Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Clientitis is a malady not listed in the medical almanacs. It is an affliction in which the guest or patron begins to advance the interests of the host. Thus, Indian diplomats or journalists, for that matter who are posted to Washington or Moscow often begin to espouse the views of the host government while sincerely believing they are bridging the gap with their home country. Their agenda is looked at with increasing suspicion by the mandarins back home.
It8217;s not only Indians who are credited with such disorder. Among sections of the American babudom, US ambassador in New Delhi Frank Wisner is also seen to be stricken with a strong case of localitis another name for the same ailment, for the ardour with which he propagates Indian interests in Washington. Some of Wisner8217;s predecessors, J. K. Galbraith and Daniel P. Moynihan among them, were similarly looked at with mistrust in Langley and Foggy Bottom.
Yet, no one suggested they are traitors to the American cause. But God forbid if an Indian diplomat should as much as suggest considering an American point of view. His neck will be on line before he can declaim Mera Bharat Mahaan.
For decades now, Indo-US ties have been marked by extreme suspicion and paranoia most of it from the Indian side. For good reason too. After all, as the weaker country, and with its history of being colonised, it has every reason to fear a dominant foreign power, particularly one with such a well-storied record of brazen exploitation as the United States. Despite all the talk about problems being soothed by the balm of a growing commercial partnership, misgivings have persisted well after the Cold War.
But India has carried it too far, contracting as a result a malady at the other end of this non-medical spectrum: it can be termed chronic hostilitis, a condition marked by pet peeves, irrational fear, and most of all, a hopeless lack of self-confidence. Our unchanging view of the US as a spiteful superpower with a malefic eye on India is beginning to impair our judgment and is preventing us from taking our place in the world.
New Delhi8217;s mistrust of the US is based on a three-decade history of provocation, starting with the pampering and arming of its client state, Pakistan. There is enough scar tissue to sustain Indian cynicism for decades. But by refusing to grow out of this surly mood even in the more ambient atmospherics of the post-Cold War era, New Delhi is hurting its own cause.
The muddied background to the exaggerated spat over the nuclear test ban treaty provides a good study of how inimical and closed New Delhi has become to American overtures in the more congenial 90s. So India did not want to sign the CTBT in its national interest until the world and its uncle promised to forsake nuclear weapons. Fine. Great on nobility, but poor on realpolitik.
Because it turns out that in persuading India to sign, the US implicitly argued that going along with the treaty did not necessarily foreclose India8217;s nuclear option or security concerns. Yet Indian minds were so closed to the prospect of dealmaking that no one seriously tried to explore what possibilities such a suggestion held.
No one is suggesting that Indian leaders sign away national interest. But we have reached a situation where New Delhi is shutting out interesting dialogue possibilities, resting on its shopworn Cold War-driven theses and prejudices. From all published accounts in India, the US mounted tremendous pressure on New Delhi to sign the CTBT, hectoring and bullying our resolute officials. Yet, not one Indian diplomat this writer spoke to corroborated this media- and Parliament-driven paranoia.
Such perceived and overstated fear of American bullying is leading Indian decision makers to often shoot in the dark and into their own foot. Worse, it is killing even tentative initiatives floated by well meaning parties on both sides. Following US Defence Secretary William Perry8217;s visit to India in 1995, Washington showed some inclination to open up on its defence cooperation, particularly in the technology transfer areas. Perry was willing to set up a US committee to meet with a similar body of Indian defence experts.
New Delhi balked. Apparently, the wizards of our defence technology establishment, whose exploits in building indigenous tanks and airplanes is well-chronicled, argued that the US is not to be trusted and technology sourced through other countries was adequate. Of course, we should not trust or rely on the US alone. Of course, it has let us down in the past. But by declining to even initiate dialogue three decades after some scalding experience, we lose out in several ways. Primarily we lose out on getting Washington to lay off mollycoddling Islamabad. We also missed opening a line with a country that is now the unmatched powerhouse of technology.
More recently, both Indian media and lawmakers have been exercised about supposed US moves to curtail the flow of Indian doctors to the US as if it is the birthright of Indian doctors to migrate to the US. Distorted accounts suggest the US is actually going to expel Indian doctors. The fact is the US is trying to rationalise the inflow of medical professionals 8212; from all countries and not just India. In fact, few countries in the world have the kind of liberal immigration policy like the US has a policy that has led to a 125 per cent growth in immigrant Indian population from 1980 to 1990, among the highest for any ethnic group.
In contrast, New Delhi still looks at every visiting American academician as a possible CIA agent. The Intelligence Bureau recommends denial of visa to US scholars for reasons ranging from 8220;shows sympathy to SC/STs8221; to 8220;has illicit relations with Indian women.8221; The result: from being a hot item of interest in US universities in the 1960s, India is now becoming a forgotten entity.
To repair all this calls for an attitudinal change in foreign policy decision making. If the so-called Gujral Doctrine can be applied successfully to South Asia, there is no reason why similar initiatives cannot be undertaken elsewhere in the world, bringing us out of the woolly-headed Cold War mentality.
