Visit of the most hyped president of US to largest democracy of the world have raised more questions than it seems to have answered. I will be comparing the two aspects
1.) How US-Indian relation should be (keeping in purview their mutual interest, policies and priorities)
2.) How are they as of now.
On the surface there appears to be every reason for the two countries to understand each other very well and be strong allies. India is by far the best functioning and genuine free system of any of the nations achieving independence after the Second World War.
India became unified in its present dimensions because Britain gave the subcontinent a geographic, administrative and legal expression. Hence the present Indian state is organised on the basis of Western Liberal principles of Democracy. This makes India only nation which resembles the US structure and government sharing common governing ideologies, unlike China or gulf Nations.
From Aden to Myanmar, American and Indian interests run parallel. Neither country wishes to see a fundamentalist Islamic nation dominate the region even as motives for this attitude differ. India is more concerned about Pakistan’s fundamentalism whereas America with Iran. US' relations with Pakistan have always been questioned and unanswered by their diplomats. Possible reasons are that India would never allow any nation to have military base on their terrain and hence to have control on South East Asia and South Asia, US has to join hands with Pakistan.
Yet both nations (US-India) have had great difficulty in coming close to each other. Than be it US alliance with Pakistan during 1950 to 1960s or Indian nuclear test in 1999 all have blighted American-Indian relation. Obama trip was more like a CEO visit than a diplomat visit to a nation. US backing India for a permanent seat in Security Council was the only strategic issue discussed.
Challenge is not to reargue the debate of decades and discuss petty issue like outsourcing or “Bangalore kids taking jobs from Philadelphia kids” but to give impetus to the basis of a new Indian-American relationship. For under the conditions of the post cold war and fast changing 21st century, a close cooperative relationship between the two countries is in their mutual and basic interests, but unfortunately Barack Obama November trip was like “True friends who hang around, even when they have little of substance to talk about.
Posts
7 comments:
Very interesting. As an American, I believe that Obama is playing a sensitive juggling act. Trying not to inflame Islam while trying to reign in their more radical ideologues. Pakistan may be an awkward bedfellow, but it's better than yet another adversary.
I don't believe that the US thinks Pakistan is an imminent threat to India. Or at least, the US believes that they are far more likely to collapse from within than to go on the offensive. I think the US sees it this way, and if anything is trying to prevent a collapse that actually could bring about a more reckless regime (or the lack of one altogether).
People can have disagreements over territory and not go to war over them. However, with religious fundamentalists running the show there is no safe bet.
However, I do appreciate India's point of view, as being the silent force for good in the region and not being recognized for it by the United States or the West in general. You are right that Obama didn't need to bring up outsourcing, that was a hot topic 5 years ago, and has since become part of accepted reality and modern culture. But perhaps there are more strategic arrangements going on under the hood than any of us citizens are shown. One can hope. Regards.
India and the United States also have similar agendas regarding China. They are both concerned about China's rising economic and military power. It is no coincidence that Obama did not visit China on his recent Asia trip.
The US's economic condition is in turmoil. Obama's visit should be seen as merely an attempt to use Indian cheap resources to cushion American economy. Simple! And most important Indian diplomats know this!
There is a wholesale transfer of jobs from North America and Europe to China and India. Who benefits? The Chinese and Indians for sure but also corporations who make more profits from cheap labour. This can only go on so long before the average worker in the West rebels and votes out those politicians and parties that have enabled this. Free trade will be replace by fair trade and tariffs. Did you know China sells 6 time more to the US than they buy? After the attack on Pearl Harbour a Japanese WWII admiral said "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
@Anonymous 2 (1:21 AM) : Obama had visited China in Nov 2009, a year before this trip to India and other Asian nations.
As an Indian, I feel Indians are over-optimistic about their standing vis-a-vis China. In economic and military matters, China is far ahead of India, and is thus treated with more importance worldwide. India is perhaps at par with China in cultural matters (film industry, artists, authors, cultural history), but such 'soft-power' elements have an effect in the long run. Currently most world leaders have more pressing immediate issues to direct their decisions.
@Anonymous 4 (2:14 AM) : It is correct that a handful of corporate owners are the primary Western beneficiaries of outsourcing (and thus the politicians they fund also benefit). But there are clear demographic shifts in terms of working-age population, social security benefits etc that no political party can reverse in the short run. Plus these vested interests are extremely powerful. The inability of Obama to counter the corporate-media-politics nexus shows this, evidenced in the recent election results.
Beyond all the "democracy" BS_fuss (sorry) stands an amoral reality: while both being cheap-labor economies, India is a western neo-colony while China isn't. So the American try to give more place to India is politically understandable, as an attempt to resist the Chinese by beating them at their own cheap-labor game. Of course, it won't work: as in a different context with different stakes before (Vietnam), westerners will be forced to admit their colonies, controlled by comprador governments and bling-bling classes, can't stand coherent technocratic, socialized machines. They simply aren't efficient enough. In economic or military matters, cheap labor base isn't all. But to admit that, colonial metropolis would have to question their own "democratic" (read: plutocratic) foundations. So it won't happen soon, I guess...
India is far better than China!
Post a Comment