With Kautilya as Guide

India should learn to differentiate among its neighbours. Nepal and Sri Lanka cannot be spoken of in the same breath as Pakistan and Bangladesh.

A good policy, according to Kautilya, must achieve four things: to acquire what the nation does not have, to preserve what it has, to enhance what is preserved, and to use for the welfare of the people what is enhanced. Foreign policy, too, has to serve these ends. Kautilya also wrote that power was the only means to ensure friendly relations with other countries. This fundamental precept must serve as a guide to the foreign policy of a future central government in India. And, as power is best achieved by strengthening a country´s national security, this must be given top priority in India´s foreign policy.

Neighbouring countries, quite understandably, play a vital role in Indian foreign policy projections. At the same time, New Delhi has tended to judge all of India´s South Asian neighbours by the same yardstick. It has taken us a long time to realise that such a policy has stood on foundations that are patently shaky. To place Nepal and Sri Lanka in the same category as Pakistan and Bangladesh is simply absurd.

At the worst of times, Nepal´s and Sri Lanka´s perceived lack of cordiality towards India has been more reactive than original. Usually, this has resulted from these countries´ lack of comprehension of India´s policies, in which case it was equally India´s responsibility to remove any apprehension felt by them.

India´s relations—or, to be more precise, the lack of cordiality therein—with Pakistan and Bangladesh, on the other hand, is another matter. They cannot escape the negative weight of history. The rectificatory mechanism has its own momentum, and can and must be assisted. However, the process cannot be rushed, a point which must be borne in mind by policy makers.

The fact that Pakistan and Bangladesh are products of secession from India is often overlooked. (Bangladesh, as a part of Pakistan, did secede from India.) This does not in the least imply, as is often suggested in these two countries, that India wishes to undo the partition of 1947, far from it. What it does mean, however, is that there exists a vague, residual, sentimental hangover, on the part of all parties, that does not lend itself to a quick dispersal or dissipation.

It must be clear to all except the most biased that Pakistan is doing everything in its power to destabilise India. Its policy of creating instability and unrest in India is nothing short of an inimical act. By Islamabad´s own admission, Pakistan is now a nuclear power, and takes pride in the low intensity warfare it has unleashed in Kashmir as part of its overall plan to destabilise, even balkanise, India. Pakistan must be prevailed upon, preferably through political dialogue, to desist from this policy, for its plans to ´bleed´ India can rebound very severely upon it.

Of course, some of the blame for the present situation in Kashmir lies with India. Successive Congress governments in New Delhi have, over the decades, fostered a sense of separateness among the Muslims of Kashmir. This has resulted in their keeping aloof from the national mainstream. It is necessary, therefore, to restate unequivocally that Indian sovereignty over the whole of Kashmir is beyond questioning, and that India will go to any length to preserve that sovereignty and will never allow anyone to challenge it. A great deal has changed from 1947 to 1996. It is certainly not within the power of a few latter-day zealots to change history. India will not tolerate any attempt at mediation by any power. Whatever external problem may exist regarding Kashmir, it is a bilateral matter that falls within the purview of the Shimla Agreement and should be discussed by India and Pakistan alone.

India is fast reaching the limits of its tolerance regarding Pakistan-sponsored terrorism and it should be justified in taking whatever steps it deems fit to put an end to it. Terrorism is the very antithesis of democracy and its eradication should be the primary concern of the votaries of human rights.

As for Bangladesh, the illegal migration into India is proving to be a major irritant in Indo-Bangladesh relations and has cast its shadow on the entire gamut of bilateral ties. The continuing influx and the continued presence of such persons in eastern and northeastern India is causing an intolerable strain on the body politic and national fabric of the entire country. India should be prepared to consider participating in international efforts to tackle this problem, including assisting in the economic development of those regions from where such influx takes place. This would, naturally, be on the condition that it does put an end to influx from that country.

With Nepal, the most cordial ties exist and must so continue. Nepal´s sense of unease with the Treaty of 1950, and its grievances with regard to the utilisation to its water resources and hydel potential need to be seriously and sympathetically addressed. The past must not be allowed to come in the way of the future. The agreement on the Mahakali signed in Kathamandu on 29 January is an example of a highly positive and constructive approach on the part of both countries. At the same time, Nepal cannot be oblivious to the fact that the entire Himalaya has a most strategic bearing on India´s security and defence-related thinking. One cannot be blind to one´s geography.

Furthermore, India is confident that Nepal will avoid, even subconsciously, becoming a part of ISI´s designs against India and by creating a base for anti-Indian terroristic activities.

On India´s part, however, it must seek to ensure that there is a large measure of complementary and mutual benefit to both countries in any shared project. India is also aware of Nepal´s deep feelings over the forced migration of Bhutanese refugees of Nepali origin to Nepal. The action of the be resolved in a spirit of cooperation and understanding.

Regarding Sri Lanka, India throughout its history, has had warm and fraternal relations with all sections of its population. India supports the realisation of legitimate aspirations of the Tamil people within a united Sri Lanka. India has a direct interest in an early resolution of the ethnic conflict and must, therefore, exert to the utmost to bring this about.

The ultimate objective of Indian foreign policy is to make human beings everywhere realise that they are all members of a compact family. This is what India´s sages of yore had meant when they placed before its people the idea of vasudhava kutumbakam (the whole world is your family).

– N.N. Jha, retired foreign service officer and former Indian High Commissioner to Sri Lanka, is a member of the BJP´s National Executive. The views expressed here are his own.