Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
'The message from Vajpayee's visit is that we have to avoid euphoria or complacency'

'The message from Vajpayee's visit is that we have to avoid euphoria or complacency'

Author: Jyoti Malhotra
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: September 26, 2000

Prime Minister A.B.  Vajpayee's recent trip to the US has been the subject of substantial interest in the subcontinent and beyond.  Is there now a US `tilt' towards India and away from Pakistan? Will the new engagement have an impact on China? Marshall Bouton, Vice-President of the Asia Society, at whose dinner Vajpayee launched his American yatra, discusses what lies beneath with JYOTI MALHOTRA.

Q: Why did the Clinton administration shower such fulsome praise upon Vajpayee?
A: It's a combination of a series of changes in the way the two countries look at each other.  Much emphasis has been laid on the personalities of the two leaders, but it's really about converging interests.  This is not only about President Clinton and PM Vajpayee having a good time together.  It's also about the US realising that the relationship with India is important to the stability of the Asian balance of power.

Q: Is this limited to South Asia?
A: To all of Asia.  I'm not talking about India as a counterweight to China, I don't think either Washington or Delhi intend that.  The US does not view its relationship with China as a zero-sum game.  But India is clearly going to be a factor in the Asian balance of power.  And then there are a host of other issues which will be increasingly salient when a new administration comes in -- public health, terrorism, the environment -- where it's impossible to think of any meaningful global progress without India being involved.

Q: But wasn't all of this true even when Pokharan took place?
A: Even if India does sign the CTBT, there remain serious concerns in the US about the stability of the nuclear situation in the subcontinent, and any US administration would seek reassurance from New Delhi.  This administration has found it difficult to talk to India about those issues, because to do so would be to legitimise India's new status.  But the next administration may not have the luxury of that choice.

Q: Is the US willing to accept India's nuclear status?
A: Not in a formal way.  But the foremost goal ought to be to prevent a nuclear exchange in the subcontinent.  But over time, the international community including the US will find it desirable and eventually, necessary, to find ways to talk to India about its status.

What's remarkable in the Indo-US rapproachment is the change in atmosphere on Kashmir.

The tests have caused Washington to take a closer look at what's on the ground.  And the feeling is that Pakistan's current stance of confrontation has raised the ante.  At the same time the US will continue to urge Delhi to re-enter dialogue.

Q: So, despite the fact that Vajpayee took the bus to Lahore and it ended up at Kargil, he should take the initiative to talk?
A: He is expected to, it is in India's interest to try and reduce tensions and reopen dialogue.  It doesn't ensure success, but the international community wants him to try.

Q: Did Clinton raise this with Vajpayee?
A: The PM got credit for pursuing dialogue with the Hizbul Mujahideen despite criticism at home and the violence in Kashmir that followed.  But the US would very much like to see some kind of a dialogue with Pakistan reopened at the earliest.  Some formula whereby Kargil could not only be put behind, but Delhi's requirement of the reduction of cross-border terrorism can be met without explicitly being met.

Q: Please elaborate.
A: There needn't be an announcement, it can be just on the ground.  I think both the PM and the Foreign minister would like to find an opportunity to reopen dialogue and they need some clear indication that there is some willingness on the Pakistani side to end cross-border terrorism.

Q: Has this message been given to General Musharraf? Do you see a US tilt towards India and away from Pakistan?
A: On the first, yes, I think so.  And on the second, I don't think so.  The pre-eminent US security interest in South Asia is the prevention of conflict.  The message from Vajpayee's visit is that we have to avoid euphoria, complacency or an exaggeration of what's been accomplished.  It's too important to let it be endangered by any such mistaken inferences.  If, at some point, India is perceived as the recalcitrant, not to mention the aggressive party, it won't feel like a tilt for very long.

Q: What's the US asessment on Musharraf?
A: Concern about the lack of progress on a number of fronts, whether it is the economy, fundamentalism, the restoration of democracy, the media, blasphemy laws.  He is currently riding a few tigers -- the relationship with India, Kashmir, the Islamic right -- he has to stop riding them.  It's a tricky situation, but he took on this job.

Q: What now?
A: There's no doubt that there has been a historical turning point in the relationship, but the problem ahead is a practical one.  The new administration will take time to get itself organised and the new momentum may dissipate.  The private sector has to provide real ballast, which hasn't happened yet.  On the nuclear front, Gore has said one of his first tasks is to return the CTBT for ratification and if he wins, that will really put pressure on India.

Q: So, the CTBT isn't passe?
A: No, it's on top of the agenda.  Some people here feel that if Bush comes in it will disappear.  But no, it won't.

Q: On China?
A: The centre of gravity of Bush's China policy will not be that different from Gore.  You saw that in the recent Senate vote.

Similarly on South Asia, either president will have similar concerns, such as the nuclear issue, concern about war in South Asia, trade.
 
We have shared interests, shared values, but it's going to take work to make the relationship happen.  This is still a young, fragile flower.
 


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements