INDIA’S RELATIONS WITH ITS NEIGHBOURS: CONUNDRUMS TO CONTEND WITH

[It can be seen that unlike the US, India is not a convincing hegemonic force in its region. The most amicable relationship of India is with the two smallest nations of Bhutan and Maldives. No big country is liked by its neighbours and though most countries are dwarfed by India’s size, population, economic strength, they are reluctant to bow down to Indian predominance. India’s efforts in SAARC are feeble. India’s policy in South  Asia has improved in tone and quality in the past few years. This is the neighbourhood conundrum that the nation must address in fighting this uphill battle to become a global power.] 

By Anjora Sarangi

“Keep your friends close and your enemies closer” a phrase, even more pertinent when it comes to a nation’s relationship with its neighbours. To have an inimical neighbourhood is to be in constant fear of tension and conflict. It means suspension of important activities and diversion of economic, military and political forces towards the resolution of disputes. Such tensions not only remain localised and regional, but have international repercussions as well which can be disastrous for the nation’s foreign policy. Therefore, for most countries, the management of political relations with its neighbours becomes of utmost importance.

India as a geographical entity has a unique disposition. The region houses nations with varied characters in terms of their size, resources and strength which are juxtaposed with each other. These nations include China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Maldives and Sri Lanka.

India has had a long and troubled history with Pakistan and it remains so, even today. The Kashmir question is at the heart of animosity. Pakistan exports terrorism to India which has been a huge roadblock, the recent example being the Mumbai blasts in 2008. There is great instability, political volatility and internal violence in the nation. Economic cooperation between the neighbours is minimum; disputes exist over illegal immigration, human trafficking and trading routes. Nevertheless, large scale hostilities have mostly been avoided since 1971 and the current nuclear capability of the two nations has almost ruled out an all-out war.

Though there is booming trade between India and China, there is also a lingering mistrust. China’s increasingly assertive rise has challenged India’s own regional dominance. China has been seen to continuously counterbalance India by lending military and political support to Pakistan. Though the Indo-China border war of 1962, security dilemma, economic and political rivalries have been a major setback, relations have gradually improved after 1988 with a series of high level visits to each other’s capitals.

Indo-Sri Lankan relations have been fluctuating through the years. India’s intervention in the Lankan Civil War for peacekeeping efforts through the IPKF (Indian Peace keeping Force) in1987 proved to be costly when it culminated in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi by the LTTE prompting India to adopt a non-interventionist role in the nation. Now focus has shifted to economic cooperation. Though the internal civil war in Sri Lanka seems to have abated, events have led it to move a stride closer to China, Pakistan and Israel for military and political support.

The troubled state of Afghanistan shares a congenial relationship with India as on today. Though relations had weakened during the Afghan Civil Wars and rule by Taliban in the 1990s, the Indian government’s efforts in assisting the overthrow of Taliban and providing humanitarian and reconstruction aid has paved a way for renewed friendly ties.

India had signed separate Treaties of Friendship with both Bhutan and Nepal emphasising non-interference in one another’s internal affairs, but unlike with Bhutan, Indo-Nepalese relations have been fraught with difficulties. Today, Bhutan enjoys preferential aid, transit facilities, benefits and generous aid from India. Nepal, however, often feels economically disempowered. India has intervened in the political process of Nepal on several occasions. Maoist politics has been a vital bone of contention. Nepal often complains about Indian nosiness.

India was instrumental in the Bangladeshi independence from Pakistan in 1971. However, the two countries do not share very cordial relations. Among the major issues of conflicts are of border management, problems of water sharing, trade, illegal migration and terrorism.

India was one of the largest supporters of Burmese Independence and Indo-Burmese relations were strong after 1948 until the overthrow of the democratic government by the military. In the recent years India has renewed ties due to geopolitical concerns and is snuggling up to the military junta. India and Maldives share amiable, close and multidimensional relations. India was among the 1st to recognise Maldives after its independence in 1965.

It can be seen that unlike the US, India is not a convincing hegemonic force in its region. The most amicable relationship of India is with the two smallest nations of Bhutan and Maldives. No big country is liked by its neighbours and though most countries are dwarfed by India’s size, population, economic strength, they are reluctant to bow down to Indian predominance. India’s efforts in SAARC are feeble. India’s policy in South Asia has improved in tone and quality in the past few years. This is the neighbourhood conundrum that the nation must address in fighting this uphill battle to become a global power.

@ Youth Ki Aawaz

VICTORIOUS HUNGER STRIKER SHAKES A POLITICAL STATUS QUO

[India’s political leaders emerged from the past two weeks far less exalted, especially the governing Indian National Congress, which seemed outmaneuvered and uncertain throughout the crisis. For months, leaders of the Congress Party had failed to effectively tackle different corruption scandals, creating an impression that the party lacked the will or the interest to address the issue.]

 

By Jim Yardley

NEW DELHI — For the nearly two weeks that Anna Hazare staged his hunger strike, the question hanging over India had been, “When would it end?” After Mr. Hazare triumphantly broke his fast on Sunday, a different question arose: “What now?”

It applies not just to the fate of the remarkable popular anticorruption protest movement that coalesced around Mr. Hazare but also to the political status quo in India. The Hazare movement exposed a populist rage toward India’s political class and a lack of public confidence in the efficacy of India’s democratic institutions, if not a lack of confidence in Indian democracy.

Mr. Hazare, 74, a longtime social activist who lost more than 15 pounds during a 13-day fast, is now an exalted figure in much of India. When he lifted a cup of coconut water and honey to his lips on Sunday morning, aided by two young girls, the moment was broadcast live across the nation. Thousands of supporters cheered at Ramlila Maidan, the public ground in New Delhi that has served as his fasting site.

He gulped the juice for a moment, and no doubt it tasted sweet. He and his advisers, known as Team Anna, had triumphed in a standoff against India’s political establishment after Parliament on Saturday had capitulated to his key demand for creating an independent agency to fight official corruption, known as the Lokpal.

“This is a moment of glory for our country,” Mr. Hazare told supporters on Sunday morning, praising them for remaining peaceful throughout nearly two weeks of rallies, marches and demonstrations. “This movement has created a faith that the country can be rid of corruption and we can go ahead with implementing laws and the Constitution.”

India’s political leaders emerged from the past two weeks far less exalted, especially the governing Indian National Congress, which seemed outmaneuvered and uncertain throughout the crisis. For months, leaders of the Congress Party had failed to effectively tackle different corruption scandals, creating an impression that the party lacked the will or the interest to address the issue.

When Mr. Hazare staged his hunger strike, the public outpouring of support seemed to throw Congress Party leaders off balance, and they never quite recovered. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made a dramatic appeal in Parliament for Mr. Hazare to end his strike — yet was rebuffed. Rahul Gandhi, the Congress Party’s presumed prime minister-in-waiting, made a rare parliamentary speech in which he rejected the notion that a Lokpal was a cure-all for corruption. Two days later, his party folded to Mr. Hazare’s demands.

For Mr. Gandhi, the Hazare crisis interrupted what was widely assumed to be his own coming-out moment as the new leader of the Congress Party. His mother, Sonia Gandhi, the party’s president, has been recuperating in the United States from surgery. Mr. Gandhi left her bedside in the United States to return to celebrate India’s Aug. 15 Independence Day, and presumably to begin taking a more public posture in Congress Party affairs.

Instead, Mr. Hazare upended the political landscape, and Mr. Gandhi disappeared for days before his speech in Parliament.

“This could have been an opportunity for him to assert his leadership,” said Pratap Bhanu Mehta, president of the Center for Policy Research, a group in New Delhi. “Instead, it does raise questions about how much leadership he has shown.”

Yet the Congress Party can probably be grateful that the public seems disgusted with the political establishment as a whole. Leaders of the main opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, or the B.J.P., provided some notable oratory during parliamentary debates but hesitated until the end on whether and how to embrace Mr. Hazare’s movement.

In a media-saturated political culture, Mr. Hazare presented an irresistible figure: a simple man in a Gandhian cap whose hunger strike unexpectedly tapped into widespread public disenchantment over corruption, large and small. He drew support from common people but also from middle-class professionals and college students, the demographic groups often dismissed as politically apathetic in India. College students marched through New Delhi or visited Ramlila Maidan, posing for photographs while waving Indian flags.

“This movement has convinced the youth of this country that they are active agents of change,” said Varun Gandhi, a B.J.P. lawmaker in Parliament, during a speech on Saturday. He added: “A churning is taking place. We could say it is a silent revolution, except it is not so silent anymore.”

But the Hazare movement also disquieted others. Muslims and lower-caste Hindus felt excluded and raised concerns about possible ties between the Hazare movement and right-wing Hindu groups.

Many intellectuals accused Mr. Hazare and his advisers of trying to hijack India’s parliamentary processes by insisting that his hunger strike would end only if lawmakers agreed to approve his bill. Indeed, the split-screen coverage on Indian news channels neatly framed the competing seats of power: Live shots from the debate in Parliament, the nation’s elected seat of power, were contrasted with images from Ramlila Maidan, where Mr. Hazare’s advisers claimed title to the popular will.

By Sunday, with victory in hand, Mr. Hazare and his advisers had toned down their attacks, offering praise to the prime minister and Parliament.

Mr. Hazare was taken to a local hospital for two or three days of observation. But he has pledged to remain vigilant until Parliament gives final passage to the Lokpal legislation during the current session.

Political analysts say it is unclear whether the crowds who rallied for Mr. Hazare can be marshaled into a sustained political movement or would prove evanescent.

On Sunday, though, Mr. Hazare had a message for them: More is needed.

“We have to continue to carry the torch of this struggle for change,” he said.

Hari Kumar contributed reporting.

@ The New York Times