India and the US post-September 11
28 Dec, 2001 · 649
Kannan K argues that the recent US “tilt” towards Pakistan is only issue-based and India should not consider itself sidelined
The
US
approach towards
India
and
Pakistan
in the wake of its fight against terrorism left some foreign policy analysts and scholars wondering pessimistically whether
India
had been sidelined by the
US
giving undue attention to
Pakistan
.
India
feel that
India
was sidelined by the
US
when the Indo US relationship was poised to take-off after the historical low following
India
’s 1998 nuclear explosions. Lifting of all sanctions against
Pakistan
, before lifting them against
India
, and opting for
Pakistan
rather than
India
as a frontline partner to fight terrorism have substantiated such apprehensions. But, has
India
really been sidelined? Is there a new tilt towards
Pakistan
?
India
offered US its cooperation to fight against terrorism, even before a request was made, the latter preferred
Pakistan
rather than
India
. This is understandable, due to
Pakistan
’s strategic location vis-à-vis
Afghanistan
. There is criticism in
India
that
Washington
has forgotten its concern about bringing democracy back in
Pakistan
; instead, it has lifted all the sanctions, including military related sanctions, against
Pakistan
. One can assume that the
US
is prioritizing whether to promote democracy in
Pakistan
or fight terrorism. This prioritization compelled the
US
to temporarily put the issue of promoting democracy in
Pakistan
on the backburner and focus on tackling terrorism.
India
should not see the current US tilt towards
Pakistan
as a devaluation of Indo-US friendship. The invitation from President Bush to PM Vajpayee for talks in
Washington
affirms US interests in building a broad-based partnership with
India
. Recently, the
US
Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, categorically said “we are not going to play the triangular game; it is not sustainable…the best way is bilateral relations that are built in and of themselves, and that are credible, long lasting and sustainable” [emphasis added].
Pakistan
has assumed strategic significance in
US
foreign policy because of its dominant position among Islamic countries where terrorist elements are believed to be widespread. Since the current fight against global terrorism cannot be concluded in a short span of time, this strategic significance will last long, as it happened during the cold war period. This is an unavoidable reality. However, US cannot afford to ignore
India
as it has wide-ranging interests in
India
:
India
’s potential market, it being a possible counterweight against Chinese predominance in the region, its successful democracy, its support to NMD etc. Hence,
India
is a “natural ally” of the
US
. Unlike the cold war period, where, as Mr. Richard Armitage said, “each time … [the
US
] relationship with
Pakistan
was built against something – against
Soviet Union
and Soviet occupation” this time, the
US
is going to approach
Pakistan
and
India
individually, striking a balance between them. Therefore,
India
has to believe the
US
when it says that it will not play a “triangular game” this time.
Pakistan
and
India
indicate the
US
dilemma as to how to balance its relationship with the two countries. However, one can notice the implied message that the
US
does not want to compromise its friendship with
India
.
India
should not bemoan that
Pakistan
has reemerged from its international isolation and prove, as stated post-Pokharan II, that its security concerns are focused primarily on
China
and are not Pakistan-fixated.
Some quarters in
The External Affairs Ministry was concerned that at the statement made by the US Secretary of State, Collin Powell, in Pakistan, Kashmir is the “central” issue in Indo-Pak relations and in his statement in India, terrorism is the “central” issue.
Although
The statements of Collin Powell in
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
