A question hovers over the United States' blooming friendship with India:
How good a friend will India be should it emerge as a great power?
Will it be a Britain — a loyal ally, a partner against terrorism, a fellow evangelist for free markets and democracy? Or will it be France — sharing Washington's bedrock values but ever willing to pursue its own interests at the expense of American ones?
Or will it be China — a competitive threat to the U.S. economy, using its influence to thwart American diplomatic pressure on nations like Sudan and Iran?
While I don't think that these are the only possibilities, I would vote for Number 2 - the French model. Unlike the French, this approach is not out of a desire to relive past glories or some notion of moral certitude and superiority, but rather from basic geo-political and strategic concerns regarding China and a nuclear-armed Pakistan. In fact, I believe that the United States is trying its best to prop up India as a counterweight to China as part of the US rediscovery of Central Asia and in linght of 9/11 attacks.
During the Cold War, India led the group of "non-aligned nations" but was quite close to Russia due to Nehru's love-affair with Fabian socialism and a fear that the US had replaced Great Britain as the World's leading hegemon. However, because of India's unique and isolating geography - it is surrounded by the Indian Ocean, the Himalayas, impassable jungles and desserts - it was relatively isolated and was of limited geo-strategic value. Thanks to the reasons noted above, as well as the rise of non-state actors and the diminishing importance of Geography, this has sparked a renewed interest on the part of Washington.
According to the article, the US administration is looking closely at arms sales to see if this signals a change in the Indian approach to the United States. Yet, after 50 years of relying on Russian arms, I am not sure that so much should be read into these decisions. Russian MiG factories dot the Indian landscape and generations of Russian engineers have worked on building weapon's systems in India. It is not so easy to just end a relationship of that depth and strength. Putin's presence on the dais with Prime Minister Singh on Republic Day is a clear testament to that fact.
I suspect that the Indian government will find a formula that will serve it's interests by being as ambiguous as possible. When asked last year to choose between Boeing (US-based) and Airbus (EU-Consortium) for airplanes to replace the government's aging fleet, in the the end BOTH were chosen. Boeing was chosen for Air India (international carrier) and Airbus was chosen for India Air (internal carrier). The fact that this was not presented as an option prior to the government decision certainly did not surprise anyone.
Frankly, if the US is looking for indicators to gauge future relations, I would recommend that they keep an eye on the arc of Maoist activity that stretches from Nepal south through Bihar, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh. This arc represents the false hopes, broken promises and unfulfilled dreams of "India Shining". This partially explains why India does not feel that it has the luxury to denounce Sudan over Darfur. Yet, if these tensions are not properly addressed by the Indian government, parts of the country could quite possibly descend into civil war and chaos. If the United States is looking for signs, it may pay off to have one eye in the sky, but it would be foolish if it did not keep the other eye firmly trained on the Forest Belt.
No comments:
Post a Comment