Knee-jerk responses

What is it about the political class that it reacts instinctively, and with an anti-US bias, whenever a major initiative is undertaken""as with the nuclear deal? One can understand the communists; they seem to have been taking orders from Moscow for many years, as the published diaries ("The Mitrokhin Archives") of a former Russian intelligence official have revealed. Perhaps that is no longer the case, and perhaps not. Once such conduct has been established, no one can know for sure if a change has taken place till enough time passes and more archives become public. In any case, for organisations with this record to accuse others of betraying the national interest requires a unique combination of chutzpah and effrontery. Prakash Karat of the CPI(M), for instance, suggests that the Prime Minister is "sensitive" about Indo-US ties, the term used suggesting more than is said; but what about Mr Karat himself? Is he too being "sensitive" about Indo-US relations?

If one leaves the communists alone, what about many others who too react with wariness if not hostility when the US is involved? Perhaps the explanation is Washington's support to Pakistan for more than four decades, or a hangover of the "Third World" distrust of former colonial powers, or a general distrust of all great powers because of the damage it can do. Politicians could also be keeping an ear cocked to Muslim sentiment, since most Muslims will be angry with what the US has been doing in Iraq and Palestine (though it can be asked why the same Muslims do not get angry with Pakistan when it sponsors terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir). And perhaps it is simply an absence of trust in Washington's fealty as a friend "" given its record elsewhere.

Mature nations test such instinctive responses in the crucible of self-interest, and the fact is that the Indo-US warming of recent years is the product of shared interests and mutually-held values, and of course mutual benefit. If anything, the US has moved more than India, and this has already paid dividends. Thus, India would have paid a bigger price for its lack of alertness in Kargil if it were not for US support. Some of the reduction in tensions with Pakistan has been facilitated by the US. And the US is perhaps the most widely desired source of education, technology and goods. As for spin-off benefits, other countries (like Japan) are also warming to India because they see the growing entente with the US. All of which expands India's manoeuvring room in international relations "" and therefore makes the country more secure.

The last time an important initiative provoked similar voices of protest was when the economic reforms process was kicked off in 1991 "" it was charged then that things were being done at the behest of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, indeed that the Budget had been dictated by (or discussed with) them, and that the new policies would lead to the "de-industrialisation" of India, the loss of national sovereignty, general immiseration and much else. The people who indulged in this absurd sloganeering find it difficult today to give credit to that same reforms process for helping the country become the second-fastest growing economy in the world. If the nuclear shackles do come off, and the country benefits in the long term from nuclear power while its security is not mortgaged, will today's critics admit that they were wrong?