WEST HAS EYES ON INDIA'S MASSIVE ELECTION

For India, the world’s largest democracy, protecting its 714 million voters and 800,000 polling stations during its ongoing general election is a staggering task requiring the constant protection of six million police officers. The sheer scale of the process means the elections are being held over one month and will not be completed until May 13.
The event is being watched closely in Washington and in European capitals where fears remain that another Mumbai-type attack could derail the democratic process. There is also a genuine hope in the West that India will emerge stronger from the electoral process, thereby providing a political and economic bulwark again the emerging closeness of Russia and China. Presently, America is India’s biggest trading partner with a 1% share of the U.S. market. That is a figure the Obama White House would like to increase to match the 10% slice of the market dominated by China.
To the credit of the Bush administration, two years before it left office it recognized India’s importance to American foreign policy. It saw that India was on track to achieving a superpower status to rival, or even outpace China. It also knew from research that India was likely to have a larger population than China by 2030. But it took most of the Bush years between 2001 and 2008 to see that closer ties to India were essential to U.S. policy at home and in that region of the world. The delay in reaching such an important conclusion was due to several factors. After India tested a nuclear weapon in 1974, it was shunned by the West and, as a consequence, drew closer to China and Russia. That opened up a large market for those nations in terms of consumer goods and military hardware. Ironically, the West’s virtual embargo over several decades did not stop Israeli arms dealers from getting a slice of the Indian military budget which by 2007, was $15 billion annually. Sadly, the terrorist attacks on America in 2001 were to provide a catalyst for changing relations with India though the 9/11 tragedy initially resulted in colder relations between New Delhi and Washington as the latter drew closer to Pakistan, believing Pakistan was critical to waging a successful war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That quickly led the U.S. began to regard Pakistan as its main ally in the region, much to the consternation of the Indian government. Ironically, it also forced the Bush administration to re-examine relations with Pakistan’s neighbor, India.
To understand the bitter animosity that has always pervaded India-Pakistan relations, one has to remember that they share a troubled political history, which has culminated in shooting wars across their borders and has brought them to the brink of a nuclear exchange. They have also fought proxy battles over Kashmir, a slice of land to which they both claim ownership. Disputes over Kashmir began in 1947 when the British, as the colonial power controlling what was then the Indian Sub-Continent, divided up the area into what it called the Union of Indian and the Dominion of Pakistan, leaving Kashmir to become a disputed area between the two. The grand partition design was undertaken by Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten, the late uncle of Prince Charles. Since Mountbatten’s time, relations between India and Pakistan have been troublesome and the fact that the two countries now have nuclear weapons sends shivers through the global community.
By 2007, it was clear that behind-the -scenes the Bush Administration had made considerable progress in establishing better working relations with New Delhi. Those efforts reached fruition in 2008 when Congress ratified a nuclear treaty with India. It was a sign to Pakistan that the United States was determined to make India an important ally in the region. The EU quickly followed suit with delegations, making it clear India was a vital economic partner for the West. Underpinning all of those moves were several crucial objectives. One was the opening up of India as a major market. Another was persuading it to expand its role in the war against terror. Third was its potential as a bulwark against China’s political designs in that part of the world. And, last but not least, Washington wanted to be the mediator in disputes between India and Pakistan. In Pakistan, the new U.S. rapprochement with India was not viewed kindly by the country’s military. Much to the dismay of U.S. generals the Pakistani military continued to make India its focus rather than the Taliban and Al Qaeda, thereby limiting its commitment to defeating terrorism on its own soil. As of April 2009, most of Pakistan’s military resources are devoted to combating a potential strike by India with the result that the majority of its army is facing the border with India, leaving the border with Afghanistan unprotected and easy for terrorists to cross.
Nevertheless, the Obama White House appears determined to follow the lead of its predecessor in expanding ties to India. That is why it will be watching closely these latest elections. It knows there is a likelihood a coalition government will emerge from them but hopes it will not be too leftwing with a heavy communist presence that would favor economic protectionism. That would limit the potential for U.S. and European companies to operate successfully in the Indian markets and damage India’s economic health. With that in mind, the British have warned that if a new Indian government chose to restrict access to its huge markets, the outcome would be a further weakening of the Indian rupee against the dollar. But such talk fails to take account of the underlying strength of an economy that Washington believes has the potential to outstrip Chinese growth rates over the next decade. Such an eventuality would be strategically beneficial to the West and would reduce China’s economic power.
But there are experts who think India’s tendency towards internal political squabbling of a kind that can produce weak coalition governments with leftwing agendas has the potential to derail its route to economic superpower status. Those skeptics argue that this election may produce a coalition that will last at most two years and, in the meantime, will send the country spiraling downward economically.
While pollsters ponder the possible outcome of the elections, India remains on alert for a major terrorist attack but, so far, the only violence has come from Maoist rebels who have killed approximately 30 soldiers and police officers. For voters, the major issues are the economy followed by security, reflecting the concerns of last year’s American electorate.