Japan walks the extra mile

On Sunday, President Xi Jinping met with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, in an action that reflects the rapid geopolitical churning in Asia. Whether or not this marks a détente in the troubled China-Japan relationship remains to be determined. But the four-point agreement that was worked out by State Councillor Yang Jichei and Japanese National Security Adviser Shotaro Yachi to enable the meeting indicates that Tokyo has walked the extra mile to assuage the Chinese.

It has accepted the need for “facing history squarely and looking forward to the future”— short-hand for its horrific wartime role in China. Further, it has acknowledged that the two parties “had different views” about the issue of the Senkaku/Diayou islands. Japan may not quite have accepted that there is a dispute over the status of the islands, but it has come close to it.

A Chinese-Japanese détente would be a stunning coup for the Chinese. By this action, they would neutralise their most potent East Asian adversary, having already established an entente with Russia to the north. Besides its enormous economic and technological power, Japan’s location is also a very important element in East Asian politics.

Recall that the US carrier groups that have been deployed in the Taiwan Straits area in 1996 came from Yousuoka, not Hawaii or elsewhere, Japan served as the key platform for the prosecution of the US war in Korea in 1950.

Many observers believe that Beijing’s greater assertiveness since 2010 was related to the succession politics in China.

But inner party tensions compelled Xi Jinping to not only press on in the South China Sea and the East China Sea, but to actually increase the heat. Prime Minister Abe’s nationalistic posture and his decision to visit the Yasukuni Shrine last year, led to the Chinese declaration of an ADIZ covering the Senkaku/Diayou islands, which was followed by more aggressive posturing that led some observers to believe that a China-Japan military clash was in the offing.

But what this succeeded in doing is to strengthen the US-Japan ties and encourage Tokyo to move away from its pacifist moorings towards a more active role in its security. So, earlier this year in July, the Japanese Cabinet took the decision to authorise the use of force by the Japanese military for self-defence and included the concept of collective self-defence involving any attack on the forces of “a foreign country that is in a close relationship with Japan” (read the US). In other words, instead of remaining a passive element in the alliance, Japan took a step towards becoming a more equal member of the alliance.

The relations between China and Japan are far more dense than, say, the relations between India and Japan or India and China. This is not merely a result of geography and history, but of globalisation.

Trade between the two countries is around $350 billion and rose last year for the first time since 2012 when political tensions negatively affected it.

If China is a destination of Japanese exporters battling a sluggish economy back home, Japan is the source of many components and sub-assemblies that make the Chinese export miracle what it is. China imports more from Japan than any other country mainly high-tech components and capital equipment for its manufacturing sector. Japan’s expertise in areas like energy efficiency is something that China covets because that will enable it to become a more efficient producer of goods. But Japan is no match for Chinese military power and its World War II history has created a deeply pacific mindset within the country, something that Abe cannot ignore.

Recently, China too began to feel the effects of an economic slowdown. While the Chinese leadership has kept a brave face and indicated their decision to press on, they have also realised that a further deepening of the economic problems, arising out of their dust-up with Japan, could have negative consequences for internal stability. Equally important, they realised that their actions were pushing Japan to take a more assertive military and political posture.

One manifestation of this was the growing ties with countries like India and Vietnam, as well as a strengthening of relations with the United States.

Awareness of these factors have helped both sides to pull back from the brink. This year, Abe did not visit the Yasukuni Shrine on August 15, the anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. Earlier, in May, the two countries held their first minister-level talks on the sidelines of a session of the APEC forum in Quingdao, and later the two foreign ministers met in Myanmar. Subsequently, in the run up to the APEC summit, the officials of the two sides met and drew up the four-point agreement that was arrived at last Friday and which enabled the Xi-Abe meeting of Sunday.

The easing of China-Japan tensions is a positive development, but it is unlikely to lead to an entente between the two countries.

Chinese economic and political power remains on the ascendant, while that of Japan is refusing to budge from its relatively stagnant position. Addressing a group of CEOs on the sidelines of the APEC meeting in Beijing, not only did Xi pledge $40 billion to develop connectivity through the “Silk Road” initiative, but held out the promise of a massive outbound investment surge by China in excess of $1.25 trillion over the next 10 years. He also said that China would import more than $10 trillion in goods and send more than 500 million tourists abroad in the next five years.

These are huge numbers and their consequences will not just be economic, but political.

Mid Day November 11, 2014

On Sunday, President Xi Jinping met with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, in an action that reflects the rapid geopolitical churning in Asia. Whether or not this marks a détente in the troubled China-Japan relationship remains to be determined. But the four-point agreement that was worked out by State Councillor Yang Jichei and Japanese National Security Adviser Shotaro Yachi to enable the meeting indicates that Tokyo has walked the extra mile to assuage the Chinese. - See more at: http://www.mid-day.com/articles/japan-walks-the-extra-mile/15756170#sthash.4sE30WkK.dpuf

Modi must unite all, not make us fear him

Given its vast size, it is said that a super tanker takes 10 nautical miles to execute a turn. The ship of state that is India is in the same situation. A new party and government has taken charge just five months ago and have begun the process of change, but given the size of the country, it will take time before you actually feel something happening. 

As it is, Modi seems to be working on a different timetable. His goal is nothing short of hegemony in Indian politics, both personal, and that of his party.

Centralisation 

Modi has centralised the politics of the country around himself and has made his Prime Minister’s Office the core of his authority. From here he runs India, and it is now clear to all that no detail is too small for the PMO to be involved in - from dealing with Pakistan, China and the US, to dispatching the Joint Intelligence Committee chairman to check out a robbery in Haryana and helping a teacher get her gratuity from her institution. 

As part of this centralisation process, Modi is taking charge of his party across the country. 

Beginning with Amit Shah, party organisations across the states are being reorganised with the old guard marginalised and a new team loyal to Modi being put in their place. 

Modi’s ties to big business are well known. That he is a Gujarati is a natural advantage since many of the top businessmen are also from the same community. But in Modi’s case, he sees the businessmen as instruments of his policy, rather than as a source of funds. 

The way he looks at it, if he is to transform India to becoming a manufacturing hub, and meet the expectations that he has aroused among the people, he needs the cooperation of big business. 

As of now, the picture that emerges of Modi is that notwithstanding the fact that he has a Master’s degree, Modi is not an “intellectual” politician, he runs more on instincts and strong beliefs. 

These views have been built up over time, they have a strong leavening of the Sangh Parivar, but also of his varied experiences as a party organiser and chief minister. In this he is like Ronald Reagan who created a revolution of sorts in American politics by pursuing politics that were rooted in his deep beliefs, regardless of the fact that they were not part of the country’s mainstream. 

But unlike Reagan, and more like Mrs Indira Gandhi, Modi likes to run the show on his own. As of now, his government is painfully thin in terms of talent. He has the formidable Mr Jaitley by his side, but even Jaitley cannot manage the enormous demands of the two ministries - finance and defence - especially since they require not just their running, but also deep restructuring and reform. 

Control 

Despite his increasing control over his party, Modi today essentially depends on the bureaucracy to execute his will. He coerces them, but also empowers them to take decisions. They, more than his Cabinet colleagues, are the primary instrument of his decision-making. 

This is the model that he patented in Gujarat and this is the one that he seems to be using in New Delhi as well. But, unlike his predecessors, you will not hear of any coterie or kitchen cabinet. He treats them all alike, but keeps them at a distance. 

There is of course his big family - the Sangh Parivar. But anyone who has seen the record of their dealings will know that the relationship is a complex one.

+2

At Saturday's launch of the BJP membership drive, PM Modi made a case for inclusion in the party

Modi is not the typical pracharak. Had he been so, he would not have become the prime minister of India. But he is aware of the enormous power of the Sangh through its network of pracharaks and front organisations, and that just like the Congress is nothing without the Gandhis, so is the BJP zero without the Sangh. 

Relationship 

As of now the relationship has been exemplary. Modi has taken key leaders like Ram Madhav aboard from the Sangh into the BJP, and has institutionalised consultations between ministers and top leaders. What is more likely to happen is that given time, the Modi machine will subsume the Sangh, rather than the other way around. 

There is one big dangerous downside to the current political situation: the efforts to trigger communal polarisation and Modi’s silence, at least till now, on this issue.

It is true that during election time such polarisation is not uncommon. But the talk of “love jihad” by some partymen in UP and the rise in communal tension are a bad augury. 

If Modi is to move this country ahead, he also needs social peace. Indian Muslims have been remarkable in their immunity to the global jihadi agenda till now. None were found in Guantanamo in the wake of the American victory in Afghanistan in 2001, and none have been found in Syria either with the Islamic State militants. 

There have been some claims about Indians going to join the stir, but little evidence. Even in India, the 100 or so Indian Mujahideen involved in the bombing campaign of 2005-2008 are a negligible number as compared to the 180 million Muslim population. 

Indeed, social indicators show and opinion polls reveal most Indian Muslims have the same aspirations as their other countrymen. They want smaller families, better jobs, and good education for their children. Let’s note: 180 million is not a small number, and if pushed to the wall, they are likely to fight back and the consequences will be bad for the whole country. 

Modi himself has been silent on the issue, but last week, kicking off a membership drive for the BJP, he called for a more inclusive party, one that represented all sections of the people. 

Currently it is seen as a party of the Hindi heartland and mainly of Hindus. But if the BJP is to supplant the Congress as the default party of the land, it has to appeal to people across the very diverse landscape of the country. 

Mail Today November 7, 2014

Congress must cast a solid policy platform to survive

As we see the muscular rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party across the country, we are witnessing the atrophying of the Congress party. 

This is neither good for India, nor democracy. But it is today’s reality. 

Zero-sum outcomes are the worst option for the people. A strong Opposition, is the best means of ensuring that the Government of the day lives up to its promises.

Stuck: Congress chief Sonia Gandhi (left) and party vice-president Rahul Gandhi (right) will have a hard fight to reinvent the Grand Old Party, though it has been given new life in the past. 

Unfortunately, the Congress is, to paraphrase an idiom, up a fast-flowing creek without a paddle. The depth of the Congress’s problems is evident from the party’s inability to come to grips with the problem of party leadership. 

For structural reasons—primarily the fact that it is a proprietorial entity—this is the most critical problem for the party. 

This was evident from the reactions to P. Chidambaram’s remark that a “non-Gandhi” could “someday” become president of the party. 

Instead of a measured response, we had Gandhi loyalists like ex-Shipping Minister G.K. Vasan, declare no Congressman “from Kashmir to Kanyakumari” wanted a person “from the non-Gandhi clan” to be Congress president. 

Resurrect 

However, the issue has not died down and is not likely to do so. 

On Monday, former Union Minister Subodh Kant Sahai said Rahul Gandhi was more of a social worker and was still some distance away from becoming a true politician. He added that Rahul’s policies and perspectives were not clear. 

Sahai, who demanded that Sonia resume command of the party, was probably speaking as a worried and loyal Congressman because the state he comes from, Jharkhand, is going in for elections soon. 

It would be a mistake to see this as a crisis of the Grand Old Party. Actually that Congress, the one that fought for independence, died in 1969 when Indira Gandhi split the party. The GOP died - and what survived became a proprietary of the Gandhi family. 

This party has known many dark days. However, at each stage, it was able to turn the tables on the Opposition and re-emerge. 

The first was 1967-1971 period when Indira Gandhi took a Left-ward swing and marginalised the old guard. 

The second was following the party’s massive defeat in the General Elections of 1977 following the Emergency. 

Here, Mrs Gandhi did not have to do much, but to sit back and watch as the Janata Party came apart and a disgusted electorate gave her a mandate to return in 1980. 

The assassinations of Indira and Rajiv Gandhi in 1984 and 1991 respectively, altered the dynamics of the country’s politics and postponed what was a downward drift of the party. 

But Rajiv’s assassination ensured that the party got enough seats to form a minority Government in New Delhi in 1991, under the leadership of PV Narasimha Rao. 

Though the Government completed a full term, it was never quite stable. Top leaders like Sharad Pawar and Arjun Singh sought to destabilise it from within, and the infighting finally led to the defeat of the party in the 1996 General Elections - which brought about its third crisis.

After two years of experimenting with the leadership of “non-Gandhi” leaders, Sonia Gandhi finally took charge of the family party. 

Under Sonia’s leadership since March 1998 it has won two consecutive victories in the 2004 and 2009 Lok Sabha polls, as well as many state assembly elections. 

Indeed, in the wake of the 2009 victory, it looked as though it was the BJP which was headed for total eclipse. 

Coherence 

The victory of 2004 was more of a negative vote against the BJP for the communal carnage in Gujarat and the fatuous “Shining India” slogan. 

The 2009 Congress victory was an outcome of Manmohan Singh’s leadership in whose 2004-2009 term, the country had seen massive economic growth. 

In some measure, though, it was the outcome of the BJP’s inability to present a credible policy platform. 

However under the leadership of Modi, the roles have been reversed. It is the BJP which appears to have a coherent plan and direction, and the Congress looks leaderless and bankrupt of ideas. 

As a result, the BJP has surged to form the first majority Government in India since 1989, and is now seeking to consolidate itself across the country by targeting state assembly elections in areas where it was marginal. 

This short history reveals that you can either wait for your opponent to fumble, or attract the electors through a clear and credible plan of action. Modi benefited from both. 

The Congress shot itself in the foot in the 2009-2014 period during which Modi systematically crafted a strategy and created an organisation to win over his party and the general elections. 

Mistakes 

The Congress’ first option is to wait for Modi to make mistakes. In that case, they may have to wait for long. Modi is not allowing the grass to grow under his feet, and is consolidating himself within the party, shaping it in his own image and ensuring that his flanks are well protected in the future. 

The other option for the Congress is to come up with a plan of action to ensure that Modi’s BJP is not allowed to consolidate itself. But in a family party, it requires proprietors who can provide the requisite leadership. 

The experience of the 1996-1998 period has shown that the Congress cannot function minus the Gandhis. 

Wise words: Former Finance Minister Chidambaram advised Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi to 'speak more' in order to win back the support of the people 

On the other hand, it requires the Gandhi in question to be bold and audacious like Indira, and to a lesser extent, Rajiv. But both Sonia and Rahul have revealed themselves to cautious and even pusillanimous. 

Chidambaram’s advice that Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi “speak more” and put in action a timetable so that the party could play the role of “true opposition” is fairly sensible. 

But by itself it is unlikely to achieve little. 

Mail Today October 31, 2014

Pakistan trending towards collapse

Since 1991, India has pursued a policy of engaging Pakistan, regardless of what the latter has thrown at us - bombs, terror assaults, fedayeen. This has meant an effort to promote dialogue to resolve outstanding issues, and develop ties with the civilian governments, as against the military. However, two decades later, it seems that this is not working.

If anything, the deep state dominated by the military retains its iron grip on the system and the civilian system remains unable to get its act together. The ‘Lion of Punjab’ Nawaz Sharif is looking like a lamb, while his rival Bilawal Bhutto has become the butt of jokes, and as for Imran Khan, the less said the better.

There were expectations that Nawaz Sharif could keep the army in check and initiate an opening up to India. But a year later, he is a spent force and has been successfully boxed in by the army. Pic/Getty Images

Maybe the time has come to change course — not by reaching out to the military or taking recourse to tit-for-tat covert war. But by encouraging the peaceful breakup of Pakistan. Across the Islamic world, boundaries and states created by colonial powers are breaking down, and there is no reason to assume that Pakistan ought to be an exception. Using military means or a covert war would be counterproductive, but there could be a way out by persuading the international community that this is the best course, and by providing moral and political support to those who advocate separatism in Pakistan.

No doubt there will be Pakistanis who will claim that this is exactly what they always feared and that India has never reconciled to the creation of Pakistan. But we most certainly do not advocate the annexation of Pakistani territory, not even of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.

The Bangladesh war is another issue. But by now, there is enough evidence to show that the responsibility for the loss of East Pakistan rests firmly with Islamabad. All that India did was play the role of a
midwife who actually prevented greater bloodshed and horrors. Had India been the factor, Pakistan could have reunited in the 1977-1984 period when anti-Indian governments held sway.

Actually from the outset, it is Pakistan which has promoted violence to obtain the breakup of India. In the 1950s and 1960s, the ISI used its location in East Pakistan to aid the Naga and Mizo insurgencies. In the 1980s, after re-establishing themselves in Bangladesh, they became the principal backers of ULFA and continued giving support to whichever dissident group they could find in the North-east.

Then, when opportunity arose in the west, the ISI jumped into the fray in Punjab in the early 1980s and, few years later, into Jammu & Kashmir. Simultaneously, they also began promoting terrorist attacks across the country. There were two aims in mind. First, the breaking away of two important states of the Indian union. Second, encouraging communal violence with the view of developing an unbridgeable communal divide in the country.

Most Indians, even now, believe that it is in their interest to have a stable and united Pakistan on their western borders, notwithstanding the hostility they have faced in recent decades. This is not because of any altruism, but a perceived national interest in not having a failed nuclear state on our borders. However, without any particular Indian encouragement or assistance, Pakistan is trending towards collapse and chaos.

There is no dearth of fault lines in Pakistan. The primary ones are ethnic, pitting the dominant Punjabis against the Baloch and the Sindhis, with the Mohajirs as a category of their own. The newer one shaping up is one which pits the Pakhtun-dominated Taliban against Pakistan. Then there are sectarian lines, primarily dividing the Sunni and the Shia. But the really complex one divides its dominant military from its civilian establishment.

The idea of Pakistan breaking up has been around for a while. There are two impulses for this. First is from within, where ethnic groups such as the Pakhtuns, Baloch and Sindhis want out of the Punjab-dominated system. The second is from the point of view of the global community, for whom Pakistan has proved to be a menace as an exporter of terrorism and a proliferator of nuclear weapons. But so far the idea has been confined to think tanks and some individuals. Smaller units will certainly reduce the megalomania of the generals who have exaggerated notions of Pakistan’s standing in the comity of nations by virtue of its nuclear weapons and ability to give pain to its neighbours, namely India and Afghanistan.

The one thing that can save Pakistan is the normalisation of ties with India and opening up to the larger economy to its east. But there are equally powerful forces that have prevented this from happening and they show no signs of weakening.

There were expectations that Nawaz Sharif was the leader who could keep the army in check and initiate an opening up to India. However, a year later we find that Nawaz is a spent force and has been successfully boxed in by the army. No one is clear as to where things go from here.

So far, India has displayed little or no inclination from getting involved in Pakistan’s internal issues, Islamabad’s claims to the contrary notwithstanding . But now our own security demands that we begin thinking about the unthinkable, and consulting with like-minded countries on the issue.

A nuclear-armed Pakistan needs to be handled carefully and there is little scope for adventurism here.

As noted, we are not advocating a violent breakup, but a velvet event of the kind that led to the emergence of the Czech and Slovak Republics.

Mid Day October 28, 2014

Pakistan is not ready for peace in Kashmir

There should be some things clear about the Kashmir issue. Howsoever convinced we may be of our case, the international community views the state of Jammu & Kashmir to be disputed territory. We need not repeat the long and sorry story of how this came about, but as of now, that is the situation.

Having said that, we need to also spell out the corollary of that point – that there is nothing the international community, including the United Nations, can do to resolve the problem. Only India and Pakistan can do so through direct negotiations.  

So, Jammu & Kashmir does constitute an important aspect of our relationship with Pakistan. Though not officially articulated, the Indian solution to the problem has been a partition of the state along the existing Line of Control. Pakistan’s stand varies – there was a time when it said that J&K ought to be part of Pakistan, then, it began to say that all they wanted was the right of self-determination for the people of the state. But their actions in the parts of the state they occupy indicates that the goal remains the assimilation of the state into the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Islamabad now knows that there is nothing it can do to wrest the state from Indian hands by force. It has tried war twice, and continues to fight a covert war for the past quarter century using jihadi proxies and backing Kashmiri separatists.

Conflict

But getting Pakistan to end the conflict has been a difficult task, because Kashmir means many things to them. At one level, it is a cause that unites everyone in that country – the jihadis, the army and the civilian elite. At another, it provides it a means to maintain a hostile posture towards India, something necessary for its current sense of national identity.

Remarkably, the two countries achieved a measure of convergence towards a solution in the period 2004-08. Worked in a back-channel, the idea was to work towards a special status of the state, without altering the current boundaries as set by the 1972 Line of Control. The idea was to encourage cross-LoC trade and eventually human movement and provide for a measure of joint management in governance.

The Indian perspective was that the state’s river waters are already committed to Pakistan under the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, so, having Pakistan involved in watershed management would not be such an affront to Indian sovereignty. Likewise, there could be areas like tourism which the two sides could work out together. However, and contrary to claims on the Pakistan side, there were no commitments made on joint governance or political management. That is because a vast gulf separates the basic outlook of the Indian and Pakistani political systems.

The two sides did manage to open up the LoC to enable trade and persons to move back and forth. But beyond that the project came unstuck. The regime of Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani dictator under whose regime the agreements were made to be imploded. The successor government of Asif Ali Zardari lacked the clout with the army to push on with the project.

It is important to understand the Indian strategic perspective on the issue. The key agreements announced through the January 4, 2004 joint statement between India and Pakistan, came on the sidelines of the summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).

Concessions

It was at this SAARC meeting where the now eight-member organisation decided that they would like to create a South Asian Free Trade Area by 2014. A common free trade area would also see the opening up of the region to the movement of people and a degree of coordination on governance issues relating to areas of common concern like river waters, watershed management, flood control and so on.

In the long term, greater economic integration would lead to political integration as well. So, the Indian perspective on resolving the Kashmir issue rested on its being embedded in the SAARC process. India and Pakistan may find it difficult to make concessions, but they could possibly do so in a multilateral framework of SAARC.

Ceasefire

Today, the process is going nowhere. The initiatives of the 2004-2007 period have come to a halt. A key element in these developments was the ceasefire along the LoC called by Musharraf in November 2003 and agreed to by Prime Minister Vajpayee. Today, as the ceasefire frays, so does the process that once held so much promise.

There are the important issues relating to the state and the union. When India became independent, it got the accession of most of the princely states with the promise of controlling only defence, foreign affairs, communications and currency. However, these states were reorganised and the commitments on autonomy abandoned. In the case of J&K, the problem has yet to be resolved. There is no doubt the original intention was to have a flexible system which would lead to J&K being like any other state of the union. However, domestic politics and foreign policy issues have prevented this from happening.

Mail Today October 16, 2014

Capturing the American Mindspace

The real clout of a country in foreign affairs doesn’t come from being able to check or pressure adversaries and buy friends through trade and aid. It comes from the ability to assimilate their interests into your own in such a way that you can shape their policy. Indeed, to go a step further, to get into their minds.

Narendra Modi’s recent visit to the United States has, perhaps for the first time, given us a glimpse of how we could achieve this with the country which has actually pioneered this model. Till now, prime ministerial visits came in several preset categories whose main purpose was transactional, ceremonial, or when it came to the US, to kowtow to the global hegemon. In setting the NRI pot to boil, Modi has pointed to the potential India has of changing the India-America discourse. Skillfully exploited, it could help India to some day match the UKUSA ties, or the clout of its 51st state, Israel.

The implications of the Madison Square show should not be oversold. What is needed now is systematic work to work out ways and means of exploiting the opportunities that our Indian American community in the US offers. Pic/AFP

India has never possessed any resource that the US deemed vital, like oil. There was a time in the 19th century, before the invention of cordite, when saltpetre exports from Bihar were important for US military requirements. Nor has it been an exporter of ideologies of communism or jihad. In the economic field, too, indolent India has not emerged as an economic powerhouse, like Japan was and China is, to unsettle the US. In short, it has not been, and is not likely to be, a threat, to American interests.

India has offered up another resource which has gained salience in recent times — human capital. Beginning in the 1950s, US aid to India modernised our educational system through aid which seeded new institutions like what became the NCERT, subsidised science text books, reset syllabi of various disciplines and transformed our agriculture through the introduction of new technologies as well as helping new land-grant type agricultural universities to come up. Hundreds of US experts were embedded in Indian institutions and thousands of teachers and engineers were trained and upgraded by them.

The US played a crucial role in India’s space and nuclear programmes as well. They provided the heavy water for the CIRUS (Canada-India Reactor-US) reactor, built the first nuclear power plant in Tarapur and trained an entire generation of Indian nuclear physicists in the US. In space it was equally dramatic, beginning with tracking stations for satellites in the 1950s, to sounding rockets, it graduated to space launch vehicles and communications satellites.

Along with these developments was the migration of many of the highly qualified Indians to the US and the emergence of the Indian American community which may, today, be less than one per cent in size, but is growing rapidly. In unique feature is its profile — 70 per cent have a college degree where the national average is around 25 per cent. Indian immigrants have founded one-third of Silicon Valley start ups in the past five years and have played key roles in most of them. Indian entrepreneurs have specialised in engineering and technology firms in other areas as well.

Equally significant is the increasing role Indian Americans are playing in American politics, both in seeking office or funding those who do. Unlike, say, the Chinese or the Vietnamese, Indians love politics and are ready to jump into the fray at the local, state or national level. Today, there is one US Congressman of Indian origin, Ami Bera, two governors Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal, several state and local level politicians and scores of political appointees in the federal, state and local governments.

Till now relations between the US and India have had a tutelary character about them. What we have been witnessing in the last two and half decades is the turbulence that comes with a shift from the mentor-mentee relationship towards a partnership model. If there has been any faltering on this, it has been on India’s part, when it has simply failed to live up to the expectations of its potential. It has not been able to significantly reform its educational sector to promote innovation or create a manufacturing base to generate exports to offset its permanent need for oil imports. Indeed, if anything, the quality of India’s education has actually declined.

In part, this has been the result of the lack of political stability, manifested by coalition governments in the states and the centre. But with the new Modi government, we could change the state of affairs, provided there is an awareness of the challenges, especially in the educational sector, and provided there is political leadership to effect change.

To come back to the American connection. In the 1990s, the Indian embassy got a software to match Indian first names and surnames across the US with the mandatory database of political contributors. This generated a list of politically influential Indian Americans and their targeted politicians. Every Indian-American cold-called, was ready to help when asked to do so. However, another poorly managed operation, led a high-flying Indian American politician, Lalit Gadia, to jail for campaign fraud.

One swallow does not make a summer, and the implications of the Madison Square show should not be oversold. What is needed now is systematic work to work out ways and means of exploiting the opportunities that our Indian American community in the US offers. The new generation challenge for our diplomats and policy makers today is to capture the American mindspace. This is a task that requires subtlety, but its crucial asset is the human capital connect that we have established with the US. This, as most observers agree, has today become a two-way street with as much talent and investment coming in, as going out. But it needs to intensified and taken to a much higher level of educational, science and technology, business and people to people ties.

Mid Day October 14, 2014