Nov 2002 (Partially updated Jan 2009)

India and the US: Natural Allies?

A critical view (based on a compilation of comments from Indian Internet users)

In recent months, more than a few editorial columnists and self-styled Indian "foreign-policy experts" have been dropping hints of an Indo-US "strategic axis", of how India and the US are "natural allies". Although the expression of such views is not new - (all through British rule, there was a notorious class of Indian apologists who spoke of how British rule had "divine moral sanction" and was entirely "providential" for India) - the publication of such views in India's leading English language dailies is what makes the present environment distressingly different from earlier decades in post-colonial India.

Launched during the heights of British colonial rule in India, it is not surprising that some of India's English language newspapers should revert to their old colonial patterns, and shamelessly promote the opinions of quislings masquerading as "foreign policy experts". And India is hardly the only nation where such cheerleaders for the US hold fort. Throughout the world, business and political elites are straining to promote closer ties with the US in spite of it's duplicitous and imperial character.

But if the comments on such pro-US commentaries are any indication, the average Indian reader remains deeply skeptical of the US (and British) role in the subcontinent, and in the world.

It is especially useful to examine such a supposition in light of how most American governments have repeatedly made excuses for Pakistan against India. US politiicans have always maintained enormous and undue pressure on India for maintaining some semblance of  peace and normality in the region. If India and the US were truly "natural allies" (aligned due to a real and verifiable concern for democracy as some like to mindlessly assert), it is odd how the US has shown no inclination towards putting any type of sanction or constraint on the ISI or the  military or other hostile political forces  in Pakistan. The US State Department has quietly  de-emphasized widespread evidence of the growing threats from Islamist forces in Pakistan that appear to operate with enormous support and government sanction against India. In the past  the US Pentagon has been busy selling Pakistan's military leaders new attack helicopters, the latest in military transport planes, and recently developed anti-missile systems. And all of this has taken place without any perceptible retreat in the hostile stand of the Pakistani regimes. IMF loans have been approved without any conditions on changing Pakistan's hostile posture against India. There are no requirements on Pakistan to stop preaching hatred against Hindus (or Sikhs) and Indian in general.

But India's pro-US advocates appear to be deliberately blind to such developments. What they wish to impose on India is a "natural ally" (or a "strategic partner") who provides covert and overt support for India's most unrelenting enemies. However, even as sections of India's craven elite (especially those that directly benefit from close economic ties with the US) strain to ignore ground realities, many of India's Internet users don't seem to be as easily fooled.

In the past, when tensions between India and Pakistan intensified (consequent to a series of Pakistan-sponsored acts of terrorism committed on Indian soil), the double standards of the US (and British) leadership were noted by more than a few angry Indians. The patience of the Indian people with Pakistan's military dictator had run out, and there was tremendous pressure on the Indian government to take some sort of punitive and preventative action against the anti-Indian terrorist training camps that had been set up by the Pakistan military leadership. But in remarkable contrast to their usual war-mongering stance, political elites in the US (and Britain) repeatedly pressed India not to push the Pakistani military leader, to "negotiate" with Pakistan's military leadership, to reach an agreement through "dialogue". India was chastized even for taking some modest (and defensive) diplomatic and military steps to guard against Pakistan's Jehadi terrorism.

So blatant was the hypocrisy of the US establishment that on May 23, 2002, E Jayakrishnan (New Delhi, Sify News) was compelled to note: "Amidst the gathering war clouds in the sub-continent, there is something India and Pakistan agree on – the duplicity of the United States."

No other headline could have summarized the situation more candidly, and many Indians in their comments on the websites of newspapers such as the Times of India and the Hindustan Times reiterated their disgust, anger and disappointment with the US.

One reader wrote: "We are in fact decades behind in our development because of the proxy war (initiated by Pakistan) and our patient and unaggressive means to curb Pakistan's malicious intentions. But all that the so called "international community" intends doing is to trick and trip India each time."

Disbelief and distrust of statements issued by American officials ran high, one reader observed: "It is quite evident that America has double standards on the India-Pakistan issue, even though they are trying their level best to make others believe that they are very much against a war in the region"

Another suggested: "We should not believe the Americans any more. All the activities against India have been encouraged by them..."

Others have been extremely suspicious of America's "war on terrorism": "The American Agenda has never been clear or transparent. As a superpower it gives the impression that it will act as it pleases. We wonder if they even have a long term plan to prevent terrorism." Wondering why the US administration has studiously avoided blaming Pakistan for having links with the terrorist groups even after the arrest of several active terrorists on Pakistani soil, one reader wrote: "....what could stop one from thinking that Pakistan has some hold over Washington, regarding some sins which both might have committed jointly...??

On May 31, the Times of India ran the following news report: "US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said on Friday that war between India and Pakistan would be devastating and also set back much improved relations between Washington and the South Asian foes."

In response, a reader commented: "Wars are always devastating. But how long must India suffer a proxy war. By threatening to use nuclear weapons, Pakistan is blackmailing the whole world. The so called world leaders and policemen should end their double speak and rein in Pakistan."

One commentator even alluded to the possibility of the US covertly encouraging Pakistan's nuclear blackmail against India: "I agree with the possibility of US colluding with Pakistan to issue a mock threat of use of the Nuclear bomb. I think we all might recollect how Pakistan constantly tried to remind the USA that the "help" they were giving to Washington in their war against terror, should not go unrewarded. There does appear to be a strong likelihood that this may be one of the rewards from Washington. Secondly, the hypocrisy of the Western Media in describing the terrorists operating in the Kashmir Valley as "what India calls as terrorists", is also appalling. Aren't they implying that there is a possibility that these may not be terrorists?? Whose certificate are they awaiting before they drop the phrase "what India calls"?? The double standards are blatantly apparent, even to a blind man. So when some people kill over 3000 people at one stroke, it can qualify as "terror" (referring to 9/11) but when others kill over 40,000 Indians over a period of two decades, then it isn't "terror"???"

But the Indian government failed to take the US to task for it's nuclear hypocrisy, as did the majority of India's editorial writers. But writing for the Free Press Journal, N. K. Pant acknowledged: "We obviously lacked political will on account of repeated nuclear blackmail and wilted under the US pressure."

Perceptive Indians have also noted the stark contrast in US/British attitudes towards Iraq. (Unlike Pakistan's military dictators, Iraq's leaders have been trying hard to make peace with their neighbors. And unlike Pakistan's military (which is known to possess nuclear weapons, and has even threatened to use them against India), Iraq has not only denied possessing nuclear weapons or the ability to deliver them, it has never made any nuclear threats against any nation. Yet, it is Iraq that is now being viciously targeted for supposedly being a "threat" to peace and regional stability.)

Some also noted the contrast in US attitudes towards Israel and India: "Dubya recently said Israel has a right to self defense when he met with PM Sharon, India doesn't....?"

One reader wrote: "Double dealers galore would about sum up the phantom of US Governance. The current administration itself is ripe with double dealing... International Criminal Court, Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Biological weapons, Kyoto, Venezuela are but a few examples. The cancer of US foreign policy in the last 50 years spreads...The MiddleEast, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Will it claim India next? Yes if we bring them in...."

Another observed: "We know US is a friend to its geo-political interests and nothing else. Moreover, militancy in Kashmir is the direct result of US's fostering of the Mujahideen for its war on the erstwhile USSR. Despite recent public pronouncements favourable to India, the ground reality has not changed. Whatever the US may say in private or public, we see the same prescription being handed down...Lastly, it is a matter of principle which perhaps angers me most—on what basis can India and Pakistan be equated on the issue of terror (as this is part of the war on terror)? There has not been a single Indian terrorist in the world."

Another reader pointed to how the US was using Pakistan against India: "The US has been playing this game for long - not allowing nations that are on the growth path to grow, by distracting them using rogue neighbours i.e. Pakistan." Yet another observed: "Western powers would like to see India remain a weak nation - give it small successes but big losses. Western powers would like to ensure that India and Pakistan remain their staple customers for their weapons. The past clearly shows that US has always sided with dictators, because they are more amenable to unreasonable demands."

One reader noted quite succinctly: "Looks like the East India Company is coming back."

And another comment: Do we Indians still need outsiders' help who have divided Bharat 55 years ago for which we are still paying the price for?

And another: How we can trust US for this purpose who has been helping Pakistan for many long years for supporting terrorism. We should not forget that Al-Qaeda is a product of America itself.....from history it is very clear that when America occupies any base it hardly ever leaves. Pressure from USA forces us to keep our eyes shut."

On several occasions, there have been angry comments against India's political leaders and journalists featured in India's English language press who have not shown the ability to resist US machinations in the region. India's political leaders have been described as "weak" and "spineless". One response read: "The Govt. of India has probably called up the White House to ask them how India should react. It seems that the our army is controlled from Washington rather than from Delhi. The Govt. will probably sign another contract with Israel and the English newspapers in India will preach peace against all odds. No Sir, we won't bite. Not without the permission from the USA."

Another poster advised the Indian government: "Tell US and England to shut up and stop them from coming to India for consultations till this mess is resolved to our satisfaction."

Others expressed dissatisfaction with India's pro US political class observing that "....the greed of our politicians for petty personal power at all costs stands between the dire need in India for a strong cohesive response against Pakistan's acts of terror and US needling."

Several expressed skepticism over the Indian government's approach to get the US to rein in Pakistan or declare it a "terrorist state": "But Great Advani: Is your statement not contrary with your second statement "US should declare Pakistan a terrorist state". Does your statement not smell of dependence?" In a similar vein, another reader wrote: "Dear Mr. Advani... why do we look at the Americans for inspiration (or permission...) to solve a problem in our backyard..."

Chinese Myths and Tibetan Realities