Barack Obama takes over as the 44th U.S. President riding the optimism of millions of people and inheriting a recession and two wars that will test his skills.

Hopes are high the 47-year-old can conjure up a rescue that will jolt the world’s biggest economy back to life and contain the financial crisis ravaging global markets.

As far as India is concerned, there are apprehensions the Obama administration may place curbs on its outsourcing industry, ban any future nuclear tests and resurrect the Kashmir question.

Some have already questioned Obama’s reported plans to appoint a South Asia envoy.

And the Asia Society has laid out a blueprint for an expanded India-U.S. relationship.

What can India expect from the new Obama administration? Will the first African-American to become U.S. president usher in a new era for the country and for U.S-India relations?

In the space of a decade, the United States and India have travelled far in a relationship clouded by the  Cold War when they were on opposite sides.

From U.S sanctions on India for its nuclear tests in 1998 to a civilian nuclear energy deal that opens access to international nuclear technology and finance, while allowing New Delhi to retain its nuclear weapons programme is a stunning reversal of policy and one that decisively transforms ties.

America has also 'soberly' after decades of differing over counter-terrorism priorities become a vocal 
supporter of India's concerns over the use of Pakistani territory for Islamist militant groups, says the Asia 
Society in a report laying out a blueprint for an expanded India-U.S. relationship ahead of 
President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration on Tuesday.

Indian and U.S. interests have converged and "never in history have they been so closely aligned," the  report by an Asia Society Task Force says, arguing for a still deeper security and economic engagement between the two large democracies.

Click here for a PDF of the report

The Obama administration must keep India as one of its top foreign policy priorities, Richard Holbrooke, chairman of the Asia Society and who has been talked about as a possible envoy to South Asia, and Vishakha N.Desai, president of the Asia Society, say in a joint foreword

Besides the players involved, the report is also interesting because it adopts a rather different tone on India's relations with Pakistan and especially Kashmir to some of the policy prescriptions offered by some other influential U.S. think tanks such as the Center for American Progress.

This is how the task force suggests the incoming administration  boost security engagement with India: 

• Establish the closest possible consultation on all security issues in the entire region
• Reiterate commitment to “dehyphenation” (meaning U.S. ties with India and Pakistan are not a zero-sum game and must be carried on over different tracks)
• Discuss Afghanistan and Pakistan strategies frankly and in deep detail
• Listen closely on Kashmir, encourage the India-Pakistan composite dialogue, but do not try to mediate.

Music to New Delhi's ears? Yes, but the Asia Society also cautions that the old "Great Game" suspicions over Afghanistan remain, and Pakistan sees India’s engagement there as a threat to its vital interests.

"The United States may well have to play a role in making certain India clarifies its objectives in Afghanistan and transmits those to Pakistan, while ensuring that our own dialogue with India addresses India’s role in Afghanistan and how it can be most constructive. By the same token, the U.S. will need to be forthright with Pakistan about its consultations with India and India’s importance in stabilizing Afghanistan," it says.

A book released by the United States Institute for Peace focused on Afghanistan also stresses the key role Kabul's neighbours play on the security situation in the country. "Regional competition continues to undermine Afghanistan's long-term prospects, whereas renewed regional cooperation could provide a significant security and economic boost in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the region as a whole," the book titled The Future of Afghanistan argues, according to this note.

But there are no barriers to India and the United States sharing a close relationship on dealing with militancy, the Asia Society report says, arguing that the two countries vastly expand their ties in this area on the lines of cooperation with the UK, Germany, or Australia.

 In the mid to long term, America could think of expanding the “Five Eyes” (Canada, US , UK, Australia, and NZ) intelligence-sharing network to six,  bringing India on board, it says.

And on nuclear issues, it endorses the far-reaching deal signed by the Bush administration and calls for implementing the promise of nuclear trade between the two countries immediately. It also says New Delhi must be given membership in security and nonproliferation regimes such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Australia Group and the Zangger Committee.

A bit of irony there actually, given that the Nuclear Suppliers Group came into being following India's first set of nuclear tests in 1974 with the idea to clamp down on nuclear exports.

The Asia Society report also calls for including India in the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty  (NPT) review conference in 2010, which is equally interesting given New Delhi's long-standing position that the NPT is discriminatory. So is this the end of nuclear apartheid as far as New Delhi is concerned now that it is being given a seat on the nuclear high table ?

Ultimately, the United States has to approach India as an equal partner if the relationship has to be taken further, the Asia Society report says. "India is an ancient, proud land and a great civilization; it is an emerging global power and it seeks respect. India is also intensely political—as are we," the report’s authors say. There will be disagreements just as the United States has with countries such as France, but there is a "strategic interest in seeing India evolve into a democratic, independent power center."

[Reuters pictures of an Obama sand sculpture in eastern India, U.S and Indian naval sailors on an Indian navala ship near Goa and test site in Pokharan where India conducted nuclear tests in 1998.]

Rahul Gandhi spoke at a news conference in Amritsar last month. Somewhat predictably newspapers and TV channels covering the event focused on his comments on the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 and his defense against being called a rookie by a seasoned political rival.

They ignored the context of his visit — to review preparations for the local youth Congress elections, being conducted with greater involvement of party workers at the grass-roots level. It’s a practice he apparently wants to replicate across other states.

If Gandhi is serious about it and succeeds in doing so, it will further the cause of internal party democracy, which is a major blind spot in the working of our democracy.

The expression ‘political party’ did not even enter the Indian Constitution for the first thirty-five years of its life and even afterwards it did so cursorily in a Schedule.

The Constitution ensures that we elect our representatives but does not specify how political parties should choose the candidates — it’s a decision that does not involve citizens.

For me, the most fascinating aspect of the the 2008 U.S. presidential elections, even more than the final outcome, was the manner in which candidates are chosen.

Constant and intense interaction between the potential candidates and the party members brings out with a degree of clarity the political agenda of the candidates who in turn get a chance to tweak them to the expectations of voters.

This brings more transparency in the political domain. If a candidate loses or wins in those conditions then one knows the reasons for it.

If there were more internal democracy India’s pre-election opinion polls would probably be more accurate.

The result of the state elections as well as the general elections in 2009 would also make more sense.

Ashutosh Varshney, writing in the Times of India, mentions the lack of intra-party democracy as a major reason why India may not produce a Barack Obama.

He argues that lack of internal elections means that “rank outsiders like Mayawati, tend to create new political parties, but it is well known that it is much harder to create a new nationwide political organization than use an existing one.”

This reduces the probability of a candidate like Obama coming to power in India.

I find it a bit ironical that Varshney writes about the importance of internal party democracy in the same issue of the paper that also covers Rahul Gandhi’s Amritsar news conference but overlooks his initiative towards firming up the election process.

Pratap Bhanu Mehta writes in Outlook magazine that “most political parties do not institutionalise internal party reform because it could jeopardise the hold of current party incumbents.”

Given that, I think such a step by any politician needs to be appreciated for its boldness. It also needs to be followed up and scrutinised.

If the media focuses more on this lacuna of Indian democracy perhaps it will help put the issue on the common agenda and make the elections more meaningful.

After all there is something called the ‘observer effect’ which causes a change by the very act of looking at something. 

The question is how soon will the media start focusing on the selection process that precedes the elections.

As the dust settles on a two-year-long election campaign that has now given the United States its first African-American president in Barack Obama, I do wonder if there is a message for Indian politicians from the messenger of change… at least from the way he ran for the White House.

Obama aka ‘the digital candidate’ left no stone unturned in the race to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. For a man who managed to draw crowds in tens of thousands wherever he spoke, Obama realized early in his campaign that his message of ‘change’ had to spread well beyond Democrats and the undecided voters. He wanted America’s youth to be on board and he ensured they did.

He reached out to them by making himself accessible online. Obama used Web 2.0 with a passion, engaging and interacting with them on social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter and also used new platforms like podcasts, online video and text messages to get his message across.

So, is there a lesson there for Indian politicians, especially the younger lot led by Rahul Gandhi?

Rahul and his team of young Congress leaders like Milind Deora, Sachin Pilot and Jyotiraditya Scindia are known to data-mine and number crunch to understand their support bases. Even the BJP’s Arun Jaitley is said to maintain an extensive data base of electorates and voting patterns in states and constituencies.

Some of them have Facebook groups dedicated to them, but none with more than 500 supporters- a pittance in comparison to Obama’s three million.

Are Indian politicians missing out on an opportunity at a time when voter apathy is only growing? There are actually messages on Rahul Gandhi’s Facebook group page (which has less than 100 members) where a member has requested him to log on so they can interact with him.

So why not organize their appeal for votes in a more effective manner?

Not only will they be reaching out to an enormous and often untapped vote bank, (India has about 50 million internet users according to a Research and Markets report) but they will also be able to build a database which can prove invaluable in the future.

Obama went as far as hiring Chris Hughes, co-founder of Facebook as his online campaign strategist.

I’m not sure if Mr. Hughes will be available for the Indian general elections, but isn’t a future Prime Minister ready to take his campaign online?

Will a Dalit, or “untouchable” become India’s Obama? That is the question being posed by some commentators in the India press after the United States elected their first black president.

One Dalit woman, the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh known as Mayawati, is the first person to come to mind. Her astonishing rise from Dalit teacher to head of India’s most populous state has led to speculation she could be a prime ministerial candidate in 2009.

For an interesting article on the subject, read “Waiting for India’s Obama” by T.K Arun.

Unlike the United States, which directly elects a president, Mayawati could win power in parliamentary system through negotiations between India’s political parties after the general elections, due by May.

There is evidence her Dalit-based party could become the third biggest party in the election, becoming a

possible kingmaker.

In one sense Mayawati could represent an even greater revolution than Obama in a country where Dalits have been oppressed for centuries and who still suffer the kind of discrimination that reminds oneself of the United States’ Deep South in the 1950s.

On the other hand, as some commentators point out, Mayawati parades her caste to win over Dalits. Obama reached out across the race spectrum and did not use his colour. He campaigned mostly on policy. Maywati has made headlines as much for allegations of corruption and excess — such as erecting statues in her honour — as original policy ideas.

I went to Mayawati’s birthday party in Lucknow this year. There, she had the various top public figures, from police chiefs and civil servants and politicians, finger feed her with cake. Most of them were upper caste.

Will she be asking the same of Sonia Gandhi in New Delhi after the general elections?

It’s not hard to see why Indians would be interested in an election thousands of miles away. Many see Barack Obama’s victory in the presidential poll as a sign that America has finally transcended the question of race and changed the course of history.

Obama may have won by a landslide in the U.S. but going by the number of Indians rooting for him at New Delhi’s American Center on Wednesday, it seemed a useless exercise to gauge his support base in India.

I was hard-pressed to find a John McCain supporter among the many students and guests thronging the lawns of the Center as election results trickled in.

The McCain-Palin pavilion and a Republican elephant made of plastic balls stood forlorn as people posed for pictures with cutouts of Obama and Democrat running-mate Biden in a courtyard festooned with red, blue and white balloons.

When the umpteenth American citizen told me she had voted for Obama, I just shrugged my shoulders in despair. Did no one vote for McCain?

“Go to the Embassy and you might find one,” she quipped. “I don’t know if they will admit it any more though.”

Given Obama’s campaign promise of ending tax breaks for companies that ship U.S. jobs overseas and reducing the number of H1B visas issued to foreign workers, I would have thought McCain would be the obvious choice at least for Indians.

I was wrong.

“Obama’s not against India. He’s only going against outsourcing,” said Sharad Chandra, founder of the Society for Human Values and Universal Responsibility.

“And there’s nothing wrong with stopping outsourcing,” she said, adding that working in the BPO industry had made Indian youth unfit for any other profession.

Obama’s personality seemed to be the more relevant criterion among youngsters.

“He’s young and dynamic,” said college student Stuti Jain, one of many to cast votes in a mock election organized at the Center.

“The elections won’t make much of a difference in India but it’s exciting to be here and vote.”

For some, it was Obama’s stance on the war in Iraq that won them over.

Aditi Juneja, 17, recalled her experience of meeting families of American soldiers in Iraq during a trip to the U.S. — the idea of them suffering for no reason “didn’t seem right”.

“Obama will stop the war in Iraq,” she said.

And there was no doubt over who 48-year-old Surat Singh voted for. The Supreme Court lawyer said he met Obama while studying at Harvard in the late 1980s.

“He was big on human rights even then,” Singh said, adding that the Harvard alumni association in India planned to celebrate Obama’s win.

“I always knew he would play a great role in the future but never imagined he would become American president.”

And in case you were wondering who won the mock elections at the Center — the final tally read 357-22 in favour of Obama.

I voted for him too.