South Asia

Geopolitical role of India: Problems of multi-vector policy

Published

4 years ago

August 30, 2019

In the wake of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s landslide victory in the recent parliamentary elections, observers are now discussing the prospects of a new phase in the role their country is playing in the world.

Indian experts believe that “the world is moving in the direction of multi-polarity, albeit asymmetric, which in the long haul can turn into a US-Chinese bipolar system.” According to them, New Delhi is wary of China’s claims for global dominion. Simultaneously, the current Indian government has set itself ambitious, long-term goals aimed at strengthening the country’s international standing as a “serious global player,” while creating new opportunities for speeding up its development and economic growth. The experts also believe that India can gain a full-fledged status of a great power only if it manages to “independently create multilateral organizations that would safeguard its interests and express its values”. One of the most realistic scenarios being contemplated is developing a strategy of “counterbalancing” China to combine “new and revived functional initiatives of regional economic cooperation, as well as models of sub-regional integration”.

India is now trying to counterbalance its growing strategic partnership with the United States by strengthening and diversifying ties with Russia and building a comprehensive interaction with China.

The developments currently unfolding in Greater Asia and the Asia-Pacific region, which the Americans and many others now call the Indo-Pacific Region (IPR), apparently favor India. Almost all countries having interests in this vast area, which is gradually turning into one of the world’s primary regions, now want to work closely with New Delhi in an effort to achieve both their tactical and long-term strategic goals. This means that without India’s participation, let alone with the open opposition by its leadership, neither Washington’s IPR project, nor Beijing’s “Community of Common Destiny” concept can be fully implemented. Without India the Chinese project remains incomplete, downgraded to a trans-regional status from a continental one. The same with the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy which, in the event of India’s departure, will essentially lose one of its two main pillars.

However, experts believe that, objectively speaking, both these initiatives assign New Delhi a supporting role, while India is yet to formulate its own big concept, its strategic vision of the future of Asia. India also wants to retain for itself maximum freedom of maneuver and flexibility in international relations and uphold its claim to be the “system-forming” power of South Asia. Meanwhile, the interest of Washington and Beijing, which are struggling for dominance in Asia, in adding a third equal “pole” to what is happening, is apparently situational and limited just to certain aspects of their relations with India. Europe, for its part, may be prepared to recognize and support India’s growing sway, but is equally burdened by its own problems.

The geopolitical aspect of relations between India, China and the United States is thus becoming increasingly complex and multifaceted. On the one hand, Beijing and New Delhi both recognize the objective need for mending fences, with China interested in ramping up cooperation with India, all the more so amid its current standoff with Washington. On the other hand, systemic factors holding back a qualitative improvement of Sino-Indian relations remain too significant. First of all, these are the struggle for spheres of influence in Asia and India’s growing economic lag from China. Hence the steps being taken by New Delhi to contain the spread of Chinese influence across the vast region stretching from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific. New Delhi is openly probing the possibility of cobbling together coalitions, which would have a certain anti-Chinese tilt, primarily by building up ties with the United States, Japan and, probably, also with Australia as part of the hypothetical “Asian Entente.” India is also counting on Shiite Iran in its effort to offset Beijing’s growing influence in Sunni Pakistan, which is India’s “main historical adversary.”

As for the US, it also needs India, primarily as a counterbalance to China. Washington calls India a “vital partner” in safeguarding its interests across the entire Indian Pacific region. Washington is also making clear to New Delhi its desire to ramp up its current confrontation with China beyond purely economic issues. Simultaneously, Washington’s political goals for the long haul are multidimensional: to check China’s growing sway across Greater Asia, including in Pakistan; to prevent a military-political alliance between China, Pakistan and Iran; maintain leverage over India by acting primarily via Pakistan and Afghanistan. Donald Trump’s current policy vis-à-vis Pakistan is objectively prodding that country to take more decisive action in Afghanistan. This is also playing into the hands of those in Pakistan who are the most unswerving supporters of confrontation with India. Meanwhile, any escalation of tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad could bring about a new cool in relations now existing between India and China. US political observers are certain about the incompatibility of the fundamental interests of these two countries, which they believe are “doomed” to remain strategic rivals in the entire Indian Ocean region. Chances are high, therefore, that the two Asian giants will remain stuck in a “midway” position for years to come. “Between not being ready to give in and not being able to move forward,” as some experts put it.

A relatively sluggish pace of socio-economic development remains the main obstacle to strengthening India’s position in Asia and elsewhere in the world. India suffers from the “standard growth diseases” that normally come with accelerated changes in the economy and social sphere. Social inequality is increasing, corruption is widespread, the country is short of natural resources, and the environmental situation is deteriorating. Add to this recurrent terrorist attacks, manifestations of separatism and vestiges of traditionalism constraining efforts to modernize Indian society. Hence the intense discussions, which are being held “regarding the sustainability of current models of socio-economic development.”

In its effort to rectify the growing imbalances in the country’s development, the Modi government is preparing and is already implementing large-scale reform programs in the economy, administrative and financial spheres. The authorities say they are going to bring the national GDP to $5 trillion by 2024. With the country’s need for investments increasing, the primary goal now is to lure investors from both China and the United States. Chinese money is not only breathing new vigor into India’s economic development, but is also becoming a factor in smoothing out existing contradictions. Following a brief worsening of relations in the summer of 2017, the leaders of India and China still managed to achieve a positive “balance.” Whether this equilibrium remains a balance of forces or becomes a mutually-beneficial long-term cooperation remains unclear though.

India’s leaders pinned high hopes on the United States, but with the change of guard in the White House in early 2017, Washington embarked on a policy of bringing US investments and industrial capacities “back home.” Coupled with fundamental trends in global capital markets, this has led to a significant drop in US investors’ interest in sinking their money into projects in India. Moreover, in June 2019, President Trump declared what was essentially a trade war on India, depriving New Delhi of trade privileges that allowed duty-free deliveries of up to $5.6 billion worth of Indian goods to the US market.

Adding a new twist to the tension, India decided to buy batteries of S-400 air defense missiles from Russia, and Washington demanded that New Delhi roll up its mutually-beneficial cooperation with Iran. Finally, India is seriously worried by Washington’s plans for the future of Afghanistan following the formal withdrawal of US troops from that country.

All that being said, however, Mukesh Ambani, the chairman and managing director of Reliance Industries Limited, India’s largest holding company and, according to Forbes magazine, the richest man in India and all of Asia recently made light of the emerging slowdown of the national economy calling it a “temporary phenomenon.”

All this gives Russia a good chance to play a stabilizing and creative role here. On December 1, 2018, the leaders of Russia, India and China met for the first time since 2006 on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Argentina. During the meeting, proposed by Russia, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi called for “closer coordination of the three countries’ approaches, primarily in the field of security and building constructive interstate relations in Eurasia.” They also underscored the partnership nature of relations between Beijing, Moscow and New Delhi, and the coincidence of their interests and goals “in the field of development.”

“Moscow has been very helpful to its Indian partners in resolving a wide range of issues – from high technology and defense all the way to building modern infrastructure and reducing poverty,” the Russian Council on Foreign Affairs said. New Delhi is showing a great deal of interest in collaborating with Russia within the framework of the BRICS and the SCO. Meeting ahead of Prime Minister Modi’s visit to the 5th Eastern Economic Forum to be held in Vladivostok in September, Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Yury Trutnev and Indian Minister of Trade and Industry Piyush Goyal discussed measures to increase bilateral trade turnover to $30 billion by the year 2025. The International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) is one of the most promising long-term joint strategic projects for India and Russia.

During their second meeting held on the fringes of the June 2019 G20 summit in Japan, the leaders of Russia, China and India praised the highly efficient work being done in a single format to create ”an equal and indivisible security architecture in Eurasia.” However, India’s balking regarding its joining the projects being implemented as part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) demonstrates the lingering contradictions of Indian foreign policy. On the one hand, India has reason to consider itself as a state that, “at the end of the day … will determine in which direction the geo-economic pendulum will move” in almost the entire Eastern Hemisphere. On the other hand, it remains unclear to what extent India will be able to harmonize its interests between the projects of Greater Eurasia and the Indo-Pacific Region, considering their fundamental geopolitical contradictions.

A multi-vector foreign policy has been a hallmark of India ever since the country gained independence in 1947. To this very day, New Delhi has been trying to stick to this line. Whether to stand for a multipolar world together with Moscow and Beijing … or to join the US, Japan and Australia and form a ‘quadripartite alliance’ to contain China” – this is the way the situation is seen by some segments of India’s political establishment. The growing uncertainty of the existing international system is one of the objective trends of the past few decades, and India is just one of many countries simultaneously participating in several rival coalitions, whose real goals often contradict each other.

From our partner International Affairs

Related Topics:China Geopolitics India USA

Up Next

Human and food security in South Asia

Don't Miss

Pakistan’s Afghanistan Dilemma: Friend or Foe?

Andrei Kadomtsev

political scientist

Comments

South Asia

Indo-Pak Game of Influence in Afghanistan: Who Is Winning?

Published

6 days ago

May 22, 2023

Sana Hamid

Afghanistan has earned its status as a centerpiece of the global ‘Great Game’. It has been fought for, sought after for reasons ranging from its strategic location to huge in situ reserves of natural resources and reserves. Standing at the crossroads of Central-South Asia and Middle East, it is believed to be holding more than $ 1 trillion worth of untapped natural/mineral resources and metals.

For Pakistan, it has earned the repute of being its strategic depth owing to reasons ranging from use of the soil by India against Pakistan to cross-border terrorism. While India has capitalized on these threats post 2001 using USA-sponsored regimes in Afghanistan to launch its own hybrid warfare against Pakistan. The dossier released by Pakistan in November, 2020 proposed with evidence the existence of 66 terrorist training camps in Afghanistan that the report alleges were being used to wage terrorism and dismantle economic prospects of the former. Building upon prospects of state sponsored terrorism by India, it maintains that India has been actively involved in rekindling the fusion of Tehreek-eTaliban Pakistan (TTP) with its break away factions, Jammat-ul-Ahrar and Hizbul-Ahrar while also paying more than $820, 000 to TTP through its collaborators.

Owing to its strategic importance, India invested more than $ 3 billion in Afghanistan in about 400 economic projects it launched in the country. 150 projects were still underway when Taliban government took reins in Afghanistan in August 2021. During Ashraf Ghani’s government, India-Iran-Afghanistan Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) had been proposed, whereby India committed $21 billion to expand its Chahbahar project to Hajigak. It is pertinent to mention here that Hajigak holds 1.7 billion tons of untapped iron deposits out of total 2.2 billion tones that Afghanistan is estimated to be holding, placing Afghanistan among top ten countries with extractable iron reserves. About $11 billion worth of Hajigak iron and steel mining project was handed over to consortium of seven Indian companies, together with $ 2 billion commitments for developing supporting infrastructure including Chahbahar –Hajigak Railway. India will never give up on its planned and already attained investment in the country while for Pakistan, it is much favorable to bring in the major shift in its policy towards Afghanistan.

Pakistan, with the Taliban government stands on more favorable grounds contemporarily but owing to Afghanistan’s economic woes-about 28. 3 million people (2/3 of its population) need urgent humanitarian assistance in 2023, according Organization for Coordination of Humanitarian Relief (OCHR)-it is not unlikely for the country to shift alliances.

Pakistan has remained heavily invested in Afghanistan with respect to security affairs. It has been the foremost reason behind its independence from USSR in 1989 and is heavily engaged diplomatically to build interlinkages of the state with the international community for earning the humanitarian benefits for its people. A peaceful, prosperous, stable and connected Afghanistan serves the interest of Pakistan and hence the country continuously commits to pursue continuous and practical engagement with the interim Afghan government.

The atmosphere is now changing with realizations. In the latest Fifth China-Pakistan-Afghanistan Foreign Minister’s Dialogue, The Afghan interim government reiterated its commitment both with Pakistan and China that it would not allow any individual, group or party, including the banned Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and ETIM to use its territory against the neighboring countries. The format is of strategic importance in its focus on trilateral economic cooperationto fully harness Afghanistan’s potential as a hub for regional connectivity. Pakistan shall be prudent in this regard as it can reap magnanimous benefits from expansion of CPEC to Afghanistan, as proposed. Ad hocism must be avoided to maximize mutual benfit under such overtures in such a manner that national interest is attained.

For its part, Pakistan has spent more than $ 1 billion in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and invested heavily in capacity building of Afghanistan, including 72 km Torkhum Jalalabad Road and 400 bed Jinnah Hospital worth $118. 8 million while also training 644 Afghan police and drug control officers, among others. Keeping up with its commitments of capacity building in Afghanistan, it has also been providing high-end assistance as that of road construction machinery, mobile hot mixers, generators, medicines, ambulances and trucks among others. More than $ 5 billion in in-kind humanitarian assistance has also bene provided.

Although such overtures intensify Pakistan’s standing in bilateral relations with Afghanistan but bilateral consolidation would require early completion of such projects as that of TAPI, CASA-1000, Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan power transmission line among others. Such projects serve dual purpose for Pakistan: Afghanistan that protects the interest of Pakistan and regional consolidation that would mean raising Pakistan to higher pedestals when it comes to regionalism and hence International affairs.

How Afghanistan realigns itself socially and politically will have long-term consequences for the entire region and the world. States continue to seek their own vested interests in the process. It is long-term, strategic and holistically calibrated policy making and intense economic investment on bilateral and multilateral levels that can pit Afghanistan in favor of Pakistan as compared to India, in the long run.

South Asia

Pakistan’s Political Turmoil and Global Security Concern

Published

1 week ago

May 20, 2023

M A Hossain

Pakistan is currently in a critical juncture of political turmoil which is posing a threat to its sovereignty as well as growing concerns about global security. Not only that, if Pakistan fails to address the crisis, then definitely it will be the beginning of the extinction of democratic values regionally and globally. Pakistan has also been spiralling towards a severe economic catastrophe and struggling to meet the basic needs of its population. Now Pakistan is in a state of critical emergency after 1971, where the elite class should not repeat their apocalyptic mistake of ignoring the voices of the people.

The power struggle of the current stalemate began when Imran Khan was ousted in April 2022 following a parliamentary vote of no-confidence. However, this imbroglio is hardly a scenario that has arisen overnight. This is a result of bankrupt political regimes. Needless to say, Pakistan’s ruling power has generally been characterized by its preference for one side of the Pakistan Army. Each of the five prime ministers has been indicted or imprisoned after leaving office. The military-dominated Pakistan has a long record of engineering the electoral playing field to achieve the Army’s preferred result.

Corruption has long been a pressing issue in Pakistan’s political landscape, with high-profile corruption cases involving influential politicians and bureaucrats. These scandals have eroded public trust in the government and raised concerns about the misuse of public funds. The economic condition in Pakistan was facing a severe crisis. Now the devastating flood of 2022, 50-years high inflation, food and energy shortage, collapsed investment, critically low exports, and foreign exchange reserve, mounting foreign debt, and the failure of international lenders have further exacerbated the situation. Furthermore, Covid-19 and the invasion of Ukraine by Russia put tremendous pressure on world food and energy prices, which has had a negative impact on Pakistan’s economy.

Pakistan is experiencing violent social unrest. Economic challenges, rising inflation, polarized politics, and unemployment have contributed to the frustration and discontent among the populace, especially the youth where over 60% of the population is under the age of 30. A weaponized society with nothing to lose has grown a new ability to touch the untouchable elite Institutions. Furthermore, ethnic and sectarian tensions, mass reform movements recently by religio- political parties, and engagement between Tehreek-e- Taliban Pakistan(TTP) and security forces clearly spelled out the public frustration with elite Institutions or ruling systems.

Pakistani, especially the young generation, are frustrated and possess discontent with the country’s political discourse of weakening opponents and appeasing puppet masters. Poor dynastic leadership has also paved the way for military intervention in state power. Imran Khan has taken advantage of the situation to make himself the savior of the nation. However, he is also seen as a trump card for Islamic jihadist organizations. His party’s strongholds, including Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Gilgit-Baltistan, Lahore, and Punjab, are all strongly under the control of Islamic jihadist groups. Imran Khan as a prime minister praised the mujahideen and hailed Osama bin Laden as Shahid (martyr) in the parliament. One more significant thing, the Pakistani Constitution has ensured the right to choose the Sharia rule provincially or in special administrative areas.

Now, in recent years, TTP or other similar religio- political fundamentalists have exhibited mass reform movements and continue armed struggle across the country. Their issue-based movement has become popular among the countrymen and their armed struggle has made the elite establishment bound to sit for a peace deal with TTP. We will be in a fool’s paradise if we ignore the smartness and political acumen of present Islamic jihadist organizations. Now the situation in Pakistan is more favorable for TTP as well as International Islamic militant organizations. The Pakistani Judiciary, PTI, Islamic militant organizations, and military, Pakistan Democratic Movement(PDM) coalition are near to head-on collision. The worst possible fact is civil war, and the next phase will be the triumph of the Islamic jihadist movement.

The pressing question that demands attention from global leaders is why Pakistan should be a cause for concern. We must not forget that Pakistan is a nuclear-armed nation. Drawing upon my extensive two-decade study of Islamic militant organizations, it is evident that the Islamic jihadist movement will emerge at full throttle in Pakistan. In my opinion, Pakistan will be Afghanistan 2.0 today or tomorrow unless the crisis is not dealt with appropriately. This ideological warfare is just like cancer in the human body. If we fail to recognize it at an early stage, it would leave us no choice but to surrender. Now, if we compare the situation of Pakistan with earlier Afghanistan, Iraq, Burkina Faso, and Mali, then it becomes evident that Pakistan is at the last stage of ideological cancer. I assume that the next Islamic jihadist movement is likely to extend its reach to Kashmir and Yemen. If this movement gains traction in Pakistan, then it will be a matter of time to establish a strong jihadist bastion in South Asia and the Middle East.

The West, unfortunately, has deprioritized its engagement against Islamic militant organizations, which will compromise the value of democracy and bring a new dimension to democratic countries globally. To be sure, we will not be able to see democracy piping over the Great Wall in the East and the African-Russian imaginary barrier in the West. Meanwhile, Somalia and Yemen will serve as strategic game-changer, providing an economic lifeline for international Islamic jihadist organizations.

So, where does the savior of democracy lie? Or, are democracy and human rights merely tools used to suppress third-world nations? These crucial questions demand answers.

In conclusion, my perception will only begin to take shape once Islamabad falls. Pakistan must respond quickly because time is not on its side. Now the most straightforward way to restore peace in Pakistan would be through timely, free and fair elections, unfettered by the establishment’s intervention. An elected government has the potential to restore confidence in Pakistan’s Institutions, and that confidence is as desirable for Beijing and Riyadh as it is for Washington and New Delhi. Otherwise, the simplest explanation for other means may align with my perceptions(!), ultimately, becoming a stark reality.

South Asia

G-20 Summit may not cultivate Indian-desired results

Published

1 week ago

May 19, 2023

Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan

G-20 Summit 2023, is scheduled to be held on 09-10 September 2023, in India. The Summit will be hosted and chaired by Indian Prime Minister Modi, the President of g-20 on rotation. However, the United Nations recently released a report highlighting alleged human rights violations in India, casting a shadow over the country’s preparations for the prestigious event.

Human rights violations have risen dramatically in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) since 2019 when the government of India revoked the special status of the region, warned a UN Independent Expert, one week before a G20 meeting is scheduled to be

“By holding a G20 meeting of the working group on tourism on 22-24 May”, Fernand de Varennes, UN Special Rapporteur on minority issues, warned that the government of India is seeking to normalize what some have described as a military occupation by instrumental sing a G20 meeting and portray an international “seal of approval”, despite what Volker Turk, the UN high commissioner for human rights, told the UN Human Rights Council a few weeks ago was a worrying human rights situation in the Kashmir region.” held in Srinagar.

India’s Intentions in Hosting the G20 Summit:

Although India’s decision to host the G20 summit reflects it’s over ambitions to play a larger role on the global stage and shape the discourse on important issues. As a developing economy with a vast population, India wishes to leverage its position to promote its development agenda, attract foreign investments, and enhance its diplomatic standing. Hosting such a high-profile event presents an opportunity for India to showcase its economic progress, technological advancements, and commitment to global cooperation. But the release of the UN special report at this pertinent time, on Indian severe violations of Human Rights Violations, is a big obstacle to realizing Indian dreams.

The UN Report’s Highlights:

“The situation there has — if anything — become much worse since myself and fellow UN independent experts transmitted a communication to the government of India in 2021. We then expressed our grave concerns that the loss of political autonomy and the implementation of the new domicile rules and other legislation could alter the demographic composition of the former state of Jammu and Kashmir, may result in political disenfranchisement, and significantly reduce the degree of political participation and representation of the Kashmiri and other minorities previously exercised in the former state, undermining their linguistic, cultural and religious rights,” he said.

“On all counts this seems to be occurring on the ground, in a repressive and sometimes brutal environment of suppression of even basic rights”.

The expert noted that there have been reports of significant numbers of Hindus from outside the region moving into the region so dramatic demographic changes are underway in IIOJK to overwhelm native Kashmiris in their own land.

According to de Varennes, the G20 is unwittingly providing a veneer of support to a facade of normalcy at a time when massive human rights violations illegal and arbitrary arrests, political persecutions, restrictions, and even suppression of free media and human rights defenders continue to escalate.

“International human rights obligations and the UN Declaration of Human Rights should still be upheld by organizations such as the G20,” he added, concluding that “the situation in IIOJK should be decried and condemned, not pushed under the rug and ignored with the holding of this meeting”.

Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures experts of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures Experts, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world.

Special Procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent of any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

Key Points of the UN Report:

Ahead of the G20 summit, the United Nations released a report highlighting alleged human rights violations in India. While the specific details of the report may vary, it is important to note that India, like any other country, faces complex challenges in maintaining human rights standards, given its diverse society and socio-political dynamics. Some of the key concerns raised in the report include:

Kashmir Issue: The report draws attention to the situation in Jammu and Kashmir, focusing on the alleged excessive use of force, restrictions on freedom of expression, and arbitrary detentions.

Religious Freedom: The report highlights concerns regarding religious freedom, particularly with regard to incidents of violence, discrimination, and restrictions on religious minorities.

Women’s Rights: The report expresses concerns about gender-based violence, discrimination, and gaps in addressing women’s rights, including issues such as child marriage and gender inequality.

Freedom of Expression: The report raises concerns about restrictions on freedom of expression and the shrinking space for civil society organizations and independent media.

Potential Impact:

The UN report’s release ahead of the G20 summit may have several implications for India:

Diplomatic Challenges: The report’s allegations can strain India’s diplomatic relations with some countries, potentially affecting bilateral cooperation and undermining its reputation on the international stage.

International Scrutiny: India’s hosting of the G20 summit will face heightened scrutiny, with the spotlight on its human rights record. This could lead to increased pressure on India to address the concerns raised and make tangible progress in safeguarding human rights.

Domestic Repercussions: The release of the UN report may fuel domestic debates and discussions about human rights, putting pressure on the Indian government to address these issues effectively and transparently.

Civil Society Activism: The report can empower civil society organizations and activists who are advocating for human rights and social justice, leading to increased public discourse and demands for change.

To be over clever, may turn into a disaster and counterproductive for India.