Today's Editorial

India’s Growing Neighbourhood Dilemmas

“The cause of our difficulties in southeast Asia is not a deficiency of power but an excess of the wrong kind of power which results in a feeling of impotence when it fails to achieve its desired ends.” – William Fulbright.

Relevance: GS II (International Relations)

• Prelims: Neighboring countries;
• Mains: India’s Neighborhood Policy.

Why in the News?

Contemporarily, India is facing an exceptionally difficult neighborhood due to the rising superpower in its neighborhood, for the first time in its history.

About the News:

• The proverbial Achilles heel (a weakness that can lead to downfall) of Indian foreign policy continues to be its neighborhood. 
• Indian foreign policy has an ambitious vision, from being the leader of the global South to being an arbiter in global geopolitical contestations, in making a serious claim to be a pole in world politics. 
• However, South Asia is not only keen to jump on the bandwagon of the India story, but it is also seemingly holding India back, albeit indirectly. 

There are three types of dilemmas in India’s Neighbourhood:

• Anti-Indian ideology: 
• The rise of politically anti-India regimes in South Asia such as the one in the Maldives where the new government asked the Indian government to withdraw its troops. 
• Khaleda Zia-led government in Dhaka, going to the elections early next year, could turn out to be ideologically anti-India which was visible in her earlier government instance.
• China’s influence: The second type of dilemma India faces in the neighborhood is structural, resulting from Beijing’s growing influence in South Asia.
• Growing entanglement in smaller regions: The growing entanglement of the region’s smaller states in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and other Chinese projects. 
• However, Beijing’s assiduous outreach to South Asian states in such a situation creates a favorable scenario, which is often seen in the case of  - as was the case with Taliban-led Afghanistan, military-ruled Myanmar, and crisis-hit Sri Lanka. 
• India does too, but the overall impact of China’s outreach is far higher than that of India primarily as a function of deeper pockets. 
• Finally, China’s desire to settle border disputes with its neighbors (except India), as seen in the case of Bhutan, is also a strategy to win over the region.
• The net result, which will be coming to the forefront, does seem alarming.

What are the three major causes behind these dilemmas?

• The Regional Geopolitics: The first is the regional geopolitical architecture characterized by five overlapping elements. 
  • USA’s presence: Contemporary South Asia is characterized by a diminishing presence of the United States, which, for a long time, was a geopolitical constant in the region. For New Delhi, Washington’s presence in South Asia was not always advantageous, but its departure is more disadvantageous, in particular, given how China has filled the power vacuum created by Washington’s departure. 
  • Rise of China: The aggressive and stupendous rise of China has come as a ‘geopolitical buffer’, at least for now, for the smaller states in the region which have become adept at using the ‘China card’ in their foreign policy assertions.
  • Growing demands due to development gaps: One of the least interconnected regions in the world, and poor, it is natural that the inhabitants of the region will tilt towards a power with the ability to cater to their material needs. With India’s limited ability to meet those needs, China is that power. 
  • Absence of innovative measures: India, for the most part, had a normative and political approach towards the region. Beijing has changed that India-centric calculus by offering itself as the no-frills non-normative alternative. For the first time in modern South Asian history, the region is a ‘norms-free-zone’.
  • Cultural, ethnic, refugee, and other spillovers: India enjoyed unrivaled priority in the region with all its attendant cultural, ethnic, refugee, and other spillovers — is felt more sharply than being the primary power. 
    • China, on the other hand, is the region’s non-resident power which benefits from the absence of cultural complications and still arising out.
• Policy stance: India’s regional policy stance exhibits a deep-seated status quo bias also referred to as a “Big Brother” attitude when it comes to dealing with the region’s domestic politics and the multiplicity of actors/power centers therein. 
  • An issue with one-track policy: Dealing only with, for the most part, those in power in the regional capitals, elected or otherwise, is perhaps the right thing to do as well as less risky. 
    • However, such a one-track policy generates path-dependencies often alienating other centres of power or opposition leaders. (Example: Bangladesh) 

• Two Mistaken Assumptions by India: 

• Striking out Pakistan: In the last decades, India had a strong belief that South Asia minus Pakistan would be amenable to Indian geopolitical reasoning. However, in retrospect, one has to admit that this policy has not exactly panned out the way India imagined. 
• Full dependence on Soft power: The second assumption that India approached the neighborhood with was that India’s special relationship with the region rooted in culture, soft power, history, and ethnicity would help the country deal with the neighborhood better than China. However, it failed in total count.

Way Forward:

• Need to acknowledge the fundamental changes: Previously, India enjoyed primacy which no longer exists in Old South Asia. 
• Understanding our Mutual Periphery: ‘Southern Asia’ which has pretty much replaced South Asia is a space where China has emerged as a serious contender for regional primacy. India’s neighbours are China too. Such a realistic and pragmatic framing would help India deal with reality.
• Need to involve external countries: India must proactively pursue the involvement of friendly external actors in the region. That is the only way to deal with the impending possibility of the region becoming Sino-centric.
• Need to increase flexibility: Indian diplomacy must be flexible enough to engage multiple actors in each of the neighboring countries. The art of diplomacy is not about hating the anti-India elements in the neighborhood, but, instead, lessening their anti-India attitude. 

• Glaring Shortage of Sufficient Diplomats: India needs sufficient diplomats to implement the foreign policy of a country of 1.4 billion people. If the current state of affairs continues, there will be no one to show up with the Indian flag when opportunities beckon or crises emerge.
• According to the MEA, India’s diplomatic strength is a mere 941 (Nov, 2017). The more India’s role in world affairs grows, the more the shortage of personnel will be felt by us and others. India needs more hands for its diplomatic pursuits.

Conclusion: India must always be wary of adopting interventionist policies in the neighborhood. Equally, reflexive anti-Indian sentiment among neighbors will always damage their national interest and the personal political interest of their leaders

BEYOND EDITORIAL:

Mains PYQs

Q. Why is India considered as a subcontinent? Elaborate your answer. (2021)

Q. China is using its economic relations and positive trade surplus as tools to develop potential military power status in Asia’, In the light of this statement, discuss its impact on India as her neighbor. (2017)