Mr. Bush Goes to India

I bet that you've been sitting there since last week, pouring over the blossom of news accounts and multitude of multimedia perspectives about India in anticipation of Bush's visit to the subcontinent and the resulting wake. And I bet the whole time you've been wondering what a professional scholar of the region, like your good friend Jeremy, thinks about it. (I have, of course, no real right to write any of this. I read about one news article a week here and consider myself relatively uninformed.)

1. Eight-and-a-half years ago, a team of quasi-experts began calling India an emerging power. Turns out those kids from Goodrich High School in 1997 were right, even if the world has just been slow to catch on. Since then, India said it would explode a nuclear device, India did in fact explode a nuclear device, the United States was surprised India exploded a nuclear device, Pakistan exploded a nuclear device, the US imposed sanctions, region almost went to war over Islamic extremist separatist demands in Kashmir, Clinton went to the subcontinent, Bush was elected without foreign policy credentials or inclinations, the US found out Islamic extremism is problematic, US deposes Taliban regime in Afghanistan, BJP government replaced in India by Center-Left coalition. Somewhere along the line, outsourcing happened, too.

2. I would prefer if no one in the world had nuclear weapons. (I don't even like guns, let alone super-death-bombs.) While you could call it a relative success in limiting nuclear proliferation, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a pretty unfair treaty. Five countries get to keep their power, their status, while others can't challenge them? Israel, India and Pakistan have the option of opting out of it and make nuclear weapons. Why can't Iran, why can't North Korea, why can't others have that some sovereignty?

You can't demand that Tehran or Pyongyang cease and desist all nuclear ambitions when you yourself have nuclear weapons and give nuclear technology to other nations who don't "follow the rules." That's some sort of weird, warmongering discrimination. The newly-signed nuclear deal between India and the US is a further blow to the legitimacy of the NPT, non-proliferation, and the forgotten goal of disarmament, even as it helps to delineate the civilian and military halves of India's nuclear program, offers much-needed technological assistance to India, and marks a new level of cooperation between the world's two largest democracies.

3. For too long, Indo-American relations were haunted by a realpolitik. India has a strong pride in their independence and Delhi understandably rejected Cold War politics and refused to align themselves closely with either camp. Nixon eschewed India for warmer relations with China, when the world's two great communist regimes proved to be far from monolithic and Beijing could serve as a balance to Moscow. Reagan was more interested in courting Pakistan after the USSR dove, disastrously, into neighboring Afghanistan.

In the post-Cold War era, India's liberalization during the 1990s and President Clinton's diplomacy began a new friendship marked by economic partnership. It's relatively refreshing to see Bush continue that progress. In a narrow geopolitical view, India is an Asian counterweight to burgeoning China and an ally in a contentious region of the world. In a broader sense, India is a rapidly-industrializing, relatively peaceful multi-ethnic democracy. And a darn fascinating place to look at from afar.

4. If I went that far, I'd stay for more than two days and see some of the darn country.