U.S.-India ties changed after Sept. 11, panel says

Mike Alberti Guest Writer

As Professor Emeritus of Political Science M. Glen Johnson took the podium to introduce the panel discussion “India Today: Reliable Partner or Emerging Rival?” on Tuesday, Sept. 19, he reflected on the country’s dramatic emergence into the public consciousness.

"Ten short years ago, it would have been impossible to even pose such a question," said Johnson. "The notion of India as either a reliable partner or an emerging rival would have been absurd to anyone in the United States. That has all changed now."

The theme of the panel, which took place on the second floor of the Students’ Building, was India’s emerging status as a world economic powerhouse and its relationship with the U.S. in coming years. “I believe it’s obvious that what happens with our relations with India will have a major impact on the lives and careers of Americans for the next 30 years,” said Johnson. During the discussion, which was well-attended by both students and Poughkeepsie residents, each panelist was given 15 minutes to speak and then the floor was opened up for discussion.

Speaking first was Indian National Overseas Congress (INOC) President Surinder Singh Malhotra, who is also the North American representative of the Indian National Congress Party. Malhotra is a longtime advocate for a stronger Indo-American relationship, and hosted Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during his October 2005 trip to the U.S. Malhotra spoke chiefly about the issue of terrorism, citing the fact that although the United States has only been truly exposed to it since [Sept. 11], it is a problem India has been coping with for many years. "Our common goal should be to change an ideology of hatred into an ideology of hope," said Malhotra.

Bard College Professor of Political Studies Sanjib Baruah outlined problems inherent to an Indo-American partnership, including the possible loss of India's influence in the Middle East due to a loss of autonomy, and the implications of aligning with another predominantly Islamic country. Baruah recently published an article on this in the World Policy Journal.

Following Baruah was Vassar Assistant Professor of Political Science Himadeep Muppidi, who is an expert in South Asian postcolonial politics and globalization. He focused on nuclear weapons, and posited that the U.S. and India need to be seen as both partners and rivals.

Since President Bush visited India in March 2006 to finalize agreements on nuclear energy, there has been debate about whether the United States should maintain such close ties with India. “The controversy arises because many people believe that cooperation with India will affect our competitiveness in the world,” said Johnson. “India is already one of our biggest competitors in the high-tech and pharmaceutical fields, and this may carry over across the board in a few years.” However, India’s instrumental role in world affairs cannot be discounted, and panelists emphasized that the United States must seriously evaluate its ties with the country.

“Since [Sept. 11], India has played an increasing role in U.S. foreign policy as an ally in the fight against terrorism, a potential counter to the growing might of China, and a location for high-tech investment and out-sourcing,” said Mid-Hudson World Affairs Council President Martin Charwat, whose organization co-sponsored the discussion with Vassar’s Political Science Department. “Understanding what is at stake and ‘getting it right’ may well be one of the most important decisions that American policy-makers have to make over the next 25 years.”

India’s international prominence has increased in recent years, not only in manufacturing and trade, but also with regard to literature, art, and fashion. Despite this growth, many in the Vassar community seem unaware of the country’s progress.

“Our goal is to increase informed on campus and in the community,” said Johnson. “The history of Indian and U.S. relations has been one of difference and even hostility, and that has all been changed now, at least in the official sphere.”

Johnson continued, “The question now is, can a sense of balance be achieved between the incentive for cooperation and the incentive for rivalry?”