Offstumped question for the new week:
Is a benign neighborhood a pre-requisite for a functional and sustainable democracy ?
It is definitely true of all of Western Europe. The more recent converts to democracy in Eastern Europe are still sorting things through but by and large the unstable ones are those with troubled borders and not so benign neighbors. Further to the east Turkey while being steadfastly secular has seen elected governments toppled at least 4 times by the Military. On the other side of the pond if the United States is fretting over border controls it is hardly on account of hostile neighbors.
Down South, Brazil saw 21 years of military domination while the rest of Latin America can hardly be described as a case study in sustainable democracy. Across the International dateline, down under the neighborhood is as benign as it can get.
Which leaves us with 3 long running democracies across the world – Japan, Israel and India (South Korea’s tryst with democracy being only a couple of decades old).
All 3 of these long running democracies share one thing in common – A not so benign to downright hostile neighborhood.
But then India is the lone exception for democracies in Japan and Israel have been sheltered by the American military might.
Which brings us to the original premise and the reason for this lengthy preamble on sustainable and functional democracies across the globe.
India is the lone independent democracythat has been both functional and sustainable despite sharing its frontiers with not so bening to downright hostile neighbors.
Today’s election results in Nepal that saw the Maoists on the path to power while effectively spelling the end of the Monarchy in Nepal, are of significance to India for many reasons.
With the exception of Bhutan, India is now effectively surrounded on all sides by an amalgamation of hostile state and non-state players. While this maybe a tribute to the inherent strength of the Indian Democracy it is also a cause for concern for strategic reasons. The forward march of our economy cannot be held hostage and allowed to be bled by salami tactics of our hostile neighbors. This leads us to the following questions.
How is that significantly smaller nations in our neighborhood are able to sustain themselves despite an anti-India posture overtly or otherwise ?
Why is it that popular sentiment in these nations is generally anti-India ?
Why is it that even after 60 years of Independence we have no strategic allies amongst our neighbors ?
In fact it begs the question if we have any strategic allies at all outside of our neighborhood ?
What will it take to make our neighbors to see that their own strategic national interests will be served only by allying themselves with us ?
And therefore what will it take to make Prachanda realise that not only can he not afford to maintain equidistance from India but he also cannot afford to provide sanctuary or safe haven to Maoist Terrorists operating across India ?
And what will it take to make China and Pakistan realise that they cannot afford to play salami tactics by peddling aid for influence with our neighbors ?
And finally what will it take to make the Americans realise that there cannot be a dichotomy of American and Indian interests as far as our extended neighborhood is concerned ?
Questions to which there perhaps are no easy answers given the political environment in India.
A sycophantic Congress wedded to self preservation with support from China serving Communists can hardly be expected to do what it takes to serve Indian strategic interests. Â
It is not enough for the BJP to swear by nationalism while being utterly naive about engaging with our neighbors on strategic affairs. The Maoist victory in Nepal is a lesson for the BJP on how out of touch with reality its support for the discredited monarchy was.
Offstumped Bottomline: A dysfunctional government on life support run by an electile dysfunctional surrogate can hardly inspire confidence in prospective allies or instill fear of consequences in our not so benign neighbors.  If the BJP is serious about upholding National Interest it must spell out its strategy to create and sustain an Indian sphere of influence with our neighbors for allies that is supported by the Americans and respected by the Chinese.
“If you want to play with the big dogs then stop pissing with the puppies ……”
—–
Offstumped is written by Yossarin from the Indian National Interest—–
6 users commented in " Maoist Victory in Nepal – Indian Strategic Interests in Peril ? "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackIt’s pretty arrogant for the author to claim India is the sole independent democracy in the world. In fact, it’s offensive and completely ridiculous. This outrageous statement makes everything else the author says lack credibility.
Brook – you have a terribly short attention span or you selectively read what suits your prejudices, read the full sentence before commenting.
“India is the lone independent democracythat has been both functional and sustainable despite sharing its frontiers with not so benign to downright hostile neighbors.”
Why we Nepalese think that these Maoists, Parties and Monarchy is an internal issue. It is a matter of complex foreign affairs and defense. Common people have no understanding what is going on, and India is succeeding in destabilizing Nepal. When the Kings of Sikkim, Nepal, Kashmir (Hyderabad and Gwalior) were offered to surrender the defense, and foreign affairs to India, everyone agreed and became the Union of India, except Nepal. King denied, and since then, Monarchy became a problem for India. To eradicate Monarchy, India started ruling through its proxy citizens—the Indian Bihari Prime Minister Girija Prasad being a common example in present days. The Maoists lived in India, parties lived in India, were supported by India, and were successful in launching war against king. If you read Sikkim’s history, India had successfully executed a plan like this. I am afraid, Nepal can become another Sikkim. Learn to understand the foreign affairs here, know India’s reality, and form ways to attack upon India. Let Indians know what Nepal is. Dare not Indians presume that we are Sikkimese. Form a coalition of Nepal, Kashmir, Sikkim, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Tibet and other small countries who don’t like India, and invade it. That will be the day when true Gurkha blood will show its color.
India has long prided herself in being the leader of the third world back then, and got most of her military hardware from the USSR, yet never became a satellite of the USSR.
So the comment about India being independent is true. India stood on it’s own as a democracy, not under the US protectorate that sheltered Europe, South Korea or our Philippine islands.
All I want to say is that there has always been a strong brotherhood among the peoples of the two countries, but however, problems have arisen when it comes to national interests.
What India should do, is to alleviate fears of the Nepalese by trying to be its big brother, and to identify the sovereignty of the Nepalese. When the BSF incurs into Nepalese territory and rampages the property of the Nepalese people, what can you expect but an increased agitation (given that the then Royal army was a protectorate of the Indian army)? Why should the people of a sovereign nation decide their foreign policy only by consultations with their big brother (the 1950 treaty)? These are just few examples of the resentments that the Indian government should try to address, given it is serious of having a strategic alliance. On the level of the populace, it seems to me that given the similarity in the way in which the peoples of the two countries think and engage, they are just separated by the distance of a big smile. After all, when we live abroad, we make a family of Indians, Nepalese, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis very quick compared to that with others.
Leave A Reply