The New Delhi-Paris cultural gulf

India's blinkered Anglo-American worldview shrinks strategic options

Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr Delhi

Frankly, there was not much excitement when French President Jacques Chirac came calling on February 19 on a three-day state visit. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) did its job dutifully. There was no attempt to place the visit in perspective, nor was there any attempt to give it that bit of more importance that it deserved for special friends of the country. France is an important business, diplomatic and political partner of India in the international arena. The nine agreements signed on the occasion of Chirac's visit proved that. The one on civilian nuclear cooperation drew special attention. One could read between the lines that it has the potential of turning into a key area of partnership. Experts point out that France moved only after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed the Indo-US civilian nuclear cooperation deal with President George W Bush in Washington in July 2005, and that further deepening of nuclear cooperation hinges on the US Congress ratifying the deal.

The one issue that was of great interest beyond the official signing of agreements was whether India-born steel tycoon LN Mittal will have his way in buying off Europe's steel major, Arcelor. The Indian government and media took up cudgels on behalf of Mittal in what they perceive to be an arrogant "white" Europe resisting the successful takeover of Arcelor by "brown" Mittal. Union Minister for Commerce Kamal Nath gave a clear hint that the issue would be taken up at the governmental level. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh revealed at the joint press interaction with Chirac on February 20 that the Mittal question came up during the discussion, and he expressed the hope that Mittal will be given a fair deal. Chirac refused to play the diplomatic game. In response to a query from a television journalist, he described the Mittal bid in a blunt language. He said that it was a "hostile bid". Denying the accusation of xenophobia, he let out the underlying fears and suspicions and prejudices in emphatic language. He called Mittal a "British national" who gave no reasons for wanting to buy Arcelor. And he said that the bid would be viewed in the context of saving jobs, and on the basis of principles and European values.

It was not difficult to discern the fault-lines in Chirac's prickly reply. France is suspicious of the European credentials of Britain, which is forever playing the second fiddle to Washington in world affairs. Had Mittal been a French citizen, and had he purchased an old mansion in the French countryside, he would perhaps have been more welcome in the European corridors of power. But Mittal has paid an attention-grabbing price to buy a huge mansion in Kensington, and he has flaunted his closeness to Prime Minister Blair. That is enough of a red rag to the Gallic sentimentalists.

The Mittal melee is a good example of the cultural gulf between India and France. Neither the Indian government nor its media are sensitive to the nuances of Anglo-French rivalries. Indians are so obsessed with the Anglo-American world that the rest of Europe remains in a diplomatic haze.