Much ado as usual

The fat is in the fire again, with American Ambassador Richard Celeste learning early on how words can be even more dangerous in India than ...

The fat is in the fire again, with American Ambassador Richard Celeste learning early on how words can be even more dangerous in India than elsewhere. For him, this may be no bad thing. His predecessors Frank Wisner and Thomas Pickering each had such a successful tenure because they recognised this. It is more doubtful whether tantrum-throwing is such a good thing for India as well. India and the United States have long had their differences on nuclear policy, and India has had a principled position as well as one that best serves its interests. But this was not at issue. To begin with, Richard Celeste was not remarking on a manifesto. His remarks were made before the release of the BJP manifesto, and in response to a question. Even if they are seen as provocative 8212; even as the reiteration of America8217;s known policy and legal position 8212; the Ministry of External Affairs did not have to leap at the bait. In showing such prickliness, even jingoism, the government betrays not a resolve to persevere in the policyit considers right. That it must do, even at the cost of unpleasantness. Rather, it is a reflection of a lack of self-confidence and of a government protesting too much because it feels the need to appear strong in inverse proportion to its real strength. Nor is this the first such instance. Between themselves, the Indian government and the media have long been responsible for the needlessly touchy state of relations with a country with which a good relationship is overwhelmingly to India8217;s advantage. Another piece of imagined slight last year was the matter of the dates of Gujral8217;s visit to the United States. The list goes on.

America is frequently abrasive in its dealings with the world and it applies different standards to different places. But India and Indians also lack rationality in their dealings with America. Realism and calculated furthering of the national interest is often sacrificed to the satisfaction of thumbing its nose at the world8217;s most powerful country. This is not diplomacy, it ispetulance and childish pique. It might be expected of ill-informed public opinion and excitement-seeking media, but government cannot afford this luxury. Particularly since Bill Clinton8217;s re-election, the US administration has shown a sensitivity to Indian sensibilities seldom in evidence in the past. This change of attitude was predicated on a tacit understanding that fundamental differences notwithstanding, a genuine effort would be made at good bilateral relations while also seeking understanding on the more contentious issues. Nuclear policy decidedly is one of those.

Celeste8217;s remarks were not a response to the BJP manifesto, but what if they were? Nuclear policy as outlined in the election manifesto of a political party is not India8217;s internal matter, especially in the manifesto of a party many see as being on course to form the next government. India is right to pursue its policy, but it has to accept that the United States will pursue its disarmament policies too 8212; and will articulate them herethrough its envoy. To call this an internal matter is laughable hypocrisy. Unless the government takes the lead, followed by the people, in learning to take such things in its stride, there is little hope for a longer-term flowering of relations with America. What a pity that would be.