ON the day of his historic election, there was in India, as in the rest of the world, wild enthusiasm for Barack Obama. This was not without a trace of irony. For, until six months earlier, most Indians believed that Hillary Clinton, rather than he, would get the Democratic nomination. There were also widespread whispers that Americans would never elect a black man as their president. But once Obama beat Hillary in the primaries – and this, in retrospect, was a greater achievement than defeating John McCain at the polls – India warmed up to him in a big way. His promise to usher in change was the most powerful reason for this. Deeply disturbed over what is going on in their country, the middle class Indians are also yearning for change. They also felt that by his tremendous triumph the president-elect had at last removed the blot of racism from America’s face.

However, as usually happens, on the morning after the night before, second thoughts started taking over. Even during the election campaign some commentators had pointed out that McCain would be a better president from the Indian point of view. Obama’s record on the crucial but controversial Indo-U.S. nuclear deal was disappointing (he had eventually voted for the deal but only after moving a ‘killer amendment’ that was defeated). Moreover, the policies on outsourcing and free trade he advocated were inimical to Indian interests. Even these apprehensions paled, however, when he did something a lot more objectionable to India. Only a few days before the voting he said in an interview because his focus would be on the war in Afghanistan, his priority would be to persuade Pakistan to concentrate on its western border with Afghanistan. This, he added, would be better ensured if the U.S. adopted a ‘proactive’ role in getting the Kashmir issue settled so that Pakistan was rid of its worries about India. There were reports that Obama had sounded former president Bill Clinton to be ‘special envoy’ to India and Pakistan for this purpose.

Unsurprisingly, almost all of India was up in arms. It said that all previous American attempts to ‘mediate’ on the Kashmir question had been counter-productive and there must be no attempt to repeat them. Obama’s statement was most ill- timed because the sensitive state of Kashmir was about to have elections and his words, it was feared, would encourage the separatists and secessionists hell-bent on a boycott of the poll. (In the event, to the dismay of separatists, Kashmiris turned out in huge numbers to vote.) New Delhi also argued that a peace process between India and Pakistan was on, and there was no room for a third party meddling.

With the passage of time even this issue has simmered down -- for two reasons. First, because of the expectation that New Delhi’s strong reaction would deter the president-elect from pursuing his quixotic move on Kashmir. Secondly, and more importantly, for the next nine or ten months after his inauguration in January, the new president would be completely absorbed in the global economic meltdown that has created for his country the biggest problem since the Great Depression of the early thirties.

After due deliberation policy- makers in South Block have drawn some conclusions on which to base Indian approach to the Obama era. No one expects a change in the substance of the traditional American policy of maintaining its pre-eminence in the world though it is believed that style may be different. Also, the consensus is that though Obama would not have George W. Bush’s enthusiasm for this country, he is adequately determined to preserve and expand the ‘strategic relationship’ with India. With the end of the ‘neocon’ age of arrogant American ‘unilateralism’, Obama would need international cooperation, including that of India. Yet, because of preoccupation with the economic crisis, he would have little time and energy to devote to other issues except the most urgent ones. To end the war in Iraq is obviously the top priority. Intimately connected with it is the need to lessen tensions with Iran, and if possible, start negotiations with the Islamic republic, as the president-elect has been saying all along. No less pressing is America’s need to improve relations with Russia that have needlessly been brought to a new low during the Bush era, primarily because of the outgoing president’s resolve to expand the Nato right up to Russia’s doorstep.

If, as generally expected, Obama does take the initiative in these three directions it would be entirely to India’s advantage. It would eliminate the irritations that sometimes arise over this country’s relations with Iran that are both civilisational and strategic, and have become even more important in the interest of energy security. The relationship with Russia is vital for this country. While there is good reason to strengthen relations with the U.S., this cannot be done at the cost of Russia. Improved America-Russia relations would therefore help.

There is an impression here that Obama is likely to be more respectful to Chinese sensitivities than the previous administration. But then, despite the rhetoric to the contrary, the Bush administration had also developed a mutually cooperative relationship with Beijing.

Calculations of geostrategy and economy apart, a unique result of Obama’s journey to White House has been intense discussion here whether the Obama phenomenon can be replicated in India that is also a multi-lingual, multi-religious and multi-ethnic country. Indeed, Ms. Mayawati, a Dalit and redoubtable chief minister of the state of Uttar Pradesh, has already declared herself to be the Indian Obama. She is confident that she would be the future prime minister. This is building castles in the air, of course. The answer to the underlying questions is an emphatic NO, as informed opinion makers have already underscored.

In the first place, there is no comparison between Obama and any leader of Dalits or other oppressed groups in India. Obama, unlike Jesse Jackson and Martin Luther King, is not a descendant of former slaves. Secondly, he did have a black Kenya-born father but his mother was a white American. As it happened, she and her several relatives brought up Obama. They sent him to prestigious schools and an Ivy League university. And he became a much-respected professor at Harvard. Above all, he never played identity politics. On the contrary, he constantly emphasised that there was no white America or black America, only one United States of America.

By contrast India’s hopelessly fragmented polity is driven overwhelmingly by identity politics based on caste, religion, region and crass parochialism. Most political parties here are highly centralised, often personalised, family concerns. Each nominates its candidates for every post, indeed for every seat in the legislature. There is nothing like American primaries that allow relatively inexperienced but otherwise suitable politicians like Obama to come up even when confronted by powerful rivals like Hillary.

top