Coming Up Trumps

The following article appeared in India Today on 27 April 2017. The full text can be found here.

As Donald Trump completes 100 days as US President, what has it meant for India? The short answer is, nobody knows, not even Trump. But in an era of greater uncertainty, it is important for India to identify the key variables triggered by Trump's election. They relate, essentially, to four broad areas: bilateral relations, the Asian balance of power, terrorism and global governance.

On bilateral relations, when market access, investment, technology and the flow of people are taken together, the US stands out as India's most important partner for progress. For America, India's rise presents lucrative opportunities-in infrastructure, energy, financial services and retail. The two countries enjoy an increasingly close private sector-led relationship that encompasses IT, biological sciences, space, energy and defence. This mutually beneficial and reinforcing partnership is premised on two things. First, the factors that constitute American exceptionalism: democracy, liberal internationalism and immigration. Trump has instead projected America as a more 'normal' power, one unwilling to be a model for others, focusing its defence structures on closer, more immediate challenges and conceiving national identity in narrower terms. Additionally, the past three US presidents were guided by the strategic logic, as Ashley Tellis put it, that "a strong, democratic, (even if perpetually) independent India [is] in American national interest". This logic informed Bill Clinton's lifting of sanctions after the 1998 nuclear tests, George W. Bush's offer of a civil nuclear agreement and Barack Obama's agreeing to a Joint Strategic Vision with India. While trying to convince Trump of the merits of American openness and the value of a strong India, New Delhi must work with other American actors (including states, legislators and the private sector), while seeking alternative partners whenever possible.

The US role as a security provider in the Indo-Pacific is also crucial to preserving a regional balance of power. Trump has offered mixed signals on China, but possible outcomes include a more militarised 'pivot to Asia' or a policy of calculated unpredictability. Alternatively, Trump may try to broker a power-sharing arrangement with Beijing, or not match his belligerent rhetoric with the requisite sources, or engage in a ruinous trade and currency war. Those outcomes would be much less welcome to New Delhi. While evaluating the possibilities of each broad scenario and planning accordingly, India must continue its policy of maintaining a favourable balance of power in the Indo-Pacific. This means doubling down on an 'Act East' policy: arming the north along the border, connecting east into Southeast Asia, securing the Indian Ocean to the south, partnering farther afield with like-minded actors, deepening institutional links to Asia and continuing to engage and cooperate with Beijing, whenever possible, particularly economically.

Terrorism remains a third major concern. While talking tough, Trump has focused on securing the homeland, defeating ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and countering Iran. India has its own priorities, which place greater stress on cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan and, relatedly, on stabilising Afghanistan. However, the US appetite for counter-insurgency in Afghanistan has declined, and several factors, including a nuclear weapons programme, have prevented it from addressing Pakistan-based terrorism. Therefore, while India and the US may find greater agreement at the level of first principles when it comes to terrorism, practical cooperation might be complicated.

Finally, Trump's election will have consequences for global governance. Today, India seeks membership of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum; desires a voice and a vote on nuclear, chemical, biological and conventional weapons proliferation through membership to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (which would cement its 2008 waiver that enables it to conduct civil nuclear commerce); and seeks a permanent seat in an expanded UN Security Council. While the US has supported India's membership of these forums in the past, it appears a low priority for the Trump Administration. It will have to be seen whether 'America First' can ever align with India's aspiration to be a leading power.

Why Hillary Is a Safe Bet for India

The following article originally appeared in India Today on August 8 and was reproduced on the Brookings Institution's Order from Chaos blog. 

The field is set. With the formal anointing of party nominees at the Republican and Democratic Party conventions in July, either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is certain to be the next U.S. president. This match-up is remarkable for several reasons. Trump would be the first U.S. leader in over a half century not to have previously held elected office. Clinton would be the first female president. Both are among the most divisive candidates in recent history, with high negative ratings-even within their own parties.

What does the outcome of November’s election mean for India? The degree of comfort in working-level relations between the two governments and militaries, the presence of the Indian-American community, and several areas of natural economic and strategic convergence mean that the foundations of the India-U.S. relationship are today strong enough to withstand any leadership change in either country. In that sense, a presidential transition in Washington will have only a limited effect on bilateral ties. But while the implications for bilateral relations would be marginal, the potential impact on the United States’ credibility and ability to wield international influence will be tremendous.

Hillary Clinton would be a very safe bet from India’s point of view. No incoming U.S. president has had the level of interaction with India that she has had. Her trip in 1995 helped paved the way years later for her husband Bill Clinton’s historic visit to India in 2000. As U.S. Senator, Hillary Clinton was co-chair of the Senate India Caucus. And as U.S. Secretary of State she made multiple visits, during which she highlighted the need for India to “not just look east, but engage east and act east”—a mantra the current Indian government subsequently adopted—and surprised many with her sharp rhetoric against Pakistan-supported terrorism.

In fact, political opponents have tried to use Clinton’s close India connections to attack her. In 2007, then candidate Barack Obama had to apologize for a campaign memo that described Clinton as a senator from Punjab. More recently, the Trump campaign has published and circulated unsubstantiated allegations that Clinton received money from India for her support for the India-U.S. nuclear agreement. Overall, Clinton’s foreign policy and trade instincts—although dampened during the campaign in response to adverse popular sentiments—are in accordance with broad Indian preferences. From her time as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s group of advisers—the likes of her campaign chairman John Podesta, former Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, her closest foreign policy aide Jake Sullivan, and dozens more—are all individuals with a close working familiarity with India.

What about Trump? Unlike Clinton, he does not have a record to assess and his statements on the campaign trail have offered a contradictory picture. One statement that received considerable attention in India related to Pakistan. “Pakistan is semi-unstable. We have a little bit of a good relationship. I think I’d try and keep it,” Trump said at a town hall meeting in April. “If you look at India and some of the others, maybe they’ll be helping us out.” While interpreted by some in India as a signal that he would side with India against Pakistan, his remarks are actually ambiguous on that account, and largely conform to the United States’ recent approach to the region.

Trump has also been similarly ambivalent about economic relations and immigration as it relates to India. “India is doing great. Nobody talks about it,” he told CNN in January, but added a month later that he was going to “bring back jobs from India.” He often speaks of India along with China with admiration, but also as a threat to the United States’ economic well-being. On immigration, Trump has spoken about ending the H-1B high-skilled visa program of which Indians are among the biggest beneficiaries, but has also said he would create opportunities for Indian entrepreneurs and students. “They go to Harvard, they are first in their class and they’re from India, they go back to India and they set up companies and they make a fortune and they employ lots of people,” he told Fox News in March. “We need those people in the country.”

Indian-Americans, historically Democrats, are likely to support Clinton overwhelmingly. The racism associated with the Trump campaign will deter some Indian votes that might otherwise have gone to a Republican candidate. However, the vast majority of people in India appear to be undecided about the two candidates. A poll by the Pew Research Center released in June found 28 percent of Indians had confidence in Hillary Clinton’s ability to handle world affairs while 16 percent did not. Meanwhile, only 14 percent had confidence in Trump in contrast to 18 percent who did not.

The Indian government has been following political developments in the U.S. closely. But it has wisely chosen not to take sides. While Prime Minister Narendra Modi met with Hillary Clinton (and other presidential aspirants such as Republican Chris Christie and Democrat Martin O’Malley) during his 2014 visit to the United States, he opted not to meet formally with either campaign during his last visit earlier this year. However, in an engagement with think-tank leaders in Washington, Modi met with individuals close to both campaigns. The election of a U.S. president is ultimately up to the American electorate, and India will have to deal confidently with whoever comes to power next.

Waiting for Modi

The following article - a preview of Indian Prime Minister's Narendra Modi's visit to the United States - was originally published by India Today on September 25, 2014.

Only 12 months ago, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi was still effectively blacklisted by the US, denied a travel visa and deprived of any high level official contact with the US government. Of course, US investment into Gujarat was welcome, Modi occasionally met American business delegations, and his prime ministerial bid was actively bolstered by many US-based NRIs and Indian-Americans. But it is only now that the arc has dramatically swung the other way. Modi will arrive in New York on what promises to be a memorable maiden visit as prime minister of the world's largest democracy.

He is expected to participate in several high-profile events and meetings with US political and business leaders and members of the Indian-American community. Although the deliverables from such visits will be negotiated until the very last minute, the symbolism of Modi's engagements will be significant too. Observers of the Indo-US relationship should watch out for a few things during Modi's visit.

First, it is impossible to overstate the significance of Modi's arrival for the Indian-American community. He has had, for years, an ardent following among NRIs and Indian-Americans. Several of them contributed in various ways to his prime ministerial campaign. His other support base in the US beyond Indian professionals has been the Gujarati community. For many years, Gujarati community functions in the US featured an empty chair, a symbol of wistful longing for the then-CM to be admitted to the country.

Hence, the visit now marks Modi's triumph for many of his supporters. The event for the Indian community at New York's famed Madison Square Garden-itself an audacious undertaking has been oversubscribed. By one count, over 14,000 people signed up for the last 1,000 available seats. The event has been a massive logistical undertaking. Modi's Madison Square Garden speech will possibly be the highlight of the visit for many of the PM's US-based supporters.

The second reason Modi's visit will be significant is the official welcome he will receive from the political establishment, led by President Barack Obama. For all the talk about American decline, an official invitation to the White House carries enormous international significance for any world leader. The Washington leg of the visit marks a bid by both countries to build bridges quickly, and the US government particularly the executive branch is keen to lay out the red carpet. In addition to the president, Modi is also expected to meet Vice President Joe Biden and leaders of the US Congress.

It will also be interesting to see who Modi meets individually on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting, political and business leaders in New York, and other senior officials in Washington. These private meetings should provide a clearer picture of his global engagement, as well as how he intends to shape relations with the US beyond the current administration in Washington. And, like Modi's visit to Japan and Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to India, various other stops will no doubt be carefully selected.

In keeping with Modi's emphasis on jump-starting India's economy, his meetings with business leaders in both New York and Washington will be crucial. The American private sector plays a much bigger role, compared with its counterparts in China and even Japan, in directing investment and transferring technology. Whether Modi can convince America Inc to increase its long-term investment in India will be something to watch out for.

The emphasis on the private sector does not mean that the US government cannot play a crucial role in facilitating India's development. The agenda laid out by Modi over the past several months from the campaign trail to his Independence Day speech raises several areas for cooperation, including clean and renewable energy, skill development, sanitation, urbanisation and digital communication technologies. In line with Modi's emphasis on regional connectivity and security, joint cooperation in third countries is another area for India and the US to work together in.

In terms of deliverables, what is not yet possible is also clear. The current environment- both globally and bilaterally is not conducive to ambitious government-to-government agreements on trade and investment. But beyond development, defence and counter-terrorism offer areas of greater potential convergence. A new bilateral defence framework agreement, following the one signed in 2005, is due soon. And while joint military exercises and defence sales have kept pace, other aspects of defence cooperation, notably joint production and R&D, offer largely unexplored possibilities. With shared concerns about the implications of Western military withdrawal from Afghanistan, we can also expect a signal of closer cooperation on counter-terrorism.

Ultimately, this is only Prime Minister Modi's first visit to the US, one that is coming so early in his tenure. This is really about setting the tone for bilateral engagement. It will be an attempt at rejuvenating ties after both the US and India preoccupied with economic challenges at home following the global financial crisis have become more distracted and introverted. The heady days of early engagement between India and the United States from 1998 and 2008 may be hard to replicate, but a more ambitious, less acrimonious and revitalised Indo-US agenda is certainly possible.

One of the biggest boosters of ties may well be the Prime Minister himself. When asked by CNN's Fareed Zakaria whether India and the US could forge a "genuinely strategic" partnership, Modi replied, "Bade confidence ke saath mein kehta hoon, 'yes'." ("With great confidence, I am saying, yes.") Such an unambiguously positive statement would have been difficult to imagine any time in the last decade. What a difference a year makes.