This Could Be Us

India is yet to respond to the US request, struggling as it is with the question of whether to grant an important wish to its powerful, and newly-found friend. The superpower wants Indian troops to defray the moral, psychological and human costs of an operation going wobbly. President George Bush and his cabinet have been leaning on India to lend a helping hand. But what about the gaping contradiction between the Pentagon’s public and private assessments of the Indian military? Its Office of Net Assessment commissioned a report last year which was sharply critical of the state of India’s armed forces (the decaying infrastructure, the prickly officers, the emphasis on theory rather than pragmatism, the lack of a strategic vision, etc). It is ironic that the Pentagon should now seek help from a military whose capability it doubts.

But a US defence department official told Outlook that the report was a "compilation of personal opinions, many of which are actually quite complimentary but (it) does not represent the official views" of the Pentagon. "Indian forces are of the highest quality and the Indian army is recognised as a premier force in international peacekeeping. The future of Iraq is too important, hence our interest in seeking support from countries such as India with proven capability to handle stability operations," he said.

So the big question: should India respond when America beckons? Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is anxious, some say desperate, for others to share the burden before the label of "occupiers" sticks like crazy glue to US troops. Most experts agree that India’s decision, affirmative or negative, will impact bilateral relations but they differ on the degree. So much is currently in play in the India-US-Pakistan triangle that Washington may exact revenge or turn magnanimous, depending on India’s decision. For starters, Pakistan’s request for F-16s, the need for US pressure to end cross-border terrorism and India’s wish list for high-tech trade. The wheels within wheels of diplomatic moves and counter-moves require serious calculation on New Delhi’s part.

Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal, who concluded high-level meetings last week, acknowledged the need for a push at the political level to move the Indo-US strategic relations forward. That means the White House, whose decisions might depend on the recent give and take. If there is no give, there can be little take. But Sibal insisted the US understands India’s difficulties. "There is no pressure by the US," he said.

But as even the preliminary students of this administration know, it reacts strongly to countries who don’t play along. A polite "No" can be seen as a betrayal of a friend in need. As William Triplett, former Republican counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and familiar with this administration’s thinking, says, "A ‘no’ from India will have an impact although no one will say so in public. The adults in the administration are thought to be more than a bit put out by the Indian Parliament’s resolution on Iraq, especially its timing. Showing that the Indian Army are rolling up their sleeves to help out now will pay dividends with the Americans later."

George Perkovich, vice-president of the liberal-leaning Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, agrees that the Bush Administration does not forget easily. "The administration would be angry or at least disappointed, and if India sends troops, it would be bailing out the Republicans from a growing crisis of occupation without international partners." As for India reaping concrete benefits of American gratitude, the jury is out. "It might help with some high-tech trade issues but others such as nuclear cooperation are constrained by agreements and regimes that the US does not control unilaterally. The question Indians should then ask is whether and how the US has ‘thanked’ those who help it and how long the thanks last," Perkovich commented.

The key is Washington’s continued opposition to getting the United Nations fully involved in the post-war scenario even though it would help recruit friends. "This administration is unilateralist. But we are finding that the trade-off of efficiency for international cooperation and legitimacy may not be as one-sided as the administration first felt," Perkovich said.

A State Department official, familiar with the tug-of-war in Indian minds, said categorically that India’s refusal will not adversely affect relations. "It is not a show-stopper. We are talking to a lot of other countries about contributing troops," he added. At last count, negotiations were on with 14 other nations for troops. "The relationship between the US and India is one of equals. India has a sovereign decision to make and if they are not willing, we can understand that," the official said. Will they, really?