Unilateralism is not National Interest

Doing the same things again and again but expecting different results is a sure indication of madness.

The pending land swap deal with Bangladesh has taken a lot of space in newsprint and bytes. Most of these articles and op-eds refrain that it will be in the best interest of India to go-ahead with the land swap and that the opposition is putting sectarian interests over National interests.  On receiving end particularly is the Trinamul, which has been accused of constantly placing interests of West Bengal over interests of India, first when it torpedoed the Teesta water sharing treaty and now, when it has taken a stand against land swap. However, the accusers are probably not aware that such accusations in a way accept that the proposed treaties were not in the best interests of the State of West Bengal. Logically speaking, how could arrangements harmful for a state be beneficial for the Nation when it is states which comprise the Nation?

Another set of sage advice which our chattering classes have been offering pertain to our need to strengthen Nawaz Sharif and refrain from make a big issue of sundry killings of our soldiers. It is offered that while Sharif is keen on peace with India, the army establishment isn’t and hence is creating a situation where Indian reaction will force Sharif to adopt an anti-India stance. In the same breath, these worthies contend that it is the army which runs Pakistan and its nascent democracy rules only at the pleasure of the Army generals. If that be the case, then pray, what exactly will be gained by engaging with Sharif, a person not in control of his army’s actions?

A Nation displaying consistent behavior in its over 2500 years of chronicled history is not a commonplace occurrence. However, ethnographers have often commented on the amazing degree of continuity India has displayed over these centuries. In words of many, were it possible for people to travel across the dimension of time, an Indian villager of 500 B.C. would not have felt out of place in a 19^th century village. Why would he, when the mode of agriculture, allied occupation, festivals and the general way of life would hardly have undergone any change? Hence, given our natural tendency for status quo, it is not really surprising that India’s approach to its relations with neighbouring countries has been more or less consistent. There were aberrations though. Chandragupta Maurya, Kanishka, Chandragupta II, Alauddin Khilji and the British, all in varying degrees, followed policies which recognized that security of the heartland lies in fortifying its borders. Sadly, the cumulative impact of these regimes was not strong enough to bring about a change in the approach of other rulers. Overall, the approach of our rulers to our neighbours has been a mix of denial, disdain, fear and appeasement.

It must be said the Chinese cannot be accused of shortsightedness. Mao had seen the entire Himalayan region as ripe for China’s picking, with Tibet as the palm and Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and NEFA (Arunachal Pradesh), as its five fingers. And what has our approach been? India unilaterally and unequivocally gave up all its rights in Tibet and the result was a belligerent China entering our backyard. If Tibet had been the only foreign policy disaster bequeathed as legacy by our first Prime Minister, it could still have been explained away as a misstep. However, the same fantasy filled foreign policy saw India gift Manipur’s land to Burma without any reciprocity, failure to stand up for the rights of Tamils of Indian origin in Ceylon and the summary expulsion of Indians from Burma. In face of huge resistance from within the Congress and from the opposition, our first Prime Minster entered into a pact with Pakistan on protection of minorities in their respective Nations. Just how effective was this pact can be gauged from the large scale pogroms which East Pakistan unleashed on its hapless Hindu minority soon after this pact.

One could say that India found a resolute leader in Lal Bahadur Shastri when he took the war to the heart of Pakistan. However, Shastriji too succumbed to the very Indian trait of magnanimity and ended up frittering the gains of that war at Tashkent. Indira Gandhi proved that was a cut above most politicians when she took decisive action to create Bangladesh. However, it was the same Indira who gave away all the leverages at Simla. It was the same Indira who handed over a strategic island to Sri Lanka without any reciprocation. The iron lady gave wound up Shanti Bahini without any counter benefit from Bangladesh and proved ineffectual in protecting the interests of the Indian Diaspora in East Africa.  

One would have imagined that a Government headed by the hyper Nationalist BJP would have steered India’s foreign policy to a more pragmatic plane. Indeed, it did seem so when India detonated atomic bombs. However, the Nation soon realized that all the gains of the blasts were squandered away, first by a unilateral moratorium on further blasts and then by adoption of an ill-thought no first use policy. Fifteen years after the blasts, it will not be unfair to say that the only gainer from May 1998 was Pakistan. That Nation not only achieved a visible nuclear parity with India, today it has a larger and much more potent nuclear arsenal and more critically, a more reliable delivery system as compared to us. Some of us may take solace that our atomic and missile journey has been largely indigenous while Pakistan’s weapons are a bastard child sired by China and North Korea. But how does it matter on the battlefield? Pakistani weapons won’t decide to reduce their potency out of respect to our efforts. How effective are our weapons anyway when the blasts allegedly failed to meet all of their vitals and a no-first use policy is certain to allow a hostile Nation to decimate our seats of power before India is even ready to react?

Probably in his quest for a Peace Nobel, Vajpayee inflicted significant harm to our National interests. If surrendering our last leverage on Tibet was not enough, he created further openings for China in the hitherto uncontested region of Sikkim. It was the NDA Government which legitimized Musharraf’s coup when it invited him to Agra. Each abomination, be it the Kaluchak camp massacre or the Parliament attack, India was adamantly consistent in its efforts to engage with Pakistan. And who can forget the spectacle of the tortured, maimed bodies of16 BSF soldiers, hung on poles like carcasses of dead animals, paraded gleefully from village to village by bloodthirsty Bangladeshi mobs? Even in that year, it was an India friendly Awami League Government at helm of affairs at Bangladesh and India’s shamefully muted protests were explained away as being driven by the need to strengthen Sheikh Haseena’s hands in an election year.

As far as the need for having a land-swapping agreement with Bangladesh is concerned, it is a no-brainer. For more than half a century, residents of those enclaves have led virtually orphaned lives. With there being no practical way of connecting those enclaves with their respective Nations, it is best that those pieces of land be exchanged. But, like any other human transaction, International relations too cannot be unilateral and devoid of a quid pro quo. Bangladesh will gain land out of this agreement. Bangladesh will gain water out of the Teesta agreement. What will India gain, if we leave aside the nebulous talk of some goodwill with God knows who! Will India gain transit rights across Bangladesh or will it see firm action from that country in holding back those who infiltrate into India? Or at the very basic level, will it result in Bangaldesh handing over an equivalent portion of excess land to India?

This will not be for the first time that sundry voices have asked India to play the magnanimous big brother to a smaller Nation. However, past experiences indicate that none of our actions have resulted in any gains for India. Much was made of the need to transfer the Tis Bigha corridor to Bangladesh but what did India gain out of it? Likewise, the Tin Bigha transfer in early 1990s achieved little other than creating new Indian enclaves in Bangladesh. India signed a heavily biased Ganga water treaty with Bangladesh in the hope the hostile Begum Zia would become friendlier to us. What exactly did we gain out of that give-away?

It is a truism that a Nation ought to strive to maintain healthy relations with its neighbours. It is even truer that a rigid adherence to a singular approach cannot be effective. Our standard approach of engagement, even in the face of gravest indignities and unilateral appeasement is not going to secure our neighbourhood. For too long has the Nation been held hostage to an unrealistic make believe world of low-impact diplomacy. Let our policy makers go back in ages and recognize the genius of Chankaya. Let them adopt the principle of managing our neighbours through a judicious mix of Saam, Daam, Danda and Bheda.