Obama in India: The sequel

ON THE surface, Barack Obama's recent three-day visit to India was a celebration of democracy, diversity and global friendship, complete with colorful costumes and a cheery Bollywood soundtrack.

At times, this was literally true. Obama's final public appearance in India--a speech at Siri Fort auditorium--ended with the song "Mitwa" ("Friend") from the Bollywood blockbuster Lagaan (2001) blasting from the speakers as Obama joined an adoring audience.

If the selection of the feel-good film showed the Obama team's multicultural savvy, the song lyrics underlined the themes of the India trip:

Listen friend, my friend
Why are you afraid?
This whole earth is ours
This sky, it's all ours
Come, join us!

But the expansive humanity of the song is undercut when we grasp the reality of what happened at the U.S.-India summit in New Delhi. Obama and Indian Prime Minister Narenda Modi laid the groundwork for continuing the military, economic and strategic deals between the two countries that have more to do with geopolitical maneuvering and enriching corporations than friendliness and global citizenship.

That's why the ruling classes of each country are happily singing today. The earth and sky are indeed theirs after the deals that Obama and Modi made on nuclear technology, exports and defense.

Wiped away, ironically, is that in the movie, "Mitwa" is a recruitment song for a struggle against colonial greed. Peasants, trying to convince their neighbors to join an anti-tax battle against a local British official, ask them to reclaim their land and their labor. What's there to fear, they say, since the earth and sky belong to us, after all?

And that, in short, points to the real story of the New Delhi summit. Lots of talk about how these leaders were working in the interest of the people. Lots of backslapping and rhetoric of goodwill. But in fact, the looting of India's resources and the undermining of the people in the interests of U.S. and Indian corporations and their political representatives.

With great fanfare and even displays of personal affection, Obama and Modi consistently beat the same drum: The growing U.S.-India partnership was crucial to sustaining democratic ideals in a difficult world. They constantly spoke about the historic relationship between the U.S. and India, and the need for democratic countries like theirs to tighten economic and military ties in the face of global terrorism.

As Modi said in their joint statement, "This is a natural global partnership...It is needed even more in our world for far-reaching changes and widespread turmoil. The success of this partnership is important for our progress and for advancing peace, stability and prosperity around the world."

These policies, as Obama said at the India-U.S. Business Council Summit meeting, would benefit both U.S. and Indian workers, creating jobs and opportunities for entrepreneurship.

At every step, the political leaders portrayed themselves as symbolic proof that their countries are lands of opportunity: The first Black president of the United States was meeting a prime minister who was formerly a tea-seller.

But we've seen this film before. Like actors chained to the tired scripts of Hollywood romantic comedies, Obama and Modi were simply rehashing performances from their September 2014 meeting in Washington. And these "blockbusters" were just spinoffs of Obama's meeting with India's Manmohan Singh in 2013 (U.S.), in 2010 (India), and George W. Bush's meetings with Singh in 2006 (India) and in 2005 (U.S.).

As the ongoing crises of inequality and social oppression in the U.S. and in India show, these meetings ought not to be compared to romantic flicks at all, but propaganda clips, crimes movies or horror films (take your pick). Whether the mythology is "colorblindness" or "India shining," the growing wealth and achievement of the few is used to mask the oppression and exploitation of the many.

Since the end of the Cold War and the acceleration of neoliberal capitalism to all parts of the globe--a time of rising class inequality everywhere--the U.S.-India partnership has been growing and developing as part of a restructuring of military and economic alliances.

This larger agenda, enacted in the interests of the ruling classes of both countries, but underpinned by U.S. power, is being conducted despite the fact that the political parties of the players change. While it might seem to the mainstream media that the liberal Obama and the Hindu-fundamentalist Modi make an odd pair, their personal and political camaraderie underline the continuity in recent U.S.-India plans rather than the differences, however important they may seem symbolically.

From the U.S. perspective, the deals in New Delhi opened up India even further to U.S. exports and investment, and solidified the political and military relationship with a crucial ally in ongoing plans--shared by Republicans and Democrats alike--to contain China.

On the Indian side, the deepening of the U.S. alliance has allowed India's further integration into the world economy and given the green light to ongoing dominance that used to be checked by the U.S.-Pakistan alliance during the Cold War and around 9/11. Obama's open support for India to get a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, one of India's long-time demands, is part of this larger role the U.S. wants India to play in the global arena.

Modi's visible and personal connection with Obama helped temper his international image, despite Modi's political affiliations with Hindu fundamentalist groups and the Gujarat 2002 pogrom against Muslims. Modi's "strong man" persona--earlier as chief minister of Gujarat and now as prime minister--emerges from a context in which the public sector and social services have been slashed, and a highly militarized state is deployed consistently to crush dissent.

Obama gave Modi political cover. Besides some fleeting remarks about the need to defend minority rights in the final Siri Fort speech, Obama largely avoided any public challenging of Modi despite calls from Indian and international activists before his trip.

In any case, as the Indian activist Kavita Krishnan put it, the U.S. record of racist police brutality, its wars and its fanning of Islamophobia hardly allows Obama to cut a convincing figure as a defender of human rights:

As for the lectures on secularism and dignity can we forget that in the U.S. today, "Black Lives Matter" protests are erupting in anger against the impunity enjoyed by white cops shooting Black boys and men. That the U.S. establishment has--and continues to--profile and torture Muslim men in the name of "war against terror"?

None but Indians themselves can give Modi a lesson in the constitutional rights of minorities. The president of a country with a past and present stained with the blood of racism, genocide, war and occupation cannot do that for us.

Three sets of deals were made and solidified in New Delhi: around nuclear cooperation, trade and investment, and defense.

The first was the clearing of obstacles to nuclear cooperation between U.S. corporations and India. The agreement had already been signed in 2005 and advanced in 2008 as the U.S. secured an exception for India with the Nuclear Suppliers Group. But a main sticking point had been an Indian law that made companies that build reactors in India subject to unlimited liabilities for deaths and injuries suffered in the case of nuclear disasters and emergencies.

Central to the new deal is India's agreement to limit U.S. corporations' liabilities. This comes as a horrible shock to a country that, in December 1984, saw thousands and thousands killed and maimed by the disaster at the Union Carbide chemical plant in the central Indian city of Bhopal. Activists have long fought for the extradition of Union Carbide officials to be put on trial.

As Amnesty International stated before Obama's visit:

The failure of President Obama to speak up will embolden U.S.-based companies to ignore accountability for their involvement in human rights abuses...The President should not forget the people of Bhopal, who still suffer from the effects of the disaster. President Obama should also explain why a U.S.-based company, the Dow Chemical Company (which owns Union Carbide Corporation now), is ignoring repeated summons by an Indian Court to explain why its wholly owned subsidiary has failed to appear in India to face serious criminal charges against it in relation to the disaster.

The Obama-Modi deal, far from responding to the calls from human rights activists, has paved the way for U.S. corporations to make millions off selling nuclear technology to India while washing their hands of the potential and actual dangers of nuclear power.

It goes without saying that Obama did nothing to address the open letter written to him by the sarpanches (heads) of four villages from Modi's home state of Gujarat in opposition to the Westinghouse Electric-backed nuclear plant being build there. Thousands of peasants from the Bhavnagar district have been protesting this plant for years due to its impact on land and the environment, demanding much more of a thorough investigation of how energy is produced. The Obama-Modi deals will only exacerbate the buildings of such nuclear plants, not limit them.

In the heavily agricultural region, there are 152 villages with a population of 200,000 or more within a 30-kilometer radius of the proposed plant. According to Rohit Prajapati, Krishnakant and Trupti Shah, "Thousands of villagers have been consistently opposing the nuclear power plant with the slogan 'Not Here' since 2007. Subsequently, they have resolved 'Not Here, Not Anywhere; Not in Any Country in the World.'"

In this context, the climate change deals that were reached in New Delhi around urban air quality, greenhouse gases and other problems were even more limited than they appear. The environmental damage being done by U.S.-India deals over the years--like the policies clearing the way for India to import several billion cubic feet of natural gas from fracking in Texas--far outweigh any green incentives that the U.S. has offered.

As in past U.S.-India agreements since at least 2005, the New Delhi summit established bilateral agreements that open up India to U.S. capital investment, encourage Indian capital to be invested in the U.S., and enable the countries to export goods to one another more easily. The larger contexts for these agreements are: the increasing openness of the Indian government to foreign capital (since the 1990s), the expansion of an Indian consumer base, and the presence of Indian firms in the global market.

Among the key elements of the agreement, Obama authorized $4 billion for new initiatives in trade and investment, including $2 billion for financing renewable energy investments through the U.S. Trade and Development Agency; $1 billion in loans for small and medium businesses through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; and $1 billion to be financed through the U.S. Export-Import Bank to support "Made in America" exports to India for the next two years.

A new mechanism would be set up to hold U.S. and Indian governments accountable for making these deals a reality. U.S. loans would be available for renewable energy projects, green bonds and venture capital and pension funds. India promised to push through changes that allowed for a clearer tax regime, as well as protection of intellectual property rights.

India's trade with the U.S. is now up to $100 billion--but this is still less than 20 percent of U.S. trade with China. India accounts for only 1 percent of U.S. exports, and 2 percent of its imports.

Obama's and Modi's goals are crystal clear: to keep deepening this relationship of trade and exchange. Modi praised the fact that U.S. investment in India had doubled over the last four months, and he would make India an easier place to do business. Obama told business leaders, "The U.S.-India relationship is defined by so much untapped potential."

Obama and Modi announced a Joint Strategic Vision statement for the Asian-Pacific and Indian Ocean region--continuing their September 2014 agreements. Dovetailing with the U.S. "pivot to Asia" strategy, India and the U.S. reaffirmed their concerns with disputes over navigation in the South China sea.

The U.S. and India also reaffirmed and renewed their broad defense framework for another 10 years. Here's how one source described the initial agreement, signed in 2005:

The expiring defense agreement committed to expanding defense trade, technology transfers, coproduction, and collaboration on counterterrorism, security and stability. Today, India conducts more joint military exercises with the United States than with any other country; defense sales shot up from zero in 2008 to $9 billion last year, resulting in the United States displacing Russia as India's biggest supplier.

Added to this framework is the Defense Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI) to build India's weak military-industrial base. The initial projects include: next-generation Raven unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs); intelligence-gathering modules for the C-130J Super Hercules aircraft (Lockheed Martin); nobile electric hybrid power sources; chemical and biological warfare protection gear for soldiers.

All of this is on top of India's growing military infrastructure, and partnerships with several other countries. In October 2014, India signed a defense deal with Israel to spend $525 million to buy over 8,300 Spike missiles and 321 launchers. India has imported 12 Israeli-made Searcher drones as part of Operation Greenhunt, the program to capture and track dissidents.

On January 26, Obama became the first U.S. president to attend the Republic Day parade, an annual Soviet-era show of India's military might featuring troops, missiles and tanks. The event was fitting: Rather than celebrating democracy and the constitution--the original purpose of Republic Day--Obama oversaw the worship of militarism.

After leaving India, Obama traveled to Saudi Arabia to pay his respects to the dead king, Abdullah bin Abdulaziz. For some, the contrast between India and Saudi Arabia is ironic: Obama will be going from a democratic ally to a dictatorial ally.

But in fact, the growing suppression of democracy and rise of Islamophobia in Modi's India require us to look hard at reality. Persecution against religions minorities is on the increase as the Hindu fundamentalist groups that Modi belongs to are more and more confident. Questions remain about the rapes and murders of Gujarat in 2002. Activists, labeled as "Naxals" or Maoists are tracked and thrown in jail. Writers like Perumal Murugan--author of One Part Woman--are silenced by Hindutva gangs, with no #JeSuisMurugan movements bringing them into the spotlight.

Obama did not say a word to Modi about such things. But then again, what could he have said? He had to hurry off to pay respects to that reformer and beacon of democracy, the king of Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, Indian activists like those opposing the Westinghouse-backed nuclear plant, are left to show what real democracy looks like as they fight to protect their communities.