An op-ed in the Times of India has a lot to say about the political situation in the US – some of it poorly informed, but all of it interesting. The writer starts off by pointing out that a Hillary presidency is not necessarily a triumph for women’s rights:
…female rulers are not news at all in South Asia. Every major country in the region has had female rulers — Indira and Sonia Gandhi in India, Begums Hasina and Khaleda in Bangladesh, Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, and Srimavo Bandaranaike and Chandrika Kumaratunge in Sri Lanka.
All these women attained power because they were related to earlier male prime ministers. Hence, they represented a feudal culture of inheritance within powerful families, not of feminists storming male bastions. Hilary Clinton’s rise also owes much to her relationship with a powerful male president. So, a Hilary victory would replicate the South Asian model, with women coming to power via the bedroom door. From a gender viewpoint, that is not an uplifting model.
I’d give her candidacy more credit than that – there are few politicians who don’t try to benefit from their associations with past presidents, even if they haven’t slept with them. Still, it’s interesting that the supposedly progressive nature of southern Asian politics can be considered to be a manifestation of the old feudal system.
Then he gets to McCain:
However, what matters for Indo-US relations is not the colour, gender or war record of any presidential candidate. What matters is their position on key bilateral issues. And in this regard, McCain beats Clinton and Obama hollow.
…
Indians find Obama and Clinton more likeable than McCain, but personal likeability is irrelevant in international relations. McCain will be best for India. It’s a pity that he will probably lose.
He bases the desirability of McCain on only two issues: support for India’s nuclear power program (where he praises Bush’s policy), and free trade (and visas to the US). Shows what’s important to our most important potential ally.
China has been courting India at least as strongly as Bush has. India has done an excellent job of playing the suitors against one another, making no enemies and accepting all the gifts they bring to win her over. Eventually India will have to make a decision, but unless we continue our courtship, the decision will be made for them.
One or two decades from now, our geopolitical position will either be at a rough parity (a US-India alliance vs. a China-Russia alliance) or at a decided disadvantage (the US vs. everybody else). McCain has been an ass in many ways, but for this reason alone I would feel compelled to vote for him.
Don’t sit out. Don’t screw around. Vote for McCain.
April 28, 2008 at 11:53 am
Holding my nose but making the vote for McCain.
April 29, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I really don’t know what the chances are that India will jump into China’s arms. India and China are in a de facto regional war of influence. Recall that China was an essential partner in Pakistan’s nuclear program, specifically so that India may not dominate the region. China uses various entities and states in the region to try to diminish India’s influence and clout.
But you are right, nevertheless, that China is trying to court India. If I remember correctly, India had very warm relations with China while in its socialist phase. What will matter now is how India will deal with China’s regional plans (if not China’s global plans). I think bringing India on to our side, and keeping them on our side, will help us diminish China’s clout and influence by using India as a proxy and thus avoiding direct confrontation with China.
Unfortunately, as the world’s politics seem to be heading, any strategic partnership or de facto alliance between us and India should be kept under the table. Many Indians are anti-American: they fear the encroachment of American “culture” supplanting Indian culture. And so on. Besides, if India is labelled as America’s stooge, it would hinder India’s ability to influence and convince regional players.