Interview of Ambassador Naresh Chandra

Indian diplomacy is focusing on the increasing congruency between Indian interests and US interests.

Interviewed by Shyam Bhatia

Deccan Hearld - July 29, 1999

For the first time in many years there is talk of a positive trend in Indo-US relations. How do you explain it ?

NARESH CHANDRA: Ever since the mid-90`s, and especially after the Indian economy was liberalised, there was renewed and growing interest in the Indian market, India and Indian democracy. Members of the US Congress got more interested, motivated by the success of the Indian-American families here. They were also attracted to the emerging market in Asia and India. This led to interest in India and South Asia going beyond the old dispute-centred interest to a much broader interest and we seized upon it. We explained to the Departments of State and Commerce, that South Asia has to be viewed as the land of new opportunity and that the interaction the US had been having in the past with countries in South Asia was very narrowly focussed on security and disputes. That helped bring about a change.

There was a dip in the summer of 1998. But the factors were such that the academics and analysts in the US realised very quickly that there was a lot of justification for India`s security concerns and out of that very vigorous debate on India`s security concerns a new understanding grew.

This was given a big boost out of the fact that Mr Jaswant Singh from our side and Mr Strobe Talbott from the US side established very good communications leading to fruitful discussions.

Simultaneously, I don`t want to crow about it - there`s no great joy in this - the US side is finding that trends in Pakistan have not been very positive. What was expected from a newly elected government in Islamabad with a big majority in both houses of parliament did not come to pass. There was growth of fundamentalism, there were restrictions on the press, the promise which the Pakistan economy held for a while was belied, the law and order situation was not good.

Lastly, what has not been found very good is the manner in which the fundamentalist parties have increased their influence in the Pakistani establishment, including the army.

What happened in Kargil was the last straw. The US and other governments did not like a professional army conducting this kind of an operation in cahoots with terrorist units.

Reactions to Kargil in both the Senate and Congress have been sympathetic to India. Isn`t this also rather new?

NC: That is very true. We noticed for some time there was a very evenly poised debate in the House. In 1995 the annual exercise we used to have in the shape of the Burton Amendment, which would raise any number of issues to deny extension of US aid and other programmes to India, would raise quite a lot of strength. In 1995 the difference in voting was just 12.

But with the growth in the India-US business trade relationship, the work done by the Indian- American families and what we did in the embassy in cooperation with everybody, the Burton Amendment was defeated by a majority of more than 100 in 1996.

Then in 1997 Mr Burton`s Bill was beaten by a margin of 342 for India to 87 against. And this 87 included 50 hard core anti aid legislators. They would vote against any aid Bill. Basically, he was able to muster just 37. Last year people thought that because of the nuclear tests there would be a loss performance. But when the matter came to the floor of the House, Mr Burton found there were no takers.

The other trend is in the way the India Caucus has grown. There were 70-80 members in it last year. After the nuclear tests people said that this will wither away. But today we have 112 members in the India Caucus. It is the largest caucus and the only country-specific caucus in the House of Representatives.

Are you saying that India is not just a beneficiary of the Americans getting fed up with Pakistan?

NC: Our approach has been to convince Congressmen and the Administration that they need to revise their policy in many areas and not as a favour to India.

We have been concentrating on the increasing area of congruency between Indian interests and US interests. They are economic and also security related. The US aims in Asia with regard to keeping trade growing and sea transport and other things peaceful for the purposes of trade and economic development assigns a very high role to India.

You have China, you have North Korea, you have aspirations of South East Asian countries, you have Pakistan, the Afghanistan problem. All round this region US aims can be much better served if their relations with India are better. We are a stabilising force, a democracy, we have rule of law, we have transparency, free press, we are people with whom the US can interact in a very broad fashion and not in narrow terms.

Take the US and China for instance. It`s basically government- to-government plus a heavy dose of business relations. When it comes to Pakistan, the dimension is just security and military - very narrow. But with India you have exchange of technologies, of parliamentarians, you have common aims where the people of both countries have the same type of approach to organising their society on tolerant lines, respect for all religions, the works. Both are secular and keep religion out of the government.

Is US wariness of China another reason why India is emerging as a potential long term ally of the US?

NC: It`s a factor. You see China has yet to flex its newly-found economic and military muscle. We don`t have extra territorial ambitions. We have security concerns which are limited within our own borders. Of course we want to play a positive role and we will. That is because of the great human resource we have, but we don`t have military ambitions of any kind. We don`t have territorial claims except the just settlement of our own border. The Americans see all that. They have also seen that even here we want to settle border disputes in a peaceful fashion at the negotiating table and not through the naked use of force.

So there is a growing sense that India is a responsible government, not only that it is responsible in the short run, but the dynamics of politics in India is such that it will keep it on a path of law and order, rule of law and a stabilising influence in Asia. Our system is not just a bunch of a few people sitting in some capital calling the shots. Parliament is very vigorous. Things are slow to progress in India but they will be safe and that is not true for some of the neighbouring countries.

How do the positive signals and improved ties affect your day to day dealings with the US administration.

NC: This is a mixed picture. By and large I would say that the attitude to India and Indians has improved. But I don`t want to romanticise the situation. There are also pockets and lobbies in various places, some of which are a hangover from the cold war. These are people who would like to focus more on Pakistan having been an ally. So on India-Pakistan issues the diplomacy from the Indian side has to be quite vigorous.

I think if you look at the writings of the Council of Foreign Relations, Brookings, the Stimson Centre, you will find that a higher role is being assigned to India from year to year, that India is going to be a very strong global player and is already a strong regional player in Asia. These sorts of sentences are not used in relation to Pakistan. The most positive references go to the extent of saying that it could be a good regional power, but a global role in strategic terms is not on the cards. This is a new strategic situation.

The other is that we have been able to establish that the best course of action for resolving disputes is for third parties not to interfere in South Asia.

These are large governments and it should be quite possible for them to settle their differences and live with them. It`s not just a question of giving a judicial decision. Who`s going to enforce it? Unless an agreement on serious issues is reached voluntarily in gentlemanly discussion and negotiation, a third party supervisor is going to have a terrible problem.

When the US says, 'I don`t want to mediate`, its doing India no favours, believe me. Whether India is being favoured or Pakistan is being favoured, this is a colonial mind set. The point is that the US feels in its own self interest that it better not get involved here.

Returning to the theme of tangible signs of improved relations. Was the Jaswant Singh- Madeline Albright meeting further evidence that the US is now willing to deal with India on a senior level?

NC: They have never said that there is any reluctance to deal with us at any level. In fact we have pending invitations from the President for our Prime Minister. We have had this dialogue going between Mr Jaswant Singh and Mr Strobe Talbott for some time. In Singapore advantage was taken of the fact that Jaswant Singh and the Secretary of State would both be there and both sides considered it a great opportunity to review. The discussion was intended to be broad based and not focussed on current tactical situation.

The inference that some have drawn that this means there will be a quick return to the negotiating table with Pakistan and the US wants action fast is not correct. The US does not want to force the pace beyond which the public mood would bear and the attempt was only to see that both governments retain the commitment they made in the Lahore Declaration. It doesn`t go against India`s interests. The US side has also made it very clear they have no intention of playing a mediatory role or even the role of an intermediary.