Almost all those interviewed by The Asian Age were unanimous in their assessment that New Delhi’s reaction was a welcome “break from the past” and a positive portent for future Indo-US relations as well. 

“It is a break from the past, and India appears to be examining these issues in terms of Indian interests instead of global interests,” agreed Prof. Stephen Cohen, director of the South Asia programme at the Washington D.C.-based Brookings Institution. “Till now, India tended to respond to such programmes with a knee-jerk reaction.”

In a speech at the National Defence University in Washington on May 1, President Bush had announced his plan to create a National Missile Defence shield to protect the United States from missile attack. The proposal drew sharp protests from Russia and China with both countries expressing concern that the plan would initiate a new arms race.

Along with America’s European allies, New Delhi had welcomed Mr Bush’s announcement and had applauded his expressed desire to make a “clean break from the past” and, especially from the “adversarial legacy of the Cold War.”

“For a change, the Indian government has been way ahead of the whole world on this vitally important issue that concerns the very survival of humanity,” said a Congressional analyst who follows Indian sub-continental affairs closely. “In a way, the Indian response reflects the values and spiritual ethos of that ancient land.”

Requesting anonymity, this analyst added: “What is stunning to me are the run-of-the-mill, knee-jerk and hollow reactions from the spokesman of the Congress Party and editorial writers of the elitist English-language press in India... They appear to be caught up in a time warp and don’t seem to realise that nuclear theology needs to be redefined and New Delhi has to play a leading role along with the United States in this process.”

A professor of Asian studies and government at the University of Texas, Austin, Sumit Ganguly described New Delhi’s reaction as “extremely skilful.” Agreeing with Mr Cohen that it avoided “the typical knee-jerk reaction that anything the US does on nuclear weapons is bad,” Prof. Ganguly added that from the standpoint of Indo-US relations, New Delhi’s measured endorsement would have a very salutary effect on relations. 

“It is now up to the US to reciprocate the sensitivity displayed by India,” he added. Prof. Ganguly cautioned that the only potential adverse affect was “if the Chinese step up production of nuclear weapons as a consequence of Mr Bush’s announcement, then the Indians would also have to do the same.”

However, he added that this was “not such a bad thing” especially for the Vajpayee government, which was in any case “keen to develop a robust nuclear capability.” Mr Cohen said India was correct to adopt a “wait-and-see” policy. “Its response seems to be parallel to that from the European allies,” he said, adding that this was “a prudent response and not an endorsement of a plan that hasn’t even been spelt out as yet.” 

“India is no longer being a global nanny and is for a change, viewing issues in terms of its own security interests,” Mr Cohen said. All praise for those handling foreign and defence policy in New Delhi, Prof. Ganguly said, “They are very deft. This is a muted, calibrated reaction that focuses on the US’ willingness to reduce its arsenal.”

Reacting to concerns raised by Russia and China that the proposal could lead to an arms race and destabilise Asia, Prof. Ganguly said, “India has an independent foreign policy. While Russia is a declining power, India has a contentious relationship with China. Why should we bother about them?”

He said the Chinese had done lots of things that were not necessarily in India’s interests, and India must now do what’s in its interests. “For far too long India was far too solicitous.”
Missouri-based chairman of the southern chapter of the Coalition of Indian-American Physicians for George W. Bush, Dr Sampat Shivangi said it was “a positive thing” for India to have some deterrent to China’s “expansionist designs.”

“Mr Bush’s proposal will give the Indians a kind of umbrella. This is a positive step for all the countries around China, including Japan and Korea,” Dr Shivangi said, adding, “China will think twice before flexing its muscles.” Speaking about national security advisor Condoleezza Rice’s telephone call to foreign minister Jaswant Singh prior to Mr Bush’s speech on May 1, Dr Shivangi said, “It looks like they have developed a good rapport. 

Ms Rice is not a political person, but she’s the one who formulates Mr Bush’s foreign policy. She realises that while Mr Bush remains hawkish on China, the US needs to befriend the next biggest power in the region — India.” Minnesota-based Republican, Mr Gopal Khanna said that now that the Cold War was over, India needed to shift to a new global paradigm in which it could play a very important role.

“I find it very gratifying that India has taken a supportive stand. I think it will lead to better relations between the two countries,” he said. Mr Khanna was of the opinion that the biggest gain for India, which would emerge from this skilful bureaucracy, would be “America’s goodwill.”

“Any alliance is based on goodwill and trust and an understanding of each other’s position New Delhi’s support sends a message that India is serious about an alliance with the United States.” Dr Shivangi pointed out that besides goodwill, India would also benefit by sharing technology and the involvement of Indian programmers in developing a missile shield.

Mr Khanna said there were many issues that both India and the US had in common and mutual security interests in the region were inter-woven — “the US wants to contain global terrorism and China’s hegemony in Asia, this is also in India’s interest”. Los Angeles-based president-elect of the National Federation of Indian-American Associations, Ms Anna Prasad said she was “glad India and the US have begun to see eye to eye on certain issues.”

“Both India and the US have common interests, and maybe some common enemies as well. I am glad the US is looking on India as a global leader and is not nit-picking on minor irritants,” Ms Prasad said. Washington-based president of the National Council of Asian Indian Associations, Mr Shreekanta Nayak, however, was one of the few who disagreed with India’s support to Mr Bush’s plan.

“You cannot just take the example of a few rogue nations and come up with a new concept on Star Wars technology,” Mr Nayak argued, adding, “Does this mean the US is going to play big brother again? How can we just write off the ABM treaty?” Agreeing that India and the US must have strong relations, Mr Nayak said New Delhi must not offer “blindfolded” support.

He, however, added that Moscow is not going to listen only to the US but will also put forward its position. He said Russian President Vladimir Putin had already come up with a cohesive programme with reference to missile defence and that Russia had proposed a substantial reduction of nuclear weapons to bring them down to 1,500 on both sides. 

It was reiterated during the meeting, which covered bilateral, regional and international issues, that agreements between India and Russia must be respected and any modification of these should be done through mutual consultation and understanding.