Dr Rao VBJ Chelikani
People are separated by borders due to historical events, mostly by settlement of migrants, encroachments and annexations. There were, and there would be no 'natural' or ideal borders, and the people living within them are not the private property of the political state. The states have been formed historically and very often by separating people who live on the same sources of living like forests, rivers and sea-beds. People who have the same religion, language, race or tribe are separated for political reasons. Africa and Latin America are still living examples of that kind of arbitrary separation. The Indian subcontinent is no exception to it.
In the case of India, it is more complicated given the tumultuous past during which most of the neighbouring states had a common history with political affiliations and especially cultural integration. India has been a cultural nation of subcontinental dimensions. Though the totality of it was a part of the British colonial empire, while leaving they did not delineate the borders and left the status quo, which naturally has been giving rise to many conflicts in almost all the neighbouring countries. However, the political churnings and transformations that are taking place during the past few decades in India's neighbourhood are giving the hope that democracy with all its imperfections, is slowly penetrating the minds of the new generations of the people. Any leader who holds the reins of power is obliged to justify himself or herself in terms of democratic values.
It is hoped that a new generation of Indians primarily committed to productive activities will participate in governance, replacing the present class of sinecure politicians whose life ambition is only grabbing power by hook or crook. As they emerge, they can solve problems pragmatically and build a continental fraternity for harmonious living, without power fascination. Since India had never been a political state before the Britishers and even under the British Empire, it was a conglomerate of technically independent states under the suzerainty of the British Crown. The next alternative form proposed after Independence was to belong to a British Commonwealth of Nations. Yet, the desire to be a sovereign political state, like the European states at that time, was too strong at that epoch in the minds of the leaders from the countries under the colonial yoke. Their anti-imperialist sentiment did not allow them to explore any other regime for India than the 'Nation-State'.
There were no indications to think that Gandhiji had subscribed to this concept if we study his desire and strategy to form an India that is inclusive of the various minorities who were apprehensive of joining a political state which is bound to function in a majoritarian government. The same generation of impatient Third World leaders overlooked the painful experience of Japan, and National Socialism in Germany, Italy and later in Russia and Cuba. All the historical experiences of the sovereign political states have proved that a state's philosophy is to expand or perish. It is because the concept of state is based on exercising unfettered absolute independent power, even though physically it is not a logical unit in terms of its geography, its population and its resources.
Past history being what it is, now in the midst of all the upheavals that these countries in the sub-continent and beyond are undergoing, India's role cannot be limited to befriending, every time, the new leaders and establishing personal rapport with them. While by the force of things and events, India has to play the role of a big brother, the presence of the neighbouring China which has a clear ambition of being the most powerful state in the world has made the task of India much more complicated. It is in the national interest of the neighbouring states and its new leaders to 'blackmail' India so as to pump in more financial resources in comparison with China, which in all cases would remain the highest bidder. Hence, our strategies should aim at promoting cooperative attitudes among the people and encourage democratic values and practices in those countries, and take up only those developmental projects which are useful to the people directly, and not accept to collaborate in any project that would only serve to facilitate the life of the operators of the state, i.e. the bureaucracy and the political leaders, such as building parliament houses, secretariat, strategic roads, military equipment, etc.
II. Relations with the neighbouring states are more complex and complicated, than dealing with far-off states, as internal security matters are sensitive to any political change in the neighbouring countries. In general, external policies with neighbours of a country are strongly influenced by internal security issues. When we have not fully integrated all the diversities territorial, cultural, religious and economic into a political entity, when the loyalties of some parts and groups are not integrated harmoniously, when some parts of India are maintained by the police and para-military forces, then we are bound to have problems with our neighbouring states. They also are inevitably, one way or other, bound to be either troubled or become a source of trouble for India. We cannot have a foreign policy which makes an abstraction of internal problems. That is the reason why, our foreign policy with our neighbours would be different from our policy towards other countries. At the same time, it cannot be contradictory or discriminative or against some universal principles like respect for fundamental human rights. It is here that the general policy of making a neat distinction between the relations between the state governments and between the people is essential.
Finding themselves in a similar situation, the intelligentsia in Europe considered that the common destiny of the people in 28 European countries was a higher priority than upholding the absolute political sovereignty of each European state. From a common arrangement for steel and trade, they moved to a Common Market and from there, they formed a European Union. As a consequence, their annual defence expenditure is lowered to a small percentage of their GDP, unlike in other sovereign independent countries.
III. The Indian subcontinent has become a divided house due to quarrels among ambitious cousins. India has had problems of tracing the borders, sharing river waters, sea-beds, fishing rights, etc. unresolved for the past 75 years with almost all of its neighbours. Even though, on occasions, some of them have been amenable to solving the pending issues amicably, the Indian political authorities have not felt any pressing need and vision to do so; instead, the matters are left to the bureaucracy and the diplomats to deal with their counterparts in those countries. Small neighbouring states are reputed to have complained, several times, that the Indian bureaucracy always adopts a high-brow attitude towards them.
Many measures of mediation, reconciliation and arbitration could have been agreed upon mutually to solve the common issues, long ago. The SAARC has made such an effort to discuss the common issues and to highlight the commonalities. However, the national delegations consisted only of officials and political representatives, to the exclusion of non-governmental sections of the continent, i.e. the people brought the consultations to a halt, and India lost interest in it. In fact, if the disputes had been settled earlier effectively, then SAARC could have functioned effectively as a powerful bloc, spearheaded by India. It is vain to try to claim to be a 'Vishwaguru' and to meddle in other disputes in the world, while we have not given any proof of having used any strategy to solve any disputes and conflicts inside India and in the neighbourhood.
Hence, it is debatable, at this juncture, whether the SAARC is to be re-invigorated or India should bi-laterally, to start with, deal with each neighbouring state separately and with the people in it directly. If it is to be re-convoked, as some states are demanding, then India should persuade other partners to install two mechanisms, without which, it will be a thorn in our back. One, an independent commission or a tribunal to attend to all violations of human rights and second, an independent inhouse mechanism for mediation, reconciliation, and arbitration of all disputes among the member states.
As a successful example, we have, already a Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) set up with commissioners from Pakistan and India under the Indus Water Treaty signed in 1960 for the sharing of water from 6 Himalayan rivers and the construction of Hydel projects, as per the needs. The Treaty is brokered and co-signed by the World Bank and ratified by both Parliaments. Now, since India raised an issue regarding the Kishanganga and Ratle Hydro project, the World Bank has simultaneously activated both the Neutral Expert mechanism and the Court of Arbitration. It is appreciable that the Indian side also asked for reconsideration of the dispute resolution mechanism under the Treaty. Accordingly, in September 2024, both India and Pakistan met at the Neutral Expert Forum in the Hague over the designs of the Kishanganga and Ratle Hydropower projects. It would be a good signal to our neighbours that India does not insist on solving the common pending issues always on its own terms.
IV. Why people count is that the people in the neighbourhood, anyway and always will get in touch with each other across the borders, whatever the declared policies and the number of checkpoints installed by the governments. Cross-migration, employment, trade and cultural affinities are some reasons, in addition to illegal activities like the transfer of narcotics, fake money, arms and terrorists. These things continue to happen, though the governments on both sides of the border spend a lot of tax money to prevent them. The USA-Mexico border is an example to prove that no amount of force and money can change the situation. For that matter, Indians are well-known as one of those who defy these borders and manage to enter the developed countries at great risk to their lives. (to be Continued)
0 Comments