"India Matters" - An apprecitiave critique

D.Ramana

Dr. M. Ayoob in his article " India Matters" examines the need for the US to engage India due to political and security reasons in addition to the oft-touted economic prospects. His title evokes memories of the famous article by Gerald Segal; "Does China matter?" Unlike the questioning premise of the former, Dr. Ayoob states his case with an emphatic affirmative.

He bases his arguments on five important areas of fostering regional security and stability, countering terrorism, promoting democracy, preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons, and containing China in the early decades of the first century. Let us examine his arguments in each of the areas. He argues India is the preeminent power in South Asia and the US is interested in global security and stability and these can only be met by ensuring secure and stable regions. These in turn are dependent on pivotal powers ability to manage their neighborhoods. He goes on to cite the impact of the 'Gujral Doctrine' and how even partial implementation of it has brought peace and stability to those regions, which were amenable to its principles. A point to be noted is that, the Gujral Doctrine should be clarified that it is not applicable to states that take a negative approach towards India's peace and security. This would explain why it is unimplemenatable towards Pakistan. The author cites an impressive array of examples where the doctrine has come in handy and resolved inter-state disputes. The point that it legitimizes the pre-eminence of India in the region is also noted. The author states that this objective is feasible as the US has no overt military presence or direct involvement in the region and the US objective of regional stability hinges on it enjoying a confident relationship with the pivotal power.

The author makes his case that both countries have common objective in countering terrorism especially that directed by religious extremism. He documents the growing tendency for terrorist activity by elements based in the congruent regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. He suggests that in addition to the usual Afghanistan based elements, some segments may belong to the Pakistani military establishment. The unusual familiarity of the hijackers of the recent Indian Airlines Airbus cargo hold may suggest there is some truth to this. He advocates cooperation between the two democracies in combating this growing menace. The formation of the joint working group as an outcome of the tenth round of Singh-Talbott talks in London may be a harbinger of things to come in areas of mutual interest. While he makes his case based on terrorism in South Asia, it could be argued that an expansion of this network to Central Asia and the newly independent countries of FSU could wreak havoc to US interests in the region. However, care has to be taken to ensure this cooperation does not become entangled in civilizational conflicts a la Huntington thesis.

The author suggests that both countries have a stake in promoting democracy in the world as an extension of the 'democratic peace' thesis. If this thesis is valid then the spread of democracy can only happen when these two democratic states act in concert. Herein are potential sources of conflict. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the "end of history", the remaining problems of the world are the reform of Asian socialism- China, North Korea, Vietnam and Myanmar and dictatorships in failing states - Pakistan, Cuba and parts of Africa. Three of these states are in India's neighborhood and their transition could have negative impact for it. It is important that India manages the contradictions of these states while promoting democracy.

The author makes his fourth point about containing nuclear proliferation. Having resolved its internal debate about nuclear weapons, India has now an interest in preventing further spread of nuclear technology. He points out that India has been a voluntary adherent of the export control provisions of the NPT and the further explosive testing ban of the CTBT. After the US Senate rejection of the CTBT ratification, the US position is analogous to India. However the US wants to prevent the unraveling the NPT architecture. He is sure this can be achieved with sincere efforts, goodwill and creativity by both sides. In attempting to find an acceptable formulation they will be drawn closer. The Talbott five-point formulation has shown a way for this end. However the recognition of India as an NWS is a security matter due to China's NFU pledge. China has said that it applies only to the P-5 formulation of the NPT and does not apply on its own territory. India is not a NPT power and China occupies and claims large tracts of Indian territory. Hence this is a security issue for India as the Chinese clarification is aimed at India even if it is stated in context of Taiwan. Moreover with proliferation, it has made Pakistan an extension of its own threat.

The author's final point is on the need to contain and manage the growing power of China in the early decades of the new century. He charts the US policy towards China and its continuation after the end of the Cold War. He finds the 'constructive engagement' and 'strategic partnership' aspects are bound to fail as China sees itself as a competitor and this is bound to create tensions. He suggests that the US plan to deploy theater missile defenses in Japan and the question of Taiwan could be sources of severe strain in the partnership. He finds the Japanese cannot be a capable partner in this venture as they are not a complete power and also have World War II baggage. In this uncertain times it is useful for the US to look for countervailing powers in Asia. And India shows itself as one that has the capability and even the will to offer resistance to China's hegemony. He points out that China is the only large country resisting democratic process and has violated or breached every global pact of interest to the US - NPT, MTCR, human rights violations, threatening to use force to effect territorial change etc.The author should have examined the forces of change in China as it moves from a Communist state to totalitarian state to eventual authoritarian state and the probability of these factors causing it to act against its neighbors. It is this factor that requires regional cooperation to manage the transition in China to ensure there are minimal negative consequences to the stability of the neighborhood.

In conclusion he offers that the US should drop their Cold war distrust of India and engage it on meaningful terms for the enhancement of their objectives. While doing this they should strictly respect India's strategic autonomy and let India decide its own role as it could lead to misinterpretation by the elite and the public. All in all he makes an excellent case for the India-US ties to move beyond mere rhetoric. The question is will the powers that be in India and the US take up his advice? There is a Yiddish saying - 'It takes two hands to clap!'