Vajpayee's American yatra

The Indian government portrays Prime Minister Vajpayee's visit to the United States as having opened a new era in Indo-U.S. ties, but the fact remains that the administration that rolled out the red carpet for him was on its last legs.

SRIDHAR KRISHNASWAMI in Washington & New York

IT did not really come a surprise if senior officials who accompanied Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to the United States tried to make his visit appear as something that was perhaps the best that could have happened to India in the last several yea rs. And the Prime Minister stood his ground when it came to the issues of Pakistan, terrorism and the nuclear agenda - a stand that may have raised eyebrows inside and outside the Clinton administration but one that clearly had the backing of the Bharati ya Janata Party and its supporters in the U.S.

For all the hoopla that was generated during the run up to Vajpayee's visit to the United Nations and Washington, the bottomline was that here was a Prime Minister coming on an official visit to the U.S. when a presidency had started counting its days. N evertheless, for a person who has shown great interest in India, William Jefferson Clinton gave the impression of wanting to sustain that interest as also in hoping that his successor would keep the ball moving. That, of course, remains to be seen.

There were different aspects to Vajpayee's September 7-19 visit to the U.S., but at least three of them will be remembered for some time to come - political, economic/commercial and personal. Clinton showered praise on India at the official welcoming cer emony at the South Lawns of the White House and the U.S. and India issued a Joint Statement at the end of the official talks between Clinton and Vajpayee as also between the delegations of the two countries.

According to External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh, the talks on September 15 at the White House ended by marking out the "road map" for the future, one of the high points of the meeting being the extraordinary cordiality, warmth and candour. In fact s enior Indian officials did not hesitate to repeat how Clinton himself characterised the state of relations - that he was handing over India-U.S. relations to his successor in the "best possible health".

The Joint Statement was a multifaceted document that focussed not only on economic and regional issues, but also on such issues of significance in the South Asian context as terrorism and the non-proliferation and security agenda. Not included in the Joi nt Statement was the setting up of a Joint Working Group on United Nations peace-keeping operations and on the institutionalisation of views on Afghanistan.

Both in New York and in Washington, whether it was in formal settings such as addresses to the Asia Society, the United Nations or the U.S. Congress, or at community functions that featured sympathetic crowds, the Prime Minister did not mince words when it came to the subject of peace, security and stability in South Asia.

The Joint Statement said: "The two countries reaffirmed their belief that tensions in South Asia can only be resolved by nations of South Asia and by peaceful means." For a country that has shown deep allergy to anything "adverse" on Kashmir coming from Washington, India and the BJP-led government must have taken comfort in the fact that the U.S. reiterated the fact that much as General Pervez Musharraf may be insisting on international mediation with regard to the Kashmir problem, Washington stays with the bilateral approach.

Vajpayee is said to have made the point during his talks that as the initiator of the India-Pakistan dialogue process, India will not stand in the way of a resumption of the stalled process. However, he pointed out that India alone could not get that pro cess moving. In other words, the onus to create the right conditions was on Islamabad. One of Vajpayee's favourite lines in the U.S. was: "I took the bus to Lahore, but the bus went to Kargil."

The Joint Statement, even while it touches on the subject of terrorism, is confined to the realm of generalities. "Noting that both India and the United States are targets of continuing terrorism, they expressed their determination to further reinforce b ilateral cooperation in this area," the document says. It goes on to make the point that another round of consultations on counter-terrorism will be held in New Delhi late in September.

The Joint Statement, according to Jaswant Singh, was also an accurate summation of such issues as non-proliferation. It said that both India and the U.S. "seek to advance the dialogue on security and non-proliferation issues, building upon the Joint Stat ement signed during President Clinton's visit to India in March".

The statement had all the nice and expected words on the respective commitments: to forgo nuclear tests, to develop consensus in India on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), to attempt to get the CTBT endorsed by the U.S. Senate, to adhere to the m oratorium on the production of fissile materials, and to strengthen export controls.

Even as they used the best possible words to describe the state of India-U.S. relations, Clinton and senior members of his administration were somewhat disappointed that things had not really moved in South Asia. On the one hand, Washington remains conce rned about its own non-proliferation and security agenda and, on the other hand, increasingly worried that the India-Pakistan standoff could get out of hand.

In response to a question after the dedication of a memorial to Mahatma Gandhi in Washington D.C. on September 16, President Clinton remarked: "Well, I hope in the years ahead we'll be better economic partners, better political partners. I hope we'll wor k together through the United Nations and other international forums. I hope we'll both be able to turn back what could otherwise be a dangerous tide of proliferation of dangerous weapons - not just nuclear warheads on missiles - but also chemical and bi ological weapons... And I hope some day there will be some constructive role we could play as partner in working with India and others to bring peace on the subcontinent."

Senior officials who accompanied the Prime Minister were quite elated over the kind of reception the Indian leader received on Capitol Hill and the way in which his address to the joint sitting of Congress was received. Apparently the Chairman of the pow erful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms, had asked Vajpayee if he had the time to go to the Senate for a formal introduction.

The address to Congress aside, the Prime Minister did seem to have a wide-ranging discussion with top lawmakers from both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the prime focus being on what needed to be done to deepen and broaden the bilateral rel ationship. Vajpayee also had lunch with the India Caucus. But while the Prime Minister was delivering his address and speaking to the law makers, a Prayer Vigil was being held on the Capitol lawns, protesting, among other things, against the attacks on C hristians in India.

The economic aspect of the visit is perhaps more important than the political one, for bilateral relations are not going to move on unsolicited or solicited "certificates". If India and the U.S. were to move forward politically in the years ahead, the ec onomic aspect is what is going to give the much-needed push. Politicians and bureaucrats come and go, but economic links goes beyond personalities.

In both New York and Washington, Vajpayee called upon the captains of U.S. industry to come to India and invest in a range of areas, from infrastructure to manufacturing and from financial services to knowledge-based enterprises. "Let us forge a new econ omic relationship. A partnership reinforced by a common desire to derive mutual benefit," the Prime Minister told the U.S.-India Business Summit in Washington, which was organised jointly by the National Association of Manufacturers and the Confederation of Indian Industry. The Prime Minister was accompanied on the visit by Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha.

Vajpayee stressed that the economic and business cooperation between India and the U.S. was the critical pillar of bilateral relations. "Business within and between nations is not only about market share and margins. It is prompted by mutuality, fostered by partnership and realised through trust," the Prime Minister said. He added that the economic performance of the U.S. had evoked global admiration. "It has also inspired India," he said.

Talking about the average 6.5 per cent growth rate in gross domestic product (GDP) India registered in the 1990s, Vajpayee remarked: "We want to do even better in the decade that has just begun. We have pledged to double our per capita income in the next 10 years. This implies a growth rate of around 9 per cent. Although it is a difficult challenge, India can achieve it. India will achieve it."

Indian and U.S. companies signed at least three agreements for the construction of three large power projects, involving a total investment of $7 billions, more than half this amount to be raised by way of foreign investment. The agreement will lead to t he generation of 6,140 MW of power after four years. The power will be available to Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh.

The U.S. Department of Energy and India's Power Ministry also signed a Memorandum of Understanding for the establishment of a Joint Working Group on energy with a view to conducting consultations to enhance understanding and promote exchange of informati on and technologies.

Finally, there was a personal angle as well to the visit. Much as the Indian American Community - the BJP supporters in particular - may have been pleased that the Prime Minister did after all make it to the U.S., it was obvious that he was in extreme di scomfort, perhaps even in pain. In every one of his public appearances, Vajpayee appeared quite feeble and uncomfortable, to say the least.

The programme in New York was so arranged that the Prime Minister had time for rest and the opportunity to avail himself of the services of the renowned orthopaedic specialist Dr. C. Ranawath. But Washington was a different story altogether. His schedule was packed, starting with the address to Congress. The Clinton administration and Congress may have gone out of their way to accommodate Vajpayee in view of his ill-health, but still the Prime Minister's knees had to be subjected to some pressure, and t hat took its toll. The larger question that was being posed in many quarters was whether Vajpayee should have undertaken the trip at all, given his frail health.

The health factor had its impact on what little interaction the Prime Minister was going to have with the media. The assertion that a joint press appearance with the President would have to be cancelled because Vice-President Al Gore had requested for "e xtra" time with the Prime Minister was promptly disputed by the White House.

Another meeting with the Indian media - those accompanying the Prime Minister and those residing in the U.S. - was scheduled after Vajpayee's address to the Indian American Community at the Constitution Hall on September 16. The Prime Minister spoke to a n enthusiastic crowd for about 45 minutes that evening but when it was over, he seemed too tired for the media.