Ahead of US President Barack Obama?s visit to India from November 5, former Indian ambassador to the US and possibly the most astute commentator on the relations between the two countries, Naresh Chandra spoke his mind with MK Venu and Subhomoy Bhattacharjee on how relations have shaped up, on global politics and on the role of China in the balance of power.

The India-US relationship now straddles a level where a number of macro-strategic issues are on the table when the two leaders talk. Don?t you think this is quite different from a narrow perspective in the previous decade when the talks centred on Pakistan or a limited economic agenda? And does this limit the range of expectations on deliverables from the visit?

This is true. As it is, everyone can notice the range of subjects and the range of contacts we have with the US are far more than with any other country. The segments of society that are in contact are so numerous?from academics to Hollywood and Bollywood, it is an enormous range. Within that come the students, the NRIs, the business-to-business contacts, those between the US Congress and our Parliament, and between the think tanks; we have no comparable range of contact with any other country.

Also, till about and even after 1991, we used to focus on bilateral and basically ticklish issues. With better understanding on both sides, the perception has now grown that India is a far more (than anyone) seriously engaged nation on a vast range of topics concerning human welfare. Again, we are seen as a nation that is not boxed in by petty issues but has the intellectual and soft power that can be engaged with to address topics that are beyond the bilateral sphere.

The other aspect of this visit is that earlier there was a sense of newness when presidents from the US came?like Clinton, for instance. That has given way to a maturity. You can?t have a repeat of events like the signing of the civil nuclear deal every time the two heads of state meet. One must remember that Barack Obama and Manmohan Singh have already met 6 times, which is a far more numerous range of contact than with any US president ever before. This has happened in just 18 months. So, every time they meet, bells cannot ring and angels cannot start singing.

To get to the specifics, some of the things that I think will be addressed will include relaxation of controls on export of technology?very draconian ones. I am told Obama is not very happy with this and wants it liberalised anyway. The controls are not India-specific but India can be a sort of trigger.

On the terrorism front, it is very difficult to add anything new. The usual statements, I suspect, will be made. However, the Headley affair has brought out the need to have more and faster exchange of information between the two sides. On both sides, the two heads of government need to tell their men this very frankly. A lot of information has moved very sluggishly. Maybe 26/11 could have been avoided if we had a more vigorous information exchange system in place. So, with terrorism, the Indian side will express its unhappiness over developments in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but that may not lead to much, except a repeat of the existing US statements that India?s role is very valuable in these contexts and so on.

There is some concern on the larger aid package to Pakistan and its implications for Asia…

Nothing new in that. Whenever the US expresses concern, people expect it to take some real and meaningful action. But the only real action that comes out is a fatter cheque signed over to the Pakistan government. There is always a connect?a buildup of concerns, then critical press reports come out, succeeded by a crescendo of meetings and then a fatter cheque. This leaves people bewildered but our bewilderment is nothing compared to that of Hamid Karzai. Still, the aid package is something that is sure to be discussed.

On broader strategic issues, therefore, things may be discussed but most of these will not find a place in the statements. How the Chinese use their new-found power, how to take advantage of the growing economic clout of the Chinese and the Indian markets could come out. A lot of work on those areas will happen, I am sure. The things to emerge will be those that address an orderly and harmonious progression of events, events that take advantage of the strength of both economies for the benefit of the global economy.

In this context, will the Chinese push for a sort of low level equilibrium with India? Will subjects like the balance of power in the region be discussed in detail with the US?

To do that, you first need to have an analysis of the expanding security scenario. Then exchange notes, then try and fashion out what can be done by each individually and by both jointly. In the case of power parity in the Indian Ocean area, which is an area of concern, no doubt there has to be a very balanced approach. This ocean is crucial for world trade. An unregulated and disorganised use of these waters can be very painful.

Do you expect that some sort of a new paradigm could come up regarding the Indian Ocean?

The number of Chinese vessels in the area is increasing and people have no proper idea of what may happen. In this context, the dominant role the US navy can play should not be underestimated by us. This navy?s tonnage is far more than that of the next 13 navies of the world combined. These figures are generally not taken note of by people. Their armament types, the instrumentation are in a class of their own.

So, this means a change in the Indian discomfort about the presence of big power navies in the Indian Ocean?

Yes. The game-changer was Diego Garcia. India was following a neutral policy at that time that advocated keeping this ocean as a zone of peace, etc. But it was always going to be difficult to keep the waters where 60% of the world merchant navy trade plies, in that way. So we have progressed to the point where we instead want an orderly secured environment. The cost of securing it by India is something we cannot afford?too ambitious to even conceive. We will be laughed at, so we need a cooperative approach. Having said that, what we need is a stable arrangement for the waters and this is where an expression of interest will take place.

This is different from the Chinese design, which is not to have a large area under their domination. To have that invites the big boys and you are not the star performer. We can?t play that game. So they have a plan for a fragmented approach?it suits them. Also, what we should try is to get the US to say something about the sovereignty of the Indian borders. It will be helpful. They have so far not made a statements like this for India. They have said that about China.

China is trying to demonstrate its powers, probably to impress an audience larger than India …

If they can show they can push India here and there, it sends a message in our neighbourhood. But I don?t think they really would like to do much of this stuff. China knows this will bring India and the US closer and that would pose a danger for them. So the India and US exchanges are a matter of concern for them and they don?t want moves that make India and the US allies against a common enemy. Such a situation will be a total failure for the Chinese foreign policy.

China is on a growth trajectory. Why should they throw it all away on a military misadventure. They are not a poor nation as in 1962 when they had nothing to lose except their manpower, which they had in plenty. China of 2010 is a different nation.

They are far more conscious?

Yes, they now follow a far more pragmatic foreign policy. Sometimes their old plans of empire-building seems real, but it is not so. They would not rock the boat. The Chinese now have a far more corporate structure.

Any possibility of the reform of the UN security council being flagged?

This is much beyond the ability of the US to sway. In future, either the reform of the council will not take place, or if it happens, India will surely be there. We will soon be the most populous nation of the world, with the fourth or the third largest economy, a responsible power that does not threaten anybody. It is inconceivable that a reform of the council (permanent seat) will exclude a sixth of the mankind, which is India.

Isn?t there a perception that the US and China need each other a lot more, given their current symbiotic relationship, than India and the US?

India has a foreign policy based on the principle that the world is a family. The Americans and Indians have much more in common than the US and China. Whereas the only thing common between India and China is that they are neighbours and they have a streak of Buddhism running through them. But when people say India and the US are natural allies, they point to similar forms of democratic government; also, these are the only two nations that are multilingual. With the demise of the old Soviet Union, there are no more such entities. Everybody else has a common national identity. Add the roles of a free press and an open judiciary.

Is this the right time to do an FTA with the US?

We have decided to work towards it. But there are so many tariff issues like agriculture, which are very politically sensitive for India. We are not willing to reduce the range; they also subsidise but subtly. An FTA with only goods does not help us; we need the passage of people and technology. There, they have a problem. If we can have a meaningful FTA, it would be a terrific thing. Both sides will have to make sacrifices and convince a lot of people. Our insurance companies and their pharma companies will be up in arms.