भारत की बढ़ती पड़ोस संबंधी दुविधाएँ

अधिकांश दक्षिण एशियाई राज्य अपने यहां भारत की प्रधानता को लेकर ,अपने तरीके से संशय में हैं 

Most South Asian states are sceptical of India’s primacy in their own ways

 But South Asia is not only not keen to jump on the bandwagon of the India story, but it is also seemingly holding India back, albeit indirectly. 

For New Delhi there are three types of dilemmas

पहला प्रकार

1 Maldives

that India faces in the neighbourhood. One, the rise of politically anti-India regimes in South Asia such as the one in the Maldives where the new government is effectively asking Indians to pack up and leave. 

2 government in Dhaka

While the Maldives is anti-India in an instrumental sense, 

a Khaleda Zia-led government in Dhaka, which goes to the elections early next year, could turn out to be ideologically anti-India. 

Beijing’s growing influence in South Asia

The second type of problem is structural, resulting from Beijing’s growing influence in South Asia.

Three things stand out. The growing entanglement of the region’s smaller states in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and other Chinese projects.

 Beijing’s assiduous move to South Asian states when the rest of the international community abandons or avoids them for normative or other reasons — as was the case with Taliban-led Afghanistan, military-ruled Myanmar and crisis-hit Sri Lanka. 

जब शेष अंतरराष्ट्रीय समुदाय मानक या अन्य कारणों से उन्हें छोड़ देता है या उनसे दूर रहता है, तो बीजिंग दक्षिण एशियाई राज्यों की ओर परिश्रमी कदम उठाता है - जैसा कि तालिबान के नेतृत्व वाले अफगानिस्तान के मामले में था, सेना  ruled म्यांमार और संकटग्रस्त श्रीलंका पर शासन किया। 

China’s outreach is far higher

. 

Finally, China’s desire to settle border disputes with its neighbours (minus India), as seen in the case of Bhutan, is also a strategy to win over the region..

There are three broad sets of causes behind the dilemmas India faces in the neighbourhood

regional geopolitical architecture

1 The first is the regional geopolitical architecture characterised by five overlapping elements. 

2  South Asia is characterised by a diminishing presence of the United States, which, for a long time, was a geopolitical constant in the region. 

3 For New Delhi, Washington’s presence in South Asia was not always advantageous, 

but its departure is definitely disadvantageous, in particular given how China has filled the power vacuum created by Washington’s departure. 

The rise of China

1 China has come as a ‘geopolitical buffer’, at least for now, 

2 for the smaller states in the region which using the ‘China card’ in their foreign policy assertions. 

3 While our neighbours are keen to practise strategic autonomy with us, there is little appetite to do so vis-à-vis China.

Third, in one of the least interconnected regions

in the world, and poor, it is natural that the inhabitants of the region will tilt towards a power with the ability to cater to their material needs.

तीसरा, दुनिया के सबसे कम परस्पर जुड़े क्षेत्रों में से एक और गरीब क्षेत्र में, यह स्वाभाविक है कि क्षेत्र के निवासी अपनी भौतिक जरूरतों को पूरा करने की क्षमता वाली शक्ति की ओर झुकेंगे।

 With India’s ability to meet those needs being limited, China is that power. 

normative and political approach

1 Fourth, India, for the most part, has had a normative and political approach towards the region, 

2 with the states in the region acquiescing, rebelling, and falling in line given the absence of choices

विकल्पों की अनुपस्थिति को देखते हुए सहमत होना, विद्रोह करना और लाइन में लगना. 

.

 Today, the downside of being the resident power in South Asia — with all भारत और चीन की स्ट्रैटेजी में अंतर

1 its attendant cultural, ethnic, refugee and other spillovers — is felt more sharply than being the primary power.

आज, दक्षिण एशिया में निवासी शक्ति होने का नकारात्मक पहलू - अपने सभी सांस्कृतिक, जातीय, शरणार्थी और अन्य प्रभावों के साथ - प्राथमिक शक्ति होने की तुलना में अधिक तीव्रता से महसूस किया जाता है।

  2 China, on the other hand, is the region’s non-resident power which benefits from the absence of complications — ethnic, linguistic, religious — arising out of being a resident power.

भारत की पॉलिसी में भेदभाव

1 Policy bias when it comes to dealing with the region’s domestic politics and the multiplicity of actors/power centres therein. 

2 Dealing only with, for the most part, those in power in the regional capitals, elected or otherwise, is perhaps the right thing to do as well as less risky.

3  However, such a one-track policy 

generates path-dependencies often alienating other centres of power or opposition leaders. Bangladesh is perhaps one such example.

 India’s dilemmas are also caused by two mistaken assumptions that we have long held 

1 For one, there has, for some time, been a strong belief in India that South Asia minus Pakistan 

🍁would be amenable वश्य to Indian geopolitical reasoning which prompted an attempt to deal proactively with South Asia without Pakistan.

🍁 However, in retrospect, one has to admit that this policy has not exactly panned out that way India imagined. 

2 The second (mistaken) assumption 

🍁that New Delhi approached the neighbourhood with was that India’s special relationship with the region rooted in culture, soft power, history and ethnicity 

🍁This would help the country deal with the neighbourhood better than those without  knowledge of the region, namely China. 

What can be done

South Asia and its balance of power have changed fundamentally

To begin with, it is time India made a mental switch and acknowledged that South Asia and its balance of power have changed fundamentally. 

Old South Asia where India enjoyed primacy no longer exists. 

‘Southern Asia’ which has pretty much replaced South Asia is a space where China has emerged as a serious contender for regional primacy. 

We should deal with the reality as it is rather than working with the mental frame of Indian primacy which is long gone.

Second, New Delhi must proactively pursue the involvement of friendly external actors in the region

 That is the only way to deal with the impending possibility of the region becoming Sino-centric.

Third, Indian diplomacy must be flexible enough to engage multiple actors in each of the neighbouring countries

 The art of diplomacy is not about hating the anti-India elements in the neighbourhood, 

but, instead, lessening their anti-India attitude. In a similar vein, dealing with whoever is in power is a good policy, but engaging only those in power is bad policy.

 India needs more hands for its diplomatic pursuits

 The glaring shortage of sufficient diplomats to implement the foreign policy of a country of 1.4 billion people will prove to be India’s single most crucial challenge going forward. 

The more India’s role in world affairs grows, the more the shortage of personnel will be felt by us and others. If the current state of affairs continues, there will be no one to show up with the Indian flag when opportunities beckon or crises emerge.

सोर्स द हिंदू