India not sure about what it means to be a big neighbour

Thy neighbour's voice by Sanjay Kapoor

Just the other day in a cocktail party, I got chatting with a senior diplomat from a nearby country. Without much ceremony he asked me what I thought of the growing warmth between India and United States. For some reasons, I got a sense that the diplomat's enquiry was not so academic as he tried to make it out to be.

He was keen to fathom how the Indian masses were reacting to the shift successive Indian governments have brought about in its foreign policy. Indo-US relationship is a hot button issue and every one has a view on it. I told `my inquisitive friend that Indians were not hostile towards the Americans- as people from some of the countries would be. I told him that Indians have been benefiting from close ties with the Americans. "Many middle class families have benefited from close ties with US.

In my neighbourhood, about 50 per cent of the families have a son or a daughter working or living in US", I told him. US, I shared with him, is El Dorado for Indians.

The diplomat was unrelenting. He wanted to know how do communist parties, who have such a major influence on the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), perceive Manmohan Singh government's fondness for US. This was a tricky one. My argument that the left parties would not disturb the existing arrangement took the following trajectory: The communists do not like US or its President, George W Bush, who in their reckoning was the single most important reason for the chaos and violence that the world was witnessing.

They have been vociferous in their criticism of the Indian government dumping Iran during a vote in International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The left parties have also threatened Singh government of dire consequences if Washington pressures it on referring Iran's nuclear belligerence to the Security Council. The communists have promised to organise large demonstrations when Bush comes visiting to South Asia later in March.

I explained to him that the left parties would be noisy and abusive towards the US, but they would not try bringing down the government on this issue. They also realise that the country cannot afford a foreign policy, which is against the US. Besides antagonising the vociferous middle class, which is benefiting from close business and economic ties, the left parties also realise that investment would dry up if the Americans get angry. Communists have a government in the state of West Bengal, which is pragmatic enough to know how funds are raised in the capital market.

They quite understand the importance of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) for bank rolling large projects. Communist government in West Bengal is show casing the investments big global Information Technology majors have made. In other words, the left parties would like to badmouth the US, but would not do anything to disturb the existing arrangement. Recently, during an Indo-US defence exercise near Kolkata, the left parties organised big demonstrations outside the airbase and threatened to disrupt them. When PM read the riot act the communists called off their demonstration.

The diplomat did not seem happy with my analysis. " You don't know what it really means to be close to US. Our country has suffered because of that." I got a feeling that there was more to his questioning than what he made it out to be. I felt some kind of insecurity in the way US was trying to be close to India. He may not have said it in so many words, but it was possible to infer from the discussion that his country's foreign policy establishment was unsure what this relationship would mean for them. Would this bring about greater balance in this region or destabilise it?

How would Indo-US relations impact Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or Nepal? These were tricky questions and the misgivings amongst our neighbours were quite justified. What reinforced these fears were reports that the Indian government had been given a carte blanche by Washington to deal with its neighbours the way it thought proper. It would back its initiative in Nepal, Sri Lanka and elsewhere. In other words, the smaller neighbours would not have the support of US, whenever they feel the weight of the big neighbour. India has never given evidence of using this new compact with US to bully neighbours or intervene in their affairs. Nepal is a good example.

In spite of demands from the West and human rights groups, India has allowed the King to carry on. It refuses to mediate in Sri Lanka between Tamil Tigers and the government. Whatever may be the reasons, India is not sure about what it means to be a big neighbour. And the diplomat, I was chatting up, did not want to know that.

(The writer is the Editor of Hardnews, India. He is a former Asiaweek correspodnent) [email protected]