Font size: 
Nations outside of SAARC, like Myanmar, are also behaving miserably. Although Myanmar is an Indian Ocean state and India's neighbor to the east, it has chosen to identify itself with China rather than with India. In this case, India is in error. The U.S./U.K. propaganda of democracy has backed India into a corner. India sacrificed its economic wellbeing to political and diplomatic expediency. Net result: Myanmar's ruling junta looked toward China for support. They got this support, and China got a major toehold in the Bay of Bengal and offshore gas, which India was hoping to get.
Iran is another key example of India's foreign policy failure. Like Myanmar it is not a SAARC nation but is important to India. Here too, the development of nuclear technology provided by Pakistan is not sitting well with the West. India again is at the loosing end of the stick. If India backs the Iranians, it upsets the West. If India backs the West then gas from Iran will be a pipe dream.
Other SAARC nations like Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh all want everything from India for free and offer nothing in return, hence an impasse. Issues like local civil strife and lack of economic progress are hurting their populations, which bothers India. India as a big brother wishes to help, but help is poorly managed, hence there is no visible progress in the wellbeing of people.
Pakistan in South Asia is a special case. Its main aim is to oppose and compete with India. All territorial disputes are fundamentally self-created and without merit. It suits Pakistan in every respect to stand in the way of India's initiatives. By and large they have succeeded over the last fifty years in unsettling neighborly relations between SAARC nations.
India in the past fifty years has been neither friend nor enemy to Myanmar. Over the years, militant groups Naga, Mizo and now ULFA have had their supply bases there. At India's request, they were rooted out from time to time.
With the arrival of Aung San Suu Kyi from the West, circumstances changed. She is British educated, married to a British citizen, and has a high regard for Western values and democracy. The military junta currently in power looks at her with suspicion. Like Musharraf in Pakistan, the military rulers do not wish to relinquish power, hence have thrown her in jail. The West has punished the Myanmar junta with economic sanctions.
The Chinese in the north have taken full advantage of the situation. They pampered the military junta with a U.N. veto of a resolution criticizing Myanmar. The junta rewarded the Chinese with all kinds of goodies - especially natural gas and hydropower deals. India is stunned at the Chinese coup, but can do nothing. It is the result of excessive Western influence on India's foreign policy, with complete disregard for its self-interest.
By contrast, Iran has refused to be bullied by the West. It has nothing to fear. It has gained so much influence in the Persian Gulf at the expense of America, thanks to the Iraq War, that any military action against it could result in a complete shutdown of oil flow thru the Straits of Hormuz. Alternatively, the rise of Shiite power should not be unwelcome. It is a counter to excessive Sunni power out of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, hence it should be quietly welcomed. The West has not understood this logic yet. India's self-interest lies with Iran. Iran has gas which India needs -- whether it comes via pipeline or large LNG tankers will depend upon circumstances. Iranian gas is also a counterweight to excessive demands by the United States in the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal.
The political situations in Sri Lanka, Nepal and Afghanistan are far from clear. Each is mired in a civil war with no end in sight. India does not know who to support and who not to. Sri Lanka's case is unique. There, India burned its hand in 1986-7 trying to be helpful -- now it feels it's much better to leave them alone. That has given countries like Pakistan an opportunity to take sides -- not a very pleasant thought for India. The United States is interested in berthing rights at Sri Lanka's deepwater port of Trincomalee, but they prefer not to play favorites with anybody at this moment. Peace in Sri Lanka would benefit both the minority Tamil and the majority Sinhalese, yet peace continues to elude the island nation.
Nepal is in the midst of an anti-monarchy civil war. The monarchy has outlived its utility. Perhaps the present king should become a constitutional monarch, as that would begin to heal the divided nation. India has no quarrel with either side in the dispute. It is again Pakistan that India has to worry about in Nepal. Pakistan has found Nepal an easy place to locate its Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) agents to trouble India. The Nepalese, being tolerant people, have turned a blind eye to this Indian concern, though it is an issue easy to resolve. Before that, an internal political settlement has to take place however. India is hoping for a quick resolution.
As for the Afghans, India only wishes them well, in the face of Taliban, Pakistani and NATO forces. For peace to succeed in that country, Pakistan has to break up, with the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Pashtun areas declaring independence. That would deny Pakistan the key aspect of its foreign policy against India. The Pashtuns, being independent-minded people, would disconnect from Pakistan and reconnect with the Afghan Pashtuns, and jointly they would establish peace in Afghanistan. If that happened, NATO, Pakistan, and more importantly the Taliban, would seek peace from within. A reformed Afghanistan would seek better relations with India and Iran to offset Pakistani influence.
Poverty-stricken Bangladesh has become a hotbed of mullah politics. Thanks to Pakistan and its ISI, the nation is mired in self-serving politics. Pakistan's ISI never relinquished its influence, even though Pakistan has been out of it for the last 37 years. Politics is routinely conducted between two "begums" -- female politicians -- one of which is fully aligned with Pakistan and allows mullah influence, the other which is a bit more moderate but weighed down by the need to stay in power. In either case, anti-Indian politics are played out openly and unabashedly to the detriment of their own self-interest. India can only wait and watch.
How can India sort out this mess? SAARC as a block for peace and prosperity should be dismantled. That would deny Pakistan a forum for its full-throated anti-Indian propaganda. Next, all outstanding minor issues between Nepal, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh should be sorted out. Later, trade and cultural lies should change the landscape for good.
Regarding Pakistan, India has to wait and watch its breakup under the immense weight of its unwieldy military. The Americans will be gone from Afghanistan sooner or later. Osama Bin Laden will die in a cave somewhere. After that, a major effort to prop up Pakistan by the Americans will become unnecessary. The political and economic situation will worsen without American money. With Pashtun independence, a push by the Buloch for independence will further complicate matters for the Pakistani military.
A traumatically divided Pakistan would cease to be a threat to world peace. Its nuclear weapons and F-16s would be no threat because the Americans could immobilize them quickly.
In short, India has to protect its self-interest in the region and mend fences. It needs to play big brother and overlook many concerns. In areas like Pakistan India has to wait and see. Seeds of self-destruction are already visible in Pakistan. After the withdrawal of American money and influence, the breakup of Pakistan is a certainty.
--
(Hari Sud is a retired vice president of C-I-L Inc., a former investment strategies analyst and international relations manager. A graduate of Punjab University and the University of Missouri, he has lived in Canada for the past 34 years. ©Copyright Hari Sud.)
