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.