Making A Difference

Bill, Buntings, Beginnings

Now for the real test: will all the euphoria prove a mere bubble, or will it yield something substantive in Indo-US relations?

Advertisement

Bill, Buntings, Beginnings
info_icon

President William Jefferson Clinton stooped to conquer. With unsuspected sensitivity, tact and charm, he cajoled, persuaded and seduced a diffident India. He chafed against the limitations posed on him not only by a tight schedule but also the tight security around him. The Secret Service were often sweating in the sun because he would give to the crowd beyond its endurance. He revelled in the enthusiasm with which Indian parliamentarians scrabbled to shake his hand, almost rushing him off his feet. And he wore the angavastram thrown around his shoulders with pride. "He is a very humble person. He wanted to know all about our work and came back a second time to ask more questions," said a descendent of one of the craftsmen who built the Taj Mahal. The visit by ‘the most powerful man in the world’ was an unqualified personal success.

Advertisement

Happily, his personal aura flowed into the political arena as well. The meeting between the leaders of the two largest democracies in the world was the diplomatic equivalent of a lovers’ clinch-which necessarily postpones, in the heat of the moment, all resolution of old suspicions and jockeying for leverage. It set out an elaborate architecture for a new engagement. Clearly, there has been a discernible shift in US foreign policy towards India and away from Pakistan. But the question that history will ask of the shiny, new roadmap for a new Indo-US relationship is: will it work?

Advertisement

The litmus test were his comments on Kashmir. Without advocating a final solution, he called for restraint, respect for the LoC, a return to dialogue and an end to the violence. Coming just after the massacre of 36 Sikhs in Kashmir and months after a recognition of India’s restraint at Kargil, it indicated that Bill Clinton was aiming his comments more at Pakistan rather than at India.

This was clarified further in Clinton’s comments to abc’s Peter Jennings-"The most I can do right now is to oppose violence, particularly violence propagated by third parties in Kashmir and to reaffirm the LoC." Also his remark that "I believe there are elements within the Pakistani government that have supported those who engage in violence in Kashmir". By meeting the family of Rupin Katyal, he underlined where his sympathies lay. The feeling was reinforced later by Sandy Berger in clearer terms.

Some, though, were disappointed. "I wish he’d been more straightforward on the issue of terrorism," says the Congress’ Rajesh Pilot. "He should have condemned Pakistan in stronger terms." Analyst Kuldip Nayar sees it differently. "The gain for us definitely is that after Kargil the US is looking at the LoC as a possible international border." Explains Vikram K. Chand of the Centre for Policy Research, "This is purely a pragmatic move directly related to the nuclear tests." But it nevertheless favours India.

With his sophistry, Clinton may have brought India closer to considering talks with Gen Pervez Musharraf. There was loud applause in a packed House when he said, "I strongly believe what’s happened since your prime minister made his courageous journey to Lahore only reinforces the need for dialogue." After acknowledging India’s moral high ground, he indicated the world would back India if it decided to return to the negotiating table with Pakistan. The message went down well. "The US has to be seen as identifying Pakistan as the blamed party in the context of his visit to India," says Kanti Bajpai, a professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).

Advertisement

Not many feathers were ruffled either when Clinton raised the subject of CTBT. In fact, he is seen to have set the tone for a consensus. "I believe he made balanced statements about the CTBT-he talked about recognising India’s security concerns, which secretary of state Madeleine Albright had done earlier but which was a first for a US president, and that too on Indian soil," says Bajpai.

National security advisor Brajesh Mishra is understood to have told foreign journalists that the government is considering bringing the CTBT issue before Parliament in the budget session. While some might see that as a caving in by the government, others say that to wait will be to waste the momentum generated by the Clinton visit and surrender the initiative to Pakistan. There is a view that Islamabad, feeling that it is losing the diplomatic battle, might decide to gain kudos in the international arena by deciding to sign. And whoever goes first will naturally get the world’s praise. But the euphoria in the aftermath of the visit should not lull India into the belief that the US will be acting out of anything more than its own interests. "The visit is as positive as it could be subject to the concerns of both sides," says former foreign secretary J.N. Dixit.

Advertisement

One group that did not see much positive about Clinton’s trip is the Left-in a curious convergence of views with the far right. There were differences, though. Sources say Jyoti Basu had privately urged CPI(m) party bosses that even if protest marches were necessary, boycotting Clinton’s speech to Parliament wouldn’t be appropriate. Colleague Somnath Chatterjee felt the same way, but the CPI held firm in its opposition. Analyst Praful Bidwai spoke of a negative spinoff: "A tilt in favour of India is bad in the long run. Because even if India and Pakistan begin a dialogue now, it will not be in good faith," he argues.

Advertisement

The US’ newfound India tilt has long-term effects of a larger strategic nature, which was not on the cards earlier. The dialogue on Asian security, which is bound to increase US involvement in the area, will be of some concern to India’s neighbours, mainly China. "The Chinese will want to know if their nuclear capability is going to be a part of these consultations," says G.P. Deshpande, former dean of JNU’s School of International Studies. But Beijing is unlikely to make any move until after the November elections in the US.

The setting up of the Asian Centre for Democratic Governance, sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy and CII, is a bit of a surprise to some analysts and a disappointment to certain others. "The fact that it is linked to CII means that it will be linked to the agenda of CII. I’d have liked to have seen an independent institution," says Chand. But, he adds, "It has watered down the government component so as not to frighten China."

Leaving aside the impact on regional relations, substance appears to have surpassed the hype. The call for an institutionalised summit-level dialogue, with regular annual meetings at the foreign ministerial levels, is new. "For the first time, there’s a promise-and regularised dialogue, interspersed with phone and letter contact, is an important gain," says Bajpai. But the substance of such intent can only be judged by the process. "You need a whole set of cordial meetings to get the sort of agreements you want," he adds.

India doesn’t have such institutionalised dialogue with any country, specially not its neighbours. SAARC is the only forum where it’s possible, but is near-defunct. The US does have such dialogue with nafta signatories Mexico and Canada, but with few others. The closest India came to having such a mechanism was with the former USSR. New Delhi and Moscow had regular meetings at the defence and foreign ministerial level till the late ‘80s. Besides, there was constant people-to-people contact. Congressman Frank Pallone, a member of the delegation who met defence minister George Fernandes and army chief V.P. Malik, says he would like to see the Indo-US relationship developing into a similar alliance one day.

Advertisement

A caveat comes from Teresita C. Schaffer, director, South Asia Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington: "I don’t envisage a relationship like India had with the USSR. The circumstances are different. The military supply dimension won’t be there, certainly not anything like the scale practiced by the former Soviet Union." Also, she claims, unlike the USSR, "the US isn’t looking to take sides-not between India and China, nor India and Pakistan." But for now, you could call it a subcontinental drift.

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement