Choices before India and the US

Iran is in the news and countries are lining up one way or the other on the question of a referral to the UN Security Council. America and Europe for once seem to be agreed on the need for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council as a violator. China and Russia are on the other side. America wants India to side with it, making it almost a test case of the new relationship between the two countries.

My sympathies are with America. It is engaged in the search for a historic new concordat with the Shias of West Asia. A bloody search admittedly, but the stakes are so high that it would be unnatural for the Sunnis to give in. They have a sense of themselves being the natural rulers of the region over the last hundred years, albeit with western blessing and support, and they are not easily going to let the same supporters in the west cut them out of their position of power and wealth.

But why are the Shias - and Iran in particular - also fighting the Americans? Light on this open question would be welcome.

Anyway, to India. The US Congress has voiced the sentiment very clearly that India's ties with Iran are a sticking point for them to approve the changes in the Non-proliferation Act that the US Administration seeks. There must be a two-pronged reply to this.

First, what right does America have to make such a demand on us? They say that Iran is a national security issue for them and India must demonstrate its commitment to the new friendship with America by supporting them. My question is - does America have to demonstrate its commitment to the new relationship with India? If so, it should not supply arms to Pakistan. It should stop leaning on us to make concessions to Pakistan as it did when Ms Rice called on PM Manmohan Singh in New York with that explicit request. These are not the acts of a friend.

To take a broader view: I have listed some of the diplomatic goals and aspirations of India, and try and judge countries by where they stand on these. India wants to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council; it wants to enter the Nuclear Suppliers' Group without fullscope safeguards; it wants a secure neighbourhood, meaning no arms to Pakistan; it wants commitment to the territorial integrity of India, hence support on J&K; it wants cooperation on counter-terrorism.

The surprising outcome of such an audit is that America fails comprehensively. Except for the nuclear deal, which is still not settled, it is on the opposite side of our aims and objectives on all counts. Not very different from China.

So, we have something to talk about with the Americans. We have our national security concerns just as does America. Let us sit and talk things over. If we can agree, we have a deal. If not, both sides need to think some more. And let us cut the false hype.

The second is Iran itself. It is a nation in trouble. The clerical regime is unpopular, and any free election will throw it out. I believe that the Islamic tide will begin to subside in Iran, just as it began there too. It is hard to say when that will happen, but the regime is weaker than it looks. Or sounds. It has also been a difficult partner for India. It did play a marginal role in helping us in the early 1990's. However, it has played a hurtful role in forcing an unwilling but pusillanimous India to go along with the gas pipeline proposal. This is a dangerous idea for India, which is why Pakistan has delinked this from the package of our talks and is not insisting on a Kashmir settlement first, as it does in all other economic proposals. Pakistan will not even give our goods MFN treatment, as it obliged to do under the WTO rules, unless we first settle Kashmir.

So we have nothing to lose by distancing ourselves from Iran, but it has to be worth the risks. A decision to support the proposal to take Iran to the UN Security Council will temporarily inflame Muslim, specially Shia, opinion. Why should we do this unless there is something in it for us?

If America will make the changes in their strategy to South Asia that this requires, we should be willing to make corresponding changes in our appproach to West Asia. If not, we shall continue to flunk our obvious destiny, which is to become friends and partners in the face of the many challenges ahead.

A word to the Americans, specially to our friends there. May your tribe increase, you have done well by India. We welcome this, but you have one more step to take: allow us to judge what is best for us. Too many of our friends are now lecturing us on how to behave and how to deal with Pakistan or Bangladesh. Secretary of State Rice is supposed to have told PM Manmohan Singh to make some concessions to Musharraf so that he could show some results back home. How odd that a dictator needs to show results to his people, but the democratic leader presumably does not.

If Musharraf really cares about Pakistani public opinion all he needs to do is step aside and allow free elections. He will be remembered as the military dictator who allowed a return to democracy without being coerced into it (as were Ayub and Yahya) or killed (as was Zia). And all this will cease to be the military's problem. The people of Pakistan are tired of army rule and of confrontation with India. The army has only to recognise this and let the democratic parties run the policy.

We have done our share of "saving" Pakistani rulers. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was once upon a time our best bet, before Zia became our best bet, before Benazir became our best bet, before...

Indira ji gave Bhutto a major concession at Simla on his verbal assurance, and lived to rue her generosity. We do not owe any Pakistani leader his or her longevity, and such considerations are an unfair demand on us from the American leaders. They may well end up with nothing to show for it, if Indians do get jaded by this attitude.

While on the subject of US-Pakistani relations, I am unable to understand why America is so supportive of Pakistan. America has defined its major challenges in the coming decades as being WMD proliferation, terrorism, and Islamic fundamentalism/extremism. The "axis of evil" is defined on the basis of these criteria. But who fed Iran and North Korea with WMD technology? Pakistan. And which is the hotbed of terrorism and fundamentalism? Pakistan. So America makes it a major non-Nato ally! If anyone can make sense of this, please educate me too.

The only framework in which this makes sense is that America wants a hostile Pakistan to be able to use against India should the occasion arise and India should become too independent and strong. India, in turn, is being used to keep China from dominating the Asia-Pacific region. Here is the American conundrum: they want an India powerful enough that can some day, maybe, play a role in balancing China, but not one that is powerful enough to overwhelm Pakistan. Not a sustainable strategy.

America must choose. So must India.