RSS |   Samvad   |   Vital Infotech Ltd.

April      Last updated: April  8,  5:00 p.m.

M.V. Kamath

And what will Bill Clinton's successor want?

After all the hype over President Clinton's visit to India and the statements issued, the nagging question remains: will Mr Clinton's successor at the White House have his own agenda in matters concerning US relations with India? The plain fact is that Shri Clinton's term as president comes to a halt at year's end. American presidents get only two terms in office and Shri Clinton's second term getting over, he would be out of office and futurely ineffective as a guiding force in determining America's foreign policy. His good intentions are not necessarily binding on his successor. And at this point nobody can tell for sure who his successor will be. It may be one of the two contenders, Al Gore or George Bush. Both fought for nomination of their respective parties for the coming presidential elections. Shri Gore won the Democratic nomination easily seeing off his rival Shri Bill Bradley by a handsome margin. Shri Bush did not win his nomination that easily. He was put through the wringer by his rival Shri John McCain and the battle between them turned out to be bitter. For India and Indians that is neither here nor there. Though neither of them emerged from the primaries with any dignity—primaries are usually tough and are largely fought on domestic issue—the fact remains that one of them will in the end get the White House as his permanent address for the next five years. It is his views and predilections that ultimately will count in shaping Indo-American relations in the next quiquennium.

The primaries were understandably fought over domestic issues. The voter in Wisconsin or Utah could not care less for India or South Asia. But once a president gets elected—whether it is going to be Shri Gore or Shri Bush—then he will necessarily have to be concerned with foreign policy and that of course includes the United States' relations primarily with India. At this point we have little or no inkling of what the thoughts of either of the presidential candidates are regarding India or South Asia. Nobody ever expected that India would feature in their electioneering campaign at the primaries stage and nobody should expect India to feature even in the presidential campaign. In the circumstances we remain in the dark as to either candidate's views on India or the gathering tensions in South Asia. Shri Gore is a loyal Democrat. In an editorial The Economist (March 11) wrote: "Mr Gore's loyalty has been unswerving. If there is any point of Democratic orthodoxy that the Vice-President has sought to over-turn, his protest has been inaudible to the human ear." If this is true one may reasonably expect him to take his cue on South Asian affairs from Shri Clinton whose Vice-President he presently is. Shri Bush is a self-proclaimed "compassionate conservative"—whatever that means.

But whatever his views on South Asian affairs are, he cannot ever afford to forget the fact that the Indian demographic presence in the United States is not one that he—or anybody else for that matter—can afford to ignore. Indian money and Indian talent is increasingly getting to be felt in US political circles, whether Democratic or Republican. Among those wielding influence are names like Sunil Aghi, president of the Indo-American Political Foundation, Ramesh Kapur, a Massachussetts tycoon who contributes heavily to Democratic funds, Swadesh Chatterjee of PCS, believed to be close to the Republicans and especially to the influential Senator Jesse Helms, Niranjan Shah, Chief Executive Officer of Globetrotter Engineering Company, Krish Srinivasan who was a colleague of former Speaker Newt Gingrich, Democratic factotum Sunil Puri, CEO of the First Rockport Group and a young Maryland Legislator, Kumar Barve. Together they form a fairly powerful and influential group, whatever their party affiliation in the United States. On issues concerning India they surely would be one in defending and promoting Indian interests.

So, though the election of Shri Gore as the next US president may in some ways mean continuation of Shri Clinton's policies, even the election of his rival Shri Bush should matter little for India. The truth is that India is steadily rising in power and prestige and in political and economic strength as well. No matter who gets eventually elected as president, he won't be able to ignore India. As the race starts, Shri Bush seems to be ahead of his Democatic rival, but barely. In a Newsweek poll Shri Bush led Shri Gore 47 per cent to 44 per cent but the balance may be tilted in favour of Shri Gore if Shri McCain's supporters favour him against Shri Bush, which presently seems more likely. The Indian vote, too, is going to be crucial even if it sounds minuscule at the moment. Whether it is Shri Gore who becomes the next White House tenant or Shri Bush the Indian presence in the United States will have to be reckoned with. There is no guarantee that should Shri Gore get elected he will retain the services of the blunt-speaking hard-liner Madeleine Albright who has been behaving like a bully. There are some facts about India no bully can forget. One is that whether Washington likes it or not, India is going to be the power of the twenty-first century. As Smt Albright herself acknowledged in a speech prior to coming to India, there can be "few greater gifts to the future than a strong and cooperative strategic relationship between India and the United States". The United States can cavil at India's nuclear stand but does it have any options in choosing between, say, Pakistan, India, China and Japan as a "strategic partner"? No matter how loudly Pakistan may boast of its 52 years of friendship with the United States, that was not a friendship between equals.

It was primarily a master-slave relationship which the United States has no reason to continue. A partnership between the USA and China is plainly unrealistic. China is going to be a power in its own right and will grow into a rival to the United States. It is neither Japan in the East or Pakistan in the West that can truly become a "strategic" partner to the United States. Only India can effectively play the role, in Asia. And while China can provide just as large a consumer market as India, if not larger, an economic partnership with India would be more meaningful to the United States than a similar partnership with China. In the circumstances India has no particular reason to be unduly concerned as to who would succeed Shri Clinton as the head of the most powerful country in the world. Whoever succeeds him will still have to reckon with India. That is the reality that nothing can wash away. On India's part it can, as things stand, afford to be more friendly towards the United States than in the past, now that the Cold War is over. It is unlikely that Russia will view India's friendship with the US with suspicion when Russia itself wants to cooperate more fully with the West to the point of wishing to be part of NATO. Pakistan and China notwithstanding, there is an inevitability to closer Indo-American cooperation. It is so written in the books. And that shall prevail.