By- Diwakar Kaushik
Professor, Political Science
Allahabad University
A region has several connotations. Geographically a region is more than a country and less than a
continent. Politically a region is a half-way house for a time when the utility of a single nation is doubted
but the world is not yet ready for unity .On the whole, therefore, within the region there is close
proximity among nations, they have common historical perceptions on which common historical
experiences, on which similar perceptions of the world and developmental strategies might be based.
Regionalism in South Asia cannot be studied with the help of European models because South Asia is a
unique region and the situation here is different from that of Europe in many ways.
Geographically , South Asia is bounded on the north by the Pamir knot and the great chain of mountains
which flow out from it the Himalayas, Karakorum , Hindukush, and in the south by the Indian Ocean
Historically ,from the earliest times, the peoples of this region have been intimately linked by race,
culture ,religion, and sometimes by political allegiance. Indic civilization in its many forms Dravidian,
Harappan, Vedic, Buddhist, Brahmanic, Indo-Islamic, Anglo-Islamic is distinct from Sinic civilization in its
various manifestations to the east, and from the civilizations of Persia, Sumer, and Egypt in their
evolutions to the west. Cultures overlap in border areas where peoples mix and migrate. 1
The region of South Asia is different from that of Europe and other regions of the world because the
countries of this region had to face colonial legacies, regional divides, ethnic problems and are least
developed economies LDC. The countries of South Asia have not solved their problem of nation-building,
sovereignty, legal order, legitimacy etc. This had been solved much before by W.Europe before they
embarked on regional cooperation and Furthermore , South Asia had been ravaged by the role of
external forces such as Super Power competition in the Cold War, North South conflict and its
implications etc. hence, any analysis of South Asian region should be different from the European
perspective. 2
Dr S.D.Muni, retired Professor of International Relations, JNU, New Delhi regards South Asia as an Indo-
Centric region because India is central to it geographically and in terms of the socio-cultural and
economic infrastructure of the region. However, in order to understand the problems of the region, it is
necessary to underline its principal characteristics. Indo-Centric means that almost all the countries of
the region like Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, Nepal, and Srilanka all have a common border with India. They
are also related to India separately and individually in terms of their cultural identities, economic
patterns, philosophical trends, and historical experience i.e. there is a bit of India in every other country
of South Asia but on the other hand there is anything of significance between one of India’s neighbours
and another. If anything it is India that is common between them e.g .tamils in Sri Lanka ,bengalis in
Bangladesh, paharis in Nepal and Bhutan, mohajirs and sindhis in Pakistan etc, Moreover, most South
2
Asian countries have common borders with India—geographical linkage .Furthermore, all nations of
South Asia are related to India by history , ethnicity , culture ,religion ,philosophical trends ,economic
patterns etc.
Another characteristic of the South Asian region is that it has an unbalanced and asymmetric power
structure in favour of India. The nature of this imbalance and asymmetry is such that India stands as the
dominant power in the region and any future plan of regional cooperation necessitates India’s positive
and meaningful role. In terms of size, population, resource base, potential for economic growth, military
strength, and viability of the constitutional and political system, nuclear capability, India is far too
superior to any of its neighbours . 3
Thus it becomes abundantly clear that South Asia is not only Indo-centric but also an India-dominated
region. This makes India the proverbial Big Brother with all the negative connotations of that expression
for the healthy growth of regionalism on the subcontinent. Its negative consequence is demonstrated in
the fear of India’s lesser neighbours. The small neighbours look to China to balance the power of India
thus, inviting an extra-regional power in this region and clearly demonstrates “big power’ vs “small
power “syndrome. Moreover it is recognized by all governments specially those of Bhutan and Nepal
that they lie within India’s defence parameters and India’s defence establishment also reflects its
responsibility to defend most of its S.Asian neighbours in-fact an ad-hoc military cooperation also
underlies India’s relation with Myanmar against a possible Chinese attack on it.
The disparity in power between India and its neighbours has certainly generated legitimate and
understandable apprehensions in the latter. Things become more aggravated with India declaring
herself as a nuclear power and America signing a civil-nuclear cooperation with her. It cannot be
disputed that such apprehensions create difficulties in the way of regional cooperation. However, we
should be careful in analyzing the implications of power imbalances for the growth of regionalism in any
given region because it would be misleading to emphasize the negative implications alone ; for the
primacy of any particular Power in a region may even make for stability, peace , and cooperation in that
region.
Regionalism in South Asia should be looked from a historical perspective. Its post – colonial history is
characterized by conflict and tensions in relations between the various countries of the region. The
major sources of conflict in the region can be traced back to colonial rule. Colonial rule has left three
significant legacies.
Firstly, an unnatural and absurd state system was brought into being by means of a partition of the
subcontinent and the creation of a disjointed Pakistan. The British rulers played a significant role in this
partition, which, led to a series of conflicts and hampered co-operative ventures in the region.
Secondly, state boundaries between India and its neighbours were left undemarcated by the Britishers
in the region. However, after Independence there arose several major territorial disputes, and these
strained bilateral relations in the region .Many of these disputes have been solved after protracted and
difficult negotiations requiring much diplomatic effort. But now, cross-border and state-sponsored
terrorism has thrown up a new challenge.
3
Thirdly, in almost every country of South Asia ,there are ethnic minorities who have their origin in
another country of the region – as, for example, the Tamils in Sri Lanka , the Hindus in Pakistan ,
Bangladesh and Afghanistan ,the Biharis in Bangladesh , and Nepal , the Nepalese in Sikkim (until
Sikkim’s integration into India) and India, the Indians in Burma , Bangladeshi and Chakma tribals in India,
Mohajirs in the Sindh province of Pakistan , Pakistani’s in Punjab and Kashmir , and so on. 4 In this era of
globalization a country’s borders have become meaningless . In addition, the presence of religious and
linguistic minority groups across national boundaries continues to be a sensitive issue in intra-regional
relations.
Conflict and tension arose in South Asia because of the different paths and strategies adopted by the
various South Asian states for their social, economic and political development. These economies also
manifested strong tendencies of mutual competition and incompatibility owing to their differing growth
potentials and directions of development.
Moreover, as regards nation-building in South Asia, there emerged in the South Asian countries a clear
emphasis on particularistic religious, ethnic, and linguistic components of the social fabric rather than on
universalistic goals and tendencies in the nation-building processes. The emphasis in Pakistan was on
Islam and Urdu, in Bangladesh on Islam and Bengali, in Sri Lanka on Buddhism and Sinhalese, in Nepal on
Hinduism, and in Burma and Bhutan on Buddhism of different sects and varieties. In India also, under
the umbrella of secularism as a goal of polity, politics largely turned on communal, regional, and
linguistic considerations. All this resulted in the emergence of dominant ethnic groups in the countries
of South Asia. Consequently, the politics of nation-building in each of these countries gave rise to many
complex problems with repercussions extending across national boundaries.
Furthermore, the differences in the strategies of economic development adopted by the various South
Asian countries arise from their initial differences in terms of stage of development, resource base, and
growth potential. Being comparatively well placed, the Indian economy has grown faster; so has the
Indian state structure and the bourgeoisie as compared with their counterparts in South Asia.
Thus, we see that different paths and strategies have been adopted by South Asian states for economic,
political, and social development. They have adopted different strategies with regard to nation-building.
The elitist S. Asian states such as Pakistan ,Bangladesh ,and Nepal feel that they have drawn heavily
from Indian civilization therefore they underline their differences with India in order to build a
separate identity with India so that they can play a meaningful role in the International system. Instead
of Universalistic goals they emphasize on particularistic components like religion, ethnicity, language
etc; this has led to domestic conflicts which have reverberated the region e.g. Hindu-Muslim relations
affect Indo-Pak and Indo-Bangla relations; Sinhala- Tamil relations affect Indo-SriLanka relations
With regards economic development, there is a difference in strategy, resource base, and style of
development with the result that Indian economy is at a higher stage of development than the
neighbours . They are afraid that in the guise of economic cooperation the Indian counterpart will
swamp them due to Firstly, the inherent strength of Indian economy and Secondly, because of the
Marwari psyche of Indian businessman (Marwari is a businessman who is selfish and intent on making
4
quick and disproportionate profits). The result is that S. Asian nations cooperate with the West and not
with India – this is detrimental both to India and S. Asian states.
Moreover, as regards the internal political process in South Asia we find that the peripheral states, the
elites are afraid of India. The failure of development process in the peripheral states has led to the
emergence of military elites in Bangladesh and Pakistan; the elites in Bhutan and Nepal were
monarchistic while SriLanka has an authoritarian UNP or SLFP rule. However, India has democracy with
mixed economy both serve as examples of anathema to South Asian nations and ruling elites therein.
This feeling of insecurity in our neighbours and the ruling elites therein leads them to feed anti – Indian
feeling in order to mobilize support for their own regimes. This is detrimental to regional cooperation
Furthermore ,the Cold War conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States , the Sino – Soviet
rift , the North –South conflict , the Arms Race etc , have all impinged upon the subcontinent .
The sibling rivalry between India Pakistan Bangladesh has had a unique effect on South Asia .Before
independence, the Muslim League and the Indian National Congress both, contested for the rewards
and affection of the British, but now, they contest for the rewards from Super Powers to the detriment
of each other.
We always talk of cooperation in South Asia but the question which arises is what do we mean by
cooperation? The concept of cooperation connotes acting together in agreement to achieve certain
common ends. It is an antonym of conflict –(though nations may pursue cooperation and conflictive
ends simultaneously). Cooperation may be eager or reluctant, extensive or limited, but cooperation
certainly means something more than indifference or non-action. It needs to be stressed, however, that
cooperation is something less than integration. No merging of identity or function is necessary for
cooperation to take place in the economic, cultural, or political realms of human endeavour.
What is needed is the political will to overcome obstacles that lie in the path of cooperation. There are
five sets of circumstances which compel the urgent consideration of Regional Cooperation in South Asia:
Firstly, the global circumstances of political and military rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union,
and the Soviet Union and China, impinge directly on the countries of South Asia. Every fratricidal dispute
on the subcontinent since 1974 has provided ingress to outside powers; every breakdown in friendly
relations has also provided access to outside influence.
Secondly, the circumstances of world trade, investment and economic assistance place all developing
countries (South) at a disadvantage in their dealings with advanced industrial countries (North). The
thrust of the movement to build a New International Economic Order (NIEO) has been to improve the
individual and collective self-reliance of the South so as to enhance its bargaining power with the North.
All the countries of South Asia have contributed to the NIEO movement. The inequality of current
economic arrangements with the North is a strong argument in favour of regional cooperation.
Thirdly, the familial and religious ties that cut across political boundaries in South Asia. If the peoples of
the region were asked their opinions, not many would be likely to opt for the endless bureaucratic
formal bureaucratic formalities they have to undergo before being able to fulfill some deeply felt
5
obligation, such as: marriage of an offspring to a member of the same community, but different
nationality; attendance at the death bed of a parent; pilgrimage to holy places including the birth place
of the Buddha, or Guru Nanak, or Sheikh Salim Chisti; study and enjoyment of related fields of music,
art, literature, architecture; competing in sports events. Going one step further, one may well ask if
government should, or can, prevent their peoples from walking across borders to seek a wage, or make
an investment?
A fourth set of circumstances is created by the ecology of South Asia. The squeeze of population growth
combined with rapacious attitudes towards the environment threatens soil, water, forests and wildlife.
No one country in the region can tackle the problems without cooperating with others. The problems of
soil salinity in Bangladesh caused by tidal waters flowing inland will ease only when the waters of the
Ganges river system are augmented; the problems of flooding and soil erosion in Uttar Pradesh and
Bihar will become more acute until Nepal controls deforestation and harnesses its fast-flowing rivers.
The beaches and fisheries of the region will be subjected to pollution and marauding until all the
countries cooperate in looking after them. Because of India’s unique position in the region, cooperative
arrangements made bilaterally between India and any neighbour could benefit the region as a whole.
India, as the largest and most powerful country in the region, bears the major responsibility for shaping
it. Without India’s interest and active participation, regional cooperation will remain an inadequate
response to the imperatives.
Fifthly, cooperation in South Asia is necessary to prevent the positioning of external forces within the
region. To position the armed forces on the borders of the subcontinent against extra-regional enemies,
rather than to maintain the present positioning of armed forces vis-à-vis each other like India vs
Pakistan, India vs Bangladesh etc. and to be able to pressurize for the abandonment of military and
naval activity in the Indian Ocean.
India is the largest and most powerful country in the region of South Asia and without India’s interest
and active participation, regional cooperation will remain an inadequate response to these imperatives.
Firstly, the uniqueness of the region is itself an obstacle. No other region in the world exhibits such vast
disparities among its members; few regions share such cultural bonds as South Asia. There is a vast
disparity in power and mineral resources between India and its neighbours. The crux of the problem is
that while the neighbours suspect Indian domination in the guise of regional cooperation therefore they
posit internationalism against regionalism on the other hand, India suspects the neighbours of ganging
up against her and therefore she posits bilateralism as against regionalism. Both sets of fears and
tendencies are harmful for regional cooperation and have to be countered.
Secondly, there are the links of history, religion, race, language and culture between India and its
neighbours .These create identity problems for states who are culturally close but politically distant
from India. Consequently, the actions of smaller neighbours antagonizes India and this acts as an
obstacle to regional cooperation in South Asia.
Thirdly, obstacle to regional cooperation is due to the dissimilarity in the strategic perceptions held by
different governments in the region. The imperative of jointly protecting the region from outside
6
interference is ignored while the governments separately assess the intentions and capabilities of
outside powers to harm or benefit them. Divergences are the result of (i) past history e.g. partition
between India and Pakistan. Pakistan believes that India is out to undo partition. (ii) different political
systems, particularly the authoritarian political system in the neighbours exacerbate differences with
India in order to bolster their regimes.
Fourthly, there are tremendous disparities in economic resources through the region creates several
obstacles to cooperation, such as
Fear of domination by India
Lack of common developmental strategies
Low level of intra regional trade
But there is economic limit to cooperation e.g. India cannot meet the developmental needs of all its
neighbours hence, the neighbours cooperate more with World institutions, West, China, Soviet Union
from where they get aid. The result is disadvantageous to the region as a whole as well as to the
recipient country. There is also political limit to cooperation e.g. Pakistan will not take wheat, coal from
India which is across the border, though it is much cheaper here because for political reasons. It
appears that fruitful regional economic cooperation will follow improved relations and economic
prosperity rather than precede them.
Finally, the lack of an appropriate model of regional cooperation in South Asia is also an obstacle.
Neither history nor the contemporary world provides India and its smaller neighbours with readymade
answers to their problem. If their leaders succumb to mutual suspicions, their countries will surely
languish separately. If they come together, the countries might progress collectively. The only certainty
is that the fate of India and its neighbours is inseparable.
In the past, South Asia was described by Peter Lyon as a ‘region without regionalism’. It is a home of four
major world religions; Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Islam. World Bank statistics show that all
countries in the region belong to the lowest income category i.e. the total number of people who live
below the poverty line, is roughly equivalent to the number of inhabitants of the African continent.
South Asia is called the ‘Earth’s poor house’ besides, in child mortality, malnutrition, and illiteracy it
stands at the bottom end of International statistics.
Among the countries of this region, there are geographical, economic and military dissimilarities
decisively influenced by India. India has got the biggest army and the largest potential of scientific,
technical manpower after U.S. and U.S.S.R. Indian population is more than three times larger than the
population of neighbours and more than eight times than that of Bangladesh. India covers 72% area of
the entire region and is four times larger than Pakistan. India possesses 100% of the region’s uranium,
copper, gold, lead, and silver resources and has 78% of the aggregate of South Asian GNP.
Despite cultural proximity and the common colonial period and Indian predominance triggered
reservations among its neighbours, While India perceives neighbours as being integral to its own
security, the neighbours perceive India as a threat against which security is necessary.
7
All Indian activities was interpreted by those affected as an expression of India’s striving for
hegemony while the actions of the other states was always viewed by the Indian side as an attempt to
establish foreign powers in the region. SAARC as established in 1985 at Dacca and had seven original
members namely , Bangadesh , Bhutan , India , Maldives , Pakistan and Sri Lanka Afghanistan was later
included as a permanent member at the 14 th summit held at New Delhi in 2007 . The last summit (17 th )
was held at Addu City( Maldives ) and the next summit is proposed to be held in November 2014 at
Nepal.
SAARC is an important regional discussion forum where contentious bilateral issues are not to be raised,
and if raised, should be resolved. On a closer examination, it is understandable why controversial issues
are to be bypassed within the framework of regional cooperation. Almost all states have conflicting
interests with India, hence, such a discussion would have led to a confrontation and isolation of India
and thus a breakdown of all efforts .On the other hand, a successful regional cooperation cannot be
meaningfully realized without India, bearing in mind its political and economic significance.
South Asia Preferential Trade Area (SAPTA) was made operational in December 1995 but as of today the
intra-regional trade is roughly 3% and there are two reasons for it firstly, many of SARC members have
very limited items in their export basket and secondly significant portion of trade is based on practical
convenience. SAARC secretariat was established at Kathmandu in1987, while the SAARC Chamber of
Commerce and Industries was established at Dhaka in 1991 .South Asia Free Trade Area SAFTA came
into existence from January, 1, 2006 without much significance. It was also decided that the decade
from 2001-2010 would be designated as the Decade Of The Right Of The Girl Child. There is a need of a
SAARC bank and Parliament.
Today, SAARC stands at crossroads faced with diverse sets of incentives, compulsions and pressures as
well as difficulties in the further growth and advancement of its objectives. End of Cold War has turned
the International atmosphere conducive to and compelling for cooperation and understanding at the
regional level in S. Asia. Cold war rivalries and tensions are no longer relevant , the coutries need not
get divided on partisan issues ,over regional rivalries and suspicions have surfaced with greater
vehemence e.g. India-Pakistan. India’s relations with its South Asian neighbours have unfortunately
been far from satisfactory. This has weakened its position to such an extent that it may well be viewed
as India’s Achille’s heel. 6
This year’s historic elections in Pakistan and its P.M. Nawaz Sharif coming to Delhi at the swearing
ceremony of Narendra Modi has given rise to expectations of an improvement in bilateral relations.
Pakistan High Commissioner to India Salman Bashir said : ‘The logical course of the history to proceed is
for these countries to become good neighbours ,friends and that is not only for people of Pakistan and
India but also forms a critical ingredient in realizing the vision of a prosperous and peaceful South Asia.’ 7
There are contradictions in India’s global policy and its regional approach. At the international level,
India rejects balance of power and exclusive sphere of influence but clings to them at the regional level,
It is strongly opposed to intervention by major powers in the internal affairs of the weaker ones, but it
provided security to smaller nations and their regimes, India was all for multilateralism at the global
8
level yet in the region it insisted on bilateralism. Moreover, India castigated the West for its
protectionist policies, yet in the region it had liberal arrangements with Nepal and Bhutan but was
closed to others like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh —- we protested at the global level but managers of
security order in the region.
Contradictions can be seen since 1990s, — India’s tough stand of imposing trade embargo against Nepal
and its interventions in Sri Lanka and Maldives – contributed to India’s image of a ‘regional hegemon‘
after this neighbours became uneasy and anti-India feeling acquired greater strength . India was miffed
at the cussedness of its neighbours and their attempts to mobilize support from China and Pakistan and
to encourage or ignore activities hostile to India.
One of the unintended consequences of globalization was ending the economic partition of 1947 and
the ossified system of regional economic separation got its first challenge. Pressures from IMF, World
Bank and the dynamics of WTO and GATT demanded the region to adopt policies at export promotion.
While the economic reforms moved forward in the 1990’s it was apparent that India would be the
natural engine of growth in the region.
In the beginning, India was cool to the idea of SAARC and regarded it as a forum designed to isolate
India politically in the region but by the turn of 1990’s India began to emphasize the importance of
economic cooperation. Pakistan had been the slowest camel to set the pace of economic caravan
because she insists that there can be no economic progress unless political issues are resolved. An
important option for India is to advance economic cooperation in the region – with Pakistan if possible,
and without Pakistan if necessary.
There is a growing interest in the Indian private sector and the Asian Development Bank ADB to promote
economic cooperation in the region and the concept of a South Asian Growth Quadrangle SADQ
involving Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and India’s north-eastern states. It is high time we tightened up our
cultural diplomacy as an important tool to supplement our diplomatic and economic efforts . 8
The post cold war changes have compelled states across the globe to reorient their foreign policies to
face the new challenges. The same is true of South Asian states. The cold war period was marked by a
higher degree of anti-India feelings largely due to unresolved disputes compelling the smaller states to
seek the involvement of external powers in their dealings with India. In the post cold war period through
the traditional security concerns persist there is a dilution of anti-India rhetoric and greater willingness
to engage in dialogue to address all areas of dispute. 9
Neither history nor the contemporary world provides India and its smaller neighbours with readymade
answers to their problems. If they succumb to mutual suspicions, then their countries will surely
languish separately. But if they come together, the countries will progress collectively. The only thing
certain is that the fate of India and its neighbours is inseparable. Our destinies are inextricably linked
and we have to work together to lift our lives out of underdevelopment and conflict to peace and
prosperity , because India will not be able to realize its own destiny without the partnership of its South
Asian neighbbours . 10
9
Indian Express writes, by inviting the leaders of neighbouring countries to attend his swearing in as
prime minister of India, Modi has challenged the entrenched negative perceptions, at home and abroad,
about his worldview.
Modi’s terrific move should help generate a more realistic appreciation of India’s foreign policy
trajectory in the coming years. Modi has sought to project a balanced approach to the neighbours ever
since he was anointed the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate last year. While expressing concerns about
cross-border terrorism from Pakistan or illegal migration from Bangladesh, he also underlined the
importance of joining hands with the neighbours in fighting poverty and underdevelopedment in the
subcontinent.
It is a more self-assured government in Delhi that is ready to engage the neighbours without standing on
protocol and precedent. Unlike, his predecessor, Manmohan Singh, Modi, as PM, must travel frequently
to the neighbouring countries, including Pakistan. Routinisation of such diplomatic engagement will not
solve all of India’s problems with its neighbours. But it will certainly create a more conducive
environment for purposeful negotiations on outstanding issues.
Prime Minister designate Modi pulled off a coup off sorts by inviting all leaders of the SAARC countries,
including Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for swearing-in ceremony. If India improves its
relations with its neighbours, it will not just benefit the region economically but also make it a safer
place. At the moment, SAARC has been held hostage to the hostilities between India and Pakistan and
the new PM will have to work his way around this. The invitations will also assuage fears that India
wants to play the role of a big brother. Rather, the message that is being conveyed is that India will be
the locomotive that will pull the region ahead. This a sound and positive foundation on which to build a
new, proactive foreign policy. 11
Narendra Modi is stepping in the right direction by looking to strengthen ties with China. India
announced a Look East policy in 1992, years after the Southeast Asian ‘tiger economies’ had surged into
the global limelight. Over time, the governments of East and Southeast Asia joked India’s policy was
better described as ‘look east, then look away.’ New Delhi has struggled to put meat on the bones of
this policy. Its relatively closed economy, overstretched military and inability to match China in any
sphere meant that India remains a two-tier foreign partner for these countries. 2013 has seen East Asia
beating a path to India. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe as the country’s Republic Day chief guest.
He had been preceded by the first joint summit between India and the ASEAN. The election of Prime
Minister Narendra Modi and the sense that the past five years of inertia may have come to an end have
only accelerated this subcontinental drift. China’s new leader, Xi Jinping, has already signaled his desire
to visit India in 2014.
The neighbours are eager to grasp what it means for them and their own interests. It was not easy for
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to make the journey from Islamabad, but if he was courageous enough to
do so—- though not before clearance came from the Pakistan Army and hawkish sections of his own
party- it was because he hoped that the new dispensation in Delhi would match that gesture in some
way. In the event, the visit has ended up not making Mr.Sharif’s position in Pakistan any easier. He
10
refrained from bringing up the Kashmir issue in public while in Delhi, and for the first time, a Pakistani
delegation did not hold a meeting with the Hurriyat. In keeping with the spirit of the occasion, Mr. Sharif
called for attitudes to change from “confrontation to cooperation.” The Indian side highlighted that Mr.
Modi gave no quarter on the issue of terrorism emanating from Pakistan, and on speedy action in the
2008 Mumbai attacks case. Mr. Sharif had to go into damage-control mode when he returned to
Pakistan. It cannot be emphasized more that India’s interests on the terrorism issue, as well as its
expressed keenness to move towards “full trade normalization” with Pakistan, are better served by
strengthening Mr. Sharif’s hands. 12
Delhi has been unwilling to confront and address the reasons for the steady loss of Indian influence in
the region over the last many decades. An India that fails to reclaim its primacy in the subcontinent,
Modi can now see, can really make a lasting impression on the world beyond. If Modi is luckier than
Manmohan Singh and Atal Bihari Vajpayee, he might make some sustainable progress with Pakistan. As
a realist, however, Modi should be aware that major breakthroughs are unlikely amid the current
political flux within Pakistan and Sharif’s deteriorating relations with the all-powerful army. Modi’s
determination to pursue a vigorous regional diplomacy appears to rest on five foundations.
Firstly, Modi has appreciated the much neglected fact that foreign policy begins at the nation’s borders.
India’s traditional diplomatic discourse is obsessed with grand concepts such as non-alignment and the
elusive quest for the leadership of the global South. It has been rather easy for the Indian strategic
community to forget the critical importance of tending one’s own neighbourhood in the subcontinent
and the Indian Ocean. Worse still, Delhi has been unwilling to confront and address the reasons for the
steady loss of Indian influence in the region over the last many decades. An India that fails to reclaim its
primacy in the subcontinent, Modi can now see he can really make a lasting impression on the world
beyond.
Secondly, Modi has understood the importance of discarding the diplomatic formalism that has
bedeviled India’s engagement with the region. In inviting the regional leaders for his inauguration, Modi
is suggesting that contacts with neighbours should be made a matter of routine rather than be treated
as exceptional occasions. In his interactions with the South Asian leaders after the swearing in, Modi
must tell them he is ready to visit all neighbouring countries, including Pakistan, at the earliest and will
order his cabinet colleagues to do the same.
Thirdly, Manmohan Singh had a clear vision that India’s destiny is inextricably linked with that of her
neighbours. But Manmohan Singh was unable to overcome the political resistance within the Congress
Party. If the Congress had put narrow electoral considerations above India’s national interests in the
region, Modi seems ready to uphold the Central government’s responsibility to conduct foreign policy.
Modi’s rejection of the protests from the BJP’s allies and others in Chennai against the visit of Sri Lankan
President Mahinda Rajapaksa not only underlines India’s new resolve but also improves Delhi’s
negotiating leverage with Colombo on the question of Tamil minority rights in Sri Lanka.
Fourthly, in inviting the prime minister of Mauritius to the swearing in ceremony, Modi is acknowledging
Delhi’s special relationship with the island nation and its Indian Diaspora. The new PM is acutely aware
11
of the urgent need to reverse the UPA government’s wanton destruction of this relationship at the very
moment when Mauritius was re-emerging as the strategic pivot of the Western Indian Ocean.
Fifthly, Modi appears to have recognized that India’s ability to deal with great powers like the United
States and China will significantly improve only if and when Delhi can reconstitute the geopolitical unity
of the subcontinent. For decades, India has complained about US and Chinese strategic partnerships
with Pakistan. More recently, India has watched warily as China’s political influence rose rapidly in the
subcontinent. Delhi must accept a large portion of the blame for making it easier for outsiders to limit its
influence in the region.
Instead of whining about external intervention in the subcontinent, Delhi needs a strategy that builds on
India’s natural geographic advantage, economic complementarity, historic role as the reginal security
provider and a shared cultural inheritance. If Manmohan Singh talked the talk on restoring India’s
regional primacy, Modi might have the political will to walk by resolving long-standing political disputes
and promoting economic prosperity across the subcontinent. 13
By inviting the South Asian Association for Regional Corporation (SAARC) leaders to his swearing –in
ceremony, Prime Minister designate Narendra Modi has sent out a powerful message on foreign policy.
To give the South Asian neighbourhood such importance right at the start of his term is indeed a
significant step. The other important move he has made is calling all economic ministries, to which the
external affairs ministry could soon be included, to send in reports on policies that the United
Progressive Alliance (UPA) failed to implement, as well as the impractical policies it adopted. In fact,
there are many parts in his predecessor’s foreign policy book that Mr. Modi might well want to take a
leaf out of.
The first is Dr. Singh’s creative thinking on the neighbourhood. It was Dr. Singh’s focused drive for better
relations with Pakistan, or Indian concessions on trade with Bangladesh, or the massive reconstruction
and infrastructure building efforts undertaken in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, India’s SAARC engagement
has helped its standing in the region.
Perhaps the part of Singh’s foreign policy that Mr. Modi will most want to take forward will be the focus
of the economist prime minister on economic diplomacy. Modi has been most positive about it . Even at
a lecture he delivered at the University of Madras last year entitled “India and the World” “Modi
emphasized that a strong economy is the driver of an effective foreign policy,” he is quoted as saying.
“We have to put our own house in order that the world gets attracted to us.”
Mr. Modi’s swearing in could well serve as a kick-off point for a new foreign policy regime for South
Asia; that is, if he desires to make a break with past precedents. “For time and the world do not stand
still,” said U.S. President John.F.Kennedy in his famous “Change is the law of life” speech delivered in
Frankfurt in 1963. “And those who look only to the past or the present are certain to miss the future.”
Narendra Modi’s decision to invite Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for his swearing in ceremony
and Sharif’s acceptance has raised hopes among weary mainstream and separatist parties of Kashmir.
“It’s a positive beginning and would generate hope among the people belonging to the large peace
12
constituency in South Asia. He (Modi) has actually sent out an encouraging signal that he is serious to
follow former prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee initiatives of friendship towards Pakistan.
India needs to provide its neighbours with a sense of reassurance that it has vital stake in regional peace
and security and the new government’s first priority has to be the revitalization of the ceremony
through structural rectification in the manufacturing sector to create the millions of jobs that India’s
young population expect as their rightful due. Nearly 45% of our GDP is accounted for by international
trade. The priority therefore, must be to rejuvenate the economy and then to leverage the growing
economy to conquer poverty equally rapidly and create the biggest middle class, labour and consumer
market in the world. We will need to become a manufacturing, agricultural and services hub that
generates the jobs, income and purchasing power that people and the economy need. This will require
harnessing the talent of India’s enormous pool of human resources in empowering and enabling people,
especially youth and women. This, in turn, will strategically lay the basis for addressing the global
challenges of the environment and climate change.
The last 10 years were characterized by hesitation, indecision bordering on neglect and lack of vision,
which together looked like strategic confusion. This was most conspicuous in our immediate
neighbourhood where our bilateral relationships, each more important than the other, are without
exception crying out for urgent attention and repair. As the larger country in South Asia, we need to
provide our immediate neighbours with a sense of reassurance that we have a vital stake in sub-regional
and regional peace and in their security and well-being. Enlightened cooperation can facilitate a co-
prosperity sphere, which we should underwrite through instruments of trade policy. Other important
relationships, particularly those with the P5 and other members of the G4 also require a healthy dose of
encouragement.
Within a day of winning the elections, Modi had proffered the invitation to the all SAARC neighbours.
The invitation went down in Indian history, and became a part of global parlance, for the boldness of the
move and the all-round praise it received. Many were surprised but everyone lauded the initiative
calling it a masterstroke, a strategy with vision. When it was announced that the Foreign Secretaries
would meet in Islamabad on August 25, it seemed in line with Mr. Modi’s grander strategy of squiring a
new future for the entire neighbourhood, one that would be launched at the SAARC summit in
November in Kathmandu.
It was another day of acrimonious exchanges between India and Pakistan on Wednesday 20.08.2014
with the External Affairs Ministry rejecting Pakistan High Commissioner Abdul Basit’s statement that the
Hurriyat was a “stakeholder” in the peace process. The statement came after Mr. Basit held a press
conference, defending his meetings with the Hurriyat leaders on August 18 and 19 that made India
cancel the talks between the two nations. “The objective of interacting with Kashmiri leaders is precisely
to talk to all the stakeholders to find a viable, peaceful solution,” he said. Ministry spokesperson Syed
Akbaruddin said: “There are only two stakeholders on the issue of Jammu & Kashmir- The Union of India
and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
13
Indian officials say Pakistan will have to recognize the “new reality.” While they can continue to meet
whoever they like, they can no longer attempt to triangulate the talks by openly and brazenly speaking
to Kashmiri leaders just before their talks with India,” a government source said. With India Pakistan
hardening their positions on the meetings Pakistan High Commissioner Basit Ahmed had with Hurriyat
leaders, the immediate casualty seems to be the possible talks between Prime Minister Narendra Modi
and his Pakistani counterpart, Nawaz Sharif, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly
meeting in New York in September.
Mani Shankar Aiyar writing in Indian Express on August 20, 2014 that there was nothing to be gained
from making an issue of such a trivial matter. Nothing earth-shattering, either for us or the Pakistanis,
has resulted from earlier meetings of the Hurriyat with the Pakistanis, including visits of Hurriyat leaders
to Pakistan that we ourselves had permitted. From a Pakistani point of view, meeting the Hurriyat is an
excellent way of selling to the Pakistani public the explanation that ‘Kashmiri’ wishes are not being
ignored in the dialogue process. From the Indian point of view, the ‘separatists’, who are Indian citizens,
whatever their view, are of such significance as to have warranted our ‘interlocutors’ talking to them. 14
The Hinduatan Times in its editorial believes that it is time Pakistan did something that would be in its
own interest if it is indeed interested in peace. And that would be to tell the Hurriyat leaders that unless
they have something substantive to contribute to the dialogue, they should not drop in for a cup of tea
and a chat before any significant bilateral talks.
New Delhi called off the August 25 bilateral talks after Basit went ahead with his meetings with the
Hurriyat leaders. Stressing that the two sides should keep the “diplomacy doors ajar” and “diplomacy is
the art of the possible”, Basit said, “We need to engage with all stakeholders. It is not a question of
either or as far as we are concerned. We are engaging with India to find peaceful ways.” He was
responding to New Delhi’s stand that Pakistan should choose between dialogue with separatists or with
the Indian government. Stating that he “did not breach any diplomatic protocol” by meeting the
Hurriyat leaders, he said such meetings have been a “longstanding practice” since the Kashmir issue is a
“dispute” between the two countries.
Reacting to his statements, the Ministry of External Affairs official spokesperson Syed Akbaruddin said
that after 1972 and the signing of the Simla Agreement by the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan,
there are only two “stakeholders” on the issue of Jammu & Kashmir- the Union of India and the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan. “This is a principle which is the bedrock of our bilateral relations. This was
reaffirmed in the Lahore Declaration of 1999 between Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Atal Bihari
Vajpayee,” he said. 15
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision this week to cancel the foreign secretary level talks with
Pakistan has drawn much political flak at home and generated some international concern that the NDA
government might be departing from its proclaimed commitment to improve relations with the
neighbours. Both Pakistan and the separatists pressed for a trilateral dialogue. Delhi rejected a table for
three. The Modi government is now saying that there is no place for the Hurriyat in the peace process
with Pakistan.
14
Any number of busybodies will want to mediate between Delhi and Islamabad on Kashmir. While
internationalizing the Kashmir question has always been part of Pakistan’s strategy, preventing external
intervention has been a major Indian political objective. It is India’s careful engagement with Pakistan
and a dialogue on Kashmir that have kept the major powers at arm’s length. Any serious breakdown of
the peace process will bring the great powers back into play and undermine Modi’s new emphasis on
bilateralism.
Under criticism from the United States, Jammu and Kashmir political leaders and the Opposition over its
decision to cancel talks with Pakistan, the government sought to explain its stance, saying the problem
was not the talks themselves, but the sequencing of talks. “We have always said that you can change
your friends but not your neighbours,” said senior Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad. “They chose to talk to
the separatists first in spite of clearly being told that if this persistence is there, it will be difficult to
pursue the dialogue.” “Here the PM walked the extra mile to meet the leader of Pakistan. And in spite of
being told it would not be fair, they went ahead.”
A new Modi administration will adequately appreciate the close links between good governance,
national economic development, internal security and importance of trade, investment, foreign and
security policy. The 21 st Century belongs to India. Our foreign policy will be robust, strategic and
proactive, not inert and defensive.
Dr.D.D.Kaushik
Associate Professor
Political Science Department
University of Allahabad, Allahabad.
23-08-2014
15
Reference:-
1. India’s Search for Power by Surjit Mansingh, Sage Publications, New Delhi, 1984, pg. 265.
2. India’s Foreign Policy edited by Bimal Prasad, Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., Ansari Road, New
Delhi, 1979, pg. 107.
3. Ibid pg. 108.
4. Ibid pg. 110.
5. See footnote 1.
6. India’s Foreign Policy: Coping with the Changing World by Muchkund Dubey, Pearson, Dorling
Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd, Delhi, Chennai, Chandigarh, 2013, pgs. 52-60.
7. The Times of India, July 17, 2014.
8. In Strategic Analysis by Dr. Rabindra Sen, Prof. of International Relations at Jadavpur University,
Kolkata,Volume 38, Number 1, Jan-Feb 2014.
9. India and her Neighbours: Changing Perceptions by Dr. Latha.A.Pandit, World Focus, June 2011,
Volume 378.
10. “Pax Indica” India and the World of the 21 st Century by Shashi Tharoor, Thomson Press, India
Ltd., New Delhi, 2012.
11. Hindustan Times, May 25, 2014.
12. The Hindu, May 29, 2014.
13. “Five Point Someone” by C.Raja Mohan, Indian Express, May 26, 2014.
14. “Being a Bully” by Mani Shankar Aiyar, Indian Express, August 20, 2014.
15. Indian Express, August 21, 2014.
16
Also consulted:-
India’s Foreign Policy: Coping with the Changing World by Muchkund Dubey, 2013, Pearson.
India’s Foreign Policy, edited by Sanju Gupta, 2012, Pearson.
One Life is Not Enough by K.Natwar.Singh, 2014, Rupa.
India’s National Security in the 21 st Century, edited by Shekhar Adhikari etc, 2014, Pentagon
Press.
Pax Indica by Shashi Tharoor, 2013, Penguin, Allen Lane.
The Times of India.
The Hindu.
The Hindustan Times.
The Indian Express.
India Today.
Outlook.
Frontline.
The Week.
World Focus.
Civil Services Times.
Strategic Digest (IDSA, Delhi).
Strategic Analysis (IDSA, Delhi).
We the People (24×7).
The Devil’s Advocate (CNN-IBN).
International Agenda (NDTV India).
Muqabla (NDTV India).
