‘In America,India is popular for its soft power and not so much for being a nuclear nation’

The Asia Society was founded in 1956 by John Rockefeller. It was with a simple proposition at the time,which was the beginning of the Vietnam engagement and the Korean War. Mr Rockefeller had this great idea: he was very interested in spiritual-historical-cultural dimensions of Asia. He had been coming to Asia since 1929 and every year he would spend two-three months at a time in different countries. He found that Americans needed to know more about Asia. He was interested in arts and culture and also current affairs. So he said,why not combine them,the basis of the civilisations and where they are currently. We have always been a multi-disciplinary institution with a commitment to arts and culture,education and policy and business. This is still a hallmark of ours compared to other institutions. Initially,it was an American institution but it was always interested in the exchange of ideas—both ways—with what Rockefeller called respect for Asia. Today,we have actually changed our mission statement. We have taken the word ‘American’ out of our mission statement to say we are a global institution dedicated to the spread of partnerships among Asians and Americans from leaders,institutions and individuals. This is what I call the three ‘C’s’: culture,commerce and current affairs.

I am the first president of Asian origin and also the first woman and the first person to come from the arts and culture side. In our education work,we have by and large remained domestic. Increasingly,we realise there are many innovative ideas coming from Asia. In the policy arena,we have done a major report on US-India relationships before the elections in India. We have a centre in India that we inaugurated in Mumbai in 2006. The prime minister inaugurated our conference. We have centres in Asia. All together,including New York,we operate out of 11 places.    

MIHIR SHARMA: The Asia Society has set up two exhibitions in India and also in the USA. Is it difficult to do travelling exhibitions for India?  

We held ‘Edge of Desire’ in the USA. It also travelled to Mexico and Australia. It was also shown here. There has been a lot of interest in showcasing traditional arts. One of the problems is that for every show we do,we have to find sponsorship. The other problem is facilities like climate control—even the National Museum,till recently,didn’t have that. The third thing is that with works of Indian origin,a lot of collectors feel nervous about sending them here. There’s also the question of insurance value. While India is moving into the 21st century in the business arena and even foreign policy,when it comes to cultural exchanges I don’t think we are there yet. Our museums need to become centres of international exchanges of culture so that Indians can know about other parts of the world and not just Indian art. In China,for example,they have actually set up a museum like that,doing exchanges with Egypt and the US for traditional art. I think the current Indian government is interested because we have had some discussions.  

VINAY SITAPATI: There was an Asia Society report which Richard Holbrooke was part of. It recommended dialogue with Pakistan possibly leading to some civilian nuclear status or an official acceptance of Pakistan’s civil nuclear status. How did that come about? Also,Asia Society is focusing a lot on China and Hong Kong. Does that reflect US preoccupation with China over India at the moment?

The report was very careful on the USA not getting involved in the bilateral relationship between India and Pakistan. Also,Ambassador Holbrooke was an ex-officio member as he was the Chairman of the Board at that time. He was not involved in drafting that report. The report was drafted under the direction of the task force members. We were trying to say that India and Pakistan ultimately have to resolve their differences. The report did not specifically talk about Pakistan’s nuclear status.

There’s often been a perception in India that the Asia Society is much more China-centric. I would say to you that we have done a complete analysis of all of our programmes and China and India come almost neck-to-neck in terms of programming over the last 50 years. However,it is fair to say that since China opened up in ’79,naturally our focus was more on China as it was relatively new. At the time,US-India relations were still coming out of the Cold War mentality—they were somewhat frozen. In the late ’80s and ’90s we really began to focus and raise more money for India but it was not easy. Corporates were not interested and the Indian-American community had not come of age. But those two things have completely changed. The only reason we are putting up a building in Hong Kong is because the Hong Kong local chapter decided they wanted to do it. It will happen in India as well. Our Indian supporters are already saying we must do it.  

NADINE KREISBERGER: What is the impression that the Chinese have of Americans?

On the one hand,young people in China are very interested in the US. They are also ultra-nationalistic. You also have Chinese students going to the US. You also have government leaders who have a different relationship with the US. We recognise that the leaders since the economic crisis are much bolder in talking about and criticising the US. So the relationship with USA has changed a bit. The latest report on perceptions of world powers is that the Chinese have said that by 2050 they will be equal to—if not surpassing—the USA. That’s a big statement. And the US poll also suggests that the US considers China to be the most important equal player for them.   

DHIRAJ NAYYAR: In the US,is there greater respect for countries which have hard power or soft power? For example Japan has never inspired the kind of awe China has and India is not so big on hard power.

I think for the average American,the notion of hard versus soft is not very clear. In the ’80s,Japan was a big rage. People knew they were buying Japanese cars. Japan was popular. Today it’s not so important except when it comes to the cartoons and animation through which all the young people know about Japan. India is popular for its soft power and not so much as a nuclearised nation.

Sometimes in India we have this feeling that the nuclear status is what gave India a position in the world but the truth is for the average Americans there are three elements that really bring India to the forefront: first,software and outsourcing; second,the presence of Indian Americans—they have the highest per capita income and the highest education among ethnic groups—and third,with India’s economic power rising,more and more people are coming to India to look for partnership. In China everybody’s looking at cheap exports. India is not perceived like that. India is perceived as having more sophisticated tools. The IITs have big clout now. And there’s Bollywood. Amazingly,we did a Bollywood series in New York some years ago on historical and current films on the 50th anniversary of India and we were surprised at how many young Americans came.   

VINAY SITAPATI: You said the Asia Society has become much less American. Do you worry that you may be taken less seriously if you no longer reflect American foreign policy intent?

We are still taken seriously in major policy circles but we have to work extra hard to be non-partisan,which we have always been,and to make sure that positions we take may have an American perspective,but we increasingly use more and more Asian inputs in the dialogues. The idea of shared futures means we will have to work together. We try to bring many,many voices together. It is no longer an American projection on policy. Even before,our goal was not to be an American projection but people assumed it was. Now we are more consciously trying to change that. In the last couple of years,especially last year,we have really strengthened our policy work. We are clear about our mission,we are oriented more towards specialists and thinkers and leaders.   

COOMI KAPOOR: As a woman and a person of Indian origin,you broke several glass ceilings when you became president of the Asia Society. How did you manage that?  

When my predecessor announced he was retiring,I was number two in the institution and a number of people were interested in pursuing the position. I felt there were three hurdles to my being president and that was too many: one,that I was a woman—that I thought would be easy; that I was a person of Asian origin—that would be a little difficult and the most difficult was that I came from culture,the softer side. We always had people coming from the policy side. So I withdrew my name. At the end of the search,there was an ex ambassador,a university president and a number of Board members. But I was the unanimous choice. One of the issues was,if I am of Indian origin,how would the Chinese feel? Which is something a Euro-American person doesn’t have to think about. In Asia,the words we use don’t reflect the American-ness of Asians. So Indians use the word NRIs. We never recognise that there is the other identity as well. Chinese says overseas Chinese. So one of the things I said is that I am as much an American as an Indian because I have lived in America all of my adult life. I have been an Asian in the way I have done my work—I have worked in China,Japan,Korea,South East Asia,so the proof would be in the pudding. The Board felt completely comfortable with that. I went to China and one of the first questions after some social lubrication was,‘Who are you really? Are you Indian? Are you American?’ My answer was if I were a tree,my roots would be Indian,my branches would be American but I would be a fruit-bearing tree and my fruit could go anywhere. That idea is only possible in the USA.   

MIHIR SHARMA: Before Hillary Clinton came here,she addressed the Asia Society; before George Bush came in 2006 he addressed it too. It’s a pattern.

Hillary Clinton gave her speech before she went to China and Indonesia. She would have done it for India but there wasn’t time. I would say it reflects the position of the Asia Society and how we are bipartisan and when it comes to using and choosing the right platform,presidents and leaders know this is a good platform. We have hosted prime ministers like Dr Manmohan Singh and finance ministers and American leaders before they come to Asia because we are seen as a good,neutral body and we provide the right audience.

SHEKHAR GUPTA: Tell us what it was to work with Richard Holbrooke.

Richard Holbrooke was our Chairman of the Board and he and I worked very,very closely. He is one of the brightest,smartest men I have ever met. He is a doer and my favourite line on him is by Christopher Hill,the Ambassador to Iraq. At the Asia Society for one of our annual dinners,he said,‘Holbrooke is my mentor,and often my tormentor’. I like that line. It says a lot,and I have used it many,many times. I have told him many times that I’m going to make a T-shirt that says,‘I survived Holbrooke’. And we are still friends! He doesn’t suffer fools gladly. He has a love for India that may not come through and people should know that. It goes back to his being a child and his father being a doctor with the UN. He talked about it many times. He knew Vijayalakshmi Pandit as a child and this was very important to him. He also enjoys the repartee that Indians can provide. But he’s also clear about the job he has to do. So I think we have to recognise that.

Transcribed by Neha Sinha(Dr Vishakha Desai is in India in connection with the 20th Asian Corporate Conference to be held in March 2010)