Reflecting on Obama's visit to India

I have a new post at the FPA about Obama's recent visit to India.

"The announcement was at best a shrewd high impact low risk diplomatic gesture, an opportunity to surpass Bush’s Nuclear Deal moment and ensure reciprocal support from India on issues such as human rights in Myanmar or tougher sanctions on Iran. Obama’s support was followed by a call to India to take up more responsibility and reprimand for not speaking out against and condemning human right abuses."

Read more here.

About aid to Pakistan

My new post at the FPA India blog where I argue for putting up a fight against unhindered aid to Pakistan from the US.

"But neither the U.S, nor Pakistan can be really blamed for looking out for their own interests. Playing the victim and savior, and asking for money for being both at the same time, is what Pakistan does best. I think its leadership; its political and military institutions should be commended for efficiently training consecutive generations to fool the world with the same spiel! Other countries could learn a thing or two from Pakistan about consistent foreign policy."

Read more here.

Too soon to approach the WTO

Last week the US Congress passed a border security bill that plans to generate funds by hiking H1-B and L-1 visa fee by $2000 per application per person. This would help fund the $600 million emergency fund for securing the US border, particular with Mexico.

Though it is not explicitly directed towards Indian IT companies, they would be one of the worst affected by the provision. Losses could run into millions of dollars for the bigger companies such as Infosys and TCS.The Indian side has retaliated by threatening to go to the WTO in protest against the protectionist move by the US. I, have a problem with that.

I sincerely believe that it is too soon for the move. The Indian side should first talk to the US and exhaust all bilateral avenues before going the WTO route. The proper way to go about it would be to sit down, analyze and draw up a plan of action in conjunction with the Indian companies that would be affected by the move. It is their business and their money that will be lost, and they are one of the most important stakeholders in the issue. The government is more of a facilitator. The effects on other aspects of bilateral trade and bilateral relations with the US should be carefully analyzed before taking any aggressive measures. The Indian side should have a serious conversation with the US and persuade it to change the provision. If talks fail, then taking the US to the WTO would be an option.

An important question that the Indian side needs to ask itself is, "Can the WTO really change things?" Organizations such as these are good for pressuring smaller countries with lesser clout. But would it really matter to the US if it was taken to the WTO for being protectionist? Even if the WTO were to ask the US to change its provision, would the US do it?

Another thing that puzzles me is the motive behind this desire to go to the WTO. Is it serious indignation and protest, or simply symbolism that the Indian government is interested in? As mentioned earlier, taking the US to the WTO cannot be expected to produce any significant effect. So then is the Indian government trying to show the world that it is not afraid to stand up against the US? Or is it putting up the show for its domestic US-hating/doubting allies?

I am all for standing up against the protectionist attitude of the US. But not at the cost of damaging diplomatic relations and goodwill. National interest comes first, and business, the kind that Indian IT companies generate, is a big part of it. But any protest registered against the US should be carefully planned for maximum effect and minimum damage to Indian interest. It should be remembered that the US, even with its economic recession, can afford to ignore Indian protests and wallow in its own arrogance. India can hope to affect US decisions by wielding the bilateral business/trade card, but the mutual dependence factor with a comparatively weaker Indian side should not be overlooked.

The US decision to hike H1-B visa fees is protectionist, punishes the wrong people for generating profitable business, and will most likely do more damage to US jobs and move them out of the country than the outsourcing haters would like to believe. Yet, it is still not the right time to approach the WTO against the US.

Some more reflecting

Nimish has an excellent post about the elections here. The following is my comment on it, which I am taking the liberty to reproduce since it ended up being so long.

"You raise some very pertinent questions about Obama, the historic significance in terms of what Obama can do and symbolizes for democracy, the expectations people have from him, if attitudes can change suddenly…

Like you, I was initially a Clinton supporter, or rather was in favor of Clinton over Obama or McCain. Part of it was to do with her being a Democratic member and a woman. I have a long standing question about why the US has never had a woman President, and I still have to find a really convincing answer to it. But that is a different story.

As for Sarah Palin, she was a glamour doll for a party that was desperate for some glamour. Had she showed some understanding of issues, I would have been sympathetic. But the minute she spoke, she was a disaster. It is wrong that election campaigns resort to mudslinging, but that is politics and no one has escaped it so far. It is admirable that that is not the only thing that happened there was serious policy debate too. And for that some character assaults could be pardoned.

I don't really remember when I was charmed by Obama, but that's what happened. For all my educational and professional background, I was finally charmed by his oratory and smile. I could see the "hope" everyone talked about. And after the initial daze subsided, I started listening to him objectively. He is an intelligent man. There were issues I did not agree upon, or was skeptical about, but there was the underlying fact that he was a rational intelligent man who could be expected to make policy decision based on facts, who would be able to grasp the various aspects of a situation, at least when informed about them, and that made him different. Of course it would be unreasonable to expect him to take decision without political and electoral considerations. But within the scope of his party ideology they would be rational. Obama’s victory is historic in that he is the first black President. But if it will end at that is speculative. There are unreasonable expectations of him. He will be closely watched because of that and because he is Black. And he will fail numerous times. How that is handled will tell us if that race gap has been bridged.

The question you raise about kalyankari neta saving the people is also very interesting. But that it happened here in the US is not a surprise because of the very nature of their political system, their democratic setup. Through a presidential democracy they have institutionalized the ek kalyankari neta idea for decades. The fact that they vote less on party lines, more for the actual person inculcates that within them. We in India are oriented into thinking about the party we are voting for than the person. There are very few leaders who we vote for individually. We vote for the Congress, the BJP, CPI, SP, BSP… The candidate might be a convicted criminal, but the party is good. We vote for a group of people. It is always ambiguous who the Prime Ministerial candidate is. But even then it is sarkar maibaap.

They way I understand government as an institution it came about because people need someone who will look after them, who will undo their problems, who will uplift them from their hardships. Even if we look at government as a group of people, as an institution, or even a bunch of buildings, we are still looking for someone to help us live our lives happily. Even a socialist, communist government is expected to do that. The idea remains and will continue to exist as we as people always need something that we individually cannot provide ourselves with. As part of a society, due to our interactions and interdependence we need someone ‘other’ to look out for us. The need for a kalyankari neta, the sarkar maibap continues."

Obama inauguration...Change has come!

It is a historic day today. I am watching Obama taking office. And I wish I was there in D.C. right now. After having lived there for two and half years, not being there today makes me sad. Its exactly one month since I left D.C. And so I am trying to blog live as I watch TV.

9.45 am (CT): The crows cheers crazily as Obama and Bush walk out of the White House. That man does have an infectious smile. And Michelle Obama is a charming woman. The crowds are enormous and considering how it felt that day in November walking down D.C's streets and reflecting back upon the last few days of the campaign, I can only imagine what the mall must feel like today.

9.55 am (CT): The motorcade is driving down to the ceremony and its a sight to behold. A sea of people cheering them. Not being an American, or black doesn't matter. It just feels amazing!

Did I ever watch an Indian PM being swore in with this indescribable feeling within me? Maybe when A.B. Vajpayee was sworn in. But I was too young to remember too vividly. I was excited. Having heard him talk had been a pleasure during the election campaign. And I must say he is one of my favorite orators. More on it later though.

10.00 am: Bush and Obama arrive at the Capitol to arrive at the swearing in podium on the West side.

10.05 am: Obama's cabinet members arrive.

Who is that announcer? Nice voice.

What are they feeling? Biden's mother and Bush's parents? And the Clinton's as they walk down to the ceremony? It could have been her being sworn in today! They have been through the ritual before. She looks happy. She is a graceful lady, no doubt. And Carter is walking in too. And the Bush kids.

10.28am: And there are Sasha and Malia and their grandmother. Those are two cute little girls. Smart kids. All smiles. They must be so proud. Michelle's mother too. And they are taking pictures.

They are showing the movers taking out the boxes from the White House. And apparently everything, the actual moving in is done during this ceremony. Having moved houses quite a few times, I think that is impressive. They have help. But even then.

10.32 am: Bush is walking down the corridor, and I feel a little bad for him.
Michelle Obama and Jill Biden have come out.
Cheney is in a wheelchair. For a proud man like him, that must be difficult.

10.36 am: President Bush walks out. The final few moments, and then he is back to Texas. Does he look relieved?

10.38 am: Obama is in the corridor. Looks proud, happy, a slight smile on his face. But contemplative. So many hopes and expectations from him. Smart man. So confident. I would like a John Malkovich moment right now.

10.43 am (CT): And there is Obama, walking out for his swearing in. Goodness!
There is humility on his face as Rick Warren reads the invocation.

10.57 am (CT): The actual swearing in to being... Biden sworn in.
A musical performance. Beautiful. Solemn. And happy.

It is 12.00 ET, which means that Obama is President now. Power transfer takes place at 12 ET on 20 Jan. according to the Constitution. Though there is some debate about what happens if the actual oath has not been taken till then. The White House website has changed to "Change has come." More about it later.

11.05 am (CT): Obama is finally being sworn in. He has taken his full name. And slipped for a moment in reciting the actual oath. Michelle smiles. And Obama is President. The crowds have gone crazy! Many smiles and tears. And now for the much awaited speech.

Speech: Says he is humbled by the generosity. Thanks Bush for his service to the nation. Mentions the many challenges and that they will be overcome together. What a wonderful speaker! Revoking the ancestors. Calls upon people to remake America. Taking bold and swift action. Question is not weather government is too big or small, but if it works. Talks of restoring trust between people and government. About accountability and regulation. America is friend of all, he says. And I want to believe him. He talks of reducing the nuclear threat. Addresses the Muslim world and says wants peace and friendship. "We will extend a hand if you unclench your fist." He refers to his father often. And the spirit of America and the possibility of doing right and good through hardwork. A beautiful speech. Such language. He is said to have written it himself. The language is consistent with his campaign speeches, and I think it might be his writing. He talked about so much in those 15 minutes. There was a strong call for action. Appropriate considering that it is his first speech as President.

11.40 am: The presidential party starts to leave. A beautiful ceremony. And yes, change has come.

I.K. Gujral's advise to Obama

I am sure he meant to say a lot more than what he actually does. Foreign Policy asked world leaders for advise for Obama and there are some good things people have said. And if Mr. Gujral were to meet him, the one thing he would say to Obama is,

"I would tell Barack Obama that we are a country that is [like] Gandhi, and anything one wants to understand about India, one should read Gandhi more than anyone else."

As the former Prime Minister of India that would be his advise to the new U.S. President? Nothing about governance, policy-making, not even the Gujral doctrine.

And of South Asia, Obama should know that,

"We are [of the] same stock, India and Pakistan. I was born [in Pakistan], for instance. I lived there; then the partition came. We have a very warm feeling for [Pakistani] society. ... I hope from now onwards both societies will live as friends."

I think both Mr. Gujral and Foreign Policy could have done better.

Hope

The United States has finally come down (albeit softly) on Pakistan. It has imposed sanctions on A.Q Khan & Co. Though I am skeptical about the real benefits of such sanctions, it is a positive gesture. Particularly since the safety of Pakistan's nuclear weapons and facilities is a matter of grave concern. I have always worried about proliferation by/from/through/due to Pakistan, more than the threat of proliferation by Iran. Iran's program is a concern, but there is still hope due to the absence of any real weapons. With Pakistan, they have proved that they can and will proliferate if opportunity presents itself. Maybe even go looking for one. The consequences of their actions are for all to see in North Korea and Libya. And least we forget, Pakistan's program has Chinese blessings.

With Bush leaving, and Obama having displayed intelligence and understanding of issues, I am hoping that the threat from Pakistan is duly understood and appropriately dealt with. Musharraf might be out of the way, but the weak government, overly ambitious army and ISI combo can be lethal. And the worst part is that there are no real chances of this power structure changing anytime soon. All we can do is hope.

Reflecting on elections

Ashutosh’s experience with volunteering for Obama made me think again of what this campaign said to me - the conspicuous absence of middle class and student participation in elections in India. I don't remember any of my peers or colleagues that I genuinely respected campaigning for any party or candidate. I always carried an image of the mawali kinds campaigning in jeeps and motorbikes, and an important reason why I never thought about participating actively. It is a stereotype and not a completely honest representation, but that is the image I still carry when I think of Indian elections.

Because I was always interested in politics and elections excited me, I could have been easily recruited into campaigning for someone. But no one appealed to my rationality as a voter. No one every tried to convince me of their worth such that I could then plausibly pass it on to others. There was no way I could rationalize and argue for any one candidate with sincerity and conviction. I never felt that any one candidate deserved so much of my time and energy. Every candidate and party had in fact insulted my intelligence.

As against that, watching the campaign here I knew I could have gone out and volunteered for Obama. When the thought first struck me, I was ashamed and guilty. I thought maybe the guilt was because my thoughts were a betrayal of my country. But it was more than that. The guilt was because I had not participated enough in the democratic process in my own country. I had, like millions others merely voted. I had not demanded answers to real questions. I had laughed and brushed away the political rhetoric, and voted on lines my family had for a long time. As a student of politics and democracy, I had not thought long enough about why I was voting for whoever it was. As a journalist I had merely been a passive observer.

While nothing can replace my love and respect for my country, being here and witnessing this election has made me respect the US as a nation. Maybe it is because it’s the election season or maybe because I am in DC, but the respect accorded to rationality and voter intelligence has left me stunned. I have said earlier that the campaigns were not perfect and had their share of mud-slinging and irrationality. I am critical of the US’ foreign policy and attitude. They carry a lot of blame for the kind of world we live in today, from the threats of nuclear war to the economic crisis. But the world wouldn’t have been what it is today without the US, for the better or worse.

Talking to some friends I have heard an argument that the parliamentary form of democracy with hundreds of parties makes it difficult to have a campaign like in the US. My problem with this argument is that I am not merely asking for formal debates. I am asking for a rational discussion and argument from candidates and parties about why I should vote for them. It has nothing to do with the structure of how these policies and rationales are conveyed. It has to do with explaining them in the first place. The party manifestos are meant to describe how a party will govern the country. But I have never known people to actually have access to and read election manifestos to make a decision. But they do turn up at rallies, which is where the policies of the candidate and parties could be discussed. There are interviews and press conferences. There are the 24 hour news channels hungry for news and information. I see no reason why they would not lap up candidates’ policy explanations if they are offered to them.

How and why a person ultimately votes is his personal choice. The people we trust our lives with could at least make an effort to ensure that the reason is rational.

Election fever

It is election day here in the United States, and the excitement is contagious. In a way I am relieved like many others that campaigning is finally over. I don't remember witnessing such long campaigns in any of the Indian elections in the recent past. And unfortunately neither are they as informative as the US campaigns have been.

I said this during an election event at my School and felt guilty that I was criticizing my country's democracy. When in fact I have the utmost respect for it, and the people who helped create it. But it is true that elections in India lack the informed discussion and deliberation that can be seen here. Most of the 'debates' end up being mere political rhetoric and highly abusive too. Not that American politics is devoid of such ills, but there is significant intelligent discussion missing in India. I think of it as an insult to the intelligence of the Indian voters.

Unlike in the US, Indians enjoy discussing politics. Right from the rickshaw-wala to your boss, everyone talks to everyone about politics. Everyone has a opinion. And everyone thinks it is their right and duty to express it. It is only the politicians, the candidates we would actually vote for, who are scared of discussing it. If the candidates were to engage in serious policy discussions with the Indian voters, policy and political accountability would acquire new meaning.

It would be interesting to see Advani discuss real economic policy with Manmohan Singh, instead of the Ram mandir and Ram setu. It would be good to see the marxists parties explaining to people why having fewer industries is good for them, and actually making sense. I am sure I would stop and think before I vote if I know what would really happen, and not just an utopia. The election manifestos do provide information, but how much is practical and implementable. How much is real policy making. We have seen everyone criticise each other's policy, but never putting forth a really thought-out policy that would force me to vote for a particular party. We vote on regional, linguistic, caste lines. How many times do we vote based on policies being proposed?

With the kind of media coverage that elections get, I would expect the same media to force intelligent discussion during elections. And it is very much possible. Elections give the media a new leverage and power, that they lack during normal times. It can destroy a candidate's chances if it wants to. I would like to see the media take a proactive step and demanding real policy discussion from our candidates during the next elections. If we demand it, we will get good candidates. We can force people with real potential to stand for elections and win. We can vote out the many felons that Lok Sabha houses. In a democracy we deserve the government we get, because we vote for it. If we think we deserve better we need to demand the best.