Countries cannot act in their neighbourhood as they please purely on the basis of power equations, as more demanding norms of state conduct act as a restraining influence, international opinion reduces freedom of action, especially on humanitarian grounds, and the economic cost of conflict has become less bearable by societies aspiring for higher growth and prosperity.
There is much self-criticism in India about the state of our relations with our neighbours. It is argued that India as the biggest country in the region has the main responsibility for regional stability. India is criticized for not being sufficiently generous to its neighbours, for reluctance to make unilateral concessions to build confidence and earn trust and goodwill. Such concessions are especially advocated on the economic side in the conviction that Indias interest is served by integrating the neighbouring, much smaller economies, with its large and growing economy, and in the process contributing to rising regional prosperity and positively influencing political attitudes because of the creation of durable linkages. India is also faulted for unsatisfactory border management, failure to create proper border posts and customs infrastructure as well as poor connectivity, all manifestations of a culpable insensitivity to neighbourly needs.
It is not only India that has failed to manage its relations with Pakistan; the international community is now experiencing the truculent nature of that country.
Such criticism overlooks many complexities and exaggerates Indias capacity to manage its neighbourhood to meet its internal and external needs. Indias internal weaknesses that prevent it from exerting its weight decisively in its neighbourhood are disregarded. On many issues of national interest Indias internal thinking is divided and consensus is lacking. That its legal, political and administrative system hampers it from taking hard decisions clearly in its own interest is ignored. This applies to the proper management of its open or porous borders, large scale illegal immigration from Bangladesh into India etc. Indias federal structure accounts for some of the deficiencies.
A coherent centre-state level effort to deal with those countries contiguous with Indian states is yet lacking. Electoral considerations, self-absorption in our own problems that are of sub-continental dimensions are other reasons why requisite priority is not given to the need to forge an effective policy towards neighbours. Indias size and power may be intimidating, but the neighbours have experience of Indias reluctance to react to provocations, except in extreme circumstances, and believe therefore that they have considerable room for tilting against our interests for one reason or another.
Indias record in shaping developments in its neighbourhood is poor. It intervened in Sri Lanka, but its withdrawal in difficult conditions led it to abjure an intrusive role there even as the ethnic conflict persevered and other countries exhorted it to take responsibility for steering the peace process to success. It stood largely aloof from developments leading to the defeat of the LTTE, and it is doubtful that it is ready to play a decisive role in helping the triumphant Sri Lankan government to close the last chapter of the Tamil question on a equitable basis. India intervened more successfully in the Maldives at the request of its government, but that specific episode does not constitute a model for future Indian actions to ensure regional stability.
The intervention in East Pakistan fell in a different category. Apart from its immediate causes, especially the flow of millions of refugees into India, it is Pakistans unremitting hostility towards India, and its use of subversion, infiltration and use of armed force to assert its territorial claim on Kashmir that prompted our intervention. In Bangladeshs case, India did not intervene when anti-Indian forces took over power there and for decades pursued unfriendly policies.
India and its neighbours share strong civilisational, cultural, linguistic and ethnic ties. This reality makes the neighbouring countries feel insecure in their separate identities.
In Nepal, India cooperated in the rise to power of forces traditionally hostile to it in the interest of a stable Nepalese polity. India is loath to micromanage Nepals internal affairs even though developments there seriously impinge on its security. All in all, India is a benign and non-interfering neighbour, with elastic red lines because of a disinclination to resort to intimidation or seek confrontation.
Indias tolerant attitude towards its neighbours is reflected in its handling of the issue of democracy in its neighbourhood. Its basic approach is to do business with whichever government is in power. Even while being aware that a truly democratic system in Pakistan would limit the power of both the armed forces and extremist groups and would benefit India-Pakistan ties, India has remained pragmatic in its willingness to do business with Pakistans military regimes, especially that of General Musharraf. Likewise, India has engaged with military regimes in Bangladesh without any fuss. In the case of Myanmar, ignoring international diplomatic flak, India has sought to build functional ties with the military junta there for reasons of overriding national interest. While cherishing its own democratic system, India believes in an approach of live and let live when it comes to propagation of democracy worldwide.
India, despite its size and power, is, ironically, the biggest victim of terrorism directed against it from within its neighbourhood. Its cities, streets, religious sites, scientific institutions and economic centres have been targeted by Pakistan for years with impunity, culminating in the Mumbai terrorist carnage. It is now living under the shadow of another Mumbai like attack, which if it were to happen, could well lead to reprisals by India despite the risks involved. Pakistans unwillingness to deal with the perpetrators of the Mumbai mayhem, and its selective combat against the Pakistan Taliban who are causing domestic mayhem and absence of action both against the Afghan Taliban targeting the international forces in Afghanistan and the Panjab based jihadis targeting India, shows the failure of the international community to deal with the complex terrorist threat emanating from Pakistan.
It is not only India that has failed to manage its relations with Pakistan; the international community is now experiencing the truculent nature of that country. Pakistan feels no real compulsion to abjure terrorism as an instrument of state policy. India by itself lacks the capacity to coerce Pakistan to do so, especially as Pakistan now has the nuclear cover for its lawless activities. Pakistan sees the extremist religious forces that resort to terrorism as allies against India and potentially in the takeover of Afghanistan after the western forces depart.
India cannot be indifferent to developments in Nepal because of its border with Tibet, open border with India, the need to prevent linking between the Indian and Nepalese Maoists “¦
Within the SAARC region, apart from the Karzai government castigating Pakistans sponsorship of terror, other countries remain reticent. All, barring Bhutan, have interest in maintaining good ties with Pakistan for motives that include leveraging Pakistans hostility towards India to their own advantage, countering the threat of Indian domination, constraining Indias freedom of action within the region, as well as the need to politically manage their own Muslim communities. SAARC conventions on combating terrorism remain on paper given Pakistans complicity with terrorist groups. Pakistan in fact uses Nepal and Bangladesh for infiltrating terrorists into India, or, in the case of Bangladesh, using local extremists for targeting India.
The debate about unilateral concessions versus reciprocity misses a basic point. A big country has no less responsibility than a small one to legitimately maximise its own interests. No country can sustain a policy of making unilateral concessions. Those who advocate such concessions overlook the conduct of the US, and far more relevant to our situation, that of China. Has China made unilateral concessions to its neighbours on core issues? It is not ready to make any such concessions to us on the border issue in the interest of forging a long term friendly relationship between the two largest countries in the world whose cooperation can radically change the existing balance in international affairs.
Please wait...
