Neighborhood turmoil, lesson for India

In late 2016, a senior Indian government official, in a meeting with a neighboring country’s envoy, outlined the consequences the country would face if the Narendra Modi government’s new “muscle foreign policy” was passed. At the time, the government had put Pakistan on notice over the terrorist attacks, and canceled foreign secretary-level talks; In Sri Lanka, the Rajapaksa government, which was seen as cohabiting with China, was ousted, with some reports that Indian intelligence had played a role in facilitating opposition talks; And in Nepal, the coalition government of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli had collapsed, similar nudges were reported from New Delhi.

The message the official gave was that New Delhi would use all its levers to dominate any uncooperative South Asian neighbour. However, the strict message did not take much of a liking over time. By the Modi government’s second term, it had made peace in the neighborhood with a much more conciliatory, conciliatory policy – ​​improving relations with each country (minus Pakistan) through high-level visits, development aid and lines of credit, and Enabling a multitude of soft power diplomacy.

change in attitude

The contrast currently lies between India’s response to events in 2016, followed by non-election changes on top of five neighboring democracies, namely Myanmar, Nepal, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The first difference is that New Delhi has not been held responsible for any of its neighboring capitals attempting to interfere with their political processes. Second, South Block has abandoned its equally muscular “one size fits all” approach to the region.

While in Myanmar, the Modi government continued engagement and even strengthened ties with the military junta that overthrew the government led by Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy, in Afghanistan. broke ties with the Taliban, which took power in Kabul by force after the Afghan president. Ashraf Ghani left the country. In Nepal where Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba came to power after the Supreme Court sacked KP Oli and Sri Lanka, where public protests forced Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa to resign and President Gotabaya Rajapaksa was replaced by rival and opposition leader Ranil Wickremesinghe was forced to appoint him as the new Prime Minister. New Delhi has been supportive of the processes to a large extent. Whereas in Pakistan, it has almost ignored the swearing-in of Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif after Imran Khan lost the trust vote.

more people than leaders

A second lesson that seems to have been learned is that New Delhi’s message is now focused on the neighbourhood, rather than just those in power. For example, in Afghanistan, the Modi government spent months in careful negotiations with Pakistani officials to ensure it could send 50,000 metric tons of wheat to the Afghan people, despite the fact that it had no links with Islamabad or Kabul. There is no diplomatic involvement. In Sri Lanka, a statement from the Ministry of External Affairs said that India “will always be guided by the best interests of the people of Sri Lanka expressed through democratic processes”, a subtle pitch for both the people and democratic processes in the region. The third lesson is perhaps to reduce rhetoric on domestic issues in the neighborhood – the government’s public response to the Durga Puja violence against Bangladesh’s Hindu minority last year was much more nuanced than its message while moving forward for the Citizenship (Amendment) Act . In 2019, some have also suggested that the delay in rulemaking for the CAA since then has more to do with concerns about relations with Dhaka and not the COVID-19 pandemic.

neutral position will not work

However, there are other lessons New Delhi should learn from the regime change in the neighbourhood, and some of them apply to the Indian context as well. After all, it is the Indian subcontinent in the Indian Ocean and what happens here cannot leave India untouched. Therefore, a muted or “neutral” position may not characterize the Modi government’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or changes to Hong Kong or China’s move in the South China Sea region. India faces the direct impact of almost every South Asian country in crisis in terms of the need for aid and credit or a potential influx of refugees, as movements developing in one neighboring country are often mirrored in another. Therefore, they should be observed more closely.

The first lesson to be learned is that populism doesn’t pay off in the long run. While a powerful combination of ultra-nationalism, religious majoritarianism, and a rigid elitism could bring to power “people of the masses” like Mahinda Rajapaksa, KP Oli, and Imran Khan (as they promise an alternative to corrupt, dynastic rule) ), not necessarily keeping them there. It is a mistake for any government to equate electoral victory and mandate for governance with carte blanche to govern a country.

The second is that a leader’s popularity may decline sharply and suddenly for one or several reasons: KP Oli won a landslide victory in 2017, where his Left coalition won a majority in both houses, and seven Formed governments in six provinces; Imran Khan won all five National Assembly seats he contested in the 2018 elections, and while his party did not get a majority, it won the popular vote; And the Rajapaksa-led Sri Lanka People’s Party (SLPP) ruling coalition won 150 of the 225 parliamentary seats in 2020. These popular mandates, which can be set aside in just a few years, are a clear reminder that nothing is forever, especially in a democracy.

It is also clear that during the crises facing Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, the leaders who stepped in to breach did not have the same political acumen or the presence of oratory as the leaders they replaced, but both domestic and international. level because they had the experience and education on their side. Mr. Deuba became prime minister for the fifth time, for example, Mr. Sharif had the longest tenure as chief minister of Pakistan’s Punjab in three terms before becoming prime minister, and Ranil Wickremesinghe was appointed prime minister for the sixth time.

Does India’s neighborhood policy need to be reworked? , The Hindu Parle Podcast

economy matters

The next lesson is that the President of the United States, George H.W. Bush, learned in 1992, despite his pitch for the Iraq War and patriotism, as Bill Clinton defeated him in an election where the big slogan was “this is the economy, idiot”. The defeat of populists in Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka has not come at the hands of opposition parties, but from slowdown in growth, jobs and rising inflation. India had already seen six consecutive quarters of losses in December 2019, and when COVID-19 was first reported, most neighborhoods were also faltering. In the years that followed, the COVID-19 pandemic imposed lockdowns, and the resulting slowdown in the global economy reduced GDP figures in the region. More recently, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and sanctions by the West have pushed up food and fuel prices. So the change of power in these three countries took only a small push from the military, from the courts, or from street protests. New Delhi must study not only the causes of economic mismanagement that led to change in the neighborhood but also the impact of new vulnerabilities on smaller neighboring countries that can be exploited by global powers as they seek more direct influence in the region. Huh. Given the common challenges facing the region, New Delhi should find new ways to activate regional groups such as the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) and Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal (BBIN). ) initiative, and even to reconsider SAARC, to discuss a shared vision to revive tourism and exports, to support South Asian migrant workers abroad and to counter inflationary impacts on the South Asian economy. To create common pool of food and fuel stock to reduce the blow.

consent needed

Finally, the Modi government must learn from the lessons of political culture that degrade the “alpha leaders” in neighboring democracies. One of the common threads in each government (Rajapaksa, Oli and Khan) was an aversion to consensus building. In different ways, each of them turned their protest into an “enemy”, and sealed off the media, non-governmental organizations and any polling areas other than their own. Nations, especially democracies, run on multiple engines – not just a party or a monolith of people in power. As New Delhi assumes its role as a regional leader, the government would be wise to study not only the impact of changes in the neighborhood on Indian policy, but also the way neighboring countries look at India in the mirror for a better understanding of India. Will happen. Future challenges within the country.

suhasini.h@thehindu.co.in