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.”

India in the Trump era

by Harish Gupta, National Editor, Lokmat Group

From Republican presidential nominee of the United States of America, Donald Trump is already the President Elect, and is irreversibly marching towards his inauguration in January. The traumatised liberals are hoping against hope for some miracle at the last minute, like electors pledged to support Trump changing their mind in a fiery defiance of convention, if not the election law. But all that is a mark of the extreme numbness that has overtaken the minds of Americans who were hardly prepared to see the nightmarish figure of a part-crackpot part-bully storming into the White House and occupying it for four years, at least. 

While time may not always prove to be the best healer, and a divisive president is certain to leave his mark on America if not the world, it is still necessary to get clarity on what Trump's election actually signifies. It will surely be a repudiation of a central assumption about America's commitment to greater inclusiveness at home, and free trade and global leadership abroad. The unfathomable policy uncertainty that may be waiting to be unrolled in the Trump era can recoil on the world in myriad ways. It may witness an anti-democracy military grouping, or an ideology-less grouping against conceived enemies. It may be the funeral of multilateral trading. It may mark return to the high tariff walls of the Reagan era. Or in any other painful way in which you turn the clock backward. Still, the moot question is, can the tsunami also throw up opportunities for a bit player like India? Just as Nixon/Kissinger's overture to China to get it on the side of the US in 1971 did to the future of the latter? In the following year, after Richard Nixon, visited Beijing and met Mao Zedong, he termed the visit as "the week that changed the world". In the thick of the Cold War, what China could offer was an addition to the Soviet Union's worries. What lies in India's destiny depends on what it can offer. 

India can emerge on Trump's radar only if—and that's a big if—he sticks to his campaign promise to punish China for being "currency manipulator", beside looking for "new trade barriers against Chinese imports". China is only marginally dependent on imports from the US but it is America's largest source of import. US goods export to China in 2015 were $116 billion while China goods export to the US were $482 billion. Following the gradual deindustrialisation of Middle America—the reason why Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton got routed from the 'rust belt' states like Michigan—the US has now become totally dependent on China for top import category items like electrical machinery, machinery, furniture, sports items or footwear. 

Trump has threatened tariff up to 45 per cent on Chinese imports which, though still a threat, is within the realm of feasibility, For at least two more years, it will remain a Republican Congress; so the fabled checks and balances of the American democracy may not count. India can join the game if it can tap its potential of cheap labour and its deep knowledge base, particularly of its large public sector corporations, to fill in the vacuum that China may leave. It is obvious that the Chinese imports to America excludes products of high-tech American companies in mainland China, such as Apple. On the other hand, Chinese imports are moderately labour intensive, with labour costs playing a significant role in their competitiveness. But wages in China are rising fast. It is on this ground that China is losing its competitive edge in the US market. It is perhaps one of the reasons why the Barack Obama administration focused on the Trans Pacific Partnership of 11 countries including Vietnam and Malaysia. India can be a major player in the US market if it plays its cards well with the most unpredictable and disruptive administration the US Capitol has ever seen. 

Still more uncertain is the possible impact of Trump’s professed dislike of the H1B visa, and whether it can punch a big hole in the IT industry that earns $100 billion in exports. In this space, I have discussed the critical technology shifts that threaten the very business model India follows, which is that of locating trained workers in client premises and thus giving the client the advantage of cheap and available labour. The model is threatened by artificial intelligence and big data. Indian IT workers are of course a smart lot and it may not take them long to catch up with others on the use of artificial intelligence and, in a way, add value on robot. But an abrupt closure of visa programmes like H1B or L1 has the potential threat to trigger a reverse exodus of many thousands of Indian American workers, not to speak of a sudden break in the $10-billion annual pipeline of remittance from the US. 

In the strategic context, Trump’s pronounced distaste for persons of the Islamic faith, if translated into action, can create such a stirring in the Muslim world that it can bring the age-old US-Pakistan ties to a sudden end. Pakistani media have begun reflecting the existential fear of a country long used to diverting American weapons marked for use against terror groups, to attack India through its proxies. Nor can it rely indefinitely on China. America is still the biggest source of technological knowledge, and China, after having covered a long way from a peasant economy to the world’s number two, is still in need of US knowhow. Trump may review his opinion on China, but not if it keeps spilling nuclear technology to North Korea and Pakistan and arm the latter with copycatted versions of the F16 fighter jet with designs stolen by Chines spies at the plant of Lockheed Martin. It’s time for both China and Pakistan to behave. 

The Bully and the Cilly

by Harish Gupta, National Editor, Lokmat Group

Going over the social media networks, my eyes got stuck at a news video from Massachusetts in the USA, the home for a slew of world-famous universities and regarded as one of the cradles of the country"s culture. The video shows a procession of SUVs snaking through the road with the Republican Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump"s pictures mounted on the top of their cars.

Good-bye, hesitations of history

by Harish Gupta, National Editor, Lokmat Group

Narendra Modi, after being elected Prime Minister two years ago, finished his fourth visit to the US last week amid an impressive address to a joint session of the US Congress; he was the sixth Indian leader after Jawaharlal Nehru to be accorded the honour. It was topped up with a reception in his honour by the Senate and House foreign relations committees and the India Caucuses in the House and the Senate. This being the election year in America, Barack Obama, the outgoing President, who struck up a good personal rapport with Modi, the duo have certainly taken the Indo-US relations to a hitherto unachieved height. It goes well beyond the "strategic partnership", to an emotional level where one friend understands the difficulties of the other. In his address to US Congress, Modi tellingly said that "our relations have overcome the hesitations of history", and "through the cycles of elections and transitions of Administrations the intensity of our engagement has only grown".