It was (president) Lyndon Johnson’s policy of coercing the Indians with food aid. What he was actually trying to do was promote agricultural reform, i.e., the Green Revolution and the White Revolution. And, of course, Kissinger saw India in terms of strategy and not in terms of India. That led to a decade when the Indians saw the US in collusion with China and Pakistan, a sort of an axis triangle against India. The irony was, the tragedy was that America hadn’t even thought of that. We regarded India so poorly we were not threatened by India, yet the Indians imagined American hostility. By the mid-80s that began to wear off…
Are you saying there was no tilt?
Issues with Pakistan:Stephen P. Cohen said that the new US administration, whether Obama or McCain, will have a new set of rules to go by and future aid to Pakistan will be highly conditional. Ramesh Pathania / Mint
It was a temporary tilt, it wasn’t a strategic alignment against India. But the Indian leadership imagined a strategic alliance against India, but it was fantasy, there was no such thing.
But when Kissinger went to China in 1971 and Pakistan paved the way for that visit, how did that happen?
Well, the consequences of that allowed the pro-Soviet groups in India to say that the Americans are our enemy and develop an alignment with the Soviets. But that was purely an expedient thing. Kissinger came to India right after that and tried to normalize relations, but the Indians saw us as a hostile power, so relations were frozen for about 15 years. During that period I was denied a visa, Americans were prohibited from doing research, eventually the Indians grew out of it. I think we understand India’s complexity now better than we ever did. Now of course relations are very good and I hate to be Pollyannaish, but I see this continuing on an upward curve.
You think both countries have kissed and made up and do you think the Indo-US nuclear deal epitomizes the relationship today?
I think it’s a major step in the right direction, it clears up the psychological baggage of both countries in the past, it may lead to some energy cooperation, but I think some expectations are overblown. And it does indicate US recognition of India as one of the major states in the world. But that was happening anyway because of India’s economic transformation. I think the ballast of the relationship now is Indo-US economic ties. Not only US investment in India, but I think $20 billion (Rs97,400 crore) worth of US companies are being bought up by Indians.
So you would say the nuclear deal was the icing on the cake?
It was the Bush administration and the Indian government conjuring up a new dish, not a cake, not a cupcake, not a pie, something we’ve never seen before and we both ate it.
Why did the Bush administration do this?
Well, they say this was an Indian idea. The Indians say this was an American idea. My guess is that it occurred to both sides while they were in the middle of negotiating a deeper, military and economic relationship.
Would you buy the line that it’s about China? We hear a lot of Americans saying that it’s about the containment of China.
I think that was the strategic backdrop, the closer Indo-US relationship now is an insurance against a potential hostile Chinese relationship in the future. I wouldn’t predict Chinese hostility or a China that threatened other countries. But if it does and if we have a better working relationship, it would serve us well in the future.
Were you surprised when the Chinese sought to block India at the Nuclear Suppliers Group some weeks ago?