The Foreign Service Journal, October 2016

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | OCTOBER 2016 37 complex. Clinton was mostly “good” for India, of course, but as with every other American president there was no chance of him declaring Pakistan a terrorist state, something that India desperately desired. The Clinton years were the time when the world, and espe- cially the subcontinent, really began to pick up the tab for the official adventures begun late in Jimmy Carter’s term, through Reagan’s rule and that of George Bush Senior. The jihadi seeds planted and nurtured by Washington and Pakistan President Zia ul Haq in Afghanistan from the late-1970s grew into lethal organ- isms, broadcasting their toxic produce on the winds of local conflict. India, especially in Kashmir, suffered from the effects of this deadly short-termism. By this time, the old bipolar world had withered, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact had collapsed (as we saw it here, more under the weight of their own contradictions than any masterstroke by Reagan and his Star Wars team), and India had, after a fashion, embraced the “free market.” Freed of the Cold War straightjacket, Indo-U.S. relations suddenly had great, new potential to develop in a number of areas. To coin a phrase: it was now a very different ball game. One thing, however, stayed constant: the Indian and American definitions of the exact nature of that game still came from two different—if adjacent— galaxies. India saw the election “victory” of George “Dubya” Bush as a scandal—that so important an election could be decided on the basis of a few hanging chads was unimaginable to people used to measuring convincing margins in hundreds of thousands. Indians believed Bush Junior was dangerously ignorant for an American president and would therefore be easily manipulated. This was India’s understanding well before 9/11, and it was rapidly confirmed in the aftermath. Bush’s blundering interna- tionally gave rise to deep pessimism in India. However, across his two terms, many Indians of a certain conservative bent were happy and grateful that he was there: the short-termmaneu- vers of the War on Terror brought short-term benefits to India. Among them, the nuclear deal, which was a huge triumph for both governments; Bush’s push for closer business ties between the countries; and the rebalancing of America’s strategic close- ness between Pakistan and India in India’s favor. For many of our homegrown neocons this was an outcome good enough to allow them to forget that the Iraq smash-and- grab left terminally unfinished business in Afghanistan, now a septic, roiling mess that will take us all decades to sort out. Still, Barack Obama’s inauguration was greeted in India with unbri- dled joy and happy tears. Obama was “good” for India (even better than Jimmy Carter, according to some old-timers). There were two highly successful state visits. In turn, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was accorded a state visit and banquet in Washington, and strategically the countries became closer than ever before. Though unable to declare Pakistan a rogue state, Obama did the next best thing—he sent in his special forces to kill the world’s number-one terrorist, right in the center of Pakistan’s military plant, providing spectacular proof of India’s accusa- tions that Pakistan has provided wide sanctuary to terrorists. Equally, while the drone attacks in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan might be drawing criticism all over the world for the devastation wreaked on innocent civilians, in many of India’s diverse power circles there is open satisfaction that “someone, at least, is dealing with the jihadis as they deserve.” Observations from the Back Row Approaching the denouement of this strangest of presiden- tial elections, we in India are left weighing up the pugilists from the last row of the boxing arena, so to speak. The candidacy and huge popularity of Donald Trump are not that outlandish to Indians who have watched Narendra Modi work his way out of the jaws of ignominy to become prime minister. There are important differences between Modi and Trump, of course, but their startling similarities far outweigh these. Modi may come from a modest background and Trump may have emerged from a silver-spoon warehouse; Modi’s relentless religiosity may be at odds with Trump’s utter lack of it. But beyond that the differ- ences peter out. The politics of openly creating hate targets; the strong-man act (Trump’s big hands, Mod’s 56–inch chest); the brazen series of lies, each new one erasing the previous one; the Across G.W. Bush’s two terms, many Indians of a certain conservative bent were happy: the short-termmaneuvers of theWar on Terror brought short-termbenefits to India.