Hillary raj or a Trump sarkar It's all good

Leavening public diplomacy with private interest, it isn’t easy to choose between the two White House aspirants. Richard F. Celeste, the former Ohio governor, told me that when Bill Clinton appointed him US ambassador to India in 1997, Hillary asked him to arrange a presidential visit without delay. “Promise me, Dick,” she insisted, “you will take him to India.” She regretted it couldn’t be the very next month. Donald Trump, of course, is the first presidential candidate with a personal stake in India’s stability and prosperity. “I have big jobs going up in India India is doing great,” the 70-year-old real estate billionaire was quoted saying with his eye on Pune, Mumbai and other Indian cities long before the Republican Hindu Coalition latched on to him.

Remembering the historical blunder of the “Dewey Defeats Truman” banner headline on the front page of the Chicago Daily Tribune of November 3, 1948, it is hazardous to make a guess even on polling day. Conventional wisdom, supported by polls, was almost unanimous in 1948 that Thomas E. Dewey, the Republican governor of New York, would defeat the incumbent Democrat President, Harry S. Truman. After his victory was confirmed, President Truman was famously photographed holding up the infamous issue of the Tribune. “That ain’t the way I heard it!” he mocked.

Upsets can’t be ruled out in a complex situation where a candidate can get more votes and yet lose the election. This happened for the fourth time in 2000 when the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision after the recount in Florida gave the victory to George W. Bush over Mr Clinton’s vice-president, Al Gore. Each American state has as many votes as members of Congress, and it’s winner-take-all in 48 states. Whoever amasses at least 270 votes moves into the White House.

It’s been suggested that Mr Trump might meet Mr Gore’s fate. His “Make America Great Again” slogan appeals to frustrated nationalists in much the same way as Nigel Farage does in Britain and Marine Le Pen in France. That encourages the supplementary threat that the right may not take it lying down if it wins the popular vote but not the electoral college.

Mr Trump’s refusal to give a categorical undertaking to accept the verdict if Ms Clinton wins seems ominous. The outlook could be bleak for America’s poor, blacks, Hispanics, Indians and other minority groups if Ms Clinton loses. Either way, a period of strife seems inevitable no matter which way the cat jumps.

The course of the campaign seems to have been a prelude to unrest. Instead of presenting competing programmes, the two candidates often appeared to be bent on destroying each other on both personal and political grounds. The best that can be said of this kind of ruthless canvassing is that it strips the rulers of the future bare of all camouflage. Perhaps that is in the interests of an open society. We are used in India to drawing a discreet veil over the intimate actions of politicians. That results in even known criminals being presented as responsible members of society. The now-concluded US presidential campaign showed that such dissimulation is not possible in the home of the brave and the land of the free.

India will have to make the best of whoever is elected. Ms Clinton is far better known here and appears to be an empathetic person. While her husband’s first term was definitely not tilted in India’s favour, his more positive second term is attributed to Hillary who had visited with her daughter. Mr Celeste certainly gave her the credit. “I suspect she said something like, ‘You must visit India. You must get a feel for this diverse, exciting, challenging country.’ Ever since that moment, President Clinton has had a particular desire to come to India.”

But there are two reasons for being cautious about a Clinton presidency. First, she might not be able (or willing) to resist the state department’s pursuit of a superpower role in the Asia-Pacific region that would not necessarily further India’s interests. Second, if she continues her predecessor’s policies — and Barack Obama’s enthusiastic campaigning suggested her presidency would be a continuation of his — we needn’t expect any of the special understanding of India’s aspirations or of its sufferings from Pakistan-sponsored terrorists that distinguished George W. Bush. Perhaps she won’t be able to devote particular attention to India since she must create more jobs and restore the economy at home.

Recognising the responsibility that goes with size, population, democratic stability and economic potential, Mr Trump sees India as a stabilising force in Asia. India is “the check to Pakistan” which he calls “probably the most dangerous country in the world”. But the main reason why Indians might welcome Mr Trump is that he is a stakeholder in our prosperity. “It has been my desire for many years to be involved in a great project in Mumbai, and it is my honour to bring the Trump lifestyles to the citizens of this truly global metropolis,” he said. The 23-storey Trump Towers Pune and Lodha Group’s 75-storey Trump Tower Mumbai bear out this commitment.

Americans don’t share the Indian affectation of looking down on wealth. They do weave myths about democracy, but Republicans less so than Democrats. On the whole, Republicans are realistic enough to admit that the power of money more than idealism fashions policy.

It could be a healthy sign that Tribeca Developers, representing Mr Trump here, claim he and his sons are “extremely bullish on India” and plan to expand to many more cities. He may not make it but if he does and despite the many defects and eccentricities that Americans point out, “Ab ki baar, Trump sarkar” might suit India nicely.

The writer is a senior journalist, columnist and author