Salman Khurshid, the former external affairs minister, was speaking as a fashionable idealist when he told Georgetown University students that he thought “India would be very, very worried if” Donald Trump becomes United States president on November 8. The reasons why many Americans, even in Trump’s own Republican party, may find him obnoxious have very little resonance in bilateral relations.
TRUMP’S reason for lumping H-1B visas with Mexican illegals, whom he compares to rapists and promises to deport, is not to preserve Indian dignity but to pander to American chauvinism. He accuses China, Japan, Mexico, and sometimes India, of stealing American jobs. His presidency could raise anti-immigrant, especially anti-coloured, feelings and even lead to attacks on Indian-owned businesses. But this is an essentially domestic problem, and cannot determine relations between New Delhi and Washington.
The impression that Republican administrations in Washington are unsympathetic owes much to Indira Gandhi’s fraught relations with Richard Nixon. But it was with another Republican — Ronald Reagan — that Mrs Gandhi initiated the process of rapprochement when she felt that tilting too much towards the Soviet Union wasn’t serving India’s interests. She didn’t find Reagan at all unresponsive. Manmohan Singh still remains profoundly grateful to George W. Bush Jr. Moreover, Trump is a businessman with a stake in India. Businessmen tend to look at prospects in terms of profits and self-interest.
The 69-year-old real estate billionaire is anxious to capitalise on his brand in India. “It has been my desire for many years to be involved in a great project in Mumbai, and it is my honour to bring the Trump lifestyles to the citizens of this truly global metropolis,” he once said. A 2010 initiative didn’t succeed, but in August 2012, developer Panchshil Realty announced a luxury residential property in Pune. The Trump Towers, in Pune, which is still under construction, feature “two striking glass facade towers of 23 storeys each, offering 46 spectacular single-floor residences.”
Narendra Modi’s win two years later prompted Trump to proclaim – and this might be one reason for Khurshid’s adverse view – that “money will pour into India” because the Bharatiya Janata Party leader “had done a fantastic job of bringing people together”. In 2014, he announced the launch of Trump Tower Mumbai, an 800-foot 75-storey skyscraper being built in Worli,Mumbai by the Lodha Group. The gold and glass three- and four-bedroom apartments of over 2,000 square feet advertise indoor Jacuzzis, Poggenpohl kitchen cabinets and automatic toilets. They are priced from $1.6 million upwards.
Strictly speaking, these two projects are not Trump’s. They are being constructed by Indian developers who have paid a licence fee to use the Trump brand-name and must follow the Trump template. To some extent, therefore, the Republican politician has staked his reputation on them. No wonder he says “India is doing great” and laments that “Nobody talks about it.” It’s in his personal interest that India should “do great” and that people should talk about it. Tribeca Developers, the firm representing his interests in India, has let it be known that Trump and his sons are “extremely bullish on India” and have plans to expand to many more cities. That is reason enough for Indians to view him if not with favour, at least not with resentment.
Where Indians might feel aggrieved is the possibility that Trump might cut down on H-1B visas for highly skilled foreign workers. According to his website, H-1B wages should be raised to “force” American companies to give these “coveted entry-level jobs to the existing domestic pool of unemployed workers who have been passed over in favour of the H-1B programme.” But during one of the Republican debates, Trump said he was “softening the position because we have to have talented people in this country”. This may be an olive branch to Indian American voters, but Senator Jeff Sessions, chairman of the Senate subcommittee on immigration and Trump’s chief foreign policy adviser, is a staunch critic of H-1B visas and demands immigration reform in general.
Not that New Delhi can complain if Indian software companies which grab the largest share of H-1B visas have to pay higher fees or suffer restrictions. Employment permits are not a right. The demand for them doesn’t reflect much credit on India or on the self-respect of Indian technicians. H-1B visa holders have been compared to indentured labourers. They flourish only because India is under-developed and because Indians are so anxious to work in America for less than American wages. Of course, Trump’s reason for lumping H-1B visas with Mexican illegals, whom he compares to rapists and promises to deport, is not to preserve Indian dignity but to pander to American chauvinism. He accuses China, Japan, Mexico, and sometimes India, of stealing American jobs. His presidency could raise anti-immigrant, especially anti-coloured, feelings and even lead to attacks on Indian-owned businesses. But this is an essentially domestic problem, and cannot determine relations between New Delhi and Washington.
When the British weekly, The Economist, describes the possibility of a Trump presidency as one of the ten top global “risks” (ranking with a Chinese economic meltdown, an oil price shock, and the rising threat of terrorism), it has in mind absolute values that are irrelevant to realpolitik, but of which the British see themselves as the guardian. Actually, Trump seems to have few concrete ideas on governance. “We’ve gone from a tremendous power that is respected all over the world to somewhat of a laughing stock and all of a sudden, people are talking about China and India and other places,” Trump once lamented. He is concerned about the US being flooded by foreigners. He is worried that China and India might overtake the US economy. He sounds suspicious of the European Union’s economic policies and questions the role of the US as an anchor of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
All this suggests an inclination to return to an isolationism that would spare the US the expense and agony of global peacekeeping. India probably would not welcome a US withdrawal from Afghanistan which might mean a return of the Taliban, increased Pakistani influence, and more attacks on India from the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. But when the chips are down, neither probably would Trump. He is on record as saying the US needs to stay in Afghanistan because Pakistan’s nuclear weapons must be guarded.
India’s relations with the Democrats have often been strained at least partly because of their professed concern for human rights and religious freedom and opposition to proliferation. Generally speaking, the Republicans tend to be more realistic, and more prepared to accept the balance of power in South Asia. Trump caused a flutter in the dovecotes last year by calling Pakistan “probably the most dangerous country in the world” because of its nuclear weapons. “You (would) have to get India involved” he added, if Pakistan becomes politically unstable. “India’s the check to Pakistan. They have their own nukes and have a very powerful army.” This may not be qualitatively different from Barack Obama’s assessment of Pakistan as a “dangerously dysfunctional” country but the difference lies in Republican willingness to act on its theoretical beliefs.
Moreover, as Trump says, “I have big jobs going up in India … India is doing great.” A man with “big jobs” in India can’t afford to be anything but friendly.
