Speaker: Ram Narayanan
Chair: Maj. Gen. Dipankar Banerjee

Maj. Gen. Dipankar Banerjee:

It is a great pleasure to welcome Ram Narayanan to India. Settled in the US, he is extensively experienced on issues relating to the US. He has started the usindiafrienship.net website, perhaps the most popular and effective email network in the US for Indian expatriates, promoting India-US relations.

Ram Narayanan:

Let us look with a crystal ball at what the next 20 years holds for the geo-political and geo-strategic global scenario. In that long period, the most likely scenario is the emergence of six global power centres - China, the US, India, European Community, Russia and Japan. China at present is the most observed nation. It attracts all attention. The reasons are obvious. China is expected to forge ahead of the US in terms of GDP. There also exists the possibility that China will emerge as a superpower in every significant respect. Economically, militarily and in the realm of technology, it is ready to overtake the US.

Implications

Does this imply that a future war is pitting the current superpower against the pretender to the throne? The answer is no. Wars between the major powers are simply inconceivable in a future scenario. The concept of world wars is obsolete. This is primarily because there is too much at stake in terms of interdependence in the fields of investment, economics and trade and people-to-people contact. However, the major powers will be under pressure to gain economic, military and technological dominance, and that is precisely where the US will be placed at a disadvantage with China. China's demographic factors - population, size, age-structure of the population, labour size and the vast number of trained experts produced every year are all working in favour of its development and consequently this is inimical to the US. China is emerging as the only aggressive competitor to the US and it is determined to win the competition.

Is the US then doomed to play a secondary role to Beijing? That would not likely be the case if the existing levels of US-India cooperation extend intensively into the coming decades. India's demographic factors are more encouraging than China. India working class constitutes over 600 million people in the working age group. This working force will overtake China's by 2025 and decisively so by 2050.

India's intellectual class exceeds that of China. Its intellectual capital consists of superior scientific, technological and managerial work force with the added ability to "think" in English. In other words, India has exactly what the US lacks. What is equally important is that India can never be an aggressive competitor the way China is.

It appears that given the demographic disadvantage the US suffers, it can never hope to defeat China's pursuit to dethrone Washington from its current position as the world's sole economic, technological and military superpower. The only viable option to win this competition lies in a US-India strategic partnership that alone can checkmate China's geo-political and economic strength.

Many scholars have mooted a potential US-India partnership against China. However, most of them view it in terms of a military strategy. The general thesis is that India will form a buffer between the US and China's emerging military might. However, this thinking is incorrect. There exists no logical possibility of military engagement between India and China or the US and China. The possibility for war exists in the fields of economy and technology and it is here that US and India stand out as inevitable partners.

The US-India partnership is not directed against either China or any other nation or group. This is precisely because both the nations have too much to lose. The US has substantial interests in China. The volume of US-China relations is enormous. Simultaneously, the magnitude of Chinese support in financing US deficits rules out any inimical posture on the part of the US.

Likewise, India-China trade is on an upward trajectory, and poised to grow further. In other words, it is in the economic self-interest of both countries to refrain from inimical moves against each other. A US-India partnership seeks to advance joint-interests in a stable, demographic and prosperous world that is free from terrorism and the threats of WMDs, drug and human trafficking. It will enable the US and India to move forward in a calibrated fashion, leveraging each other's complementarities in resource endowments and carrying them to their logical end. It will also play a significant part in communicating with China on the part of both nations. The US will need to make it clear that there will be no change in its policy of engagement with China. India will need, when necessary, to restate its policy of promoting close economic and trade ties with China and both countries will in fact continue to strengthen the China side of their respective relationships. The logical end of a US-India partnership will help balance the balance of power in the world.

Will India and the US move towards such a partnership? Yes. All developments since March 2005 (starting with the visit of Condoleezza Rice to India to the historic George Bush-Manmohan Sigh joint statement of 18 July 2005) are strong foundations being laid towards the development of a solid partnership between the US and India in the 21st century.

Discussion

Question: Both India and the United States have significant interests in maintaining peace and stability in Afghanistan. In fact, in the recent India-US Joint Statement, promotion and development of democracy has figured as one major areas of future cooperation. India has shown a more proactive role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. However, the US has not been receptive to India's overtures. Is there a possibility of developing a better India-US cooperation in the promotion of democracy in Afghanistan?
Answer: There is no evidence to show that the United States is against India's reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. The US is aware that India is very active there and that it is involved in many medical and economic activities. On the contrary, the US appreciates India's efforts.
Comment: United States does not object to India's presence in Afghanistan because India undertakes only developmental projects, whereas the US presence is military in nature. However, it did have a problem with India opening up consulates and this was because it did not want to ruffle the sensitivities of Pakistan. Pakistan was alarmed by India's decision to go ahead and open consulates in Afghanistan and reported it to the US. In turn, the US asked India to slow down in Afghanistan. However, India did open consulates in Jalalabad, Kandahar and three other places. Pakistan continues to deliberately obstruct and hinder India's reconstruction work in Afghanistan. Pakistani concerns regarding Afghanistan are going to take some time to change. It still considers Afghanistan integral to its strategic depth and in its direct sphere of interest. Besides, given present realities there is nothing much the US can do to control it. As far as the question of democracy and development are concerned, India has made substantial contributions. It has not only donated $50 million for the construction of a college, it has also offered $500 million to Afghanistan as aid. India is also involved in the construction of roads (Kabul and Kandahar). These developments are not acceptable to Pakistan and the Taliban as this gives India greater influence in Afghanistan.
Even though democracy is an inherently internal situation in a country, India is providing guidance and training to Afghanistan in democratic governance. It is a common policy of US and India to promote democracy around the world. At present, no cooperative arrangement exists between the two to promote democracy in Afghanistan. In fact, India should maintain bilateral relations with Afghanistan without involving a third party as cooperating with the US in Afghanistan can be counter-productive. With the inclusion of Afghanistan in SAARC, more avenues of cooperation between India and Afghanistan will emerge and it will be in the US interest to facilitate this process.

Question: The India-US nuclear deal has created unease in Pakistan's political echelons. Shirin Mazari in an article in Regional Studies has pointed out that India-US nuclear deal has strategic implications that are detrimental to Pakistan's interests. In addition, Pakistan is now planning to upgrade and modernize its defence sector that also includes its nuclear arsenal and this will give legitimate reasons for India to upgrade its defence and military sector. In such a scenario, will the India-US nuclear deal have a roll back effect or will the US recognize India's legitimate security concerns vis-à-vis Pakistan and boost and consolidate its cooperation with India?
Answer: The India-US nuclear deal does not have a military dimension as it aims to foster civilian cooperation in the field of nuclear technology. India has a huge demand for energy that can be met by investing in nuclear technology. It is unlikely to have any impact on Pakistan's military sector. Moreover, Pakistan's response has not been very unfavourable to the nuclear deal between India and the US. Obviously the US is a bit sceptical in extending the same cooperation to Pakistan because of its past proliferation history and the AQ khan incident. However, nothing can be said about the future as America may extend the same cooperation to Pakistan if such an energy need emerges there. Dan Burton, who is a staunch Pakistani supporter and co-chair of the Pakistan Caucus on his visit to Pakistan recently, hoped that the US extends the same cooperation to Pakistan in the near future.

Question: China's military disposition is not against Afghanistan or the United States. China is militarily disposed opposite to India and this has definite implications for India's national security. Though one favours engagement with China, can one completely rule out an all out war with China?
Answer: The trade between India and China is expected to grow at a phenomenal rate in the coming years. In such a scenario, there is tremendous pressure on the two countries to maintain peace and stability in their bilateral relations as well as in the region. In such a scenario, it will be difficult for both states to envision a war or a conflict situation. The presence of Indian companies in China and Chinese companies in India will act as pressure groups. Conventional wars cannot be envisaged in this era of globalization and increasing people-to-people contact. Therefore, even if there are differences between India and China, they will be able to solve it peacefully.

Question: Taiwan continues to be a thorn in America-China relationship. Recently, China objected to the US-Japan declaration on Taiwan. The declaration has irked the Chinese a great deal and they are yet to get over their annoyance with Japan. In the situation of worsening China-Taiwan relations, the US will not start a war with China because it is not sure of the number of allies it will have. For example, Australia has already indicated that it is still undecided on which way it will swing on the Taiwan issue. What would be the most likely Chinese response should Taiwan decide to declare independence?
Answer: The great thing about China is that it always acts rationally and protect its interests. The Chinese think that they are the centre of the world and when it comes to International Relations, they are extremely careful. They seldom act without thinking. For example, while India acted irrationally in occupying Goa from the Portuguese, the Chinese showed tremendous restraint in the case of Hong Kong, which was with the British and Macao that was with the Portuguese. The Chinese waited for these two to ripen up, become economic power centres and then fall into China's lap. China is rational as far as policy actions are concerned. As long as Taiwan does not declare independence, China will not intervene in Taiwan. Chinese have tremendous patience. They will wait for Taiwan to fall into their kitty.
Comment: China does not always act rationally. They have major disjunctions in their foreign policy decision-making. One look at Mao's policy over the years as brought out by recent research will prove this point. Currently, there is enormous pragmatism in Chinese decision-making, especially in their foreign policy and that should not be underestimated. This is unlikely to change at least in the coming decade unless China has major domestic upheavals.

Question: Is 'total' alliance between India and the United States a possibility?
Answer: The United States and India are coming closer and the resources and domains of the two countries are complimentary. As far as India and China are concerned, their trade will continue to grow. Nevertheless, India-China economy or their demographics are not complimentary to the same extent as India-US relations. China can be India's most important trading partner, but demographically India-US relations is most complimentary compared to India-China or China-US relations. Indian CEOs and technocrats can be expected to take over American companies and this is already happening but such a situation cannot be envisioned with China.
Comment: Indian economy has demonstrated great potential in recent years. On the other hand, China has grown at an average of 9.5 per cent for a much longer period of 27 years. These growth rates are very apparent and visible in China. In the early 1980s, it grew at about 13 per cent per year. India achieved an average of about 6.5 per cent since 1991. There is already an enormous gap will continue unless India takes major economic reform measures; that does not seem possible at present. Wars between major powers are very improbable because of the impact of globalization. But, wars take place in the minds of men as well as due to accidents of policy. Therefore, as a contingency, it cannot be entirely ruled out. For China, conflicts using military forces can happen over Taiwan. Internal conflicts in Africa will continue, but not so much in Europe because it is integrating political. Thus, India and China should act maturely and strengthen their relationship in order to avoid conflict at the border. Concerns about India-US relations are very high in China and it is their most important midterm strategic threat. China is putting tremendous efforts to understand the implications of India-US relations because they do not know its direction, content and final objective. Greater India-US relation is one of China's prime anxieties and the same anxiety can be gauged in the policies of CPM in India, which is vehemently opposing India-US nuclear deal. Though CPM is not an extension of the Communist Party of China, its support to the latter is sometimes alarming.

Question: Will China surpass the US as the technological superpower given the fact US technological prowess is a combine of Japan and the European Union?
Answer: Technology is one area where China will be unable to surpass the Americans. The United States not only has the technological strength of Japan and the European Union behind it, now it also has the support of Indian brains. However, economically China will certainly overtake the US and militarily. In addition, it can prove to be very dangerous to US dominance.

Question: Demographically China is doing a better job than India. Is China's "One Child Policy" on demographic profile going to be effective in the 21st century?
Answer: This policy has really hurt China. A recent article reported that China is going to age before it becomes richer. However, this is not the problem with India. India's large percentage of population is between the age group of 15-25 years and it is going to age slower than China. If India manages to have proper policies in place to educate its large population, provide medical facilities and make key infrastructural changes in the social sector, it has the potential to beat China. In addition, India's private sector is world class and only if the government's interventions in the private sector can be reduced, India can grow at a rate of 10 per cent and even faster than China in the future.
Comment: India's social problems are not going to diminish. Along with thousands of technocrats, India also has the world's largest army of illiterate people and one third of its youth suffers from physical or medical problems. China has tackled the phase of demographic transition, whereas India is yet to face it. The difference between India and China is not just a matter of differing growth rates but also the difference in the social inequities that exist in the two countries.

Question: Will India emerge as an aggressive competitor to the US, especially in the field of trade and services?
Answer: There will be tremendous competition between India and the US in these two sectors. A globalised market economy is emerging where Indian companies are going to compete with not only American but also European and Chinese companies. The American companies are increasing their efficiency by using the best Indian brains and outsourcing work to India. But, even though the Indian and American companies will compete, this will not have a spill over effect on the political and overall national objectives of India and the US.

Question: In the House International Relations Committee (IHRC) meeting, members of the India Caucus attacked the India-US nuclear deal. How well is the India Caucus lobbying for Indian interests in the US?
Answer: The India Caucus is very active and powerful in the US. It was established 10-15 years ago. Compared to this, the Pakistan Caucus is a recent phenomenon. Though initially the India Caucus opposed the nuclear deal, now they are backing it. The India-US joint statement was spelt out suddenly on 18 July 2005. This annoyed the Congressional leaders, as they were not aware of the proceedings. But, their resentment was directed against the Bush administration and not India. However, in the latest HIRC meeting, a consensus has emerged in favour of the India-US nuclear deal. In the latest Senate meeting on 16 November, Ashley Tellis - who is part author of the nuclear deal - spoke eloquently in its favour. The interaction between the members of the Congress - both Senators and House representatives - happens at different levels and the most important of these interactions happen at the Congressional district level. Indian-Americans are very friendly with their Congressmen. They also write to their Congressmen frequently. Therefore, things are changing.
Comment: The American-Indians are the new emerging power in the US. The lobby groups are very powerful in US, well funded by their respective governments and the corporate sector of their respective states. The Indian-Americans, for the last 10 years, are well organized and their lobby group is second only to the Jewish lobby in Washington DC. In fact, there has been a proposal from the Jewish lobby to coordinate their activities with the Indian lobby and a certain coordination arrangement has apparently emerged.

Question: The basic presumption that warming India-US ties maybe good for India may not be entirely true. Will any further closeness with the US jeopardize India's relations with Muslim countries the way it happened in the case of Iran?
Comment: Firstly, there is no such thing as 'Muslim' country. There are Arab states and there are Asian states with Muslim majority. India has closer ties with Indonesia, which did sour due to India-US relations. But, Arab countries are a very different issue. India should not club them together as the Arab League does not exist anymore. India should single out which Arab country has reservations against warmer India-US relations. As far as Iran is concerned, Iran collaborated with AQ Khan and this is certainly not in India's favour. They hid that programme for 18 years. India has every right to be critical of Iran.

Question: After 9/11, the US started the 'war on terror' but failed to recognize the gravity of terrorist threat to India? India has withstood the worst of numerous terrorist attacks since then. How can one justify this American attitude and inactivity towards India?
Answer: The US position has shifted a great deal from ignoring the terrorist threat to India to directing Pakistan to stop cross border terrorism and infiltration in India. This explains why the then Prime Minister Vajpayee went with an olive branch to Pakistan in January 2004. Pakistan also does not know what to do with the terrorists, as they are no longer in Pakistan's control and even President Musharraf feels threatened by them.

Question: What price would the US extract from India in lieu of this "unequal partnership"?
Answer: The word "unequal partnership" is misleading and confounding. It suggests the Indians suffer from an inferiority complex while dealing with the US. The first generation after independence suffered a morbid inferiority complex in comparison to the white men. But, things are changing; the younger generation thinks that Indians are as good as the Americans. India-US partnership is unequal in the economic sense. But, in that sense, even China is an unequal partner. However, unlike India, China is extremely confident in its dealings with the US. India will have to give up this attitude if it intends to have a meaningful relation with the US. India's biggest strength is that it is a rising power whereas the US is a declining power. The Neo-Cons are very suspicious of China, and for them this partnership with India is the way to maintain American dominance in world politics. Therefore, it is not an unequal partnership between the US and India because the US needs India much more than India needs US in the longer term.

Concluding Remarks:

It is very clear that China looms very large on India-US relations and in International Relations. This fact cannot be obliterated. Two major observations can be arrived at:

1. China has resolved all its border disputes with its neighbours. Even with India, they are closer to resolution than at ay time in the past and there is almost no possibility of a border skirmish in the near-term. This is testimony to the remarkable success in Chinese diplomacy over the last 20 years and the manner in which it has matured in formulating policy. Since the Deng Xiaoping era, it has shown great restraint in its strategic thinking and admirable maturity in its strategic planning, visualization and implementation of its national objective. The "Harmonious Rise of China" as their new policy is noteworthy because never before in history has the rapid rise of a major power taken place without conflict. However, the same cannot be said about the future where China may have to deal with conflicts in the economic field.

2. On India's Potential: There is no doubting India's overall potential to be a leading member in the comity of nations. The Indian education system, with all its faults, has still provided a select group of people an opportunity to be world leaders in every field. But up to 350 million people in India are still living with no access to electricity or knowledge. This is not to undermine India's potential but to only highlight the challenges that exist internally and the long distance that we still have to traverse