What India wants from the new president

NEW DELHI: Barack Obama enters the White House riding the crest of history. The sense of promise —of restoring America's primacy in the world — will by and large be welcomed in India. Certainly, in large parts of the world, Obama will be a welcome change after eight years of George Bush, whose efforts to change the world as he found it had some disastrous consequences. Obama will be a breath of fresh air in almost every part of the world. And to the extent, there is a growing convergence between the two democracies. India can only hope to benefit from a rejuvenated US leadership. Why, then, is India keeping her fingers crossed? Over the past eight years, as George Bush wielded his scythe, in a strange sort of way, he helped to change the way the world looked at India. In many ways, the way India herself looked at India. India has gotten used to being on top of the US president's mindspace, whether as an exceptional democracy, a rising power or as the beneficiary of a unique nuclear agreement which pulled India out of a technology hole. India successfully "de-hyphenated" from Pakistan giving itself a lot of international legroom. In an Obama administration, the India-US story could grow bigger. Or not. There is little clarity on how the chips will fall on several issues in the Obama-India dynamic, issues that are very close to India. In order of precedence, they would be Pakistan, China, terrorism, nuclear issues, trade, all issues on which India has had a prickly relationship with the Democrat party vision. Obama's own advisers are upbeat on the India question. Refusing to come on record on election day, those that TOI spoke to said an Obama that restores America's place in the world is exactly what India needs. "Obama is a 21st century leader. He understands that the US needs other major powers to get things done, and that certainly includes India.... Ultimately, India needs a US that is respected and able to get things done in the world, and Obama will help restore that." But, Obama is yet to clarify his strategic vision of India. One of the reasons why the Bush presidency was good for India was that Bush proceeded from a simple premise — that India, warts and all, deserved an exception from the international system. US specialist on South Asia, Ashley Tellis, one of the main architects of the nuclear deal did a quick preview of Obama's India policy. "Obama says he will sustain the relationship with India. His administration will likely be dominated by people who view the relationship with China as the most important US relationship in Asia, and by individuals who have difficulty accepting either the legitimacy or the reality of India's nuclear weapons." From all accounts, Obama starts out with the right ideas, of taking forward the India-US relationship. Early 2008, after an India gaffe in 2007 (when his campaign described Hillary Clinton as D-Punjab), he wrote a piece for an Indian-American newspaper where he said, "The world's oldest democracy (US) and the world's largest democracy (India) are natural partners, sharing important interests and fundamental democratic values... And that is why I will move forward to build a close strategic partnership between the US and India when I am president of the United States." However, his commitment to removing the sources of terror from Pakistan-Afghanistan may have the unfortunate effect of reviving yet another form of "hyphenation", this time on terrorism, which will be far more dangerous, certainly so far as India is concerned. While on the one hand he says he wants to appoint former US president Bill Clinton as his special envoy on Kashmir, in another recent interview, Obama said, "We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between Pakistan and India and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they can stay focused not on India but on the situation with those militants." This is clearly a considered position, because on September 25, in another interview to Arms Control Today, Obama said, "I will continue support of the ongoing Indian-Pakistani efforts to resolve the Kashmir problem in order to address the political roots of the arms race between India and Pakistan." This is not music to Indian ears. It shows only one thing — that there will be a long period of painful diplomatic exchanges before the Obama administration can be made to realise that the "Kashmir problem" is just an alibi for Pakistan as it seeks to secure its objectives in Afghanistan and have its way vis-a-vis India. Many of Obama's advisers are still in the "solve Kashmir" phase, between India and Pakistan. Why this can cause complications for India? As the US gets more involved in disentangling Pakistan and Afghanistan from terrorism, Taliban and al-Qaida, it will be tempting, for Democrats to push a "Kashmir solution" as a carrot for Pakistan to undertake tough policies on its northwestern border. Already Pakistan army chief Ashfaque Kiyani has reportedly told US generals that he cannot concentrate whole-heartedly on two borders at once. This argument has clearly been made after Pakistan detected "fertile ground" in the Obama camp. In his article in Foreign Affairs, Obama showed a dangerous misreading of the issue. "I will join with our allies in insisting not simply requesting that Pakistan crack down on the Taliban, pursue Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, and end its relationship with all terrorist groups. At the same time, I will encourage dialogue between Pakistan and India to work towards resolving their dispute over Kashmir and between Afghanistan and Pakistan to resolve their differences and develop the Pashtun border region. If Pakistan can look towards the east (India) with confidence, it will be less likely to believe its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban." India has faced this argument before and successfully defeated it thus — that Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in Afghanistan is of a piece with the violence in Kashmir. Bowing to the Pakistani argument would be tantamount encouraging Pakistan believe that terrorism as a foreign policy tool actually works. Which, of course would be disastrous to Obama's real objective of cleaning out the Taliban. Obama, for that matter, the Democrat establishment, are eight years behind the curve on US-India relations, which are on a completely different trajectory now.
On nuclear issues, despite the nuclear deal, India is likely to find the going tough with the Obama crowd. Some of the deal's best known critics
like Strobe Talbott and Robert Einhorn are likely to find prominent jobs in the US nuclear establishment — and their dislike of the Indian nuclear deal as well as India's nuclear weapons in general is not going to lessen. If the Bush administration sought to push for an "exception" for India, a Democrat administration is likely to do what it can to mitigate it. Remember, despite the much touted bi-partisan support for the nuclear agreement in the US Congress, all naysayers were Democrats. Obama himself is the author of one of the biggest "killer" amendments of the Hyde Act, the Obama amendment to deny lifetime supplies of nuclear fuel to Indian reactors, and needed strong political push by Bush and Manmohan to reverse it in the 123 agreement. Obama eventually voted for the deal but there's a sour note. Therefore, getting licenses from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission wont be easy, as non-proliferation wallahs use the famed American bureaucracy to roll back the effects of the nuclear deal. There is a strong expectation that among the non-proliferation priorities of the Obama administration would be pushing through the CTBT, if he can get his own Congress to agree. That would be another pressure point for India, particularly after Manmohan Singh has gone on record to say that India would not sign the CTBT. On the other hand, Obama supports the global disarmament initiative, started by Kissinger, Perry, Schultz and Nunn. India is a strong votary of the global disarmament efforts too and this could be a better meeting point for the two sides than CTBT. South Block is more likely to push for a full disarmament position than a test ban, which it considers to be "halfway house." The 2008 election campaign has been relatively free of "outsourcing" as an issue, but it is clear that on principle Obama would oppose outsourcing of jobs to countries like India. But here, the battle is best left to the private sector. It may be a little simplistic to suggest that Obama is categorically against outsourcing. In his speeches, he has said he wants to readjust the tax code to offer more tax incentives to companies who do not offshore jobs, but also that he did not want to close America to the "brightest and best from round the world." More recently, he has acknowledged the inevitability of outsourcing, saying that "evolutions in communication and technology have sent jobs wherever there's an internet connection; that have forced children in Raleigh and Boston to compete for those jobs with children in Bangalore and Beijing." In fact, post financial crisis, his views are likely to soften further, as analysts suggest that outsourcing may become more necessary, to cut costs and improve productivity. But then again, he may find greater traction for his views in a weak labour market in the US. Obama has raised the banner for "fair" trade rather than "free" trade, which has already raised eyebrows here among people who look forward to tough trade talks ahead, particularly in the unfinished Doha round. Of course much of the outsourcing is "irreversible" and the debate can safely be left to the private sector to resolve. Will Obama send out different signals on outsourcing of public sector jobs? As a corollary, what would it mean for more professional and tech visas for Indian professionals to the US? Indian and US companies have been clamouring for more H1-B visas, but its likely that a naturally protectionist Democrat administration with their core constituency being labour unions would find it difficult to increase those numbers from present 65,000. Then there is China. Like it or not, China and India will continue to be uttered in the same breath for a whole host of reasons. India has very uncomfortable memories of Bill Clinton in Beijing in June 1998, virtually appointing Beijing the "daroga" for South Asia. Democrats have always viewed the US-China relationship as "special" and generally have a more welcoming view of China. This is unlikely to change particularly in a global situation where China now wields greater clout. India's foreign policy, on the other hand is increasingly going to focus on "dealing with the rise of China" and its implications for India. Whether these two world visions clash or converge need to be seen. The next few months will tell whether the famed "transformation" of the US-India relationship will continue unabated, halted or slowed down. (TOI)