The fact that GeoPolitics is in for tough time will make GeoPolitics even more interesting to follow and write about.
Soon after independence, India realised that it was fast emerging as the largest and most influential non-western nation in the United Nations. Around the same time, the world had entered the post-war scenario. The Soviet Union had acquired an empire in Eastern Europe and also gained enormous power.
The United States was almost aloof from international involvement. But it found itself getting more international respect. It also became dramatically more active. In contrast, Japan, Germany, France and the United Kingdom which were earlier active lay subdued. This opened a new era even for New Delhi.
India's running start engagement in diplomacy was possible because India already had considerable diplomatic engagements even before independence.
The "Running start engagement in diplomacy" refers to a proactive and early approach to diplomatic efforts, emphasizing the importance of initiating contact and building relationships before conflicts or crises arise.
So India had initial advantages. However, there were hiccups and hurdles. Notwithstanding the rhetoric of non-alignment as is cited often; India was also heavily foreign-aid-dependent nation till the end of 1960s. To start with one can mention that India's agri productivity was in bad shape.
This forced India to seek concessional PL480 found aid from the United States.
At the same it ought to be grasped that at independence, India was already a member of 51 international bodies and was bound by 627 treaties. As Prime Minister and India's foreign minister for long 17 years in office, Jawaharlal Nehru was obsessed with certain ideas such as non-alignment. That means, India's foreign policy remained politics-focused.
In the process of course the politically focused foreign policy hurt India's economic interests. We can take a few examples to strengthen the argument here - both on the economic front and in geo-politics.
In the words Nani Palkhivala; Israel was to India ... what Quality was to Quantity. The delay in recognising Israel - a nation of one of the most dynamic people of the world - was perhaps the greatest mistakes in India's foreign policy.
For records, on 14 May 1948—the day the last British forces left Haifa—the People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum and proclaimed the establishment of a Jewish state to serve as the homeland for the Jewish people.
 |
| Blogger |
In the 1960s, India was inching closer to the US. During the Sino-India war of 1962, it even called for US military aid. But this was short-lived and in 1964, New Delhi had almost committed to Moscow for a long term realistic and geo-strategic relationships. The year 1971 saw the Indo-US and India's relations with the west and Europe decline further.
Incidentally, India also suffered diplomatically as Indira Gandhi's support to Bangladesh to liberate itself coincided with a growing axis between China and the United States. Things stuck at that for a decade and more. Only by 1987, the Govt of India realised two things - need for friendship with the US and also tweak the foreign policy whenever necessary in the context of country's economic need.
In 1990 or so, India also recognised that the American presence in the Arabian sea could be accepted.
The China factor:
Around 1950, China was an economically shattered country. But India soon realised that it was still nationalistically and ideologically a surcharged nation.
New Delhi then believed in the power of Sino-Soviet-India axis. In modern context, it is better known as RIC -- Russia, India and China. But Nehru's handling of China had a few faultlines. Nehru even justified expansionist concept of Beijing.
"It is very difficult for a giant not to function sometimes as a giant," Nehru had said and even maintained -- "Every great and powerful country tends to expand and to be somewhat aggressive".
Look at these lapses. In Aksai Chin, India had no agreement either with Tibet or China. If it was immature and politically heedless of India to rely excessively on a colonial agreement in the NEFA (modern day Arunachal Pradesh region); it was strategically amiss "not to recognise Aksai Chin's vital role for a resurgent China", says book 'Society, State and Security - The Indian Experience' penned by Verghese Koithara.
On the other hand China acted smart even in 1971. During Bangladesh war of independence, China's support to Pakistan was less belligerent than it was in the 1965 war. We must not forget that the 1962 war demolished India's standing at the Asian and global stage.
The defeat gave a tactical booster to Indian insurgent groups in north east and Nagas and Mizo rebels started raising alarm and also established good working relations with those supporting them in China.
At the same a so-called peace was heralded at the border with India accepting China's occupation of Aksai Chin and for its part Beijing also accepted New Delhi's "return" to NEFA region after the defeat.
Nevertheless, Chinese diplomats even around 2000 used to say in Delhi that they do not consider Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim as integral part of India.
China again did its homework pretty well. The establishment of a triangular strategic relations with USSR and the US and also with a veto power at the UNSC; from 1972 China became much respected internationally.
On Aug 6, 2019 - a day after abrogation of Article 370 - Home Minister Amit Shah, told Lok Sabha that he could give his life for the integrity of Jammu and Kashmir and that included Aksai Chin.
Close to the 2020 flashpoint zone Galwan Valley; the Aksai Chin region is controlled by China but it is claimed by India as part of Ladakh.
 |
| India's mercurial Home Minister Amit Shah |
Shah even exploded in anger when an opposition member wondered why he was being so aggressive while talking about Aksai Chin.
“I am aggressive because don’t you consider the Pakistan-occupied part of Jammu and Kashmir, as part of India?” Shah asked.
“Iske liye jaan de denge. Aap aggressive hone ki baat karte hain? Hum iske liye jaan de denge. (We are ready to give our life for this. You are talking about getting aggressive? I am ready to give my life for this),” Shah said.
Then he referred to Aksai Chin. “Mr Speaker, I want to put this on record that whenever I say state of Jammu & Kashmir in the House, then both PoK and Aksai Chin are part of it".
“The boundaries of Jammu and Kashmir decided in our Constitution, and also in the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, includes PoK and Aksai Chin,” he added.
The Chinese had reacted strongly after the Modi government, riding a huge popular mandate in 2019 polls abrogated Article 370 to end the special status of Jammu and Kashmir and designated it as US. The centre also created Ladakh as a separate Union Territory.
“We urge India to be cautious in its words and deeds on the border issue, strictly abide by the relevant agreements reached between the two sides, and avoid taking actions that further complicate the border issue,” the Chinese foreign ministry had said in a statement.
In 2019 August, reportedly in an informal session of the UN Security Council, the Chinese Permanent Representative, lodged a protest, saying India’s actions has “challenged the Chinese sovereign interests and violated bilateral agreements on maintaining peace and stability in the border area.…”.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang later said in Oct 2019 : “China urges the Indian side to earnestly respect Chinese territorial sovereignty, abide by our treaties and uphold peace and tranquility in the border areas and create favourable conditions for the proper settlement of boundary question".
ends
No comments:
Post a Comment