From the heart

In his address to the Asia Society in New York, the Prime Minister has given voice to the angst Indians feel about their ties with Washin...

In his address to the Asia Society in New York, the Prime Minister has given voice to the angst Indians feel about their ties with Washington. Vajpayee espoused a vision of strong Indo-American links forming the mainstay of the international democratic order. He drew parallels between their political culture while forthrightly lamenting America8217;s failure to acknowledge India as a responsible international citizen. He was outspoken and right, so far as he went.

What he did not say is that democracy is only half the fundamental link that should be the basis of bilateral relations. The other, and the more significant, half is mutual economic interest. Particularly in the absence of shared natural strategic concerns hitherto, this is the glue that will bind India and America in the future. Vajpayee chose instead to highlight the differences in economic perceptions. And yet convergence of mutual economic interests is well under way, though obscured by the din of India8217;s famous pluralism, its relatively slow paceof change, and America8217;s impatience with this.

Many developments of recent years have not yet gained sufficient momentum to become noticeable, but India8217;s beefed-up lobbying power in the US has much to do with the unshackling of its economy.

Certainly it is essential to emphasise democracy and all it entails in India8217;s dealings with America. But it is just as well to keep in mind that this is a factor that weighs more with US public opinion 8212; which admittedly grows ever more powerful in the age of the media and communications revolutions than with American governments. The nature of America8217;s engagement with China is proof. The American public, motivated by moralistic considerations, has misgivings about large-scale dealings with a Beijing regime which is disrespectful of human rights.

Washington rightly looks at America8217;s own interests, especially as not dealing with China will not promote American moral aims any better. History is replete with instances of American administration doing businesswith, even propping up, dictatorships where American interests so demanded. Nor is this necessarily immoral. It is arguably the greater duty of national governments to uphold the interests of their own people than those of foreigners.

India may resent America8217;s failure to recognise its concerns about Afghanistan or Security Council expansion in spite of its restrained conduct. Yet it is not New Delhi8217;s political morality but its ability to influence American interests that will promote interaction on the 8220;equal footing8221; that India craves. Democracy is only a lubricant in this process.

America would rather do business with a democratic India than an undemocratic China if it had to choose if India became as economically promising. But democracy is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition of constructive engagement, whereas economic prowess is both. And it is as important for India to be alive to American concerns as for America to be responsive to Indian sensibilities. This government has respondedto American concerns since the nuclear tests. This is apparent in the Indo-US dialogue itself, but it was reinforced in India8217;s tacit endorsement of America8217;s anti-terrorist strikes in Afghanistan. It is on such happy convergence of principle and interests that the future rests.