India as the Leader of South Asia

Introduction:

India occupies a unique position in the South Asian region. By the virtue of its size, location and economic potential, India assumes a natural leadership role in the region. The over-bearing presence of a neighbour with aspirations for global leadership has also been a source of apprehensions for the other South Asian countries. India claims a leadership position for herself,
while her South Asian neighbours accuse her of exercising hegemony. For a rational understanding of India’s position and leadership in the region the concepts of critical examination of Indian leadership will have to be unravelled and India’s policies and neighbour’s perceptions examined in the light of subsequent deductions.

The meaning of Leadership:

Leadership is the ability to lead or someone who is the head of a group of people. There are different strategies for obtaining and executing the most effective leadership along with different styles of management. Effective leadership does not necessarily mean the leader is good and the results benefit society, as evidenced by Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler. Good societies, however, are rarely extant without effective leadership. Understanding leadership has been the source of much research and theorizing. Sociologists such as Max Weber have been in the forefront of such work. It has been suggested that there are several kinds of leadership, with different qualities such as charisma, entrepreneurial spirit, and the ability to communicate and work well together with others. Understanding how to lead also involves understanding the role and needs of the followers.

Leadership perception is defined in terms of the match between perceiver prototypes (India’s South Asian neighbors) and the characteristics of the potential leaders (India). According to this view leadership perception was a dyadic level of processes that involved both perceiver and leader effects. Leadership lies in defining a positive direction and moving other partners towards more ambitious goals through unilateral action whenever possible. Leadership role can be understood to provide a more coherent and systematic worldview, which would serve as a principle of organization for social and economic institutions in the region.

Regional advantages of India in South Asia:

The structural approach to power concedes an advantaged position to India in South Asia. India was referred to as the “key to the development and progress of SAARC”. India’s responsibility in shaping and directing the cooperation drive was recognized by extra-regional powers. “The size and position of India give it a special role of leadership in South Asian and world affairs. They confer on it at the same time the special responsibility for accommodation and restraint that strength entails.” The main advantages India possess in South Asia which has greatly benefitted the country to appear as the leader of the region are given below:

1. Geological advantages:

The India shares borders with all South Asian countries, making it the vital physical link in the region. 72 percent of the land surface in South Asia is occupied by India, 77 percent of the region’s population resides in India. India accounts for 75 percent of the regional economic output. The economic potential and military capabilities of India have made the country a primary regional force in South Asia. L. Kadirgamar has used the analogy of a wheel to depict centrality of India in South Asian affairs. According to him at the hub of the wheel lies regionally preponderant India. Radiating as spokes are India’s neighbours with each of whom India shares land or maritime boundaries, but no two others are thus joined without at the same time touching India also. Binding those spokes to that hub are the physical barriers. The structural attributes of India’s power have been impressive enough to endow the country with added responsibilities. The South Asian nations in particular and global powers in general regard India to assume additional responsibility for ensuing regional development and cohesion. Statements of Heads of State at the inaugural Summit of SAARC reflect the degree of ‘power’ entrusted on the largest South Asian state – India. India was expected to “by deeds and words create the confidence among us so necessary to make a beginning”.

1. A Separate Subcontinent

India is a distinct geographical unit bounded on the north by the ranges of the Himalaya and Karakoram, on the north-west by the mountains to the west of the Indus, on the north-east by the hills of Assam and Cachar, and everywhere else by the sea, forming a distinct subdivision within the continent. It’s not a surprise that this area is called the Indian Subcontinent.

1. Less Number of Invasions in the Past

In ancient times, when no power attempted to assert full command of the sea, a country so largely surrounded by the ocean was inaccessible for the most part, and could be approached by land through its continental section only. The north-eastern hills and the gigantic Himalayan and Karakoram ranges present comparatively few passable openings, and none easy of passage for considerable bodies of men. But the hills west of the Indus are pierced by many passes more or less open. The main land gates of India are on her north-western frontier, and this physical fact dominated her history for thousands of years, avoiding thousands of potential invasions. It was only when water navigation developed in European countries did India become a colony.

1. Economic Advantages

Due to geographical position, China and India became the two most prosperous regions in the world with the highest living standards at around 0 BC. Economic activities like farming and places like markets were well established. Long coastline also created many natural ports and harbors. This led to the establishment of cities like Mumbai and Kolkata near the ports.

1. A Unique, but Diverse Culture

A very diverse geography is one of the primary reasons for diverse culture in India. We have desert, mountains, plains, coastal areas, plateau having diverse climatic conditions and natural resources which shaped regional habits and culture. Then a broad belt of hill and forest running from the Gulf of Cambay on the west to the mouths of the Mahanadi on the east, along with Vindhya and Satpura mountains and river Narmada separates North from South India. This barrier was difficult to cross in ancient times which is clearly reflected by almost distinct culture between the 2 regions.

Critical analysis of India as the Leader of South Asia:

It is axiomatic that India’s size and level of development enjoins on it the responsibility of being the natural fulcrum in the process of South Asian development. In dealing with regional concerns India claims to perform its leadership role by pursuing policies to further the common interest of regional states. But the hesitant and cautious policies pursued by India contradict the qualities of dynamic leadership. On the pretext of countering regional apprehensions, India has on many occasions abandoned the leadership mantle. Ironically such policies have fuelled allegations of lack of interest on India’s part for regional concerns. Hence India’s policies of avoiding leadership have led to perceptions of abandonment of regional responsibilities. The critical analysis of Indian Leadership is as follows:

1. Lack of Dynamism:

Dynamism is the most basic quality of leadership, which has not been demonstrated by India. India has shown reluctance for updating the Indo-Nepal Treaty of 1950 and the Indo-Bangladesh Treaty of 1972 despite repeated demands by the two states. The Indo-Bhutan Treaty of 1949 was updated only recently in 2007. Diplomatic dynamism implies making the right move when time is opportune; a characteristic missing in India’s regional manoeuvres. The insistence by India for signing a five year agreement with Bangladesh allowing it to transport goods to the North-East of India at the sidelines of the SAARC Summit in Sri Lanka in early August 2008 reflects the political naiveté of India. Without getting an assurance from Bangladesh on the issue, a public statement by the India’s Ministry of External Affairs on the possibility of signing an agreement only contributed in straining bilateral relations. Moreover expecting the Caretaker Government of Bangladesh to decide on such a sensitive issue demonstrates how distanced is India’s approach from the regional realities.

1. Reluctance to play a determining role in Regional Political Crisis:

In dealing with national political crisis, the South Asian states expect India to play a determining role. Ibrahim Hussain Zaki, Vice President, Maldivian Democratic Party, expected India to play a more active role in ensuring that true democracy is ushered in Maldives, rather than strengthening the hands of the dictatorial regime through defence packages. Former Nepalese Minister for Industries and senior leader of Communist Party of Nepal, Keshab Badal told The Hindu, “We urge the Indian Government not to lend support to the Nepal government that could end up with the latter turning even more repressive towards the movement for democracy in Nepal. We seek the sympathy of the Indian Government in our endeavours to replace the monarchy in Nepal with a democratic republic.” By officially disassociating herself from such regional pleas, India makes a phoney attempt to emerge as a neutral variable in the intra-national and intra-regional politics. The Sri Lankan crisis of the late 1980s has led India to adopt an over-cautious policy with regard to the problems of the Island state. The Indian government has refused to respond to the requests for arms supplies, allowing the Sri Lankan government to procure similar supplies from Pakistan and China. India has not even formally responded to the report that US Marine Corps are assisting Bangladesh in surveying and managing the Indo-Bangladesh border ostensibly with the objective of avoiding a direct confrontation on the issue with Bangladesh or the US. India has ignored the repeated requests by Nepal for assisting in the repatriation of Bhutanese refugees. By adopting a policy of passive dissociation rather than diplomatic innovativeness with regard to the crisis in the regional states India has surrendered its leadership role in the region.

1. Lack of insight and innovativeness:

The neighbour’s perceptions could be cited as reasons for abandoning leadership on political issues but the regional economic concerns are essentially a victim of India’s lack of insight and innovativeness. India remains uninterested in opening its market to the neighbours. Instead of leading the charge towards a rapid reintegration of the South Asian economic space, India remains hesitant in its approach. Security arguments are cited to prevent economic cooperation. India has not evolved a positive approach to deal with the issue of labour migration from Nepal and Bangladesh. The policy of erecting barbed wires to deal with labour migration negates the leadership potential of India in the region. India continues to ignore the regional realities by emphasizing on duty free trade, while the real constraints to intra-regional trade are to be found in tariff and para-tariff barriers. Bangladeshi products like ceramic, melamine products, garments, fruit juice, electrical wire, leather and footwear, edible oil, hilsha fish and traditional jute are in huge demand in India, but bilateral trade is hampered due to tariff barriers. India imposed additional duties on four major export items of Bangladesh-hilsha fish, sari, medicine and porcelain, while SAFTA was about to take effect. Mandatory testing requirements are applicable on India’s imports in areas such as food items, textiles and leather. The samples of Bangladeshi textile and leather products are sent to Lucknow and Chennai for testing which takes significant time. Obtaining licenses for meeting the Indian mandatory standards on a number of export interest items such as cement, electrical appliances, drinking water appliances etc. also involves considerable amount of time. India has neither taken the initiative to liberalise the license issuing procedure nor attempted to set up testing laboratories closer to the border area.

1. Detrimental regional policies:

Policies that appeared to be detrimental in terms of regional development has been frequently taken by India. Some of these policies are:

1. The Indira Doctrine:

The most obvious example cited as a justification of India’s hegemonic aspirations is the Indira Doctrine. The origins of the Doctrine are traced to the Sri Lankan crisis of 1988 and laid down that India would consider the presence or influence of an external power in the region as adverse to its interests. India’s justification for the policy was an attempt to insulate the region from the adverse effects of the Cold War, but the neighbours viewed it as a policy to abolish any challenge to India’s regional position. In the recent years India has not only allowed but in fact aligned with extra-regional powers to address regional issues, but the regional perceptions fail to take cognizance of these developments. The 1997 Pakistan National Elections were observed by the Commonwealth Secretary General, the EU Election Observation Mission participated in the 2002 General Elections in Pakistan. The 2001 General Elections in Bangladesh was attended by the UN Electoral Assistance Secretariat and the EU Election Observation Mission. There was ‘outstanding cooperation’ between US and Indian ambassadors to try and get Nepal back to multiparty democracy.

1. The Gujral Doctrine:

India has been using rhetoric to undo the harm caused by her policies in the region. Gujral Doctrine best illustrates this reality. It is important to note that the Gujral Doctrine is not an innovative Indian policy to allay fears of neighbours. It is a standard practice in international relations for the bigger states to grant concessions to the smaller countries. Voicing this concern J.N. Dixit has stated that such gestures of generosity (Gujral Doctrine) ‘smacks of a certain incipient big brotherly hegemonistic attitude.’ India has not genuinely applied the Doctrine on ground. For example, trade concessions to Bangladesh for a long time were made contingent on their giving transit rights. The discrepancy between India’s rhetoric and action is evident from the example here. India’s External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha had stated that India is seeking to “institutionalize positive asymmetry in favour of our neighbours.” This magnanimous statement of India needs to be contrasted with its policy of banning the broadcast of four Pakistani television channels in India-administered Kashmir in April 2008. Through such policies India’s regional credentials are gaining negative weightage.

1. Sporadic Leadership efforts:

The shortcomings in India’s regional policies do not imply a complete absence of the leadership spirit. Some examples of political and economic initiative are highlighted above in the discussion on India’s perceived hegemonism. There are other examples of India’s sporadic leadership efforts in the region as well. India responded promptly to the Tsunami that hit the Indian Ocean islands, particularly SAARC member state Sri Lanka in December 2006. The Indian Navy deployed thirty two naval ships, seven aircraft and twenty helicopters in support of five rescue, relief and reconstruction missions as part of ‘Operation Madad’ (Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu coast), ‘Operation Sea Waves’ (Andaman & Nicobar Islands), ‘Operation Castor’ (Maldives), ‘Operation Rainbow’ (Sri Lanka) and ‘Operation Gambhir’ (Indonesia). India rushed relief supplies to Pakistan after a powerful earthquake hit Jammu and Kashmir in October 2005. India has put forth proposals for the free movement of media persons and media products in South Asia and the establishment of cultural sub centres under the main SAARC Cultural Centre in Kandy. At the 14th SAARC Summit held in 2007, India offered unilateral concessions in the form of allowing duty free access to goods from the least developed countries of South Asia. India also initiated discussions on establishing a South Asia University and working towards creating a common currency for the region.

Conclusion:

“The Indian elephant cannot transform itself into a mouse. If South Asia is to get itself out of the crippling binds of conflicts and cleavages, the six will have to accept the bigness of the seventh. And the seventh, that is India, will have to prove to the six that big can indeed be beautiful” said Bhabani Sen Gupta. The enabling and constraining capabilities of India with regard to promoting regional cooperation in South Asia had been discussed even before the conceptual journey of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) began in 1983. There is no doubt over India’s power on the nations of South Asia. But in order to gain a good regional outlook and credibility over Indian policies by other nations of the region India must start co-operating with the policies of other South Asian nations. Without a relationship of mutual understanding and co-operation all of South Asia will not accept its leadership. For the sake of greater good of this region India must extend the hand of such relationship first.

Fahim Ahmed