Indian hegemonic tendencies

Pakistan OBSERVER, Tue, Jun,12, 2007.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

The Pakistani foreign office spokesperson has recently sent a pointed message to India that it would not tolerate hegemonic designs of any country in the region and stressed that the respect for sovereign equality of states was vital for the peace in the region. The issue of Indian hegemony attracted the spotlight when Indian advice to Sri Lanka against acquiring weapons from Pakistan was reported. While recognizing that the issue is primarily a matter for the Sri Lankan government, she stressed that such statements raise questions about India’s attitude and policy towards its neighbors and the region. 

It seems appropriate to define what exactly is meant by hegemony before one analyzes Indian policy pursuits. The word hegemony implies dominance by one country over the other regional countries. It is indeed not surprising to learn that the powerful countries frequently demonstrate such tendencies to impose their own policy pursuits upon the other regional countries. However one must also acknowledge that extending advice does not necessarily imply imposition or dominance. But the advice of a powerful neighbor always reflect hegemonic tendencies especially if it is an advice to prevent or obstruct another country’s legitimate trade with the target state. 

Theoretically all states under the operative international state system are considered as sovereign and equal but realistic view clearly indicates that the states are neither equal nor enjoy absolute sovereignty. There are powerful and weak, small and large, over populated and under populated, resource rich and poor states. Some states are enjoying the geographical advantage while other is facing hardships because of unfavorable geographical locations such as landlocked states. 

The tyranny of geography sometimes manifests in a rather strange way. South Asia is a region with glaring peculiarities. It is an Indo-centric region implying that India is the dominant power. Almost all states of South Asia are neighbors of India in terms of having physical borders with India but none of the other states enjoy physical borders with each other.  Indian policy objectives have not only been to strengthen themselves militarily in order to assert their dominant position but also to prevent outsiders from encouraging the regional powers to challenge India’s authority and to limit their involvement in the region. 

Apart from Pakistan, India has been successful in limiting outsider’s involvement in the region. By demonstrating and projection of force its capabilities along with its willingness to play the role of regional policeman, it has successfully brought almost all South Asian states except Pakistan within matrix of its informal regional security system. In the cases of Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka formal treaties, agreements and accords have linked these states with the Indian security system. Not only did the secret clauses of the Indo-Nepalese of 1950 and several subsequent agreements provide for cooperation on security matters but Bhutan is also closely tied to India on security issues through many agreements. 

Until 1983, Sri Lanka remained free from Indian security network and maintained security ties with countries outside the South Asian region despite Indian objections. The eruption of ethnic strife compelled the Sri Lankan government to sign Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement in 1987 which not only enabled the Indian forces to enter Sri Lanka with specific objective of maintaining peace and order in areas of confrontations but also forbade Sri Lanka to make its port Trinconmalee available for military use to any country in a manner prejudicial to India’s interests. 

The intensity of Tamil insurgency in Sri Lanka and consequent deterioration of Indo-Sri Lankan relations had worried India that Sri Lanka might provide the base at Trincomalee to outsiders in return for military assistance to quell the Tamil insurgency. It appears that Sri Lankan approaches to US, UK, China, Israel and Pakistan for general support and more specifically requests to secure weapons and military training to counter effectively the Tamil insurgency exacerbated Indian fears and apprehensions. The accord not only eliminated all Indian fears and brought Sri Lanka into the Indian security system but also satisfied the requirements of ‘Indira Doctrine’ which was enunciated in 1983.

According to Indira Doctrine-an Indian version of Monroe Doctrine- India will neither intervene in the domestic affairs of any state in the region unless requested to do so nor tolerate such intervention by an outsider power; if external assistance is needed to meet internal crisis, states should first look within the region for help. Now it seems that India is also beginning to object to help extended by the regional countries. 

While Bangladesh and Maldives are not formally linked with Indian security system, but for all practical purposes, both states are included in Indian strategic planning. Besides, Maldives is indebted to India for its successful effort to foil a coup attempt in November 1988. Although India’s neighbors normally avoid any public commitment to the Indian security system, their own security policies are invariably developed in such way that reflects that the Indian sensitivities are accorded full attentions. 

It needs to be mentioned here that among the South Asian countries, India is the only country that has repeatedly sent its forces to neighboring countries. Apart from Pakistan with which it has fought so many wars and brutal suppression in Kashmir which it considers as its own part, the Indian forces have been sent to invade East Pakistan, to rescue the regime in Maldives, and to assist Sri Lankan authorities in dealing with Tamil insurgents. 

A close scrutiny of Indian policy pursuits during the last 60 years of independent existence clearly point towards Indian tendencies to dominate the entire region. India has its own grand vision and for its realization it has been pursuing policies that often entailed the dominant mode of imposing its will. Being the largest and powerful country of the region, no regional country is inclined to earn the wrath of Indian unnecessarily. The only possible exception is Pakistan which has not only successfully countered Indian hegemonic pursuits but also maintained its independent existence. It has been able to involve the outsider and non-regional powers as well. 

Rejecting the Indian hegemonic pursuits and upholding the sovereign rights of the regional countries to conduct their policies is something that should be supported by all members of the UN. While taking full cognizance of incumbent unevenness among the member states, it is imperative for world bodies to support the generally agreed principles of sovereign independence and non-interference. Admittedly it may not be easy for body like UN especially in view of its past record but the regional organization should take a serious note of such negative advice as such advice could also damage the onward march of the regional organization. The policies aimed to extend influence over other countries are regarded as something very normal within the comity of nations but to advise not to get any particular commodity from a specifically named country amounts to fanning negativism.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.