Enlarging a 'vision'

THE `VISION' STATEMENT which the U.S. President, Mr. Bill Clinton, and the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, propounded in March this year was, in essence, an article of faith concerning the complementary aspirations of the two countries. It was spelt out in a spirit accommodative of the perceptional differences between two gigantic democracies over some strategic considerations. Mr. Vajpayee has now sought to widen this `vision' by outlining India's ideas on how to lay down the ``principles'' of its progressive ``engagement'' with the U.S. Capturing the imagination of the U.S. Congress and setting the mood for his current discussions with Mr. Clinton, Mr. Vajpayee said on Thursday that the two countries ``have much in common and no clash of interests''. He was right in expanding this theme in a nuanced fashion by calling on the U.S. to ``understand'' India's security concerns and by holding out a solemn assurance that New Delhi would not seek to ``unravel'' Washington's nuclear ``non-proliferation efforts''. This, in his view, would help dispel the ``shadow'' cast by various ``security issues'' over the immense new promise in other areas of cooperation. The commonsensical wisdom inherent in this approach, bordering on a frank appeal to the pan-American conscience of democracy, is quite unexceptionable on both sides of the bilateral equation. However, the enormity of the strategic ground to be covered to bring about a reciprocity of this magnitude cannot be exaggerated. The questions to be addressed include the long-term limits, if any, to India's strategic space and decision-making autonomy in regard to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and other relevant matters such as the proposed international treaty on aspects of the production and stockpiling of fissile material. The U.S., on its part, may have to explore more fully the China factor in India's security calculus.

Mr. Vajpayee left the U.S. Congress in no doubt about India's desire to avoid distorting the matrix of Asia's stability and security. Frowned upon was the idea of domination by some at the expense of the other state-actors. While the subtle reference to China in this context as New Delhi's strategic neighbour could hardly be missed, the Prime Minister diversified the discourse by portraying India as a democracy under siege from specific external sources of terrorism. Observing the elementary diplomatic courtesy, if not also a necessary precaution, of not naming Pakistan directly before a knowing audience, Mr. Vajpayee openly courted American support for rolling back a rising tide of terrorism in South Asia. The appreciative response to the idea of an anti-terror partnership clearly pleased the Prime Minister, the fourth Indian leader to have addressed the American law- makers. For raising the stakes in India's fight against a terrorist onslaught on its core values as a democratic polity and a multi-religious society, Mr. Vajpayee thought it necessary to caution that the U.S. too was not insulated from the extremist violence emanating from pockets of South Asia.

It was in all a move to add a new dimension to the imagery of a so-called clash of civilisations, a theme familiar to the American policy-planners. But, in seeking to draw the U.S. into a common cause against an obscurantist ``religious war'' as an ``instrument of state policy'' in South Asia, Mr. Vajpayee began articulating a maximalist agenda for cooperation with the U.S. The emerging opportunities in bilateral economic interaction were kept in equal focus, too, as part of this ambitious context. In one sense, though, the Prime Minister's graphic description of India and the U.S. as proximate neighbours on the new international ``digital map'' and his offer to host a global dialogue on development were in tune with the spirit of the times. It is now up to the U.S., which revels in not only seizing economic opportunities around the world but also playing a `leadership' role in this sphere as well, to respond.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : A logical step