By Inder Jit
(Released on 5 November 1976)
Both New Delhi and Washington will need to keep their fingers crossed. By all accounts, Dr Kissinger’s visit was truly a success. Years of nagging distrust and misunderstanding has been removed in a big way. Important first moves have been made to establish a basis for what the Secretary of State so aptly described as “a new and mature relationship” between the two countries. A promising rapport has been struck between Dr Kissinger and Mrs Gandhi and other top Government leaders: Mr Chavan, Mr Jagjivan Ram and Mr. C. Subramaniam; a rapport had already been established with Mr Swaran Singh who prepared the ground for the Secretary’s visit. Early follow-up steps are already on the cards. The U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mr Butz, may visit New Delhi soon after the World Food Conference in Rome and the U.S. Secretary of Treasury, Mr. Simon in December.
Indo-US understanding is expected to be strengthened further by these two visits, which will be followed by a renewed exchange when Mr. Subramaniam, who had a useful talk with Dr. Kissinger, visits Washington for an IMF meeting in January and Mr. Chavan some weeks later for the second session of the Indo-US Joint Commission. In keeping with national dignity and self-respect, Mrs. Gandhi and her colleagues avoided broaching the specific question of U.S. aid to India and relating it to Dr. Kissinger’s visit. The emphasis all along was to seek an understanding on various aspects of bilateral relations, the situation in the subcontinent and in South Asia and a review of the global scene with particular reference to the crisis facing the world community. However, Washington has now greater (and more sympathetic) awareness of India’s economic difficulties and problems and may well initiate some measures as proof of its new outlook and approach.
Mrs Gandhi and her colleagues appear determined to tackle the economic crisis on their own and with help from wherever it is available so long as this is consistent with national honour.
Washington now appears inclined somehow to find a million tonnes of foodgrains for India, despite heavy demands on its limited stocks and in contrast to its earlier willingness to try and spare about half a million tonnes. This is likely to be made available on a 40-year credit carrying an interest rate of about two per cent. At the same time, Washington is expected to take a more helpful attitude in regard to debt rescheduling in view of the colossal problem created by the import bill for food, oil and fertilizers which is expected to go up to Rs.1500 crores — or even Rs. 1,800 crores during the year. The World Bank has been pressing the U.S. and other aid-India Consortium countries to reschedule 40 per cent of the debt repayment. West Germany, Britain and Japan have been generally inclined to accept the recommendation. But the U.S. so far been opposing the proposal and, in the process, has provided an excuse to the other Consortium countries to drag their feet.
Mrs Gandhi and her colleagues appear determined to tackle the economic crisis on their own and with help from wherever it is available so long as this is consistent with national honour. They are not going to be influenced by the hostile stance adopted against the Kissinger visit by the CPI which alas continues to think in out-dated cold-war terms and is being a lot less practical than its Soviet friends. Barely a few months ago, a senior leftist Congress leader, who visited Moscow and met top Soviet leaders, was candidly told: “India’s main problem today is production, not distribution. We are doing our best for you friends. But you need much more help and credit. Get it from the U.S. or wherever else you can.” That is not all. When the D.P. Dhar delegation later visited the Soviet Union and sought, among other things, help for Bhilais expansion, it was politely told: “You know what we believe should be your priorities in production. Priority one: food. Priority two: food. Priority three: food!”
New Delhi is more than conscious of the need to give top priority to agriculture and is looking forward to studying with interest the comprehensive programme which the U.S. proposes to present to the World Food Conference “as its contribution to freeing mankind from the eternal struggle for sustenance”. In fact, Dr. Kissinger was glad to get from the President, Mr. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, some food for though during their half-hour meeting. The President stressed the importance of long-term measures to grow food for the world community with the help of fertilizers (wherever these could be produced) and shared technology in irrigation and power. India will be happy to get such fertilizer as the U.S. can spare immediately and in the future. Incidentally, as interesting study shows that the US uses some three million tonne of fertilizer annually for its lawns and flower beds.
The economic side is, however, the least part of the mutual Indo-US gain flowing from Dr. Kissinger’s visit. The most important aspect lay in establishing a new basis for peace and friendship. Both sides will hereafter act maturely and not be quick to air differences stridently in public and even to exaggerate them. They will air them privately as in the case of the Soviet Union. Actually, both New Delhi and Washington have already been practising this for some time, thanks to the quiet initiative taken earlier by Mr. Swaran Singh and the efforts of the Ambassadors of the two countries, Mr. Kaul and Mr. Moynihan. Significantly, the US did not hit the roof following India’s peaceful nuclear explosion at Pokhran as in the case of Canada and Australia and, to an extent, the U.K. Washington also avoided any public stance on the recent developments in Sikkim. On India’s part, Mr. Swaran Singh’s speech at the UN was noted for its restrained references to the U.S.
Washington now appears inclined somehow to find a million tonnes of foodgrains for India, despite heavy demands on its limited stocks and in contrast to its earlier willingness to try and spare about half a million tonnes. This is likely to be made available on a 40-year credit carrying an interest rate of about two per cent.
India is pleased to see the U.S. face reality in the subcontinent and recognise that India’s size and position give it a special role of leadership in South Asian and world affairs. It is happy to have the Indo-US Joint Communique welcome India’s affirmation to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only. It is also glad to get from Dr. Kissinger the assurance that the U.S. will not seek to promote a balance of power in the subcontinent or encourage an arms race. But it is not fully satisfied with the latter formulation and would, therefore, like to be assured that Dr. Kissinger will not yield to Mr. Bhutto’s pressure and resume supply of military hardware merely because Mr. Bhutto once acted as “a bridge” between the U.S and China. It hopes Washington will accept India’s basic stake in Pakistan stability and progress and that, contrary to Islamabad’s simulated stance, New Delhi has no interest in the dismemberment of Pakistan.
Dr. Kissinger impressed one and all by his brilliance, sophistication and statesmanship — and was equally impressed by the warmth and hospitality extended to him. He spoke the right words and was remarkably categorical in assuming both Government leaders and the Press that there would be no U.S. interference in India’s internal affairs. He answered questions candidly at his Press Conference and left no one in doubt that he was not willing to allow American newsmen to foul up his efforts. When an American correspondent asked if India had “asked for food and, if so, how much” he firmly replied: “I do not like to have the question put in terms of: has India asked…” he listened patiently to the FICCI leaders at a brief get-together and offered to put in a word for expeditious passage of trade liberalization laws. In the final analysis, however, New Delhi will judge Dr. Kissinger not by what he said but by what he does.— INFA