Chietigj Bajpaee, China in India’s Post-Cold War Engagement with Southeast Asia, Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 2022, Hardback, ISBN: 9780367464066, Price: £120.00, 316pp.
India adopted the “Look East” policy in the 1990s to revive the importance of Southeast Asia in its foreign policy agenda and focus on maximising the economic potential of the relations with Southeast Asian countries. China’s role in India’s engagement with Southeast Asia has been an important point of discussion but has been rarely documented in a systematic manner. This is the gap that Chietigj Bajpaee’s China in India’s Post-Cold War Engagement with Southeast Asia attempts to fill by providing an in-depth analysis of India’s Look East Policy (LEP) by explaining its evolution through different phases.
The fundamental aim of the book is to explore China’s role in India’s post-Cold War engagement with Southeast Asia with a focus on the Sino-Indian relationship. The author underlines that their relations show the extent to which China has been a priority in the transition from Look East to Act East policy. The book takes note of a report by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) of 2020-21, which states that “ASEAN centrality has been, and will remain, an important aspect of India’s ‘Act East policy which is a central element in India’s Foreign Policy” ().
This book contains eight chapters, including the introduction and conclusion. The introductory chapter talks about an overview of India’s Look-East Policy (LEP) and its historical linkages to it. It has attempted to critically analyse the historical background of the LEP. Chapter two talks about the evolution of India’s engagement with Southeast Asia and focuses on the post-Cold War period under the Look East/Act East policy. The author goes deeper into verifying if the rhetoric of the policy corresponds with India’s engagement with Southeast Asia in areas of economic integration, maritime security and soft power engagement.
Chapter three focuses on the methodology for establishing strategic elites as the agents of Indian foreign policy. The author employs Regional Security Complex Theory to bound India and China within the same region centred on Southeast Asia’. Mr Chietigj has explored this area through the assumption that the origins and evolution of India’s foreign policy can be traced to an interaction between structure and agency.
The following four chapters explore how China has been a priority in discourses on India’s LEP. Each chapter begins with a brief explanation of the Sino-Indian and China-Southeast Asia relationship during the period. The chapters have been divided into four phases. The book explores the phases in terms of, ‘A broadening’ and ‘deepening’ of India’s eastward engagement has characterised each phase of the LEP’. Chapter four deals with the phase of the launching of the LEP, that is, until 1996. This chapter explores that the China factor played a vital role in the launch of the policy. It explains the Sino-Indian relationship in brief and considers engaging China’s narratives by focussing on China-Southeast Asia relations. “ ‘Balancing China’ narratives emanated from calls for a ‘balanced’ regional architecture amid concerns of a post-Cold War regional order dominated by China, as evidenced by India’s admission to the ASEAN Regional Forum in 1996”.
Chapter five elucidates the first phase until 2004 as several developments accelerated the pace of India’s interaction with ASEAN. This phase includes the Asian financial crisis and the expansion of ASEAN membership to further include countries in the Indo-China subregion. The author explained that China’s view in the LEP was quite prevalent in the official discourses which evolved through the convergence of Chinese and Indian interests in Southeast Asia.
Chapter six explained the second phase until 2014 and the author observed that over time balancing the China narrative became prominent in official and strategic elite discourses. This phase saw hedging and soft-balancing amid China’s growing regional assertiveness by deepening India’s participation in the regional architecture. China’s aggressive behaviour was also to be challenged in the South China Sea (SCS) by working towards a peaceful resolution of maritime territorial disputes. “ ‘Balancing China’ was also evident in calls for deepening relations with countries with historically difficult relations with China, both in Southeast Asia – such as Myanmar, Vietnam and Indonesia and the broader East Asia region, such as Japan.”
Chapter seven explains the third phase of India’s Act-East policy since 2014, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The Act-East policy focuses on India’s broader engagement with Southeast Asia and East Asia. India also became willing to challenge China’s assertive regional behaviour. ‘Act East Policy encompassed the Indo-Pacific region, comprising Southeast Asia and East Asia’. ‘India became more willing to challenge China’s regional behaviour, although China’s emergence as a major power made it wise for India to bandwagon with China on occasion.
The last chapter summarises all the chapters of the book and examines the importance of the China factor in India’s engagement with Southeast Asia. China’s regional role has further contributed to the resilience of the LEP. It concludes that China’s regional role has contributed to the resilience of the LEP.
One of the drawbacks of this book is that it has used a lot of theoretical terms of international relations (IR) like hedging, and bandwagoning which may not cater to the understanding of the general audience. Therefore, it could be difficult for a person who does not possess much knowledge of theories of IR to understand. Nevertheless, this book provides an important yet insightful analysis of the interplay between India’s relations with Southeast Asia and China. This book will intrigue academicians, scholars, policymakers and experts in the fields of international relations, China’s foreign policy and also Indian foreign policy. The book is highly recommended for the experts in these fields to gain a better understanding of China’s role in the LEP over time.
