The final product of the day-long parleys was 2,571 words, and it covered everything from India entering elite nuclear clubs to the U.S. helping to combat tiger poaching.
Yet the joint statement from this week’s first, re-constituted Strategic and Commercial Dialogue between New Delhi and Washington would appear to be as much about persisting disagreements on thorny issues as it was about important wins and critical announcements.
Consider the joint remarks on counterterrorism, whose very formulation as a separate piece from the main joint bilateral statement elevates their significance and symbolises both nations’ resolve to tackle this scourge.
A closer look, however, begs the question of what is new in the content of those remarks, for the mention of Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Taiba and the global fight against terror have repeatedly featured on previous occasions.
Specific reference to the 2015 militant attacks in Gurdaspur, Punjab, and Udhampur, Kashmir, are however revealing in terms of the U.S. recognising the unstable security situation and the dangers to the local population near the border areas.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry also appeared to be following a “softly-softly” approach with South Block in terms of getting India to join the global fight against Islamic State, the jihadist outfit that controls large tracts of Syria and Iraq.
In this regard the joint declaration on combatting terrorism, which was released at the end of the Dialogue on Tuesday, said India and the U.S., “recognise the serious threat posed by ISIL/Da'esh to global security and affirm efforts to degrade and defeat this threat”
Prior conversations that Indian officials, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, have had with their U.S. interlocutors have involved American requests for India to consider joining this coalition, but New Delhi has so far appeared reluctant, notwithstanding the cases of Indians discovered to have joined the ranks of the IS.
There may also be a difference in view, according to official sources, in terms of how the Obama White House initiative for “Countering Violent Extremism” may be applied in India, where Washington’s focus on preventing radicalisation and supporting minorities who are impacted by radicalisation and extremism may not find many takers.
Instead, the sources noted, the focus is on simply dealing with terror threats as they emerge, suggesting that the main strategy would focus on traditional mega-city policing and counterterrorism tactics in places such as Mumbai, rather than any deep engagement with minority communities in a bid to influence discourses that lead to extremism.
Stepping away from the terror question, however, there were abundant plaudits heaped upon Mr. Modi’s government for its successful 2015 rescue and evacuation missions, Operations Raahat and Maitri respectively, for stranded citizens in Yemen and Nepal.
A discernible, positive trend, and perhaps a win for Indian diplomacy, appeared to be the U.S. steady recognition of India as an emerging, responsible player on the global stage, including not only such rescue missions but also a joint effort with the Pentagon to train troops in six African nations that are sending forces to join United Nations peacekeeping missions.
Not all of these joint ventures may be obstacle-free though, and for example while India has joined a raft of other nations in broadly agreeing with the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) for containing nuclear capability development in Iran and “called for Iran's timely and thorough implementation of the JCPOA,” New Delhi’s concerns about its own links to Iran, energy-related and civilisational, are well known.
On the question of energy it was notable that the Modi administration’s all-in effort to promote the use of clean and renewable energy appears to have quietly pushed questions about the civil nuclear agreement off the table, at least during the Dialogue.
Questions to the Indian side on this were met with the response, “I am not aware of any problems remaining in the civil nuclear agreement, so that is not a question at all,” even though nuclear industry sources have said to The Hindu that little forward movement has been seen since February 8, 2015, when India’s Ministry of External Affairs provided an FAQ-style “clarification” regarding Section 17 (b) and Section 46 of India's liability law, which continue to be seen as problematic at this end.
In a lighter vein there were many smiles when Mr. Kerry and Indian Minister for External Affairs Sushma Swaraj spoke of themselves as the “long and short” of Indian diplomacy and some colour added to the events when the diaspora community and the Confederation of Indian Industry celebrated the contributions of Indian-Americans to bilateral bonhomie.
