New dynamics at play

G Parthasarathy

ARRIVING coincidentally in Washington, on the same day as Prime Minister Modi, I was in for some pleasant surprises, amidst memories of the past. There has been a steady improvement in our relations with the US, ever since our nuclear tests in May 1998. Those tests were followed by the imposition of stringent, but unsuccessful sanctions, by the Clinton Administration. The joint statement issued on Mr Modi’s visit announced that preparatory work had commenced for constructing six nuclear reactors, each of 1000 MW, to be built in India by Westinghouse.  We also agreed to commence the implementation after financial terms for credits had been agreed upon with the US EXIM Bank, with contracts to be finalised by June 2017. The US is today our largest export market for both goods and services.

This was, for me, the most significant agreement reached during Mr Modi’s visit. My last days in our embassy in Washington in 1981 had been spent in negotiating an “amicable end” to all nuclear ties with the US. There was mutual agreement that India would find an alternative source of nuclear fuel for the two 238 MW reactors in the Tarapur Nuclear Power Plant. The sustained American attempt to “cap, roll back and eliminate” our nuclear programme ended, when Mr Vajpayee defied American pressures and tested nuclear weapons. What followed was a path-breaking nuclear deal, which progressively ended all nuclear sanctions against India. This was negotiated and signed by Dr Manmohan Singh, in the face of some strong opposition from the highest levels in his own Congress party, not to speak of their Communists allies, who were ever ready to torpedo anything that did not suit their “Comrades” in Beijing.  The wheel has now turned a full circle in the India-US nuclear relationship, after four decades.

In discussions I had in Washington, after Mr Modi’s departure, there was happiness with what he said in his address to the US Congress, and his visits to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at the Arlington National Cemetery, and to the Space Shuttle Columbia Memorial to pay homage to Indian astronaut Kalpana Chawla. We have an astonishing policy on honouring soldiers who were killed in combat in past world wars. As many as 62,000 Indian soldiers lost their lives in WW1 and 87,000 in WW2. We have not paid due respect to these men in arms who did us proud in what were the first instances, when soldiers from all over India fought and died together. Moreover, while our “netas” paid homage at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Moscow, even though Indian soldiers never fought alongside their Soviet counterparts, there was a disinclination to make a similar gestures elsewhere.  There are strong emotions in Australia about their soldiers killed in Gallipoli while fighting alongside Indians, who suffered over 7,000 casualties. Worse still, we are yet to complete the construction of a suitable memorial in our own Capital for our soldiers killed in defending the country after Independence.  Mr Modi is, however, addressing this issue.

Mr Modi’s visit naturally focused attention on issues of concern to us, including terrorism, where the threats posed by groups like Dawood’s D Company, the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammad were referred to. He minced no words when he alluded to Pakistan sponsorship of terrorism in India, the Pathankot attack and terrorism in Afghanistan. The finalisation of a roadmap for cooperation across the Pacific and Indian Oceans now clears the way for increasing maritime cooperation. India should insist that this cannot be selective to suit just US interests, but must cover both our eastern and western seaboards. US support for our NSG membership was reaffirmed. Significantly, all this was occurring at a time when China became a collaborator and apologist for Pakistan-sponsored terrorism by blocking action against the Jaish-e- Mohammad in the UN and actively opposing our membership. What has, however, impressed people abroad is that India is now ready to make a serious effort to step up production of clean energy to address concerns on global warming. 

Does this growing relationship with the US undermine our ability to strengthen ties with other major players on the world stage? The answer is no. Almost immediately after his return, Mr Modi called President Vladimir Putin, reiterating the importance he attaches to relations with Russia. The two leaders met in Tashkent on June 24 and have agreed to expand cooperation in areas like space, petrochemicals and nuclear power and measures to enhance cooperation in defence supplies and production. India has tacitly acknowledged the importance of Russia’s role in Syria. The bilateral engagement with Russia is being complemented by Indian participation in forums like the SCO, BRICS and the India, Russia, China trilateral dialogue. India can take a relaxed view of Russian supply of defence equipment like Mi-35 attack helicopters to Pakistan, which is so cash-strapped that it cannot pay for expensive acquisitions like SU-35 aircraft. While Russia has tried to experiment with pleasing China and Pakistan by supporting “dialogue” with the Taliban, it is aware of the serious impact on the security of its Central Asian allies in the event of a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. Russia is strengthening its defence ties with Vietnam, with the supply of military hardware, despite Chinese misgivings. 

China cannot be allowed to have a veto on how we conduct our relations with others, especially given its growing nuclear, missile and security ties with Pakistan, and its efforts to undermine our relations with SAARC neighbours, including Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka. One area in which India can work together with Russia and the US is in building the military potential and rendering diplomatic support to Vietnam. The focus of its relations with China should remain on maintaining peace and tranquility along the border and expanding economic cooperation. Given Beijing’s recent actions on Pakistan-sponsored terrorism and Indian membership of the NSG, India should respond more assertively on issues like China’s violations of the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. Despite present bonhomie, Moscow and Beijing have historically had ties clouded by rivalries, tensions and mistrust. This should be borne in mind while crafting a policy of “strategic autonomy”.