IN a major effort to drum up support for its cause in the US in the aftermath of the nuclear tests, India has hurriedly appointed four major lobbying firms and influential US citizens to argue its case. But, many congressional analysts and Capitol Hill staffers are sceptical about the difference these lobbyists are going to make for New Delhi.
Biggest among the new firms working for India is Verner, Liipfert, Gernhard, McPherson & Hand, where former Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole works as a law partner. The firm has been signed up for six months for $50,000 a month, according to Justice Department papers obtained by Outlook.
A similar deal was signed by the Indian Embassy's deputy chief of mission, T.P. Sreenivasan, with APCO Associates' managing director, Neal M. Cohen. The company will be paid $25,000 a month for six months. The Indian account for APCO will be handled by former Democratic Congressman, Stephen J. Solarz, who has registered as a foreign agent for India.
The over 200-strong Verner, Liipfert had the highest billing last year with Cassidy & Associates coming second and Patton, Boggs (one of Pakistan's lobbyists) placing third. The agreement signed by the firm's chairman Berl Bernhard and Sreenivasan, a copy of which was obtained by Outlook, says: "It's important that key decision-makers and opinion-makers in the US be properly informed about India's important economic achievements and future business potential. The ability of the key decision-makers and opinion-makers in the US to properly appreciate India's economic achievements also requires these decision-makers and opinion-makers have a detailed, correct and balanced understanding of various political issues in India today."
However, "Senator Dole is basically not going to be doing any lobbying," spokesman Steve Kear-ney of Verner, Liipfert told Outlook. "Senator Dole will not engage in any activities that will require him to file," he explained, referring to the papers all lobbyists who work for foreign nations or entities have to file with the Justice Department. According to the filing papers, the Indian account will be looked after mainly by Brenda Meister, a trade lawyer with no India experience.
"If the Indian government thought they will have Bob Dole going over to the Hill knocking doors and explaining India's position to his former Senate colleagues, then they are sadly mistaken," said a veteran congressional watcher with a keen interest in US-India relations. "For the 50 grand a month, India has got a trade lawyer, that's it." One congressional aide familiar with the lobbying industry said: "I guess the question you have to ask is: How much time of Bob Dole will India get? It'll be interesting to see Dole's time sheets on the India account."
The embassy also rehired the Democratic Washington Group and the Republican American Continental Group for six months, after the May nuclear tests, at $25,000 each per month. The entire effort will cost $125,000 a month, or $750,000 for the contracted six-month period.
This translates in annual figures to $1.5 million, which, industry watchers say, is not a large sum in American terms considering the prickly perception and communication problems that India faces in Washington. What will India get out of this investment? That will entirely depend on what policy course New Delhi sets for itself vis-a-vis Washington and vice versa. Industry analysts and congressional sources warned that lobbying is not a substitute for policy. However, the performance of the lobbying firms will hinge on how well they are tasked by the embassy staff, especially those working in the political wing. The team has to have conceptual clarity about what it wants to accomplish.
According to analysts and congressional sources, the embassy's political wing is not as savvy as one would expect and their understanding and grasp of the American political process is shallow. "It disturbs me that these folks have a short-term, band-aid approach to complex issues," complained a congressional aide friendly toward India. "They don't know what's going on and when they do come to know, they've no clue what to do and they desperately get into a fire-fighting mode. That's not the way to function."
Despite recognising the key role of lobbying and lobbyists in shaping policy in Washington, Indian officials have displayed a certain disdain toward the notion of using hired help to solve its problems. This disdain, which has proved a costly mistake, was born out of the sheer arrogance of the foreign service cadre. Hiring a lobbying firm, they felt, was tantamount to admitting their own incompetence.
For a long time, the Government of India had a ubiquitous one-man lobbying operation in the capital—the late Janaki Nath Ganju, a Washington institution, served as India's on-again, off-again lobbyist . Lobbying efforts started in earnest only in the early '80s, when Washington was preparing to sell dozens of sophisticated F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan in the aftermath of the occupation of Afganisthan by the then Soviet Union. Congressman Stephen Solarz then led the opposition to the sale and emerged as an ally of India in the US Administration. As India braced for the new challenge on the Hill, the Indian embassy hired a public relations outfit, Barron and Canning, to help it mount its anti-F-16 campaign. India lost that encounter.
The ostrich attitude, however, changed when the controversial Sidhartha Shankar Ray, a ruthless politician to the core, was posted as the Indian envoy. He was instrumental in hiring a professional outfit, Rafaelli, Springer, Spees & Smith, now known as the Washington Group. A former congressional staffer and partner in the firm, David Springer became the pointman for the India account in 1994. During the past four years, Springer, a low-key hard-worker, who has acquired a grip over key Indian concerns, has performed admirably, according to several congressional sources interviewed by this reporter over the past three months. Talking privately, a democratic lawmaker said of Springer: "He never gives up and over the years he has impressed me with his commitment to India's interests. I wouldn't hesitate in describing him as an asset to the Indian embassy. He's good and a straight-shooter. "
IN 1996, the embassy hired a second firm known as the American Continental Group, which is believed to have influence among Republican members of Congress. Indian officials argued that the firm was associated with Wayne Berman, a fund-raiser for Republican politicians. According to industry analysts, the two-year record of this outfit is nothing substantial. Several congressional aides and a few lawmakers said they had never heard from the group nor its officers. Officials of the American Continental Group (ACG) also didn't return Outlook's phone calls.
Sources pointed out that the political wing of the embassy is heavily dependent on the goodwill of a Democratic lawmaker who takes a politically correct interest in Indian issues because he relies on campaign contributions from the Indian American community. Both legislative and Administration sources told Outlook that the embassy's excessive reliance on this single Congressman's office was beginning to backfire on the Hill. To back their assertion, these sources cited the example of at least two Bills very important for Indian interests and now before the House that were going nowhere because of erroneous strategies.
An Administration source, who closely follows Indian and South Asian issues on the Hill, commented: "I can see the naivete of the Indians...They are depending on this one Congressman to carry their pail. I don't think their lobbyists are giving that advice. I know they wouldn't, for they know how the Hill works. If the embassy wants it this way, then I think that's dumb for those bills are not going anywhere during this Congress."
The K-Street Corridor here (the fashionable street where most lobbying outfits have their plush offices) is also abuzz with speculation that Solarz's main mission is to set up an Indian American Political Action Committee, or PAC. Solarz has been allegedly tasked to help set up an outfit similar to the powerful AIPAC, or American Israel Public Affairs Committee, perhaps the most influential organisation of the American Jews in Washington.
Such a move could be a huge mistake, according to several legislative and Administration sources. "That will be a disaster for India. It will be worse than the Chinese government's scandal in giving money to political campaigns in the US. I hope New Delhi won't approve of any such proposal," said one congressional source. An Administration source added: "I hope they (the embassy) have learned from their previous experience when the FBI traced the financial contributions made to (certain) US politicians directly to a senior embassy official." Embassy officials did not want to talk to Outlook on record about the matter.
The temptation to co-opt the services of the wealthy Indian American community to push India's agenda is very high indeed, but, according to sources, the proposed move with the help of a lobbyist to set up an Indian American lobbying outfit in Washington is not only illegal but would also tarnish the Indian American community's image in this country as 'Fifth Columnists'. Said a community leader: "We have done so much for the Indian embassy—all within the limits of the law of the land. The ambassador can't get to meet this or that senator or Congressman, we arrange the meet for him. No paid lobbyist can do that. But we have the clout."
