By Aparna Pande
This article appeared in Indolink on September 12, 2007
It is said that you can choose your friends but not your relatives. In the same way, a country can choose its allies but it cannot choose its neighbors. And like in the former example it is not the ties of blood that make or break the relationship, it is the sins of omission and commission.
Modern India has had a long and checkered history with all its South Asian neighbors. It is unique in the sense that India is the only South Asian country which shares a border with almost every other country in the region, the only exceptions being Afghanistan and the island state of Maldives.
India has both border and other tensions with all its South Asian neighbors. With Pakistan the issues date back to Partition and are manifold, chief among them being the Kashmir conflict, the legacy of a bitter Partition and the sense of insecurity in Pakistan. In recent years, relations have also been adversely impacted by the terrorism issue. The two countries are nuclear armed, have fought four wars and still consider each other’s citizens as ‘enemy aliens.’
Despite the legacy of 1971, when India helped the Caesarean birth of Bangladesh, India’s ties with it have been tenuous. The border issue is complicated by illegal immigration into India from Bangladesh. The two states also have water disputes over the two rivers they share – the Ganges and the Brahmaputra. The political turbulence within Bangladesh which has led to an erosion of democracy and the rising Islamist presence, especially of a radical hue, is also a matter of concern for India.
The kingdom of Nepal and India have had a see-saw kind of relationship. Nepal and India signed a Treaty of Friendship and also a Trade agreement in 1950 on the basis of which Nepal is the only country whose citizens can work without work permits or visas in India. India has also given both economic and military aid to the Nepalese government for many years. Yet there are border issues which are now mingled with the crossing over of both Maoist insurgents as well as Jihadis across the porous largely unmanned border. The two countries also share rivers and disputes over harnessing of water power have often arisen.
Sri Lanka and India share a water border and in the initial years there were close ties. The rise of the civil war in Sri Lanka, pitting the Tamils against the Sinhalas, led to growing involvement of India leading to Indian military intervention in late 1980s. With the withdrawal of the Indian forces in 1990 relations have improved but the continuing civil war makes it impossible for either side to stop worrying about the other.
India and Afghanistan do not share a border. However, they have shared good ties for centuries. Their relations have, however, been shaped to a large extent through the prism of Pakistan-Afghanistan relations. During the U.S.-backed Mujahideen war against the Soviets, India supported the pro-Soviet government of Najibullah. During the ensuing civil war, Mujahideen groups like those of Ahmed Shah Masood and the Northern Alliance received Indian backing. At present, the government of President Hamid Karzai is the recipient of massive aid from India.
The kingdom of Bhutan and India signed a Treaty of Friendship in 1949 according to which Bhutan agreed to let itself be guided by India in its external relations. India gives a lot of economic and military aid to the small kingdom and also trains the Bhutanese military and civil services.
The island state of Maldives is the smallest of India’s South Asian neighbors. Its relations with India have been positive, especially since it depends on India for its basic security. In 1988 India helped the Maldives government when mercenaries attacked the capital city.
There have been different views of Indian foreign policy analysts on how India should behave towards its South Asian neighbors.
The realist view has been that not only can India ‘not help its size or strength’ but that ‘we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.’ So one might as well do what one has to do as one is going to be blamed anyway. The realists also believe that India has been a weak state and has let its neighbors take advantage of this weakness.
An extreme version of the realist view was the so-called Indira doctrine whose key principles were that no foreign power would be allowed to cross the Himalayas or allowed to interfere in South Asia. In some ways it was akin to America’s Monroe Doctrine about pre-eminence in the surrounding region.
More moderate views of the realist doctrine are ones which point out that India by virtue of being the biggest state in South Asia should be generous to its neighbors on economic and cultural issues. However, on the political and security front it must be firm. Thus unilateral removal of trade barriers or tariffs is acceptable as long as there is no cross-border terrorism or illegal immigration.
The liberal view among the foreign policy analysts has maintained that as the larger country and as part of the same Civilizational heritage India must be ready to make concessions without a quid pro quo. The best illustration of this view is the Gujral doctrine, which lays emphasis on the need for good faith and trust as the basis of India’s relations with its smaller South Asian neighbors.
India’s relations with its neighbors represent a history of omission and commission. Just as India is not to blame for all the problems it cannot fully be absolved either. With Pakistan building people-to-people ties and opening of economic borders as well as visible measures which reduce Pakistani sense of insecurity are important. Once this happens it might be easier to discuss issues like Kashmir and cross-border terrorism.
It is said that ‘gratitude’ is often the worst cross to bear. With Bangladesh maybe that is what India needs to keep in mind. 1971 has past and maybe that is the way Indian policy makers should look at it and not hope that after thirty-six years they will still be treated as ‘heroes’ or ‘deliverers.’ Closer economic ties and people to people relations would help India’s image at that level. Along with this there is also a need for stricter border control as well as the need to enforce strict security measures.
With Nepal India has always had a good relationship with the royal family and the political parties, like the Nepali Congress. In today’s Nepal, however, the need for opening links with civil society and the people maybe much more important than military aid to the government.
India’s relations with Sri Lanka have improved since the ‘blunder’ of 1987 where India learnt that military adventurism does not always pay off. However, adopting an isolationist stance vis-à-vis the continuing Sri Lankan civil war is also not a realistic approach, especially with a large Tamil population in India.
With Maldives and Bhutan the relations have been maintained well, to a large extent because of the wisdom of the ruling elite in both countries.
India is a large country and no one likes big brothers. So at one level there will always be a certain resentment felt by the smaller neighbors. However, if the big brother watches where he walks and does not tread on the feet of the siblings it is possible to build a harmonious relationship.
India is a rapidly expanding economy and this economic growth can be shared with its neighbors. As a member of the South Asian community, India has a geographical responsibility and maybe even a Civilizational responsibility to make its neighbors feel respected and cherished. It must avoid actions that can be construed as bullying.