Pinning the blame on a career diplomat, especially one on the verge of retirement, often is the best option for a government when one of its foreign policy decisions goes wrong. US ambassador to India, Nancy Powell, fits this bill perfectly. After serving in her post for over two years, Powell has decided to put in her papers and seek early retirement. What was being speculated for the past several weeks was confirmed on Monday when the US embassy in Delhi issued a statement confirming Powell’s decision to retire. But this has only led to further speculation in the media and the diplomatic circle in Delhi.
There have been a string of US ambassadors in recent past who have left before completing their three-year tenure in Delhi. Robert Blackwell, touted as the one who helped in strengthening Indo-US ties under George W. Bush’s Presidency, left before he completed three years. Though there were no controversies relating to his departure, Powell’s immediate predecessor, Timothy Roemer, had left in a huff in 2011 after the US failed to win a lucrative defence contract in India. Therefore, US envoys leaving their post in India before completing their tenure are not unprecedented.
But Powell leaves at a time when the Indo-US relations, that have been under some strain over the Devyani Khobragade controversy, seem to have waned to a certain extent. Her departure—which now seems to be likely around June—will be at a time when the parliamentary elections in India are over and a new government is in place.
The attempt on the US side seems to be to start with a clean slate with the new government in Delhi. But in the process it appears to have found Powell as the most convenient scapegoat. However, it is not clear if her fading away from the diplomatic scene would immediately lead to renewed bonhomie in Indo-US bilateral ties.
Soon after her arrival in Delhi to take up the post as America’s ambassador to India, Powell has made it clear that “US’ business in India is business.” But if that seemed to be the main focus to describe the relationship, then surely there was not much progress. Though, for that, neither Powell nor the Indian leadership could be entirely blamed. The timing of her tenure in Delhi unfortunately coincided with impact of the global economic crisis on India. If the business side of the relationship did not move forward, as was hoped by the business community in the two countries, then it had a lot to do with investors being cautious in making fresh investments in the wake of the slowdown of the global economy.
It could be argued that it was not only the Indian economy that tapered off coming down from a nine+ growth to five or thereabouts during this period but also that of the other fastest growing economies around the world. Looking at the members of the BRICS, one could see that China too was affected by the slowdown as its 10 per cent plus growth came down to 7.5 per cent, while that of the others like Brazil, Russia and South Africa went down even below that of India’s.
In addition, the Pharma lobby in the US and American companies intending to invest in the Indian nuclear sector were put off by some of the policies that the Indian government had adopted.
Moving beyond business, if one was to look at other areas in the bilateral relations between India and the US, then the Devyani Khobragade issue was definitely one that became a major stumbling block for meaningful progress in their ties. And for this, the US government and the ministry of external affairs of India should both be blamed. If the US “mishandled” the Indian diplomat and treated her like a “common criminal,” then the jingoistic reaction in India contributed to its snowballing into a major controversy. While the American government was being blamed for the humiliation of the Indian diplomat, the fact that she had also violated a domestic law in the US was totally ignored and brushed off the Indian table.
If, in this drama, Powell is to be blamed then it is perhaps for the decision of one of the US diplomats in the consular section to give a visa to the Indian maid Sangeeta Richard’s husband and children to travel to the US even as a case against her was pending before the Indian court. The US diplomat involved in the consular section was since withdrawn and taken back to Washington. But some of the Indian decisions that include stripping US diplomats of special privileges and removing the barricades from in front of the embassy in Chanakyapuri, remain in force.
The third reason being cited for Powell’s removal from the post is because of her handling of Gujarat chief minister and BJP’s prime ministerial candidate, Narendra Modi. The US continued to be the last “holdout” among western diplomats to engage with Modi. Even though the European Union ambassadors broke their post-Godhra moratorium of engaging with Modi, the US embassy in Delhi only decided to do so early this year after all the others.
However, this was a decision taken by the US much before Powell arrived on the scene and the ambiguity on granting a US visa to the Gujarat chief minister was maintained for long by successive American ambassadors and regimes.
There is no doubt that to have a normal and improved relations with India, the US will have to find a way out for both issues, the one relating to Modi’s visa as well as the one involving Debyani Khobragade. A new face in the US embassy in Delhi will allow Washington to revive its Indian engagement with added verve and vigour. However, it is unlikely to be smooth sailing on either of the two cases. Any hint of a compromise on Debyani issue by the new Indian government will come up for strict scrutiny from those in the opposition. On the visa issue, resistance may come from the anti-Modi brigade in the US.
By all indication, Nancy Powell’s departure from the scene may allow the US to re-set its relations with India. But it may soon find out that making a scapegoat of Powell only solves half its problem relating to India. The other half may well prove to be much tougher to resolve in the coming days.
Abey Miso - tu kidhar chala gaya re? #9 ka jawaab tho dhe?
" He deliberately ignores the fact that the joker duo took India back to dark days of socialism and created a hostile environment for businesses. "
Free money given to people is very good for business.The economic balance for a money creator is: DEFICITS- NET IMPORT = NET PRIVATE SAVINGS which splits into
DEFICITS = NET SAVINGS in rupees and IMPORT = EXPORT in $.
DEFICIT is created money and one rupee of created money contributes exactly 1 rupee to private wealth. If all Indian citizens are given, say, 5000 rupees each the national wealth will increasde to 6.5 trillion rupees and the GDP will grow to 32.5 trillion. If you want proof go to www://pic.twitter.com/mIvjkQ18Hh
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Miss Ogynist to reply. After all, he is pathologically opposed to the two M's: Mahila and Modi. Anything anyone does (or will do) against these two is automatically "principled".
"Hope the USA sticks to its principles and does not do business with Modi on principle." Miss Ogynist
Can you tell me what principles were behind the following decisions over many US administrations?
1) In 1971, the US supported the Pakis during their genocide of 300,000-3,000,0000 Bengalis, mostly Hindus, in East Pakistan. The US actually shipped weapons to them in March 1971 while the genocide was ongoing. When the Indian army moved into East Krapistan in December 1971, the US sent the nuclear carrier Enterprise to threaten us.
2) In 1971, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende and replaced him with General Pinochet who went on to "disappear" thousands of Chileans.
Hint:. Allende nationalized the mines of the US-based Anaconda copper company.
3) In 1952, the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadeq in Iran was overthrown by the CIA and the British MI5, and replaced with the Shah of Iran.
Hint: Mossadeq nationalized Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which was owned mostly by US and British oil companies.
4) In 1956, the democratically elected government of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala was overthrown by the CIA, and replaced with a half-mad colonel named Castillo Armas. Armas went to slaughter close to 500,000 native Guatemalans who opposed him.
Hint: Arbenz nationalized the lands of the United Fruit Company. John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles were major shareholders.
References provided on request. I am also happy to provide more examples but these should be enough.
Over to you - tell us what "principles" underlie these actions by the US.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT