New Asia policy of US and India

THOUGH Indo-US relations reached a new high after the signing of the civilian nuclear deal between the two when Mr George Bush was the American President, some of Washington DC’s policies have been worrying for New Delhi. Among these is the US plan to shift 60 per cent of its naval assets controlled by the US Pacific Area Command to the Bay of Bengal. The US idea, of course, is basically to counter China, which has a large presence in the area as a result of its agreements with Bangladesh and Myanmar. But the new US strategy does not suit New Delhi as militarisation of the Bay of Bengal will pose a major security threat to India. New Delhi made this point clear to US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta during his two-day visit to India.

India, no doubt, wants to upgrade defence cooperation with the US, but it has to be on an equal term. Though Mr Panetta declared that in the new Asian strategy of the US, “India is a linchpin”, New Delhi cannot feel comfortable with it as India may acquire the image of being part of the US policy to contain China. That is why Defence Minister AK Antony pointed out to his US counterpart the need for the calibration of Washington DC’s strategy vis-à-vis the Bay of Bengal. It is a different matter that countries like the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore are happy with the US strategy to expand its military partnerships and presence “in the arc extending from the Western Pacific and East Asia into the Indian Ocean Region and South Asia”.
China’s smaller neighbours have been feeling uneasy because of muscle flexing by Beijing every now and then. China has also been unreasonable in asserting its claim over the entire South China Sea in the wake of the India-Vietnam pact for oil and gas exploration in that area. India was told that it could not indulge in any kind of exploration activity in the South China Sea without China’s consent. But India as a mature nation considers it as a matter between New Delhi and Beijing or between China and Vietnam.

India-Japan naval exercise

In a signal of deepening defence ties between India and Japan, navies of the two nations will conduct their first-ever bilateral exercise later this week off the coast of Japan.
A flotilla of four Indian Naval warships that is presently in an exercise with the South Korean Navy will be directed towards Japan on June 9 and 10, sources in the Ministry of Defence said.
In 2007, Naval exercises with Japan were held under the trilateral ‘Malabar’ series along with the United States. It led to China raising objections, saying that was anti-China grouping. India, possibly, not wanting to antagonise China, then onward insisted that it would exercise only in bilateral format.
India and Japan, both not on the best of terms with China, have clearly moved closer to each other by cementing military ties. The decision to have a first-ever bilateral exercise involving Naval warships was taken last November during Defence Minister AK Antony’s Japan visit.
Indian warships in the exercise will be stealth frigate INS Shivalik, destroyer INS Rana, Missile Corvette INS Karmuk and Tanker and Replenishment Ship INS Shakti. The exercise is being undertaken by the Navy as part of the Long Range Overseas Deployment (LROD) of its fleet.
In return for the latest exercise, the Indian Navy will host “passage exercises” whenever Japanese warships travel through the region on the way up or down from anti-piracy deployment later this year. Last October, two ships from Japan were in Kochi on their way to the Gulf of Aden.
Till January this year, India and Japan were running independent anti-piracy missions in the Gulf of Aden. It is now that the two nations along with China cooperate in scheduling of their warships accompanying merchant vessels through piracy-infested waters. 

INDIA-SRILANKA RELATIONS

The relationship between India and Sri Lanka is based upon shared historical, cultural, ethnic and civilizational ties and extensive people-to-people interaction. In recent years, the relationship has become multifaceted and diverse, encompassing all areas of contemporary relevance.

Sri Lanka has borne the brunt of terrorism for nearly three-decades. The end of the long period of armed conflict in Sri Lanka in May 2009, left around 3,00,000 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) living in camps in Northern Sri Lanka and general devastation of infrastructure in the affected areas.

 The Government of India has accorded the highest priority to the welfare of IDPs in Sri Lanka. In June 2009, the Prime Minister announced a grant of Rs. 500 crores for relief, rehabilitation and resettlement work in Sri Lanka. Towards this humanitarian effort, India dispatched family relief packs, deployed an emergency field hospital, conducted an artificial limb fitment camp and deployed seven de-mining teams in Northern Sri Lanka. It also gifted more than 10,400 MT of shelter material, 4 lakh cement bags, 95,000 agricultural starter packs and 500 tractors to revive agricultural activities in Northern Sri Lanka.

 India also announced the construction of 50,000 houses, mainly for IDPs in Sri Lanka. During my visit to Sri Lanka in November 2010, I inaugurated the pilot project for construction of 1000 houses at Ariyalai in Jaffna. I am happy to convey that work on ground has already started and houses are beginning to come up in what is being seen as a model project. I also carried out the ground breaking for railway line restoration projects in Northern Sri Lanka under a Government of India Line of Credit of about US $ 800 million. India is also assisting in the rehabilitation of the Kanakesanthurai (KKS) harbour, restoration of Duraiappa stadium, construction of a Cultural Centre at Jaffna and vocational training centres at Batticaloa and Nuwara Eliya.

 Our primary objective in all that we are doing in Sri Lanka is to ensure the welfare and wellbeing of Sri Lankan Tamils, including IDPs, and to assist in the development of Northern Sri Lanka. In a Joint Press Statement issued on the occasion of the visit of the Sri Lankan External Affairs Minister to India on 17 May, 2011, I urged the expeditious implementation of measures by the Government of Sri Lanka to ensure resettlement and genuine reconciliation, including early return of IDPs to their respective homes. I am happy to convey to the House that according to information available to us around 2,90,000 IDPs have already been resettled and only around 10,000 IDPs remain in the camps.

 Government has also articulated its position that the end of armed conflict in Sri Lanka created a historic opportunity to address all outstanding issues relating to minority communities in Sri Lanka, including Tamils. The Joint Press Release of May 17, 2011, states that all such outstanding issues had to be settled in a spirit of understanding and mutual accommodation imbued with political vision to work towards genuine national reconciliation. The External Affairs Minister of Sri Lanka affirmed his Government’s commitment to ensuring expeditious and concrete progress in the ongoing dialogue between the Government of Sri Lanka and representatives of Tamil parties and that a devolution package, building upon the 13th Amendment, would contribute towards creating the necessary conditions for such reconciliation.

 The end of the long conflict in Sri Lanka has also raised questions relating to the conduct of the war. We have, in this context, noted a report issued by a Panel of Experts constituted by the UN Secretary General on Accountability in Sri Lanka. There have also been public reactions to the telecast of the ‘Channel 4’ documentary entitled “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields”. Presently, our focus should be on the welfare and well being of Tamils in Sri Lanka. Their rehabilitation and rebuilding should be of the highest and most immediate priority. A just and fair settlement of the political problem is of utmost importance. I have, nonetheless, stressed to my Sri Lankan counterpart, the need for an early withdrawal of emergency regulations, investigations into allegations of human rights violations, restoration of normalcy in affected areas and redress of humanitarian concerns of affected families.

 On the concerns expressed by some Members on the issue of Indian fishermen in waters between India and Sri Lanka, allow me to reiterate, at the outset, that the welfare, safety and security of our fishermen have always received the highest priority by Government.

 There have been reports of incidents of attacks on Indian fishermen, allegedly by the Sri Lankan Navy. Government, through Diplomatic Channels, has consistently and immediately taken up any reported incident involving arrest or violence against Indian fishermen to ensure their safety, security, early release and repatriation. The Government has conveyed to the Sri Lankan Government that the use of force could not be justified under any circumstance and that all fishermen should be treated in a humane manner. The Sri Lankan side, while denying that their Navy was involved, has promised to seriously investigate these incidents.

 During the meetings with my Sri Lankan counterpart in February 2011 in Thimpu and in May 2011 in New Delhi, I not only conveyed our deep concern at the violence against our fishermen but also stressed the need to ensure that these incidents do not recur. In the Joint Press Release issued in May 2011, India and Sri Lanka agreed that the use of force could not be justified under any circumstances and that all fishermen should be treated in a humane manner.

 Through you I would like to inform this august House that we have emphasized that there is no justification for the use of force against our fishermen even though almost all instances of arrest and harassment of our fishermen seem to have occurred in Sri Lankan waters. We do need to be conscious of the sensitivities on the Sri Lanka and of the many Sri Lankan fishermen who have, after a long hiatus, started fishing in that area. We are also working with concerned state Government on our side keeping in mind that issues of fishermen affect both sides. In 2010, a total of 137 Indian fishermen were apprehended and released by Sri Lanka. Till 3rd August 2011, a total of 164 Indian fishermen were apprehended by Sri Lanka and all were subsequently released. At the same time, in 2010 a total of 352, and in 2011, a total of 131 Sri Lankan fishermen, have been apprehended by our authorities. A total of 104 Sri Lankan fishermen are still in Indian custody whereas all Indian fishermen apprehended on charges of fishing related violations in Sri Lanka have been released.

 While the Government of India is of the view that the end of conflict in Sri Lanka provides an opportunity to pursue a lasting political settlement in Sri Lanka within the framework of a united Sri Lanka, acceptable to all the communities in Sri Lanka including the Tamils, it has to be kept in mind that this is a long standing issue and Sri Lanka is going through its internal processes, including structured dialogue between the Government and representatives of Tamil parties. The sooner Sri Lanka can come to a political arrangement within which all the communities feel comfortable, and which works for all of them, the better. In this context, the commencement of a structured dialogue on pursuing a political solution for national reconciliation as well as reconstruction and development is a laudable development. We will do whatever we can to support this process.

INDIA-PAKISTAN : RECENT INTIATIVES

A year ago, in mid-July 2010, when External Affairs Minister S M Krishna embarked on a ‘peace mission’ to the neighbouring country, there was also hope in the air as the special IAF aircraft landed at the Chaklala Air Base in Rawalpindi. Both sides had invested a lot into efforts to resume the dialogue process, stalled in the wake of the 26/11 Mumbai attack. However, a belligerent Shah Mehmood Qureshi, the then Foreign Minister of Pakistan, played the spoilsport and what was expected to be a breakthrough meeting ended on an acrimonious note. Even Pakistanis blame Qureshi for the fiasco of last July and are all praise for Krishna for showing maturity in the face of grave provocation and belligerent statements by his Pakistani opposite number.
Eleven months later, vibes were quite positive as the two foreign secretaries shook hands and posed for photographers before the talks at the Foreign Office. On the first day, they took up the issue of peace and security, including confidence building measures (CBMs). Officials privy to the talks said the atmosphere was quite relaxed since both Rao and Bashir have known each other from the days when they were the envoys of their respective countries in China some years back. One official, who has participated in several India-Pakistan meetings, said he had never in his career seen such bonhomie at any interaction between the two countries.


Sharp differences between India and Pakistan, especially over terrorism and Jammu and Kashmir, prevented the two countries from normalising relations in the past. India and Pakistan did make some headway in forging peaceful relations in the last one decade. The Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus linking the two parts of Kashmir was one such Confidence Building Measure (CBM) that promised a thaw but the progress was stalled by the 26/11 attack on Mumbai by Pakistan-trained terrorists in 2008. After painstaking efforts and the political wisdom displayed by the Indian Prime Minister, both sides decided to return to the table in February this year on the margins of the SAARC Council of Ministers’ meeting at Thimphu in Bhutan.
It is an irony that while China and India have pushed ahead with trade and commerce, despite their territorial disputes and China’s support of Pakistan, India and Pakistan have failed to make much headway in resolving differences over even Siachen and Sir Creek, for example, and in promoting friendly exchanges and people-to-people contacts.

Differences

A fresh beginning, however, was made this year and the two countries have already held talks on issues like terrorism and drug trafficking, promotion of economic relations, Siachen and river water sharing.
The just-concluded talks between the two foreign secretaries in Islamabad dealt with CBMs, Jammu and Kashmir and promotion of friendly exchanges. Just a day before Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani visited Mohali as the Indian Prime Minister’s guest to witness the World Cup cricket semi-final between India and Pakistan, the home/interior secretaries of India and Pakistan met in the Indian capital towards the end of March. However, nothing productive came out of it with India complaining to Pakistan about the glacial progress in the trial of the 26/11 accused.
India also handed over to Pakistan a list of its 50 ‘most wanted’ terrorists, seeking their extradition to face trial here for the heinous crimes committed by them on Indian soil. Pakistan, as usual, stated that it was committed to bringing to justice the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks but pleaded that it could not interfere with court proceedings. Similarly, the defence secretaries of India and Pakistan also failed to achieve a breakthrough in their two-day talks on Siachen last month, even though both sides agreed to persist with meaningful and result-oriented discussions. While India wants Pakistan to authenticate actual ground position line (AGPL) both on the maps and on the ground, Islamabad insists on maintaining the pre-1972 troop position, as per the Simla Agreement. Pakistan has also been asking for demilitarisation of the Siachen glacier and raised the issue of climate change there due to the presence of troops from both sides and its effects on the environment.
Water has also emerged as a major issue between the two countries in recent years. Pakistan has been spreading a false propaganda that India has been denying it its due share of water by building dams over rivers flowing between the two countries. In fact, Jamat-ud-Dawaa (JuD) chief Hafiz Mohammed Sayeed, the key plotter of the 26/11 attacks, has been in the forefront of the campaign in Pakistan against India over the water issue.
India’s contention is that it is abiding strictly by the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty between the two countries and has not made any attempt to deny Pakistan its due share of water. The meeting on Sir Creek issue last month also was a ritual with representatives of India and Pakistan exchanging ‘non-papers’ and agreeing to meet again.
Considered among the most “doable” of the contentious issues between the two countries, the two countries have in the past discussed the delimitation of the maritime boundary as well as the delineation of the boundary in Sir Creek in the light of the results of a joint survey. Maps and charts, which showed respective positions on the twin issues, had been exchanged. Having triggered the India-Pakistan War of 1965, the disputed marshland, which separates Pakistan’s Sindh province from Gujarat on the Indian side, has been the bane of the fishermen of both countries as they are often caught straying into contested waters, ending up in long prison stints that are further stretched if there is a freeze in bilateral relations.

CBMs

Fortunately there is a growing consensus in the two countries for relaxing the visa regime between them, open more cross-LoC trade routes, release each other’s prisoners, increase transport links and exchange visits between artistes, writers and intellectuals. There is realisation that there can’t be a bigger CBM between the two countries than promoting people-to-people contacts. India cannot achieve its objective of becoming a global power until it is at peace with Pakistan. Similarly, Islamabad should no longer believe that promoting terrorism against India will destabilise its neighbour. The monster of terrorism, which Pakistan created, is now threatening its own existence.
The peace process looks on track as of now. Opinion makers and strategic thinkers in Pakistan too appear optimistic about it. Imtiaz Gul, political analyst and author of ‘The Most Dangerous Place: Pakistan’s Lawless Frontier’ also expected the two-day talks between the two foreign secretaries to help resolve some of the issues. India, he said, should also state its commitment to the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline which could then silence the military leadership, which is paranoid about India. Since Pakistan is embroiled in its own internal conflicts, India should help it by considering ‘out of box’ ideas, he felt.

MAJOR PROBLEMATIC AREAS BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN

While there is growing desire for peace and stability in the region, Indo-Pak relations are a minefield , where every step needs to be taken carefully. Volatile public opinion and vitriolic or skeptical media on both sides do not help much. The two countries , to their credit, have taken cautious steps to maintain the Thimphu spirit and move forward with the process at normalisation of relations. But how to break the ice and move ahead is the question.
Soft diplomacy and people-to-people contacts do have a role to play but it will require fresh ideas and out-of-the-box solutions on the real bones of contention to finally break the ice. It is instructive, therefore, to take a quick look at some of the more tricky issues, which need to be sorted out.

Kashmir : India is not averse to autonomy

If there is one issue on which both India and Pakistan cannot afford to move back from their known positions, it is the status of Jammu and Kashmir. Still they discuss it every time they meet without arriving at any understanding.
The region is divided among three countries in a territorial dispute:
India controls the central and southern portion (Jammu and Kashmir) and Ladakh, Pakistan administers the northwest portion (Northern Areas and Azad (Pakistan occupied) Kashmir ) and China controls the northeastern portion (Aksai Chin and the Trans-Karakoram Tract).  India controls the majority of the Siachen Glacier area including the Saltoro Ridge passes, whereas Pakistan controls the lower territory just southwest of the Saltoro Ridge. India says the entire state of J & K belongs to it, a claim contested by Pakistan. In 1994, the Indian Parliament passed a unanimous resolution declaring that the state of Jammu and Kashmir has been, is and shall be an integral part of India and any attempt to separate it from the rest of the country will be resisted by all necessary means.India and Pakistan have fought at least three wars over Kashmir in 1947, 1965 and 1999. They have also been involved in several skirmishes over the Siachen Glacier. A rigged assembly election in 1987 triggered unrest in the valley. Pakistan started fishing in troubled waters and encouraged militants in the state to unleash a wave of violence. Since then, the beautiful Kashmir valley has been the site of conflict between the Indian Armed Forces and militants and separatists. India has furnished documentary evidence to the United Nations that these militants are supported by Pakistan, leading to a ban on some terrorist organisations, which Pakistan is yet to enforce. The turmoil in Jammu and Kashmir has resulted in thousands of deaths and large-scale migration of Kashmiri pundits and Hindus from the state to other parts of India. Many Kashmiri pandits lament the fact that they can’t return to their homes and blame the Centre for their plight.
The government in New Delhi has, from time to time, offered to hold talks with militants within the framework of the Constitution provided they eschew the path of violence. India is also not averse to granting autonomy to the state but Pakistan would not allow the leadership of the militants to reach any agreement with New Delhi. Pakistan claims that it provides moral, diplomatic and political support to the cause of Jammu and Kashmir. But the world knows it provides material support to the militants too.

Siachen : The most expensive battleground

The Siachen Glacier is the highest battleground on earth, where India and Pakistan have fought intermittently since April 1984. The conditions there are so extreme that the bitterly cold weather claims more lives than the frequent artillery exchanges. The air is so thin that the trajectory of the shells is unpredictable.

Both countries maintain permanent military presence in the region at a height of over 6,000 metres (20,000 ft). The site is one of the most eminent examples of mountain warfare.
The two governments concede that supplying troops on such a remote and inaccessible battlefield is a hugely costly exercise. Both sides say they want a negotiated settlement to the Siachen conflict but a solution has eluded them so far. It is now well known that the two countries were close to reaching an understanding on Siachen when Pervez Musharraf was at the helm of affairs in Pakistan. However, the two countries again seem to be making a sincere attempt to resolve the Siachen dispute. The forward posts on the glacier are over 6,000 metres high, until the 1970s nobody thought of disputing it. The Indian army stationed troops there in 1984 and the two sides have been entrenched in the snow ever since.
Avalanches and altitude sickness pose a constant danger - soldiers say one moment you can be walking with a man, the next he has vanished down a crevice never to return. To reach the forward positions involves using helicopters that have had to be specially adapted to operating at such altitudes. Pakistan has argued that both sides should pull back to the positions they held more than 20 years ago before India occupied most of the ice field. India has said it agrees to that but has argued that the withdrawal should be preceded by marking the current position of the two forces.
Both India and Pakistan had wished to disengage from the costly military outposts. However, after the Pakistani incursions during the Kargil War in 1999, India abandoned plans to withdraw from Siachen unless there’s an official recognition of the current line of control by Pakistan, wary of further Pakistani incursions if they vacate the Siachen Glacier posts without such recognition.
China was the unspoken but ominous presence in the South Block room recently during the talks between India and Pakistan on the Siachen Glacier-Saltoro Ridge region. China’s expanding strategic footprint in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, in fact, seems to have led India to harden its stand, which till now was largely about Pakistan providing iron-clad guarantees to “authenticate” the 110-km Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL) along the Saltoro Ridge, on maps and on ground.

Terrorism : Spectre of 26/11 continues to haunt

Any engagement between India and Pakistan is incomplete if India does not raise the issue of terrorism emanating from across the border. Every time the issue comes up, Islamabad claims it is doing everything possible to combat the menace. Pakistan religiously makes pronouncements that it would not allow the misuse of its territory for anti-India activities, only to renege on its commitment.
Relations between the two countries have touched their nadir twice in recent years. Pakistan-trained militants carried out an audacious attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13, 2001, aimed to target the entire political leadership of the country. The war clouds were again evident on the region when the then Vajpayee Government amassed troops along the border following the Parliament attack. Pakistan followed suit. Thanks to intervention by the international community, the two sides disengaged and launched a peace process in January 2004. The dialogue was interrupted by the 26/11 attack on Mumbai when Pakistani terrorists unleashed mayhem in the metropolis for three days, killing more than 164 people.
New Delhi believes that Pakistan is providing safe havens to terrorists operating from its soil against India. It has provided to Pakistan a list of 50 of its ‘most wanted’ terrorists who have escaped to Pakistan after committing crimes on the Indian soil. Pakistan has dismissed this list, saying many of those named in it, especially underworld don Dawood Ibrahim, are not present in the country.
To deflect attention from the establishment’s role in aiding anti-India terror groups, Pakistan blames India for the troubles in its restive Balochistan province.
India has yet again conveyed to Pakistan its disappointment over the glacial pace of progress in the trial of the 26/11 accused. Presently there is no magistrate even to conduct the proceedings of the trial in Pakistan. Infiltration from across the border into Jammu and Kashmir is a perennial problem for India. Though infiltration has come down in recent years, it has not stopped altogether.
India also believes that the terrorist infrastructure on the Pakistani soil remains intact despite assertions to the contrary by the Pakistani leadership. Pakistani notorious spy agency ISI continues to foment trouble in J & K. The revelations made by Pakistan-born American David Coleman Headley during the trial of Pak-Canadian businessman Tahawwur Hussain Rana recently in a Chicago court, linking the ISI with the Mumbai conspiracy have certainly put Pakistan on the back foot.  

INDIA-PAKISTAN TRADE PROSPECTS

For so many years now, opening up of trade between India and Pakistan has dominated the discussions at policy forums and among concerned groups. The issue gained particular importance after India granted the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to Pakistan, to comply with the principles of World Trade Organisation (WTO) regime in 1995. Pakistan is, however, reluctant to reciprocate the Indian gesture for fear that its markets will be flooded with Indian goods once it grants the MFN status to India, thus giving a body blow to its own industry.
And now it has gone to the extent of linking the MFN status with a solution to the Kashmir issue, a lame excuse for not fulfilling its obligations under the WTO regime.
If relations between the two neighbours become normal, it is estimated that bilateral trade between them could easily go up to ten billion US Dollars within no time. Presently, the official trade between the two sides is to the tune of just about two billion Dollars while the illegal trade through the Gulf route continues to increase at a breath-taking speed.
A Preferential Trade Agreement (PTA) between the two countries, that would seek to reduce duties on products of export interest of them, might also not see light of the day till Pakistan grants the MFN status to India. The last round of talks on trade and economic links between the two countries were held in April this year. Both sides were of the view that improving trade would economically benefit both countries and the region. However, in practical terms, they did very little to strengthen trade and economic links.
The apex chambers of commerce in both countries have been repeatedly urging their respective governments not to mix political issues with trade and economic relations. But they too realise that the political leaderships in both countries have to consider ‘out-of-the-box’ ideas to promote trade and economic ties.
Recent studies have suggested that transportation links between the two countries are also inadequate and suggest that new rail and road links should be opened.

INDIA AND MYANMAR

sINCE Independence India has tended to neglect its east, within and outside the national boundaries. In the west, despite irrational hostility towards us, we have maintained a comprehensive diplomatic dialogue with Pakistan’s military dictators. In the east, we shied away from meaningful diplomatic dialogue with Myanmar ever since its Generals took charge of the nation nearly six decades ago. In fact, despite our historical relations, a 1600-km-long undisputed common boundary and several geo-strategic interests, India became a persistent critic of the military rule in Myanmar until the mid-1990s.
Due to ideologicpolitic policies followed during this period, Yangon drew close to Beijing for political and economic support and for military weapons, equipment and training. China developed road communications and trade links from Yunnan (China) to North Myanmar which caused heavy influx of Chinese immigrants (approximately 1.5 million) and their economic influence right up to the Irrawady river. Secessionist gangs from India’s Northeast were able to establish and operate from their safe sanctuaries in North Myanmar. Gunrunning and drug traffic from the Golden Triangle into Northeast had increased substantially.
The credit for changing the course of the ethics-based policy to realpolitic in Indo-Myanmar relations goes to the governments of Prime Ministers PV Narasimha Rao and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. They realised that without proper diplomatic relations and cooperation with Myanmar, it would be impossible to control insurgencies and bring about stability in our Northeastern states. Besides, shifting the balance of power and the growing influence of China in India’s immediate eastern neighborhood and Southeast Asia, our long-term political and economic interests required a “Look East” policy.
Myanmar was seen as a natural bridge to Southeast Asia. These imperatives made it necessary to engage with the military regime in Myanmar. It was not principle but realpolitik that guided New Delhi’s changed attitude towards Yangon.
In March 1993, Foreign Secretary JN Dixit visited Yangon and signed a bilateral agreement to control drug trafficking and border trade. A Memorandum of Understanding to maintain border tranquillity was signed in 1994. Military visits were started at a low key. The real shift and a new momentum in India-Myanmar relations, however, came after the Vajpayee government assumed power.
In 1999, several proposals on India-Myanmar cooperation were under consideration, but there was no progress due to the lack of political contacts. Prime Minister Vajpayee and National Security Adviser (NSA) Brajesh Mishra then decided to utilise military diplomacy to supplement India’s foreign policy objectives.
In November 1999, Ambassador Shyam Saran (later Foreign Secretary) proposed to the military government in Myanmar that l, then Chief of Army Staff, have a “quiet” meeting with General Maung Aye, Vice-Chairman, Government of Myanmar, Deputy C-in-C, Armed Forces, and C-in-C, Myanmar Army. This could then lead to my inviting Maung Aye and senior military officers in charge of relevant ministries for a meeting with Union ministers in India.
Initially, our Ministry of External Affairs suggested that this meeting should be held at Tamu-Moreh on the Myanmar-India border. I rejected such a border meeting at the level of the Chiefs. After discussions with the NSA, it was agreed that I would go with a small military delegation to Mandalay and after our meetings, bring the Myanmarese delegation to Shillong.
On January 5, 2000, after canceling all engagements for the next four days, I left for Imphal in an Air Force Avro aircraft along with a small tri-service delegation. Early next morning, after flying across the Chindwin river and thick forested Chin Hills, we landed in Mandalay, the second largest city in Myanmar on the eastern bank of the Irrawady. We were received on the red-carpeted tarmac by Maung Aye and almost the entire Myanmarese Cabinet (mostly Generals). Ambassador Shyam Saran and the Military Attache Colonel Jasbir Singh were at hand. From the airport, Maung Aye escorted me personally to an impressive guard of honour and then to the room allotted to me in Nanmyo Guest House.
Over the next 48 hours, besides a formal meeting, dinner, a visit to the nearby military institutes (in Pyin Oo Lwin) and local sightseeing, I had several one-on-one discussions with Maung Aye. We discussed the need to enlarge India-Myanmar cooperation in the military field to include greater border contacts, passing of real-time information and coordinated operations against the insurgents on both sides of the border. I also apprised him of the training programmes and non-lethal equipment that we could offer. The need to expedite planning and implementation of the civil projects already accepted in principle by our two countries and widening diplomatic exchanges were also discussed.
Maung Aye and his colleagues never spoke about China but quite apparently were keen on enlarging civil and military ties with India. I also managed a surprise visit to the local market to look for the Chinese influence and to buy a pair of ruby earrings for my wife.
On January 8, our respective delegations, in separate aircraft, flew to Shillong via Gauhati. The Air Force gave the guard of honour to the visiting Vice-Chairman of Myanmar. Maung Aye and his delegation met Murasoli Maran, Union Minister of Commerce and Industry, and Kumaramanglam, Union Minister for Power and civil officials from several ministries who had flown in from New Delhi. After a formal introductory meeting, Maung Aye and I withdrew to the bungalow where we were put up together while the ministers and officials from our countries started discussions on the development of road and trade links and hydro-power projects in Myanmar.
When Maung Aye left Shillong with his delegation next day, I gave him a map marked with locations of hostile Naga gangs in North Myanmar. A fortnight later, these locations were raided and destroyed by the Myanmar Army. When the hostile elements attempted to run across the boundary into India, they were ambushed by our troops and suffered further casualties.
In April 2000, I was invited by the Government of Myanmar, this time more formally, to visit historical places and civil and military institutions in different parts of the country. To keep the momentum going, an India-Myanmar Foreign Secretary-level meeting was held in August 2000. Political exchanges increased substantially. This, it was hoped, would lead to greater and more practical and meaningful cooperation in the economic and security fields.
It is a matter of regret that these efforts have started floundering lately due to political inhibitions, diplomatic neglect and attempts to align ourselves with US and European Union human rights and environmental policies. While India has been slow in establishing political and economic foothold, China has managed to gain access to Myanmar’s waterways, harbours and territorial waters and dominate its important jade and gems trade in North Myanmar. Myanmar is getting drawn into China’s orbit more and more.
It needs to be reiterated that strategy and diplomacy in international relations are based not on sentiments but the art of the possible and the advancement of national interests. Kautilya had stated, “When the interests of the country are involved, ethics are a burdensome irrelevance.”

India-US defence ties

INDIA has finally agreed to buy from the US 10 high-value C-17 heavy-lift transport aircraft for the IAF, estimated to cost Rs18000 crore ($4.1 billion). The US has been putting pressure on New Delhi in a subtle way to purchase seven more of these planes to offset the rejection of Boeing’s F-18 and Lockheed Martin’s F-16 fighter planes as part of a $10 billion medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) deal negotiated between the two countries during President Barack Obama’s April visit to New Delhi. For the present, the Cabinet Committee on Security has decided to stick to the number exactly required by the IAF — only 10 planes. But this is unlikely to satisfy the Americans, who want India to increase its purchases to reach the value of the MMRCA deal. It is, therefore, believed that New Delhi may buy a few more C-17 planes in the coming months. The IAF had been so far managing with Russian H-76 Gajraj and AN-32 flying machines for transporting men and material to strategic locations.

The C-17 military transport aircraft has certain advantages over the Russian one. The Indian agencies that will be benefited include the aviation arm of RAW, the Aviation Research Centre. The new planes have undergone strict tests and the Indian side is quite satisfied with its new acquisition. The supplies will be made in two years with a few extra engines and sufficient spares. But it would have been better if the deal included the transfer of technology too so that India could think of indigenous production of such planes.
In any case, the MMRCA deal will boost India’s defence relations with the US. India needs to add to the strength of the IAF keeping in view the acquisitions of the Chinese air force. The tendency to compare with Pakistan should be given up. An emerging regional power that India is, it should think of acquiring a status which is no inferior to that of China. Only then will China stop pinpricking India now and then.

India and China Relations

THE on-going BRICS summit in Sanya in China has provided a fresh opportunity to New Delhi and Beijing to give a new direction to their bilateral relations. It is, therefore, good that India and China have decided to establish a working mechanism to sort out their border disputes which have been coming in the way of cementing their ties. There are clear indications that both sides are enthusiastic to narrow down their differences on any issue concerning the region or the world so that they can together lead the coming Asian century. It is not without significance that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Hu Jintao preferred to downplay the irritants between the two countries during their meeting on Wednesday. They have changed the political climate involving India and China, and this can definitely help them to find a way to settle their disputes.
India-China relations had suffered a setback when Beijing started the unjustifiable practice of issuing stapled visa to anyone from Jammu and Kashmir or denying visa to people from Arunachal Pradesh trying to visit China. India was stunned when China refused to issue a visa to Lt-Gen B. S. Jaswal because he commanded the country’s troops in Jammu and Kashmir. India reacted strongly to this and decided to discontinue with the practice of military exchanges between the two countries. However, now military exchanges may be resumed soon, as National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon told journalists in Sanya.
India and China have massive scope to strengthen their economic relations. They can benefit a lot from each other’s achievements in different areas. At present the balance of bilateral trade is in favour of China. India has to work hard to reduce it. India may gain considerably if China allows greater access to India in areas like information technology (IT), pharmaceuticals and agro-products, as Dr Manmohan Singh pointed out during his meeting with President Hu. It is not difficult for the two countries to attain the bilateral trade target of $100 billion by 2015 if there is enough understanding of each other’s requirements. 

INDIA'S FOREIGN POLICY: A BIT OF EVERYTHING

Talleyrand, Foreign Minister of Napoleon and the Bourbons, is remembered as a shrewd foreign policy maker. He advocated pragmatism and Western nations have always pursued pragmatic foreign policies. He also advised eschewing excessive fervour while pronouncing foreign policy. 

“The art of diplomacy, as that of water colours, has suffered much from the fascination which it exercises on the amateur”, said Harold Nicholson. This observation aptly applies to India’s diplomacy post-independence in 1947. Indians, somehow, have been extravagantly demonstrative, persistently delusive and high sounding while pronouncing their foreign policy.

The cold war era provided a near-perfect setting for spewing idealism at an ideologically divided world that was gracelessly recovering from the holocaust of a catastrophic world war. Those times also saw the end of colonialism and dawn of freedom for India. It gave a larger than life world stage to a Universalist Nehru who illumined it with the light of idealism and, like an angel, befittingly fluttered his wings over it ineffectually, while the Victors of World War Two—USA, UK, France, Russia and China—grabbed the world stage as leaders of peace! 

According to Lord Carrington, “Foreign and defence policy essentially has to be about the obtaining and management of influence.” Foreign Policy demands astute sense of timing and shrewdly worked out strategies. Morality is certainly not a weakness of the major world powers. International diplomacy and relations have always been and remain amoral. In the prevailing international dispensation, bargaining, national interest and cool calculation determine relations among nations. India has yet to master the art of diplomatic negotiations and striking accurate equation with important world powers.

In 1947, India emerged as the largest democracy in the world. It, however, lacked the matching military and economic power. Since then it has fully participated in international politics, adhering to the letter and spirit of international treaties, conventions and protocols. India substituted word power for effective power to vie with the world powers. The tactic worked, at times poorly, when popular and maximum leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi were the Prime Ministers. Under their rule, India’s foreign policy was more for internal consumption than for impacting on the international order.  They could afford to make errors and yet have their way. But costs were heavy for the nation. India had to bear dire consequences for some of their foreign policy errors of judgement, because they placed trust not in India’s friends, but in its antagonists.

High-sounding principles of Panchsheel led to a shocking betrayal by China from which India has yet to recover.  “Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away?” Sardar Patel is known to have asked Nehru. Patel warned him in 1949 that the Chinese Communists would annex Tibet, the historical buffer between India and China. Nehru, however, cajoled China and went to the UN on Kashmir against Patel’s wish. Nehru’s “Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai” turned out to be a bitter shibboleth and Kashmir became the source and fount of terrorism and remains an unhealed, self-inflicted wound.

According to observers, Jawaharlal, the architect of India’s Non-alignment Policy, died of the Chinese treachery.  Atal Behari Vajpayee, a man of sterling qualities yet imitated Nehru, and his diplomatic “bus to Lahore got hijacked to Kargil”. Earlier, in 1972, though a better strategist and negotiator “Indira Gandhi slipped up at Simla by trusting Zulfikar Bhutto’s word on Kashmir”.

Currently, India is militarily and economically a stronger country, though it has weaker and minimum leaders. But happily, and perhaps compulsively, our Foreign Policy under Dr Manmohan Singh’s rule is more pragmatic and in tune with the times and practices of the so-called international community.

The disintegration of the Warsaw Pact or Soviet Union in 1990 is regarded as the verge of a new era in international polity. USA emerged as the sole, unrivalled super-power with global reach. By force of its military presence in Central Asia, the Gulf region, the Afghan-Pak area, the Indian Ocean, South-East Asia, the China Sea and North-east Asia, it also became a next-door neighbour to India, China and Russia. Its interests and stakes in Asia are extensive and appear to be long-term, even permanent. It has obviously become an “Asian power”. 

The Yankee stranglehold can be felt from Egypt to Pakistan in West Asia and from Philippines to Thailand in East Asia. Uncle Sam no longer attaches very great importance to its client States, such as Japan and Australia. On the other hand, it is seriously engaged in developing new political equations, and if need be, alliances with more and hitherto adversarial countries, including India. The US security interests and concerns fall together with India’s security arc at this time. 

China’s rise as the Super-Asian military and economic power and India’s own increasing military and economic power are equally important developments of recent years. “The US, China and India, along with Japan and Russia, constitute the pentagonal power complex of the 21st century; all of them are acknowledged nuclear weapon powers.

Europe is no longer the focus of international power politics, as it was in the twentieth century. At the very onset of the twenty-first century, it has shifted to Asia and promises to stay there in the foreseeable future. Europe is comparatively free of conflict and threat to its peace. It is going through a period of political transition and is occupied with the challenges of its political unification and economic integration. The world’s peace and security now onwards depend on what kind of conditions will prevail in Asia. The World and Asian powers, at this juncture, feel compelled to work out new equations among themselves, to meet the challenge of emerging Asian realities. 

The world has radically changed. Of necessity, the five World Powers and other nation-States are recasting their foreign policies to encounter new developments.  The shift in Washington’s India policy is a part of this ongoing international process. It is a response to and recognition of the reality of a changed world. India, too, is called upon to break out of its musty mould and redesign it’s foreign, economic and security policies. It has to, like other big countries and nations, safeguard its interests internationally. 

The USA has recognized India as a responsible nuclear weapon power. It is in USA’s long-term interests to see India as a strong and stabilizing power in its region. Therefore, it feels persuaded to assist India in enlarging its global role. Can or should India shun Washington’s overtures? During the last half-a-century of diplomatic experience, India is expected to have gained enough diplomatic maturity to understand that there are no “free lunches” in international relations. Reciprocity has to be on a “give-and-take” basis. It is no use saying that India abhors being a US-client State like Japan, Australia or Pakistan. International exigency is compelling India to decide its course of action and pay the price for the choice or choices it makes. 

India’s changed stature does not permit it to blame others for its own diplomatic errors or justify them on moral grounds. It has itself to decide how far, fast or slow, it wishes to develop its relations with USA and other countries, and on what terms. China, only three decades ago, was a sworn enemy of USA, but now it is USA’s most dynamic trade partner. China, in fact, has become a world economic, and consequently a world military power, with the American support. Yet, China, by no means, is a client State of USA. Contrarily, it is a pain in the US neck. On the currency issue and revaluation of Yuan, it has not yielded to pressures and warnings from USA. India, too, is free and independent and big enough to look after itself. If it chooses to abjure the present opportunity, its inaction could prove too costly. Evading the foreign policy challenge will mean evading the future itself.

India must know and practice the maxim that there are no “permanent friends or foes” for reshaping its foreign policy competently. Ideological forces have disappeared from the international scene. Pragmatism is in the ascendant. India must recognize and evaluate its national needs and interests, because national interest alone is the all-encompassing coordinate that accurately structures a country’s foreign policy.

No country is self-sufficient in all respects. Interdependence and exchange of goods and services form the basis of abiding relationship among nation-States. India today is well placed to seek diplomatic accords and agreements for mutual benefits. It has to assess its needs and the extent to which foreign resources are required to satisfy them. For example, India needs enormous measure of nuclear energy and state of the art technologies for its industry and agriculture. India also needs speedier expansion of trade and investments, an infrastructure conforming to international standards and to modernize its military. Can a vast underdeveloped democracy find or raise internal resources to satisfy these needs?

If the answer is “No”, then, India has no alternative but to find friends and partners from amongst other nations to provide the necessary resources. At the same time, it must calculate coolly what it has to part with as a price. India has to remember that even the so-called international assistance from the Soviet or Western bloc in the cold war days had price tags. Assistance and cooperation were not free then and they will certainly not be free now. In fact, India today has sufficient bargaining power and should go into the international “diplomatic market” as a confident diplomatic bargainer.

India’s immediate goal in international power politics was to become an equal member of the nuclear suppliers group. That has now been achieved with the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) accepting India as a responsible nuclear power, of course, with help of USA. As a reciprocal gesture, it is absolutely in our national interest to oppose nuclear proliferation, especially within and near our regional boundaries, as it affects our security. Whether it is Pakistan or Iran, possession of nuclear weapons of mass destruction by them poses danger to us. Our opposition to Iran’s nuclear stand is dictated by our own national interest. It is not surrender to USA. 

India's voting for the IAEA resolution, critical of Iran, has been interpreted in some quarters as kowtowing to USA. But former foreign secretary Shyam Saran’s forthright arguments favouring a new global non-proliferation order show that the vote wasn’t a one-off, ad hoc reflex—rather, it was backed by an articulated and coherent sense of India’s foreign policy priorities. 

India’s proclivities are independent of both US and Iran. They put Indian interests first. India has objected to American double standards in upbraiding Iran, but indulging Pakistan whose nuclear advisor A.Q. Khan  set up a nuclear Wal-Mart. 
It must be noted here that western countries and major world powers, too, cannot escape the charge of proliferation. China has been extending nuclear know-how to North Korea and Pakistan. Israel’s nuclear capabilities have been gained with West’s connivance. Pakistan’s nuclear scientists have smuggled sensitive data from western countries. Moreover, India cannot be expected to fight for other countries’ interests at the cost of its own interests. Therefore, India has to continue to oppose Iran in IAEA voting, irrespective the hue and cry by the Left parties.

Sentimentality, romantic attachment to the Non-alignment will only blur our foreign policy focus. Has Iran done any extraordinary favour to India? Do other NAM countries consult India while exercising their international options? Should we consult Cuba or Venezuela before voting at the international forums? Do our actions at international meets need certification from any quarters to prove that our voting is or is not pro-American? A section of the media and the Left political parties appear to believe so. If this is their idea of India’s standing, role and place in global politics, then they have only a squinted view of India’s heightening status in world politics.

Non-Alignment Movement got launched in mid-twentieth century when most of the Afro-Asian countries were gaining their Independence and cold war was furiously raging. NAM’s assumed plank of neutrality between the Soviet and Capitalist blocs in the context of decolonization, anti-apartheid campaign and nuclear disarmament, placed the poor and week nations in positions of advantage. The two blocs vied with each other to enlist their support and offered inducements for it. They corrupted their leaders and weakened these Afro-Asian countries. NAM is now a relic and NAM-like neutrality or non-alignment a passé. The buoyant movement of the cold war times is now a conglomeration of diverse and in-cohesive nations with conflicting political and economic interests. India is the only country among its founding members to have gained in stature. Indonesia, Ghana and Egypt have declined; Yugoslavia has disintegrated and disappeared.

Yet, India has not abandoned NAM. It has been trying to revive the movement with a new agenda of economic and development cooperation. India’s leadership at the WTO has been strident as it successfully launched the G-22. NAM can adopt the G-22 agenda if it wishes to resurrect itself. 

The foregoing observations on Indian Foreign Policy provide a perspective for understating India’s relations with major world powers, immediate region, a large number of other countries and the UN.

India’s greatest foreign policy frustration has been its unwholesome relations with its immediate neighbours. The major SAARC countries are culturally so close but politically so averse to neighbourly feelings with India. A ramification of the US presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is its closer watch on Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan. All these countries have terrorists of various hues operating against India, with the State connivance and even State backing. Major western powers that were callously indifferent, after 9/11 Terrorist Attack on USA have become alive to the terrorist threat emanating from these countries. These countries are infested with Osama or Maoist (link between the two is more than suspected) elements and bases. The entire western world is in a state of scare of the terrorist threat, especially the Islamic terrorism. They also know that Pakistan and Bangladesh are harbouring dangerous terrorists.  Uncle Sam’s overseeing these countries is a minor relief to India, as it is no longer alone while countering the nefarious terrorist designs.

India has been tolerant and accommodative toward its immediate neighbours, keeping them in productive engagement.   

Relations with ASEAN and Singapore are the cornerstones of our “Look East” policy. “India-ASEAN Partnership for Peace, Progress, and Shared Prosperity” lays out a short to medium term road map of India-ASEAN cooperation in various sectors, such as economic, science and technology, information and communication technology, agriculture, health, pharmaceuticals and people to people contacts. India-ASEAN Free Trade Agreements are a continuing process. 

Russia remains India’s biggest supplier of defence equipment and has given assurance on the supply of spares and made new offers on equipment. India, too, is supporting Russia in its accession to the WTO and its being treated as a market economy in anti-dumping investigations.   

Lastly, we must remember that “in the world beyond parliaments, the press and think tanks, ideologies are being jettisoned to survive. Only the fittest will act internationally and manage change”. Will India change and choose a foreign policy befitting the challenge of times? Nation States are interdependent and foreign policy is now a central part of a nation’s political programme.  War and Terrorism are everybody’s nightmare. 

“May the pens of the diplomats not ruin again what the people have attained with such exertions.”  Lord Palmerston’s this 19th century wish is today the 21st century India’s fear!

CHINA FACTOR IN INDIA-NEPAL RELATIONS

FOR the past couple of years, India has been trying to get its grip over slippery relations with Nepal. Towards that end, former Foreign Secretary and envoy to Nepal Shyam Saran was sent to Kathmandu in August 2010. This was followed by present foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao’s visit to Nepal in January 2011.
Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna’s three-day visit to Nepal in April (19-22) should be seen in continuation of these visits. Though formally Mr. Krishna had to inaugurate a newly built check-post on the Indo-Nepal border in Birgunj, his main mission was two-fold: to express India’s growing concerns on the security of its stakes in Nepal and to assess the prospects of faltering peace process and constitution making, for which the deadline is only five weeks ahead - May 28t.
The security of India’s interests in Nepal has come under severe pressure; not only due to personal attacks (with stones and shoes) on the Indian Ambassador, but also by defacing of Indian flag, politically inspired breakdowns and disruptions of Indian business establishments, the continuing use of Nepal for the flow of fake currency and terrorists into India and the expanding space of China’s strategic presence in the sensitive neighbour. Krishna articulated these concerns strongly and frankly to his Nepali interlocutors and pressed Nepal to move forward on the India-initiated pending proposals of tying up loose ends in this regard, including the conclusion of bilateral Treaties of Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance. Maoists being the principal driving force behind the attacks on The Indian Ambassador and business establishments, Mr Krishna forcefully conveyed India’s displeasure while talking to Maoist supremo Prachanda.
Mr Prachanda reassured Mr Krishna that the Maoists valued the importance of constructive engagement with India, but without mincing matters regarding his party’s reservations on India’s interference in Nepal against the Maoists since 2008, specially during the various rounds of elections For the Prime Minister in 2010.
The prospects of the peace process and constitution making in Nepal are passing through a dismal transition. Failure to accomplish these tasks by the deadline of May 28, may create a highly unstable and chaotic situation in Nepal with unwelcome adversary implications for India. The breakdown of consensus among major political parties and internal fragmentation within these parties on account of ideological differences and competing power ambitions of the key party leaders are the reasons behind the prevailing political stalemate. While the peace process is stuck on the question of integration and rehabilitation of the Maoist armed cadres, constitution making is held up due to unresolved power-sharing among the principal stakeholders and the resulting breakdown of national consensus on critical issues of federalism, nature of the executive and the basic structure of the polity.
Days before Mr Krishna’s visit to Kathmandu, indications of a positive turn in Nepal’s political situation had emerged. Internal tussle within the Nepali Congress, between its President Sushil Koirala and former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, on the question of Working Committee nominations had been resolved amicably. Similarly, Maoist leader Prachanda had distanced himself from the party’s line of “people’s revolt” and come out with a new document for speeding up the “peace process” and “constitution making”. This was the result of his swing away from his hardline mentor and Vice- Chairman Mohan Baidya, and towards the balanced and moderate ideologue, Dr. Baburam Bhattarai.
Mr Prachanda also realises that realistically, it is fool-hardy to resort to a second “peoples war” in Nepal now.
It may be recalled that the Maoists shift from the “people’s war” to democratic mainstreaming during 2005-06 had been led by the Prachanda-Baburam duo. There have also been signs of softening between the Nepali Congress and the Maoists. While Mr Baburam has been openly asking for the Maoists and the Nepali Congress to work together, the Nepali Congress hardliners are also realising that the Maoists demand for the integration of their armed cadres need to be considered carefully.
How can the process of mainstreaming the Maoists be accomplished without proper rehabilitation of their militant cadres? Some in the Nepali Congress are willing to accommodate as much as 6000 of these cadres through the integration in security forces. There is now even a proposal formally advanced by the Nepali Army for integration of militant cadres, and the response of the Maoists to this proposal so far has not been negative.
Mr Krishna in his public pronouncements had pleaded for the completion of the peace process and constitution making. He also underlined the need and significance of political consensus among Nepal’s political parties towards that end. The extent to which his parleys with the political leaders focused on this process and will help in advancing it will be known only when political moves of these leaders unfold in Nepal in the weeks to come. Mr Krishna has been assured by the Maoists that they do not have a policy to hurt India’s interests in Nepal. There are reasons to believe that the Maoist attacks on Indian diplomats and business establishments have mostly been in reaction to their perception that India wants to keep them on the margins of power-structure in Nepal.
These perceptions were reinforced by the outcome of the visits of Mr Shyam Saran and MsNirupama Rao in the midst of prime ministerial elections.
The Maoists are the largest party in the Constituent Assembly and they think that they should legitimately be accepted to lead any coalition government. They want India to be helpful by remaining at least neutral, if not supportive, to their claims in the process of government formation in Nepal. One does not know if there has been any change in India’s stance in this respect. The Maoists should be expected to change their calibrated hostility towards the Indian establishments in Nepal if Mr Krishna has succeeded in impressing upon the Maoists that India indeed wishes them well. But has he?
There have been unmistakable signs of China expanding its presence and influence in Nepal. The latest evidence of this was provided by the visit of a powerful Chinese military delegation to Nepal in March (23-26) under the leadership of the PLA chief, General Chen Bingde. An MoU was signed during his visit offering Chinese assistance of $19.9 mn to Nepal for medical equipment and construction machinery.
Mr Krishna must have explored the extent of growing Chinese influence in Nepal, particularly during his talks with President Ram Baran Yadav, Prime Minister Khanal and Nepal’s army chief General Chhatra Man Singh Gurung.
Indian policy makers must accept the hard reality that the assertion of influence by a rising China in Asia, including in India’s sensitive neighbourhood, is inevitable and Indian diplomacy has to equip itself strategically, politically and economically to face that reality. In a country like Nepal, it is the deficiencies and failures of Indian diplomacy that will be exploited by an assertive China to its advantage with the help of all those Nepali political forces that feel alienated from India.