coming decades, it is only India that can safeguard the sea lanes of communication in the Indian Ocean that are critical for US and virtually for all the large economies of the world.
India's proximity to the epicentre and breeding ground of terrorism makes it an important countervailing force against this menace. So, the timing could not be better to further deepen Indo-US relations. But, what works for us should work for the US also. And in Obama's own words, if we want this to happen, yes, we can.
