ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Stop the Yankee-bashing

Let me start by confessing that I do not like William Jefferson Clinton. I see him as a sneaky little liar who, by perjury and doublespeak, compromised the most powerful political office in the world. He need not have done this. Most people have a fling sometime or the other in their lives and are forgiven their indiscretion. All they need is the courage to admit to it and apologise. The people of any nation (even one as hypocritical as the United States of America) are ready to forgive their leaders if they know how to confess to their minor crimes instead of trying to cover up and, in the process, compounding them.

Clinton's problem (like Nixon's) is that he lied. Or, at least, was seen to have.

Worse, when he was caught and was about to be impeached, instead of doing what most decent leaders would have done (which is step down from office) he went ahead and dug in his heels. To make things even more difficult for himself, Clinton decided to distract public attention from his private life by bombing other nations. Smaller, weaker nations on the specious plea that they were harbouring people manufacturing dangerous weapons of war and promoting international terrorism.

All this is true. All this is granted. But does that mean we in India must all jump up and use this opportunity to get back to what we do best: Yankee-bashing? Must we take it as our immediate and urgent political responsibility to condemn, criticise, abuse Clinton and the United States as a global bully boy? Or could we have, like other nations, weighed our outrage against the compulsions of realpolitik and, instead of shrieking hysteria, settled for a more balanced, more realistic position that takes into consideration our own national interests in the long run?

If we believe that America has no business playing global cop, do we have any business playing global conscience-keeper? Wouldn't it have been simpler to just show our disapproval and then use that to leverage our various ongoing negotiations with them on CTBT, patents, and speeding up our reforms process?

In this context, let me offer three important facts that we have missed out in this melee.

One: 72 per cent of all Americans actually believe that Clinton did the right thing by bombing Iraq. This is an important fact that cannot be ignored. It cannot be ignored for the simple reason that America is a democracy and in a democracy it is important and, in fact, mandatory for the nation's chief executive to recognise public opinion and heed it. Whether Clinton bombed Iraq to divert attention from his sexual misconduct is debatable. What is clear and unambiguous is the fact that the American people have endorsed his action. So how can you blame him for doing what his people wanted?

When Indira Gandhi sent our army into East Pakistan and set it free from the rule of Yahya Khan, we all cheered. We all cheered because we saw Yahya Khan as a ruthless, manic despot, almost identical to how the Americans see Saddam Hussain. We wanted him to be cut down to size, which we did very successfully. Pakistan was much smaller than us just as Iraq is much smaller than the United States and public opinion in India was as much in favour of us moving into East Pakistan as it is today in the United States in favour of bombing Iraq.

Nations that protested against our action were seen as unfriendly, unreasonable, interfering. We saw it as our inalienable right to dismember Pakistan and set Bangladesh free. The fact that most of India stood behind Indira Gandhi made it doubly right. Yet how is it that when 72 per cent of America rallies behind Clinton and supports his air strikes, we persist in seeing him as wagging the dog?

Two: Almost everyone who has criticised the bombing of Iraq has also brought up the strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan as examples of American dadagiri. Osama bin Laden or no Osama bin Laden, the general impression is that the Americans have indiscriminately bombed these nations under the pretence of fighting terrorism. That is why we have expressed our deep disapproval of their action.

What we have ignored is the simple fact that every intelligence report shows that bin Laden's three key targets for terrorist action are the United States, Israel and India. Towards this, he has built up what is widely regarded as the world's toughest terrorist universities where hundreds of young men and women are being trained to kill, bomb, destroy with ruthless exactitude. Reporters of The Sunday Times, who were the most recent visitors to his camps on the Pak-Afghan border, claim they saw his recruits being trained in classrooms where there were posters of terrorists standing with AK-47s in their hands before burning American, Israeli and Indian flags.

Most of his students in these classroom camps at Khwaja Mastoon Ghudai and Sati Kundan, claim these eyewitness reporters, were from Pakistan, PoK and Kashmir. The Sunday Times also reports that there is widespread apprehension that the Al Qaida -- Osama bin Laden's organisation -- is about to send off terror squads on missions to bomb American targets in the Middle East. This is likely to be followed by a sudden wave of terrorist attacks on Israel and India. In this context, is it really so sad and unfortunate that the Americans are doing our job for us by trying to hunt down and finish off bin Laden?

No, I am not saying that we must condone the United States for its sudden and what appears to be unprovoked attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan but, tell me, doesn't it benefit us if Clinton is able to finish off the Al Qaida and reduce the terrorist threat to India? So why don't we just shut up and let the Americans do our dirty work for us instead of shrieking and screaming about how wicked and imperialistic they are? If they succeed in finishing off Osama bin Laden they will be actually doing us a favour.

Three: Disgustingly opportunistic as it may sound, this is exactly the time to strike hard deals that can rejuvenate our limping economy and bring in more foreign exchange. Whether we like it or not, the United States is today our biggest trading partner and dollar earnings can make a crucial difference to the state of our economic health. Some of the healthiest economies of the world have actually benefited from staying out of other people's skirmishes. Isn't it time we stopped lecturing others on what not to do and focussed, instead, on the well being of our own economy, our own one billion people?

If a little bit of selfishness can help India get more money, more industry, more jobs, more foreign trade why should we feel bad about it? Isn't this what liberalisation has taught us? To cut down on political claptrap and practise economic pragmatism.

No, I am not saying the Americans are right. I am not saying that Clinton must be backed. Or that the bombing of Iraq is a good thing. All I am saying is that it is time we in India looked at our own interests more seriously and stopped playing conscience-keeper to the world. That we stopped jumping up and down every time someone did something wrong. That we stopped seeing ourselves as a leader of the Third World and, instead, joined the First World ourselves. In these difficult days when millions of talented Indians are desperately trying to cope with a faltering economy, it is a better idea (I would like to believe) to stay away from didactic political posturing and focus, instead, on what could benefit India. If this means making friends with our largest business partner, may be it is worth doing so.

If the Americans can give up years of hate and suspicion to make friends with China, I see no reason why our two democracies cannot forge a stronger, more trusting relationship. A relationship based not on acrimonious political rhetoric but on the economic opportunities that await both nations.

Pritish Nandy

Tell us what you think of this column