The weight of an argument greatly depends on him who uses it; that of the strong has "force" and carries "conviction"; that of the weak, if unanswerable, is called quibble and apt to cause annoyance.
-L.B. Namier, In the Margin of History

When Indira Gandhi, during her first tenure as prime minister in the late 1960s, had to take a decision on whether India should pursue its nuclear ambitions, it was left to P.N. Haksar, her powerful principal secretary, to convince her. He told this writer just before he died in 1998 that he had used the British historian's quote as one of his clinching arguments.

Till then Mrs Gandhi had been influenced largely by Vikram Sarabhai, a Gandhian and the then Atomic Energy Commission chairman, who was against India building the bomb. Mrs Gandhi even told the Lok Sabha in May 1966, soon after she took charge: "I myself fail to understand how the production of one or two bombs will help us." But Haksar told her: "If India is not strong and has no power, its concerns are likely to be dismissed as quibbles." She agreed and said, "In this day and age if you want to be counted you have to be strong."

PICTURE SPEAK
ON A ROLL: Manmohan (left) with Bush; and at the G-8 Summit (left)

She sanctioned work on India's first nuclear explosion that finally took place at Pokhran in 1974. While it signalled India's rise as a military power, it also brought a heap of criticism and sanctions from the West, especially the US. India was treated like a pariah state, a massive technology denial regime was instituted, and since then the N-word has bedeviled relations between India and the US.

Three decades and five more nuclear tests later, India's concerns are no longer dismissed as quibble. As Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W. Bush took the podium to address a joint conference last month, it would become evident that there was a shift in the power equations. According to the joint statement, the two leaders "resolved to transform the relationship between their countries and establish a global partnership". Manmohan's major achievement was getting Bush to end India's apartheid status and recognising it as a de facto nuclear weapons power.

In 2005, it could be safely said, India truly arrived on the world stage. While the rapprochement with the US indicated it, the Ministry of External Affairs was quick to point out that it was not just the world's premier power that had sought a deeper engagement with India. When Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visited India, he talked of how relations between the two countries, once bitter enemies, had "acquired a global and strategic character".

India is the flavour of the year for world leaders. Japanese Premier Junichiro Koizumi visited India soon after, while British Prime Minister Tony Blair is due to arrive next month. In May, when Manmohan went to Moscow he reaffirmed India's long-standing friendship with Russia.

It is not just the world leaders who are asking the "India question", as Chip Kaye, president, US-India Business Council, put it last week. Leading corporate honchos across the world no longer just talk of China as the country to do business with in Asia. They now speak of China and India.

It is backed by important think tanks singling out India as the country to watch out for. Late last year, Goldman Sachs created the oft quoted BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) report listing the four countries that would become global economic powers in the next four decades.

Soon after, a report by America's National Intelligence Council, the authoritative body on national security issues, talked of the rise of China and India transforming the global landscape and concluded: "In the same way that commentators refer to the 1900s as the 'American Century', the 21st century may be seen as the time when Asia, led by China and India, comes into its own."

Sure, India has a long way to go. It still has to learn to deal with its troublesome neighbours, especially Pakistan. It took major strides this year with its concept of softer borders in Kashmir and 2005 saw the start of the historic bus service between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad. But terror strikes in Ayodhya and Kashmir Valley have created fresh roadblocks which threaten to stall the dialogue process.

India also has to convince the world of being given its rightful place on the high table of nations as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. As Manmohan told the US Congress, "Surely the voice of the world's largest democracy cannot be left unheard." In 2005, India is talking and the world is listening.

Index