Of late the intra-regional affairs among the nations in South Asia have somehow become increasingly contentious. State centric foreign policy agenda has now become the norm, each of the nations in the region trying to outdo the other in games of one-upmanship. The commonalities and complementarities of interests which abound South Asian region as with other regions- war on terrorism, issues of poverty inequality etc and especially endemic in South Asia, have taken back seat in the agenda of the national players. The postponement of the SAARC Summit scheduled to be hosted by Pakistan due to irreconcilable interests of both New Delhi and Islamabad, does not auger well both for the SAARC as an institution and the members themselves. India on its part seems to have forfeited its neighbors’ respect and become the target of their depredations. Of late, relations with Pakistan have fallen far down. Bangladesh regularly torments India, spouts anti-India rhetoric, brazenly harbors northeast militant groups and pushes in illegal immigrants by the thousands. In Nepal and Sri Lanka, India has virtually abdicated its role of resolving their domestic strife, to outside powers. Much of the problems of India's neighborhood policy have been because of India's "undulating" approach over the years, an India’s story of the last decade and a half. After Indira Gandhi, every government in New Delhi has entered office with the proclamation, “we must improve relations with our neighbors” — as if India were in the dock. It was Rajiv Gandhi, who despite some initial pandering to Nepal and Bangladesh and despite the error of the Sri Lanka venture took some proactive measures at neighborhood management. As a result, decency prevailed in their dealings with India. Pakistan suspended support to the Punjab extremists and even China’s Indian perceptions registered an improvement. Narasimha Rao treated them with courteous indifference, which left them bewildered and cautious. It took the sacrifice of Kargil and the shock of Agra to shake the Vajpayee government out of its Lahore illusions. [1]

India’s former Prime Minister, I.K. Gujral, known for his famous Gujral Doctrine, took the Government to task recently for what he called a "sharp deterioration'' in India's relations with its neighbors even Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Addressing the concluding session of the "People's Integration Council'' in New Delhi he said: "Our neighbors are like our own brothers. We enjoy age-old relations with them on the basis of language, religion, emotion and history. If we cannot have good relations with our neighbors, what kind of ties will we have with other nations?'' While arguing in favor of restoring people-to-people contacts between India and Pakistan, Gujral, expressed the hope that such informal relations would help in normalizing Indo-Pak. Ties. Though the country spends almost 60percent of its budget on defense building on the Indian paranoia, Gujral said that the common people in both the countries yearned for peace and normal relations. [2]

For long, India has been harping on its Islamabad woes though the feeling was mutual. This feeling not only clouds diplomacy, but also colors judgment, as has been the case with India’s Islamabad fixation. Addressing a gathering in Washington, Indian Ambassador to US Lalit Mansingh described how in US assessment base of terrorism had shifted from the West Asia to South Asia and how the “epicenter of terrorism, unfortunately, lies in our immediate neighborhood." His comments that "General Musharraf has gone back on every single commitment to end cross-border terrorism, Pakistan continues to pass on nuclear technology to North Korea and Iraq and it was they who nurtured Taliban" would make it clear to the most myopic that the India’s representative’s quest to locate the epicenter did not take him a long distance.[3] In his address to the joint session of Parliament, the Indian President asserted that there was a ``method in the madness'' of Pakistan-supported terrorist violence and accused Islamabad of flouting diplomatic norms by using its mission here to arrange financing of terrorist groups

This diplomatic tit-a-tat took turn for the worse when India expelled Islamabad's Charge d'Affaires Jalil Abbas Jilani accusing him of passing cash to separatist elements in Jammu & Kashmir. Facing the heat after two of its activists were arrested on charges of acting as conduits for facilitating the flow of funds to terrorists in Kashmir, the Hurriyat Conference was forced to close down its office in a South Delhi residential colony. The step came three days after Hurriyat spokesman Shabir Ahmad Dar and another activist Anjum Zamrooda Habib were booked by the Delhi Police on charges of channeling funds to terrorist organizations. The Hurriyat had been operating the Kashmir Awareness Bureau from a rented accommodation in Shivalik Nagar since 1995. Pakistan retaliated expelling Indian diplomats and there was almost a diplomatic hot war between the two.[4] President Musharraf enraged Indian Prime Minister at the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit at Kuala Lumpur when he referred to the oppressed peoples of Kashmir in his speech to the extent that Vajpayee departed from his prepared address to launch a tirade against the Pakistani leader, accusing Islamabad of sponsoring militants in the held Kashmir. Later however, Musharraf struck a conciliatory tone towards Indian leader extolling that "We need to resolve disputes and he must trust that even though I am a military man, I am against war. Would like to extend a note of friendship, that we would like to resolve disputes. We want to get into a dialogue with India on all issues; we want to address them in a sincere manner. I only hope that we can clap because one hand is there and the other needs to come." [5]

Many in Pakistan think that India is single minded about its policy of isolating Pakistan and policy of containment of Pakistan using military, political and economic means to weaken Pakistan's economy and its political resolve to keep the Kashmir problem alive and undermine its capacity to challenge India's hegemony in the region. New Delhi just finds the strategic climate favorable for pursuing its long-term goals. First, New Delhi and Washington are warming up to each other and building a solid, multi-level relationship in the political, military and economic areas. Second, Israel is now a strategic partner and a source and conduit of weapon systems and technology for India - something that greatly contributes to strengthening India's political and strategic relationship with the US as well. Third, relations between India and Russia are very close. Moscow is the major supplier of latest generation of conventional weapons and nuclear and space technology. Fourth, its relations with China are improving even if in the longer term it considers itself as a rival. China is also taking a more neutral position on Kashmir and is wary of Islamic militancy. Fifth, the world seems to have quietly accepted India's nuclear status, whereas in our case doubts are being planted through the powerful western media to keep us off balance. Finally, India is taking full advantage of the changed world environment in the wake of Sep 11, 2001, and the unified fight against the threat of international terrorism to malign Pakistan. By drawing on the heightened international concern about terrorism, it cleverly tries to bracket the freedom struggle in Kashmir with terrorism and give it a bad name.[6] The Pakistan Foreign Minister, Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri, said that he is ``deeply troubled by the anti-Pakistan rhetoric of seemingly liberal Indian leaders'' and appealed to forces in the civil society in Pakistan and India to pressure their Governments to resolve their differences amicably.[7]

Pakistan’s own perspective about funding militancy in the Kashmir valley paints a different picture. Quoting Indian intelligence sources, Daily Times reported that expatriate Kashmiris, and Muslims are funding militancy in general who sympathize with the Kashmiri people. The Pakistani share in this funding is minuscule, only 10 to 25 per cent. The total amount that comes in from international charities and support groups annually is estimated to be around four to five billion Indian rupees. To counter the movement and try to win hearts and minds as well, India ends up spending nearly Rs 450 billion annually on its troops, security agencies, relief, rehabilitation, compensation and infra-structural repair and development. This is about 100 times as much money as that spent by the insurgents. On the Pakistani side, things are no better with regular bombing from the Indian side of the border destroying the subsistence agriculture. Despite efforts from Pakistan -under international pressure - militant infiltration across the Line of Control (LoC) cannot be altogether stopped because sections of the local population now rely on “fees” for working as “guides”, “porters”, “procurers”, etc for the jihad being waged in Kashmir. In Pakistan too money is being received from abroad by organizations banned by Islamabad. How this money is spent is anybody’s guess. Nor is all this money going into Kashmir. According to an estimate that appeared in the British press, one “banned” organization in Pakistan received two million pounds from the UK in one year alone, and much of it came from Muslims living on social security. The leader of the said organization is known to have acquired expensive properties all over Pakistan ostensibly for the purpose of extending his “educational” facilities across the country.[8]

Briefing the Senate Intelligence Committee CIA Director George Tenet said that, “Pakistan continues to support groups that resist India’s presence in Kashmir in an effort to bring India to the negotiating table. Indian frustration with continued terrorist attacks–most of which it attributes to Pakistan — causes New Delhi to reject any suggestion to resume a dialogue with Islamabad.” “The underlying cause of tension is unchanged, even though India’s recent military redeployment away from the border reduced the danger of imminent war and the cycles of tension between India and Pakistan are growing shorter.” [9]

Another contentious issue between the two has been Baglihar. There have been a series of statements from India's highest officials, starting in December 2001, after the attack on the Indian Parliament building, threatening to repudiate the Indus Basin Treaty, and of turning Pakistan into a desert. Then the construction at Baglihar began without proper notice to Pakistan, and India delayed the convening of the Commission. Once the meeting was held, India refused point blank either to amend the designs as Pakistan suggested, or to allow an inspection as provided by the Treaty. The matter will now have to go to arbitration. As the lower riparian, Pakistan has few or no bargaining chips in this area. [10]

On the eastern front, Bangladesh refuses to act on information that India provides about northeast militant activity in its territory. It has resisted handing over two of the top leaders that it has in its custody. Clashes with border security forces over illegal migration to India have become routine. Exasperated, Union Home Minister L.K. Advani early this year asked states to identify the estimated 15 million Bangladeshi illegal immigrants and "throw them out". However, Haider K. Tufail, Bangladesh's high commissioner to India, maintains, "None of the figures are verified. We believe that all the 10 million refugees who crossed over to India in 1972 have returned." Even as efforts are on to ease tension between the two countries, Bangladesh claimed to have seven unresolved issues with India including demarcation of the common boundary, handing of enclaves, bridging trade gap and sharing of waters of common rivers. "Demarcation of 6.5 km out of over 4 thousand km of common boundary between the two countries, handing of enclaves, exchange of areas within enclaves having adverse possession, demarcation of maritime boundary, ownership of Talpatty (New Moore) island in Bay of Bengal, bridging trade gap and sharing of waters of common rivers.” [11]

In Nepal, the big worry is the plan of Maoist rebels, who unofficially control a third of the Himalayan kingdom, to link up with India's extreme leftist groups like the PWG. Besides Pakistan's ISI continues to actively support Islamist groups. This despite the two countries taking steps to tighten border controls after the IC 184 hijacking from Katmandu in December 1999. M. Rasgotra, a former foreign secretary, feels "India is kowtowing to neighbors like Nepal and Bangladesh and we just don't seem to know how to manage our borders".

In Sri Lanka India has remained an interested observer to the peace negotiations between the LTTE and the Government allowing Norway to play the role as a facilitator. In the past, India would brook no such involvement and had played an active role in the internal affairs of its neighbors. That included sending the IPKF to rein in the recalcitrant Tigers .

There has been an unprecedented diplomatic activism by New Delhi in Afghanistan. India always enjoyed good relations with Afghanistan, but there was very little it could do other than extending a bit of technical assistance. The lack of geographic access and the absence of economic instruments severely limited India's ability to play any credible role there. When Afghanistan became the final battleground in the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, India tailed Soviet policy rather than develop its own independent profile in Afghanistan. When Pakistan gained control over Afghanistan through the Taliban in the mid- 1990s, India was completely marginalized. Not any more. With opportunity at hand with post Taleban reconstruction issues, India came out on tops to contribute significantly to the political and economic development of Afghanistan. C. Raja Mohan, India's forward policy. [12]

Philipp Wilhelm von Hornigk, the 18th century German mercantilist wrote that "Whether a nation be today mighty and rich or not depends not on the abundance or security of its power and riches, but principally on whether its neighbors possess more or less of it." And as Mangala Moonesinghe, Sri Lanka's high commissioner to India, puts it, "India could build goodwill by throwing a few crumbs to its neighbors. India’s Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal urges one not to forget that “there never has been a period when the relationship with our neighbors was free from tensions. The overall situation right now is within the parameters of acceptability." [13]

[1] M Rasgotra, In Kautilya’s neighborhood: What binds Dhaka, vote bank politicians and bleeding hearts? The Indian Express 28 February 2003

[2] The Hindu 3 February 2003

[3] Pakistan poses greater danger than Iraq: India Hindustan Times 22 February 2003.

[4] The Pioneer 28 February 2003

[5] Musharraf offers friendship to India The News, 26 February 2003

[6] Talat Masood, The anatomy of an impasse. Dawn, 26 February 2003

[7] Pak. troubled by rhetoric of liberal Indian leaders The Hindu, 19 February 2003

[8] Funding violence in India and Pakistan Daily Times, 18 February 2003

[9] The Nation, 15 February 2003

[10] Baglihar breakdown The Nation, 10 February 2003

[11] The Hindustan Times, 22 February 2003

[12] The Hindu 22 February 2003

[13] " Raj Chengappa, Tension: A Neighborhood Of Trouble. India Today, February 10, 2003

Compiled from media sources

By

Arabinda Acharya