Shedding Old Baggage

Three hours later, Inder Kumar Gujral walked into the same suite. Healso spent 30 minutes with the president. The Indian camp had been fairly nervous despitethe ‘positive’ signals received from the White House and the State Department.Happily, the dreaded word "Kashmir" was not mentioned even once during thediscussion. When Mr Gujral reconfirmed his government’s commitment to improvingrelations with Pakistan through the agenda agreed in the second round of secretary-leveltalks, Mr Clinton expressed happiness that the "great nations of India andPakistan" were engaged in peaceful resolution of a long-standing conflict. Later hedropped for I.K. Gujral not a bombshell but a sweetener: "We do not wish tointerfere."

That afternoon while the sun shone pleasantly on the Big Apple therewas gloom in the Pakistan camp and quiet jubilation on the Indian side. "What magichave you performed on Clinton?" a Lahore-based journalist asked his Indian colleague.A pro-India tilt from a country known for its pro-Pakistan tilt?

On Air-India’s Samudra Gupta en route to New York the primeminister had told 바카라 he was certain the difficulties experienced by the foreignsecretaries in Delhi a week earlier would vanish if the Pakistanis failed to enlistAmerican support for their cause. Sure enough, when Sharif and Gujral met the next daythere was much hand-shaking, ‘japhi’ diplomacy and Urdu shairi. After somedisagreement over who started the firing across the LOC, both leaders quickly agreed thatthe next round of talks would be held in December during which the unsettled mechanismproblem for discussing Kashmir would be hopefully resolved.

New relationship? New era in Indo-American relations? Gary Ackerman, aDemocrat Congressman, told 바카라: "I think there is a new sense among the Americanpeople and within Congress that there should not necessarily be any kind of linkagebetween what we do with India and what we do with Pakistan. There is no reason that wehave to look at two different situations as if they were the same". Marshall Boutonof the prestigious Asia Society noted: "We are clearly seeing now a new emphasis inUS policy on an intent to create, to build a relationship with India irrespective of whatgoes on between India and Pakistan. And that is new".

Suddenly, US South Asia experts were using the word "de-coupling". Americanforeign policy would henceforth deal with India and Pakistan separately—a developmentunknown for nearly five decades in which one of the defining factors determining USapproach to India was a single issue: Pakistan’s claim on Kashmir.

Doubtless, a momentous shift, one that took all of us at NewYork—politicos, foreign office officials, media-persons, even the primeminister—by surprise. No one had expected such a categorical and clear statement ofUS intent. The Indian side was momentarily stunned, but those who claimed to read nuancessaid they had seen it coming. Six considerations seemed to have caused the changedperception:

The new, post-Cold War ground reality. In a unipolar world youdon’t need ‘allies’ scattered all over the globe to fight the "EvilEmpire". India too was free of cold war encumbrances and could be a force forstability in the region and beyond. "India is very important militarily (to the US)because of the strategic, geographical location and also because of the threats China willpose not only to India, but Asia in general," says Frank Pallone, a Congressman fromNew Jersey.

America’s economic stake in the world’s second-largest,largely untapped market. US investment currently is $1.2 billion; it is projected to go upto $10 billion by 2001 if infrastructure investments come through.

The exit of the mischievous Robin Raphel at the State Department andthe entry of new personnel, some with UN backgrounds, who are not only well-disposedtowards the country but also have the vision to locate India in a global perspective.These individuals include: Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright; National SecurityAdvisor, Sandy Berger; Under Secretary, Thomas Pickering (briefly posted as US ambassadorto Delhi in 1993); Assistant Secretary, Karl Inder-furth (Raphel’s successor). Tothis list one must add the name of Frank Wisner who during his stint in New Delhi lobbiedrelentlessly for India.

The eponymous Gujral doctrine. The Americans, including Bill Clinton,were conscious of this formulation and "enormously impressed" by it,particularly its application to Pakistan. Whether the president was aware that Mr Gujral,while in New York, was awarded the U Thant Peace Prize is unclear, but the afore-mentioneddoctrine did allow the Indian premier to outline his vision of India to a Rhodes scholar(Clinton) who likes dealing with visionary leaders. Mr Sharif, unfortunately, is not inthe vision business and therefore his exchange, sources say, with the president wasintellectually unexciting.

Nevertheless, Mr Sharif has come to power with a vast majority and appears interestedin a peaceful dialogue. If Pakistan and India are seen to be engaged in talks, it lets theAmericans off the hook, since it was the absence of dialogue which gave the US the excuseto pursue an interventionist policy.

While domestically, the Golden Jubilee celebrations were turned into anoccasion for collective breastbeating, in America the event received tons of positivecoverage. "Even relatively small dailies congratulated India for successfullyreaching the landmark," an American journalist told me. The United States suddenlyrealised that India was a full-blown, if loud, democracy with functioning and sometimesvigorous democratic institutions.

Hillary Clinton’s—"India’s best ally in the Clintonadministration"— contribution should not be underestimated the US has abandonedPakistan. "Pakistanis are no fools. They are enormously adept. And if any perceptionis given that Pakistan is being abandoned, they will raise a real hue and cry. And theyhave their supporters in this country," says Dr Sumit Ganguly, a sub-continentalspecialist at Hunter College, New York. With the second largest deposits of oil and gas inthe central Asian republics, Pakistan, with its enormous influence in the region, and asthe gateway to that region can still perform much useful service to the US.

No doubt, serious Indo-US differences remain—CTBT, NPT, missileprogramme, dual use of technology—leaving some Americans to describe India as a"rogue state". However, as Prof Stephen Cohen, a respected India-expert, pointsout: "I think the Indian vote on the CTBT came as a big shock to a lot of people eventhough India was not the only country opposed to the CTBT. The fact that India stood up tothe US and challenged the CTBT led to some re-thinking in Washington.... most people feltour past policy or assumption that India could be run into the NPT and CTBT wasunrealistic." Thus, even where differences persist, friendly persuasion rather thanarm-twisting may be the new style of diplomacy.

Is there a price tag for this new relationship, this so-called new era?Undeniably there is. In return for political support, the Americans are looking for fasteropening up of the Indian market, especially in banking, insurance and infrastructureareas. "The ball is in India’s court," says Dr Ganguly. Alas, it is a ballMr Gujral can only play if H.K.S. Surjeet joins in. Now, that is a miracle even the godscannot perform.