I do not know why but the fact remains that India-America relations are better under the Republicans than the Democrats. Idea-wise or ideology-wise, Indians should feel closer to the latter but it does not happen that way. No doubt, Washington is guided by self-interest which every country does. I am sure New Delhi understands that policy.
Yet self-interest is not something euphoric. It does not change in a few months' time. The same State Department which was singing the praise of India is different because a democratic president is at the helm of affairs. Even the body language of US officials has changed. They give the impression of a regime which either takes India for granted or follows a policy which is opposed to New Delhi's interests.
Some unhappy messages to India began emanating as soon as President Obama won. Those messages are taking shape gradually. There is not one point which reflects growing distance between the Government of India and the Obama administration. There are a host of problems which are small but they are not getting resolved because the understanding and the equation which the Bush administration showed towards India is lacking.
Words by the new setup are effusive like that India is a major power or that without its active presence in South Asia nothing can be sorted out in the region. Yet when it comes to something concrete, America behaves like the mightiest power in the world -undoubtedly it is - and wants India to accept its wrong perceptions.
New Delhi has protested many a time that the military aid given to Pakistan to fight terrorism is misused and the latter buys weapons. Pentagon documents made public a few days ago said that Islamabad used the $6.9 billion aid it received during the Bush administration to buy modern weapons for a conventional warfare against India. This is not the first time that Pakistan has used the money to buy weapons. India faced them in the 1965 war against Pakistan. Then the US administration said in reply to India's protest that Washington was helpless.
Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was committed to holding a plebiscite in Kashmir until Pakistan joined the CENTO. When America injected modern weapons for the use of Pakistan army, he said that the whole situation had changed and that India was not bound by its promise to hold a plebiscite because America had injected new weapons in the region. My feeling is that Pakistan had to pay a heavy price for siding with America during the cold war.
 |
| Pakistan soldiers on duty in a North Western Frontier Province town: New Delhi says Islamabad uses billions of dollars in US development aid to buy weapons which could be used against India. AFP |
The Obama administration has announced an aid of some $1.5 billion to Pakistan per year for the next five years to fight terrorists. The bill in the US Congress was sought to be amended that the aid would not be used against India. The Obama administration agreed to Islamabad's substitution of word neighbour instead of India. Perhaps it comes to the same thing. But then why change the word if India is not in the mind of Pakistan?
Nobody has any doubt that Islamabad would divert a major portion of US aid to buy weapons instead of using it to build roads, schools or health centres as President Obama has announced. Pentagon documents or some other papers would reveal after some years that the aid given by Washington was again used by Islamabad to buy weapons. New Delhi does not object to America helping Pakistan in the social sector and lessening the impact of non-development in that country. But New Delhi's experience has been unhappy.
Point Four by President Truman was a good programme which helped India also get food grains from America at the time when New Delhi needed it the most. But Obama's programme is specific and earmarks some assistance for weapons. There is no gun which fires only in one direction. Weapons meant to fight against terrorists are bound to be used by Pakistan to build up its army. Washington may express regret for that, if it does, but the harm would have been done. It should learn the lesson which Pentagon documents teach. Why America wants to follow the same path is beyond me.
Similarly, I do not understand the American embassy's advisory to US citizens not to travel to India because they would put themselves to risk for coming to a country which is exposed to terrorists. Ironically, the advisory was issued on the same day when President Obama at Cairo appealed to the Muslim world to forget America's past mistakes. India too wants Obama not to commit the same mistakes which it had done earlier in the subcontinent.
The latest is that Washington would pursue the policy of non-proliferation more vigorously than before. At Foreign Relations Committee of the US Senate, Ellen Tauscher said that if confirmed for the post of Under Secretary for arms control and international security, she would work towards a number of non-proliferation goals, of which one was the ratification of CTBT. India was mentioned one of the countries to be asked to sign the treaty. New Delhi is willing to sign the nuke ban treaty provided Washington also does so. Once again America does not want any other country besides itself, Great Britain, France, Russia and China to possess nuclear weapons. Once again Washington desires to revive the club of the elite five.
Efforts of both India and Pakistan have been to demolish the exclusiveness of super powers. The Obama administration would get no response from India or Pakistan unless the non-proliferation treaty is accepted by all countries in the world. Why does not Washington voluntarily promise to sign the CTBT? Ellen Tauscher should tell the Senate committee that the Obama administration would ultimately put its signature on the treaty. I have no doubt that if it were to do so, the other members of the club would also agree. The people all over the world would then be able to sleep in peace. President Obama would go down in history and go on to win the Nobel Prize.
* The writer is a veteran Indian journalist. He was also a one-time diplomat and former Rajya Sabha member. |
E-mail