What is India up to with Iran?

The old adage runs: "You cannot please everyone". No one understands this better than Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. For four years now, he has had to represent the world's largest democracy; all the while groveling at the feet of the dynasty that rules his party. He has had to fight terrorism (or give the appearance thereof) and appease Muslims at the same time. He has had to pursue free market policies for India's economic future and listen to Communists as well. But, for once, he has had it easy.

It all made perfect sense: the Bush administration, as a matter of habit, went too far in its criticism of Indo-Iran relations; and New Delhi snubbed the Americans in no uncertain terms. So many of us, who feel that India's ambitions of gaining respect and influence in the world are often frustrated by the soft spoken servility of our leaders and diplomats, were ecstatic at this sudden turn of events. The idea of a confident India standing up to the world's reigning superpower is so exhilarating a thought that it drives our reason over the edge. Today, public sentiment in India is driven by high hopes and high growth, as a young, ambitious nation pines for validation as a world power. In our eagerness, it is all too easy to clutch on to straws such as these and play right into the hands of the Nehru-Gandhi family. You will notice that most of the public reaction to this now famous "snub" has focused on the apparent arrogance shown by India; and too little thought has gone into whether India's position on Iran is justified at all.

An emphasis on national pride and sovereignty is a wonderful thing; but it would be a pity if we let the UPA government play with those sacred sentiments. It would be even greater crime to let India do the wrong thing just so it can assert its "sovereignty". Before we let Dr. Singh and his stool pigeons amass the credit for standing up for India's pride, we must examine his motives and positions more carefully: Is this uncompromising desire for an independent foreign policy part of a pattern, or just one of a kind? Let us see: Dr. Singh has just made it clear that while we are friendly towards the US, India is not bound by American interests. But wait, isn't he the same Dr. Singh who went to town a couple of months ago, explaining sanguinely to the Indian people "Of course, there will be problems if India tests a nuclear weapon; an overwhelming number of NSG members have already signed the NPT"! The same sense of national pride was not so apparent when China publicly expressed an objection to the Prime Minister's trip to Arunachal Pradesh. Or for that matter, when the BJP proposed that Parliament adopt a resolution asserting that Arunachal was an integral part of the Indian Union. It is possible to take this criticism to a whole new level by reminding ourselves that Prime Ministers Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi, so revered by the Congress, repeatedly frittered away the advantage our troops had won in the battlefield by referring all disputes to the UN and other do-nothing "international bodies". Just how dumb do you think we Indians are, "Dr." Prime Minister?

The decision to snub the Bush administration is an all round winner for the Congress. By standing up to America, aka, the "Great Satan", the party has enhanced its image among the Muslims. The Indo-US nuclear deal and Manmohan Singh's passionate advocacy for the same had created doubts among Indian Muslims as to whether the Congress was sufficiently sympathetic to their brethren in the Middle East. Apparently, it wasn't enough that Sonia Gandhi wrote personally to the Danish government demanding an apology for the Prophet cartoons (for the de facto leader of the world's largest democracy, Sonia Gandhi's understanding of the notion of a free press is remarkably poor; or else she would not have called on the Danish government to apologize for a bunch of cartoons they had neither created nor publicized!) Besides, prior to this, most of the urban middle class, which understood the obvious benefits of the Nuclear agreement, had been accusing the Congress of giving in to the demands of its Communist allies. By choosing a sudden bold position and painting the US as heavy handed, the Congress might have succeeded in shaking off some of the blame for losing the nuclear deal. Dr. Singh has also given the restive Communists a small victory to savour and this should keep them content for a while. And of course, the business community and even the middle class love the prospect of Iranian oil flowing down India's parched throat. It is indeed amazing, but it seems that one size fits all!

It is all very well to have the Iranian President over for dinner once in a while; but India needs to be very careful in its dealings with Iran. It is only fair that India should be able to participate in the mad scramble for oil; but there can be no debate on the fact that India and Iran are fundamentally incompatible in the modern world. While most Indians seek to be a "free people" in all aspects of life, Iran is a medieval theocracy. India should take cognizance of the fact that Iran imposes inhumane restrictions on its people, carries out untold atrocities on women and homosexuals and that President Ahmedinajad has not only denied the holocaust, but also celebrated the genocide against Jews and publicly called for the destruction of Israel. In a lowly, selfish sense, these are not "India's immediate concerns", but if we Indians abandon the culture of the free world and try to live in a cocoon, we should not expect to achieve the status of a world power. As such, we should understand that India's future, in the long run, lies in prolonged cooperation with the United States and Europe and not with rogue nations like Iran. And we should also understand that India does not run the risk of becoming a "satellite state". Just the fact that the British managed to overpower a few squabbling Indian princes roughly two hundred and sixty years ago, does not mean that this could be repeated. Economic realities govern this new world and those who doubt the indomitable potential of India are seriously deluded.

India, as always, is a paradox. While surveys show that India is one of the most pro-American countries in the world, it takes only a small, scratchy episode like this to bring out a defensive anti-American stance. For one, Indians should note that our nation was colonized by Britain and not by America; in fact, except for a few unpleasant moments at the height of the Cold War, India and the US have rarely been at cross purposes. To hold grudges of the colonial era against England and, by extension, against all "white" nations; is both ignorant and racist. Building deep economic ties with Iran is like consorting with the devil. India needs to view this as a strictly temporary measure for the sake of energy security and make sure that this does not overshadow our international image or sour our democratic future.

BJP complacent in Karnataka?

Once again, the BJP has had a week of bad publicity with the party facing fire from its own in Bihar and Maharashtra. Over the last few days, Gopinath Munde, one of the party's oldest leaders; boldly raised a standard of revolt; rode it all the way to New Delhi in full public view; got what he came for and returned in triumph. Rebel legislators in Bihar have been running a campaign, with painfully obvious Brahmin vs OBC overtones, against the leadership of Modi and although some 36 of the party's 54 MLAs are reported to be involved in the exercise; Chief Minister Nitish Kumar will not care so much as to comment on the situation. Nevertheless, of late, the central BJP leadership has projected a picture of sprightly confidence that is difficult to understand.

The Oracle explores whether the BJP's position on Karnataka could be a prime example of this strange, new confidence. The party has been having a continued spat with the JD(U) over seat sharing; the BJP is ready to offer only 15 seats to its ally and is having none of the latter's demand for 25 seats. First, we must admit that JD(U) is a bit player in the state and that the party is known for making unreasonable demands on the BJP elsewhere, such as in Jharkhand and in Bihar (where it demanded, in November 2005, that all independents who had turned to the NDA be given JD(U) tickets; incidentally, it was the BJP's Arun Jaitley who had broken the ice in Bihar by rounding up the independents in the first place!). Second, the BJP lost as many as five Parliamentary seats in Jharkhand in 2004 because it did not have an alliance with the JD(U) and one of the reasons for its much improved showing in the assembly elections held some 10 months later was that it received the full cooperation of the latter.

Yet, it cannot be said that the JD(U) is in a position to seriously damage the BJP's prospects in the coming elections in Karnataka. I have noted before on this blog that the people of Karnataka seem to put a lot of thought into their ballot and they might not like a party that seems to be acting as a smug winner before the votes are in. The bench strength of regional leaders always seems to exceed expectations and the BJP would be delusional to count Deve Gowda as out of the picture. Although Deve Gowda and Kumaraswamy have covered themselves with the taint of treachery, there are pockets of the state where their clan is venerated. Besides, Deve Gowda appeals to a more rural crowd and farmers, who seem to have got a pretty good deal from the Congress, might not want to go "too far" from the Congress... all the way to BJP. Reports also suggest that, given the shift in concentration of seats towards urban areas, while the BJP seems to have gained from the delimitation of constituencies in most of the country, it has lost some winnable seats in Karnataka, Delhi and Maharashtra.

Yet another challenge awaits the BJP in Karnataka: that of dual leadership. It is not hard to remember that Ananth Kumar had been the party's chief ministerial candidate in the Assembly elections of 2004. After the failures of 2004, Ananth Kumar was eased out of the state and "accommodated in the Central leadership". This time round, he has all but disappeared, with the spotlight being placed on B. S. Yediyurappa. Clearly, there is a conflict waiting to happen!

It is easy to see why the BJP might be complacent. The party is very strong in coastal Karnataka, including Dakshin Kannada and Uttar Kannada regions and placed very comfortably in Bangalore. BJP workers are probably not finding it very hard to sell the argument that a BJP administration could be a new, refreshing turn for the state; or that the people should vote decisively so as to avoid the pitfalls of a hung verdict. However, the single biggest error the party could make is to expect a "wave election". Karnataka is simply not in the kind of situation when one expects to see a wave; there is no single pressing issue that could polarize the voters ... gaining power for the first time in a southern state is a priority for the BJP and not a priority for the people! And yet the BJP seems to speak in those very same terms. Advani and Rajnath Singh have a firsthand knowledge of the perils of overconfidence; and they would be ill advised to tread the same path.

Pungent Nemesis? - Will price rise hurt the Congress?

There is a whiff of opportunity in the air. The BJP, which had been feeling a little unsettled over the farmers' response to PC's bumper budget, has found its nerve again. The party expects the issue of rising prices to resonate soundly with the people of urban India. But will it?

For one, the BJP feels like it deserves some poetic justice. A sudden rise in onion prices some ten years ago had cost the party its governments in Delhi and Rajasthan and doused its hopes in Madhya Pradesh. At that time, the party had just begun its reign at the Centre and those election results had blown a hole into their long cherished dream. The BJP would like nothing better than to rerun the script, this time with the Congress looking down the barrel. Squarely, the Congress has an ominous sense of doom about this issue of rising prices. Both sides understand its power.

Of course we must ask whether the upbeat Indian middle class of 2008 will be overly concerned about rising prices as long as the economy continues to grow at a spectacular pace. It goes without saying that the hysteric reaction to the onion prices of 1998 cannot be repeated, a little more so because our large media houses will never take to Congress bashing with the same fervour with which they go ballistic against BJP at a moment's notice (maybe we will talk about that some other day). But the issue of price rise is very real and it is folly to imagine that middle class people will be so enamoured of India's bright future that they will look beyond the very real challenges of everyday life.

A small mercy for the Congress is that the BJP has been unable to mobilize a political movement over this issue as yet. This is due, in part, to a clamour of dissent within the BJP in Bihar, Punjab, Jharkhand and Maharashtra; a prevailing sense of despair over the situation in UP and a recent preoccupation with winning in Karnataka. It remains to be seen whether the party can use the momentum of a near certain victory in the Southern state to make the argument that BJP rule is imminent at the Centre. But, for the moment, the BJP has failed miserably to hold the Congress feet to the fire. The embarrassment mounted when the BJP could not muster 10 MPs when both Houses of Parliament debated the issue earlier this week. When Laloo issued a statement blaming the traders for conspiring with the BJP, effectively casting a slight on an entire community; the latter failed to take advantage of the situation. This is in stark contrast to the way Laloo had successfully played up Atalji's half joking "Main Atal hoon magar Bihari nahin hoon" remark some years ago.

The Congress is aware that it matters very little as to whose fault this actually is. Last week, the finance minister lamented "This price rise is a global phenomenon" and, in all fairness, indeed it is, as this recent New York Times article notes. However, having ridden to power on an "Aam Aadmi" agenda only to stage a volte face, perhaps the Congress can no longer "ignore the plight of the common man" citing massive economic growth, which incidentally, is strikingly similar to the much satirized electoral plank of the NDA in 2004.

It also turns out that the BJP is not the only party that is looking to profit from this issue. The Left knows well that the very same urban constituency has come to see them as the chief villains over the failure of the nuclear deal. This is their chance to embrace a cause less despicable than trying to hurt India's credibility and security. Although the Left has moved away decisively from its famous policy of "maintaining equal distance from the Congress and the BJP", given their support for Manmohan Singh's government, their new policy of "maintaining equal distance from the ruling party and the people" may not work very well to their favour. For a while, immediately after May 2004, it did seem as though the Left was the "real" opposition, while the BJP had been reduced to a party of bitter losers who were blaming each other for their electoral debacle. That was when the Left could patronize and criticize the government at will, without taking any political risks. The same situation no longer exists in 2008 and the Left would be ill-advised to try demonstrating against their OWN government.

Is the Cold War really over?

Both leaders are on their way out, with one crucial difference. While there will be an absorbing, democratic contest over the coming months to see who steps into the White House, Putin’s chosen successor has already been ratified by a sham election. Mutual suspicions and hostile whispers came to the foreground as diplomats on both sides parleyed endlessly over the choice of words while the meeting concluded with Putin’s ominous statement: “Our fundamental attitude towards the American plan has not changed”.

The Americans plan to station interceptor missiles and listening devices at locations in the Czech Republic and Poland, professedly to keep tabs on Iran, which is believed to be building missiles that can strike Israel and Turkey (in the short term). However these same listening devices, radars and missiles could reach deep into Russian territory. As such, Putin’s concerns are well founded, not to mention the fact that sometime ago, at a very cordial meeting in Moscow, the Russian President gave a clean chit to Iran.

The US attitude to the situation is rather puzzling. Although President Bush has repeatedly harped on the line “the Cold War is over”, he has pushed zealously for the eastward expansion of NATO. Surely that is a move that could have no motive other than to thwart a resurgent Russia. NATO has always been a military alliance; with none of
the attributes that would make it comparable to an international organization such as the European Union or the UN. In fact, NATO members showed scant restraint in pointing out the symbolic meaning of the summit meeting in Romania, which is both the newest full member and the eastern border of the organization. Despite his oft repeated commitment to “working together with Russia”, the Americans have not been amenable to the demand that the proposed missile bases, if built, should have Russian observers on them “at all times”. When the Russians suggested that the US use a Russian radar in Azerbaijan, they were dismissed on the pretext that the Russian radar was not powerful enough to allow good focus, a fair bit of condescension that the proud Putin found hard to swallow.

Our major concern is whether we are witnessing the beginnings of another Cold War. Are we hurtling down the road to Cold War – II? And, like the Second World War, will this second Cold War be more ruinous than its predecessor? It is a chilling possibility that needs to be examined.

For one, we no longer live in a bipolar world. A Cold War in the traditional sense is impossible. The new conflict scenario would have to deal with power centres in China, India and Europe; perhaps even in Brazil. Further, even though Russia’s “one party democracy” is way different from the style of democracy in India or the US, the bitter ideological struggles are a thing of the past. The Chinese establishment, which is better rendered as “authoritarian”, than as “Communist", is imbued with an extreme form of narcissism which prevents them from
wanting to spread their ideology; in sharp contrast to the former Soviets.

Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether conflicts of economic interests can sour international relations to the point of Cold War. For instance, the Russians were able to leverage their power as massive producers of oil over France and Germany who shut out the recent US initiative to include Georgia and Ukraine in NATO, or even to offer them so much as a “Membership Action Plan”. Similarly, German Chancellor Merkel, rattled by prospective loss of business by German companies, broke ranks with the US and refused to pile on any more economic sanctions on Iran. It appears that big corporations, despite their greed; do make the world safer. For the moment, it does seem that globalization creates an economic dragnet that forces all nations to cooperate for the sake of profit, if not for peace. Sometime ago, China balked under the massive international pressure to stop cheating on its currency and gave way, but only just.

A more disturbing feature is a sinister international club whose formation has been in the works for some time now. This club has been started by Iran and Venezuela and has been joined by Cuba and North Korea and in general, the club invites all ill-meaning nations to the table. The existence of this club leads to real as well as imaginary fears among the American people (not to mention those manufactured exclusively for propaganda purposes). In order to satisfy the needs of domestic politics and to preserve international economic interests, the US is preoccupied with these three or four nations, all the while fighting its two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, backing up Israel’s ventures in the Middle East and screening for latent threats across Africa and South East Asia. China and Russia are looking to
fish in these troubled waters and have built far reaching economic ties with these same countries. Being international pariahs, these countries are unable to trade with the rest of the world and it is only natural that their economic benefactors will hold immense power over them. A Cold War scenario excludes major combat between superpowers, but allows for intense localized conflict in smaller, stooge nations. This is what might well happen, as the Russians and the Chinese scramble to pick up countries like Iran, Venezuela and tap into the strangely vicious anti-American sentiment that pervades large parts of South America and Africa.

If the NATO is a living reminder of the Soviet capitulation in the Cold War, the newly formed Shanghai Cooperation Organization is, as yet, a mysterious entity whose exact intentions are unknown. The name ‘Shanghai’ is supposed to be a reminder that this bloc is China-centric (remember what I said about Chinese narcissism?). Herein lies an inevitable power struggle. A real cold war would require the two sides to be clearly defined: for the moment it seems that the Russo-Chinese side has two very distinct, loudmouthed, egoistic heads on its shoulders that cannot stay put without knocking into each other. America faces the same problem, but to a lesser extent: although the European Union has, of late, been assertive in rejecting US moral authority, America can resolve its ego issues with the EU much more efficiently. For the moment, it is somewhat amusing to note that both the NATO and the SCO are holding military exercises that are “directed against terrorists”.

Unfortunately, it is still not clear whether India will have a role to play on any one side of a future Cold War. Of course, a second cold war is by no means necessary, nor in any way inevitable. In fact India, with its defence ties to Russia and its economic ties to America, is in a position to hold peace. However, the recent criminal flirtation of the Indian Army with the Chinese is a major lapse of judgment. It might be another instance of doing things by halves; letting major world events happen while refusing to commit to a public stance; and then wondering why history always passes us by. We do not want wars, cold or otherwise, but if there is to be one, we need to be in it to win it.