[Reader-list] martha nussbaum on obama and india

[A Khanna]

forward from another list.
a

18 November 2008

The President-Elect and India by Martha C. Nussbaum

President-elect Barack Obama will face many challenges in foreign  
policy, but forging a productive relationship with India will be high  
on that list. President Clinton took a keen interest in India, and,  
especially, in issues of rural development. He visited rural  
development projects with his usual zest and curiosity, taking a  
particularly keen interest in the situation of women. After his  
Presidency, Clinton has continued his work on issues of poverty and  
development. He was also virtually the only major international leader  
to stand up right after the Gujarat pogrom of 2002 and publicly  
condemn the perpetrators.
President Bush, by contrast, focused his efforts on the nuclear deal,  
more or less neglecting issues of poverty and development. One bright  
spot in the generally dismal record of his dealings with India,  
however, was the decision to deny a visa to Narendra Modi, who had  
been invited to lecture here by a group of Non-Resident Indians  
(NRI?s). The State Department cited his role in the Gujarat pogrom as  
its reason for denying him a diplomatic visa and revoking his tourist  
visa. This courageous stance in favor of human rights and against the  
perpetrators of a genocide was surprising but highly welome to the  
large number of U. S.-based scholars of India who had petitioned the  
State Department in this matter.

What course will President Obama choose? Will he, like Clinton, focus  
on poverty, quality of life, gender equality, and an end to the  
politics of hate? Or will he follow the lead of the NRI community,  
focusing on entrepreneurship and nuclear partnership? Much discussion,  
this week, has focused on Obama?s appointment of Sonal Shah to his  
transition team. I shall not add to the growing volume of commentary  
on Shah?s links to the VHP-A, since she has already issued one  
statement condeming the politics of hate, and will soon be invited to  
clarify her position further. Shah personally is involved with only  
the VHP-A?s relief efforts. There is room for concern, however, that  
someone with such close ties to an organization that has been  
complicit in terrorist activities against Muslims and Christians  
should hold such a prominent place. The whole issue deserves the  
further clarification that it will receive.

Instead of pursuing that question further, however, I should like to  
focus on a letter written by then-candidate Obama to Prime Minister  
Manmohan Singh, dated September 23, 2008, and published in India  
Abroad, the October 10 issue. I address these remarks to my former  
University of Chicago Law School colleague in the spirit of the type  
of respectful yet searching criticism that I know he will recognize as  
a hallmark of our faculty workshops and discussions.

The Obama letter has three slightly disturbing characteristics.

First, the letter gives lengthy praise to the nuclear deal, without  
acknowledging the widespread debate about the wisdom of that deal in  
both nations. Perhaps, however, this silence simply reflects  
politeness: Obama is surely aware that Singh has been an enthusiastic  
backer of the deal, risking much political capital in the process.

Second, the letter speaks of future cooperation that will "tap the  
creativity and dynamism of our entrepreneurs, engineers and  
scientists," particularly in the area of alternative energy sources,  
but never mentions a future partnership in the effort to eradicate  
poverty and illiteracy. This silence, unlike the first, cannot be  
explained by politeness, since Singh has devoted a great deal of  
attention to issues of rural poverty, and it is plausible to think  
that he could have gotten a lot further had he had more help from  
abroad.

Third, and most disturbing, the letter commiserates with Singh for the  
Delhi bomb blasts, but makes no mention of Gujarat or Orissa. Obama  
offers Singh:
"my condolences on the painful losses your citizens have suffered in  
the recent string of terrorist assaults. As I have said publicly, I  
deplore and condemn the vicious attacks perpetrated in New Delhi  
earlier this month, and on the Indian embassy in Kabul on July 7. The  
death and destruction is reprehensible, and you and your nation have  
my deepest sympathy. These cowardly acts of mass murder are a stark  
reminder that India suffers from the scourge of terrorism on a scale  
few other nations can imagine."

Obama?s use of the word "terrorism" to describe acts thought to be  
perpetrated by Muslims, while not using that same word for acts  
perpetrated by Hindus, is ominous. Muslims suffer greatly in India, as  
elsewhere, from the stereotype of the violent Muslim, and both justice  
and truth demand that we all do what we can to undermine these  
stereotypes, bringing the guilty of all religions to justice, and  
protecting the innocent. (The recent refusals of local bar  
associations in India to defend Muslims accused of complicity in  
terrorism, under threat of violence, shows that the rule of law itself  
hangs in the balance.) Particularly odd is Obama?s omission of events  
in Orissa, which were and are ongoing. His phrase "the scourge of  
terrorism" is virtually Bushian in its suggestion that terrorism is a  
single thing (presumably Muslim) and that many nations suffer from  
that single thing. (Note that it is not even true that most world  
terrorism is caused by Muslims. Our University of Chicago colleague  
Robert Pape?s careful quantitative study of terrorism worldwide  
concludes that the Tamil Tigers, a secular political organization, are  
the bloodiest in the world. Moreover, Pape argues convincingly that  
even when religion is used as a screen for terror, the real motives  
are most often political, having to do with local conflicts.)

Obama?s letter was written during a campaign. Perhaps it reflects  
awareness of the priorities of NRI?s who were working hard in that  
campaign. At this point, however, he can start with a clean slate and  
decide how to order his priorities regarding India. Let us hope that,  
like Bill Clinton, he will give the center of his attention to issues  
of human development (poverty, gender equality, education, health),  
and that, when discussing the issue of religious violence, he will  
study carefully the violence in Gujarat and Orissa, learn all he can  
about the organizations of the Sangh Parivar, and adopt a policy that  
denounces religious violence in all its forms. To mention one  
immediate issue, it would be a disaster for global justice if Obama,  
as President, were to heed the demands of the diaspora community to  
grant Narendra Modi a visa ? especially since the Tehelka expose has  
made so clear the cooperation of the government of the state of  
Gujarat in those horrendous acts of violence.

President Obama has repeatedly shown a deeply felt commitment to the  
eradication of a politics based upon hate. Can we have confidence that  
he will carry that commitment into his relationship with India, even  
when the demands of powerful leaders of the NRI community make that  
difficult? I certainly hope so.


Martha Nussbaum is the Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of  
Law and Ethics at The University of Chicago, and the author of The  
Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India?s Future.

-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.