India treads delicately in its relations with Iran and the U.S.

Kuldip Nayar, The Daily Star, Asia News Network/Dhaka

When interests come into conflict with policies, the latter suffer. Something like that happened to India at Vienna where it voted against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to ensure the supply of civil nuclear reactors and their technology from America and Europe. New Delhi said goodbye to its traditional non-alignment.

Tehran did not lose a minute to express its "unhappiness" over India's voting. It was protesting against the violation of its own interests. However, Iran preferred to stop at that and did not go beyond to cancel the proposed gas deal as was the verbal warning by Iran's ambassador at Vienna.

Whatever the explanation, New Delhi acted under pressure. It had in mind America's legislation to accommodate India. The U.S. Congress had made it clear before the voting at the IAEA that its response would be dependent on how New Delhi voted. It was diplomacy at gunpoint.

In a similar circumstance, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru would have acted differently. Although India was weak, he challenged the UK and France when they tried to capture the Suez. He saw to their withdrawal. But Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is no Nehru and Foreign Minister Natwar Singh is only a babe in the woods of diplomacy. They had no gumption to stand up to the almighty America.

I suspect that Manmohan Singh assured India's vote when he met President Bush at New York at the latter's initiative. It is clear from Bush's observation that "Prime Minister is a good person. We can do business with him." Natwar Singh met U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice only to confirm India's decision.

Even before Manmohan Singh and Natwar Singh left New Delhi, the government seemed to have decided to side with America in the face of outbursts like the one made by Republican Congressman Tom Lunton that nuclear power reactors would be available to India on the condition of "reciprocity" to isolate Iran.

That Tehran would have given New Delhi more gas to produce energy to make up for the loss of civil nuclear reactors goes without saying. But India did not want to displease America. However, it came as a relief when the IAEA's resolution did not suggest that Iran would be straightaway hauled up before the UN Security Council.

This gave New Delhi a leeway. It could officially say that it had taken a "midway" stand to push diplomacy and dialogue as the way to find an amicable solution. New Delhi also said that it supported the European Union's resolution which gave time to Tehran to establish beyond doubt that its nuclear program was only for peaceful purposes. Still at the back of India's mind was, as Manmohan Singh said, that it did not want another nuclear state in its neighborhood.

The fact that the matter has not yet been referred to the Security Council indicates that some way would be found to allay the fears of Iran on American attack. Europe has ruled out a war. India too would put its foot down if ever the situation came to such a pass.

Probably, America's unilateral war against Iraq, even when weapons of mass destruction were not found, has made the world wary. It would exhaust all peaceful avenues before punishing Iran. It should feel doubly assured because New Delhi would support it if Tehran has nothing to hide in the field of nuclear proliferation.

Tehran should realize that New Delhi stood by Iran through thick and think for decades. Maybe, it appreciates this because Iran's embassy at New Delhi has officially stated that the friendship does not diminish by one act, however dislikeable. Iran has assured India that the gas deal held good, the supply of which is to begin in 2009. It goes without saying that New Delhi will go on trying that Iran is not a target of America which has its age-old policy to draw it out for war.

True, Tehran is "very disturbed" over India's voting. It said that it could not imagine that a founder of the non-aligned movement could vote against another member nation. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has become unipolar where the neo-conservatives of America lay the law. They are power crazy and brook no dissent. India has to tread the path cautiously.

I recall former Pakistan Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar telling me that Islamabad had no alternative except to support Washington in the war against Kabul because after the Sept. 11 incidents America made clear to Pakistan that the carpet-bombing would begin from its soil if it refused to support Washington. Islamabad changed overnight. Some may say that the values were sacrificed but many will agree that Pakistan had to save itself from destruction.

I do not want to labor on the point that India and Iran share a culture which goes back to thousands of years and that their relationship is age old. These things will remain whatever the voting at Vienna or Iran's reaction. Saadi's Persian poetry will not become something foreign to Indians, nor will our music, dance and architecture be lost on the Iranians. These ties of emotions will never weaken. The current period is testing, indeed.

Even otherwise, tit for tat is not a mature reaction. It is definitely not called for New Delhi which has a long record of its unstinted support to Tehran despite all the pressure. A principle cannot be stoutly defended by the language of 'no' or by condemning those who do not accept it. This is an old approach of the bigoted aspects of some countries.

It is not the approach of feeling that perhaps others might also have some share of the truth. I find this approach wholly unscientific, unreasonable and uncivilized, whether it is applied in the realm of religion or economic theory or anything else. I am glad that Iran did not act hastily. It should wait for the next step and see how the IAEA resolution takes shape.

India's problem is that it is trying to ride two horses at the same time. It wants to project the image of being non-aligned while recognizing the advantage of siding with America. Even non- alignment has a question mark against it. Non-alignment can mean values but self-interest spells disaster to ideals. India has no heart for the sacrifices such a course demands.

The voting at Vienna was a challenge. That India did not come out well was because it could not afford to annoy America although it knew that New Delhi would hurt Tehran in the process. The belated reaction of Iran to underline the friendship between the two countries indicates that Tehran is conscious of New Delhi's predicament. One expects that from friends.

The writer is an eminent Indian columnist.