ROUND THE WORLD
New
Delhi, 21 February 2006
Bush Visit to India
HIGH Roadblock IN NUCLEAR DEAL
By Dr. Chintamani Mahapatra
School of International Studies, JNU
About six years ago, Indians were
excited by an American Presidential visit to India during the national festival
of Holi. Two weeks before the 2006 Holi, another American President scheduled
to visit India.
But this time around there is hardly any enthusiasm in India. To the
contrary, there are hopes in the Government circle that this visit would pass
off peacefully with accompanying preparations by some political parties,
particularly the Left, that the US President should realize that everybody in
India does not welcome him.
When an Indian Prime Minister visits
the United States,
the Indian Embassy remains on its toes to ensure that the trip is adequately
covered by the local media and it remains an officially satisfying event for
the Indian foreign policy establishment. The US Embassy perhaps has similar
expectations. No government wants that a visiting head of a state is not received
well by the people and the political parties. Likewise, no political leader
desires that his foreign trip turns out to be damp squib.
Unless adequate care is taken, the
incoming visit of the US
President, George Bush may generate disappointment for both the PMO and the
White House. First of all, American Ambassador in Delhi has surrounded himself with lot of
controversies. His statement on the possible impact of the Indian vote at the
IAEA over Iran
nuclear issue on the US Congress was interpreted by the Left parties and others
as coercive diplomacy. Mulford is not a career diplomat. There was an element
of truth in his statement. But some sections of people in India sought to
make a mountain of the molehill. His letter to the West Bengal Chief Minister
protesting against inappropriate remarks on President Bush and its political
and economic repercussions again appears to be a blunt warning, but the Left parties
have taken strong objection by alleging that it was interference in the
country’s internal affairs.
The American Ambassador should have
taken the remarks on President Bush as an unfortunate aspect of freedom of
speech. After all, many in the US
consider the regrettable representation of the Muslim Prophet in cartoon by a
Danish cartoonist as part of the freedom of speech. Simultaneously the CPM also
has been over-reacting to the letter from the US Ambassador to the West Bengal
Chief Minister. If the alleged remark against President Bush is correct, the
CPM is not right in considering it as a mere internal affair of West Bengal.
The second crucial issue that
appears to have already dampened the spirit in India
over a second US
Presidential visit to India
in six years is the ravaging controversy over the July 2005 nuclear
understanding between the two countries over forging cooperation in civilian
nuclear technology. Some independent analysts, scholars and even a few former
diplomats have serious reservations over the Indo-US nuclear deal. The deal is
opposed by these people on the ground that it would enhance American leverage
over Indian nuclear programme, both civilian and military, would negatively
affect the country’s nuclear strategy, and would force India to
compromise its autonomous foreign policy decision-making.
There was a high dose of optimism
and confidence in the governing circles of India
and the US that the nuclear
agreement between the two would be ready for signature by the time President
Bush lands in Delhi.
But that optimism has been replaced by certain amount of anxiety and despair,
as the Indian side has begun to perceive that Washington is intermittently shifting its
goalpost by demanding newer items of compliance by the Indian Government. The
visa difficulty encountered by Placid Rodriguez, one of the chief architects of
India’s nuclear fast breeder programme, to address a conference in the US is an
indication that the nuclear deal itself has run into high roadblocks.
Ambassador Robert Blackwill,
predecessor of Ambassador Mulford, often proudly proclaimed that the number of
visas issued to Indian academics and students outnumbered the total number of
visas issued to the rest of the world. Now an Indian scientist of a high repute
is finding it difficult to attend a conference in the US, even though
he has received an invitation from an American organization. The timing of a
letter by three prominent nuclear non-proliferation specialists to US legislators demanding more strict conditions
on India
over the nuclear deal is an addition to the list of expanding discontents.
It is true that Indo-US relations
are not based on any single issue. The relationship has been robust in several
other areas and there is not much reflection of those in the media. It is quite
likely that the Indian Government will take proper care to highlight the
positive aspects of the relationship and will prevent creation of a one-sided
image of Indo-US relations. So much time, energy and resources have been
invested by the US and India to
elevate the bilateral relationship to unprecedented levels that neither side
can afford to let the critiques paint a picture of their choice.
Critiques are important to remind
those aspects of bilateral issues, which could have been ordinarily ignored.
They are an important part of any decision-making. But democracies need to
separate the self-serving critiques from the more genuine ones. While India has
to ensure that its relations with the US do not bind India’s foreign policy and
strategic decisions, the Indian leadership should avoid creating an impression
that Indians are too difficult a people to befriend. The two countries which
will certainly be jubilant to see gaps in emerging Indo-US ties are Pakistan
and China. These two countries alone should not be allowed to determine India’s
choice, but New Delhi will find it an expensive phenomenon not to factor these
two countries in its calculations.
The UPA Government has successfully
dealt with the offensive by the Left parties. In their enthusiasm to complain
against the American hegemony, the left analysts almost leaned towards Iranian
theocracy. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh answered the queries over the Iran
nuclear issue in both the Houses of Parliament without mentioning a word about
the US!
It is clear that some parties are
making a football of foreign policy issues on domestic political
considerations. India at the current stage of its development cannot afford to
allow that yet. We are an emerging power. We are yet to emerge as a power. It
is important that we do not sacrifice our national interests at the altar of
domestic expediency. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature
Alliance)
|