The complexity of the international system and the multi-layered nature of the inter-state alliances tend to defy attempts to look at one incident, of any sort, in complete isolation from others. Diplomacy is only one of the layers that constitute inter-state relations, and is one of the many mechanisms through which these relations are engineered and driven, but it is also the one which is largely conditioned by internal and external contingencies of various kinds. Seen in this context of inter-state relations, and by taking into account the internal and external contingencies of both states, especially of India, it would become clear that the recent row has occurred in a definite politico-strategic context, and can be interpreted as an outcome of the already occurring gradual and imperceptible divergence between the US and India even on issues as crucial as Afghanistan’s future. Along with this political divergence occurring between them, another factor that explains why this incident has gained such an intensity is also the very ‘super-power-mentality’ of the US in the name of ‘labour rights’, and its policy of spying on its own allies, including India. It is an example of the deep mistrust between them that virtually can eat into the very vitals of the alliance. It is this very attitude of the US which India has tried to resist—hence, the diplomatic row.
Therefore, it would be an oversimplification to suggest that no damage has been done to the alliance, notwithstanding even the fact that both states share a number of objectives to be achieved in Asia. However, there are also certain crucial areas as well where both states do not appear to be following the ‘same path’ and do not share common objectives to attain. We shall mention those in the passages following as pertinent examples of the gradual divergence occurring between them and then locate the recent diplomatic row in that context, showing that considerable damage has been done to their relations; after all, had there been no damage, the US and India would not have felt any need to re-engage in a series of diplomatic meetings to resolve this issue as well as prevent recurrence of such incidents in future. Furthermore, had this issue damaged nothing, the US Congress officials would not have postponed their visit to India either, nor had India retaliated.
Without going into the details of what started in the month of December 2013, let’s go a little bit into history in order for placing this incident in the chronology of such other incidents between the US and India. In other words, this incident is not an ‘exception’ in itself, as is being mostly construed; rather, such incidents did occur in the past too. The US’ typical ‘super power mentality’ is not an altogether new phenomenon. For example, in 1981, the US barred an India diplomat from coming to Washington in retaliation for India’s refusal to accept a US diplomat, Griffin, who had certain “intelligence connections” and was known for his non-diplomatic activities during his various postings in the sub-continent. A number of such other incidents also occurred as recent as in 2010 and 2011, when Indian diplomats to the US and to the UNO were searched despite the fact that they were enjoying full diplomatic immunity. Such discriminatory and rather hostile attitude of the US towards diplomats, and denying them even their internationally recognized rights is a manifest example of the high-handedness with which the US tends to deal even with its so-called allies when it comes to protecting its ‘vital’ interests. However, the current attitude of the US is also, to a considerable extent, linked to the changes occurring in the internal socio-political landscape of India too.
In the realm of India’s internal politics, what explains this intensification of diplomatic row within India, and also between the US and India, notwithstanding other factors, is the current ‘election context’, where the Hindu nationalist BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party], a traditionally anti-US group, is seeking to overturn the Congress Party rule, and where almost all of the parties are attempting to seek her (the India Diplomat) as a “member” of their party and run for parliamentary elections, which are due in few months. That the congress government is under pressure from such staunch opposition to take a tough stance on this issue cannot be completely ruled out of the question; however, it is also crucial to recognize the fact that the US is also quite weary of BJP’s coming into power; and that, this aspect can also not be simply set aside as an insignificant one. In fact, this aspect is even more significant because coming into power of an anti-US group can jeopardize a number of the US’ crucial interests. The US is therefore trying to pull the strings even before the change of government in India, and so is doing the BJP.
There is another internal aspect related to this issue. An analysis of Indian actions shows the socio-political trajectory India is gradually adopting on its way to becoming a ‘super’ power. That India considers itself to be a ‘status-inconsistent’ state and wants to dispel this perception is also at the heart of the matter in some way. Posing itself as a major player in international politics and representing one of the oldest civilizations of the world is what India has been trying to achieve. As such, extracting an ‘apology’ from the US, the ‘self-styled super power’ of the world, over this issue of national pride would, in turn, imply a reasonable push to India’s recognition as a major international player. Without mincing words, this seems more to be a matter of politics of perceptions and political images and less of a ‘clash of civilizations.’ In either case, conflict is taking place. Indeed, both the US and India have got entrenched in playing “image politics”; for, one is ‘the super power’, while the other is an aspiring major power, and both want a specific international-global image to maintain. The Indian message to the US that “times have changed” is somewhat a sort of indication of what India is on the way of ‘becoming’ as well as an assertion of its changed position vis-à-vis the US. Assertiveness of India, notwithstanding the usual arrogance of the US, can be found in the following statements of Indian politicians. The vice-president of the Bharatiya Janata Party, which is expected to win the up-coming election, went to the extent of warning that India expected a full apology rather than mere expressions of regret. “They should tender a clear apology. We will not accept this conduct against India under any circumstances,” Parliamentary affairs minister Kamal Nath told reporters. He also stated in clear words that, reported Reuters, “the US has to understand that the world has changed, times have changed and India has changed”.
It is in this context, that for the first time ever in over 34 years, America has had to suffer the ignominy of having one of their diplomats expelled from India this January—a tit-for-tat action. That the US is resisting India’s even legitimate stance is again an example of the ‘super-power-mentality’, not willing to recognize or give space to other powers, while not recognizing its own illegitimate actions. For example, according to the figures reported by New York Times, at least 16 American diplomats in New Delhi have been found to have indulged in furnishing false information in their visa application forms – an illegal act for which they were prodded by their higher-ups; and that, the US, reported NYT, has failed to defend these charges by any means.
Apart from the above presented internal political context, there is also an external politico-strategic context which has its bearing on this diplomatic spat. The case of crisis in Bangladesh, and divergent opinions and policies of both the US and India, may be, in this behalf, the first case in point.
The row between the US and Indian envoys in Dhaka has been extensively reported in the Bangladesh media, where the perception is that India was and is trying to support Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s party and the US is keen on a regime change to bring the BNP-Jamaat-e-Islami alliance to power. The US was keen that India would push the ruling Awami League party hard to concede to a ‘level playing field’ for the opposition, meaning polls under a non-political caretaker which it wanted. Indian diplomats were quoted in Bangladesh and in India, reported al-Jazeera news, as saying that the two countries were ‘not on the same page’ as far as Bangladesh was concerned.
Similarly, the US and India also seem to have been following somewhat divergent paths in recent months with regards to Afghanistan as well. Some Western media-houses have reported that the US was and still is ‘suspicious’ of Indian moves in Afghanistan, and that the US had the intelligence that India was provoking President Hamid Karzai for not signing the Bilateral Security Agreement—a charge that the Indian officials vociferously denied. Similarly, despite their being allies against China, India has been following a policy path independent of the US’ influence. The fact that China-India annual trade has already reached at around 50 billion dollar per annum is indicative of India’s policies, quite exclusive of the US’ policy of ‘containing’ China.
These three examples from external realm of the tussle going on between the US and India show that the US-India relations, contrary to popular perceptions, are far from a smooth running alliance. There have emerged a number of areas in which both states have or are parting with each other. This divergence may lead to further fissure in future if the US does not change its high-handed attitude and acknowledge legitimate rights of other states, and correct its own wrongdoings as well.
Our analysis of some of the important aspects of the US-India relations and the internal and external backdrop against which this diplomatic row has taken place clarifies a number of things. One of the most important inferences is that this diplomatic row is not a cause but an effect of the politico-strategic distance developing between them. This diplomatic spat has added to the already brewing larva between them and given a new direction to the so-called “defining partnership” of the twenty first century. The facts described here show that Washington is certainly in a quandary. And, the important question is: how long can the US continue with high-handed attitude; for, it has certainly pushed on the edge of its limits. This was evident in the speech of BJP president on January 24, 2014, when he said that relations with the US “have hit a low not seen even after the Pokhran-II nuclear tests in 1998 under the Atal Bihari Vajpayee regime.” Such thinking growing in India can also make things complicated for the attainment of the US’ future policy and objectives related to Asia.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs. Exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
