‘‘With the resources it has, US is still quite ignorant of other cultures’’

Hong Kong was our first Asian centre. It was only a matter of time before we came to India. Increasingly we feel that to strengthen the relationship between India and the US, it’s important that it happens on both ends of the spectrum. The India centre is not just about India and the US. It’s about America, China, India and other countries. It’s like a web. It’s a multilateral framework. We’ve opened a centre because there is a dearth of it in India and also because that’s what we do.

Indo-US relations and other global positions have changed since the Society was set up in 1956. How do you see your role in this changed environment?

I believe that the 21st century is going to be an Asian century. The world is moving from a unipolar world to a multipolar one. That means the US, China, India and others will have to develop a framework in which they accommodate this new reality. When in the 19th century Germany became a great force or at the turn of the 21st century when the US rose to power, these events didn’t occur peacefully. We want to ensure that it happens peacefully now. The Asia centre is well suited to diffuse tension and forge a more nuanced understanding.

With the growth of India and China have also come the now comparisons between the two nations.

Indo-China comparisons are not very useful, the two countries have complementary strengths and weaknesses. They complement each other and the potential of that is very exciting. The comparison doesn’t help because their issues have developed differently.

When the Society was founded, the mission was to acquaint Americans with Asian culture. That basic familiarity must now be in place—though some might disagree.

It’s a sorry state that with all the resources it has, the US is still ignorant of many aspects of other cultures. Some people say that’s because everyone comes to America, so they don’t feel the need to learn about others. There’s a certain complacency. But still, people are curious, you just have to figure out a platform. That’s what Asia Society can do.

You have been at the Asia Society in various capacities for the last 15 years. How have you seen it evolve?

You have to evolve in order to be relevant. For instance, in the early days we generally showcased traditional art. We have over the years developed contemporary art. In the last 15 years, we have worked extra hard to aggressively pursue a relationship between Asian Americans because they are the natural bridgemakers. We have worked with younger people too.

But it’s still seen as an elite club.

I think we are seen as elite partly because we happen to be on Park Avenue. But we hold festivals of contemporary films, host topical programmes. In order to make a difference, you have to connect with the elite. We will in that sense never be a mass-based organisation.

Is your focus changing from culture to business?

It’s always been business, culture and policy. But earlier, culture was more visible just as perhaps business is more visible today. We are not decreasing the cultural content but pursuing business and policy more actively.

The Mumbai centre has been conceived as the point from where the Society will connect to Pakistan as well. Are you counting on the peace process?

Clearly the people-to-people dialogue has developed in such a way that it is irreversible. The process can only go forward from here. Before I came here, I visited Pakistan and there was tremendous excitement there about working with the Asia centre.

When you took over as president of Asia Society in 2004, you were the first woman and first Asian American. Would that have been possible earlier?

Yes, it would have been possible. When I was appointed president, the chairman was very careful to say that it was not a token representation.