Introducing the speakers, the chairperson said that the seminar should examine the past and explore the future possibilities of Indo-US strategic relations. In the backdrop of continued unipolarity, India needs to tread cautiously about pursuing its strategic objectives. Does India command any prominence in the US strategic goals and concerns? Should India take part in peace keeping operations in Iraq? Which direction might Indo-US relations be heading given the “shared ideologies” between the two countries?

Dr KP Vijayalakshmi

Dr Vijayalakshmi proposed to understand the entire arch of Indo-US engagement in the light of “three concentric circles”. Such an understanding, she held, could be fruitful if one considers that effective leadership in the US has been marked by strategic shifts in the post cold war era. She maintained that South Asia has been in the backburner of Indo US relations. Of the three concentric circles, the innermost one is formed by Pakistan, India and the US and it impinges on the path Indo- US relationship is traversing. She also pointed out that there has been a shift from zero sum game to positive sum game. Since the late 1990s both economic and strategic relations have been intricately linked. The developments in Pakistan, usually with support from the US, have had implications for India. It was speculated that Kargil would change Indo-US relations but support for Musharaff continues because of linkages in the war on terror and oil and gas interests of the US in the region. The problem is that the US follows two separate set of policies- one for India and another for Pakistan. Dr. Vijayalakshmi stressed the need for following a “local” policy on the Kashmir issue.

The second circle consists of Russia, China and Southeast Asia. She underscored the problematic nature of India’s choice of strategic partners, maintaining that India’s mistrust in this respect is a logical one. Herein she pointed out the Bush-Zhang meeting where Bush talked of “shared vision of two great powers”. Stating that China-problem is a problem for Indo-US relations, she took note of the opinion that US is following a multi-layered approach toward China. She opined that central Asian resources will bring together India and US, which would imply that India will keep the security of the seas. She also thinks that the non-dilution of GOI position on weapons proliferation will dominate the relations. Some shared goals include counter terrorism, stability in South Asia, market access to energy and religious extremism. Stating that a third party has always moved into the relations, she suggested that India should pay less attention to this phenomenon. As for Russia, India’s relationship is mostly in defence deals. She also opined that Russia now sees itself as a Eurasian power. The question Russians are asking is: will Indo-US relations chart new ways of choosing defense partners. The outermost circle is defined by India’s increasing desire for unification with global formations.

She concluded by saying that dual-use technology transfers are a major component of India’s negotiations and purchases with the US and that US should declare an Indian foreign policy.

Air Marshal Vinod Patney

Patney started his presentation by referring to the “double standards” of the US. He maintained that they (US) are not averse to using power, and it works. According to him, close attention is to be paid to the US- Pak relationship. He opined that despite areas of convergence in the Indo- US relations, we (India) should keep a mind of our own when it comes to the areas of divergence. For the US, national interests define their whole approach and it is only when their interests are affected that they are interested in combating terror. That is how it is named “US war on terror”. In this context he posed the question- what can the GOI contribute? According to him, India is a worthwhile power, can balance China, have markets and investment opportunities. He also underlined the need to understand the concept of strategic partner in terms of peace and stability at lower cost, intelligence and economy. However, the US wants to move to other areas, sell its equipments etc. but the GOI is concerned when it might get closed. It wants more technology transfers and joint research and development.

Patney stressed that GOI must help itself as US interests and Indian interests do not always go together. While maintaining that it was wonderful to have joint exercises at Ladakh, he warned that the US might be looking out for Indian weaknesses to assess how useful they will be in an alliance. The desire on the part of the US to sell equipments also explains such exercises. He opined that GOI should not negotiate over its nuclear arsenals in the face of US opposition to making of ICBMs by India. Yet India should continue to engage the US. “Bilateralism with other countries getting somewhat stronger will improve GOI’s approach to Indo-US relations”, he said.

Lt Gen BS Malik

General Malik started off by saying that the “actual way of US thinking” is: whenever you are in “total security”, you are thinking of “total war” and then of “total victory”. Hence the US approaches various problems from a military angle. It is no wonder that the country spends 50% of its budget on defence. He pointed out that 38% of all its physicists, 25% of all mechanical engineers are working in defence related projects. He also talked of the increasing software content in defence technology and expressed worry that much of the software created in India may go to defence related matters. In the problem areas, too many jobs going to India is not something the US wants. However, it is realizing that India is too big a country to be “boxed in”. He maintained that relations with Iran are very important, that opening of relations with South East Asia on the Indian part is good for indo US relations. Another problem area is that the Indian forces prefer to deal with the Pentagon while the US State Department wants to do the dealing. Gen. Malik ended by suggesting that India should seriously reflect on why its security concerns have not been appreciated.

Discussion

• India is located in the periphery of the US security concerns. India’s significance as a sea power was realized by the US only after 9/11. With US resources stretched due to the Iraq crisis, it is looking to Japan in the North-East Asia, Australia in South-East Asia and India in South Asia for providing regional security.

• Lack of military to military cooperation in South Asia has hindered regional stability, which could have ensured economic cooperation. India is a regional power whose influence and actions in South Asia are at par with the role of the US at the world level.

• The prevailing rivalry within the Indian state mainly the bureaucracy and defence services is a cause for the lack of a coherent perspective on Defence cooperation.

• We must not succumb to a client relationship with the USA while at the same time we should do away with the “subaltern view” of China. US strategic objectives are not constant and hence trying to toe the US line to fulfill our interests would be a fundamental mistake.

• UN has been circumvented by the unilateral actions of the US against state and non-state actors. India should work on its objectives based on its own strength and can look at the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty on these lines. At the same time there is need to bring in a global system to evolve consensus to impact upon unipolarity. The present trends of unipolarity are likely to continue for another few decades.

• India’s choice of defence partners was questioned. A visionary view is the need of the hour rather than replicating the existing system and technology. 

• While Indian defence infrastructure is being used in the joint exercises with the US, no tangible gains have been forthcoming in of terms transfer of dual use technology.

• There is need to build our own technology because technology transfers have a certain limitation as it has a commercial value. Macaulay’s education has destroyed the national self confidence in India.

• There is very little congruence of Indian interests with the US in terms of common security threats and concerns, to warrant attention in the US strategic system. India is yet to locate where its security concerns lay in the present world order. 

• India is a “revisionist” state and not an “interventionist” state. As a middle level power, it is yet to emerge as a system shaping power; hence it can’t go out of its way in antagonizing the US.

• The attempts of the US to rope in other nations’ forces highlight its inability in policing and recalibrating its forces. The need for Indian role is likely to diminish after some time.  

• Certain policies governed by strategic considerations should not be put on hold while pursuing goals at the diplomatic level.