Is India engaged in public posturing, or are recent developments indicative of course-correction in its relations with the United States? This question is being debated in government and policy circles in New Delhi following the uproar over US State Department spokesman Tom Casey's remarks ahead of the visit of Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Casey's 'advice' that India should ask Iran to behave 'responsibly' and meet United Nations Security Council requirements with regard to its nuclear arsenal, drew a surprisingly sharp rejoinder from India's Ministry of External Affairs, which, on April 22, told the US it doesn't need 'guidance' on how to conduct its bilateral affairs.
'It is important that the genius of each nation (India and Iran) living in a particular region is respected and allowed to flower to meet the expectations of enriching relations with neighbours,' the MEA's response read.
The MEA effectively told the US that India's relations with Iran go way back in time, that both nations are mature enough, and capable of holding a dialogue to resolve pending issues without the need for third party guidance.
Parts of External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee's response had the feel of a direct snub. "We are advising Iran that since it is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, it has some obligation to international treaties. We tell the US -- do not take on yourself the responsibility of whether Iran was manufacturing weapons or not. Leave it to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the designated authority".
Critics say those who 'overvalue' India's relations with the US thought it was a case of dangerous over-reaction, and that the diplomatic US-India-Iran triangle had veered offcentre, but Left parties and even spokespersons of the ruling Congress party were delighted by the MEA's response.
"It was an over-reaction," Naresh Chandra, former ambassador to the US, told rediff.com. "A moot question is 'do you want one more nuclear power in Asia?' US or no US, India would have opposed Iran's nuclear ambition. Just because the US is asking India to talk to Iran doesn't make difference. India should oppose tooth and nail Iran's becoming a nuclear power."
Former Indian diplomat G Parthasarathy felt the MEA statement was partly with a view to domestic politics, and partly about international diplomacy. "I think Casey's tone and tenor was objectionable, but you cannot say that the US can't give an opinion on Iran's nuclear issue. Don't we tell the US to ask Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to curb cross-border terrorism?"
Parthasarathy believes such statements signified the government's pandering to the Left parties, which are its allies in the United Progressive Alliance government in New Delhi.
The snub is viewed as doubly important since it comes at a time when the Indo-US civilian nuclear cooperation agreement is in limbo. Mukherjee put the deal further behind the eight ball, when he assured the Left parties that the government would seek a 'sense of Parliament' before sending the 123 Agreement back to US Congress.
Earlier, when the UPA government was hell bent on making the deal operational, it had taken several policy initiatives aimed at pleasing the Bush administration, even risking its bilateral relations with countries like China and Iran.
India, thus, had supported the US position on Iran at the 2006 IAEA meeting in Vienna, and moved slow on the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had also refused to attend the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, deferring to the US view that the SCO is intended to counter US influence in Central Asia.
Analysts who want India to remain independent in its foreign policy have strongly objected to India's support for the idea of a confederation of democracies, consisting of the US, Japan, India and Australia, that China viewed as being directed against it. For the same reason, they also objected to the five-power naval exercise in the Bay of Bengal September 2007, in which the navies of the US, India, Singapore, Japan and Australia had participated.
Interestingly, the Australian government under new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has withdrawn from the concert of democracies (Japan has also shown recent signs of cold feet); it has said it will not sell uranium to India and according to unconfirmed reports, indicated that Australia will not back India at the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
All of this puts the nuclear deal in considerable jeopardy; analysts say the government is now facing some tough choices as time runs out not only on the nuclear deal, but on the UPA's term in power.
Thus, they argue, the MEA is attempting to revert to its earlier position by defending its relationship with Iran in strong language, and by hosting the Iranian president in New Delhi.
It remains to be seen whether India will, in this vein, reverse some of its bilateral agreements with the US in matters such as naval exercises, and in permitting an American team to visit Arunachal Pradesh to search for the remains of some American airmen who went missing in action during World War II.
These moves are, at least in part, believed to be with an eye on the upcoming elections, since in India, a strong pro-US line does not pay off at the polling booth.
In the face of such speculation, strategic analyst K Subrahmanyam says he sees no sign of a change in India's foreign policy. "India has repeatedly said it is against Iran becoming a nuclear power," the veteran analyst points out.
A senior Rajya Sabha member and member of the Congress Working Committee said, "Diplomacy is an exercise in balancing India's interests all the time, round the clock. Particularly in case of the US, relations going up and down and up again should be considered quite normal."
