Communication

THE public discourse on the significance of the ‘strategic partnership’ between India and the United States has been trivialized by its supporters who have characterized it as the ‘building of partnerships for the development of India-US civil nuclear cooperation,’ emphasizing the agreement as going a long way in helping India meet its energy requirements for economic development. On the other hand, the military-industrial-nuclear weapon lobbies represented by Atal Bihari Vajpayee have criticized the US-India ‘nuclear deal’, quoting the US Assistant Secretary for South Asia, Richard Boucher, that ‘India would be urged to further define its minimum credible deterrent to facilitate amendment of the US Atomic Energy Act’ according a ‘special waiver’ to India. The Hindu Rashtravadi, Vajpayee, representing the sentiments of India’s nuclear bomb lobby, issued a stern warning that, ‘The nation shall pay a heavy price in future by closing its options on the size of its credible minimum nuclear deterrent. Our nuclear armed neighbours shall face no such constraints… India should retain the right to conduct nuclear tests if any other country, such as China or Pakistan, were to do so.’

It needs to be clearly stated that the public discourse on the India-US nuclear deal should be liberated from the narrow and limited interpretations of the defenders of nuclear energy resources or the champions of the nuclear bomb. The real significance of the new economic, foreign and strategic policies pursued by India can be appreciated and analyzed only by linking the so called ‘India-US Partnership’ with the ‘New National Model of Development’ followed by India from the beginning of the 1990s, wherein India willingly and voluntarily decided to ‘integrate and link itself’ with global imperial centres of capitalism led by the sole military super power of the 21st century.

Immanuel Wallerstein in his After Developmentalism and Globalization, What? (2004) has indulged in wishful thinking that ‘…the triadic struggle between the United States, Western Europe, and Japan/East Asia is the principal locus of capital accumulation in the capitalist world economy...’, as if the so-called triad are roughly equal contestants in the attempt to reorganize the global production and financial systems. Wallerstein appears to have missed the reality of American-led NATO military bloc, which has made America a pre-eminent power for the whole of the European Union even as American military alliances with Japan, South Korea and other East Asian capitalist economies have brought these countries under the shadow of American hegemony. Is Japanese military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq at the command of the Americans an accident? Similarly, America and Europe are working together in dealing with Iran’s nuclear problem, substantiating the argument that the ‘triad’ of capitalism is not engaged in any meaningful inter-capitalist struggles or conflicts. No wonder the Indian ruling classes are agreed that the pre-eminent global status of America should be recognized for it will be beneficial and desirable for India to become an ‘ally’ of the sole global superpower.

The military-industrial complex which rules America has described India and China as two powerful emerging economies and is convinced that a militarily strong China is a ‘competitor’ to American hegemony, especially in Asia. Evidently, this situation is not acceptable to imperialist America. Both Strobe Talbott and Robert J. Einhorn stated that, ‘The US by acknowledging India as a major power and a strategic partner, has finally given India the recognition it has wanted for so long. The onus is now on India to live up to the trust that the Americans have placed in them and show the world that it is a responsible nuclear nation.’ The only amendment which should be made to the Talbott-Einhorn formulation is that America’s new and special emerging relationship with India is not merely confined to the nuclear deal but is a comprehensive and all-embracing ‘alliance’ between a real superpower and a country which wants to establish ‘regional pre-eminence’ with the support of America. Hence the question: What does America expect from India?

Condoleezza Rice, in her testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 5 April 2006, stated that the nuclear deal is a ‘strategic achievement for both countries’ and that India has agreed to the Missile Technology Control Regime and safeguards under International Atomic Energy Agency. She continued, ‘We believe this initiative will unlock the progress of our expanding relationship in other areas and lead to expanding business opportunities for both countries.’ The cat was out of the bag when Rice said that ‘India was the only non-aligned country to vote for the referral to the UNSC on the Iran nuclear issue.’ The three pillars of foreign policy issues as represented by George Bush are (a) export of democracy; (b) unilateralism, and (c) pre-emptive military action to safeguard American national interests. India has accepted to be a partner in the US project of the ‘export of democracy’ by contributing to Kofi Annan’s Democracy Fund. Nor has India launched a campaign against America for misleading the entire world on Iraq, even when no weapons of mass destruction were found. India has remained a mute spectator to American military adventurism and unilateralism in the name of restoring or projecting democracy in Iraq and Central Asia. This clearly indicates that India as a ‘junior alliance partner’ of the US has not only abandoned the Nehru-Indira model of relative autonomy of the state in relation to other states, including the super powers, but has fully accepted American hegemony in global affairs.

Is there a social explanation for the complete break with its own past in the Indian national model of development? It does not require a genius to see that India is suffering from a deep crisis of capital accumulation because of the narrow social base of its market. The new economic policies of imposed fiscal structural adjustment along with a package of liberalization, privatization and deregulation of capital markets were not only a response to the balance of payments crisis. Even after a decade and half of the new economic policy regime, the Indians can only claim the 250 million new middle class as their social constituency for market and if this structurally ‘limiting’ factor has to be overcome to help accumulation, the only option is to integrate India with other centres of global imperial capitalism. The political and bureaucratic class along with the big industrial groups and the surplus generating rural and urban petite bourgeoisie seem to have arrived at an agreement to integrate India with global capitalism led by the United States. America is a ‘giver’ and India is a ‘taker’ and a quid pro quo among unequals is always in favour of the ‘donor’ or ‘giver’. This is the reality of India’s relationship with the US and it is a misnomer, even misrepresentation of facts, to characterize such a relationship as ‘Building Partnerships’ (Seminar 560, April 2006).

The emerging US-India alliance has to be seen in the broader political economy of global-imperial capitalism and the politics and economics of a developing capitalist country like India. Hence the issue is not only ‘nuclear energy for civilian purposes’, but India’s place in the world capitalist system led by American hegemonic power. India is also concerned with China’s rising economic and military power and given the history of Sino-Indian mutual mistrust, it is plausible to argue that India would like to counterbalance China with the support of the United States. Moreover, since the United States has openly targeted China, India as China’s competitor can be a reliable ally even though it is negotiating with China at a bilateral level. India’s ambition as a nuclear weapon state cannot be limited to just decorative and protective goals. India versus China is a plausible game plan of the Indian nuclearists and India cannot meaningfully compete with China without the protective umbrella of America. In effect, India’s ambition to play the role of a South Asian policeman while containing Chinese power has brought it under the umbrella of the real super power. It is this emerging ‘alliance’ between a real super power and an ambitious regional power that lies at the heart of the matter. Other issues are peripheral.

C.P. Bhambhri

Former Professor of Political Science,

Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi