Search the Internet           Tips

It doesn't matter to India who the next US Prez is

The clock on the table near me says it is five O'clock in the morning; my jet-lagged mind insists that it is actually half past four in the afternoon -- the time back home in India. But the difference between the United States and India is actually far greater than the difference in time-zones. There is also a gigantic discrepancy in the things that people consider important.

When I left India, the headlines were occupied by the cricket scandal, the shenanigans of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, and the ministerial reshuffle in West Bengal. In the United States, all that seems to interest journalists, judging by the fortnight's worth of newspapers, is the presidential election. It is as though I have crossed from one planet to another.

So who shall be the "most powerful man in the world"? To be honest, I have absolutely no idea; it is hard enough to venture prophecy about Indian polls without treading into American territory. It seems, by all accounts, to be one of the closest polls on record since 1960 when Kennedy beat Nixon by a margin of one per cent. Some say it might even equal the historic election of 1888, when Grover Cleveland got more popular votes, but lost because his opponent had a plurality in the electoral college. (I always remember this when I hear people talking about how a presidential election is more 'representative' than one for Parliament!)

Truth be told, this election is so close that even the local Indian community is divided and confused over whom to support. Most Indian emigrants to the United States have made a conscious decision to escape the socialist straitjacket imposed by Jawaharlal Nehru and his successors. They have worked with such a vim that they are, as a class, the richest and best-educated group in America. That happy state of affairs means that they do not want anybody in the White House who supports -- or seems to support -- higher taxes, quotas for ethnic groups, or any of the other idiocies that forced them to leave India.

That would seem to make them natural voters for the Republican ticket, and that is just the way that many Indian-Americans think. But it is not quite that simple. The Republican ranks also seem to attract some of the more racist elements in the United States, and that too is unacceptable. The Democrats, at least for the past fifty years, have had the better record in fighting discrimination.

There is another issue which leads to a soft spot for Al Gore. One of the major issues in this presidential election is the looming dilemma of paying for the United States's generous welfare services -- specifically Medicare. Many Indian families have taken advantage of these services; they bring over their aged and/or ailing relatives to the United States, and use the welfare services to pay for treatment that is either nor available or too expensive back home. Governor Bush has threatened to cut back on these abuses, while Vice-President Gore has promised not to tinker too much with the existing system.

Here again, there is no real consensus within the Indian community. As I said, Indians are the best-read people in the United States. They are uncomfortably aware how close the whole welfare system is to bankruptcy. Helping families back home is all well today, but not if the system collapses when they themselves need it within the next twenty years or so.

Interestingly, this confusion has led to some Indians asking those back home what they think, presumably on the ground that we are more likely to have a better perspective. So who will be the better option for India?

My answer is that it makes very little difference. A British prime minister of the nineteenth century laid down the dictum that "great nations have permanent interests, not permanent friends". That maxim probably guides the American State Department today as much as it did the British Foreign Office of yesteryears.

If the Indian economy booms, then the sheer pressure of corporate America will lead to better relations between Washington and Delhi. If there is a perception that the United States and India have a mutual foe, the realisation will again have the same effect. Either or both, probably the latter, is probable. So, from that point of view, it makes little difference to India whether the next man in the oval office is surnamed Bush or Gore.

Just to illustrate my point, take a look at how Bill Clinton's perspective changed over the eight years that he has been in office. He was not, to begin with, perceived as a great friend of India, with the Indo-American relationship plunging in the aftermath of Pokhran-II. A little under three years later, he was the star of an eminently successful journey to India. (Part of the effusive welcome he received everywhere in India was because everyone was determined to paint a contrast with Pakistan!)

Irrespective of who comes to power, there are certain demands that the Government of India cannot accede to without creating a major furore. Is there any party which can afford to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty? Not without committing political suicide! Of course, following the United States Senate's refusal to ratify that same pact, it is not much of an issue any longer.

(For much the same reasons, I do not think any future President will be better placed to put pressure on Israel. Does anyone seriously believe the Jewish vote in the United States will diminish in importance whether Bush or Gore is in power?)

So is there no reason to distinguish between the two? Only one, and that given by a diplomat from a third country. "If the Chinese are rooting for Gore," he said, "what do you think would be an intelligent choice for an Indian-American voter?"

T V R Shenoy