Lt Gen (Retd) Mohammad Mahfuzur Rahman, PhD

Former Principal Staff Officer, Armed Forces Division, Prime Minister’s Office. mahfuzba2172@gmail.com

As the world order is shifting from unipolar to multipolar one, India is surfacing as one of the leading powers. It is claiming a permanent membership in the UN Security Council. However, leadership of such stature comes with great responsibility. Legitimacy, conduct, righteousness, and soft and hard power, all will substantiate acceptability as a responsible leading power that commands moral authority to represent a vast majority’s voice and aspiration of the people of this part of the world in the Security Council.

Although, it seems that India has difficulties with neighbors; big and small, friend and foe. China and Pakistan had fought wars with India but many countries in the world fought wars but are absolutely in normal friendly relations overtimes. Smaller neighbors like Sri Lanka on the doorstep of India leaning to China. India’s BJP Government politics is largely based on Hinduthva but then how the only Hindu Country in the world, Nepal has distant away. 

Bangladesh received unprecedented support from India during its independence but public opinion in Bangladesh has largely gone against India. What about the Maldives? A small archipelago with five lacs people where anti-Indian sentiment brought Mr Muizzu in power. Possibly only Bhutan maintains some kind of good relations that to in Doklam issue it feels China is a stakeholder despite India’s reservation. Bhutanese foreign minister visit in October 2023 to China is another indication like Bhutan a small country with a seven lacs population following suit like other neighbors of India. Now let’s see the relationship of another regional and leading power, China with all these countries i.e. Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Maldives, Bhutan, and Bangladesh. China is either a strategic and or development partner with these countries and rarely meddles in their internal affairs. Even countries earlier closer to India tilted towards China despite India’s discomfort. Is it India’s policy, doctrine, structural realism, or strategic culture causing India’s, behavior in the regional geopolitical landscape that neighbors are uncomfortable with? Let’s examine certain policies and the doctrinal outlook of India. Chanakya Kautilya’s policy plays a significant role in India’s foreign policy. Kautilya's Arthasastra as a foreign/security policy option revolves around four ‘upayas’ (approaches); Sama (alliances), Dana (gifts), Bheda (divide and rule), Danda (use of force). Are these affecting India’s behavior toward its neighbors? Or do they have no relevance at the policy level? Let us analyze two doctrines to study their pertinence at the behavioral level. 

Indira Doctrine (Indira Gandhi was prime Minister from January 1980 to October 1984): The salient points are; India has a role as a regional power for geographical influence and interest in South Asia. India’s security interest requires a role in the South Asian security spectrum. We have seen its ramification with Indian military intervention in Sri Lanka in 1987 and in Maldives in 1988 against a coup attempt. 

Permanent Members United Nations Security Council. Photo: Net

Gujral Doctrine (he was Foreign Minister and Prime Minister from June 1996 to March 1998): India should not ask for reciprocity with smaller neighbors. No use of South Asian countries' territory against another country. No interference in internal affairs. Respect each other integrity and sovereignty and settlement of issues through peaceful bilateral negotiation. Following this Bangladesh signed a peace accord in CHT with Santi Bahini (Parbattya Chattagram Jono Songhoti Somity) in 1997. 

Indira Doctrine is more towards structural realism; India possibly drifted away from liberalism i.e. Gujral Doctrine. Is this causing India to lose friends in the neighborhoods? Under these circumstances will neighbours be comfortable to bid for India’s seat in the UN Security Council? How the world body is going to view India’s legitimacy as a contender for such a responsible position when neighbors are uncomfortable?

Bangladesh Factor:

India needs to understand that Bangladesh is not like another neighbor. There are a few realities; India shares the largest border with Bangladesh (in fact 5th longest border between countries in the world), at places porous and at places political borders divided families, communities yet people have strong ties. In geographical reality, it’s not Bangladesh inside India but a part of India is also inside Bangladesh (Tripura). It is interwoven. In learning reality, when a child in India goes to school and for the first time draws the map India, he/she automatically draws the map of Bangladesh. When the child inquires to the teacher about the place he/she unconsciously knows Bangladesh, by then he/she may not have known the names of all the states of India. That is the kind of learning reality. If one closely takes a look at the map it would reveal that Bangladesh is located under the armpit of India. If for some reason Bangladesh is unstable or made unstable it would be like a boil under the armpit of India. That would be a very unhappy/painful experience. At the same time if India sinks (politically, economically, socio-culturally) Bangladesh is likely to sink too because of geographical gravitational pull. However, if Bangladesh sinks India may not sink. More so for geostrategic, economic, and security reasons ignoring Bangladesh or choosing to side with a part instead of a whole could be unwise. The recent revolution in Bangladesh and its outcome could be a lesson learned for India to review its relational philosophy with Bangladesh. In the end, it's very pertinent to understand that a democratic, stable, non-interfered, and prosperous Bangladesh is in the best interest of India. Maybe India needs to do soul-searching and may need to revisit its neighborhood policies, doctrines, and strategic culture for better and sustainable relationships with neighbors.