India-US détente

Probably, America feared adverse fallout from the defence treaty which Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee signed at Washington last month. (He persists in calling it an agreement). America's reading was wrong. Except for a few speeches by the Left and some comments in the press, there was hardly any unfavourable voice from the public. Jingo nationalism has developed in India at the expense of liberal thought. When consumerism takes over, defence becomes an obsession with those who matter. America should know this more than any other country.

What the US wants to convey is that India is its closest ally in this part of the world. This is, in fact, in line with the suggestions the Carnegie Endowment, a think-tank in America, has made to the State Department in its latest report. To align with India, the Carnegie report recommends that America should take five steps: 1) Help India's power to grow to prevent China's dominance; 2) End the illusory idea of military balance between India and Pakistan; 3) Endorse India's membership in the UN Security Council. G-8, APEC, and International Energy Agency; 4) Remove objections to the Iran-India gas pipeline; and 5) Allow sale of dual-use technology, including nuclear safety equipment.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The CIA analysis also describes India as the most important "swing state" in the international system a country that could tilt the balance between war and peace, between chaos and order. The National Intelligence Council, CIA's brain trust, compared the emergence of India and China to the rise of Germany in the 19th century and the US in the 20th century in mapping the global future.

"The US leaders are concerned about the growth of the Chinese military, its monetary policy, its vicious attacks on Japan, and its increasing power projection capabilities. Both Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have sharply articulated their doubts on these grounds. An unbridled China is not in the US interest, and by bolstering India, the US can arrest the growth of Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean rimlands and Chinese penetration of Myanmar," says the report.

Of course, America's emphasis is to build up India as a counter force to China, a "potential hedge against a rising China," as an American thinker puts it. This is incorrect. New Delhi, with improving relations with Beijing, may never go back to the time when the two countries were at odds with each other. There is a dispute over the boundary and it looks as if the two sides are beginning to appreciate sensitivities of each other. They may come to a settlement before long.

Even otherwise, the region is big enough to accommodate India and China, and there is no doubt that Beijing will one day follow the democratic way of governance to firm up relations with New Delhi.

By all means, India should take advantage of new thinking in America in the wake of Bush administration. In fact, stirrings were visible much earlier and former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee did considerable work in the field. Robert Blackwill, US ambassador in New Delhi a few years ago, forced many positive changes in the US policy despite stiff resistance. But it is for India to consider how far it wants to go. Manmohan Singh has rightly said that India cannot be anybody's suppliant.

Yet a country, which is giving a new interpretation to non-aligned movement (NAM), should not be acting in a manner that may create doubts in the minds of third world nations. New Delhi's argument in favour of NAM is that small countries should gather on the same platform to be a moral force against big, powerful nations. How does the exclusive arrangement with America fit into such thinking?

Some of the clauses in the treaty with the US impinge on New Delhi's free say. It reminds me of the agreements or pacts during the cold war days which India vehemently opposed. Even if there is no obligation on the part of India to do what Nato, Cento, and Seato demanded from its members, the pact with America amounts to an alliance. It excludes other nations and negates the UN charter based on the one-world concept.

Take a sub-clause of Article 4 of the treaty. According to it, India and America will "collaborate in multinational operations when it is in their common interest." If the "common interest" of two nations transcends the interests of the rest, what is the UN for? America did not care about it when it attacked Iraq. A multinational operation has to have the stamp of the UN approval. This has been India's stand. The acquisition of modern weapons from America could not be the reason for a turnabout.

When General Mohammed Ayub Khan took over Pakistan in October 1958, he offered India a defence pact. Jawaharlal Nehru, then the Prime Minister, rightly said: "Defence against whom?" The matter did not proceed further. Although President General Pervez Musharraf is heavily dependent on the US, he could not have liked America's tilt towards India. At a time when India and Pakistan are in the midst of peace process, any suspicion at Islamabad can be harmful. However, Pakistan should not read too much from the effusive statements America makes. Instead, Islamabad's strategy should be to help a South Asian entity to emerge. It may be an economic union, but the entire area has to have soft borders. And there is no place for terrorism in the region.

Whatever the calculations and compulsions of the military junta in Islamabad, the common man in Pakistan feels insecure. He is terrified because he sees terrorists taking training in the midst of civilian population. A study conducted by the International Crisis Group last year said: "President Musharraf's call for an end to the promotion of an ideology of jihad was welcomed around the world. Two years on, however, the failure to deliver to any substantial degree on pledges to reform the madrassas and contain the growth of jihadi networks means that religious extremism in Pakistan continues to pose a threat to domestic, regional, and international security."

How to retrieve Pakistan from terrorism should be top priority after the meeting between Bush and Manmohan Singh. More than that they should be looking at ways to stabilise the region littered with failing states.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.