India’s neighbourhood has been growing in importance over the last decade – a trend that is only likely to continue. Though India always worried about external influences close to its borders – with the exception of Pakistan and its global partnerships – this was largely not a serious concern. But as China’s power and influence grow, New Delhi has a stronger reason to look beyond Pakistan and actively engage with other South Asian nations.
As elections in both Bangladesh and the Maldives have shown, domestic political changes in smaller neighbouring countries can set off potential difficulties for India. New Delhi’s missteps, such as touting Lakshadweep as a tourism alternative to Maldives, haven’t helped matters.
The neighbourhood has always been a little bewildering for India’s foreign-policy makers. One continuity in Indian foreign policy is its problem with the neighbourhood. At one level, this is a general problem. India suffers the critical weakness that afflicts all regional powers: they are much stronger than their neighbours, but not strong enough to force the smaller states to defer to them. Except for Pakistan, which was at least consistently adversarial, the smaller neighbours have been more slippery, occasionally troublesome, and sometimes supportive and rarely predictable.
Focus on the neighbourhood
For any country, the neighbourhood is the most vital region, a truth that comes down from Kautilya. The reason is simple: the neighbourhood is the source of the greatest danger because threats usually arise here. This is true even for great powers, which is one reason why the scholar John Mearsheimer defines them as countries that first seek and achieve regional hegemony. If a nation cannot keep other great powers out of its region, the region will become a source of insecurity that will prevent the country from becoming a true great power itself. By this measure, of course, the US remains the only genuine great power. This is also one reason why China and Russia seek to control their neighbourhoods, and why the US and others work hard to ensure they do not. Russia has already failed, with the US-led Western alliance now spreading to the Baltics. For China, a key measure of whether it is a great power will be if it manages to push the US out of East Asia and the northern Indo-Pacific.
This is the major change that India faces in the neighbourhood. During the last Cold War, South Asia was only tangentially and occasionally important to the two global powers and the region was largely left to Indian devices. But now, South Asia matters to Beijing much more than it did to either the US or the Soviet Union. China seeks to dominate Asia as the US dominates the Western Hemisphere. China is not as fortunate as the US because India, Japan and other regional powers are capable enough to stand their ground if the US supports them.
Also read: Awami League fought Awami League in Bangladesh & won. Hasina should worry about an Arab Spring
Why South Asia is crucial
Thus, unlike during the last Cold War, South Asia will be much more central to this bipolar contest. It should be no surprise then, that Beijing seeks to contain India by balancing it within South Asia, by using some of the latter’s smaller neighbours. This gives the smaller countries greater leeway to both counter India and play New Delhi and Beijing off against each other.
They are likely to take the opportunity. Bangladesh has been the only consistently friendly neighbour in the last decade, but this could also change. Bangladesh has been close to India under the present regime run by Sheikh Hasina, a partnership that owes as much to the family and political history as mutual convenience. The Awami League has clearly burned its bridges with the democratic process, and it now can only hope that its international partners will help it manage any global fallout. New Delhi has not much choice because if it does not provide this support, Beijing will eagerly step into the breach. But the problem is that aligning too closely with one side in a domestic dispute potentially burns New Delhi’s bridges with any future opposition movement. There is a nascent ‘India Out’ movement in Bangladesh, but how serious it is and what effects it will have on the future politics of the country remain to be seen. Domestic politics is notoriously fickle and competition between India and China will generate opportunities that could lead to unexpected swings in foreign policy.
Maldives is a good illustration of these difficulties. Mohammed Muizzu’s rise to power as president was somewhat unexpected; the resounding victory of his party in the just concluded parliamentary elections even more so. Part of this might be just that he has not yet had time to disappoint the voters. It is doubtful that he will be able to make good on all his promises, especially as he is tasked with resolving serious economic problems. The country is deeply in debt and while China may help some, Beijing’s track record is not great. Hyper-nationalism is always popular with the electorate, but campaigns like ‘India Out’ can only provide a temporary high rather than being the basis of any consistent policy. New Delhi might have a chance to correct its missteps, considering that China’s frequent ineptness is a considerable strategic gift.
Sri Lanka is a good illustration of Beijing’s ineptness. The massive debt that the country has incurred at China’s hands, and its reluctance to resolve the problem, means that India got an unexpected reprieve by stepping in to help Colombo. It has had some additional benefits, with Sri Lanka announcing a year-long moratorium on foreign ‘research’ ships visiting the country, a response to Indian concerns about China’s frequent forays into the region. Nepal provides another example of Chinese inefficiency, with growing Nepalese concerns about unnecessary infrastructure and debt, and other difficulties that closeness to China bring.
Pakistan is less fortunate than the other smaller countries because unlike them, it really cannot switch sides between India and China. But for at least a while, Islamabad’s current domestic troubles will keep it a less serious problem than it has been historically. But it is unlikely that the country will not escape its current difficulties.
All this suggests that despite the growing importance of the region, New Delhi’s situation is slightly more favourable than it has been for a while. But much of this is based on others’ mistakes rather than Indian astuteness, not always a good bet for the long term in such an intense competition.
The author is a professor of International Politics at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi. He tweets @RRajagopalanJNU. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)