At one time, the Indo-U.S. relationship had been very rocky, especially during the Cold War as the US believed India to be anti-West, especially anti-US and pro-Russia. The relationship hit the bottom during the Nixon regime, especially before and after the Bangladesh war. However, during Jimmy Carter’s presidency, the situation started improving slowly. After Carter, Ronald Reagan became the U.S. President and the relationship between the two countries got a little more serious. Senator Orrin Hatch was interested in arranging a meeting between President Reagan and Mrs. Gandhi and I had helped his office on this matter. After an initial misunderstanding, they both met in Cancun, Mexico. When Bill Clinton became the President and India started making economic progress resulting from economic liberalisation, the relationship between the two countries started on an upward path. It is correct that Clinton pushed India to sign the NPT treaty and imposed sanctions against India after India’s nuclear explosion. I, along with FICCI, worked with the office of Bob Dole, who had contested against Clinton during his second run for Presidency, and we were able to significantly water down the sanctions which Clinton was required to impose due to the U.S. laws. During the governments of Vajpayee and George Bush, the relationship between the two countries improved significantly. That was the beginning of the real strategic partnership between the two countries, primarily based on both geopolitical and economic interests. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Obama clicked very well and the Indo-U.S. relationship reached new heights. Now, Trump’s presidency, focusing primarily on business, offers an opportunity of a new chapter in Indo-U.S. ties.
There are a number of similarities and differences between Trump and Modi. They both got elected despite extensive opposition by news media and so-called intellectual elites. They try to avoid media and do not take news media personnel on their planes which most of the other U.S. presidents and Indian prime ministers did. Both claimed to be outsiders and both sidelined their parties’ hierarchy and bosses. Both won despite political pundits’ predictions. While Modi proclaimed “Make India”, Trump emphasised “Make USA First”. Both do not trust politicians. While Trump relies on businessmen and military generals, Modi relies on bureaucrats. Some Indian pundits find another similarity, i.e. both have polarised their nations. It may be true in the sense as all successful politicians win primarily by polarising the voter as no one gets most of the people behind them and they are no exceptions.
There are differences too. Trump is a big businessman and comes from a rich family, while Modi comes from a low income family. While Trump is quick in making statements and rushes to conclusions, Modi would try to get inputs primarily from bureaucrats and close associates, analyse them and then make a decision. Modi is a seasoned long-term politician, while Trump is a nouveau politician; however, both are capable of writing a new chapter in the Indo-U.S. relationship.
In order to write a new chapter in the Indo-U.S. relationship, there are a few important points that need to be considered. First, analyse President Trump and his Cabinet. As stated earlier, Trump is a businessman and has been used to making deals. In India, he has the largest investment outside USA, a very little known fact. He is going to focus on bringing manufacturing back to USA. Modi wants to do the same for India. Trump’s Cabinet has more businessmen and military leaders than any other cabinets in U.S. history. The net worth of the top five Cabinet members (not including Trump) is about $5 billion. So Trump’s focus will be on business. In the 25 February issue of the Washington Post, there was a news item, Trump’s plan for doing business with other countries “one on one”. Also, in the same issue of the Post, there was a story of the Wellspun Tubular Company in Arkansas, USA, owned by Indians, which has employed about 600 Americans.
It is also noteworthy that Trump did not have any Latino in his Cabinet despite the fact that Latinos are the largest minority in USA. When one of his earlier appointees withdrew his name, only then Trump included a Latino in his Cabinet. There is one Oriental who happens to be the wife of the head of the Republican Party in the Senate. The second largest minority, African Americans, has one member in the Cabinet. On the other hand, even though the Indian American community is very small, Trump has appointed one Indian-American to a Cabinet level position and another at a sub-Cabinet level position. During the first month, Trump also appointed an Indian-American as the head of Federal Communication Commission, a very powerful government agency. During the election campaign, Trump stated, “I like India and India is a great country and no one talks about it.”
Now, I will come to what India should do and what she should not. Before I discuss do’s let me discuss don’ts. Right from Nehru, Indian prime ministers have been more obsessed by euphoria which should be avoided. Not only have the Indian governments pushed for meetings between the U.S. presidents and Indian prime ministers, Indians living in USA have done the same. That should be avoided. A number of prime ministers pressed for meetings with the U.S. presidents directly or indirectly. One time, primarily due to the pressure from NRIs, Obama agreed to meet Manmohan Singh. They met for half an hour. Singh did all the talking and Obama mostly kept quiet. In September 2015, the Indian ambassador tried very hard for a one-to-one meeting between Obama and Modi, but Obama politely refused. The U.S. governments and presidents are well aware of India’s utility. A U.S. president would meet the Indian prime minister when he is ready to do so. Prime Minister Modi should let the U.S. president extend the invitation at this time rather than persuade him to meet with Modi and there was no rush for Foreign Secretary S. Jayashankar to visit USA for this purpose. Before leaving for USA, the news item was that he would discuss a possible meeting between the PM and President. However, the US government didn’t respond positively. Upon leaving US, the news was that he discussed a number of issues with senior officials of the US government and there was no mention of the meeting of the two. In fact, India should invite Trump to visit India first and he may accept the invitation in view of the Europeans’ hostility towards him.
Indians and the news media try to focus on minor issues such as visa revocation of Devyani and H1B visa. The US government has stated very clearly that H1B visa is not a major issue. Later, I will provide a potential solution, without begging, to the H1B visa problem which is a very minor issue in comparison to more important issues. I also feel sorry when I read news of India pleading for some of its issues, in fact, sounds like begging, such as the membership of NSG and U.N. Security Council. Instead, India should concentrate on becoming politically and economically strong. Then everything would come without much difficulty. Indians should also avoid being “thin skinned”. If a new U.S. president does not call the Indian prime minister for months after being elected, Indian media rings bells of doom, especially if the U.S. calls Pakistan’s prime minister first. It does not and should not matter at all to Indians whether and when the U.S. president calls the Indian prime minister. I remember Indians were very upset when President Clinton announced his stopover in Pakistan on his way to India. Indians in USA lobbied very hard against his visit to Pakistan. Someone called and asked me to do the same. I refused to do so and told these people that I wanted Clinton to visit Pakistan which he did. I wanted him to experience the difference between the two countries. Upon his return to U.S., he expressed his appreciation of India’s open society compared to Pakistan, a closed country.
Indians should also stop being sensitive about “P” and “K” words. Whenever any leader mentions Pakistan or Kashmir, Indians get excited and angry. India should realise two facts. Pakistan is no match for India; it may create a nuisance value and some skirmishes; it cannot cause any serious dent to India. Kashmir is a part of India and there is no Kashmir issue; Indians in India make it an issue. A few terrorist activities and stone pelting cannot take Kashmir away from India. Pakistanis have realised this fact. In October, 2016, there was an article in Dawn, “Is world listening to Pakistan about Kashmir?” The author’s answer was no, and he recommended Pakistan’s leaders to move onto the issues other than Kashmir.
Now, I will come to “do’s”. First, let me expand further on Trump’s mindset. There has been a large run in the U.S. media about Trump’s relationship with and comments related to Russia. It is correct that Russians did hack and they hacked both the Republican and Democratic parties and their election related activities. However, contrary to many claims in USA, this hacking had no direct or indirect impact on the U.S. elections; not even a single vote was influenced by the Russians. Trump is aware of two facts, Russia has the largest amounts of natural resources than any other country in the world, which Russia cannot exploit at her own, both for domestic needs and exports. Second, Russia, though close to China, is very apprehensive about China’s growing political and economic influence in the world. Therefore, Trump wants to utilise these factors to America’s advantage. Trump is also aware of Russia’s involvement in Ukraine and Syria and fears among some of the East European countries, like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania about Russia. Now, the US is not in a position to resolve these issues militarily. Trump will try to resolve all these issues diplomatically to the mutual benefits of both the countries. India has similar concerns about China and being a long term friend of Russia, India can help on the resolution of the Eastern European and Syrian problems.
As I mentioned earlier, Trump’s focus will be on business. Therefore, India should primarily focus on business and not discuss Pakistan, Kashmir and H1B visa, etc. Indian businesses should be encouraged to buy businesses and invest in USA and there are a lot of opportunities to do so, especially in the energy and manufacturing sectors. Doing mutually beneficial business is a two way street and involves give and take. India should deviate from its prior habit of saying that we want this and do that for us without offering what India would do for the US. India and India, Inc. can do a lot. For example, Essar has purchased coal mines in Minnesota which were shut down. Reliance has purchased gas fields in Eastern USA. The Indian government should work with the Indian businesses to invest in USA. When Modi meets Trump, he must take a business delegation with him. I do not know why Modi rarely takes a business delegation with him which significantly reduces the value of his foreign trips. India should encourage U.S. businesses to do the same in high technology, R&D and defence sectors in India. Once the strong business relationship is developed, more American technocrats will be needed in India and more Indian techies will be needed in USA. Thus, the H1B problem will be resolved by itself. If Indian businesses employ Americans in USA, there will be more goodwill for India and Indians.
The strong business partnership will enhance the political partnership also. I believe that both Trump and Modi are interested in writing a new chapter of relationship between India and USA and they are both capable of doing so.
Jitendra K. Tuli was an advisor to former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.