Just old friends

The Iran vote was hardly a turning point in Indo-US relations. The two countries have been allies for quite a while now

Diplomatic Correspondent Delhi

India's decision to vote on a resolution initiated by the US-backed western nations against Iran in Vienna on September 25 would perhaps be seen as a major turning point in Indian foreign policy. Delhi claimed the vote actually helped Iran as it provided the opportunity of resolving the controversial nuclear programme being pursued by the leadership in Tehran at the level of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) instead of at the UN Security Council. But so far the claim has found few takers, both within and outside the country. Most saw the vote against Iran as a price that the Indian leadership was willing to pay for the smooth passage of the civilian nuclear deal that it signed with the US in July this year. But opinion in the country is still sharply divided on whether this is the right course for India's future.

The growing closeness between India and the US is still seen with a lot of scepticism by a large number of Indians. However, even as the debate rages on, there is little doubt that the shift in India's foreign policy did not come with its vote against Iran at the IAEA but was a gradual process that started nearly one and half decade back. It began at the end of the Cold War and with the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991.

"Five wasted decades," former foreign minister and BJP leader Jaswant Singh had said some years back when his party was leading a coalition in Delhi and trying to turn Indo-US ties into a robust and long-lasting relationship. Singh's attempt was perhaps to put the blame on successive Congress governments for not doing enough to reach out to the US.

But the BJP leader's view is not entirely true. India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru was one of the founder members of the Non Aligned Movement (NAM). But unlike many others, he did not see NAM as a tool of confrontation against the US. On the contrary, he did reach out to the US and for a while in the 1950s and early 1960s it seemed that the "two great democracies in the world" might be able to hit it off together. The US not only helped India in setting up the Tarapore Reactor but also offered Delhi military help during the Sino-Indian conflict in 1962.

After Nehru's death, sporadic attempts were made by India and the US to strengthen bilateral ties but for a number of reasons, both within South Asia and elsewhere in the world, they never really took off.

The first serious attempt to reach out to the US began when P V Narasimha Rao became prime minister and brought in "economic diplomacy" as one of the major tools in India's foreign policy. With the stress on economic diplomacy and the decision to offer India as a potential market for foreign investment and business, came the deliberate attempt by Delhi to play down its role to be the champion of the developing world.

Rao not only tried to reach out to close allies of the US in the Association for South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) through his "Look East Policy" but also upgraded India's diplomatic relations with Israel mid-way in his tenure as prime minister. His successors tried their best to keep the anti-American rhetoric to their minimum but the US attempt to pressurise India to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and Washington's pro-active role in Kashmir brought back some of the old strains in bilateral ties between the two countries.

In May 1998 when India decided to lift its nuclear veil by conducting the Pokhran II tests and only after the US realised that despite their best efforts Delhi was in no mood to dismantle its nuclear or missile programmes that relations between the two countries really starting looking up. Washington got over its initial outrage and started looking at the immense virtues that India possessed. Delhi almost overnight became covetable. And the US was leading the long list of those who seemed to be going out of their way to draw Delhi's attention.

The leadership in India described the new high in Indo-US relations as a "paradigm shift" in India's foreign policy.
But it shifted to a higher gear after the Republican President George W Bush came to power in 2001. For Bush, and more particularly his select group of neo-con policy makers, India has been a potential ally for some years now. India is not only seen as a great democracy but also a potential market and attractive investment destination for US business houses and investors.
But most importantly for the neo-cons, India also has military muscles. Since China is seen as the potential power to rival the American supremacy in the world order, a country like India can come in handy in counter-balancing Beijing and look after US interests and its assets in Asia. US under secretary Burns described it in precise terms while talking of the growing bilateral ties between Washington and Delhi. "This new relationship rests on the solid foundation of shared values, shared interests and our increasingly shared view of how best to promote stability, security and peace worldwide in the 21st century."

Interestingly, the message from the US has not been lost on the Chinese either. The leadership in Beijing has been watching with growing interest the upswing in Indo-US ties in the past five years. Though it was one of the worst critics of the Indian nuclear tests, in the past few years China has sent out strong signals to have strong relations with India. The Chinese leadership has made it clear that it no longer sees Delhi as a rival but seeks it as a partner to face the challenges of the 21st century and shape the destiny of Asia and the world in the coming decades.

India has so far managed to maintain and improve relations with most other countries, both in the developed and developing world. France, Britain, Germany, Italy and Canada are all engaged in strengthening ties with India. Delhi has continued to maintain strong links with traditional friends like Russia and other key players in the NAM.

But the biggest challenge for India is now perhaps in maintaining its relations with its new allies, particularly the US as well as its "traditional" friends. Two years ago, when India refused to send troops to Iraq, despite US requests, it clearly showed that irrespective of its closeness with Washington, Delhi has to factor in the concerns of the Indian people and honour their sentiments.
The US government and its policy-makers have often repeated that the US, China and India are the three major powers of the future. The US is already the sole super-power in the world and Beijing's growing economic and military might will soon place it beside the US. Despite its steady economic growth and huge potential as an emerging power, India still has a long way to go. Unlike the other two, India is not yet a member of the UN Security Council. It is yet to be recognised as a nuclear power in the world and economically it has to grow far more if it has to be in the same league as the Chinese.

The best way for India to do this is by acting as a bridge between the US and many of its traditional allies in the developing world. The leadership can take a leaf out of its policy in West Asia. India's growing ties with the Israelis has not come in the way of maintaining a close relationship with the Palestinians. India is today a valued friend for both sides. At the end of November, when the IAEA board of governors meet in Vienna to take stock of the Iranian situation, India may face yet another challenge. If the Iranians refuse to show "flexibility" on its controversial nuclear programme, Delhi may end up voting against Tehran once again. But irrespective of whether the issue is resolved at the IAEA level or not, India can carve out a position for itself where it can act as the only bridge available to both the US and the Iranians to remove the strains from their hostile bilateral relations. This is perhaps the only role that India can play if it has to maintain a sovereign foreign policy without giving up its advantages with the sole superpower in the world—the US.