President George W. Bush

NEW DELHI: A few weeks ago, a leading newspaper here ran an editorial espousing a rather unusual idea. It contended, in essence, that because the U.S. –– the world’s lone Superpower –– directly or indirectly impacted on lives across the globe, every single eligible voter of Planet Earth should have a ballot in the American elections.

Noting that the U.S. had “effectively consigned the U.N. to the trash barrel of obsolescence” to emerge as the “unchallenged arbiter of global destiny,” The Times of India said: “(The U.S.) can, and does, intervene, covertly or overtly, in the internal affairs of supposedly sovereign states, socially, economically and militarily. With such overweening power must also come corresponding responsibility and accountability. In other words, greater representation of all the stakeholders involved — which means everyone, everywhere. The USA has virtually made itself the USW — the United States of the World — and as such ought to be subject to the democratic principle of a truly universal adult franchise.”

Editorial polemics? Certainly. But it does underscore one fact: Because of the preponderance of U.S. power and reach, people in practically every country in the world have opinions on who should be the President of the United States. And they are not chary of expressing them –– as was evident in a opinion poll conducted in 35 countries in September.

Apart from the Philippines, Nigeria and Poland — which were pro-George W. Bush –– the rest overwhelmingly backed John Kerry for President, most by as much as five is to one. There were only two countries which reflected the reality of the neck-and-neck race in the U.S. –– Thailand and, well, India.

This is surprising. For all these years, Indians who had an opinion on U.S. politics were largely sympathetic to the Democrats, who were perceived to be liberal, inclusive (pro-immigrants) and generally more sympathetic to India. Recent memory also underscored this feeling. After all, the last two U.S. Presidents who visited India were Democrats –– Jimmy Carter in 1978 and Bill Clinton in 2000. The Republican presidents who have visited India, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, did so too far back in time –– 1959 and 1969, respectively.

In fact, the highly successful presidential visit by Clinton, followed by another in 2002 as a private citizen, had so charmed India that the tilt towards the Democrats seemed unshakeable. Just four years later, the even support that the Republicans received in the opinion poll is thus most surprising –– especially when you consider that the George W. Bush administration has not exactly been popular globally.

Challenger John Kerry

So why have the Republicans suddenly found favor in India?

At the government level, the question is a no-no. Officially (and quite naturally), India does not take a view on the U.S. elections, apart from “following developments keenly.” Neither do political parties, unlike, say, in Britain, where the Labour Party traditionally –– and officially –– backs the Democrats.

But, “sources close to the government” are of the opinion that a Republican administration under Bush just might be more India-friendly than a Democratic administration headed by Kerry. And these opinions have been making their way into the media, which has been covering the U.S. elections with considerable interest and in great detail.

Consider the reasons why these officials believe Bush is a better bet for India. For one, the Bush administration already has India on its radar screen. The strategic dialogue between the two countries is progressing smoothly, only recently having entered Phase II. When he met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New York in September, Bush said he would receive Singh at the White House in 2005, if he was re-elected. And he evinced a keen interest in visiting the subcontinent –– such a coup in bilateral visits will only enhance the Indo-U.S. relationship.

Although the initial thaw in Indo-U.S. relations –– after it went into deep freeze following the May 1998 nuclear tests –– occurred during the Clinton administration (thanks to a long and sustained dialogue between then Assistant Secretary of State Strobe Talbott and then External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh), it truly gathered steam during the Bush administration. If Bush returns to the White House, it will ensure continuity in the talks; with a Kerry administration, the whole process may have to be kicked off again, especially the strategic dialogue.

Bush Administration

Kerry Administration

THE POSITIVES ... * Strategic relations will enter Phase II; defense ties will continue to be enhanced. * Nonproliferation will remain on the backburner. No pressure to sign the NPT. Tacit acceptance of India’s nuclear status. * Dialogue likely to continue at the highest levels. * A prime ministerial visit to Washington and a presidential visit to New Delhi may happen as early as 2005, taking relations to a new level. * No fears on the outsourcing front. ... AND THE NEGATIVES * The war of terrorism will continue in Afghanistan and Iraq, which does not augur well for India’s strategic concerns in these two countries. * The United Nations will remain marginalized, something that goes against Indian espousal of a multipolar world where a strong U.N. is the ultimate arbiter. * The Musharraf regime will continue to be fully backed and not enough pressure is likely on Islamabad to stop cross-border terror in Kashmir.

THE POSITIVES ... * A Kerry administration is likely to broaden the alliance fighting the war on terror, as much of the world, including India, wants it to. * The U.N. will receive more respect, restoring its authority. It may get a role to play in Iraq, allowing India to participate in the process of reconstruction. * A firmer line on Islamabad’s backing of cross-border terror in Kashmir is likely. Defense sops may dry up. ... AND THE NEGATIVES * The Democrats are likely to be more tough on the nonproliferation front; would insist on New Delhi signing the NPT. India’s nuclear status would be unacceptable. * The Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP), which had just entered Phase II, could go into the cold storage. * If, as threatened, Kerry withdraws the tax advantages of offshoring jobs, it could affect the outsourcing boom in India. * Doha Round of multilateral trade talks could collapse if labor and environment issues are brought in.

Additionally, the Republicans are not as insistent as the Democrats that India sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). And, officials hope, that in time the Bush administration will accept India’s nuclear power status, despite its refusal to sign the NPT.

There are additional factors as well (See Box), such as Kerry’s professed belief that labor and environmental issues should somehow be linked to international trade. Both these issues are out of the Framework Agreement arrived at the Doha and Cancun rounds of the multilateral trade talks and Indian officials –– who have seen the country through some tough rounds of negotiations –– are especially worried that any American insistence on resuscitating them may derail the whole multilateral process.

These are the “official” concerns. At a popular level, what has seemingly turned the tide against the Democrats in India is Kerry’s apparent opposition to outsourcing –– the booming $2.6 billion industry in India which is creating a whole new middle class, according to some analysts. And it is this class, which views any setback to the outsourcing business as directly impacting their lives, who have turned anti-Democrat.

In cities like Bangalore, Hyderabad and Gurgaon, it is not at all unusual to find largely apolitical twenty-somethings –– who form the backbone of the outsourcing industry –– turning a blind eye to the recent Maharashtra state elections, but avidly discussing the elections taking place across the globe in the U.S.

Although the election-year rhetoric over outsourcing is dismissed by many experts as just that, Kerry’s threat to withdraw the tax breaks available to U.S. firms that offshore work has caused some concern. Even this, however, many experts believe, will only have a marginal impact on the industry.

As Srinivasa Rao, a partner with Ernst and Young, a global audit and management consultancy major, put it rather succinctly: “I think a new cost-benefit analysis will be made to offset the impact of any changes in the U.S. tax laws and Indian companies will get more competitive. But the economic benefits of outsourcing will continue to be there.”

Such balanced opinions, however, have been buried under the avalanche of media coverage about the bills apparently being introduced in various U.S. states to prevent offshoring of jobs, especially by firms that are awarded government contracts. In many instances, the reporting on the issue has virtually amounted to scare-mongering.

In any event, the hue and cry about outsourcing has meant that, for the first time perhaps, an “Indian” issue has dominated a U.S. election. And that, at the popular level, is what has made this a memorable election for India, more so than the global debate surrounding Bush’s War on Terror.

(With inputs from Fakir Balaji in Bangalore and Sumeet Chatterjee in Mumbai)