India: Urgent need to update neighbourhood policy

“Sri Lanka is the poster boy of India’s policy on the benign nature of close trade and economic links. But the island’s politics remain under the shadow of the civil war, with its linkages with Tamil Nadu in particular. Sri Lanka is trying the tactic of weakening the Tamil Tigers’ military machine sufficiently to force them to the negotiating table on reasonable terms.”
______________________________

by S. Nihal Singh

(April 18, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) Events in India’s neighbourhood are proceeding at such a pace that it is time for policy-makers to evolve a new paradigm to cope with the avalanche. New Delhi’s policies have veered from Indira Gandhi’s version of the Monroe Doctrine to I.K. Gujral’s benign engagement and the United Progressive Alliance’s accent on the primacy of economic interaction in trumping political disagreements and differences.

None of these approaches is adequate in answering the questions posed by the transformations in progress. The Monroe Doctrine is outdated and impractical. Being generous to neighbours is a given; not a policy prescription. And economic engagement alone will not take India very far.

First, we must understand what is happening in the neighbourhood because events in at least two states are as challenging as they are encouraging. Pakistan has seen many false dawns in its eventful history, but the outcome of the recent elections and the coming together of the main victorious political parties are qualitatively different in raising hopes of a more durable non-military dispensation.

Above all, the changes in Pakistan have shown that the upsurge of the religious parties was artificially induced because General Pervez Musharraf was designing the future architecture of the state for his own purposes. But the General, to give him his due, was a man of many parts. He gave his country’s media the freedom they did not often enjoy under civilian rule until his back was against the wall. He also took the peace process with India several notches higher. His pact with the religious parties was a necessity, not a preference.

Essentially, Pakistan has undergone an evolution ignited by the middle class. The dismissal of Chief Justice Iftikar Chaudhry caused the unlikely transformation of staid lawyers into a revolutionary force. General Musharraf’s reluctant calling of elections saw the justified diminution of the king’s party and the surge of the People’s Party and Nawaz Sharif’s Muslim League. Remarkably, the North West Frontier, once known as the secular bastion, advanced the secular cause.

But Pakistan remains involved in its key relationship with the United States and the "war on terror" even as it struggles to find a modus vivendi with the traditionally autonomous tribals.

Apart from the dominant role the Army has played in Pakistani politics, there is murky world of the intelligence services, particularly the ISI, and terrorist groups once encouraged by the establishment turning against the hand that fed them.

In Nepal, it is clear that the Maoists will play a dominant role. They will, presumably, still need a coalition, given the system of elections agreed upon. Assuming that the Maoists will succeed in achieving their goal of abolishing the monarchy at the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly, they will need to reassure other political parties that they will not hijack the state apparatus to serve partisan ends. The prospect though is of weeks, if not months, of bargaining and tension as the government structure takes shape. But nothing can take away the breathtaking nature of the changes in Nepal.

Sri Lanka is the poster boy of India’s policy on the benign nature of close trade and economic links. But the island’s politics remain under the shadow of the civil war, with its linkages with Tamil Nadu in particular. Sri Lanka is trying the tactic of weakening the Tamil Tigers’ military machine sufficiently to force them to the negotiating table on reasonable terms. One result of this policy is the increased death toll, of the Tigers as well as of civilians and government officials. Elections in the eastern region are still on the cards and are meant to showcase how they can serve as a model for the Tiger stronghold in the North.

Bangladesh has still to emerge out of its latest period of Army rule that replaced a political equation dominated by two combative ladies that was plainly unworkable. The generals in power seem conscious of the law of diminishing returns; their welcome is wearing out. But they have been unwilling or unable to work their way out of their predicament. Hopes of a new era in frequently contentious relations with India remain largely unfulfilled.

Burma, or Myanmar, to give its official name, is in a category of its own. India’s Burma policy is the most clear-cut of its approaches towards neighbours. It is determined by the demands of realpolitik of engaging the military junta, rather than ostracising it, in view of that country’s centrality to New Delhi’s interests. Burma has resources India needs and one fruit of this policy has been the recent agreement for opening up a new route for the Indian Northeast.

Given these settings, what should be India’s overarching policy towards neighbours? Its economic plank should remain in place because its advantages for all are self-evident. It is in the interest of India, given its size and economic and military strength, to give unilateral concessions to neighbours. Third, there is the urgent need for streamlining relations more in tune with the mores and requirements of the 21st century.

Pakistan has traditionally been a major preoccupation of Indian policy. But the changes there hold much promise not only in furthering the peace process but also in surmounting historical hurts to build more businesslike relations. We have already experienced the gains of the vastly greater interchange of people on the temper of the debate. The commercial release of a Pakistani film in Indian cinema theatres is a landmark event. There is no reason why India should not make a determined effort to resolve the lesser disputes while proceeding gradually on Kashmir.

Nepal offers greater opportunities even as the Maoists in power might be tempted to play off China and India to their advantage, following in the footsteps of the Palace in its heyday and the political parties. The open border and the deep cultural and religious ties with Nepal are undeniable, but it is time to annul such anachronisms as the Indo-Nepalese treaty of 1950 while making it clear that India has legitimate security interests it is determined to protect.

With Sri Lanka, India must await the cycle of Colombo’s tactic to work its course before proposing solutions. But the economic architecture between the two countries promises rich rewards to both.

Bangladesh’s generals must be encouraged to move faster towards taking the country to a civilian dispensation. India should be generous in giving economic concessions while impressing upon the military regime the virtues of being responsive to India’s basic security concerns.

India must be, and act like, a confident nation conscious of its responsibilities and mindful of its essential interests.
- Sri Lanka Guardian