Opinion Hail to the chief marketer

This upsets people. Former finance minister Yashwant Sinha told The Indian Express: “There is so much obsession… Compare it with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s trip to the US. There must be some parity.” No. Parity might be important for countries to achieve. But the peculiar nature of our reaction to such visits — the lapping up of details,the combination of celebrity-spotting and trend-watching — is born less of a fascination for the United States than for the ersatz-royal yet approachable nature of US presidents.

Elevenscore and fourteen years since Lincoln’s forefathers brought it into being,the United States is not as far from a monarchy as it would like to believe. In a sense unmatched elsewhere in the democratic world,the pageantry surrounding the head of its government carries enormous amounts of archaic,regal symbolism. This isn’t surprising. That republic was born of quasi-aristocrats who wanted to think they were as good as anyone else even if they’d thrown out their king,so they had to exalt the office of president as much as they could; and its traditions bear the mark of its first incumbent,the immensely dignified George Washington,a man on whom,we are fairly certain,Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man had considerably less influence than the 110 Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour In Company and Conversation he copied out for a school exercise when 16. (Rule number 64,Mr Obama: “Neither go too slowly nor with Mouth open,go not Shaking yr Arms,kick not the earth with yr feet,go not upon the Toes,nor in a Dancing fashion.”)

The point is that,regardless of incumbent,there is something of a royal progress to an American president’s travels,even in India,which is of course beyond acknowledging royalty of any sort,especially elected. Yet had the queen of England turned up for the Commonwealth Games,it would have been less carnival and more sideshow,wouldn’t it? (For one thing,Suresh Kalmadi would probably have welcomed Queen Victoria to Delhi in his speech.)

That’s because there’s a crucial additional facet to being a president,what,after the bruising Bush-Gore election of 2000,became known as the “beer test”: that a president better be someone who can speak to you directly,whom you can sit down and have a beer with. This is why being an electable president is hard: you have to be both dignified and approachable,provide human-interest details to a ravenous foreign public (Clinton likes dal! Obama wants to play snakes-and-ladders!) while delivering well-crafted speeches heavy with policy details and praise. The president may bring the circus to town,but he’s less ringmaster and more chief acrobat.

The way presidents have gone about it reveals much about what they think of India,of our relationship. Obama has spent much of his time with students and CEOs,reflecting what India means to the West now. Clinton went to a Rajasthan village; Obama talked to villagers over the Internet. There was backchat from students,sealing our reputation as a country dubiously blessed with more than our share of hyper-assured youngsters. (A reputation we — even more dubiously — tend to celebrate: One reasonable question about Pakistan,and TV thinks you’re a foreign-policy expert.)

But if American presidents have managed this in different ways,whether or not we’ve bought the vision of Indo-US ties they’re hawking reveals something about us. In 2006,George W. Bush’s visit had all the traditional accompaniments — a big dinner,a big speech,a big table with big business,and a big protest in Calcutta — but there was an air of restraint about it,meetings with young people in suits at business-school tables rather than tough town-halls in the sunny quads of liberal-arts colleges. The style was solemn,reassuring,answering what was almost a hushed hope here that some big gesture declaring India’s importance was at hand. A complex and consequential deal was indeed being negotiated. And our response: basking in what we sensed was warm,unqualified approval of India’s rise. W.,a man of strong and instinctive likes and dislikes,had decided to like us,and we weren’t going to complain,like the weedy kid wondering why the frat-boy’s having a beer with him.

That embrace of a man reviled elsewhere shows how India’s changed. We haven’t always been so willing to accept gestures from American presidents. Perhaps nothing encapsulates the changes more than the famous story of how Jimmy Carter went to visit a village outside Delhi — possibly somewhere his mother,a nurse,had once worked — and it was renamed Carterpuri. Touched,Carter offered to sponsor its modernisation,but Prime Minister Morarji Desai turned him down sniffily,presumably without asking the residents of Carterpuri whether they wanted better sanitation or modular kitchens or whatever was on offer. In that vanished India,where our pride required that if we accept aid,we should at least look suitably snooty about it,the atmospherics of the visit were all wrong — and atmospherics were,in the end,what mattered.

So don’t get caught up in worries that a visit’s all about style,not enough about substance. The style is the substance. An earnest Carter saw a destination for good works; a beaming Clinton discovered a long-lost friend; a solemn Bush signed off on a new business partner. And Obama? Well,here he suffers from success: the relationship between India and America has gone beyond governments,it is about middle classes that are embedded in each other,and so he was here being a global middle-class hero. But,after three days of relentless scrutiny,frenzied protests,and the demands that he do something now or be branded a smooth disappointment,he must have flown out thinking: my,how much like home.

mihir.sharma@expressindia.com