Torn in the USA

Indians too have begun trooping into the American political mainstream. Wealthy Indian-Americans now routinely hold fund-raisers for their representatives. The more involved among them have even begun to surface in party conclaves as members and delegates. The numerical strength of the community may be small, but their familiarity with the democratic process and their facility with the English language makes them naturals for a public role more than many other immigrant communities. Indian-Americans are even beginning to run for office at the local legislature level. Like most recent immigrants, Indian-Americans too lean mostly towards the Democratic Party mainly on account of its softer position on immigration and social welfare. But as the community has grown and prospered, it is not unusual to see the wealthier Indian-Americans begin to veer towards the Republican Party with its promise of tax breaks and rhetoric of family values. Indian physicians, who once constituted a solid repository of Democraticvote, are slowly changing colours. Some, like Florida8217;s Dr Zach Zachariah, are party faithfuls who have filled the coffers of Republican stalwarts like George Bush and Bob Dole. Indian-American doctors in Texas have raised money for conservatives like Senator Phil Gramm. Out on the West Coast, the neo-rich Indian-American tech community has emerged from its money-making mania to recognise the importance of acquiring a foothold in the country8217;s political process. Having flourished in California8217;s multi-ethnic melting pot and prospered under eight years of Clinton-Gore rule, this constituency is predominantly Democratic. Even a relatively recent immigrant like Hotmail8217;s Sabeer Bhatia thought it politic to join the political process by hosting a fund-raiser for Al Gore, an event that raised a handsome 600,000.

It seems entirely appropriate then that Prime Minister Vajpayee should be visiting the US at a time when the Indian community is finding its political feet. For New Delhi the question is not whether it will pay less or more taxes, but which dispensation 8212; Democratic or Republican 8212; will be more appreciative of its aspirations and difficulties. Thus far, the Vajpayee government has kept a prudent equi-distance from both parties in the electoral heat. It has sought and accepted luncheon meeting with Democratic nominee Al Gore, an engagement that is bound to be more purposeful than the one he would have in any case had as the vice-president. It is also awaiting word from the Bush camp for a meeting with the Republican nominee.

Conventional wisdom is that Indian governments have been more at ease with a Democratic White House than Republican administrations. Some scholars point to the Kennedy and Carter eras as being one of positive sentiments, although whether the deeds matched the comfort level is doubtful. Despite the heightening of the Cold War, both Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi shared a reasonably congenial relationship with the Reagan Administration, although the follies of the regime were to visit the subcontinent many years later. Even the Bush Administration that saw the climax of the Cold War and the eruption of the Gulf War, sardonically maintained an even keel with New Delhi despite the turmoil in India successive coalition governments combined with a forgettable lack of clarity in policy.

The Clinton Years were marked largely by indifference in the early part 1993-1994, growing interest in the middle part 1995-1997, tension and recrimination in 1998 because of the nuclear tests, and remarkable ardour in the final years 1999-2000. Washington gradually came to terms with, and even came to appreciate, India8217;s existential dilemma and security concerns. There is still some distance in perception between Washington and New Delhi, but it is nothing like the chasm that existed through the seventies and eighties, and became an abyss in May 1998. The Clinton visit this year substantially bridged the rift. Vajpayee8217;s task is to strengthen it further.

Al Gore was an active part of Clinton8217;s foreign policy think-tank and it is reasonable to assume that an administration led by him will continue to maintain course. But unlike Clinton, who saw non-proliferation as a political objective, Gore is likely to pursue it as an end in itself. Gore is also likely to be tougher on themes like environmental standards and child labour, issues Indians are notoriously and needlessly thin-skinned about. A Bush Administration, on the other hand, will have a foreign policy that will be more security-driven. A complex security matrix in which it sees China as an emerging threat may well benefit India.

Are these reasons enough to be edgy about a Gore Administration and hope for a Bush win? Nyah. For all the over-wrought peroration on security and China as an emerging threat, the Bush foreign policy team does not inspire confidence that it will offer a cogent worldview. Gore, his reputation as a hectoring eco-bully notwithstanding, clearly has a more coherent vision of the world. Especially in matters of nuclear proliferation, a nuanced status quo that could lead to gradual disarmament is a better deal than the unraveling of the whole edifice that could lead to unforeseeable consequences. So while the minuscule but energetic Indian-American community wrestles with its choice, New Delhi8217;s interest lies clearly in Goredom. Besides, as the hi-tech profile of India and Indian-Americans grows, it is a better hand to play against a nerdy Gore dispensation than a macho Bush Administration.

While the minuscule but energetic Indian-American community wrestles with its choice, New Delhi8217;s interest lies clearly in Goredom