Now for 2/11

Today's US presidential election threatens to be a repeat of 2000. Unless there is a last-minute swing in favour of one or the other candidate, Mr Bush and his Democratic rival, John Kerry, are poised for a photo finish that could lead to a flood of litigation.

Many presidential elections in the US have been very close ones. None, however, was so close as to need a reference to the Supreme Court""until 2000. This time round, both candidates are prepared for legal battle and an incredible 47,000 lawyers are reported to have been retained in the 50 states. When that many lawyers are in the fray, expect court action.

Many non-Americans may find it surprising that the election should be so closely fought in a country that lays a lot of store by the performance of the incumbent. Mr Bush's economic record has been poor.

Although he claims that his tax cuts, which benefited the rich mostly, have generated 1.78 million jobs, the hard fact remains that unemployment has increased on his watch, every sixth American is now without medical insurance, and real wages are down by 15 per cent since 2000.

For the economy as a whole, a large budget surplus has been converted into a massive deficit, foreigners hold more than a trillion dollars worth of American paper, and the current account deficit is at an all-time high at over 5 per cent of GDP and climbing.

America's macroeconomic statistics today resemble that of any developing country about to lurch into the IMF's arms. Mr Bush's defence is that a recession set in, especially after 9/11.

It is not a convincing defence, so it is natural that he should focus attention on national security, evocatively calling it homeland security. If Mr Bush wins on this platform, Americans will surely be right to ask if he will use the mandate to further limit their civil liberties.

The Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act have gone some distance in this direction. Also, there is the legitimate charge that Mr Bush led his country into an unnecessary war in Iraq on the flimsiest of pretexts, without an exit strategy that sounds convincing.

In the process, Mr Bush may have made the world a more dangerous place for America and Americans. If he is still such a strong candidate, and ahead in some of the polls, it is partly because Mr Kerry has run a stop-go campaign and does not carry conviction on how he will deal with Iraq and other security issues.

But these are things Americans should worry about. As far as India is concerned, the basic parameters of its relations with the US will remain the same regardless of who wins. Pakistan will remain a close ally of the US. China will not be discussed. India will remain a friendly country without figuring too much on the radar screen except for the wrong reasons.

The pressure to open up Indian markets will, if anything, intensify under the WTO trade talks""but the Republicans are traditionally less protectionist and may give as good as they seek in return.

On the nuclear and technology side, the Democrats have traditionally been fussier than the Republicans. Mr Bush has been bad news for the Americans and for some parts of the world. But India has reasons for hoping he will win.