SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

Rajeev Srinivasan

America is not India's enemy

In the wake of the nuclear tests, here has been a lot of America-bashing in the Indian media; for example the Indian Express carried a front-page column to the effect that India's real enemy is the US, not China. Now personally, I am not averse to criticising Yank hypocrisy and sanctimoniousness a little -- or even quite a lot -- but surely, China is a far greater threat to India than America is.

American anger -- especially the tenor of Madeleine Albright's threats regarding how India must unconditionally do certain things or else face ostracism -- has understandably raised Indian hackles; so has America's great enthusiasm to meddle in Kashmir. Albright, and her late father, have been of the opinion that Kashmir belongs to Pakistan.

India should stoutly refuse to allow third-party interference in Kashmir. And remind everyone that the UN resolutions on Kashmir insist on the status quo ante in 1947-- that is, before the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in the Vale of Kashmir, before the massacres in Doda and Baramulla, before the transplantation of Pakistanis to Gilgit, Baltistan and Hunza. The referendum was to happen with that set of circumstances in place, not today's.

Today Kashmir is much like Bosnia -- the only difference is that in Bosnia Muslims were oppressed, in Kashmir they are the oppressors. If Pakistanis insist that Kashmir is the 'unfinished business of Partition', then we have to look at the very rationale behind Pakistan -- do subcontinental Muslims need a homeland such as Pakistan? Apparently not -- since there are more Muslims in India or Bangladesh than in Pakistan. Then perhaps it is time to acknowledge that Partition was unnecessary, and undo it?

The dictum about there being no permanent allies, but only permanent interests, is entirely sensible. To call America an 'enemy' of India is a bit extreme: the truth is that the US and India share a lot of common interests, but some of their interests diverge, too. In China's case, it seems to be more of a zero-sum game, in that a lot of India's and China's interests are diametrically opposed.

Proximity matters a lot; furthermore, the Chinese have demonstrated quite convincingly their bloody-mindedness in the example of Tibet. They have shown that they are both utterly ruthless and also are working to a long-range strategic plan to dominate Asia. Tibet was the buffer state that always acted as a dampener on Indo-China tensions. Good fences, good neighbours, and all that. The day China took over Tibet, it amounted to an act of war against India.

I think I would be justified in pointing out that I wrote about the Chinese threat over a year ago in one of my columns. I also implied that Bill Clinton's softness on China might be based not on ideology, but on monies received from the Chinese army. I even mentioned that the average American might view this as treason. More on that later.

Compared to all the Chinese perfidy in our backyard, the Americans look positively saintly. They are simply pursuing their national interest, which was nicely summarised by George Kennan, the famous "X" whose anonymous article in Foreign Affairs magazine was the blueprint for the Cold War. Said Kennan, more or less: "America has 8% of the world's population, but enjoy 33% of its resources. Our foreign policy is meant to keep things that way." Couldn't be clearer, could it?

So the Americans would like to be the only world power with nuclear weapons -- and that has been the cornerstone of their non-proliferation efforts; note that the intent has been strictly to prevent horizontal proliferation, and had nothing to do with disarmament. Unfortunately, Russia, Britain, France and China also had nuclear weapons, so America reluctantly agreed to allow them also to continue to maintain stockpiles.

Thus the fearsome anger that Americans have exhibited at the prospect of India, Pakistan, and various other nations potentially owning nuclear weapons. Here is America believing it has a natural monopoly on these weapons, yet it tolerates a few rich friends holding them -- and then these hoi-polloi Third World types show up at the party bearing nukes? Most irresponsible! Deplorable!

The average American, because of brilliant Chinese propaganda, aided immeasurably by the Kissinger-Nixon euphoria over 'opening up Red China', has been convinced that China is the greatest. In all sorts of ways -- China is now seen as the fount of wisdom, innovation, even cuisine, not to mention the source of about half the products you find in the local Wal-Mart and Ross Dress for Less. That China will be a superpower is taken as a foregone conclusion, perhaps even its historical or natural right.

That India might have a similar historical claim to great-powerhood is not even considered by Americans. If they think of India at all, the images are of grinding poverty, snake-charmers, and natural disasters. India's journalists, especially those who revel in painting an unremittingly bleak picture of the nation, are partly to blame for this.

Consider the following excerpt of data from Paul Bairoch, International Industrialisation Levels from 1750 to 1980 Journal of European Economic History, Fall 1982, as quoted by Samuel P Huntington in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order: Shares of World Manufacturing Output by Civilisation or Country, 1750-1980 (in percentages):

	1750	1800	1830	1860	1880	1900	.... 1953	... 1980
West	18.2	23.3	31.1	53.7	68.8	57.8	77.4	74.6
China	32.6	33.3	29.8	19.7	12.5	5.0	6.2	2.3
India + Pak	24.5	19.7	17.6	8.6	2.8	2.3	1.7	1.7

I think China has clearly gotten it into the heads of Americans that, as possessors of one quarter of the world's population, they expect to also own one quarter of the world's manufacturing. India, with its sixth of the world's population, can expect along the same lines to own a corresponding proportion of the world's manufacturing. But Americans, who view India as a basket case, do not know this.

Of course, the data above shows quite conclusively the effects of British colonialism -- remember that the Battle of Plassey was in the 1757. In one hundred years, the British not only managed to dominate India, but also to decimate its industrial base. Thus, despite all the alleged benefits of British rule that my neo-Macaulayite friends are fond of quoting, their rule was much more pernicious than that of the Turks and Afghans -- the latter had a vested interest in keeping India wealthy while the Brits merely wanted capital transfer, or less politely, theft. I estimate this amounts to a trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000) in today's money, at the very least. No wonder India is poor.

A great deal of American Sinophilia is due to universities and businesses looking at China with rose-colored glasses, not to mention good lobbying by the Chinese. This is where India has failed miserably -- India does not even have a decent lobbying firm in Washington, and the ones that India had in the past were, um, less than geniuses at PR. And of course, there is no group of big American companies lobbying on India's behalf -- at least, not yet.

India has none but itself to blame for this abysmal lack of visibility in the US -- most of its envoys in the US have not realised that America pretty much runs on marketing, PR and positioning. Not to mention a little money to grease the wheels -- for example, Dan Burton, a Congressman from Iowa, is the biggest thorn in India's side, wheeling out anti-India legislation year after year, all probably because Pakistani-Americans and Khalistan supporters give him some $ 100,000 in each election year. Indian-Americans should make Burton an offer he can't refuse.

India has failed miserably in the PR sweepstakes; furthermore, it has an uphill battle to convince American policymakers and the US State department that it is no longer an ideological foe. With their generally simplistic views of the world, Americans continue to believe that India, by not being with them, has been against them -- all this Non-Aligned Movement rubbish as well as general chumminess with the Russians is viewed with great suspicion by them.

China, on the other hand, has led a charmed life -- apparently they could do no wrong in the eyes of the Clinton administration. This may now be changing, as the persistent rumours of wrongdoing in relation to China seem to be the latest scandal to hit the Clinton White House. Now this is serious stuff that affects US national security; not like Clinton's sexual peccadilloes that provided so much light entertainment.

According to various reports, money directly traceable to the Chinese People's Liberation Army was paid into the Clinton re-election campaign. It is alleged that Loral and Hughes were asked by the administration to transfer sensitive missile technology to the Chinese despite concerns about the potential for proliferation and for military use. If proven, these are impeachable offences, I suspect -- the famed Clinton teflon coating may not last.

There are many voices being raised in the US against Clinton's cossetting of China, often contrasting it with his tough stand towards India. The critics include Newt Gingrich, Henry Kissinger and Jimmy Carter. But as my friend Narayan Keshavan argues persuasively in an article in Outlook, Indians should not delude themselves that these critics have any great love of India: rather, since there is a convergence of interests, India should cultivate and use them.

The desirable outcome from these allegations would be a healthy scepticism on the part of Americans about all the appeasement and arming of China. With the majority of China's ICBMs targeted at the US and the rest at India, our two countries do share that threat from China.

It is likely the US will re-assess its relations with China. Correspondingly, dare one hope, there might be a more realistic appraisal of the values and interests shared by Americans and Indians -- such as a belief in pluralism, and yes, that old fashioned belief in freedom to have an opinion different from that of the powers-that-be (as inconvenient as that can sometimes be!)

How readers reacted to Rajeev Srinivasan's recent columns

Rajeev Srinivasan