President Barack Obama’s visit to India as the chief guest for our 66th Republic Day was a first since, surprisingly, no other US President had come in this capacity before. Prime Minister Narendra Modi must be given the credit for ensuring this. But now that the pomp and pageantry and non-stop television coverage of the visit is over, the time is right to do a little introspection. What is the real balance sheet behind the jhappis and handshakes and banquets and speeches?
Nations must forge their foreign policy on the basis of national self-interest and not cosmetics and protocol. There is little doubt that our relationship with the US is a vital one. The very fact that President Obama came to India twice is more than symbolic and sends an important diplomatic message to the rest of the world. But what was achieved in real terms?
Both countries pledged to increase economic cooperation, but we do not know if any progress has been made on the signing of the bilateral investment treaty. Nor do we know what more our government is planning to do on improving the ease of doing business in India — the main impediment to those wanting to invest in and trade with India — and if any of these steps are being especially tailored to suit US interests without suitably also addressing some of our concerns. Again, while the defence cooperation agreement has been renewed, what are the provisions within it which facilitate joint production and co-development, both important for India?
Similarly, while we are told that the nuclear energy agreement is a “done deal”, we do not know what concessions have been ceded by us on the question of supplier’s liability, and how this will impact our interests. The US is not a signatory to the Convention on Supplementary Compensation, and nobody has explained to us how a cap of Rs 1,500 crore on account of compensation, funded by an “insurer’s pool”, will work, and at whose cost, and how this will be enough in case a Fukushima-type tragedy were to happen. Significantly, when in Opposition, the Bharatiya Janata Party was the most vociferous on ensuring strict nuclear liability! We have also to see to what extent the US backs our entry to the four control regimes related to nuclear weapon powers.
Finally, while it is to be welcomed that the US has supported our permanent seat in a reformed Security Council, the fine print of what the US plans to do to make this a reality remains opaque. Usually, notwithstanding such public pledges, the entrenched P-5 countries are rather adept at tying up the whole question of Security Council reform in a miasma of unending committee obfuscation and deliberately devised multilateral red tape.
Another vital area relates to Pakistan, terrorism and counter-terrorism. This is where the real meat of our national interest lies. The US has, to my mind, a flawed policy towards Pakistan. It believes that the encouragement of democracy in Pakistan, and the containment of forces that overtly foster terrorism, both within Pakistan and externally, most noticeably against us, can be dealt with by continuing to shower aid and assistance and arms on the Pakistan government.
But the truth is that such financial support only strengthens the rogue military-Inter-Services Intelligence establishment within the Pakistani establishment without any corresponding bolstering of the perennially precarious democratically-elected government. Of course, the US needs Pakistan for its military operations in Afghanistan; but what is the fallout in all of this for the terror machinery sponsored by Pakistan against India? Did President Obama give any concrete and verifiable assurances to our Prime Minister on pressuring Pakistan to rein in the jihadi groups nurtured in Pakistan to wage a relentless war against India? The ability of the US to do far more is not in doubt. We have only to watch what the US and its European partners are doing to Russia on the Ukraine issue to understand that if they have the political will their pressure tactics can work.
There were some discordant notes, too.
Mr Modi may have changed his attire like a quick change artist during the visit, including wearing a suit (with his name pin-striped on it) that would cost more than an expensive car, but that did not prevent President Obama from warning him — and the others in the BJP-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh establishment — in a public speech that an India splintered along religious lines is neither a civilised nor a sustainable entity. For a US President to publicly lecture to us on Article 25 and the need to respect all faiths is a matter of deep shame for a country like ours which has resented such intrusive comments by outsiders in the past, and which has always prided itself for its secular and composite culture. It is a sad commentary on what the BJP government has done to the image of India in just a few months.
Mr Modi does not seem to understand that India is seen by the outside world not only as a market, but as a civilisation with its own unique USP of democratic co-existence and tolerance. Secondly, it is probably the first time that we have allowed the US on our soil to publicly criticise Russia — as President Obama did in his press conference with Mr Modi. Russia has been our time-tested friend and a vital partner in our defence needs, and we should have ensured that greater sensitivity is shown in this regard.
Finally, it was jarring to see Mr Modi constantly referring to President Obama as “Barack”, as though he was some kind of langotiya yaar. In the Mann ki Baat programme, our Prime Minister really outdid himself. He called President Obama “Barack” 19 times, while the US President referred to him on nine occasions as “Prime Minister Modi”! What was the need for our Prime Minister to break the normal formality in public diplomatic interaction, which is also in conformity with our own customs and behaviour? Most people found this overreach amusing and tasteless. The nation will now watch to see what “Barack” delivers in the last leg of his presidency.
Author-diplomat Pavan K. Varma is a Rajya Sabha member
