Organizer: Arthur G. Rubinoff, University of Toronto
Chair: Sumit Ganguly, Hunter College, CUNY
Discussants: Michael Brown, International Security; George Rosen, University
of Illinois, Chicago
Indo-American relations have rarely been on an even keel. Bilateral ties have been subject to misperceptions. and complicated by U.S.-Soviet competition and rivalry between India and Pakistan. The end of the cold war and the policy of economic liberalization initiated by Prime Minister P. V. Narashimha Rao when he came to power in 1991 presented a historic opportunity to improve ties. The election of Bill Clinton as President in 1992, produced expectations that better relations would be forthcoming. Yet, rapprochement was stillborn for the first two years of the Clinton administration when it jeopardized India's new economic direction by criticizing the country's human rights record in the Punjab and Kashmir.
Consistent with the mandate of the Association of Asian Studies, this panel of widely published scholars takes an interdisciplinary approach to explain the problems in Indo-American relations. Harold Gould, an anthropologist at the University of Virginia examines the historical misperceptions that have characterized bilateral ties. Elizabeth Hanson of the University of Connecticut and Elaine El Assal of the United States Information Agency demonstrate the legacy of public opinion as a barrier to better relations. Arthur Rubinoff, a political scientist at the University of Toronto, analyzes the role Congress has played in complicating Washington's relations with New Delhi. John Adams of Northeastern University delineates the rationale for India's change in economic course, and explains the significance of U.S. investment to the process. Devin Hagerty of The University of Illinois explores the problem nuclear proliferation poses as impediment to better relations. Sumit Ganguly of Hunter College, a specialist on India's foreign policy, chairs the panel. The discussants are Michael Brown, editor of International Security, the foremost journal in the field of international relations, and George Rosen, an economist at the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle who has written widely on bilateral issues.
Indo-American relations-a matter of increasing importance-have been at a crossroads while the Rao Government and the Clinton administration have been in office. This outstanding panel will make a significant contribution towards explaining why rapprochement between the two countries has not been smooth.
The Post-Cold War United States-Indian Relationship: Can the Past Become Prologue
Harold A. Gould, University of Virginia
The injunction that those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it has relevance for the evolving U.S.-Indian relationship. As the two countries consider their future ties, can they overcome the legacy of mutual disenchantment that characterized their post-colonial and cold war interactions? Can the lessons learned from the past become the prologue for a more mature, constructive, and mutually satisfying relationship in the future?
Cultural insensitivity and ignorance produced doctrinaire perceptions that impeded practical diplomacy and pragmatic policies between the United States and India. It remains to be seen if their growing economic involvement removes the moral self-righteousness from bilateral rhetoric. India's rapid economic liberalization, the accelerating pace of corporate America's involvement in this process, and the ability of NRIs to build bridges have already affected the tenor of U.S.-Indian ties. The crucial question, as it is with China, is when will this growing economic relationship fundamentally improve political ties as well?
My discussion will review important milestones in the early phases of U.S.-Indian relations that contributed to the tensions and misunderstandings that for so long characterized them. I suggest that while mutual ignorance played a major role, domestic political considerations were crucial in determining the degree of flexibility that was available to each country's leadership. Strategic considerations invariably influenced ideological choices at least as much as ideology drove diplomacy. The course of U.S.-Indian relations under Prime Minister Rao and President Clinton will be examined in order to ascertain whether there are any signs that the countries at last show signs of profiting from a remembrance of the past.
Economic Relations Between India and the United States: Finally on the Right
Track
John Adams, Northeastern University
The world's two largest democracies, India and the United States, have had consistent trouble in sustaining warm political relationships. India's role in the non-aligned movement and a perceived tilt towards the Soviet Union in the post-war period irritated the United States. Similarly, Cold War actions taken by the United States were frequently deplored by Delhi and a perceived tilt towards Pakistan irritated Indian leadership.
Despite the uncertain political fluctuations in the Indo-American relationship, the United States has consistently been one of India's most important trading partners. In addition, U. S. know-how has been sought by India since its independence, with agricultural technology being a leading example. Thousands of Indian scientists, engineers, and educators hold degrees from American universities. An interesting observation, which this paper will develop, is that there has been little relationship between the fluctuations in political ties and the waxing and waning of economic connections. The 1990s are unusual in witnessing political and closer economic connections at the same time. The paper will examine Indo-American trade relations in detail, and include analysis of current aid, investment, and technology connections, with an emphasis on directions of movements as we enter the 21st century.
Congressional Attitudes Toward India in the Clinton-Rao Years
Arthur G. Rubinoff, The University of Toronto
Since South Asia has had relatively few economic or security concerns for the United States, it has been treated in residual fashion by both the executive and legislative branches. In the State Department, South Asian Affairs were combined with the Near East until Congress created a separate Bureau in 1991-the same year the Rao government came to office in India. The legislative scene is even more diffuse with activities pertaining to South Asia often occurring in appropriations committees. Because no significant segment of the American population originated from South Asia, Congressional concern about the region was not constant. Legislative activity tended to manifest in clusters involving related issues such as human rights and nuclear proliferation. As this paper demonstrates, Congress, historically, has been an impediment to good relations with India because of its outspoken criticisms of India's leaders, policies. and ways of life.
The inauguration of the Clinton administration in January 1993 was welcomed in India as an opportunity to forge a new relationship with the United States. Ironically the creation of a South Asia Bureau proved detrimental to Indo-American relations. Washington's emphasis on human rights issues was counterproductive in the case of India. State Department criticism of New Delhi over Kashmir and the Punjab jeopardized the Rao government's American supported program of economic liberalization. In response, legislators initially made a positive contribution to bilateral ties. However, the election results of 1994 once again strengthened India's opponents. Nevertheless, a bipartisan congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans has been formed in response to initiatives taken by the Indo-American community in the United States. The growing number of immigrants from India in the United States and the increasing economic stake American corporations have in that country are likely to be a lasting positive influence on bilateral ties and Congressional attitudes.