Economic issues key to Modi's US visit

'Political meetings will be a mere side show; the main show is economic investment and the business partnership. The success of Modi's US visit will be judged on the basis of India's ability to attract American investment and setting up of manufacturing in India to give jobs to millions,' says Colonel Anil A Athale (retd).

As Narendra Modi embarks on his most important diplomatic journey later this week he faces formidable challenges to win over a sceptical American leadership and a cool/hostile establishment. Compared to this the Japan or China summits were cake walks.

But first the good news. Since the new government has taken over, it has restored the Indian position as a major world power. In the last 10 years of non-leadership under the United Progressive Alliance, Indian foreign policy was reduced to India's Pakistan policy. The transformation to an active mode in Indian interaction is a tribute to professionalism and competence of Indian Foreign Service personnel.

The first 100 days of the Modi sarkar has indeed seen dazzling back to back successes in foreign policy area. Indo-Japan partnerships, Australian uranium, Chinese investments in infrastructure are some of the highlights. The foreign policy blitzkrieg of the last three months makes one wonder what the United Progressive Alliance diarchy was doing in the last 10 years.

As an observer of American policy making for last 24 years, I have come to a conclusion that sometime in President Barack Obama's tenure India fell off the American radar as a factor in its global calculations.

The clearest manifestation of this downgrade was the zero progress made in last six years on Indian membership of various technology control regimes. It was expected that after the Indo-US nuclear deal the technology denial regime against India will ease, but that failed to take place.

The story is the same be it the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Missile Tech Control Regime or (the mother of it all) the Wassenaar Arrangement that deals with comprehensive technology curbs.

The fact that the visa issue continued to remain unsolved even when it became clear that Modi was likely to be the next prime minister of India shows the depth of the anti-India lobby in the US State Department. Added to this was the role played by the vocal lobby of Indians that sees 'communalism' and 'fascism' in anything remotely related to Indian civilisation.

The organs of the United States Congress like the Commission on Religious Freedom add to the Indo-US dissonance. These bodies tend to confuse socio-political issues in the Indian subcontinent as issues of religious freedom. India possibly has the world's best record as far freedom to practice faith is concerned with minorities enjoying not just equal but 'special' rights, to be found nowhere else in the world, both de jure and de facto.

Even at the educated level there is no understanding that in India, historically, the minorities have ruled for centuries. An instance of this illiteracy is the attack on Buddhist shrines in the US for the display of the Swastika symbol. Who is to tell these worthies that it was Adolf Hitler who stole the ancient Indian symbol of peace and prosperity. The Swastika existed thousands of years before Hitler and will remain for thousands of years after him.

As if these formidable forces were not enough there is the issue of lack of authentic feedback from diplomatic channels. Western diplomats (with some notable exceptions like Chester Bowles or J K Galbraith or Frank Wisner to name a few) tend to live in a bubble with contacts with only eager visa/immigration seekers, the elite or the nanny/cooks/gardeners.

The real India is completely bypassed. Many diplomats come to India from Pakistan and are resentful of the fact that they do not enjoy the kind of influence they have in that or some other African countries.

Many still labour under the notion of the Kiplingesque 'White Man's Burden.' The most recent hilarious (or in some way tragic) example of this cultural ignorance/arrogance was when the Economist editorially proclaimed that it cannot 'endorse' Modi for the prime minister's job, as if the Indian voters or Modi had asked for their endorsement or it could sway even a single vote in the Indian elections.

In another context, during the Cold War era, a Western journalist asked the formidable Indira Gandhi if India was a 'satellite' of the erstwhile USSR. Indira Gandhi had replied that nobody keeps an Elephant as a pet. The US expectations from the Indo-US partnership/alliance must keep this in mind.

The stark reality of the 21st century is the rise of China and its likely repercussions on the world balance of power. India is a natural 'balancer' and in that sense a natural partner of the US. Strengthening India is thus in long term American interest.

The problem arises when American tries to squeeze commercial advantage out of this shared mutual interest. It is this that has stalled much of Indo-US defence collaboration like the hike in the price of the M-777 light howitzer. Making Indian conventional forces strong is in the US interest as there is not even a remote possibility of Indian forces confronting American forces in the foreseeable future.

The recent India-China stand-off in the Ladakh sector has shown that irrespective of economic bonds, India remains ready to confront Chinese aggressive moves. Strong Indian conventional forces also do not affect the global strategic balance, that is heavily tilted in favour of the US. But if this strengthening of conventional forces fructifies, it will help India check China and also stabilise the volatile Af-Pak region.

With the US badly bogged down in the Middle East quagmire, it may be tempted to 'outsource' the Af-Pak region to India for strategic management.

Surely during the Indian prime minister's visit there will be the usual noise about shared values of democracy and pluralism and much will be made of similarity between Obama and Modi, both self made men from humble backgrounds. But behind the scenes, functional differences will continue to dog Indo-US ties.

In his second term President Obama has been appointing Americans of Indian origin to key posts dealing with India. This is America's prerogative and given the fact that Indian Americans were enthusiastic Obama supporters, it is quite natural too. But the idea that Indian origin Americans dealing with India will improve relations is deeply flawed.

If at all, this will produce an ultra-cautious approach lest the appointees get accused of bias towards the country of their origin. This measure to use Indian origin Americans to deal with India is based on simplistic notions of a complex relationship that Non-Resident Indians and the mother country have.

But does that mean Modi's visit is just a photo-op tour? Far from it. The focus of India will be on the meetings with the CEOs of large American companies who will be invited to 'make in India'. The success of Modi's visit will be judged on that criterion and not on speeches from the White House. In fact, the political meetings are a mere side show; the main show is economic investment and the business partnership.

Making up the 'lost decade' for the Indian economy has been Modi's priority since day one. The success of his US visit will be judged on the basis of India's ability to attract American investment and setting up of manufacturing in India to give jobs to millions.

Colonel Anil A Athale (retd) is coordinator of the Pune-based Indian Initiative for Peace, Arms-control & Disarmament.

Photograph: American conglomerate General Electric Company plans to make India a manufacturing hub, "for the world."