Why be wary of Bush?

Today George W Bush comes face to face with an India bubbling with self-confidence. Its economy is booming; its democracy is at once stable and vibrant; its society pursues education, empowerment and entrepreneurship with an unprecedented zeal; its military machine is in fine fettle; its culture is dynamic; and the ambitions of its young and talented population are second to none.

No nation in the world quite measures up to India’s promise and potential. And none quite matches its zealous exertions to preserve and strengthen its distinctiveness without surrendering to the dictates of ideological hardliners and religious bigots in its ranks. Any real or perceived slight to this burgeoning self-confidence is bound to provoke a stinging riposte. At the same time, the slightest gesture to reinforce it is certain to yield a bountiful  harvest of shared concerns and interests.

These are certainly not lacking at present. It is true that some sections of Indian opinion are wary of the American president. They berate him for his imperial arrogance, his brazen double-speak, especially on Iraq, his self-serving rhetoric about waging war on terror and spreading democracy, his gross neglect of Palestinian aspirations and, above all, his mollycoddling of Pakistan. But except on the last count, most Indians who take a lively interest in public affairs are prepared to look the other way.

The reason is plain enough. Where their critical interests are concerned—ensuring high rates of economic growth, gaining access to sources of energy, strengthening strategic capabilities, stemming the tide of jehadi terrorism —Indian opinion knows whom to turn to. It might sympathise with Cuba and Venezuela who have been at the receiving end of the Bush administration. However, it cannot possibly cast its lot with those two countries, as our Left parties encourage it to do, if the price to be paid is a self-defeating antagonism towards America.

Similarly, the Bush administration’s haughty attitude to Iran might have irked some quarters in India. Even so, the nature of the regime in Tehran, its widely recognised obduracy on the nuclear issue and its pronouncements on the Holocaust and on Israel are such that it is difficult for Indian opinion to risk American displeasure on this score.

As a victim of terrorism for long years India should have no problems in exploring every avenue of cooperation with the Americans to contain the menace. On this score our coyness is hard to accept though it is easily explained. Political parties which swear by secularism fear that to cosy up to Bush would alienate Muslim voters.

Such a fear is patently misplaced. More and more Muslim governments, organisations and intellectuals have spoken out against religious extremism and terrorism in no uncertain terms. The question that really matters to us concerns a self-proclaimed ‘buddy’ of Bush, General Pervez Musharraf.

The general might claim, as he seldom fails to do, that he is hell-bent on stamping out religious extremism and jehadi terrorism in Pakistan. Indeed he has asserted that his efforts have met with more than a measure of success. To Indian ears all this sounds like bluff. Terrorists are still pouring into Jammu and Kashmir and wrecking havoc in other parts of India. Their training camps in Pakistan are still active. Their jehadi and ISI mentors continue to devise more and more deadly means to destabilise India.

India expects Bush to address this issue head-on. It also expects him not to equivocate on Kashmir. Manmohan Singh has spelt out in the clearest possible terms how far New Delhi is prepared to go to settle the question. The American president should ensure that his ‘buddy’ entertains no illusions in this regard.

Our media can be trusted to focus their attention on whether or not India and the United States cut a civil nuclear deal during the president’s visit. No one can obviously underestimate its urgency. But the heavens would not fall should the agreement be signed and sealed within a few weeks or months. There is every indication to suggest that the deal will be struck to the satisfaction of both countries.

The point to note is, firstly, the import of a slew of agreements that will be initialled during the president’s stay in India. These include intensive cooperation in the fields of agriculture, trade, education, science, technology and space. But the far more important point relates to the conviction of the Bush administration that India must be given the wherewithal to emerge as a key player in world affairs. That surely calls for a vociferous cheer or two.

Email: dileep.p@apcaglobal.com