Stephen Cohen, US scholar on India, talks to Aditi Phadnis about what has changed in India, and what hasn’t
You’re coming to India at the intersection of two things: The India visit of US President Barack Obama and the expose of the worst-ever scam in the Indian Army. As someone who understands the complexities of Indo-US relations and has done extensive research on the Indian Army, how do you see these two events?
I’m here for reasons that have nothing to do with the Obama visit. I decided six months ago that I wanted to see India intensively — do a Bharat Darshan. So, I asked the American Centre if they would sponsor the trip and they did. I arrived here with my wife on October 2. We’ve travelled continuously. I finished the Arming without Aiming book (a book on the Indian Army) and wanted to see the new India emerging. It’s been a great experience.
You were in India first in the 1960s
I first came to India in 1963. I returned in 1968-69 and 1975-77 and then again in the 1990s as a fellow of the Ford Foundation for a year. I haven’t lived here since the 1990s.
And how does India look now?
Well, I wrote in my book that this is a revolutionary country. The revolution is taking place at many levels. There’s an economic revolution, also a social revolution in the form of changes in the caste system. There is also a federal revolution, transformation in ties between the Centre and the states, and also a revolution in foreign policy. I don’t want to go into the details but it is clearly a different country from what I saw earlier. But it still remains India.
In the 1960s, India’s image was not what it thought it was. We thought we were very important, leading the non-aligned movement and the oppressed people all around the world, but I don’t think too many people in the US took India particularly seriously...
When I came in 1963, there was still the residue of the India-China war. There were American hopes that India would somehow be its bastion against the Chinese. Of course, India was reconsidering its China policy, but did not want to become an ally of the United States. Because the price America was demanding was settlement of the Kashmir issue with Pakistan, (Jawaharlal) Nehru did not want to pay that price.
And then the Americans got interested in Vietnam and India got interested in other things. The tipping point came when America normalised ties with China and Richard Nixon went to China, which led to a series of informal alignments – China and the US, India and the Soviet Union – which really put a distance between America and India. I think that led to thinking in the 1970s, propagated by Indira (Gandhi), that America was trying to keep India down. There was no truth in that whatsoever.
More From This Section
But we saw India as a Soviet ally, which was also false. So, I think what has happened is that we now have better appreciation of India’s independence. And after the Cold War, the Indians see virtue in cooperating with the United States on a number of issues.
There’s been a lot of rhetoric – natural allies, strategic partnership, etc. These are mostly invented by diplomats. But there are several points where there is commonality of interest. The Obama visit will highlight one of them – economics. But there is a common concern about terrorism and the instability of Pakistan. Indian and American societies have a lot in common. We both are big, federal, extremely complex internally. I know we can learn a lot from the way India does its elections. And India can learn from the way we make decisions – not always good decisions but the systematic process that goes into those decisions.
Your research suggests that the Indian defence services will benefit from a procurement system that is more refined and faster.
A lively debate is on over this here. I think Indians have to grapple with two military revolutions. One is at the very top, with the induction of nuclear weapons, which transforms the army’s role. At the other level, India has been engaged in a bitter counterinsurgency for years against all kinds of groups. And there, paramilitary and police forces need a lot of support. I think military modernisation should begin at the bottom, not at the top.
A lot of weapon purchases are symbolic. They show Indians how great they are and how great the weapons are. But they have little military relevance. The prime example is the Arihant, the nuclear weapons submarine conceived in the 1970s to counter the Americans in Diego Garcia. But now it has apparently become some kind of a strategic deterrent against the Chinese. I think it’s a huge waste of money.
In the book, we agree with Prime Minister Singh that the real threat is the internal insurgencies. And where is the modernisation to fight that one? It is very slow in coming.
In terms of India’s wellness index, what has changed from the 1960s – in its cities and villages?
I see new India bursting out from the old India. But the old India is still there and the new India is still finding itself. What is impressive is how globalised India has become. Indians in villages and small towns can now hook up to the rest of the world. The insularity of India is disappearing. A lot of old attitudes have gone, like the anti-Americanism. Indians are becoming more cosmopolitan, more diverse.
India’s path is like no other country. During our travels, we’ve seen some things that are marvellous, but also some things that are deeply disappointing. It’s a country that has most of the world’s poor people in it. But it is also the country that has some of the world’s richest people in it. It is difficult for foreigners to understand.
But as I said, it is a revolutionary process and when you are in a revolution, things can be very unsettling, very uncomfortable, and for outsiders, hard to understand. So, I’ve spent much of my life explaining India to Americans and America to Indians.
Is explaining America to Indians harder now than in the 1960s?
It is easier in some ways. In the 1960s, hardly any Indian had been to the United States. Today, 10 to 15 of my students are Indians. Indians understand our race problems better than before. And I think they understand the Obama phenenomenon – that America could produce an African-American who could become the President of the United States. Because India has had this amazing social mobility among its politicians.
Thoughts on the Obama visit.
Two things. I’ve seen too much of ‘what the US can do for India’. I think we need to think on what we can do together to resolve the different problems: Terrorism, global warming, nuclear weapons proliferation, global poverty and Afghanistan. America needs friendly advice and useful criticism. India has the wisdom to provide this. In the US, the dismissal of India stems from lack of understanding, which was a decision India took when it told us: Leave us alone. That time is past.
And we need to engage with ideas at every level, fuelled by the general economic growth between us.