For those who cannot open the link above…..

Election outcome the result of a thinking nation

- By Viswam Sundar, in the Pantagraph, Bloomington, 11/16/2004

A nation throws open the windows to its soul when it selects its leaders. There is no process more revealing of a peoples’ character than an election, and one during a time of war is even more significant, for its leader symbolizes its resolve to its allies, or signals the lack of it to the enemy. A nation is known by the leaders it keeps.

As the dust settles down on an anti-climatic end to a supercharged campaign, I wonder at the mixed feelings that it has evoked in me, and I think, in most Indians. One has to remind oneself not to take sides, but it is difficult to stay detached when so much hangs in the balance. Gone are the days when oceans and distances isolated countries. Today a casual signature in one corner of the world can change the climate in another. The world has become a small place. War makes it smaller still, and in today’s nuclear context, insignificant enough to be blown away by a mushroom cloud.

Having suffered terrorism for a long time, Indians were happy that somebody was finally taking a tough stand against it, even if we had always been asked to ‘exercise restraint’. But for every Indian who supported the war on terror, there was one who questioned America’s perplexing and contradictory position on Kashmir and Pakistan. National interest, not principle, dictates these positions and Bush is only continuing what is now an established contradiction in American foreign policy. There has been a lot of opposition to the Iraq war too, but the Indian government’s refusal to participate by sending troops has mitigated its intensity.

Traditionally, Indians have favored the Democrats, perhaps because Indians instinctively lean left in their political disposition. It is therefore no small surprise that Indians have flocked in large numbers to the Republican cause in this election, raising funds and campaigning vigorously for Bush. Bobby Jindal has even won a House seat as a Republican candidate. Perhaps it is a reflection of the changes in India, as capitalism and consumerism replace socialism. In a reversal of all pre-conceived notions about Democrats being more favorable towards India, Bush’s common sense ‘hands off’ approach to trade has increased bilateral trade between the two countries. The Indian business community, here and in India, has therefore welcomed Bush’s re-election and the stock market, that common man’s all-inclusive indicator of the well being of the country at large, is booming. The tilt to the right is perhaps the beginning of a trend.

Indians in the US have also responded positively to a President who has recognized this community’s contributions by appointing a number of Indians to administrative positions. His refusal to take a populist position on outsourcing and its myths has also struck a chord with most Indians. Or maybe it is the persona of Bush himself. He is an easy leader to identify with, stating his case with simplicity and passion. Kerry, for all his debating skills, repeatedly forgot a simple truth: Americans are not a subtle people and seldom adopt nuanced positions. It is a measure of that character trait that Bush won the highest number of votes ever in Presidential elections.

Four years back before I landed here, if someone told me that Americans are religious, I would hove laughed. Most Indians were bred on a diet of serials like The Bold and the Beautiful and Santa Barbara in the eighties and later, on pictures of South Beach taken by gawking tourists. Back home, America is thought of as a highly permissive society, where there is more license than liberty, impressions reinforced by the world’s highest divorce rates and Las Vegas and teenage pregnancies.

This election has been a final confirmation of what I have learnt over these four years - that Americans are a deeply conservative and traditional people. Religion plays an extraordinary role, not only in the ordinary lives of ordinary people, but also in how they would wish their public administrators to conduct themselves and rule the country. Religion in governance has not been a happy experience in India and though I am religious myself, I have always been wary of seeing it worn on the sleeve of an elected official. India has an enormously diverse mix of religions and cultures and anything short of impartial secularism in law and governance has always spelled disaster for India’s delicate equilibrium. America has to tread carefully. When carried over to public administration, religion has a way of blurring lines very quickly.

In her book, ‘Statecraft’, Margaret Thatcher calls America ‘the great superpower with the easily troubled conscience’. In wartime, most countries usually rally unconditionally around their leader, whatever their opinion of him. And yet, just a little less than half this country has voted against Bush. While some of this may have been caused by the way the war has gone, I am convinced that almost as many Americans would have voted against the war the day it was launched. America is three-fourths Christian and yet, a substantial part of the country is still troubled enough by Bush’s restrictions on stem cell research and the proposed ban on gay marriage to vote against him.

It is with a nation as it is with an individual. When a nation is confused and divided on matters of morality, it is a good sign. It is a sign of a thinking nation, a sign of a country with a conscience.