Steak and Dhokla

by Harish Gupta, National Editor, Lokmat Group

Defying gravity, when Donald Trump made his way to the White House last year, it was generally seen as a mostly local catastrophe whereas the US foreign policy, it was hoped, is too big to fail, resting on the long pillow of seemingly unshakable global business and defence ties. But Trump is a new persona amidst foreigners in Washington.

Till recently, in the French presidential election this month, he seemed championing populist right-wing leader Marine Le Pen as “strongest on borders, and she’s the strongest on what’s been going on in France”. After rolethe liberal pro-EU candidate Emmanuel Macron soundly beat her, Trump did a somersault as he told Macron: “You are my guy.” With other European leaders, he was downright caddish. In his recent trip across the pond, he called Germans “bad” because they sell “just too many cars” in America. At a NATO meet photo-op, he shoved the leader of Montenegro, a small Balkan nation, who happened to be at the centre, to occupy his place.

Before flying into Europe, Trump was in Riyadh where he became a picture of cordiality, starting his interactions with a traditional all-male swordplay, and promising a bonanza of aid for arms to fend against “radical Islamist terrorism”. What he forgot was that it was his host that was the engine powering jihadism based on the tenets of Wahhabism, and Saudi nationals constituted most of the fighters of both Al Qaeda and Islamic State. In the process, attention got deflected from the significant fact that the Saudi priority being to mount attacks on all non-Sunni nations, notably Iran, Trump’s promised aid has the potential to derail Teheran from the path of non-nuclearization. Tehran had earlier agreed to tread after patient persuasions from the Western powers. However, Trump, in stark contrast to his inexplicable show of magnanimity in Riyadh, was all petulance in Europe as he reminded his NATO colleagues that what mattered most (to him) was the regularity of their payments into the alliance’s coffers. NATO was born in the early years of the Cold War as a bulwark of the Western democracies against the communist USSR under its totalitarian leader Stalin. It is obvious that Trump, with hitherto unstated Russian affinity that he and his family members reportedly cherish, is finding NATO’s very idea to be flawed from his perspective from the beginning.

In fact, the Trump presidency has got deeply mired in the Russian muddle. FBI, America’s top investigative agency, which was given the task of investigating possible links between Trump’s campaign team and entities in Russia, has now got its chief fired by the President. Yet there is no sign of the agency closing the investigation. On the other hand, it has zeroed in on Trump’s son-in-law and White House senior advisor Jared Kushner, apparently to investigate the extent and nature of his alleged interactions with Russians. It has been reported that, a month after Trump’s election, Kushner discussed with some Russians a project to set up a secret line of communication with Moscow.

Also under the scanner are the extensive business dealings that officials close to Trump had with Russian proxies in Ukraine. It is the Russian military intervention in Ukraine that brought a new urgency into NATO. After all, Ukraine is the most pro-West of the ex-Soviet satellite nations which former US President Barack Obama fully appreciated. It was Trump’s predecessors who made his country share the concern of Europe and the cost of containing Russian president Putin’s fury. In his election campaign, Trump turned it into his ammunition as he presented the European powers as parasites that were leeching on America for their security. On the other hand, he presented Russia as a victim. Strangely, this fanciful narrative not only went unchallenged in the American public space but created a lot of interest in within the Putin administration to install  “our man” in White House. This is an idea that might make the remains of Stalin turn in its grave. Trump’s deeply troubled five months’ presidency, and the continuance of governmental and congressional probes into his affairs, have got Washington shrouded in an uncertainty not seen till the end of the Nixon years.

All this is bad news for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has visited 57 countries since assuming office, but whose foreign policy turns on the pivot of America. A Modi visit to the US towards the end of next month is on the anvil. But the problem is, India is not prominently placed in Trump’s attention span and priorities. In his recent speech in Riyadh, he mentioned India, among others, as a victim of terrorism. But, unlike his predecessor, he lacks a world view, not to speak of a civilizational compass. India in his mind may be lost in a landmass which seem to be distant.

It is not that Trump’s mind-space is limited to the Trump Towers in America. He has a dealmaker’s shrewd understanding of who’re the ones that matter, and is careful to set the chocolate cake moment with Chinese president Xi Jinping at his Florida club Mar-a-Lago, or play golf with Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, and beam at his Saudi hosts when served his favourite all-American fare, well-done steak and ketchup.

He is a Conservative elite and will remain so, impeachment or no impeachment. Personality wise, he is so far removed the liberal Obama that Modi must rewrite his manual of self-projection—the “my friend Bahrahak” types—with care. And food is an issue; committed steak-lovers may hold dhokla-eaters as the ET.

The real problem is, Trump’s dealings with people are purely transactional. If India is jointly pounded by Pakistan and China, he is unlikely to promptly act, at least that’s the impression one gets. Secondly, Trump in unpredictable. And that’s why the coming US visit is Modi’s litmus test.

Delhi-DC, Economy Class

by Harish Gupta, National Editor, Lokmat Group

In Indo-US relations after Donald Trump's entry in White House, the noticeable change is in somewhat  diminution of relative stature of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. During his September 2014 visit to America, his first after being elected prime minister of India, there was a buoyancy in his movement that reflected in his triumphal address to his diaspora supporters at Madison Square Garden. Erstwhile US President Barack Obama, though apprehensive about Modi's alleged communally divisive inclinations, treated him with care as India remained important in his world view in the context of his pledge to withdraw American soldiers from Afghanistan. He thought Kabul might gain from Delhi's help to rebuild the country ravaged by decades of terrorism. India's importance in his scheme of things added to Modi's stature in America. This was an important platform for popularity in a country with a middle class hooked on the American dream.

Since Trump's election, however, Modi has lost his perkiness. The new US president’s world view is different. He seems non-committal on India but that only prolongs the anxiety of unpredictability. It came to the fore with the killing of Indian techie Srinivas Kuchivotla in Kansas on February 22 by a Navy veteran in a racist outburst. Had it been in the Obama days, the balmy touch of White House would have been promptly extended. But Trump remained silent for almost a whole week. He finally mentioned it in his address to a joint session of the US congress. Clubbing it with hate crimes on the Jewish communities, and couching it in lofty prose, he said it "reminded us that...we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms".

Two things related to President Trump's belated condemnation of the seemingly racist murder stand out, though. First, far from coming easily, it required quiet and high level palavering by India, led by Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar, who was camping in Washington DC. Besides, the President's florid words neither include the name of the victim nor his nationality. On the other hand, the death in action of an American army officer in Yemen became, rightly, the subject of high-decibel presidential commiserations, with the slain soldier's widow among guests.

But this is not the only incident that highlights India's shrinking profile on the American radar. In the same speech in Capitol Hill, Trump had an indirect swipe at India for over-taxing the Harley-Davidson US luxury motorcycles. "In one country, they (HD executives who recently met the President) said another country taxed their motorcycle at 100 per cent". The fact is, Harley-Davidson enjoys 50% market share in India of the luxury range of motorcycles with above 800 cc engines. The issue of import duty does not arise for what its Indian subsidiary produces. But 100 per cent import duty is charged for its Completely Built Units (CBU) that account for only 20 per cent of its India sales. If India brings it down to 25 per cent, or so, it will not only pose an existential threat to India's buzzing two-wheeler industry but push the market towards using guzzlers, which is both expensive and polluting. The company's India unit, on the other hand, is flush with cash as its vehicles, mostly in the Rs 5-10 lakh range (the 1,600-cc bike costs 45 lakh rupees)  have enough buyers among the new affluent class.

Trump was obviously bullying. With time, such bullying may not remain low key. Indeed it may assume larger dimensions, just as he is doing with China. The saving grace for Modi is that India is, for America, a buyer's nation with little to sell except those who walk on a pair of legs, or the trained and educated Indians joining the American work force. In his speech, Trump spoke about how much he preferred merit-based immigration. But there is no clarity yet on how his administration will review terms of the crucial H1B visa going forward. Will it come with an unrealistically high wage stipulation (more than average domestic wage in the same category)? Can there be additional conditionalities about spouses accompanying?

There are 2.5 million Indian Americans, of whom more than half migrated after 2000. The future safety and prospects of the Indian diaspora in the US holds the key to India's attitude to that country. Earlier, Modi rode on a friendly tailwind that had actually begun much earlier, from the past decade, with large-scale exodus of Indian computer engineers to America. The famous personal rapport between former PM Dr Manmohan Singh and ex-President George W. Bush was an outcome of America's enlarging profile in India's public life, and consequently that of the people of America getting to know the Indians from close quarters, and in large numbers.

But the hand-shake at the people's level may be cut short by the wave of protectionism lashing most Western economies, of which Trump is a symbol. The strategic ties, which were of great value to all post-Second World War US presidents, do not seem to be of much consequence to Trump who looks upon security alliances as "cost" and expects partners to pay for the "help". In Trump's world, all global relations are purely transactional.

It is difficult to guess how India can retain its perceived relevance in America. Most other large nations still have resources that America cannot ignore. But bereft of China's industrial base, Japan's skill and Germany's technological mastery, India may suddenly discover it has to do a lot of hard work to remain a player in the game. India graduated to US’ strategic partner. But Trump has different ideas and there is a danger of India losing the plot. That's quite a bother for Modi who is used to grand reception in Washington. But Modi is not known for putting his foot in the mouth like Trump. He is in no hurry to visit Washington DC either and waiting for his moment to strike. He sees a silver lining in Trump’s battle against “Radical Islamic Terrorism.”

LET DIPLOMACY BEGIN AT HOME

by Harish Gupta, National Editor, Lokmat Group

After getting a bloody nose from China at the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) plenary in Seoul (South Korea) last week, it is not only India’s ambition to get a foot in the door of the 48-member club that has been shattered. It has also put the red flag on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s overreaching diplomacy. It clearly emerged that his diplomacy is high on jet miles but modest on finesse. On the eve of the plenary, the Prime Minister hopped across five capitals in four days and pressed the octogenarian President, Pranab Mukherjee, to keep pace with him across different destinations. Modi’s picture with Chinese president Xi Jinping at Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, hours before the Seoul meet, made headlines in India as if the “deal” is clinched. But when the crunch came, China did not shift the breadth of a hair from its consistent position that no country staying out of Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) could claim NSG membership.

But it is not just that China remained frosty to Modi. Following the plenary, it appears that some countries that Modi recently visited, with an impression given that there had been a change of heart, actually proved steely in their rejection of India’s case as a non-NPT aspirant. And so were New Zealand and Austria, both regarded as US allies. Even Modi’s charm failed to swing Switzerland. Nor was there any proof that a Skype call from White House would work wonders. It seems Modi and his team was somewhat lacking in the fast-changing dynamic of power with the US no more the last word as it used to be in 2008. The US signed the civil nuclear deal with India then and gave it a one-time waiver to participate in nuclear trade with NSG countries. But even that advantage was short-lived. What was considered a feather in Manmohan Singh’s cap in 2008 under Republican Bush faded  fast by a wave of amendments made to NSG guidelines in 2011. One of them banned trade in enrichment and reprocessing with any country which is not a signatory to NPT.

Enrichment of uranium, from its natural form to the fissile isotope uranium 235 and reprocessing technology form the core of using nuclear energy for making weapon as well as generating electricity. By banning transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technology, the 2011 amendments virtually negated the spirit of the 2008 Indo-US civil nuclear deal. It hinged on the US ‘trusting’ India that it would not stoop to divert fissile fuel from power reactors to making nuclear weapons. The amendments came after President Barack Obama had taken charge in the US, after President George W. Bush. There was no protest from Washington against NSG amendments, which again suggests a marked loss of real interest in the US in the treaty with India signed by the previous Republican presidency.

Added to that is the irresistible rise of China as a global superpower, a fact that the Modi administration failed to factor in while thinking it has got US support in its pocket. Modi visited the US four times after becoming prime minister, but it was China that correctly plumbed the depth of Indo-US relations and knew America wouldn’t raise hell if it stopped India at the NSG door. In stark contrast, when the Indian Army liberated Bangladesh from Pakistan in 1971, the US, then Pakistan’s godfather, got its Seventh Fleet sailing down to the Bay of Bengal yet it did not fire a single shot as it was fully aware of the former Soviet Union’s commitment to Indira Gandhi. Developing real close ties with the US, or any big power, for that matter, is certainly more challenging that holding its leader in a bear hug, or sitting with him on a swing in one’s home state. Diplomacy is a lot more than just photo-op.

Besides, the one-time waiver that President Bush had gifted to India was good enough for the moment as it enabled India to lawfully shop around for advanced reactors from Russia, US, France, Japan or Britain for peaceful purposes. Of course these will be under international safeguards. But where is the problem if we are not pinching plutonium from them to make weapons? Of what value is NSG membership then, other than gaining respectability?

The drive shown by Modi in foreign policy could be better employed, perhaps, in winning friends at home. His government is into its third year but, barring liberalization of FDI, there is not a single mega reform initiated. Of course, Modi is trying his best to simplify procedures and rules. But can the posterity will remember his regime in the same way as the Narasimha Rao-Manmohan Singh regime is remembered for ending the “licence permit raj”. The effect of Modi’s dramatic clinching of majority in the lower House in 2014 is fading away in the wake of a bitter row between Arun Jaitley, his finance minister and confidante, and maverick MP Subramaniam Swamy. Though Modi’s own graph remains high. But his government’s image is taking a beating due to various domestic factors.

The drive and energy Modi has displayed in foreign relations, though admirable per se, were better invested if he had won back the party, including the sullen faces that enjoy his trusted finance minister’s public humiliation. That alone would have won him the trophy of GST a year ago, making possible seamless trade on almost uniform tariff across a nation of 28 states. It is as bold a reform as abolition of licence-permit raj, and certainly more honourable than jetting across the planet to finally have the door of NSG slammed on the face.