Prime Minister’s Narendra Modi’s state visit to the US last month resulted in a number of agreements between the two countries that signal a new level of cooperation and economic engagement. They are being dubbed part of an Indo-US Strategic Partnership. Ranging from sale of drones and manufacture of GE engines for Indian fighter jets in India, along with transfer of technology, to Micron’s investment in chip manufacture in India, and several others in a wide range of sectors from education and healthcare to agriculture and technology, these agreements are probably the culmination of many years’ negotiations between the US and India.
The much-touted Indo-US Strategic Partnership has been in the works for decades. I think it began in earnestness in the early 2000s under George H W Bush,and might have a lot to do with his “axis of evil” theory. Seeing that India managed to stay away and out of the axis of evil, his regime was probably prompted to open a new chapter in India-US relations. The early days of this renewed engagement saw the signing of the Nuclear Agreement with India, when India was admitted into the club of select countries allowed to use nuclear technology, mainly for energy.
In Obama’s two terms in office, the Indo-US partnership received a great fillip, at least in conversations and atmospherics, if not in anything substantive. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden were part of that administration and they did express a greater willingness to engage with India than was ever the case before. What the countries managed to achieve, however, is de-hyphenation of India-Pak and the hyphenation of Af-Pak, in the context of terrorism.
Finally, we now have some actual agreements to show for the so-called Indo-US Strategic Partnership. Even in bilateral agreements, it does take an enormous amount of time, serious dialogue and deliberation before countries can come to any kind of agreement. However, to call it a strategic partnership, one must be certain of a few things:
- That the partnership is long-term and is built on a solid foundation
- That both countries know where the future lies in this partnership
- That both countries are clear-eyed about what is expected of each other and how both can benefit from the partnership.
I am not sure that we are reading from the same page as far as these aspects are concerned. Given that India and the US have had a tolerant and indifferent view of each other through most of independent India’s history, I don’t think we are on very solid ground yet. We have great people-to-people contact between both countries, when you consider the thousands of young Indians who pursue higher studies in the US each year, and then stay on and contribute to the American economy. But it hasn’t yet translated into a great friendship between the two countries at a business level or government level. Besides, the “brain-drain” reflects India’s inability to provide high quality education as well as job opportunities, and not the strength of the relationship between India and the US.
Just to provide some historical context to what I am saying, for most of the early years of independent India, the US was too consumed in its Cold War with the former Soviet Union to be able to see any other motivation for a nation’s decisions. And even though the US helped India build some of its public sector steel plants, the fact that we also turned to the Soviet Union for assistance was seen as an affront by America. India was seeking help from many foreign powers to help build its technological and defence base, and the US failed to understand or fully grasp the essence of Jawaharlal Nehru’s Non-Aligned Policy.
When India sought technological help from the Soviet Union who became our ally, the US decided to align with Pakistan and help them. From military assistance to food aid – including PL 480 supplies – Pakistan benefitted from American assistance for years until the 1971 war, which was Bangladesh’s war for independence.
The time when the India-US partnership really blossomed was in the 1960s, in the form of the Green Revolution. India benefitted hugely from the joint research undertaken on new rice and wheat crops and the modernisation of agriculture. The rest of the time, the two countries’ relationship has progressed in fits and starts. This has been not only because of the US viewing everything through the lens of its Cold War, but because there have been ideological problems on the Indian side as well. Some of our political parties have been part of governments that saw capitalism as evil, and against the masses. Leading to the ouster of IBM and Coca-Cola from India in the early 1980s. Or they have been accused of “selling out” to the West, including to the Washington Consensus.
For the Indo-US Strategic Partnership to engage on a long-term basis, both countries need to take the past into cognizance and set the bar higher for future ties. It will require a great deal of maturity and depth of understanding on both sides to be able to steer this partnership in a direction that is mutually beneficial to both India and the US. As I see it, there are two challenges to achieving this.
First, the terms of engagement between nations in the globalized world, even in bilateral relations, have changed since the 1980s. They are set today by the requirements of globalization, which puts economic and strategic interests before those of political ideology or common values. And the change has come because these are increasingly being decided by businesses, not governments alone. In a sense, this is good, because countries can rise above ideological differences that can become stumbling blocks, and focus on more pragmatic issues which leads to progress. On the other hand, though, what is happening is that relations between countries are becoming more transactional and short-term, less deep and enduring. Here, I must mention that the agreement on GE engines which includes transfer of technology to India is a pleasant surprise. A rare thing in today’s world of business, where companies and countries zealously protect their intellectual property, and profit from it.
There is a new concept of “friend-shoring” that is being propagated by western countries as a way to align economic interests with common values, which some might see as a return to the old days and ways of the 20th century. I wrote about this on my blog some time ago, saying that it isn’t likely to go very far today because it isn’t based on business and economic considerations.
The second challenge is another Cold War that is in the making. This time, with China, the new superpower and the world’s second largest economy. The US and indeed, all of the G7 nations, seem to want to disengage with China and have even invented a spiffy new term for it: de-risking! India’s former Chief Economic Advisor, Arvind Subramanian writes in Project Syndicate that this move by the US is to reduce the gap between India and China, so India can be a counter-balance to China’s huge influence. He cites Ashley Tellis, Pratap Bhanu Mehta and Jake Sullivan whose articles I haven’t been able to read as I am not a subscriber to the publications concerned. Many other international strategy experts and commentators such as Brahma Chellaney and Joseph S Nye Jr have expressed views ranging from how India and the US share common strategic interests (read containing China) to the alliance being a non-starter, even as it reflects a growing partnership. Although I couldn’t read either of their pieces fully, as I am not a subscriber yet to Project Syndicate, I tend to agree with Joseph Nye’s view. Expecting India to be a counterweight to China in the world, or even just in this region, is unrealistic in my opinion. India needs to manage its relations with its neighbouring countries on the merits of each of the bilateral arrangements it has, and not be guided by what the US or any other power would like.
Besides, India is a fast-growing and emerging economy that has immense potential both for its own capabilities as well as for foreign investors. A lot of the country’s recent success has come from its technology industry and it would be terribly damaging for India to have to take sides and choose between two superpowers who are in an eco-tech war to contain the other. Or to be caught in the cross-fire. I will be writing about the global implications of this eco-tech war in a separate article later.
It is the US-China trade war that prompted many companies to adopt a China+1 strategy since 2016. India was not one of the beneficiaries; Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia, Taiwan and Thailand were. That round 2 of this de-risking strategy will now benefit India might be wishful thinking, again. Not because factor conditions are inadequate, or the industry environment is unwelcoming; on the contrary, the world, including the US, would be making a huge mistake for not seeing the size and potential of the Indian market for what it is.
Therefore, India as an alternative or counterweight to China isn’t even necessary. India is a large and growing economy on its own merit, and the US needs to understand this. India is also free to engage with other nations based on its own judgements and requirements and should not be held hostage to the US’ foreign and trade policies, nor to any other country.
Plenty of ground to cover then, before we can actually embark on a long-term and mutually beneficial partnership. A strategic one, at that.
The animated owl gif that forms the featured image and title of the Owleye column is by animatedimages.org and I am thankful to them.
Peripatetic Perch 