| |
COVER STORY: INDIAN RESPONSE
AMITABH MATTOO: VIEWPOINT
Rooting For Realism
India's support to the US is a pragmatic move. It is
no longer a slave to antiquated ideologies.
 Rarely,
if ever, has the strategic landscape in India's neighbourhood changed
so dramatically because of events in the US. Not only did September 11
alter the position of this region to the centre of the radar of American
foreign policy, but also called for a swift, resolute and deft response
from Delhi. The reaction came. Thankfully, for once, the babus in the
South Block did not bury the country's response in the red tape of obscurity.
India promised unconditional support to the US, signalled its willingness
to offer logistical support in case of military action and indicated that
it would be in the forefront of the war against terrorism.
Even while a new realpolitik of cooperation
with the Americans seems to be asserting itself, there is a danger that
the US-led military action against Afghanistan may lead to a revival of
the tendencies that have often played havoc with India's foreign policy
in the past: habitual dissent, anti-Americanism, fastidious legalism and
antediluvian ideologies. Note, for instance, the patently absurd arguments
being constructed to limit India's cooperation with the US in the war
against terrorism.
It is being suggested that if the US was allowed
to use Indian military bases, Delhi would be compromising on its traditional
stance of non-alignment. This argument is devoid of any merit. Non-alignment
was not a straitjacket that was intended to force India to maintain an
artificial balance. It was a policy designed in the Cold War years to
help India avoid being trapped in the rivalry between the two blocs. Non-alignment
was not a dogma that was intended to force the country to sacrifice its
legitimate interests on the altar of a shibboleth. If Nehru, the pioneer
of India's non-aligned policy, had been alive, he would have been in the
vanguard of a potential US-led war against terrorism.
Consider this. For the past decade, India has
been fighting a lonely battle against terrorism, especially of the kind
produced by religious extremists in the region. More Indians have died
in acts of terrorism than in all the wars fought with Pakistan and China.
For years now, Delhi has been attempting to get the international community
to become more sensitive and responsive to the dangers posed by terrorism.
During Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's speech to the US Congress
last year, he had-almost prophetically-warned the US about these dangers:
"Distance," he said, "offers no insulation. It should not
cause complacence."
Contrarians are also arguing that while India
is offering the US a virtual carte blanche, Washington's response has
been more muted. Admittedly, America could have reacted to India's offer
of cooperation with greater dispatch, but partnerships are not built on
phone calls. A convergence of strategic interests gets nations together,
not tactical manoeuvres intended to serve a specific purpose. In any case,
India's offer of cooperation was not based on a display of altruism or
a sudden spurt of affection for the American people, but rooted in the
realisation that a US-led coalition against terrorism is more likely to
succeed than an ekla chalo by India. Ironically, if India had not offered
cooperation but its support had later been solicited by Washington, the
same crowd would then have accused the government of capitulating to the
Americans.
(The writer is associate professor in Jawaharlal
Nehru University, Delhi.)
|
|
Web
Exclusives
