Why India would keep pushing the envelope

As the Indian government basked in the afterglow of the visit, with even the principal opposition party, the BJP, praising the US President, it categorical states that there would be no quid pro quo from New Delhi in terms of a positional shift on issues like Iran or democracy in Myanmar, writes Nilova Roy Chaudhury 

As US President Barack Obama left India on Tuesday, his 'unequivocal endorsement' of its quest for a permanent seat on the 'high table' at the United Nations Security Council and the 'explicit political' statement of support he offered has left India more than satisfied with and savouring the aftertaste of a visit the build up to which was so understated and low key that nothing much was really expected of it.

As it turns out, the Obama visit -- the third US presidential visit to India in a decade -- yielded results high on both 'symbolism and substance', sources said, and 'raised the bilateral strategic partnership to a whole new level'.

Having got considerably more than expected during the visit, sources said they had become 'more ambitious' and would keep pushing the envelope.

Beyond the symbolism of the expression of intent to support India's claim for a permanent UNSC seat and Obama's emphatic reiteration of the definitive and 'indispensable' nature of the India-US partnership, both of which have raised India's profile from the merely regional South Asian to a player on the pan-Asian and indeed global stage, was the very substantive removal of major Indian entities like the Indian Space Research Organisation from the US Commerce department's 'Entity List.'

Combined with realignment of India in US export control regulations, this will allow cooperation in high technology sectors including defence and civil space and allow the 'unimpeded flow' and access to the kinds of high technology denied for decades to these Indian companies.

For India's policy makers, who have been struggling to cope with the country's intransigent western neighbour, the US President offered heightened cooperation to counter terrorism emanating from Pakistan and said the existence of terrorist havens in that country was 'unacceptable' even as he insisted the perpetrators of the Mumbai 26/11 carnage be brought to justice.

According to the sources, Obama in his discussions and public utterances 'completely accepted' and endorsed the Indian Prime Minister's terms for engagement with Pakistan.

India was willing to speak to Pakistan to resolve all outstanding issues, including the K-word (Kashmir), of which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh professed India was not scared, but Islamabad's "terror-induced coercion" had to end before a sustained, meaningful dialogue could resume.

Pakistan, expectedly, came out all guns blazing once Obama announced his endorsement of India's candidature for the UNSC permanent seat, with its foreign office issuing a statement saying the US should take a 'moral position and not base itself on any temporary expediency or exigencies of power politics'.

Officials were dismissive of Islamabad's carping, saying, "We certainly don't need lessons in morality from Pakistan."

Another major cause for satisfaction was the US's unambiguous endorsement of India's positive role in Afghanistan. As President Obama said his country would not abandon Afghanistan, sources in New Delhi said Obama had admitted that the US had not paid enough attention to that country and would continue a "troop surge" there until July 2011 and stay on until the situation stabilised in that country.

The bonhomie on regional issues found reflection in the joint statement issued at the end of Obama's three-day tour, with India and the USA committing to "intensify consultation, cooperation and coordination to promote a stable, democratic, prosperous, and independent Afghanistan.

President Obama appreciated India's enormous contribution to Afghanistan's development and welcomed enhanced Indian assistance that will help Afghanistan achieve self-sufficiency.

In addition to their own independent assistance programs in Afghanistan, the two sides resolved to pursue joint development projects with the Afghan government in capacity building, agriculture and women's empowerment.

In a hard-hitting formulation against Pakistan's continued complicity in fostering terrorism, the joint statement "reiterated that success in Afghanistan and regional and global security require elimination of safe havens and infrastructure for terrorism and violent extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Condemning terrorism in all its forms, the two sides agreed that all terrorist networks, including Lashkar e-Tayiba, must be defeated and called for Pakistan to bring to justice the perpetrators of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks."

India and the US decided to build upon "the Counter Terrorism Initiative signed in July 2010," by announcing a new Homeland Security Dialogue between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Department of Homeland Security and agreed to further deepen operational cooperation, counter-terrorism technology transfers and capacity building. The two leaders also emphasized the importance of close cooperation in combating terrorist financing and in protecting the international financial system."

By bringing the Indian Home Ministry into the loop, the idea is to reduce the turf wars and dispel some of the myths about the episode of David Coleman Headley, the man credited with being among the masterminds behind the Mumbai 26/11 attacks. 

India's Home Secretary Gopal Pillai had expressed 'disappointment' with the US authorities not informing India about Headley, whose arrest in Chicago last December had blown the cover of the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence direct involvement in the Mumbai attacks. Headley, to whom Indian intelligence authorities were given 'unprecedented access', is widely believed to be a former US federal agent who turned rogue.

The joint statement is also likely to cause ripples in Beijing, which has immediately offered 'consultations' but no support for India's permanent UNSC aspirations.

While China is not mentioned by name, the formulation clearly points towards a wariness of an increasingly aggressive Chinese posture, particularly in eastern Asia.

"The two leaders (Obama and Dr Singh) have a shared vision for peace, stability and prosperity in Asia, the Indian Ocean region and the Pacific region and committed to work together, and with others in the region, for the evolution of an open, balanced and inclusive architecture in the region. In this context, the leaders reaffirmed their support for the East Asia Summit and committed to regular consultations in this regard. The United States welcomes, in particular, India's leadership in expanding prosperity and security across the region. The two leaders agreed to deepen existing regular strategic consultations on developments in East Asia," the joint statement said.

Meanwhile, as the Indian government basked in the afterglow of the visit, with even the principal opposition party, the BJP, praising the US President, sources were categorical that there would be no quid pro quo from New Delhi in terms of a positional shift on issues like Iran or democracy in Myanmar.

"India has and will always decide its position on issues keeping in mind national interest, the situation in the region or specific strategic and economic compulsions," the sources said, reacting to Obama's speech to parliamentarians on Monday, during which he endorsed India's candidature for the UNSC but also pointed out 'frank(ly)' that India 'shied away' from taking tough public postures against Iran's nuclear programme or the suppression of democracy in Myanmar.

According to the sources, while India would decide its position on global issues based on its own and regional interests, it would also be prepared to face tough questions on these postures if and when it does become part of the UN Security Council. Officials said India had to be also ready to hear criticism of its position when it reaches a certain global leadership position.

"If you are talking of a country on a high table, we will have to deal with such slings and arrows," a source said.

"India does not need to be so prickly as this is all about friendship and these are terms of engagement," a source said adding, "in friendship one should be able to frankly speak one's mind."

India did not see the way it votes at the United Nations or its positions on international issues like Iran's opaque nuclear programme in the context of "some bargaining kind of game".

"At several times in the United Nations, our points of view have not coincided with their (US) points of view... But, it is certainly not borne out of an anti-American or anti-western mindset," the sources said, pointing out that India had twice voted against Iran in consonance with other members of International Atomic Energy Agency. 

India's position is that Iran, as a signatory to the NPT, had a right to the peaceful uses of atomic energy, but it also had certain responsibilities by which it needs to abide.

Iran is an important regional neighbour and, while India and Iran share long "civilizational" ties, New Delhi does not want another nuclear weapons nation in the neighbourhood. However, India opposes imposition of sanctions and differs with the western nations on how to rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions.

About Myanmar, the other contentious issue raised by Obama, the sources said the matter was a complex one, as "we are in the region, an immediate neighbour".

"If the President talks to India about looking east, the first country that comes to the east is Myanmar," the sources said. "It is not on the dark side of the moon."

India had compelling strategic, security and economic compulsions for which it had to engage with the repressive military junta that has ruled Myanmar for decades. Also, there was the presence of the "giant mutual northern neighbour".

"It's a very complex situation there. How can we be brain-dead to the situation on the ground there," an official said. "We don't need lectures on democracy from anyone."

India has always been frank with the United States about its pragmatic "compulsions" and hopes there will be a better understanding of the Indian position.

"Friends don't have to agree on everything, but they can talk to each other and explain their points of view," sources said.

In diplomacy, sources noted, everything is not always black and white as there are shades of grey in between.

Officials said they would begin work soon with their American counterparts to begin the process of aligning the US and India's export control positions so that an early entry would be possible into the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Missile Technology Control Regime, so that it becomes part of the global decision- making and regulating process.

Once India ratifies the Convention on Supplementary Compensation and brings domestic legislation in sync with the international regime, it would become party to other multilateral groupings like the Australia group and the Wassenaar Arrangement.

The government is coming to terms with the enhanced global role it will now be increasingly called upon to play as "Prime Minister Singh and President Obama reiterated that India and the United States, as global leaders, will partner for global security, especially as India serves on the Security Council over the next two years. The leaders agreed that their delegations in New York will intensify their engagement and work together to ensure that the Council continues to effectively play the role envisioned for it in the United Nations Charter."