New Delhi. Thirty-six years after being instrumental in dispatching of the US Navy’s Seventh Fleet to the Bay of Bengal to browbeat India at the height of a war that saw the emergence of Bangladesh, America’s super-diplomat, Dr Henry A Kissinger, was in Kolkata recently to hardsell the Indo-US civil nuclear deal.

The contrast in the two situations could not be lost on the observers of the Indo-US relations and those who have watched Kissinger.

Despite having forced a patently anti-India ‘tilt’ by the then Nixon Administration of which he was the Secretary of State, and then recording, quite unapologetically, his irritation with Indians and having called names to Indira Gandhi in his memoires, Kissinger is not a hated man in India.

He has been a fairly frequent visitor to India, and has participated in Indo-US discourse over the years, irrespective of the changing administrations in the US and the governments in India over the last four decades.

He has called on or received Indians in high echelons of power, economics, diplomacy and academics without being reminded of the events of 1971 that took India long years to forget, if not forgive.

This underscores the depth Indo-US ties that have left behind years of cold war and witnessed a sea change.

However, it is not all hunky-dory. While the Indian middle class woos and likes to be wooed by the West, the political classes, of the Bharatiya Janata Party, the centrist and most certainly the Left, remain suspicious of the world’s only superpower.

This distrust is at the center of much of the criticism of the nuclear deal and is unlikely to ebb easily.

The Kissinger visit was part of the lobbying by the US of the deal among these Indian political leaders, again a point that did not go well with sections of the Indian intelligentsia.

Among the questions they asked were: Why was the American lobbying needed, since lobbying itself does not enjoy acceptance in India. And why had the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA), the Left and the opposition National Democratic Alliance (NDA) not found it necessary and possible to sort out the issues that had required some American intervention.

The Kissinger visit was preceded by efforts by the government to meet the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party’s leadership. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and National Security Advisor M K Narayanan. Despite having forced a patently anti-India ‘tilt’ by the then Nixon Administration of which he was the Secretary of State, and then recording, quite unapologetically, his irritation with Indians and having called names to Indira Gandhi in his memoires, Kissinger is not a hated man in India. had met the top leaders, raising hopes of cooperation on the deal. But was this possibly brokered by the US. Allegations, right or wrong, will always be there, thanks to the vested interests of politicians individually and their parties.

However, with Gujarat polls very much on the cards, the BJP seemed unable and unwilling to heed to any persuation. With no basic difference with the government on the deal, it has had to find a number of reasons to say that there was no real meeting ground between what the government thinks and what is good for the country.

The BJP leaders took note of the persuasive efforts both by the US and the UPA government, but rejected the arguments in favour of the deal that aimed at ending decades-long nuclear – and equally important, technological – isolation of India.

“In our view energy is secondary and strategic security the first priority,” said a senior BJP leader who attended the meeting.

“Moreover, there is uncertainty all around India, be it Pakistan, Bangladesh, China, Nepal, Myanmar. India has to take that into account. Supposing Pakistan breaks up tomorrow – it is full of mafia and drug lords – which of them will lay his hands on the nuclear bombs there can’t be said. We cannot be indifferent to our security needs,” say some BJP leaders, pointing out that some Pakistani leaders have often threatened to bomb India.

The BJP leaders also underlined the need for the “periodic testing of our nuclear arsenal to make sure how our delivery system is functioning.”

“Energy is being overstated by the government. Moreover, proposed nuclear reactors will meet only three to five per cent of our energy needs,” said BJP spokesman Ravi Shankar Prasad.

The BJP was dismissive of the US overtures made through Dr Kissinger and Ambassador David C Mulford, as also leading members of the Indian community in the US.

“This is just an attempt by (President) Bush to ensure the success of his foreign policy. We tried to explain to US diplomats that the success or failure of the nuclear deal should not become the benchmark of lasting friendship with the US,” said Prasad after the meeting Dr Kissinger had with L K Advani, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

The BJP noted that the US concern is limited to nuclear non-proliferation and strategic partnership. “If you see the statements of (US Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice, she only talks of non-proliferation whereas Bush is singularly focused on strategic partnership,” the BJP leaders felt.

Surprisingly, but significantly, the American overtures went of better with the Communist Party of India (Marxist), considering that the Left has differences that are ideological, political as well as procedural. At
least, the media vibes were better after Kissinger called on West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya.

When Kissinger came calling and was closeted with Bhattacharya for over 45 minutes discussing “life in general”, it was a high point of an American courtship for Bhattacharya and the Left.

Kissinger, who was part of a business delegation, said later that Bhattacharya “reminded him of Deng Xiaoping”, the late Chinese leader who turned the face of China by unleashing sweeping free market reforms.

Riding on the pragmatism of Bhattacharya, West Bengal is on the radar of US business. Bhattacharya’s colleagues say there is no contradiction here.

“When did we say that we would not touch American capital? Investments generate employment and so by wooing American investment the chief minister is not going beyond the party’s line,” reasoned CPI-M’s senior leader Shyamal Chakraborty.

The meeting has a significant follow-up in the offing. Bhattacharya has decided to send his Industry Minister Nirupam Sen to the US to attract investment. Speculation is rife that he himself would also visit the US.

In what critics see as a doublespeak, Bhattacharya publicly opposes a civil nuclear deal with the US but has no qualms wooing US investment to his state. But neither side, certainly not the Marxists, are bothered about this criticism.

“I am optimistic that a solution will be found and the issue will be settled in the next few months,” Kissinger told reporters at a programme organised by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) before his meeting with Bhattacharya.

Besides Kissinger, there was more interaction between the Americans and the Marxist rulers of West Bengal, that has had a great past as an industrialized state and is struggling to recover ground it lost thanks to naxalism, a poor overall work culture where people attend offices at liesure, and bad management.

US Treasury Secretary Henry M Paulson Jr kicked off the latest American parade to West Bengal by discussing the deal with Bhattacharya October 28.

As the American counterpart of India’s finance minister, Paulson’s meeting with Bhattacharya was significant.

“The chief minister and I discussed the civil nuclear deal. The US believes it will help India meet its energy and environmental objectives. We remain committed to the deal,” Paulson Jr said after the meeting.

The Bhattacharya-led ‘Bengal lobby’ of the CPI-M had earlier expressed support for nuclear energy and tie-ups with any country for economic betterment.

The Indo-American Chamber of Commerce – a forum for corporations doing business in India and the US – organised the meeting of Paulson’s delegation with West Bengal’s top shots.

Bhattacharya can pull off a spectacular show in January when California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected here as part of a large business delegation. Suja Lowenthal, a councillor from Long Beach, California, said Kolkata could be on Arnold’s itinerary if he makes it to India early next year.

A team of executives of the Time Warner group also met Bhattacharya and said that entertainment company Warner Bros is considering setting up an animation studio in West Bengal, where cinema industry has flourished despite a limited market and economic uncertainties.

Richard Parsons, chief executive officer of the Time Warner group, met Bhattacharya with a delegation.

“We were extremely happy to meet him. The chief minister wants us to set up a state-of-the-art animation studio here. We will discuss it and send a team shortly to explore how we can carry the proposal forward,” Parsons said.

Back in New Delhi, the principal battleground for Kissinger, he candidly said that the US would be “disappointed” if its nuclear deal with India were to be shelved at this stage.

It would also affect New Delhi’s chances of getting a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. “India will still be considered important and serious efforts would be made to continue a close relationship. But theoretical desires for close relationships would have to be expressed in concrete measures in some point,” he said in an interview with Karan Thapar, telecast on the CNN-IBN channel, when asked about the US reaction to the possibility of the nuclear deal being dropped.

“And undoubtedly there would be a mixture of disappointment and also whether a question to what extent one can calculate Indian reactions to negotiations that are going on other subjects. I think these two would be the two dominant reactions,” he said.

Asked if there would be voices in the US questioning India’s reliability as a strategic partner in that eventuality, Kissinger said: “There will certainly be people who will make that argument. There are others (who) would say the relationship is very important and we have to carry on.

“But it would certainly, in an intangible way, affect calculations because when an American leader goes down a certain road he stakes his prestige on the ability to get it executed, so in that sense it would be a setback.”

Queried about the impact India’s backing out on the nuclear deal would make on its ambition to be a permanent member of the UN’s Security Council, Kissinger said: “I would anyway favour India joining the Security Council because of the magnitude of the country.

“But it would certainly be one argument that opponents might use in what is any event a complicated issue, because of issues of veto, expansion of Security Council and so forth.”

Batting for the nuclear deal, he said: “I think it would be an important landmark. It would signify that India has emerged from its isolation of 30 years, and that in a key field of activity – the nuclear field – it is now reentering the international community in a cooperative manner.

It would signify a role for India on a more global basis than it has performed before.”