NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTION 99
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

The strings to Clinton's visit

A rumour in Washington is that before President Bill Clinton's visit was announced, India gave an assurance that it would sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The Atal Bihari Vajpayee government is reportedly of the view that Parliament's sanction for the treaty is not necessary and the Cabinet's approval will do. Someday our envoy in New York, it is said, will go to the UN and sign the treaty, without any fanfare.

If this is the price America has exacted, it will only exacerbate relations between the two countries. The question is no more confined to Parliament, the government or the Cabinet. It is before the nation. The signing of the CTBT has got linked with the country's dignity. America is seen to be pressuring India, although it has not itself ratified the treaty, and India to be kowtowing before it. This is not a good impression before Clinton's visit.

I am not going into the merits of the CTBT because I am one of those who believe that exploding the bomb itself was an unnecessary exercise. But the issue is different now. The challenge is to India's capability to act independently. Clinton is welcome, but not the strings attached to the visit.

I believe the price that America has promised to pay is the withdrawal of its objection to loans to India from the World Bank and some other financial institutions. The question the government has to answer is: is it fair to sell the country's honour for pottage? This may lessen enthusiasm for Clinton's visit.

I recall the visit of President Eisenhower to Delhi some 40 years ago. It took him and Prime Minister Jawarharlal Nehru, who rode the same car, several hours to travel from the airport to Rashtrapati Bhavan. The then US president was literally mobbed at Connaught Place. It was a sea of humanity and poor Eisenhower got almost drowned in it. Nehru rescued him and piloted the cavalcade.

Clinton may not get the same reception. One, the security considerations will come in the way of his travelling in an open car. Two, the novelty of the 'White Emperor', as the US president was considered then, has worn out. At that time, the British Raj was still fresh in our minds and the concept of the white man was that of a ruler.

Even after the Cold War, unlike Moscow, Washington continues to enjoy a pre-eminent position in the world and India is conscious of it. But 52 years of independence have made us more confident and we now look other nations straight in the eye. We are beginning to be conscious of our identity. This is what I fear America has not realised. True, India faces the problems of poverty and poor administration. But we want the US to treat India in a manner that a country of its size and population deserves.

Washington's preference for Beijing has never been understood by New Delhi. Even before we clashed with the Chinese in 1962, America was not our friend. President Kennedy offered to help us against the Chinese aggression, but the moment the guns were silent on the India-China border, America stopped what was even in the pipeline. There was large-scale economic assistance to Europe under the Marshal Plan after the War. But no US president has ever presented a separate proposal to ladle out aid to India or, for that matter, the countries in South Asia. For a poor country, with all types of pressures, it was difficult to stay democratic. Still it did.

Maybe Washington punished India for not riding the US bandwagon during the Cold War, which raged till the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990. Maybe the socialistic pattern of society that Nehru preached was not to the liking of America. Maybe our leadership of the non-aligned world was suspect. Whatever the reason, the fact of distance between Washington and New Delhi cannot be denied. More recently, the anxiety to keep parity between India and Pakistan has been too apparent to go unnoticed. America should have known from its experience that this policy has created more problems than it has solved.

Against this backdrop, Clinton's visit to India becomes important. That America has and should have close relations with Pakistan is not a point of dispute. In fact, the more leverage Washington has in Islamabad, the better it is for New Delhi in the long run. What America has to decide is whether it is ready -- and willing -- to treat India independently and not tag it to either Pakistan or China.

Clinton has himself said more than once that India will be an economic giant one day. Then why does he not help it to traverse the path towards that stage of development quickly? On its own, the economic growth rate will be six to seven per cent. But with America's help it can be 10 to 12 per cent. True, the bureaucratic way in which we function is frustrating for foreign investors. But all of them are making more money than they are in China with the same investment. We have to think how to save our industry.

India's main problem is unemployment. It is assuming dimensions that may be dangerous to a democratic and open society. A bigger and quicker growth rate can avert the eruption of the volcano. Why can't America think of helping a democratic country in a mammoth way? There are reports from America that it is trying to persuade Bangladesh and Nepal to develop economically along with India as a region. Their suspicion of New Delhi can lessen if Washington takes closer interest in economic collaborations. Pakistan should also be goaded into the South Asian economic development because political issues will find solution only when the countries have overcome the scourge of poverty.

India's foreign policy is bound to differ from that of America. The latter is a developed country and a superpower. New Delhi is yet engrossed in protecting its borders and tackling the law-and-order problems arising within. Moscow is still its most dependable source of arms. Washington does not have to see all this from either a white or black point of view. There is a grey area also.

"Those who are not with you are against you" -- that was the Cold War dictum. America should have come a long way from it because there is no Soviet Union to challenge it. Still, the Pentagon is dominated by people whose guru was John Foster Dulles. Clinton needs to curb them.

The proposed visit of the US president has aroused many hopes. One is that America will now become friendly with India and appreciate the problem of Kashmir and not pressurise New Delhi on it or on the CTBT. Were Clinton's speeches in India to reflect the sensitivity, the visit would go down well. Otherwise, the same suspicions and fears will take over.

In the past there have been many occasions when America could have been a little more understanding of India's pronouncements. For some reason, those opportunities were wasted. India too has to realise that the attitude of self-righteousness may go down well in the field of religion and piety but not international affairs.

Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh gives the feeling of a loner, happy while surrounded with bureaucrats. His contact with men in public office in India and abroad will help him shed the complex that the bureaucrats can bring India and America nearer to each other. This is like Clinton depending on his foreign service. The reason why America is most successful in foreign affairs is the use it makes of people outside the government.

Kuldip Nayar