Walter Andersen recently retired from the State Department as the head of the Intelligence and Research Bureau. Co-author of The Brotherhood in Saffron, a book on the RSS, he’s currently the new associate director of the South Asia studies department at the Johns Hopkins University. Excerpts from an interview with Seema Sirohi:
The US seems to be doing a balancing act between India and Pakistan that often slows down the progress in Indo-US relations....
♚There is always a balancing act when there is a large international issue. The war on terrorism in Afghanistan and non-proliferation are two such issues. There’s fear that any kind of tension in the region might undermine those efforts. While the US is building a strategic partnership with India, there’s a simultaneous tactical relationship with Pakistan. But we haven’t gone far enough with Musharraf. If there is some big terrorist outrage in India, the US might have to get involved in terms of putting pressure. We’ll be marching back to the ’90s and a ‘we-told-you-so’ routine. But Musharraf will say, "you only whispered it to us". The US needs to be louder and put conditions on its aid package (to Pakistan).
If India says ‘no’ to sending troops to Iraq, will it impact bilateral ties with US?
ಞI don’t think a ‘no’ will necessarily mean a downturn but a ‘yes’ will result in appreciable gains. The US will go out of its way to help India. It’s money in the bank. The US has offered India one of the five geographic sectors (the north) in Iraq, an offer of some geostrategic significance. It is another step in recognising India as a legitimate strategic partner in the larger Indian Ocean region. But I think the Indian decision will be a definite no unless there is a substantial UN role in supervising the political evolution of Iraq. It might still be a no if there were such UN involvement because this decision has such an important domestic political ingredient, and important national elections are approaching.
Vajpayee said in New York that Indo-US relations need some "dramatic results". What can those be?🐭 Dramatic moments don’t happen very often. I think gradualism is the way relations unfold. But if India were to send troops, it would be dramatic.
Why has the US been so slow on delivering on the ‘trinity issues’?
✤The questions raised are complicated and there are parts of the bureaucracy where questions—important ones—are raised. Take the nuclear question, there is a real fear among the nuclear non-proliferationists that gestures toward India (and Pakistan) could weaken efforts to prevent assistance to Iran and perhaps some other nuclear hopefuls.
As an expert on the BJP, do you think the rise of Hindutva can become an issue between India and the US?
⛄Religious extremism weakens India from within and so makes it a less attractive player on the world stage, just as it’s beginning to aspire seriously to such a role. It makes it more difficult for India to deal with Pakistan on terrorism. It also undermines India’s moral legitimacy in the world arena. The Gujarat riots definitely gave India a ‘black eye’ internationally. The far right of the BJP applauds putting India’s largest minority "in its place". But that’s not the view of the PM or his deputy. They saw the riots damaging India internationally and damaging the mobilisational potential of the BJP in Indian politics.
