Book IndiaandSouthAsia PDF

INDIA AND SOUTH ASIA
Exploring Regional Perceptions
INDIA AND SOUTH ASIA

Exploring Regional Perceptions
Editor
VISHAL CHANDRA
INSTITUTE FOR DEFENCE STUDIES & ANALYSES

NEW DELHI
PENTAGON PRESS
India and South Asia: Exploring Regional Perceptions

Vishal Chandra (Editor)
First Published in 2015
Copyright Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi
ISBN 978-81-8274-812-5
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without first obtaining written permission
of the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this book are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect those of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, or the
Government of India.
Published by
PENTAGON PRESS
206, Peacock Lane, Shahpur Jat,
New Delhi-110049
Phones: 011-64706243, 26491568
Telefax: 011-26490600
email: rajan@pentagonpress.in
website: www.pentagonpress.in
Branch Office
Flat No.213, Athena-2,
Clover Acropolis,
Viman Nagar,
Pune-411014
In association with
Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
No. 1, Development Enclave,
New Delhi-110010
Phone: +91-11-26717983
website: www.idsa.in
Printed at Avantika Printers Private Limited.
Contents
Foreword
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
About the Contributors
List of Maps, Tables and Figures
Welcome Remarks by Dr. Arvind Gupta, Director General, IDSA
Inaugural Address by Honble Defence Minister, Shri A.K. Antony
Introduction
Vishal Chandra
vii
ix
xi
xv
xxi
xxv
xxix
xxiii
PART I
SHAPING OF PERCEPTIONS IN SOUTH ASIA
1.
Does Academia Matter to the Shaping of Mutual Perceptions

in South Asia?
Pratyoush Onta
2.
Not India: Pakistan, India and the Self

Yaqoob Khan Bangash
3.
Changing Relations between Bangladesh and India: Perceptions in

Bangladesh
M. Humayun Kabir
29
The Geo-Strategic Matrix and Existential Dimension of Sri Lankas

Conflict, Post-War Crisis and External Relations
Dayan Jayatilleka
46
4.
18
PART II
MUTUAL PERCEPTIONS AND EXPECTATIONS
5.
Perceptions and Memories: Making Sense of Bangladeshs India Outlook

Partha S. Ghosh
59
vi
6.
Changing Dynamics in Nepal-India Relations

Dinesh Bhattarai
7.
Rising India and Bangladesh-India Relations:

Mutual Perceptions and Expectations
M. Ashique Rahman
8.
Indo-Afghan Relationship: Afghan Expectations and Indian Reluctance

Davood Moradian
9.
Shift in Maldivian Perception Towards India During the 2012

Political Crisis
Mohamed Naahee Naseem
70
93
119
128
10. Myanmars Perception of India

Denzil Abel
133
11. Bhutan and Its International Collaborations-2013

Pema Tenzin and Chhimi Dorji
141
PART III
PERCEPTIONS ON REGIONAL COOPERATION
12. South Asian Economic Integration: Potential, Challenges and the

Way Forward
Nagesh Kumar
153
13. Stepped-Up Inter-State Dialogue as a Key to Improving SAARC

Development Prospects
Gabriel Ian Lynn Ockersz
170
14. China and South Asian Cooperation Under SAARC

S.D. Muni
15. Indias Trade with Neighbours: Perceptions and Reality
With Special Reference to India-Pakistan Trade
Indra Nath Mukherji
180
189
16. Seizing New Opportunity for Regional Cooperation and Understanding 205
Shahmahmood Miakhel
The Way Forward: Key Recommendations
211
Index
222
Foreword
The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) has been organising an
annual South Asia Conference which brings together experts from India and all
the other SAARC countries to exchange views on major issues of common interest
to the region. Commencing the 6th South Asia Conference in the year 2012,
scholars from Myanmar have also been participating. Every year, the papers
presented at the Conference are collated and published as an edited book for future
reference by researchers and students. The present volume is the product of the
7th South Asia Conference on the theme India and South Asia: Exploring
Regional Perceptions that was held in New Delhi on October 30-31, 2013. The
present volume, edited by Mr. Vishal Chandra, Associate Fellow at the Institute,
brings together the papers presented at the Conference. Scholars and experts from
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan and
Sri Lanka had shared their perspectives on the theme of the Conference.
It is an established fact that South Asia is one of the least integrated regions
of the world. Mutual suspicions and negative perceptions about one another have
played a big part in keeping the region out of step with the global trend towards
greater regional integration. Difference in size, population and economy relative
to India, although important, still does not offer full explanation for India being
seen as an overbearing big brother. There are issues specific to each country;
sometimes related to identity and domestic politics, and other times because of
unresolved bilateral disputes or the felt need to involve external powers to balance
a bigger neighbour and/or benefit by playing one against the other.
The participants at the Conference discussed the reasons for the prevailingmany a time negative- perceptions among the SAARC partners vis--vis India
and vice versa. They also discussed the inadequacy of the effort on Indias part to
be more sensitive to the natural fears and apprehensions of smaller countries, and
being unable to reinforce its image of being a developmental partner for them.
The participants also rightly brought out the need for greater people-to-people
viii
contacts and ease of travel within the region so that perceptions are not shaped
and exploited by the vested interests. It was also felt by most participants that
there was inadequate emphasis on studying the neighbours in all the countries of
the region. This lacuna has to be filled for correcting perceptions.
It is a fact that India, with 80 per cent of the regional GDP and 70 per cent
of South Asias population, has an important role to play in making regional
cooperation possible by improving its relationship further with all its neighbours.
Greater effortgoing beyond public diplomacy, to clear and improve perceptions
among its neighbours will be in the interest of India and the region. Exchange of
researchers and students and research about one another should be focused upon.
I commend Mr. Vishal Chandra for having brought out this useful volume.
It is hoped that the book would raise awareness about the importance of
perceptions in shaping relationships between India and its neighbours and would
be found useful by scholars, researchers and policy makers alike.
New Delhi
Brig. Rumel Dahiya, SM (Retd.)

Deputy Director General, IDSA
Acknowledgements
This edited volume is an outcome of the 7th South Asia Conference which was
held on October 30-31, 2013 at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
(IDSA) in New Delhi. Participants from all the South Asian countries deliberated
upon the theme of the annual conference, titled, India and South Asia: Exploring
Regional Perceptions, and made a valuable contribution by way of revisiting,
reinterpreting and often deconstructing various narratives and perceptions
national and sub-national, historical and contemporary, and social and economic
embedded within the South Asia region.
The emerging or changing intra-regional perceptions were also put to scrutiny
during the two-day deliberation. The participants not only highlighted and
discussed various critical aspects relating to the conference theme, but also
suggested the way forward on managing diverse and often negative and regressive
perceptions prevalent within the region.
Apart from expressing my sincere gratitude to the distinguished participants
from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives and
Myanmar, I must acknowledge the valuable contribution made by the Indian
scholars too. The moderators for different sessions of the conferenceProfessor
S.D. Muni, Ambassador Veena Sikri, Ambassador Sheel Kant Sharma, General
(Retd.) Ashok K. Mehta and Dr. Arvind Guptaplayed a significant role in the
smooth conduct of the proceedings. Their known scholarship in the subject
further enriched the discussion and debate that followed at the end of each session.
I am indebted to my former Director General Dr. Arvind Gupta for his
constant support and guidance in organising the 7th South Asia Conference.
This book would not have been possible without the trust and encouragement
of my Deputy Director General Brig. Rumel Dahiya, SM (Retd.). His personal
attention and advice especially as I was finalising the manuscript of this book is
deeply appreciated. I am also grateful to my colleague Dr. Ashok Kumar Behuria,
Coordinator of the South Asia Centre at IDSA, for his support.
I would be failing in my duty if I do not acknowledge several of my other

colleagues who contributed in their respective capacities to the success of this
conference. I would particularly like to thank my colleague Ms. Gulbin Sultana,
who tirelessly worked and ably assisted me in successfully organising the
conference. Mr. Aditya Valiathan Pillai, research intern at the time of the
conference, too deserves my special praise for responsibly carrying out the assigned
tasks. I also wish to sincerely thank my colleagues Ms. Sumita Kumar, Dr. Smruti
S. Pattanaik, Dr. Priyanka Singh, Dr. Anand Kumar, Mr. Shyam Hari, Dr. Nihar
Nayak, Ms. Shruti Pandalai, Ms. Eshita Mukherjee, Mr. Amit Kumar, Dr. Saurabh
Mishra, Dr. Saroj Bishoyi, Mr. Parveen Bhardwaj, Mr. Shreyas Deshmukh,
Dr. Yaqoob ul Hassan, Ms. Pranamita Baruah, Mr. Avinash Godbole, Ms. Daneesh
Sethna, Ms. Gunjan Singh, Mr. Rajorshi Roy and many others for their kind
support and cooperation.
I am also grateful to my colleague Mr. Vivek Kaushik, Associate Editor,
Publication Division, for ensuring timely copy-editing of all the chapters. I must
also place my special thanks to the publisher, Pentagon Press, for bringing out
this edited volume in a professional manner.
I present this volume to the interested readers with the hope that it would
contribute to the ongoing debate and discourse on the future of the South Asia
region. We at IDSA certainly feel encouraged to take forward this process of
dialoguing at the intra-regional level with greater enthusiasm and intellectual
vigour. This is very much reflected in the proposed idea to upgrade our annual
South Asia Conference to the level of South Asia Dialogue in the coming years.
New Delhi
Vishal Chandra
Abbreviations
AAGR
ACU
ADB
AGP
AI
AIF
AL
ANSF
APEC
APTA
ASEAN
BCIM
BHU
BIMSTEC
BIPPA
BIS
BJP
BLA
BNP
BSF
BSTI
BTV
CA
CEC
CENTO
CNAS
Average Annual Growth Rate

Asian Clearing Union
Asian Development Bank
Asom Gana Parishad
Amnesty International
ASEAN Infrastructure Fund
Awami League
Afghan National Security Forces
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement
Association of South East Asian Nations
Bangladesh, China, India and Myanmar
Banaras Hindu University
Bay of Bengal Initiative for Mutli-sectoral Technical and
Economic Cooperation
Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement
Bureau of Industrial Standards
Bharatiya Janata Party
Baloch Liberation Army
Bangladesh Nationalist Party
Border Security Force
Bangladesh Standard and Testing Institution
Bangladesh Television
Constituent Assembly
Committee on Economic Cooperation
Central Treaty Organisation
Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies
xii
COMPOSA
Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organisations

in South Asia
Commission of National Inquiry
Comprehensive Peace Agreement
Centre for the Study of Nepal
Countervailing Duty
Delhi-Kolkata-Dhaka
East Asia Summit
Economic Cooperation Organisation
Economic and Social Council
ECO Trade Agreement
European Union
Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry
Free Trade Agreement
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
Gross Domestic Product
Gross National Happiness
Global Trade Analysis Project
Human Rights Watch
International Crisis Group
Indian Council for Social Science Research
Indian Council of World Affairs
Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
International Fund for Agricultural Development
International Financial Corporation
Indian National Army
Ibrahim Nasir International Airport
India-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement
International Trade Centre
Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation
Istanbul-Tehran-Islamabad
Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh
Jawaharlal Nehru University
Jumhoree Party
Land Boundary Agreement
Least Developed Countries
Letter of Exchange
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
Maldives Airports Company Limited
CoNI
CPA
CSN
CVD
DKD
EAS
ECO
ECOSOC
ECOTA
EU
FICCI
FTA
GATT
GDP
GNH
GTAP
HRW
ICG
ICSSR
ICWA
IDSA
IFAD
IFC
INA
INIA
ISFTA
ITC
ITEC
ITI
JIB
JNU
JP
LBA
LDCs
LoE
LTTE
MACL
Abbreviations
MAHB
MDP
MEA
MFN
MoU
NAFTA
NAM
NC
NDMA
NLD
NLDCs
NSB
NTB
NTC
ODA
OHCHR
PBC
PDP
PPM
PPP
PSQCA
PWG
R-CEP
RLP
RMG
RTA
RTCEC
SAARC
SADC
SAFTA
SAIL
SAPTA
SARSO
SASC
SATIS
SCO
SDF
SDG
SDR
Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad

Maldivian Democratic Party
Ministry of External Affairs
Most Favoured Nation
Memorandum of Understanding
North American Free Trade Agreement
Non Aligned Movement
Nepali Congress
Non-Discriminatory Market Access
National League for Democracy
Non Least Developed Countries
National Statistics Bureau
Non-Tariff Barrier
Non-Tariff Commission
Official Developmental Assistance
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Pakistan Business Council
Peoples Democratic Party
Progressive Party of Maldives
Pakistan Peoples Party
Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority
Peoples War Group
Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership
River Linking Project
Readymade Garment
Regional Trade Agreement
Round Table on Commercial and Economic Cooperation
South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
South African Development Community
South Asian Free Trade Area
Steel Authority of India Limited
SAARC Preferential Trading Arrangement
SAARC Standards Organisation
South Asia Studies Centre
SAARC Agreement on Trade in Services
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
SAARC Development Fund
SAARC Development Goals
Special Drawing Rights
xiii
xiv
SEATO
SEWA
SICO
SIS
SPA
SPS
TAR
TMC
TNA
TPP
TTIP
UGC
ULFA
UN
UNCTAD
UNDP
UNESCAP
South East Asia Treaty Organisation

Self-Employed Womens Association
SAARC Industrial Cooperation
School of International Studies
Seven Party Alliance/Strategic Partnership Agreement
Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Tibet Autonomous Region
Trinamool Congress
Tamil National Alliance
Trans-Pacific Partnership
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
University Grants Commission
United Liberation Front of Assam
United Nations
UN Conference on Trade and Development
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and
the Pacific
United Nations Childrens Fund
United Nations Mission in Nepal
United Nations Secretary General
United Progressive Alliance
United States
United States of Kashmir
World Health Organisation
World Integrated Trade Solution
World Trade Organisation
UNICEF
UNMIN
UNSG
UPA
US
USK
WHO
WITS
WTO
Pratyoush Onta is Chair, Martin Chautari, Kathmandu. He has a Ph.D in History

from the University of Pennsylvania (1996). He has written about Nepali
nationalism, Gurkha history, institutions, area studies, politics of knowledge
production and media. He has written, edited and co-edited several books
including Nepal Studies in the UK (2004), Social History of Radio Nepal (2004, in
Nepali), Social Scientific Thinking in the Context of Nepal (2004, in Nepali), Radio
Journalism: News and Talk Programs in FM Radio (2005, in Nepali), Growing Up
with Radio (2005, in Nepali), Mass Media in Post-1990 Nepal (2006), Ten Years
of Independent Radio: Development, Debates and the Public Interest (2008, in
Nepali), Autocratic Monarchy: Politics in Panchayat Nepal (2012) and Post-1990
History of Nepali Magazines (forthcoming, in Nepali). He is also the founding
editor of two journals - Studies in Nepali History and Society (est. 1996) and Media
Adhyayan (est. 2006, in Nepali).
Yaqoob Khan Bangash is Chairman, Department of History, Forman Christian
College, Lahore, Pakistan. His research interests lie in the formation of post
colonial states, questions of identity, rise of regional nationalisms and insurgency,
and human rights. His first book is entitled Subjects to Citizens: Accession and
Integration of the Princely States of Pakistan, 1947-55 (forthcoming, to be published
by Oxford University Press). He also writes regularly for The Express Tribune, The
News and various other news magazines of South Asia. He has also previously
published in the Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History and South Asia
Research.
M. Humayun Kabir is Vice President, Bangladesh Enterprise Institute (BEI),
Dhaka. A career diplomat, he retired as Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Bangladesh, in September 2010. His last foreign assignment was in Washington,
D.C., where he served as Bangladesh Ambassador to the United States. He has
also served as Ambassador to Nepal and High Commissioner to Australia and
xvi
New Zealand and as Deputy High Commissioner in Kolkata, India. He also

advises UNDP and other business consultancies in Bangladesh and abroad.
Dayan Jayatilleka was Sri Lankas Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
to France, Portugal and Spain as well as Permanent Delegate to UNESCO until
January 2013. He was Ambassador/Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the
United Nations in Geneva (2007-09) and was a Vice-President of the UN Human
Rights Council. He was appointed Chairman of the Governing Body of the
International Labour Organisation (ILO) in 2007. He was Minister of Planning
and Youth Affairs in the North-East Provincial Council of Sri Lanka (1988-89).
His select publications include: The Travails of a Democracy: Unfinished War,
Protracted Crisis (1995) and Fidels Ethics of Violence: The Moral Dimension of the
Political Thought of Fidel Castro (2007). His latest book is Long War, Cold Peace:
Conflict and Crisis in Sri Lanka, Vijitha Yapa Publishers, 2013.
Partha S. Ghosh is Senior Fellow at the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library,
New Delhi and editor of India Quarterly. Until recently, he was Professor of South
Asian Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and the Indian Council
for Cultural Relations Chair on Indian Studies at Victoria University of
Wellington, New Zealand. Earlier, he was Visiting Professor at the OKD Institute
of Social Change and Development, Guwahati; Research Director at the Indian
Council of Social Science Research; Humboldt Fellow at the Heidelberg
University; Ford Visiting Scholar at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign and a Visiting Fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi.
His academic interests include South Asian politics, ethnicity, majority-minority
relations, inter-state migrations and domestic politics-foreign policy interface.
Dinesh Bhattarai was Nepals Ambassador/Permanent Representative to the
United Nations including the World Trade Organisation and International
Organisations in Geneva, Rome, and Vienna from 2007 to 2012. He was
Ambassador of Nepal to the Swiss Confederation and concurrently accredited to
Italy and Croatia. He was First Secretary (Political Affairs) at the Embassy of Nepal
in New Delhi from 1991-1994 and Deputy Chief of Mission at the Embassy of
Nepal in Washington, D.C., from 1998-2003, in which he served as Charge
dAffaires a.i. from 2000-01. He did his Post Graduate Diploma in International
Relations and Development from the Institute of Social Studies (ISS), The Hague.
He obtained his Ph.D in International Relations from Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi. He has co-authored the book, Nepal-India: Democracy in the Making
of Mutual Trust, Nirala Publications, 1993.
xvii
M. Ashique Rahman is Research Fellow, Bangladesh Institute of International

and Strategic Studies (BIISS), Dhaka. As a Fulbright Scholar, he obtained his
Masters degree in International Relations from Boston University, Massachusetts
in 2010. He was also awarded the VLIR-UOS Scholarship by the Belgian
Government to attend the International Training Programme (ITP) on Governing
for Development at the University of Antwerp, Belgium. Earlier, he completed
his Master of Social Sciences (MSS) and Bachelor of Social Sciences (BSS) in
Political Science from the University of Dhaka. His areas of expertise are USSouth Asia relations, South Asian politics, inter-state relations and security in South
Asia and conventional arms control. He is also Assistant Editor of the BIISS
Journal.
Davood Moradian is Director General of the Afghan Institute of Strategic Studies
(AISS), Kabul. He has worked with the Afghan Government since 2006 in
different capacities, including as Chief of Programmes at former President Hamid
Karzais office and as Chief Policy Advisor to Afghanistans Ministry of Foreign
Affairs (2006-2011). He has also taught International Relations at the University
of St. Andrews, Scotland and the American University of Afghanistan.
Mohamed Naahee Naseem was a Journalist with Minivan News in Male,
Maldives. He had reported on the political crisis in the Maldives that began
following the controversial transfer of power in February 2012. He has also
appeared at private local broadcaster Raajje Television as a news analyst in its current
affairs programme Sungadi. He is also currently involved in formulating the Press
Club of Maldives (PCM), an NGO that focuses on supporting and promoting
journalism in the Maldives, while also creating a platform that would support
local journalists in their career development. Earlier, he had briefly worked for
Miadhu Daily, a local newspaper. He is also pursuing his Bachelors degree in
Sharia and Law (LLB Hon.) at the Faculty of Sharia and Law, The Maldives
National University.
Denzil Abel is Member, Myanmar Institute of Strategic and International Studies
(MISIS), Yangon, Myanmar. He holds a Maters degree in International Public
Policy from the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins
University. He has served in various positions in the Myanmar Foreign Service
(1972 -2005), as SO and ASEAN Plus Three Specialist, ASEAN Secretariat (200608), as Strategic Support Manager, ASEAN High Level Task Force for Cyclone
Nargis Operation (2009-2010) and as Senior Advisor to the UN-Habitat Myanmar
(2011).
xviii
Pema Tenzin is Regional Head of Kuensel Corporation, Kanglung, Trashigang,

Bhutan. He has a Bachelors degree in Business Management from Bangalore
University, India. He has attended several international and regional training
programmes and seminars on business, leadership, natural resources and
cooperation in Norway, Bhutan and India. The co-author of his chapter in the
book, Chhimi Dorji, is an Executive Engineer with the Royal Government of
Bhutan, Thimphu.
Nagesh Kumar is Head, UNESCAP South and South-West Asia Office, New
Delhi. In October 2011, he was appointed as Director, Subregional Office for
South and South-West Asia based in New Delhi. Earlier, he was Director of the
Macroeconomic Policy and Development Division of ESCAP in Bangkok and
also served as the Acting Deputy Executive Secretary of ESCAP (September 2010June 2011). Prior to joining ESCAP in May 2009, he had served as DirectorGeneral of Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS),
New Delhi. He has also served on the faculty of the United Nations UniversityInstitute for New Technologies (now UNU-MERIT), Maastricht, The Netherlands
(1993-98); boards of the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable
Development (ICTSD), Geneva; South Asia Centre for Policy Studies (SACEPS),
Kathmandu; Institute of Studies in Industrial Development, New Delhi and the
Export-Import Bank of India. His recent books include: Asias New Regionalism
and Global Role (ISEAS, Singapore, 2008); International Competitiveness and
Knowledge-based Industries in India (Oxford University Press, 2007); Towards an
Asian Economic Community (Singapore and New Delhi: 2005); Globalization and
the Quality of Foreign Direct Investment (Oxford University Press, 2002). He cofounded the South Asia Economic Journal in 2000 and writes a monthly column
in Business Standard, a leading financial daily published from New Delhi.
Gabriel Ian Lynn Ockersz is former Director, Bandaranaike Centre for
International Studies (BCIS), Colombo, Sri Lanka. He is presently Associate
Editor/Business Editor, The Island, a Colombo based newspaper. He was previously
an Associate Editor with The Island. Prior to it, he worked with The Sun and The
Daily News. He has been a regular contributor to the national press since 1982
on subject areas ranging from domestic and international politics to personality
profiles, arts and culture, including weekly columns in The Daily News titled Asia
Watch and Global Scrutiny and in The Island under the title World Scan.
Currently, he is also working as Visiting Lecturer at the University of Colombo.
Previously, he also served as Lecturer at Aquinas College and the Diplomatic
Training Institute, Colombo; and the Kelaniya University and Open University
of Sri Lanka. He has two publications to his credit: Flame and Sparks, a
collection of poems of socio-religious significance (October 2002) and The Peace
xix
Thou Gives, a collection of devotional poems (July 2010). He was conferred

the title Catholic Writer 2004 by the Catholic Writers Association of Sri Lanka.
He was appointed as a member of Advisory Body by Ministry of Constitutional
Affairs in the 1990s to help find political solution to the ethnic conflict.
S.D. Muni is Distinguished Fellow, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
(IDSA), New Delhi. Earlier, he was Research Professor at the Institute of South
Asian Studies of the National University of Singapore. He served as Indias
Ambassador to Laos PDR (1997-99) and as Indias Special Envoy to Southeast
Asian countries on the issue of UN Security Council reform (2005-06). In 2005,
the Sri Lankan President bestowed upon him the countrys highest civilian honour
for a foreign national, the Sri Lanka Ratna. He has taught International Studies
for 34 years at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and has visited on research
assignments to various universities and think tanks in the US, UK, Europe, Japan,
Australia, West Asia and Southeast Asia. He has authored and edited more than
two dozen books and monographs on Indian and Asian foreign and security
policies. His latest publications include India and China: The Next Decade
(co-edited, 2009), Indias Foreign Policy: The Democracy Dimension (2009), The
Emerging Dimensions of SAARC (2010), A Resurgent China: South Asian Perspectives
(co-edited, 2012) and Asian Strategic Review (co-edited, 2013).
I.N. Mukherji is former Chairman of South Asian Studies and Dean of School
of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University and Senior Consultant at
Research and Information System for Developing Countries, New Delhi. After
retiring as professor from JNU in 2008, he became the Regional Editor (India)
of the South Asia Economic Journal. He is in the Governing Body of the Centre
for International Relations and Community Well Being, Gurgaon. He has
completed 22 research projects sponsored by the Committee on Studies for
Cooperation in South Asia (CSCD), World Bank, UNESCAP, IDRC, FAO, ADB,
ICSSR and SANEI among others. His core interest relates to trade and
development issues in South Asia. Two of his recent publications are: Deepening
Economic Cooperation between India and Sri Lanka (with Kavita Iyenger; Asian
Development Bank, Manila, 2013) and SAFTA and Food Security in South AsiaAn Overview, in Regional Trade Agreements and Food Security in Asia, Food and
Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and the
Pacific, Bangkok, 2012.
Shahmahmood Miakhel is Country Director, United States Institute of Peace
(USIP), Kabul, Afghanistan. Prior to joining USIP in 2009, he worked as
Governance Adviser/Deputy Head of Governance Unit for the United Nations
Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA). From 2003-05, he served as the
xx
deputy interior minister of Afghanistan. He has also worked as a reporter for

Pashto and Dari services of Voice of America (1985-1990) and as deputy director
of SOS/Belgium, an international organisation assisting Afghan refugees in
Pakistan. He has also worked for UNDP/UNOPS programme in Afghanistan as
Senior Liaison Officer to establish District Rehabilitation Shuras (DRS) in eastern
and south-eastern provinces of Afghanistan. He was elected to the Emergency
Loya Jirga in 2002, the Peace Jirga between Afghanistan and Pakistan in August
2007 and Consultative Peace Jirga in June 2010. He has published books in Pashto
and English: Emergency Loya Jirga and the Election Process in the Eastern
Provinces of Afghanistan; In the Light of Truth, a personal account of the
mujahideen uprising in the Kunar Province and refugee life in Pakistan; Ministry
of Interior: Challenges and Achievements, a personal account (2003-05); and
Understanding Afghanistan: Collection of Articles (2001-12).
Phae Thann Oo is a retired ambassador and had served in various capacities in
the Myanmar Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As a career diplomat, he served at the
Myanmar Embassy in Paris, Singapore, Ottawa, Seoul and Dhaka. He also served
as Director General in the Department of Political Affairs of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. As Myanmar Delegate, he attended a number of annual UNGA
meetings in New York and some UN special summit meetings, such as United
Nations Conference on Economic Development (Earth Summit) in Rio, Brazil
(1992) and the UNFCCC Summit Meeting in Kyoto, Japan (1999). As Secretary,
National Commission for Environmental Affairs, he participated in environmental
conferences on climate change, desertification and sustainable development. He
has also served as Myanmar SOM leader at ASEAN meetings and summits.
List of Map, Tables and Figures
Map: South Asia
xxiii
Tables
Chapter 7
Table 1: Macro-Economic Performances of India during 2003-2012
100
Table 2: Bangladesh-India Bilateral Trade
107
Chapter 11
Table 1: Bhutans Key Socio-Economic Indicators
145
Table 2: Grants, FDI and GDP in Bhutan
147
Chapter 12
Table 1: Intraregional Exports Trade as Share of Total Trade
157
Table 2: Underexploited Trade Potential in South and South-West

Asia
158
Table 3: Welfare Effects from Trade Liberalisation and Facilitation

in SAFTA as a Proportion of GDP of the Participating
Countries
159
Table 4: Non-Tariff Intra- and Extra-Regional Trade Costs in

Asia-Pacific, 2007-09
161
Chapter 15
Table 1: Pakistans Imports of Products in its Negative List for India
from China, India and World
200
xxii
Figures
Chapter 12
Figure 1: Regional Cooperation Frameworks in Southern Asia
156
Figure 2: Indian Share of Exports from Two Trading Partners
157
Chapter 15
Figure 1: South Asian Countries (Excluding India) Trade Deficit with
India and World
192
Figure 2: Pakistans Trade Deficit with China India and World
193
Figure 3: Pakistans Imports from China by End Use Classification
194
Figure 4: Pakistans Imports from India by End Use Classification
195
Figure 5: Tariff Profiles of Pakistan and India
196
Figure 6: Pakistans Imports of Major Products in its Negative

List from China, India and World
202
Welcome Remarks by Dr. Arvind Gupta,

Director General, IDSA at the 7th Annual
South Asia Conference, October 30, 2013*
Honble Raksha Mantri

Delegates to the conference
Members of the Executive Council
Members of the Strategic Community
Members of the Media
IDSA Colleagues
Ladies and Gentlemen
Good Morning,
It gives me great pleasure to welcome you to the 7th South Asia Conference being
organised by the IDSA on the theme India and South Asia: Exploring Regional
Perceptions.
I am most grateful to the Honble Defence Minister for having agreed to
inaugurate this conference. His invaluable support to this project over the last
several years has resulted in institutionalising the South Asia Conference as an
annual event of the IDSA.
In the last seven years the conference has emerged as a platform for scholars
and experts from India and SAARC countries for exchange of views on a variety
of issues concerning South Asia.
The previous six conferences have discussed themes such as Economic
Cooperation for Security and Development in South Asia, Changing Political
*Dr. Arvind Gupta was Director General, IDSA from 2012 to 2014. He is currently Deputy
National Security Advisor, Government of India.
xxvi
Context in Indias Neighbourhood and Prospects of Security and Regional

Cooperation, South Asia 2020: Towards Cooperation or Conflict?, The
Common Challenge of Terrorism in South Asia and Prospect of Regional
Cooperation, Cooperative Security Framework for South Asia, and Prospects
for Stability and Growth in South Asia.
Despite the best efforts of the leaders, regional cooperation in South Asia
remains at a level much below the desirable. The SAARC was established in 1985
and BIMSTEC in 1997. These are important regional organisations but the
progress towards regional cooperation has been slow.
The present situation in the region is not comforting either. Democracy has
set in but the democratic institutions remain weak. Terrorism continues to be a
serious threat. The aspirations of the youth are growing. This will have serious
consequences for stability in our countries. Radicalisation of societies is happening
at a disturbing pace. One can count several other disconcerting trends.
There are many reasons why South Asia has been lagging behind in the efforts
towards regional cooperation. One of the reasons is the negative perceptions the
countries of the region have about each other. Many countries of the region have
had a turbulent past. Conflicts and wars have continued to shape negative
perceptions about each other. Very often the discourse about India in the
neighbouring countries is coloured by its predominant size, colonial legacy, and
historical baggage. These factors also come in the way of fostering a positive image
about each other.
But, we should not overlook our strengths and positive stories from the region.
This will help generate better perceptions about each other.
The region has not remained static. Democracy has taken hold in this part
of the world. South Asian countries have also done relatively well economically.
Our young people and the new generation are less affected by the negative past.
Thanks to the ICT revolution and the onset of social media, we know each other
better than before. The Indian economy has grown significantly in size since 1991
and is on course to become a global economy. The countries of the region are
beginning to realise the sizable benefits they will acquire if their economies are
linked with the Indian economy.
The region has tremendous soft power which can be harnessed for mutual
benefit. All our countries have great civilisational past and can boast of cultural
richness which is the envy of others. We have young and talented populations.
India is the largest country in the region. This conference will seek to explore
various perceptions about India in each of the neighbouring South Asian countries.
Which are the key forces that shape or perpetuate the prevailing perceptions? What
is the role of the media? Why has the region failed to connect to India with its
Welcome Remarks by Director General, IDSA
xxvii
rising political and economic profile? We will also explore how best India can
manage or improve the perceptions among its South Asian neighbours. These
and other questions mentioned in the concept note of the conference, will inform
the discussions over the next two days.
There are grounds for hope that negative discourse about each other may
change. However, our wishing so will not make it happen. We all have to make
a positive and sustained effort towards changing the discourse.
This conference is informed by the assumption that perceptions play a
significant role in the South Asian politics. Adversarial and negative perceptions
come in the way of regional cooperation and integration. Hyperactive 24x7 media
plays a role in perpetuating cynicism. A cooperative approach to resolving regional
issues remains elusive. But this need not be so. An effort to forge positive
perceptions about each other must be made.
I am grateful to the delegates from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives,
Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka for traveling to New Delhi for this
conference. I wish you a pleasant stay in India.
Thank you.
Inaugural Address by Honble Defence

Minister at the 7th South Asian Conference
on India and South Asia: Exploring
Regional Perceptions
Honble Defence Minister, Shri A. K. Antony*

October 30, 2013
Director General IDSA, Shri Arvind Gupta,
Excellencies,
Distinguished Delegates,
Scholars of IDSA,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
At the outset, I extend a warm welcome to all the delegates and participants
representing their nation for the 7th South Asia Conference. IDSAs efforts to
bring together delegates from different countries in the South Asian region are
commendable. The Conference is an occasion to discuss issues of mutual interest
and concern at Track II level. Such initiatives have immense potential to generate
ideas and concepts that can create a momentum for regional peace and
cooperation.
Despite sharing commonalities of history, geography and culture, the South
Asian region has lagged in generating impulses for regional cooperation. In fact,
it is one of the least integrated regions of the world. Its share in the world economy
is quite small. This often leads to misunderstandings.
*Shri A.K. Antony was President of IDSA from 2007 to 2014.
xxx
The share of the South Asian region in global trade is only 1.7 per cent. Intraregional trade accounts for mere 6 per cent of the total trade for the countries of
the region. In comparison, intra-regional trade in the case of NAFTA, EU and
ASEAN stands at 62, 58 and 26 per cent, respectively. Therefore, it becomes
evident that a lot of effort is required to enable regional integration in true sense
of the term.
In this context, the theme of this years conference, India and South Asia:
Exploring Regional Perceptions, is quite meaningful and relevant. As the largest
country in the region, India has an important role to play in making regional
cooperation possible. It accounts for 80 per cent of the regional GDP and 70 per
cent of South Asias population. The nations economy has been growing steadily
in recent years. India has made conscious efforts to strengthen its relationship
with its neighbours. Its bilateral relations with some of the neighbouring countries
have also made significant progress.
However, the cumulative effect of all this on regional cooperation is yet to be
felt. This requires a careful analysis. The Conference must make an effort to study
and analyse regional perceptions about India and its role in South Asia.
In international relations, perceptions often prove to be as important as reality.
In regions plagued by conflict and underdevelopment, mistrust has an impact on
the behaviour amongst states. In such a scenario, perceptions often get divorced
from the reality. Perceptions of countries about each other in the region are not
too favourable for regional cooperation. South Asia has been in a state of turmoil
for long. Fears, be they real or perceived, can at times, shape policies of state.
India enjoys a unique position in South Asia. As the largest country with a
stable democratic system and vast resources, it is often called upon to play a
stabilising role in the region. However, Indias natural predominance is viewed
with concern by some states. Such concerns about Indian intentions are far from
real and often misplaced.
Over the years, India has assumed a responsibility to improve its relationship
with neighbours. This policy has paid off at bilateral level. Indias relationship
with some countries has undergone a dramatic transformation. However, its
relationship with some other countries continues to be problematic. Nevertheless,
India has always remained committed to further and maintain peace and friendly
relations with all its neighbours.
India has always tried its best to reach out to all its neighbours and engage
them through political, economic, defence and developmental cooperation. India
has forged several development-based partnerships across the globe in recent years.
Most of Indias developmental assistance, which is to the tune of $1 billion per
year, is focused on its immediate neighbourhood. Indias efforts in the
Inaugural Address by Honble Defence Minister
xxxi
reconstruction of Afghanistan are well known. It is the fifth largest bilateral donor
in Afghanistan.
India has also been playing a major role in strengthening regional infrastructure
and in supporting efforts aimed at human resource development. India has
unilaterally relaxed its visa policies to enable the people of the region to avail of
its improved healthcare systems. It offers thousands of scholarships to students
from neighbouring countries to receive education in its premier educational
institutes.
India continues with its efforts to strive to achieve better economic relationship
with all the countries. We expect that an improvement in Indias bilateral
relationships with the countries of the region will have a beneficial impact on the
process of regional integration.
Against this backdrop, perceptions of neighbours about India and the region
become quite important. We hope that the perception about India will change
gradually, as we make earnest efforts to build trust and mutual confidence. India
has to factor in expectations of people from different states, while framing its
policy towards the region. In fact, not only India, but all the states of the region
will have to deal with mutual perceptions, while conducting their foreign policies
towards each other. The issue that we need to focus on is how to make perceptions
favourable to bring about a positive change in the region. In this context, think
tanks, civil societies, intelligentsia and media have a crucial and a responsible role
to play.
As a first step, we should draw inspiration from the common strands of history
and culture. At the same time, we must respect cultural differences and emphasise
on inter-cultural learning. The soft power that each country has, should be
harnessed to bring people together. The entire region has many heritage sites that
connect various nations through history. These states are endowed with immense
cultural capital. We have to use this capital to build bridges with one another.
Recently, India and Bangladesh held joint celebrations of the 150th birth
anniversary of Rabindranath Tagore. It reminded the two countries of their
common literary traditions. Such efforts should be strengthened and carried
forward.
States should evolve policies that will strengthen people-to-people contacts.
They should encourage students to travel across borders, and enable contacts
among academics, scientists, journalists, sportsmen, businessmen, poets and
writers. Public diplomacy has a major role to play in this regard. Institutions like
IDSA must strengthen the linkages with their counterparts in the region and
develop collaborative research. Only then can nations think of changing negative
perceptions about each other.
Your inputs during the conference will be immensely useful. The basic purpose
xxxii
of this conference should be to cull out the views of the scholars and acquaint
ourselves with their concerns, hopes and expectations.
I am sure that the deliberations at the conference will throw up useful and
practical ideas for action. These could be strung together as policy inputs for
governments in the region. This will go a long way in connecting the various
tracks of dialogue. Hopefully, they will be of great value for policy makers in
various countries of the region.
I wish all the participants at the Conference and the deliberations all success.
Thank You. Jai Hind!
Introduction
Vishal Chandra
India, in view of its geographical expanse, vast population, and massive natural
resources, is often seen as overbearing in the region. Its smaller neighbours have
responded to the natural asymmetry more or less in similar ways in their bilateral
engagements with India. At a more nuanced level, a perceived sense of insecurity
vis--vis India often gives way to aggressive posturing particularly by countries
still grappling with complex issues pertaining to formation of national identity
and state consolidation. Unresolved border issues leading to protracted territorial
disputes, including concerns over sharing of river waters and maritime resources,
coupled with huge imbalances in trade, are often used for cultivating negative
stereotypes and unfounded or inflated threat perceptions. Some of these issues
have largely shaped the general (mis)perception and the prevalent social and
political narratives about India in its immediate neighbourhood.
As the only country having borders with all other South Asian countries, most
of whom do not share borders with one anotherand the largest one at that in
terms of size and populationIndia has often been the target of persistent criticism
despite the fact that it has sought to build a friendly or at least a working
relationship with all its neighbours by taking non-reciprocal economic and political
initiatives in the last two decades.
Perceptions play a very significant role in the South Asian politics. They have
largely shaped and influenced state policies and politics among South Asian
countries, especially in relation to India and vice versa, over the years. State policies
have at times been hostage to negative or adversarial perceptions, well-entrenched
in the popular psyche. As one delves into the complexities involved in the shaping
of perceptions among countries in South Asia, one realises that it is an extremely
dynamic process that has evolved differently in different countries. Perceptions
among states are not static and have often changed with the shift in global as well
xxxiv
as regional and domestic politics. There are myriad stakeholderswith their

sectional interests and concernsplaying their role explicitly or implicitly in
shaping and influencing mutual perceptions among countries in South Asia.
Modern communications technology and expanded media networks have often
reinforced old perceptions and inhibited the process of regional cooperation and
integration.
India, on its part, too faces a complex set of challenges due to the fact that
negative perceptions about it are engendered by powerful vested interests in the
neighbouring states. Most of its neighbours are also in a state of major socialpolitical ferment and transition, and are up against a wide array of internal
challenges. Due to their tense and fragile ties with India, most of them have not
been able to participate in, and benefit from, the Indian economy which is growing
at a rapid pace.
Regional initiatives and groupings, such as the South Asian Association for
Regional Cooperation (SAARC), have had varying success in building an abiding
cooperative framework to address issues of common concern to the countries of
the region. There can be no doubt that over the centuries the region has acquired
an inherently diverse and yet a distinct multi-layered geo-cultural identity. The
impact of British colonialism in the evolution of the South Asian region has proved
to be enduring and irreversible. The European concepts of political organisation,
territoriality and nationality have left an indelible mark on state formation in the
post-colonial period.
The emergence of new states in the post-colonial period, with exclusive notions
of identity, citizenship and nationality within fixed well-defined borders, and geopolitical and economic asymmetry among them, has imparted an altogether new
dynamics to the region. In such a setting, perceptions about each other changed
as old historical narratives were replaced by exclusive, imagined and sponsored
histories, often categorised in terms of us and them. This has also resulted in
general apathy and lingering tension among the states despite a shared sense of
history and geography amongst the people of the region.
In view of the asymmetry in size and capabilities, India too faces a major
policy dilemma when it comes to responding to any crisis in its immediate
neighbourhood, lest it stokes anti-India sentiments and further complicates the
situation. Interestingly, India, at the same time, is not expected to remain a mute
spectator either. The challenges of how India should respond or what should be
the nature and level of its intervention, if needed, has often confounded Indias
policy and decision makers.
Although there are certain realities and factors that are unalterable, such as
the shared geography or the fundamentals of geo-economicsirrespective of how
national interests are defined or on what terms states or their key institutions
Introduction
xxxv
interact within the regiona regional approach to addressing regional issues

remain elusive. Indias thrust on strengthening intra-regional trade through
increased connectivity and unilateral concessions, has at best yielded mixed results.
South Asia largely remains mired in protracted conflicts and chronic socioeconomic challenges, which require each country in the region to constantly
evaluate its position and policy in relation to India and vice versa.
On the basis of the findings of the last six annual conferences that the Institute
for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) has been organising since 2007, it was
felt that a detailed assessment of various perceptions about India that prevails in
its immediate neighbourhood is critical for policy makers to devise appropriate
measures to enable and strengthen the process of regional cooperation. Thus, the
7th Annual South Asia Conference was organised with the objective of identifying
the various strands of political and economic perceptions about India prevalent
among its South Asian neighbours, and vice versa, as well as to find the way
forward.
The two-day conference sought to examine and address the

following set of queries and issues:
(i) What are the various perceptions about India in each of the neighbouring
South Asian countries? How do other countries in the region look at
Indias economic power? Is India perceived as a reluctant or an unreliable
partner in the development of the region? Has India failed to relate and
connect to its immediate neighbourhood?
(ii) Which are the key institutions and forces shaping perceptions about India
in the neighbouring countries? What has been the role of media in shaping
or perpetuating the prevalent perceptions? How perceptions have defined
or transformed the inter-state relations in South Asia?
(iii) What are the Indian perceptions of its neighbourhood and its approaches
to the individual countries in South Asia? Has the region failed to connect
to India, and to identify with its rising political and economic profile?
(iv) How best India can manage or improve its perceptions among its South
Asian neighbours? What role India should play to make regional
cooperation a success? What should be Indias long-term approach in this
regard?
This edited volume is an outcome of the two-day deliberations among
participants from all the South Asia countriesAfghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri
Lanka, Bhutan, Maldives, Bangladesh and Indiaand, also Myanmar. In order
to present the study in a simple, lucid and reader-friendly manner, the book
xxxvi
comprising sixteen chapters is divided into three parts corresponding to the subthemes of the conference.
The book ends with a separate section on The Way Forward: Key
Recommendations, which brings forth some of the key suggestions and
recommendations that emerged from the roundtable discussion that took place
at the end of the conference.
The chapters in the first part of the book try to identity key drivers, institutions
and stakeholders and their role in shaping of perceptions among states in South
Asia. The second part explores how mutual perceptions have influenced the interstate relations in South Asia. Chapters in the third and final part of the book
examine various perceptions about regional cooperation among the South Asian
states, including the growing Chinese thrust in the region.
Pratyoush Onta in his paper, Does Academia Matter to the Shaping of
Mutual Perceptions in South Asia?, deals with fundamental issues pertaining to
the state of South Asian Studies in the countries of the region including the state
of academic research in India and Nepal. He argues that ideally, academia should
matter to the shaping of informed mutual perceptions among the countries in
South Asia, but that is not the case presently. According to Onta, being surrounded
by India on three sides, it is imperative for Nepal to closely study India. However,
due to lack of adequate infrastructure and environment, and the poor state of
social science research in academic institutions, the India Studies in Nepal has
not flourished. There have been no serious efforts in Nepal at the government
level to establish research centres which could study various aspects of the Indian
society.
On the other side, Nepal Studies in India too has suffered in terms of quality
in recent years due to financial mismanagement and various institutional
constraints. In fact, the funding for area studies in general is shrinking in India.
Even the academic exchange programmes conducted under the SAARC framework
have failed to generate quality scholarship. In this regard, Onta suggests that a
long-term solution would require investments in both institutions universities
and research centres and academics in each of the countries of South Asia. He
further urges that governments, regional organisations and international agencies
must support long-term research initiatives which could lead to better knowledge
exchange and cooperation within the region. Without this, academia cannot either
be strengthened or expected to play a key role in influencing perceptions and
ideas about each other.
Yaqoob Khan Bangashs paper, titled, Not India: Pakistan, India and the
Self captures the historical processes of perception formation about India in
Pakistan, as part of its continuing quest for an identity distinct from India. He
Introduction
xxxvii
argues that Pakistans identity as Not India has been a defining feature of its
identity and which still shapes its outlook towards India. He states that Pakistans
definition of itself as the Muslim country, and India as the Hindu country,
resulted in Pakistani textbooks treating Indians and Hindus as synonyms. The
perpetual enmity between Hindus and Muslims was emphasised and perpetuated
through textbooks to illustrate the historic need for Pakistan. The paper also reflects
on the role of media in constantly reinforcing the anti-India perception. Bangash
further argues that what Pakistan thinks of India is critically tied to what it thinks
of itself and what is happening in the country. The perception that India has still
not come to terms with the partition is still quite widespread in Pakistan.
Referring to possible decline in the level of animosity towards India, the paper
states that the people of Pakistan think more in terms of moving on rather than
remaining confined to historical issues. Bangash asserted that interest in Kashmir
issue too is on the wane among people in general. A section of media in Pakistan
has diversified and organisations such as the Jang Group and its media channel,
the Geo TV, have shown commitment to building peace and trust between the
people of the two countries. However, there are still strong anti-India constituencies
within Pakistan which remain severely opposed to such peace initiatives.
As a way forward, Bangash suggests that India should help in promoting
stability in Pakistan. India must also assure Pakistan that it does not have any
intention of undoing the partition. Only a stable, secure and a confident Pakistan
would be able to engage with India without the baggage of the past. On the other
hand, Pakistan needs to take a more nuanced view of India. Bangash further
suggested that Pakistans textbooks should be more inclusive in terms of teaching
the rich non-Muslim heritage of the Subcontinent. The textbooks must also restart
teaching the history of ancient as well as post-independence modern India.
Humayun Kabirs paper, titled, Changing Relations between Bangladesh and
India: Perceptions in Bangladesh, dwells on the perception parameters between
India and Bangladesh which, in his opinion, are defined by geography, processes
of identity formation, asymmetric power setting, policy initiatives and rising
economic profile of India. He explains how the interplay of these complex factors
has had significant consequences for the bilateral relationship and formation of
perceptions in Bangladesh. He argues that in order to further enhance the
relationship both countries needed to be creative and adopt innovative measures
to bring about greater cooperation between the two neighbours. There is an
increasing realisation within Bangladesh that India is focussing more on pursuing
its traditional realist agenda than forging a stronger partnership with Bangladesh
for harnessing new opportunities.
Dayan Jayatilleka in his paper, The Geo-strategic Matrix and Existential
Dimension of Sri Lankas Conflict, Post War Crisis and External Relations, takes
xxxviii
a Southern or Southernist perspective which is, in his opinion, quite distinctive.

He argues that the third-worldist perspective, later known as the perspective of
the global south, or a southern perspective, is quite specific in terms of the narrative
and the causal relationship, and things look differently when viewed from the
south. He shared his perspectives on Sri Lanka as Indias southern periphery and
Tamil Nadu as its inner periphery, and the relationship between the two peripheries
and the political dynamics involved therein. The intrusive role of a sub-state unit
raises concerns whether Indias policy-making is constrained by the stridency shown
by Tamil Nadu politicians. In Sri Lanka, it is usually felt that Tamil Nadu factor
is overrated in Indian policy circles.
Jayatilleka further argues that Sri Lankas relationship with India is a vital
constituent of its management of the internal ethnic relationships, just as its
relationship with its own Tamil minority is intrinsic to the management of the
larger and essential relationship with India. In his opinion, there is an existential
imperative of dual co-existence: Sri Lankas co-existence with India and Sinhala
co-existence with the Tamils.
Partha S. Ghosh in his paper, Perceptions and Memories: Making Sense of
Bangladeshs India Outlook, contests the argument that the Bangladeshi society
is divided between the Bengali nationalists and the Bangladeshi nationalists. In
his opinion, the above argument is not completely valid as there is an overlap
between the two. According to Ghosh, the history of the Indian Subcontinent in
the last 150 years has witnessed three social trends vying for pre-eminence in the
South Asian politicsHindu nationalism, Muslim nationalism and the composite
Hindu-Muslim nationalism. The paper tries to understand the respective influences
of these trends on Bangladesh politics vis--vis India and West Bengal in the
context of three events: partition of Bengal in 1905, partition of India in 1947,
and the creation of Bangladesh in 1971.
According to Ghosh, from the perspective of memory-policy interface,
Bangladesh faces two challengeshow to work out its Pakistan outlook, on the
one hand, and how to define its India outlook, on the other. Ghosh asserts that
as long as Bangladeshs Pakistan outlook remains blurred, its India outlook cannot
be any clearer. In fact, memories of 1947 and 1971 would keep haunting all the
three countries and in three different ways. In South Asia, the debate over partition
has not ended and all the states are passing through a complex process of state
formation. Ghosh concludes that perceptions and memories of Bangladesh about
India are contradictory. Bangladesh largely suffers from its collective memory of
the past. Most Indians have no clue about the realities of Bangladesh, which is,
in his opinion, simply a potential den of future Taliban. Bangladesh too remains
largely ignorant about society and politics in India. Both the countries certainly
need to know much more about each other.
Introduction
xxxix
The next paper, Changing Dynamics in Nepal-India Relations, by Dinesh

Bhattarai notes that probably no two neighbouring countries in the world share
so many similarities and interact so comprehensively on a daily basis, both at the
government and peoples level, than Nepal and India. However, despite having
historically deep-rooted, interdependent and multi-faceted bilateral relations, the
two countries have recurring irritants, constraints and complexities born out of
misperceptions and conflicting narratives of the emerging dynamics. The gap
between fact and fiction has blurred the necessary debate on core issues in NepalIndia relations, and has added new complexities to it.
Referring to the global power shift towards the Asia-Pacific region due to
phenomenal economic growth of both China and India, and the US Asia pivot
strategy, the paper intends to look at how the emerging dynamics are shaping
Nepal-India relations. Bhattarai notes that the simultaneous rise of both China
and India, which together have 40 per cent of the worlds population, has shifted
the gravity of geo-politics and geo-economics to the region. Nepal, in his opinion,
needs to work wisely amidst its interminable political transition, to benefit from
its proximities to these economic powerhouses. Bhattarai argues that increased
global attention to the region also presents Nepal with several challenges. For
instance, Nepals proximity and affinity to Tibet has made it a meeting point of
overlapping and intersecting interests of various kinds including that of the
European Union and the US.
While arguing that it is a geographical reality that Nepal shares border with
both India and China, the two fastest growing economies in the world, he points
out that Nepal, which is making a democratic transition, remains one of the
poorest countries of the world. Though the living standards of the people around
the country are rising, Nepal has been left untouched by this economic
development as remittances still constitute about 25 per cent of its GDP. Talking
of perception and reality, he referred to the growing gap in Nepal-India relations.
As a result, Nepal sees Indias hand in all its problems. He also questions the
conduct of a section of the Nepali leadership particularly from the leftist parties
who often equate nationalism to anti-Indianism and thrive on blind jingoism
when out of power. He concluded by highlighting the need for increased peopleto-people contact to dispel misunderstandings about each other. He suggested
that socio-economic transformation in Nepal should be expedited within the
democratic framework. Leaders of both India and Nepal should talk frankly and
address issues of mutual concern. Also, Nepali leaders should be sensitive to Indias
legitimate concerns.
M. Ashique Rahman in his paper, Rising India and Bangladesh-India
Relations: Mutual Perceptions and Expectations, argues that relationship with
India constitutes the most important cornerstone of Bangladeshs foreign policy.
xl
After giving a brief overview of Bangladesh-India relations since 1971, the paper
examines the processes of perception formation in Bangladesh vis--vis India.
Rahman refers to the widening expectation-achievement gap particularly in the
context of Indias rising economic and political profile. In his opinion, Indias
emergence as a major global power has imparted a new dimension to the
expectations and desires of its smaller neighbours which expect India to follow a
friendlier neighbourhood policy while making utmost efforts to resolve all
outstanding bilateral issues with them. However, the experience of last few years
show, in spite of improving bilateral relations, India could not deliver on some of
the issues or could not provide concessions in some areas that affect peoples
perceptions about India, often contributing to the persistence of negative
perceptions among its smaller neighbours. Negative perceptions in turn help
reinforce anti-India sentiments, further constraining efforts to improve bilateral
relations including between India and Bangladesh.
He further states that media plays a very significant role in shaping public
perception and talks about the role of Indian media and civil society in perceptionformation. Rahman asserts that resolving outstanding bilateral issues is the
foremost way of addressing the adverse perceptions persistent in both the countries.
India seems to lack a proper awareness of the politics and processes of perception
formation in Bangladesh. Also, India often appears convinced that economics
would remove the negative perceptions and take the Bangladesh-India relations
forward on a sustainable basis, but such a perception fails to factor in the political
divisiveness in Bangladesh. Rahman argues that political opposition as a major
actor and institution in the processes of perception formation has to be recognised
and incorporating them in the policy making process could help the incumbent
government in advancing Bangladesh-India relations.
Davood Moradian in his paper, Indo-Afghan Relationship: Afghan
Expectations and Indian Reluctance, states that while Afghan-India relations have
all elements of a truly historical and strategic partnership, both the countries have
failed to fully utilise their identical security and economic interests to their mutual
advantage. He blames Delhis cautious geo-strategic mindset and its entrenched
bureaucracy for a significant gap between the reality and the potential of
Afghanistan-India partnership, followed by Wests Pakistan-centric understanding
of the region and Kabuls transitioning political and institutional landscape.
However, India, being a growing economy, is perceived to be in a much better
position to help Afghanistan in reviving its war-shattered economy as the Western
forces withdraw.
While referring to the signing of Strategic Partnership Agreement between
the two countries in 2011, the paper suggests that Afghanistan chose India as a
strategic partner for three reasons: firstly, due to shared values, as both are pluralistic
Introduction
xli
and multi-cultural societies; secondly, convergence of security interests since both

India and Afghanistan face similar threat from terrorism, and, finally, due to
complementary economic interests. Moradian argues that India has been keen to
be seen as a development partner and not as a strategic partner, even though the
two countries have signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement. According to him,
India does not seem to be too much interested in security cooperation which is
the basis of any strategic relationship. He further states that Indias reluctance to
engage Afghanistan on security issues show that India does not have an
independent foreign policy.
Moradian gives five reasons for Indias reluctance to engage Afghanistan
Gandhian legacy of non-violence, transition to a rising power, lack of confidence
about its own capacities, resource constraint, and institutional inefficiency of the
Indian bureaucracy. He concludes by suggesting that Indias policy should be more
dynamic and adaptable. There is need for India and Afghanistan to build greater
trust in each other. Moradian also referred to the socialisation gap between the
people of the two countries. He emphasised that India can help transform
Afghanistan into a moderate, stable and a developing country.
The paper by Mohamed Naahee Naseem, Shift in Maldivian Perception
Towards India During the 2012 Political Crisis, explains how the Maldivian
political crisis following the unprecedented transfer of power in February 2012
impacted the Maldivian perception of India. According to Naseem, India has
undoubtedly emerged as a strong regional partner in the development of the
Maldives in the last few decades. The paper discusses the 2012 political crisis
following the fall of the Nasheed Government and how allegations of Indian
involvement in the domestic politics of the country came up. While acknowledging
the significance of India for the Maldives, he points out that the Maldives has
benefited from the Gujral Doctrine. However, Naseem asserts, it does not exempt
Maldives from its obligation towards protecting Indian investments and Indian
people working and residing in the country. The paper concludes by suggesting
that since media has a critical role to play in shaping up perceptions, a stronger
coordination by the Indian High Commission with the Maldivian media would
be extremely helpful. It would go a long way in dispelling misperceptions or
negative perceptions about India.
Denzil Abel in his paper, Myanmars Perception of India, points out that
presently Myanmar does not see itself as a South Asian country and feels more
like an observer in South Asias intra-regional interaction. Myanmar and its people
are currently more oriented towards Southeast Asia. This is despite the fact that
Myanmar and India have had deep historical and cultural linkages since times
immemorial. The age-old religious and cultural linkages with India are very much
embedded in Myanmars consciousness and identity.
xlii
The paper also provides an overview of how Myanmars perception of India

has evolved from the British colonial era to the present times. The several ups
and downs in bilateral relations including various developments that often created
negative perceptions about India have been discussed in the paper. Abel points
out that the luminaries of Indias freedom struggle were held in high esteem in
Myanmar. He particularly refers to the golden age of India-Myanmar relations
when immediately after independence the two countries enjoyed a high level of
political understanding and commonality of interests. The relationship thereafter
has been one of neglect on both sides due to fundamental differences on several
issues. Abel notes that meanwhile Chinas influence surged dramatically within
Myanmar.
However, the India-Myanmar relations gradually began to gain momentum
after India came up with its Look East Policy in 1992. The military regime in
Myanmar too saw an opportunity to rebuild bilateral ties while simultaneously
redressing the imbalance that had crept in due to Chinas growing influence in
the region. Abel notes that the visit of President U. Thein Sein to India in October
2011 and the then Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Myanmar in May
2012, has laid the foundation for a much closer and realistic relationship between
the two countries.
As for the bilateral trade, the paper points out that India is seen as a less
attractive market by Myanmars business community in view of poor connectivity
and lack of infrastructure, compared to markets in China, Southeast Asia, Japan
and Korea. Similarly, the defence cooperation between the two countries is much
less compared to what Myanmar has with China. China has also stepped up its
cultural diplomacy, while India with its far deeper historical and cultural linkages
with the people of Myanmar remains reticent. The paper concludes with the
observation that the democratic transition currently underway in Myanmar
provides a huge opportunity for the two countries to make a new beginning. Both
Myanmar and India share similar perceptions on the need for greater regional or
sub-regional cooperation as well.
The next paper, titled, Bhutan and Its International Collaborations-2013
by Pema Tenzin and Chhimi Dorji provides an extensive introduction to Bhutan
and highlights Indias role and contribution in harnessing and realising the
countrys energy potential. India is largely seen as a development partner, and,
particularly in view of the countrys landlocked feature, is regarded as critical to
capacity building and sustaining the economic development of the country. Indian
aid comprises almost 70 per cent of the total foreign aid that the country receives
each year. India also remains the largest trading partner of Bhutan.
Nagesh Kumars paper, South Asian Economic Integration: Potential,
Challenges and the Way Forward, argues that regionalism is a rising trend in
Introduction
xliii
international politics but South Asia has been slow in exploiting the potential of
regional economic integration. South Asia economies have largely been relying
on rising demand for its products in the advanced economies to support its growth
over the past two decades. However, the region faces a dramatically altered
economic context in the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2008-09 and
there is a need to look for alternative engines of growth.
The paper summarises major initiatives for regional economic integration
undertaken in South Asia, their limitations and challenges. It also puts forth some
proposals on how to exploit the potential of regional economic integration in a
mutually beneficial, inclusive, balanced and sustainable manner. According to
Kumar, regional economic integrations have proved successful as smaller and
poorer economies too have benefited from integrations and thereby received aid
and expertise for development. He further argued that regionalism is said to be
effective in tackling several vulnerabilities and risks especially when it comes to
various non-traditional security threats arising in the region. An integrated South
Asia will be able to play its due role in the broader Asia and the Pacific markets.
The paper also discusses in detail the various factors leading to low level intraregional trade in South Asia and suggests measures to harness the potential of
regional economic integration in South Asia. The South Asian states are emerging
as dynamic players in the world economy as the total trade is expected to triple
from $1 trillion currently to $3 trillion by 2017.
According to Kumar, the bulk of intraregional trade potential remains
unexploited in SAARC and needs to be explored further. Smaller and poorer
economies will benefit from liberalisation of trade under SAFTA. India-Sri Lanka
FTA, for instance, has helped in balanced expansion of bilateral trade. Recent
developments in the trade related to service sector have been helpful. Development
of trade corridors and hubs helps in infrastructure development of the region
and also that of nearby zones and should be given prime consideration.
Regionalism assumes criticality in external context and there is a need to expedite
the implementation of regional trade agreements. Gap in the development of
infrastructure needs to be closed in the South Asia states and there is an urgent
need to promote cross border movements of goods and travel within the region.
Kumar is of the opinion that obstacles facing increased subregional
cooperation are not economic, but rather are political in nature. Overcoming these
political barriers are of increasing relevance and importance, given the geopolitical
situation prevailing in the subregion and faltering demand in the subregions
principal trading partners in the developed world. Perhaps, new opportunities
have opened up for the South Asian region. The paper concludes arguing in favour
of letting economics and regional cooperation to finally take the centre stage in
South Asia.
xliv
Gabriel Ian Lynn Ockersz in his paper, Stepped-Up Inter-State Dialogue as

a Key to Improving SAARC Development, argues that perceptions could prove
to be of vital importance, perhaps more decisive in their impact than reality, when
it comes to inter-state ties in South Asia. Referring to the India-Sri Lanka ties, he
stated that often India is viewed through lenses which are centuries-old. He asserts
that what is true of Indo-Lanka ties is also true of Indias relations with many of
its neighbours in the post-independence times. Divisive issues between India and
some of its neighbours have restrained SAARC from evolving into a successful
exercise in regional cooperation. SAARC currently is functional only to the level
to which its member states deem it to be.
Ockersz emphasises the need for change of mindset through a process of
informed public education to overcome historical prejudices and misperceptions
prevalent in the region. He also stresses on the value of confidence building
measures and sustained but constructive dialogue among the South Asian states.
Increased democratisation in South Asia too has opened up opportunities for
countries to give a new direction to their troubled bilateral ties. At the broader
level, SAARC also need to put to good use the relatively widespread spirit of
democracy in the region. He also urges the SAARC to take on itself a humanising
and civilising mission in the region.
The paper proposes the need to evolve development conversation in each of
the South Asian states to highlight the value of good neighbourliness, with material
benefits that could be reaped from it clearly underscored for the purpose of
winning public support. While emphasising the need for both India and its
neighbours to recognise each others sensitivities and core concerns, the paper
argues that SAARC must facilitate constructive inter-state dialogue which should
be held in a spirit of openness and in informal settings. Ockersz further stated
that Indias neighbours need to have a more constructive approach towards India
if the emerging economic strengths of this region are to be tapped in an equitable
manner.
S.D. Muni in his paper, titled, China and South Asian Cooperation Under
SAARC, focuses on Chinas role in the South Asian regional cooperation and
how it is being perceived within South Asia. The paper identifies three specific
reasons for Chinas growing engagement and interest in the South Asia region:
Chinas sense of vulnerability in relation to the security in its western periphery,
comprising Tibet and Xinjiang, which borders Nepal and Pakistan, respectively;
search for opportunities of investments and access to new markets and natural
resources; and, multiple strategic objectives ranging from keeping India boxed
within South Asia to securing transit and access points in the Indian Ocean/Bay
of Bengal region. In relation to the last point, the paper makes reference to Chinas
investments in developing ports like Humbantota in Sri Lanka, Chittagong in
Introduction
xlv
Bangladesh, Gwadar in Pakistan, Kyaukpyu in Myanmar and building economic/

transit corridors in Pakistan and Myanmar. The new Maritime Silk Road and
Silk Road Economic Belt proposed by China could also be added to it.
The paper states that some of the South Asian countries, particularly Pakistan
and Nepal, have long supported the idea of China playing a role in the region,
much before the SAARC was established in 1985. They not only looked at China
as a potential counterweight to India in South Asia, but also as a potential
development partner in view of its growing economic strength. China along with
several other countries was granted an Observer status in SAARC in 2005. The
paper brings out the reasons for Indias resistance to Chinas full entry into the
SAARC. The paper notes that that since 2005 China has taken several initiatives
to improve its credentials for closer engagement with the SAARC.
Meanwhile, as stated in the paper, Indias resistance too seems to have diluted.
Today, China and India are observers in the SAARC and the SCO, respectively;
and this reflects the changing perception of India and China towards each other
regarding their role in regional forums. In fact, India has actively taken advantage
of Chinas economic growth as the trade between the two states have flourished.
The paper also notes that India and China have agreed to work together to develop
the BCIM Economic Corridor. Another reason behind the Indian shift is also
the initiative to develop Indias Northeast region and link it with the Look East
Policy.
The paper asserts that China cannot be simply wished away, particularly its
growing economic and strategic interest in the South Asia region. India is learning
slowly and hesitatingly to cope with the growing Chinese presence in the region.
Chinas full membership of SAARC would raise several complex issues, which
might further divide the regional grouping from within. The paper suggests that
the South Asian countries, most of which are in a state of democratic transition,
should seriously think through as far as Chinas growing interest in SAARC is
concerned. China is not known to have sympathy either for democracy or for
developmental politics. In fact, China is characterised by its preference for strong,
assertive, centralised regimes on its periphery.
Indra Nath Mukherji in his paper, titled, Indias Trade with Neighbours:
Perceptions and RealityWith Special Reference to India-Pakistan Trade, brings
out the role of perceptions in defining Pakistans trade relations with India. While
some of these perceptions cut across other neighbouring countries of India as
well, the focus of his paper is primarily on Pakistan. The paper also brings out
the background to regional trade liberalisation, particularly the deliberations at
the official level meetings under the previous Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP)
Government in Pakistan and the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government
in India. Mukherji states that a rethink is on among a section of Pakistani
xlvi
stakeholders, strongly asserting that unless a level playing ground is provided by

India, the grant of Non-Discriminatory Market Access (NDMA) to India should
be kept in abeyance. The paper further discusses reasons for Pakistans inability
to confer the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status on India.
Mukherji is of the opinion that growing trade imbalance has been one of the
major issues in Indias trade relations with its neighbours. He also explains why
China is making deeper penetration in Pakistans market, even though Pakistans
trade deficit with China is four times more than that with India. Pakistans free
trade agreement with China offers preferential access to China in those very
products which it has restricted to India. While India is prohibited from entering
into Pakistans industrial market, China has been granted duty-free access. The
paper concludes by stating that all bilateral perceptions, including those on trade,
are ultimately shaped by the overall relations between the concerned countries.
Shahmahmood Miakhel in his paper, titled, Seizing New Opportunity for
Regional Cooperation and Understanding, deals with the issue of myth and
(mis)perception as a factor in inter-state relations in the region. Miakhel states
that politicians in South Asia have often turned to exploiting historical myths
and misperceptions prevalent within the region to either strengthen their position
in the domestic politics or to divert the attention of the people from poor
governance. While this may be an effective populist tool, it has historically led to
fractured regional politics. He further states that these myths have not only become
a part of the popular narrative, but have also significantly influenced policy
formulation in the region, albeit negatively. It has had an adverse impact on
security, economic growth, governance and regional cooperation in the region.
He stresses on the need for change in political mindset within the region. The
political leadership and elites should move away from the rhetoric of the Cold
War or the old Great Game, and look towards developing a new political culture
based on the challenges and aspirations of the 21st century.
Miakhel argues that the key to improving inter-state relations in South Asia
lie in improving governance in each of the countries, and in enhancing the role
of a new generation of leaders who have the energy and vision to look at the
region from a fresh perspective. He also emphasises the need for sustained dialogue
among the rival countries to address some of the key contentious issues affecting
peace and stability in the region. Failure to do so would only reinforce negative
perceptions in the region and people would continue to view each other through
the prism of historical mistrust and suspicion.
This volume thus raises several issues of concern as far as managing diverse,
and often negative, perceptions prevalent among the South Asian countries,
particularly in relation to India, are concerned. Several practical suggestions and
way forwards relevant to both policy makers and practitioners have been made.
Introduction
xlvii
It was often felt that much depends on the overall political intent of various actors
and forces shaping the perception including the media, their relation to the state
and, more importantly, the orientation of the state elites and structures in respective
countries. Nevertheless, a strong urge could be noted within the region, rather a
reasonable amount of consensus, on the need to change and resolve negative
perceptions. This in itself could be regarded as a positive perception and enough
reason to further encourage dialogue among the countries of the region at various
levels and in different settings. The urgent need to engage youth and familiarise
them with the region, its shared history and culture, has been reiterated time and
again by several contributors. Various ideas, ranging from a more inclusive history
textbooks to provincialising people-to-people contacts, were put forth to negate
and reverse the negative perceptions entrenched in the region in a more effective
manner. The value of adopting a regional approach to meeting common challenges
too was reiterated by various contributors in their analysis.
Interestingly, several of the contributors to this volume have argued that since
India is the pivot of the South Asia region, it is important for the neighbouring
countries to factor in Indias security needs and concerns in their respective foreign
and security policies. Indias rise is largely perceived by its neighbours as peaceful
and beneficial for the region. However, it has heightened the aspirations and
expectations of its neighbours, opening up a new set of opportunities for India
to redefine its approach towards its neighbourhood. Some of the contributors
saw great merit in Indias growing soft power, which in their opinion could be
ably used to counter and dispel misperceptions about India among its neighbours
in the long run.
China is clearly very much a part of the broader political and development
discourse in the region. In all likelihood, its interest and engagement within the
region is set to diversify and grow. India will have to find ways to adapt, compete
as well as partner with China in the coming years. There is a general perception
that India is a reluctant power, and that it must shed its inhibitions and assume
a leadership role in the region to enable a genuine process of change in favour of
greater regional cooperation and sustained goodwill.
PART I
SHAPING OF PERCEPTIONS
SOUTH ASIA
IN
1
Does Academia Matter to the Shaping of
Mutual Perceptions in South Asia?
Pratyoush Onta
Introduction
Does academia matter to the shaping of mutual perceptions in South Asia? The
brief answer to this question is: Academia should matter to the shaping of mutual
perceptions in South Asia, but in its current avatar, South Asian academia
contributes very little to the shaping of informed mutual perceptions among the
countries in the region because of its poor quality. If this conclusion appears a bit
too harsh, consider the following thought exercise. Think of any academic from
your country of origin who you think is, say, an India (or any other South Asian
country) expert in the sense that he/she is a researcher who specialises in any aspect
of the Indian (or the respective countrys) polity or society. For example, I could
not think of any such academic expert based in my home country, Nepal. I would
be rather surprised if your answer is any different than mine.
If you do not like the above-mentioned version of the thought exercise, you
can ask a slightly different question. For instance, ask yourself if you know an
Indian sociologist, anthropologist, historian or political scientist who has spent
an academic year in Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka or Bhutan actively
researchingand not just occupying some visiting professorial chair lecturing
on the topic of her/his expertisesome aspect of the respective country. Again,
for instance, I do not know any Indian post-Ph.D academic researcher from the
above-mentioned disciplines who has spent an academic year researching any
subject in Nepal during the past 15 years. These thought exercises can be discussed
further, but the basic point is that there is a serious lack of such social scientists
in the South Asian countries who have researched extensively on various aspects
of the other countries in the region. If this inference is correct, we need to reflect
on it collectively and take steps within our possibilities to redress it.
I cannot claim expertise on the state of South Asian Studies in all the countries
of South Asia. However, I have, in the past, researched and written about the
state of mutual area studies in two of the countries of the region, Nepal and India.
That research was completed in the year 2000, and two versions of the main
write-up based on that work were published in the following two years (2001
and 2002).1 My research might be a bit dated, but as someone who is interested
in the various dimensions of the politics of knowledge generation in and about
Nepal,2 I have, from time to time, looked for evidence and writings that would
challenge the conclusions I had reached more than a decade ago. Unfortunately,
I have not come across any such evidence or writings. To the contrary, recently
published analyses have reconfirmed my findings through variously different
analytical3 and area studies4 focus.
By reiterating the case of how India is not researched in Nepal and how Nepal
is studied in India, this paper argues that the state of South Asian Studies in each
of the countries of the region leaves a lot to be desired. It further examines the
historical causes and factors that explain the poor state of mutual academic research
in countries of the region, and in the process infers that this status quo will have
to be greatly improved upon if academia is to matter to the shaping of mutual
perceptions in South Asia. Finally, the paper ends by suggesting a few things that
could be done to move forward in that direction.
Studying India in Nepal

As a landlocked country that shares borders with India in three directions, Nepal
has various imperatives to closely study India, whereas India can afford ignorance
about Nepal. Logically, this would suggest that the political and academic
leadership in Nepal would have identified Indian Studies as a high priority item
within academia and that considerably more scholarship on India from Nepal
would exist than vice versa. But this is hardly the case. The reasons for this state
of affairs would have to be sought in the inadequate academic infrastructure and
environment prevalent in the universities in Nepal and the weak state of social
science practice in Nepali independent research centres.5
Despite platitudes on the sacrosanct nature of India-Nepal relations from time
immemorial that have been a fixture of Nepali political rhetoric, I know of no
serious Nepali governmental effort to establish, within its own agencies, a research
Does Academia Matter to the Shaping of Mutual Perceptions in South Asia?
cell of scholars doing work on various aspects of the Indian society. While some
desk officers working for the Foreign Ministry of the Nepali Government pay
particular attention to a specific country in the region, their expertise is seldom
academically grounded. Some such bureaucrats have amassed useful diplomatic
experiences through their postings in the neighbouring countries, but they have,
with an exception or two, seldom ploughed those experiences for academic and
pedagogical purposes.
Tribhuvan University (established in 1959) is the only university in Nepal
with social science research programmes that have had something to do with the
rest of the region. Within this university, courses in Indian history have been
taught at the postgraduate level, and researches on Indian Studies have been
conducted at the Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies. This Centre was started on
July 16, 1972 as the Institute of Nepal and Asian Studies. In the beginning, the
Institute had four faculty members, and it could grant MA and Ph.D degrees by
dissertation. Despite its name, due to lack of resources and trained personnel, it
initially gave priority to only Nepal Studies in anthropology, sociology, history
and linguistics. By the end of the decade, however, the Institute had been
downgraded to the Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies (CNAS), and it no longer
could grant MA and Ph.D degrees by dissertation. Moreover, it was not until the
mid-1980s that it actually began work on Asian Studies under the directorship of
late Khadga Bikram Shah, a brother-in-law of the then all-powerful King Birendra.
Shah had assembled a remarkable group of Nepali political scientists in CNAS
by 1984-85.6 This effort resulted in several symposia and three major publications:
the Strategic Studies Series (started in 1984), the CNAS Year Review (1986) and
the CNAS Forum Current Issue Series (1987).
Shah asked Nepali political scientists to focus part of their attention to
studying other countries in South Asia, and China and Japan. He started regular
interactions amongst these researchers, and several of them began to analyse
regional politics, South Asian cooperation, Cold War themes and related issues
in seminars and publications. CNAS scholars not only began carrying out countrywise studies but also participated in the academic exercises related to the founding
of the official South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). In
this connection, a special issue of the Strategic Studies Series was published in Spring
1985, and subsequent issues of this journal contained other articles highlighting
various perspectives on regional cooperation. In addition, CNAS launched a
SAARC documentation series which included an index of relevant articles and
books, addresses and statements and chronology of SAARC meetings.7
The CNAS Year Review contained survey articles similar to those found in
the annual country-wise survey edition of the American journal, Asian Survey.
Starting from 1986, various scholars wrote chapters on the SAARC countries and
two or three additional countries outside of the region. India was covered by the
political scientist Govinda Malla,8 whose annual review articles on Indian domestic
politics, economy, foreign relations and defence unfortunately were not the kind
that could be called informed academic analyses. Based largely on Indian
newspapers and magazine reports, these reports did not engage with scholarship
from India and elsewhere. They were superficial surveys written in a mode devoid
of any serious disciplinary perspective. In the three volumes published in this
series, Pramod Kantha wrote on Pakistan, Dev Raj Dahal on Bangladesh, Gehendra
Lal Malla on Sri Lanka, Pancha N. Maharjan on Maldives and Bharat Sharma
and Krishna Hachhethu on Bhutan.
In addition, CNAS Forum Current Issue Series carried seminar papers on the
1987 Indian intervention in Sri Lanka, Nepali emigrants in India, Indian workers
in Nepal, India-China relations, Nepal-India Relations and related subjects. A
major seminar on regional security in South Asia was organised by CNAS in
November 1985, and its proceedings were published in a book form.9 Other
publications, both in monograph form and articles were brought out on India,
other countries of the South Asian region and on China.
Shah stayed on the job after his first term ended in 1987, but seemed to have
lost some of his enthusiasm during his incomplete second term. However, as the
Indo-Nepal trade and transit impasse escalated in 1989, he tried to re-invigorate
the group of political scientists at CNAS and urged them to write about the
subject.10 But differences between him and some scholars as well as between
scholars who took up ultra-nationalist positions and those who were seen to be
soft on India grew large. When some articles by Nepali scholars did appear in
international publications, Shah again had to face the wrath of the conservatives
in the then all-powerful Royal Palace in Nepal for whom the democratic aspirations
expressed in those same articles were not palatable. He called an impromptu
meeting and returned several of the political scientists he had brought to CNAS
to their respective home institutions.11 With Shahs own subsequent departure
from CNAS, the CNAS Year Review and CNAS Forum Current Issue Series ceased
publication. The Strategic Studies Series had been stopped in 1987 itself. It is
interesting to note that among the political scientists he had cultivated in CNAS,
even those who had not been summarily returned in 1989 had mostly left the
institution by the mid-1990s. The beginning that had been made on Indian Studies
at CNAS could not be sustained.
While Shah was responsible for taking a number of initiatives with respect to
South Asian Studies at CNAS, he failed to invest on building the institutional
infrastructure that would support these initiatives in CNAS when he was gone.
In addition, whatever little South Asian Studies were made possible through his
leadership, its overwhelming political science orientation was both its strength
and weakness. Scholars from other disciplines were really not central to this CNAS
initiative. During the decade after the end of the Panchayat System in 1990, apart
from Dhruba Kumars work on South Asia after the 1998 nuclear explosions by
India and Pakistan12 and on Indo-Nepal relations after the hijacking of an Indian
Airlines plane that was on a routine flight out of Kathmandu in December 1999,13
one can hardly recall any other publications from CNAS on the subject of Indian
or South Asian Studies. Today, CNAS has no institutional commitment to studies
of the other countries in the South Asian region. Elsewhere at Tribhuvan University,
studies on the region have been limited to isolated scholarly efforts by researchers
in one or two other departments. In addition to the traditional theme of IndoNepal relations,14 trans-border migration15 and new dimensions and challenges
of regional cooperation16 have been some of the other subjects in which Nepali
scholars have worked in the past two decades.
There are some social science research activities in Nepal outside of Tribhuvan
University executed by academic NGOs,17 but they cannot be described as thriving
when it comes to Indian Studies. There is no institutional commitment to studying
India in independent Nepali research entities because structurally and resourcewise (both human and financial) they are relatively weak institutions. Whatever
research comes out of these organisations is geared mostly toward developing
Nepal. This is so partly because unlike the institutions supported by the Indian
Council for Social Science Research (ICSSR), there is no state-support extended
to autonomous research institutions in Nepal. Hence, they have to rely on doing
either contract research (aka consultancies) for foreign donor agencies or the Nepal
Government, or research with policy links also supported by the same agencies.
However, there are some exceptions. With respect to studies on themes related to
Nepals hydropower possibilities, some independent scholars have highlighted
Indian interests in specific hydropower development trajectories in Nepal18 and
studied the institutional forces behind water conflict in the north Indian state of
Bihar.19
Overall, inadequate research infrastructure nationwide, feeble attempts to
establish Indian Studies within Tribhuvan University as discussed above, and the
inability of financially weak independent research institutions to carry out robust
academic studies on India, account for the current absence of Indian Studies in
Nepal.
Studying Nepal in India

Nepal Studies in post-Independence India started in the late 1950s after the
establishment of the Indian School of International Studies in Delhi in 1955.
The founding of this School was done at a time when the newly independent
India felt the imperative need for competent Indian academic specialists who could
regularly watch developments in other areas of the world, interpret their

significance, and give a studied second opinion or a critical evaluation of Indias
own external policies.20 As one former director of this School, M.S. Rajan, had
recalled, its founder A. Appadorai was convinced that without an institution
training specialists on International and Area Studies...it was difficult to promote
Indian expertise in these fields.21 It might also be recalled here that India and
particularly former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was especially keen to foster
friendly relations among the peoples of Asia and to promote the study and
understanding of Asian problems during the 1940s and 1950s.22
Accordingly, area studies programs were established in India as a way to
respond to all these imperatives. The Department of African Studies was
established at the University of Delhi in December 1954, and the Indian School
of International Studies was established in October 1955 with sponsorship from
the Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA). In 1963, the University Grants
Commission (UGC) of India appointed a committee to prepare a plan for the
promotion of area studies in India. The committee recommended that area studies
be promoted in a small number of universities and emphasised that the facilitation
of relevant reference materials, language training and fieldwork be essential aspects
of areas studies programmes. These recommendations were accepted by the UGC,
and more than 25 separate area study programmes have been established in more
than a dozen Indian universities since the late 1960s.23
Within five years of the founding of the Indian School of International Studies,
Nepal Studies had started there in the form of research on the political history of
Nepal, Indo-Nepal relations and contemporary political developmentsthree
subjects that still dominate the thematic focus of Nepal Studies in India. On the
first of these topics, the history of Nepal, Satish Kumar did a dissertation on
Nepal under the hereditary rule of the Rana clan.24 Kanchanmoy Mojumdar
analysed India-Nepal relations during the period between 1837 and 1877,25 and
Anirudha Gupta did a dissertation on political developments in Nepal since the
end of Rana rule in 1951.26 But the School was not the only place where research
on themes related to Nepal was done in India in the 1950s and 1960s. A few
researchers located in traditional departments elsewhere also did research on
subjects related to Nepal. One can recall, for instance, the work of historian, K.C.
Chaudhuri, on Anglo-Nepal relations until 1816 (when the Treaty of Sagauli ended
the Anglo-Nepal war) completed at Calcutta University in the late 1950s.27
Political scientist, Ramakant, completed a dissertation on the same subject at the
University of Allahabad in 1960, focusing on the period between 1816 and 1877.28
Considering the time at which these researches were completed and given the
material and other constraints under which they worked, scholars like Kumar,
Mojumdar, Gupta, Chaudhuri and Ramakant must be credited for setting up

initial high standards for Nepal Studies in post-Independence India.29
The Indian School of International Studies was merged with the newly
founded Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in New Delhi in June 1970, and is
now known as the School of International Studies (SIS).30 Some 45 years later,
there are mainly three university-related institutional locations in India where social
science research on Nepal is conducted. They are the SIS at the Jawaharlal Nehru
University in New Delhi, the South Asia Studies Centre (SASC) of the University
of Rajasthan in Jaipur and the Centre for the Study of Nepal (CSN) in Banaras
Hindu University (BHU) in Varanasi. At SIS, Nepal has received some attention
from researchers affiliated predominantly with its South Asian Studies Division.31
Several dozen M.Phil. and Ph.D dissertations have been completed from SIS on
subjects related to Nepal. Bi-lateral relations, diplomatic history (India-Nepal,
Nepal-China) and research on the politics of Nepal since the late Rana era (c. post1940), informed by perspectives arising from the disciplines of political science,
political history and international relations have dominated the themes selected
for study by researchers at SIS. It is a pity that SIS scholars have explored very
little of the numerous other topics that could be researched about Nepal from
other social science disciplinary perspectives, although some effort to study issues
related to foreign aid and energy has been made by the Indian economist,
Mahendra P Lama.32
In Jaipur, Nepal has been studied by researchers affiliated with SASC. It was
established in 1963 by S.P. Varma as a programme in the Universitys Department
of Political Science and was adopted by the UGC as a separate Area Studies centre
only in 1968.33 In an unpublished report written in 1981, it is mentioned that
when the SASC was established it was decided that it would not be wedded to
any given theoretical framework. Instead, it had preferred to adopt a multidisciplinary approach with a view to developing a comprehensive understanding
of the socio-economic and political realities of the countries in South Asia.34
Nepal Studies became a subject pursued at SASC from 1963 itself with the hiring
of Ramakant, who as mentioned earlier, had done a dissertation on 19th century
Indo-Nepal relations. Some of the early Nepal Studies research students at SASC
included S.D. Muni,35 R.S. Chauhan,36 and M.D. Dharamdasani, who later
headed the Centre for the Study of Nepal at BHU and published several books.37
Jaipurs SASC has trained several other Nepal experts, almost all of them political
scientists. Notable among them is B.C. Upreti who later directed the SASC for
many years.38 Articles on Nepal by SASCs researchers and others have regularly
appeared in its journal, South Asian Studies, which was established in 1966. Several
researchers trained at SASC, and its faculty members have written books on
subjects related to Nepal.
10
In Varanasi, there exists a Centre for the Study of Nepal (CSN) in BHU.
The UGC established this Centre in 1976. Its stated objective is to sponsor and
promote research on Nepal from a multidisciplinary perspective. CSN has built
up a documentation collection of materials on Nepal, and organised several
seminars. In the past, CSN has undertaken several research projects on themes
including foreign aid in Nepal, Nepals elites, political ideology of the Nepali leader
B.P. Koirala, status of Nepali women in modern Nepali literature, Indo-Nepal
trade relations and post-1990 democratic experiments in Nepal. Since 1987, it
has published an irregular journal, Indian Journal of Nepalese Studies. It has also
published several papers on Nepal as part of an Occasional Paper Series.39
Accounting for Mediocrity

Scholarship on Nepal that has come out of the SIS in New Delhi, the SASC in
Jaipur and CSN in Varanasi covers predominantly contemporary politics and
political and diplomatic history (especially Indo-Nepal relations) of Nepal. While
substantial in volume, it is rather limited in scope. The predominantly political
science orientation, the overall use of only Indian and Nepali newspapers published
in the English language as sources and the use of a few key Nepali personalities
as regular informants mean that most Indian scholarship on Nepal tend to be
restricted to a narrow bandpolitical history, diplomatic history and international
relationswithin social science research possibilities.40 The overlap between this
scholarship and Indian political interests in Nepal is obvious, and Indian scholars
tend to be far less free when it comes to studying subjects and establishing positions
that are clearly independent of those forwarded by the Indian Government.41
These facts have several corollaries. First, due to their narrow disciplinary
interests, Indian researchers of Nepal demonstrate very little awareness of the
substantial amount of social science writings (especially anthropological) available
on Nepal. This lack of engagement with what other students of Nepal have
published from other disciplines overlaps with the formers lack of interest in
theory which has been identified as a vital flaw of area studies in India.42 Second,
Indian scholars exhibit little knowledge of writings available in the languages of
Nepal. This is especially significant since English is not the dominant language
of public discourse in Nepal, and many Nepali social scientists continue to produce
their best work in Nepali or the other languages of Nepal. Third, since there are
very few institutional incentives for Indians to study Nepal in innovative ways,
competent young researchers are told to move on to other areas if they wish to
have a viable career. Given this scenario, current Indian scholarship on Nepal
does not match the competence level of scholarship demonstrated by the first
generation of post-independence Indian scholars of Nepal. Even a quick reading
of some of the more recent works on Nepal by Indian scholars should prove this
11
point. At a time when the best Indian scholarship in history, cultural studies,
economics and sociology is drawing worldwide attention for its quality, it is
depressing to read most Indian works on Nepal.
Why hasnt Nepal Studies in India flourished in terms of quality in recent
years? I have tried to answer this question elsewhere in some detail.43 Here, in
brief, the following reasons could be mentioned. The main reason why area studies
including Nepal Studies programmes are not thriving in India is their overall poor
financial management and administration. The funding for area studies institutions
supported by the UGC is shrinking. These institutions are having a hard time
meeting the routine costs (namely, salaries, library development, conference
organising, etc.) of running their institutions. Funding support for new initiatives
or sustained fieldwork in the countries of the researchers specialisation is simply
not available. Due to the inadequacy of the committed monies under the recurring
category, area study centres have not been able to provide good language training
to their students who are thus handicapped in their ability to access relevant
analytical materials in Nepali and other languages of Nepal.44 Such institutional
resource constraints again contribute to the inability of area studies programmes
to attract good new students. This situation is true for SIS, SASC and CSN. The
latter two have been especially affected by the reduction in funding support from
UGC.45 Funding constraints have also hampered the possibility of productive
collaborative work between research institutions in India and Nepal.
Putting it more generally, generating quality Indian scholarship on the rest
of the region is not very high in the agenda of Indian formal academic programmes.
As stated above, current scholarship is dominated by disciplines such as political
science, international relations and economics and a somewhat dated state-centric
model of area studies. Academic disciplines such as sociology or anthropology
could have contributed to the execution of other types of research by Indian
researchers on the other countries of the region, but regretfully these have not
been realised.46 In some cases, the relationship between a set of two countries
prevented the free flow of such scholars (e.g., India and Pakistan). In other
instances, exaggerated suspicions regarding the motives of Indian social scientists
prevented the founding of one such initiative in the 1970s (e.g., India and Nepal).47
Based on the above discussion, it is fair to conclude that area studies
programmes on the South Asian region are languishing in at least two countries
of South Asia, Nepal and India. Zaidi reports much the same in the case of Pakistan
when it comes to Indian Studies.48 Conversations with colleagues from Bangladesh
and Sri Lanka over the years have revealed that general academic performance of
regional studies programmes in those countries is not any better than that in India.
It is clear that not much investment is being made in this field in the universities
and the concerned research centres in all of the South Asian countries, despite
the relatively high level of noise made in connection with SAARC.
12
SAARC, Track II and South Asian Academia

It was expected that the founding of SAARC almost 30 years ago would provide
a shot in the arm to the field of South Asian Studies in South Asia. That
unfortunately has not happened. While general works generated under the auspices
of SAARC have added a bit to our understanding of the region, their overall surveylike superficiality has meant that this official initiative has done little to facilitate
serious scholarship by members of academia of the region. Other academic
exchange programmes have been designed within the SAARC framework, but
there is very little record of them having been executed or generated any good
scholarship.49
Since the early 1990s, commentators have talked about the non-official
SAARC processthe so-called track II initiativeswhereby South Asian
professionals from various walks of life have begun to meet in different parts of
the region under the auspices of various organisations. New networks of social
activists, journalists, academics and other professionals have begun to grow as a
result of these meetings where it has been said that some nationalist intellectual
ghettos are beginning to be broken.50 However, even then the non-official SAARC
process has not charted a new path for social science research and teaching in
South Asia. To my knowledge, no foundational texts have emerged from these
networks in any of the social science disciplines. The main reason for the absence
of an effective regional academia in institutions outside of the universities is the
lack of what could be called regional research imagination in our collective civil
society at large. This manifests itself in the repeated cycles of conferences and
seminars (for which money seems to be available) on various themes with South
Asia in the title, and in our collective inability to design and carry out regionwide serious research projects with the involvement of researchers from university
and non-university based institutions in several countries. While track-II initiatives
have involved academics from university departments and centres in the form of
resource persons, the output of such initiatives has made very little difference to
how the same individuals have taught South Asia in their home institutions. This
remains so partly because of the rigidity of university curricula in our region and
also because of the lack of concentrated effort on the part of faculty members to
innovate new programmes within their universities.
Conclusion
I have argued in this paper that South Asian Studies in South Asia is not in a
healthy state at the moment and have suggested that the lack of investment in
this field in our universities and research centres is the main reason for the sorry
state of affairs. It goes without saying that this will have to be greatly improved
upon if academia is to matter to the shaping of mutual perceptions in South Asia.
13
Given the present scenario regarding area studies in South Asia, conferences of
the kind in which this paper was presented must give rise to collaborative networks
of scholars and researchers who are willing to create innovative remedial
programmes to change the current state of regional scholarship in our countries.
While a long-term solution can only come in the form of investments in our
institutionsuniversities and research centresand academics in each of the
countries of the region,51 we could perhaps begin producing further analyses of
the state of country-specific area studies52 in each of the countries where such an
exercise has not been carried out until now. This would be the kind of academic
work that would be needed to put pressure on the individual countries of South
Asia to prioritise acquiring knowledge about each other through robust
programmes in our universities. It would also enable us to call upon our
governments, regional organisations and international agencies to better support
long-term regional research initiatives. Given the political and academic morass
in much of South Asia, the chances for fresh investments in South Asian Studies
in our countries without our collective effort are very small. Nevertheless, we must
try if we care about good regional knowledge that helps us understand each other
better in the region.
Acknowledgements
The original research for this paper was done in the year 2000 under a fellowship
from the Asian Studies in Asia Program of the Council for International Exchange of
Scholars and the Institute of International Education. That research and subsequent
writing benefited from the generosity of many individuals in India and Nepal. I am
grateful to Vishal Chandra for the invitation to participate at the conference India
and South Asia: Exploring Regional Perceptions organised by the Institute for Defence
Studies and Analyses (IDSA) in October 2013 where I presented an earlier version of
this paper. I am thankful to him and Harsha Man Maharjan for the help in locating
some recent related writings on the topic. The usual disclaimers apply.
ENDNOTES
1.
2.
Pratyoush Onta, Regional Area Studies in South Asia: Dark Days Ahead, Nepali Journal
of Contemporary Studies, 1 (2), 2001, pp. 60-89; Pratyoush Onta, Nepal, India and Area
Studies, Himal Southasia 15 (1), 2002, pp. 70-75. Also, on track-II initiatives in South
Asia and their links with regional academia and national civil society, see Pratyoush Onta,
Where Is the SAARC Process in Academia?, Himal Southasia, 11 (3), 1998, pp. 24-27;
and Pratyoush Onta, Old Boys Dos, Himal Southasia, 13 (2), 2000, pp. 46-47.
For example, see Pratyoush Onta, Nepal Studies in the UK: Conversations with Practitioners,
Martin Chautari, Kathmandu, 2004; Pratyoush Onta, The Landscape of Social Science
and Humanities Journals Published from Nepal: An Analysis of its Structural Characteristics,
Studies in Nepali History and Society, 15 (2), 2010, pp. 331-380; and Pratyoush Onta,
Locating Academic NGOs in the Knowledge Production Landscape, Dhaulagiri Journal
14
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

of Sociology and Anthropology, 5, 2011, pp. 49-80.
For example, see Muthiah Alagappa, Strengthening International Studies in India: Vision
and Recommendations, International Studies, 46 (1 & 2), 2009, pp. 7-35; Kanti Bajpai,
Obstacles to Good Work in Indian International Relations, International Studies, 46 (1 &
2), 2009, pp. 109-28; Amitabh Mattoo, The State of International Studies in India,
International Studies, 46 (1 & 2), 2009, pp. 37-48; T.V. Paul, Integrating International
Relations Studies in India to Global Scholarship, International Studies, 46 (1 & 2), 2009,
pp. 129-45; and Varun Sahni, The Fallacies and Flaws of Area Studies in India,
International Studies, 46 (1 & 2), 2009, pp. 49-68.
Tansen Sen, Is There a Need for China Studies in India?, Economic and Political Weekly,
48 (29), 2013, pp. 26-29; and S. Akbar Zaidi, A Conspicuous Absence: Teaching and
Research on India in Pakistan, Economic and Political Weekly, 44 (38), 2009, pp. 57-68.
Krishna Hachhethu, Social Sciences in Nepal, Contributions to Nepalese Studies, 29 (1),
2002, pp. 49-95.
Prayag R. Sharma, The Late Kumar Khadga Bikram Shah as I Knew Him, in Prem K.
Khatry, Ananda P. Shrestha, Anand Aditya, Hari P. Shrestha and Dev Raj Dahal (eds.),
Kumar Khadga Bikram Shah: Man Behind the Persona, Nepal Mountaineering Association,
Kathmandu, 2004, pp. 198-203.
Documentation of SAARC, Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies (CNAS), Kathmandu, 1988
and Documentation on SAARC No 2, CNAS, Kathmandu, 1990.
Govinda Malla, India in Shambhu R. Simkhada (ed.), Year Review 1986, CNAS,
Kathmandu, 1986, pp. 59-80; Govinda Malla, India in 1987: A Year of Great Challenges,
in Shambhu R. Simkhada (ed.), CNAS Year Review 1987, CNAS, Kathmandu, 1987, pp.
69-108; Govinda Malla, India in 1988: The Year before the Election, in Anand Aditya
(ed.), CNAS Year Review 1988, CNAS, Kathmandu, 1988, pp. 52-61.
Sridhar Khatri (ed.), Regional Security in South Asia, CNAS, Kathmandu, 1987.
The most significant article that appeared as a result of this appeal was Kumars. See Dhruba
Kumar, Beyond Blockade: Some Long-term Policy Considerations for Nepal, CNAS
Forum Current Issue Series, 10, 1989, pp. 1-34. Also, for comparison, see S.D. Muni, India
and Nepal: Erosion of a Relationship, Strategic Analysis, 4, reprinted in CNAS Forum Current
Issue Series, 10, 1989, pp. 35-56.
Prayag R. Sharma, no. 6.
Dhruba Kumar, South Asia after the Nuclear Tests: Securing Insecurity, Occasional Paper,
CNAS, Kathmandu, 1999a; Dhruba Kumar, Minds at War and Minds at Peace in South
Asia, Occasional Paper, CNAS, Kathmandu, 1999b.
Dhruba Kumar, Negotiating the Resumption of the Indian Airlines Flights, in Dhruba
Kumar (ed.), Domestic Conflict and Crisis of Governability in Nepal, CNAS, Kathmandu,
2000, pp. 305-322.
Lok Raj Baral (ed.), Looking to the Future: Indo-Nepal Relations in Perspective, Anmol
Publications, New Delhi, 1996.
Lok Raj Baral, Regional Migrations, Ethnicity and Security: The South Asian Case, New Sterling
Publishers, Delhi, 1990.
N.P. Banskota, Regional Economic Cooperation in South Asia: Nepalese Perspectives, Daya
Publishing House, Delhi, 1990 and Lok Raj Baral, The Regional Paradox. Adroit Publishers,
Delhi, 2000.
Pratyoush Onta, 2011, no. 2.
Dipak Gyawali and Ajaya Dixit, Mahakali Impasse: A Futile Paradigms Bequested Travails,
in Dhruba Kumar (ed.), Domestic Conflict and Crisis of Governability in Nepal, CNAS,
Kathmandu, 2000, pp. 236-304.
Dipak Gyawali, Patna, Delhi and Environmental Activism: Institutional Forces Behind

20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
15
Water Conflict in Bihar, Water Nepal, 6 (1), 1998, pp. 67-115.

B. Vivekanandan, The State of Area Studies in India, in Ankush B. Sawant (ed.), Area
Studies Programmes in Indian Universities: An Appraisal and Review, Kalinga Publications,
Delhi, 1997, p. 41.
M.S. Rajan, Professor A. Appadorai and the Development of International and Area Studies
in India: A Personal Memoir in M.S. Rajan (ed.), International and Area Studies in India,
Lancers Books, New Delhi, 1997a, p. 168.
On various aspects of the history of international and area studies in India, see the articles
in M.S. Rajan (ed.), International and Area Studies in India, Lancers Books, New Delhi,
1997c; Ankus B. Sawant (ed.), Area Studies Programmes in Indian Universities: An Appraisal
and Review, Kalinga Publications, Delhi, 1997; B.P. Mishra, Area Studies: Policy and
Methodology, Occasional Paper No. 10, Centre for Himalayan Studies, North Bengal
University, 1996; Y. Yagama Reddy, Area Studies: The Proposition, Problems and Prospects,
Centre for Studies on Indochina & South Pacific, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati,
1998; and Varun Sahni, no. 3.
See Varun Sahni, no. 3, p. 52, Table 1 for a list of area study programmes in various Indian
universities.
Later published as: Satish Kumar, Rana Polity in Nepal: Origin and Growth, Asia Publishing
House, New York, 1967.
Later revised as: Kanchanmoy Mojumdar, Anglo-Nepalese Relations in the Nineteenth Century,
Firma K L Mukhopadhyay, Calcutta, 1973.
Anirudha Gupta, Politics in Nepal, Allied Publishers, Bombay, 1964.
K.C. Chaudhuri, Anglo-Nepalese Relations From the Earliest Times of the British Rule in India
Till the Gurkha War, Modern Book Agency, Calcutta, 1960.
Later published as: Ramakant, Indo-Nepalese Relations 1816 to 1877, S. Chand & Company,
Delhi, 1968.
For an exhaustive review of works on area studies in India up to end of the 1960s, see
Bimal Prasad and Urmila Phadnis, Area Studies in India, in A Survey of Research in Political
Science: Volume Five International Studies, Allied Publishers, New Delhi, 1988, pp. 71-202.
M.S. Rajan, The Merger of the ISIS with the JNU, in M.S. Rajan (ed.), International
and Area Studies in India, Lancers Books, New Delhi, 1997b, pp. 191-206.
For example, S.D. Muni, no. 10; S.D. Muni, India and Nepal: A Changing Relationship,
Konark Publishers, Delhi, 1995; and Sangeeta Thapliyal, Mutual Security: The Case of IndiaNepal, Lancer Publishers, New Delhi, 1998. In addition, we might note that while he served
in the faculty of the SIS, the late L.S. Baral, a Nepali historian and literary critic, published
several articles on politics in Nepal and Nepals relationship with India and the Non-Aligned
Movement. These essays have now been collected in a volume: L.S. Baral in Pratyoush
Onta and Lokranjan Parajuli (eds.), Autocratic Monarchy: Politics in Panchayat Nepal, Martin
Chautari, Kathmandu, 2012.
Mahendra P. Lama, Absorption of Foreign Aid in Nepal: Some Issues, South Asia Journal,
4 (3), 1991, pp. 335-46 and Mahendra P. Lama, Economic Reforms and the Energy Sector
in South Asia: Scope for Cross-border Power Trade, South Asian Survey, 7 (1), 2000, pp.
3-23.
See S.P. Varma, Area Studies: Concept, Methods and Approach, South Asian Studies, 2
(2), 1967, pp. 1-15.
Quoted in B. P. Mishra, no. 22, p. 41.
S.D. Muni, Foreign Policy of Nepal, National Publishing House, Delhi, 1973.
R.S. Chauhan, The Political Development in Nepal 1950-70: Conflict Between Tradition and
Modernity, Associated Publishing House, New Delhi, 1971.
M.D. Dharamdasani, Political Economy of Foreign Aid in the Third World: A Case Study of
16
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.

Nepal, Konark Publishing House, Varanasi, 1984a; M.D. Dharamdasani (ed.), Political
Participation and Change in South Asia in the Context of Nepal, Shalimar Publishing House,
Varanasi, 1984b; M.D. Dharamdasani (ed.), Nepal in Transition, Rajdhani Publications,
Jaipur, 1997; and M.D. Dharamdasani (ed.), India and Nepal: Big Power-Small Power
Relations in South Asia, South Asian Publishers, New Delhi, 2001.
B.C. Upreti, Indians in Nepal: A Study of Indian Migration to Kathmandu, Kalinga
Publications, Delhi, 1999; B.C. Upreti, Uneasy Friends: Readings on Indo-Nepal Relations,
Kalinga Publications, Delhi, 2001; B.C. Upreti, Maoists in Nepal: From Insurgency to Political
Mainstream, Kalpaz Publications, Delhi, 2008; and B.C. Upreti, Nepal: Transition to
Democratic Republican State. Kalpaz Publications, Delhi, 2010.
Further details on the Nepal-related work done at SIS, the Centre in Jaipur and CSN are
provided in Pratyoush Onta, no. 1, 2001.
Out of the 350 doctoral theses done in SIS during the years 1996-2007, Sahni found out
that 287 (82 per cent) were from the discipline of political science. This led him to note:
The domination of political scientists among Indian area specialists, to the virtual exclusion
of other social science disciplines, is a major weakness in the development of area studies in
India. He considers this to be a symptom of how Indian area studies are not sufficiently
multidisciplinary. See Varun Sahni, no. 3, p. 60. Bajpai also identifies poor methodological
skills of the students and faculty as one of the main factors for the generation of poor
quality scholarship in the field. See Kanti Bajpai, no. 3, p. 116.
This seems to be general problem with all area studies scholars in India who, it has been
argued recently, have not liberated themselves intellectually from their dependence on the
state, and scholars who take a different view of the world from the government of India
can even now invite sanctions in some form or the other. See Amitabh Mattoo, no. 3, pp.
42-43. Bajpai has more to say on this connection as well. See Kanti Bajpai, International
Studies in India: Bringing Theory (Back) Home, in M.S. Rajan (ed.), International and
Area Studies in India, Lancers Books, New Delhi, 1997, pp. 31-49; and Kanti Bajpai, no.
3, p. 116.
Kanti Bajpai, no. 41; Kanti Bajpai, no. 3, p. 116; and Varun Sahni, no. 3.
Pratyoush Onta, no. 1, 2001.
The lack of fieldwork and language skills are also noted as important flaws of Indian area
studies by Sahni, who writes, If India is to ever build a cadre of genuine area specialists,
the sponsoring agencies will have to consider funding scholars to spend up to a year at a
time in their area of doctoral study. Language fluency and genuine understanding require a
sustained period of immersion in the culture and society that is the object of study. See
Varun Sahni, no. 3, p. 61.
In addition, it has recently been argued that the UGCs procedures, practices and
interventions are slow, convoluted, politicized and research-unfriendly. The net result has
been that a culture of research in International Studies, especially in area studies, that could
have been built through UGC support has been effectively retarded. See Amitabh Mattoo,
no. 3, p. 42.
Bimal Prasad and Urmila Phadnis, no. 29; Nandini Sundar, Satish Deshpande and Patricia
Uberoi, Indian Anthropology and Sociology: Towards a History, Economic and Political
Weekly, 35 (24), 2000, pp. 1998-2002.
S. Akbar Zaidi, no. 4.
SAARC Starts to Get Serious, Himal, 10 (3), 1997, pp. 14-16; Navnita C. Behera, Paul
M. Evans and Gowher Rizvi, Beyond Boundaries: A Report on the State of Non-Official
Dialogues on Peace, Security & Cooperation in South Asia, University of Toronto-York
51.
52.
17
University, Ontario, 1997; and Navnita C. Behera, Victor Gunawardena, Shahid Kardar
and Raisul A. Mahmood, People-to-People Contact in South Asia, Manohar, New Delhi, 2000.
Mattoo and Alagappa provide many details on the investments needed in the case of India.
See Amitabh Mattoo, no. 3 and Muthiah Alagappa, no. 3. Paul provides other ideas about
how Indian scholars of International Relations (IR) have to integrate in a major way into
global IR, especially relating to IR theory. See T.V. Paul, no. 3, p. 141.
Pratyoush Onta, 2001, no. 1 and S Akbar Zaidi, no. 4.
2
Yaqoob Khan Bangash
Introduction
On August 15, 1947, Pakistan was carved out of the British Indian Empire. While
the founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, was insistent that the Empire
should dissolve into the two new states of India [Bharat] and Pakistan, in reality,
Pakistan was seen as the seceding state. Indeed, the Indian Independence Act of
July 1947 did indicate that two new states were being created on August 15.
Article 1 (1) read: As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and
forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known
respectively as India and Pakistan.1 However, independent India retained the
seat of British India at the United Nations (UN) and inherited all of the diplomatic
and other posts of the empire. Also, since the name India continued with one
of the new states, a clear impression of continuity was given. Therefore, while the
new India already had an identity (it also inherited the mantle of the British
Raj), Pakistan had to articulate its identity anew. Further, while one part of Indias
new identity had to take into account Pakistans creation (or secession), for
Pakistan, I argue, India was a much more important component of its identity.
Pakistans identity as Not India therefore became a defining feature of its identity,
I maintain, and still shapes its outlook.
The Construction of Perception

Pakistan was created on the basis of the Two Nation theory which argued that
Hindus and Muslims were separate nations which could not live together. Hence,
19
both required a separate homeland. Jinnah articulated this argument many times,
and in his presidential address to the All India Muslim League in March 1940 in
Lahore (where the Pakistan Resolution was also passed) said:
The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies,
social customs, and literature[s]. They neither intermarry nor interdine
together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are
based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects
[perspectives?] on life, and of life, are different. It is quite clear that Hindus
and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history.
They have different epics, their heroes are different, and different
episode[s]. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise
their victories and defeats overlap.2
Therefore, both communities required a separate countryPakistan for Muslims
and Hindustan for Hindus (in fact for a long time after independence, Pakistan
kept referring to India as Bharat, in order to further underscore its Hindu
character). The creation of Pakistan, hence, was necessitated by a Hindu India
Pakistan was the Muslim mirror image of a Hindu India.
This notion of Pakistan being purely Muslim was apparent very early in its
history. A Hindu member of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan faced questions
when he argued that he was a Hindu but also a Pakistani. Sris Chandra
Chattopadhyaya highlighted the convoluted nature of Pakistans identity in a
speech during the debate on the infamous Objectives Resolution in March 1947.
He noted:
Will they both call themselves Pakistanis? Then how will the people know
who is Muslim and who is non-Muslim? I say, give up this division of the
people into Muslims and non-Muslims and let us call ourselves one nation.
Let us call ourselves one people of Pakistan. Otherwise, if you call me
non-Muslim and call yourselves Muslim the difficulty will be if I call
myself Pakistani they will say you are a Muslim. That happened when I
had been to Europe. I went there as a delegate of Pakistan. When I said
I am a delegate of Pakistan they thought I was a Muslim. They said
But you are a Muslim. I said, No, I am a Hindu. A Hindu cannot
remain in Pakistan, that was their attitude. They said: You cannot call
yourself a Pakistani. Then I explained everything and told them that
there are Hindus and as well as Muslims and that we are all Pakistanis.
That is the position. Therefore, what am I to call myself?3
This dilemma still remains for most non-Muslim Pakistanis.
Pakistans definition of itself as the Muslim country, and India as the Hindu
country, meant that Pakistani textbooksthroughout its historyhave treated
Indians and Hindus as synonyms. These books have also emphasised the perpetual
enmity between Hindus and Muslims, to illustrate the historic need for Pakistan.
This focus was not a product of the Islamisation process under General Zia-ul-
20
Haq as most commentators maintain, and nor does it even find its birth in the
radical policies of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in the 1970s. In fact, this process began as
soon as Pakistan was itself created, thereby highlighting its critical role in the
creation of Pakistans identity.
Very soon after its inception, the Government of Pakistan was of the opinion
that all curricula should be infused with Islamic ideology. The first minister for
education, Fazlur Rahman, noted at the first All-Pakistan Education Conference
in November 1947: It is, therefore, a matter of profound satisfaction to me, as
it must be to you, that we have now before us the opportunity of reorienting our
entire educational policy to correspond closely with the needs of the times and to
reflect the ideas for which Pakistan as an Islamic state stands.4 He again
emphasised in February 1949: But mere lip-service to Islamic ideology will be
as foolish a gesture as Canutes order to the waves of the sea. We must see to it
that every aspect of our national activity is animated by this ideology, and since
education is the basic activity of the State I realized that a start had to be made
there.5 This Islamic ideology was rooted in the Two Nation theory, and
necessitated that the government undertake the project of textbook writingtoo
dangerous to leave to private enterpriseand therefore a certain view of India
and Hindus was perpetuated.
From the beginning, but especially beginning with the government of Zulifkar
Ali Bhutto in the 1970s, a negative view of Hindus was reinforced.6 For example,
as early as grade four and grade five, students were taught that the religion of the
Hindus did not teach them good things,7 and that the Hindu has always been
an enemy of Islam.8 At the higher levels, this indoctrination worsens, and even
blatant lies are written. For example, the social studies book for class eight notes,
In December 1885, an Englishman...formed a political party named Indian
National Congress, the purpose of which was to politically organize Hindus.9
The same textbook then goes on to simply fabricate facts and notes: Therefore
in order to appease the Hindus and the Congress, the British announced political
reforms. Muslims were not eligible to vote. Hindus voters never voted for a
Muslim.10 Even the Pervez Musharraf and post-Musharraf era textbooks which
were supposed to be Enlightened exhibit the same antagonism towards Hindus.
The 2014-15 social studies textbook for grade eight notes that both the British
and the Hindus conspired against the Muslims to turn them into a poor, helpless
and ineffective minority.11 In the same chapter on the Pakistan Movement, the
textbook establishes that: The introduction of Minto-Morley Reforms was
another painful factor for the Hindus. They were not prepared to tolerate any
such step which benefitted the Muslims. So they became violent, and freely
damaged government and public property.12 With Hindus being denounced
in such clear terms, no wonder there is a very negative perception of the Indian
21
National Congress (perceived to be completely Hindu) and India in the minds

of Pakistanis. Social scientist Rubina Saigol has aptly described the main aim of
these textbooks: It appears that Pakistani public school textbooks were not written
to serve the pedagogical imperatives of intellectual development and the inculcation
of critical thinking. Rather, they were written to perpetually justify a divisive
ideology of rupture which had to be continually reiterated in the construction of
national memory.13
This hatred towards Hindus was not just confined to the pre-1947 period in
Pakistani textbooks and extended to the post-independence period where Pakistani
Hindus (especially after the secession of Bangladesh) were dubbed as agents of
Hindu India. The social studies textbook for grade five succinctly noted the real
reason for the breakup of Pakistan. It stated: After 1965 war India conspired with
the Hindus of Bengal and succeeded in spreading hate among the Bengalis about
West Pakistan and finally attacked on East Pakistan in December 1971, thus causing
the breakup of East and West Pakistan.14 Thus, a linear correlation between Hindus
and India has cemented anti-India perception in Pakistan for decades.
In all these textbooks, it is never mentioned that presently India has almost
the same number of Muslims, if not more, as compared to Pakistan. Obviously,
this information would complicate the clear distinction between Hindu India
and Muslim Pakistan. When Indian Muslims are mentioned elsewhere in the
media, it is often only to highlight their plight, and hence to reinforce the Two
Nation theory. Even when there are prominent Indian Muslims, they are dubbed
as not Muslim enough by Pakistanis.15
Another factor which fuelled anti-India sentiment was and is the fact that
except for Jinnah, Liaquat and few other stalwarts and Islamic leaders, all heroes
mentioned in textbooks are soldiers who died in wars with India. For example,
the Punjab Urdu textbooks from the primary school level upwards contain chapters
on military personnel who won Pakistans highest gallantry award Nishan-e-Haider
in battles against India. Hence, the Urdu textbook of the Punjab Textbook Board
for the year 2014-15 for class four has a chapter on Major Aziz Bhatti (Chapter
12), the textbook for class five has a chapter on Hawaldar Lalik Jan (Chapter
17), Sawar Mohammad Hussain Shaheed is the subject of Chapter 24 in the
textbook for class seven, and Chapter nine in the textbook for class eight details
the martyrdom of Naik Lal Hussain Shaheed. The promotion of war heroes as
general heroes for everyone to emulate has not only limited the number of career
paths youth (and parents) consider in Pakistanthe military is always one of the
top career pathsbut it also solidifies their attitude against the enemy which
almost always means India. In fact, a number of times textbooks clarify only later
in the chapter that the enemy is India (it is taken for granted that students will
automatically assume it is India).
22
In addition to the promotion of war heroes, in the past few decades, there
has been a conscious glorification of war, especially in terms of Jihad. For example,
in the curriculum document for primary schools in 1995, it was stated that the
teachers should strive to create a feeling among students [that] they are the
members of a Muslim nation. Therefore, in accordance with the Islamic tradition,
they have to truthful, honest, patriotic and life-sacrificing mujahids.16 Even in
the so-called Enlightened period of the rule of General Musharraf, the theme of
inculcating the spirit of Jihad (clearly referring to war in this sense) continued.
The national curriculum directive in 2002 maintained that, the sense be created
among students that they are members of the Islamic Millat. Therefore in
accordance with the Islamic tradition, they ought to develop into true, honest
patriot, servant of the people and Janbaz Mujahid [life giving warrior] in his
heart.17 In higher classes, especially during and after the rule of General Zia ulHaq, Jihad was unabashedly promoted. A curriculum document from 1986 noted
that students must be aware of the blessings of Jihad, and must create yearning
for Jihad.18 With such a clear promotion of Jihad against the enemy, especially
as one of the highest levels of service to the nation, anti-India sentiment has been
clearly cemented in the school-going youth of Pakistan over the past several
decades.
Pakistans perception of India is also tied to the Kashmir dispute. In a way,
it is the Kashmir dispute which prevents Pakistan, and to an extent India, to move
beyond 1947. The unfinished business of 1947 keeps Pakistans raisondtre alive
in the minds of the government and people and prevents positive perception of
India. As several scholars have pointed out, Pakistan has time and again used the
Kashmir issue to forge national unity. In a country bereft with internal tensions
between provinces, classes, etc., for decades, it was the Kashmir issue which
brought all shades of opinion together in the country. Therefore, it was a very
useful tool to create a sense of common cause against a tyrant (India) which had
been oppressing the Muslim majority region of Kashmir since 1947. Also, since
the Kashmir dispute was tied to the events of independence in August 1947, the
massacres of the timemainly blamed on the Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan
were a continuous memory. While the Sikhs were largely redeemed in the Pakistani
mindset after Operation Bluestar, the bulk of the responsibility for the 1947-48
massacres then fell on the Hindus, who of course inhabited Hindu India.
For a long time, the virulent anti-India stance of the Pakistani media has also
fuelled the negative perception of Pakistan. For decades, the state-run Pakistan
Television Networktill early 2000s the main news and entertainment channel
in Pakistanaired a programme on prime time focusing on Indian atrocities in
Indian Kashmir. This emotive programme was full of patriotic songs and gory
scenes of torture, murder and pillage which kept the memory of antagonism against
23
India alive. Even though Pakistan had not fought a war with India over Kashmir
since 1965, these scenes, repeatedly shown every day reinforced the notion that
Hindu India still persecuted Muslims and therefore one should be thankful that
Pakistan was created to save Muslims from the fate currently suffered by the their
hapless Kashmiri Muslim brethren. The print media in Pakistan has also been
largely anti-India. The Urdu daily, Nawa-i-Waqt, founded by Hameed Nizami in
1941, declared itself to be the custodian of the Ideology of Pakistan, which is
the Two Nation Theory. The reinforcement of this mantra especially on the
anniversary of the Lahore Resolution (March 23), Independence Day (August
14) and Jinnahs birth and death anniversary (December 25 and September 11,
respectively), among other days, has kept the memory of the Two Nation theory
alive.
Like conjoined, but estranged twins, Pakistan and India have also been tied
together by an eternal comparisonmore so in Pakistan than in India perhaps.
Since Pakistan was the newer nation, it had to be more successful than India in
order to prove its existence. When Pakistan performed better economically (e.g.,
in the 1960s), a number of Pakistanis saw it as proof of the success of the Pakistani
experiment. Writer Kamila Shamsie noted in The Guardian article: At the start
of the 90s when I was, bafflingly, taking A-level economics in Karachi, our teacher
taught us all we needed to know about Indias protectionist economy with the
sentence: The only part of Indian cars which doesnt make a noise is the horn.19
That India was economically worse off than Pakistan reflected well on Pakistan
and gave its people confidence that the separation they achieved was worthwhile.
However, the downturn in the Pakistani economy in the 2000s and the rapid
development in India has given something to think about to Pakistanis. As
successful entrepreneur and Managing Director of Oxford University Press in
Pakistan, Ameena Saiyid, told Kamila Shamsie, Pakistanis envy Indians for refusing
to allow its cows and elephants and other religious symbols and beliefs to impede
their march to economic growth while we have got totally entangled in our burqas
and beards.20 Again, what Pakistan thinks of India is critically tied to what it
thinks of itself and what is happening in the country.
The Change in Perception

Recently, the perception of India has begun to undergo a change in Pakistan. It
is still too early to gauge to what extent it has changed, but there are clear signs
of a different air. A lot has to do with the changed circumstances within Pakistan.
The increasing tide of militancy and extremism in Pakistan has made the country
more introvert, and Indiathough still enemy number one for a large
percentagehas begun to fare differently. Pakistans more flexible attitude towards
Kashmirespecially since the Musharraf formula of 2006-07 which articulated
24
a four-point solution of the dispute including demilitarisation, self-governance,

open borders and joint management of the territoryhas further changed the
environment. This was the first time when Pakistan presented a solution outside
its traditional stance of the implementation of the UN resolutions regarding
plebiscite in the region.
Lately, anti-India trend in the media is being countered by a cross current of
proponents of peace on both sides. The joint initiative of The Times of India and
the Jang Group of Pakistan (which runs the Urdu daily, Jang, the English daily,
The News, and the GEO media enterprise), Aman ki Asha (Hope for Peace), is
testament of a change in direction. This initiative, launched on January 01, 2010,
aims to create an enabling environment to facilitate dialogue between the
governments, encourage people-to-people contacts and thus contribute to bringing
about peace between India and Pakistan.21 The mere existence of this endeavour
(despite the recent crackdown on the Jang media group) speaks volumes. A few
decades ago, something like this could not have even been contemplated let alone
initiated. The fact that the largest media groups on both sides of the border are
spearheading the move clearly shows that it will not lose them revenue and will
also promote peace and development in the region. Through this initiative, in
addition to promoting people-to-people contact and initiating an open debate,
both the media groups also committed themselves to using their print and
electronic media to aggressively promote the benefits of peace in terms of economic
development, uniting families, tourism, developing trade, and removing the
obstacles to peace.22 This is clearly about using their media clout towards creating
a more conducive environment for a peaceful resolution of contentious issues
and mutual co-existence and development. This project is only a few years old,
and therefore it is hard to assess its implications fully. However, their various
endeavours, like the Indo-Pak Business meets, the Milne Do initiative, and simply
connecting people from various walks of life across the border through their media
networks, have begun to make a difference. From my own perspective, the relative
ease with which I can now go to India, and even take students, has enabled me,
and more importantly my students, to understand the other side. Aman ki Asha
will not transform perceptions overnight or even in a decade perhapslong held
beliefs will take more timebut the dent has already been made.
In the last decade or so, Pakistans attitude towards Kashmir has been changing.
Interestingly, among the first to amend his opinion on the Kashmir issue has been
the so-called Mujahid-e-Awal or the first fighter, Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan,
who was one of the main leaders of the Kashmiri revolt against Maharaja Hari
Singh in October 1947, and was both president and prime minister of Pakistani
Kashmir several times. Showing flexibility, Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan has several
times pointed out that all options for the solution of the Kashmir dispute should
be discussed. In 2002, even while denying that Sardar Abdul Qayyum had called
25
for the conversion of the Line of Control into a permanent border (as reported
in several Pakistani and Indian newspapers), his spokesman said that his viewpoint
is clear that instead of putting forward new proposals, we should analyse the
suggestions coming from responsible quarters.23 However, even in this denial,
there was an acknowledgement that proposals other than a plebiscitewhich used
to be a sina qua non for Kashmiri and Pakistani leaderscould be considered.
Coming from the first fighter, this was a significant move. In more recent years,
Sardar Abdul Qayyum has even offered support for the Musharraf formula, plainly
exhibiting his support for a settlement not based on the old plebiscite model. In
2005, he clearly indicated that he was supportive of creating a United States of
Kashmir. He was, according to Dawn, in favour of the proposal of creating
what he called the United States of Kashmir (USK) which, he said, was the
extension of President Pervez Musharraf s proposal about dividing the entire
Jammu and Kashmir territory into seven regions. The Dawn further reported,
[He] suggested that there should be separate legislative assemblies, for both the
parts of Jammu and Kashmir, emerging through free and fair elections. The two
assemblies should then form a third assembly for the whole territory to be called
the United States of Kashmir. Sardar Qayyum was of the view that the election
for the purpose could either be held either under the joint supervision of Pakistan
and India or the United Nations.24 Such flexibility from Kashmiri leaders in
Pakistan is indeed a firm indication of their softening stance on the issue, which
obviously had an effect on the public at large.
That said, the existence of organisations such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba, Harkatul-Mujahidin and the Defence of Pakistan Council still keeps the flame of Kashmir
and anti-India sentiment alive in Pakistan. They have taken out rallies in the past
(though recently there has been no such rallies), and a large part of their rhetoric
is anti-India. However, what is also apparent is that the rallies are largely antiAmerican too. Further, despite posters like Bharat se rishta kya, dushmani ka
inteqaam ka (what is our relation to India, it is of revenge and of them being the
enemy) being splashed throughout the city, the number of people at these rallies
has steadily declined. There has also been a perceptible decline in the number of
donation boxes for Jihad in Kashmir which used to be omnipresent in Pakistan
a decade ago. This lack of interest and support for the Jihad in Kashmir is clearly
supported by evidence of fewer Jihadis trying to cross over into India. The Times
of India recently reported, According to statistics until July 31 [2014], this year
has witnessed the lowest number of militants successfully infiltrating into India
from Pakistan side...The drop in infiltration is keeping in line with the pattern
that has emerged over the recent years, when Kashmir has been witnessing an
overall drop in enthusiasm for armed militancy.25 With increasing insecurity in
the country itself, Pakistanis are more concerned about their day-to-day survival
and security than harbouring hopes of incorporating Kashmir into Pakistan.
26
In 2012, in an article I wrote in a leading Pakistani newspaper, entitled,

Maybe We Have Forgotten Kashmir?,26 I have used anecdotal evidence from a
university event on Kashmir where hardly anyone was interested in the Kashmir
dispute, to posit the theory that perhaps the younger generation of Pakistanis is
not that attached to the issue as the older generation was. Not being part of the
generation that saw the horrors of 1947, and being more embroiled in the security
situation after attacks on Pakistan by the Taliban and al Qaida in the 2000s, the
younger generation is concerned mainly with problems at home. In these changed
circumstances, even the right-wing Maulana Fazlur Rahman, chief of his faction
of the Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam, had to state: Obviously, we are in favour of a
political solution.... Things have changed so much. Now the concept of wining
Kashmir has taken a back seat to the urgency of saving Pakistan.27
Where Next?
While Pakistans perception of India might be improving in terms of a decline in
the number and influence of militant organisations, flexibility on the Kashmir
issue and the promotion of better relations with India at least in a section of the
media, Pakistans perception of India will not dramatically improve unless it
develops a more confident image of itself. As long as Pakistan continues to find
its rationale for existence in the Two Nation Theory (especially after the secession
of Bangladesh in 1971), and keeps viewing the world in terms of Muslim
countries, Hindu countries and Christian countries (e.g., Christians in Pakistan
bear the brunt of anti-Americanism since America is supposed to be a Christian
nation), its perception of India will not improve.
Pakistans perception of India is tied to its identity crisis, and unless Pakistan
becomes a stable and secure country, the perception will not improve. Where
India can help Pakistan is in making Pakistan feel confident that the 1947 partition
is a fact of history and that India has no designs of changing that reality. This
would entail focusing on what could bring both the countries together now rather
than talking about what happened in the past. India should also promote stability
in Pakistan, since a more integrated and stable Pakistan would be able to engage
with India without the baggage of the past.
Pakistan has a long way to go in solving its identity crisis. However, starting
with accepting the fact that there are two other South Asian countriesIndia
and Bangladeshwhich have as many Muslims as it has could be a first step.
Pakistan needs to incorporate the Muslim communities of these two countries in
its textbooks and be comfortable talking about them as another dimension of
South Asian Islam. Pakistan also needs to restart teaching ancient India (abandoned
in 1961) in its school curriculum so that students in the country are also aware
of the rich non-Muslim heritage of the subcontinent. Further, Pakistan needs to
27
develop a more nuanced view of India when it is discussed within the contexts of
conflicts. While the wars of the past are a reality, making Hindus and Enemy
synonymous with India should change. Pakistan also needs to begin teaching
the history and politics of post-independence Indiahitherto seldom taught in
Pakistani universities. The more Pakistanis will know about how independent
India has developed over the past more than six decades and how complicated it
has been, the more nuanced their view will be of the country. Pakistan and India
have a long and shared history and there is much that brings both countries
together. Both countries, while keeping their sovereignty and separate identities,
can certainly work together for a better South Asia.
ENDNOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Indian Independence Act 1947, 10 & 11 GEO 6, Chapter 30.

Presidential Address at the Session of the All India Muslim League, Lahore, March 1940,
in Jamil-ud-Din Ahmed (ed.), Speeches and Writings of Mr. Jinnah, Vol. 1, Sheikh
Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore, 1968, p. 169.
Speech of Sris Chandra Chatopadhyaya, March 12, 1949, Constituent Assembly of Pakistan
Debates, V (5), p. 93.
Address delivered at the All-Pakistan Educational Conference held at Karachi, 27 November,
1947, in Fazlur Rahman, New Education in the Making in Pakistan: Its Ideology and basic
Problems, Cassell & Company, London, 1953, p. 3.
Ibid. See Speech at the Opening of the Second Annual Session of the advisory Board of
Education for Pakistan held at Peshawar from February 7-9 1949, p. 20.
For one of the best assessments of biases in Pakistani textbooks, see A.H. Nayyer and Ahmed
Salim (eds.), The Subtle Subversion: The State of Curricula and Textbooks in Pakistan,
Sustainable Development Policy Institute, Islamabad, 2002. Also, see Ashok K. Behuria
and Mohammad Shehzad, Partition of History in Textbooks in Pakistan: Implications of
Selective Memory and Forgetting, Strategic Analysis, Routledge, 37 (3), 2013, pp. 353365.
Muasherati Ulum for Class IV, Punjab Textbook Board, Lahore, 1995, p.81.
Urdu Class V, Punjab Textbook Board, Lahore, 2002, p. 108.
Social Studies Class VIII, 2002, p. 94.
Ibid., pp. 94-5.
Social Studies Class VIII, Punjab Textbook Board, Lahore, 2014, p. 74.
Ibid., p. 75.
Rubina Saigol, Textbooks: An Education in Demonology, India Today, August 11, 2012,
at http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/rubina-saigol-pakistani-textbooks-divisive-ideologymuslims-are-always-heroic-and-hindus-invariably-diabolical/1/212833.html.
Social Studies (in Urdu) Class-V, Punjab Textbook Board, Lahore, p. 112.
One only has to look at the comments section of any article on Indian Muslims in Pakistan
to ascertain this.
Curriculum Document, Primary Education, Class K-V, Urdu Curriculum, Class IV-V, 1999,
p. 41.
Urdu Curriculum (First language) for Classes IV and V, National Bureau of Curriculum and
Textbooks, Ministry of Education, Islamabad, 2002, p. 3, as cited in A.H. Nayyer and
Ahmed Salim, no. 6, pp. 38-39.
Urdu Curriculum (first and second language) for classes VI-VIII, National Bureau of Curriculum
28
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.

and Textbooks, Ministry of Education, Islamabad, 1986, p. 13, as cited in A.H. Nayyer
and Ahmed Salim, no. 6, p. 44.
Kamila Shamsie, How Pakistanis See India, The Guardian, August 14, 2007, at http://
www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/14/india.features116
Ibid.
Aman ki Asha, at http://amankiasha.com/faqs.asp
Ibid.
Qayyum Not for Conversion of LOC into Border, Dawn, December 30, 2002, at http:/
/www.dawn.com/news/75184/qayyum-not-for-conversion-of-loc-into-border
Sardar Qayyum Wants LOC Points Used for Trade, Dawn, December 10, 2005, at http:/
/www.dawn.com/news/169273/sardar-qayyum-wants-loc-points-used-for-trade
Valley Paradox: Infiltration Down, But Violence on the Rise, The Times of India, August
20, 2014, at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Valley-paradox-Infiltration-down-butviolence-on-the-rise/articleshow/40454647.cms
Yaqoob Khan Bangash, Maybe We Have Forgotten Kashmir?, The Express Tribune,
December 10, 2012, at http://tribune.com.pk/story/477777/maybe-we-have-forgottenkashmir
Yaqoob Khan Bangash, Time to Forget Kashmir, The Express Tribune, July 04, 2011, at
http://tribune.com.pk/story/202209/time-to-forget-kashmir
3
Changing Relations between Bangladesh
and India: Perceptions in Bangladesh
M. Humayun Kabir
Perception formation is essentially an exercise in social construction. In most cases,

it is shaped by the interplay of complex set of social, political, economic and
psychological factors. Geographical location and historical experiences along with
public discourse and policy orientations of other nations can also deeply affect
the formation of collective perception of a nation. Beyond these factors, what is
equally important is the way available information is arranged and interpreted to
generate a meaningful picture or image about events and developments, and how
these interpretations are absorbed and used by the people and the policymakers.1
This process could either be rational or biased depending on their orientations.
Needless to say that such a process is incredibly complex in South Asia. It
grows out of the proximity of nations, their shared history, cultural affinities and
their search for distinctive national identity in contemporary times.2 Regardless
of what the South Asian nations think of their national identity, fact is that the
process is still evolving. For some, it is a process of developing and consolidating
a particular kind of national identity, while for others, it is a question of updating
the existing sense of identity in the context of evolving realities.3 This nuanced
and complicated process often demands rigorous analysis and sympathetic
understanding.
It is a challenge to articulate a composite picture about perceptions a nation
holds about other nations, as the process is often fragmented and highly nuanced.
Different segments of people in a society can also have different perceptions about
30
a neighbouring country, depending on their personal experience, or their

receptivity to general discourse or even their interaction with various social and
political institutions, such as the media, political parties, civil society organisations
and even the government.
Self Perception in Bangladesh

Self perception is a key element in developing perceptions about others, including
other nations. In Bangladesh, perceptions of the people about the outside world,
including the neighbourhood, have been shaped by their past collective experience,
which was often tumultuous, and their aspirations for the present and the future.
Two related processes may have worked closely to create a deep impact on the
collective psyche of the people of Bangladesh. First, historically, the people of
Bangladesh have suffered from a deep sense of deprivation and victimisation, which
was caused first by the oppression carried out by the Hindu zamindars and then
by the British and Pakistani rulers.4 They also suffered from a deliberate process
of putting them into a social and political stereotype. As result, they developed
a strong negative view about the hierarchical power structure. Second, the people
in this part of the South Asian landmass generally responded to the above in two
ways. One was to harness their intrinsic strength. In this context, social
mobilisation, organisational creativity and resilience were used as tools to overcome
the perceived sense of deprivation. The second method was to mobilise support
from outside. In this pursuit, depending on the situation, they formed temporary
alliances with different social and political forces, including the external ones, to
fight out the adversity. In the process, they developed skills in the art of public
mobilisation and flexibility in choosing friends for protecting and promoting their
collective goals, which essentially culminated in the creation of Bangladesh as a
nation state through the glorious war of liberation in 1971.
A socially-driven, egalitarian and enterprising nation was thus born in
Bangladesh, which is fiercely independent in its outlook and attaches high value
to individual entrepreneurship, social creativity and collaborative connectivity to
its neighbourhood. As Bangladesh aspires to become a middle income nation,5
it will dig deep into the collective insights generated from its historical experiences
and the interplay of factors in the present day reality. Perhaps, motivated by this
aspiration, Bangladesh has consciously tried to stay away from the binary outlook
based on realist approach in South Asia and advocated utilisation of collaborative
approach for improving political understanding, 6 strengthening economic
cooperation as well as promoting open social interactions to engender a climate
of trust and understanding among the nations in the region and beyond.7
Changing Relations between Bangladesh and India
31
Perception Parameters between Bangladesh and India

Several factors frame or condition the perceptions about India in Bangladesh.
Some of the following are noteworthy:
Geography: India sits at the centre of the South Asian landmass and all
South Asian nations including Bangladesh share borders, cultures and
ethnic affiliations with India. Bangladesh shares more than 4,000 km of
land borders along with a sizeable portion of maritime boundary with
India and shares huge number of followers of major religions with India.
These factors have had a complex impact on its identity formation,
evolution of self-image, shaping of collective outlook and its policy
options vis--vis India.8 Indeed, proximity has created both opportunities
and challenges for Bangladesh and India. The Indian High Commissioner
to Bangladesh Pankaj Saran articulated it rather appropriately when he
said, India and Bangladesh are neighbours. It is a fact of life. But how
we become good neighbours, [sic] that is a challenge for us.9
Identity process: Bangladesh has the unique distinction of achieving its
independence through an armed struggle, which no South Asian nation
had done before in that scale and intensity. War, being a great mobiliser
and leveller, made a deep impact on the self-image of the people of
Bangladesh and their sense of national identity. Learning from historical
experiences, the people of Bangladesh have a strong belief in their own
strength of determination and their ability to stand up for protecting
their vital collective interests.10
History has endowed Bangladesh with two mutually reinforcing pillars
of identityculture and religion. Over the centuries, these two elements
have blended seamlessly to give the people of Bangladesh a unique sense
of strength, flexibility and diversity. Bangladeshi scholars have articulated
this phenomenon of duality in identity in this way: The justification
for Bangladeshs political independence from Pakistan and (earlier)
Indiawas to be found in the identity of the nation-state as both Bengali
and Muslim.11 There was, thus, this duality of heritage12 that, among
other things, contributed to shaping the external behaviour of Bangladesh.
Historically then, what is now the Bangladesh nation evolved through
its having to deal with the West Bengali Hindu community, now a part
of India, and their fellow Muslims in the rest of South Asia, most of the
latter eventually assuming the form of Pakistan.13
Contrary to prevailing perceptions in certain quarters in India, 14
Bangladesh has remained a functionally secular polity. National priorities
and past electoral outcomes and recent polls on possible preferences of
the voters in the elections of 2014 would reconfirm this understanding.
32
Nonetheless, there is no denying that the continued governance deficits

perpetuated by the successive governments in Bangladesh have somehow
eroded the public trust on the liberal and secular values and practices.
Marginal forces are trying to capitalise on this governance gap.15 It is
possible that these developments have generated some images in India to
reinforce the stereotyped mindset about Bangladesh.16 What would be
helpful is to appreciate, show some respect and reinforce, the delicate
balance which exists between these two pillars of Bangladeshi identity.
Power setting: Power setting in South Asia is asymmetric in nature. For
Bangladesh, it is far more complex than many other nations in South
Asia. India was the closest ally of Bangladesh both during its war of
liberation in 1971 and its aftermath as Bangladesh began its journey as
a nation.17 This period in a way saw the continuation of the solid social
compact, which was formed among the people and government of
Bangladesh and those in India based on shared values and sacrifice made
during the war of liberation.18 However, this process of understanding
and trust somehow weakened as a statist approach started to define the
relations between Bangladesh and India.19 Differences in aspirations
became apparent as India pursued its strategic objectives, while Bangladesh
pursued its self exploration as an independent nation. Even today, the
narrative on the war in 1971 on both sides of the border is nuanced and
sometimes one-sided.20 Unfortunately, this gap still persists and continues
to shape the nature of our relationship. 21
Policy initiatives: Unique location, size and history, particularly the recent
history, has endowed India with certain advantages. Based on them, India
has conceptualised its role in the region and developed its strategic
objectives and tools to advance its interests. Generally, India has relied
on hard approaches under different doctrines and models to achieve its
objectives. 22 Although relations between Bangladesh and India have
remained largely stable during the last 42 years, a few bumps have
appeared along the way. As against the bilateral approach pursued by India
in South Asia and its emphasis on security issues, Bangladesh has always
advocated a concept of collaboration and cooperation on larger scale
among the South Asian nations, the basic framework of which was laid
out under the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
(SAARC) process.23 Having fought hard for establishing its own identity
and dignity, Bangladesh is keen to pursue a creative and sustainable model
of relationship with India, instead of investing energy on dated models
of engagement, which generally stoke fears rather than friendship.
India as an economic power: The rise of India as an economic power has
created a new environment in South Asia. It has influenced the way people
33
think about India and how they shape their responses to this new
phenomenon. For Bangladesh, India has remained a close economic
partner since 1971 and currently stands second to China as its largest
import source.24 India is also a partner in informal trade transactions,
which is either equivalent or more in size to formal one.25 In theory,
Bangladesh enjoys duty-free access to Indian market for almost 98 per
cent of its products since the end of 2011. Overall, Bangladesh considers
the rise of India as an economic power as a positive development and
looks at India as a major partner in economic progress and prosperity.
Indeed, the potential of economic cooperation is huge given the
complementary nature of their national aspirations and objectives.
Recent Developments
The interplay of these factors has produced several consequences in terms of
perception formation in Bangladesh. A few noteworthy trends will be discussed
below, with particular focus on some of the recent initiatives:
First, over the last 42 years, relations between Bangladesh and India have
moved through an uneven trajectory. However, since 2009, Bangladesh and India
have decided to introduce new energy into their bilateral relations and proactively
explored the areas of convergence between them. Accordingly, the government of
Bangladesh under Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina unilaterally took several policy
initiatives. One of them was to extend key strategic concession to India by allowing
it to use various facilities in Bangladesh for getting access to the north-eastern
Indian states.26 Second, Bangladesh firmly dealt with the extremist elements, which
had a significant impact both on the domestic environment and on bilateral
relations with India.27 This policy strengthened the process of security collaboration
with India particularly on counter terrorism and also supported Indias larger
regional and global aspirations.28 On its part, India responded with a strong
support for the Bangladesh Government and signed a protocol to implement the
Land Boundary Agreement (LBA), extended a credit line of $1 billion, agreed on
utilisation of common resources, including waters of common rivers under a basin
wise concept, opened its market for duty-free entry of products from Bangladesh
under the bilateral and regional trade framework, and relaxed visa procedures to
improve people-to-people contacts, among others.29 During this period, political
relations were also consolidated through series of high-level visits in both
directions.30
These policy initiatives had a positive influence on the public perception in
Bangladesh; they were viewed as necessary steps to jump start the relationship
with India in the positive direction. Most of the political parties supported these
initiatives of the government; local think tanks, research organisations, business
34
leaders, media and members of civil society also endorsed these initiatives.31 On
the other side, in India, favourable public opinion also endorsed these initiatives
for improvement in bilateral relations.32 It looked like that after many years of
benign neglect at the best and adversarial orientation at the worst,33 Bangladesh
received an objective review in India for its proactive policy initiatives.34 To a
large measure, the governments in both countries were indeed responding to public
aspirations with their initiatives.35 However, the initial burst of optimism soon
lost momentum exposing the fragile nature of changing perceptions. It also raised
the critical question about the overall sustainability of public support for the new
initiatives.36
Challenges
The big question is why this happened? Let us explore some of the underlying
challenges:
Conceptual confusion: Despite claims by a former Indian foreign minister to make
the relations between Bangladesh and India as a new model of relationship in
South Asia,37 Indian policy line on Bangladesh lacked creativity and consistency.38
Bangladesh made several dramatic concessions to India, which had transformed
the regional strategic scenario, but the response from India was laggard. It became
apparent that India was largely unprepared to meet the new game changing
demands of the hour in terms of building a new model of relationship with
Bangladesh.39
Consequently, a perception gained ground in Bangladesh that instead of
forming a partnership for utilising the new openings in bilateral relations, India
was pursuing its traditional realist agenda to consolidate its own national gains.
Several instances contributed to reinforce such an impression. On the transit issue,
for example, the Indian approach was widely seen as being insensitive to the
expectations in Bangladesh although public mood was generally supportive of
granting this arrangement to India. India fell short on several counts.
First, as the deal on transit issue fell through during the visit of the then
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in September 2011, India appeared to
have acted sneakily to advance its objectives by utilising the revised bilateral Inland
Water Trade and Transit Protocol of 1972 and that again was done in great haste.40
The people of Bangladesh in general did not view this attempt kindly.41
India also came slow on fulfilling its commitments to develop the Ashuganj
river port for facilitating movement of its cargo, including oversized ones, to its
north eastern region. India also completely disregarded the environmental concerns
while transporting its oversized cargo along Ashuganj-Akhaura land route.42 Again,
the controversy created over the payment of service charges for utilising the port
35
facilities and other services was read as an effort to manipulate the system in Indias
favour.43 Such an effort irritated even the most ardent proponents of providing
transit facilities to India. One of them termed the Indian behaviour on this issue
as trickery and warned that this kind of attitude would not help in building
trust between Bangladesh and India. He indeed echoed general sentiment
prevailing in Bangladesh.44 Recent effort by India to secure access to road
infrastructure in Bangladesh, pending finalisation of a regional road network under
the SAARC framework, represents another instance of hasty move by India on a
purely unilateral motive.
Second, the recent decision to establish a coal-fired 1320 MW joint venture
power plant in Ramphal in Bangladesh also came under strong public criticism
for not putting up adequate protection to safeguard the environmental issues in
the Sunderbans in Bangladesh.45 Media and civil society actors have been raising
public consciousness on this issue since the idea was first floated. Regardless, the
prime ministers of both Bangladesh and India laid the foundation stone for the
project on October 05, 2013. Consequently, while the people in general welcomed
the joint venture project with India, they could not find the justification for
insisting on the controversial venue.46 It seemed that neither the government of
India nor that of Bangladesh could read the sentiments of the common people in
Bangladesh, and in the process contributed to reinforcing the negative trend of
public perception, which could have been easily avoided.
Likewise, on the security and political issues, India seems to be stuck in the
past mindset rather than looking forward. Three subtexts could be noted in this
context. First, Indian political approach in Bangladesh seems to be fragmented
and short-sighted. While Bangladesh Government showed leadership and took a
high-risk firm position against security threats emanating from the extremist
elements, which served the strategic objectives both of Bangladesh and India, the
Indian response was at best half-hearted. It could not also muster enough domestic
support to deliver on the formal commitments made to Bangladesh. Second,
Indian outreach to various stakeholders in Bangladesh also sent mixed signals.
While the people of Bangladesh appreciated the even-handed approach taken by
the Indian leadership, particularly by the Indian President Pranab Mukherjee and
the then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with regard to reaching out to major
political parties in Bangladesh during their visits to Dhaka, many other Indian
initiatives associated India too close with the present government of Bangladesh,
which suffers from a questionable reputation due to its pronounced failures on
many governance issues. Open partisan positions taken on some of the internal
developments in Bangladesh also did not help Indias public image in
Bangladesh.47
Third, the Indian propensity to look at its relationship with Bangladesh
36
through the prism of Indo-Pakistan rivalry is not generally appreciated in

Bangladesh. There is a widespread impression in Bangladesh that India has not
been able to lift itself above the India-Pakistan binary approach even after
Bangladesh has taken some bold initiatives to address major security concerns of
India and delivered steadfastly on some of the long standing challenges in this
area.48 Many Bangladeshis view the Indian approach as too static and feel frustrated
with India having not suitably capitalised on the new collaborative security
framework offered by Bangladesh.49
The concept of regional cooperation, as embodied in the SAARC, fits well
into the foreign policy vision of Bangladesh and as such enjoys high degree of
respect in Bangladesh. Recent Indian interest and activism in SAARC is seen as
a positive development. However, there is a feeling in Bangladesh that India is
still unsure about its relationship with SAARC, may be still reluctant to empower
the SAARC process and is still hesitant to allow SAARC process to drive the
regional collaboration. Against the backdrop of lacklustre performance of SAARC,
an experiment has been launched during the last few years to energise the concept
of sub-regional cooperation among Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Bhutan to deal
with issues of common concern and interest. Bangladesh and India have been
particularly advocating sub-regional collaboration for exploring connectivity,
developing infrastructure and energy network, and preserving environment, among
others.
Yet, the public perception in Bangladesh remains unclear about the modalities
for implementing the identified agenda under the sub-regional cooperation. In
fact, public perception is largely divided on this issue. One group of people
considers this idea as a means to validate the Indo-centric foreign policy agenda
of the present government in Bangladesh, and as such they are confused about
the possible destination of this process. The other group views it as a deliberate
effort to create a sub-group, which would be dominated by India and used to
reduce the capacity of SAARC as a vehicle for regional cooperation. Regardless,
the idea of sub-regional cooperation in general enjoys a positive review in
Bangladesh.
Skewed information flow: Free flow of information is a critically important element
in shaping the perceptions of common people. Yet, this has been either in short
supply or available only in unidirectional manner in the case of Bangladesh-India
relations. Despite a great deal of activism in recent years, neither the government
of Bangladesh nor that of India has been able to sufficiently explain its objectives
and agenda to the people through an effective communications strategy.50
Piecemeal availability of information obviously led to confusion about various
initiatives undertaken in bilateral relations. This was particularly noticeable in
Bangladesh, where different policy versions were offered by the ministers and
37
advisers on issues of vital public interest, which only complicated the

understanding on issues of national priority.
A larger issue revolves around the skewed nature of flow of information
between Bangladesh and India.51 While Bangladesh has allowed around 30 Indian
private television channels to regularly telecast their programmes in Bangladesh,
many of which have huge audience, only few private television channels from
Bangladesh have been allowed to reach out to the Indian audience and that too
in limited number of places.52 Even after a formal agreement was signed between
India and Bangladesh during the visit of Indian Prime Minister to Bangladesh in
2011 53 for exchange of programmes between Doordarshan and Bangladesh
Television (BTV), the process is yet to commence. Again, serious questions have
been raised about the kind of exposure the Indian audience will get through BTV
programmes, which are widely considered as extremely partisan in nature, and
hence, rated poorly even in Bangladesh.
Obviously, the reluctance to allow free flow of information between these
two neighbourly states neither helps to shape the public perceptions in an objective
way nor improves understanding about each others objectives and priorities.
Despite citing commercial arguments by the Indian side, there is a widespread
impression in Bangladesh that Indian authorities have not been active enough to
allow free flow of information between Bangladesh and India. Consequently,
despite the widespread attraction for Indian TV programmes in Bangladesh, India
does not have enough traction in terms of favourable public perception as a friendly
neighbour.
Socialisation gaps: The socialisation process conditions public perception in a
significant way. Family, academic institutions, professional organisations, media
and social networks play their roles in this process. Due to historical reasons,
national narratives in South Asian nations have a strong dose of local perspectives,
often casting others in a negative stereotype. What is striking is the fact that neither
Bangladesh nor India has made any serious effort to make enough objective
information available to their citizens to allow them to understand the priorities
of the other side in the correct context. Gossip, innuendoes and often negative
stories making headlines in the newspaper therefore fill this gap and frame the
public discourse accordingly. The result is that what we know about a particular
event in India may not be true or give complete picture, and vice versa. Mixed
with domestic cultural orientation, distorted stories may indeed frame public
perception.
Domestic challenges: As relations between Bangladesh and India took a visible
upswing, particularly during the last five years, the Indian leadership was obviously
keen to project it as a success story of Indian diplomacy in the region. It looked
38
that way after the visit of Bangladesh Prime Minister to India in January 2010.
However, the mixed outcome of the Indian Prime Ministers visit to Dhaka in
September 2011, followed by a series of unsuccessful efforts to secure ratification
of LBA and reaching an agreement on the sharing of Teesta water exposed the
internal governance challenges faced by the Indian Government. Inability of the
government to deliver on its commitments diminished the reputation of India as
a responsible nation, with corresponding impact on its image as an emerging
power.54 Even many Indian experts acknowledged that the mismatch between what
was promised to Bangladesh and what could be delivered had negatively affected
the image of India in Bangladesh and in the region.55
Again, the lack of coordination between the commitments of the political
leadership and the capacity of bureaucracy to deliver also affected public perception
about India in Bangladesh. Unworkable provisions in the contract and the delay
in disbursement of $1 billion credit to Bangladesh were not seen positively.56
Likewise, the continued killing of Bangladeshi nationals on the borders produced
two types of strong public reactions in Bangladesh. First, it demonstrated the
lack of coordination between the commitments made by the political leadership
of India and actions taken by law enforcing machinery on the ground, which in
the process exposed a serious weakness of the system. Second, continued killing
of Bangladesh nationals at the borders by the Border Security Force (BSF) created
a hugely negative backlash on the collective mindset in Bangladesh. Most people
in Bangladesh perceive India as an insensitive neighbour motivated by the objective
of promoting only its own interests.57 Erection of border fences around Bangladesh
also does not transmit a friendly message, and people in Bangladesh widely resent
such an unfriendly act.58
Given the fact that social forces exert considerable influence on public
perceptions and policy process in Bangladesh, any initiative with India evokes
considerable degree of questions and passions. In addition to the Indian behaviour,
the reputation of the government in Bangladesh has also affected the outcome.
While the present government can deserve credit for taking a number of forwardlooking initiatives with India, many of these initiatives somehow lost their intrinsic
value as the government could not sufficiently explain its position and policy to
the people. Consequently, a widespread impression grew that the government had
conceded more than what they could get from India. Again, as the popularity of
the government plummeted, so did the reputation of India.59 With the sharpening
of public consciousness and interest in policy matters, it is possible that policy
initiatives will remain under constant public scrutiny both in Bangladesh and
India in the coming days. India being the larger neighbour perhaps needs to
demonstrate more maturity, insight and fairness in dealing with its neighbours,
including Bangladesh.
39
Way Forward
The relations between Bangladesh and India are unique and at the same time
complex from several points of view. Bangladesh began its journey as an
independent nation with an extremely close partnership with India. Moreover,
Bangladesh and India share similar democratic values and aspirations, pursue
similar economic goals, offer economic opportunities to each other and face similar
challenges.60 Bangladesh is surrounded on three sides by India, while Bangladesh
encircles a large part of the North eastern states of India, which makes it integrally
linked to the future development of this region.61 Both Bangladesh and India
also share maritime boundaries and have many common regional and interregional interests to advance the mutually supportive objectives.
Despite all these compulsions and attractions, the level of public trust between
Bangladesh and India is still rather thin and the conceptual confusions have added
further complexity to this relationship. Indias continuing preference for
bilateralism in advancing its national interests, and the propensity of some key
stakeholders in India to interpret events in Bangladesh in their own image, do
not fit into the dynamic trajectory of relationship.62 In order to lift the bilateral
relationship to a new level, it is time that India takes the lead in developing a
collaborative, creative and forward-looking framework for conducting relations
in the neighbourhood, and Bangladesh could be a useful model for this purpose.
A growing tail wind could assist this process to mature. Over the last few
years, a favourable public opinion has been created both in Bangladesh and India
over the growing convergence of interest in some key areas. It is encouraging to
note that the people on both sides have developed shared expectations in the
following areas, among others: mutual desire for continued domestic and regional
stability and strengthening of democratic governance, shared aspiration for
upholding the liberal values and practices, delivering on the promise of good
governance and intensifying cooperation against any possible rise of extremism,
mutual aspiration for consolidating the economic partnership, resolution of
outstanding bilateral issues through dialogue and in a mutually beneficial manner
and exploring opportunities on bilateral, sub-regional, regional and inter-regional
basis. Given their deep significance in the lives of common people, even if there
is a change in political set up in India and Bangladesh, these elements would
perhaps continue to provide solid building blocks to construct a collaborative
and creative partnership between Bangladesh and India.
While the relationship between Bangladesh and India has witnessed a
considerable degree of movement in recent years, the structure for high-level
consultation is still weak. Existing bilateral consultation mechanisms at the
bureaucratic level seem to play a largely inconsequential role in terms of influencing
public perception and outcome. In view of this, it would be good if the visibility
40
of relations could be lifted through institutionalising a high-level mechanism for

holding regular consultations between the leaders of the two countries. If possible,
multiple stakeholders, including the Opposition, could be brought into the loop
of such high-level consultations. This would definitely widen and deepen the
traction for creative and sustainable initiatives.
In recent years, India has been toying with the idea of creating new
partnerships with its neighbours based on economic priorities and linkages.63
This model could get a lively face in Bangladesh given the fact that Bangladesh
and India share common economic goals and enjoy complementarities in their
endowments. India could engage Bangladesh with a robust economic agenda and
expand cooperation in trade, investment, technology transfer and connectivity
on bilateral, sub regional, regional and inter-regional basis. Bangladesh, on its
part, could offer peace, stability, connectivity, economic progress and a secure
regional environment for India. If this process succeeds, it would definitely have
a beneficial impact on public perceptions and create a new set of stakeholders
with a positive outlook.
Despite considerable movement of people in both directions, social
connectivity between Bangladesh and India has remained relatively modest. Given
the deep impact of social interactions on public perceptions, it is imperative to
energise the process of building people-to-people contacts in both directions.
Facilitating easy movement of people, promoting cultural, educational and
scientific exchange at official and civil society levels could serve this purpose.
Updating the bilateral agreements and utilising the regional institutional
arrangements deserve serious attention in this respect. Needless to say, high
visibility of social interaction is likely to exercise a positive influence on public
perceptions about the bilateral relations.
Parallel to this, special attention need to be given to free flow of information
between Bangladesh and India. In this context, it is important to allow private
TV channels from Bangladesh to telecast their programmes in India without any
further delay. Government and private sector could work together to facilitate
this process. Research has shown that TV and radio communication can deeply
influence public perception and given the existing gap in this area urgent efforts
should be made to improve the communication flow both ways.
In addition to the general framework of relationship, a roadmap could be
worked out to resolve the outstanding issues between Bangladesh and India.
Otherwise, these issues will continue to cast a negative shadow on public
perception. In the short term, the ratification process of LBA could be completed
and the agreement on sharing of waters of the Teesta River should be signed.
Urgent steps could also be initiated to remove non-tariff and para-tariff barriers
and encourage investment in Bangladesh to facilitate more trade between
41
Bangladesh and India. Visa regime could be further updated to facilitate easy
movement of people in both directions.
In the medium and long-term, efforts could be undertaken to develop
common projects based on utilisation of shared resources such as water, energy
and environment in line with the Framework Agreement on Cooperation for
Development signed in 2011,64 and leverage on the opportunities in such areas
as regional and inter-regional connectivity and communication. The demarcation
of maritime boundary, maritime security, counter terrorism, economic integration
and investment, disaster management and climate-related issues, among others,
could also come under this category.
Conclusion
Relationship between Bangladesh and India is unique in many respects and they
need each other for advancing their own interests. India was a partner during the
birth of Bangladesh and steadfastly stood behind it during early years of its journey
as a nation. This was possible due to the social compact, which grew during the
trying times of the war of liberation in 1971. But, as India started pursuing its
statist objectives, the social compact collapsed. Bangladesh responded with a similar
outlook. Relationship between the two nations thereafter meandered through many
ups and downs.
The current government in Bangladesh has undertaken a number of bold and
in some cases unilateral initiatives to address some of the major concerns and
interests of India. On its part, India has also responded with its own agenda.
Despite initial optimism of a breakthrough, the process is yet to gain a desirable
level of traction in public perception as both the governments fell short in explaining
their objectives to their people. Indian efforts to pursue its own objectives without
showing much regard to the expectations of the people of Bangladesh and its
inability to deliver on its commitments, largely due to its domestic challenges, has
cast a shadow on public perception in Bangladesh about India.
Perception is a complex social phenomenon having deep roots in the cultural
edifice of a society; therefore, it is important for both India and Bangladesh to
understand each others priorities, concerns and constraints, and then design their
policy responses accordingly. Incomplete and partial understanding of the nature
of public perceptions may lead to unanticipated policy handicaps and mistakes,
as has been seen on many occasions. Given the strong complementarities in their
relationship and having many common aspirations and goals, it would be better
for India and Bangladesh to build up on the converging trends in their relationship.
In this pursuit, they could design a new model of relationship keeping in view the
outlook, orientation and aspirations of the people of Bangladesh for a better future
under a collaborative, mutually beneficial and sustainable partnership with India.
42

ENDNOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, 1976, p. 35.
S.L. Sharma and T.K. Oommen, Nation and National Identity in South Asia, Orient Longman
Limited, New Delhi, 2000.
Muchkund Dubey, Indias Foreign Policy: Coping with the Changing World, Pearson Education,
Delhi, 2014, pp. 43-52.
Habib Siddiqui, Letter from America: Bengal under the English Rule (1757-1905) Part
1, Asian Tribune, December 08, 2013.
Bangladesh Overview, The World Bank, at http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/
bangladesh/overview
Cody M. Poplin, India-Bangladesh Relations: A Review of Bilateral Opportunities and
Constraints, Background Paper No. 1, India Development Cooperation Research (IDCR)
Project, February 2013.
Kamal Uddin Ahmed, Bangladesh and Its Neighbours, Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Dhaka,
2008.
Bayezid Ismail Choudhury and Peter Armstrong, Monument and Architecture in Shaping
Bangladeshi National Identity, Global Built Environment Review (GBER), 8 (3), 2012, pp.
45-67.
Youths Can Build Bridges, bdnews24.com, Dhaka, October 20, 2013.
Bayezid Ismail Choudhury and Peter Armstrong, no. 8.
Naureen Chowdhury Fink, On the Borderlines: Politics, Religion and Violence in
Bangladesh, International Peace Academy, New York, 2009, as mentioned in Iftekhar Ahmed
Chowdhury, The Roots of Bangladeshi National Identity: Their Impact on State Behaviour,
Working Paper No.63, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore,
June 10, 2009, p. 17.
Ali Riaz, God Willing: The Politics and Ideology of Islamism in Bangladesh, Comparative
Studies of South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, 23 (1 & 2), Project Muse, Chicago, 2003,
p. 2.
Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury, no. 11.
For an analysis of the remarks made by the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on
Bangladesh on June 29, 2011 based on the reported intelligence inputs, see Tom Wright,
Singh Steps In It Again, The Wall Street Journal, July 06, 2011.
M. Mukhlesur Rahman Chowdhury, Good Governance in Bangladesh: A Quest for
Democracy, January 19, 2014, at http://www.countercurrents.org/chowdhury190114.htm.
US to Intensify Talks with India on Bangladesh, bdnews24.com, Dhaka, November 08,
2013.
Muchkund Dubey, no. 3, pp. 77-100.
Ibid.
J.N. Dixit, Indias Foreign Policy and Its Neighbours, Gyan Publishing House, New Delhi,
2001.
Afsan Chowdhury, 1971: Why India and Bangladesh Should be Mutually Grateful,
bdnews24.com. Dhaka, December 15, 2010.
For an excellent study on this subject, see Smruti S. Pattanaik, Internal Political Dynamics
and Bangladeshs Foreign Policy towards India, Strategic Analysis, 29 (3), July-September
2005, pp. 395-426.
Muchkund Dubey, no. 3, pp. 46-48. For an interesting perspective, see Smruti S. Pattanaik,
Indias Neighbourhood Policy: Perceptions from Bangladesh, Strategic Analysis, 35 (1),
2010, pp. 71-87.

23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
43
Bangladesh initiated the process through consultation among the South Asian nations in
early 1981, and then the entire process culminated in the creation of SAARC as a regional
organisation in December 1985 in Dhaka.
In fiscal year 2012-13, Bangladesh imported goods worth US$ 6.3 billion from China and
exported only $485 million; and imported Indian goods worth US$ 4.2 billion, while
exporting to India goods worth US$ 563 million during the same period. For more details,
see Talha bin Habib, Business Brass to Urge China to Ramp up BD Garment Import,
The Financial Express, Dhaka, June 05, 2014.
India-Bangladesh Bilateral Trade and Potential Free Trade Agreement, Paper No. 13,
Bangladesh Development Series, The World Bank, 2006.
Joint Communiqu, Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, January
13, 2010.
Bruce Vaughn, Bangladesh: Political and Strategic Developments and U.S. Interests,
Congressional Research Service, April 01, 2010.
Rajeev Ranjan Chaturvedy and David M. Malone, Re-engaging with Bangladesh: Active
Economic and Security Co-operation Can Help India Reinvigorate Ties with Bangladesh,
The Business Standard, New Delhi, July 15, 2011.
Cody M. Poplin, India-Bangladesh Relations: A Review of Bilateral Opportunities and
Constraints, Background Paper No. 1, India Development Cooperation Research (IDCR)
Project, February 20, 2013.
Syed Tashfin Chowdhury, Bangladesh Lauds Sonia Gandhi Visit, The Asia Times, Hong
Kong, July 29, 2011; Harsh V. Pant, A Tale of Two Visits, The Telegraph, Kolkata, March
09, 2013.
Anisur Rahman, BDesh Media Welcomes Inking of Historic Treaties with India, The
Business Standard, New Delhi, January 12, 2010.
Harsh V. Pant, Why India Must Pay Attention to Bangladesh?, Rediffnews, New Delhi,
March 08, 2013; and M. Serajul Islam, Indo-Bangladesh Relations: The Importance of
Perception, The Daily Star, Dhaka, October 09, 2010.
Muchkund Dubey, no. 3, pp. 54-55.
Indrani Bagchi, With Pranab Visit, India Signals Changed Approach to Bangladesh, The
Times of India, New Delhi, August 06, 2010.
Embraceable You: Growing Geo Political Interest Push India to Seek Better Relations Nearer
Home, The Economist, July 30, 2011.
For an excellent analysis on this subject, see Mahfuz Anam, Bangladesh: A Fine Bilateral
Balance, in Neighbourhood Views of India, South Asia Studies, Gateway House Research
Paper No. 7, Mumbai, 2012, pp. 16-31.
Remarks of the Indian Minister for External Affairs S.M. Krishna at Bangladesh Institute
of International and Strategic Studies (BIISS), Dhaka, July 08, 2011.
M. Serajul Islam, New Era of Bangladesh-India Relations Based on DevelopmentDemocracy-Demography, The Daily Sun, Dhaka, July 17, 2011.
Bangla Miffed over Teesta Hurdle: Dhaka Terms Very Frustrating Indias Last-Minute
Decision Not to Ink the Crucial Deal, The Telegraph, Kolkata, September 07, 2011; No
Water, No Transit, The Samakal (Bangla), Dhaka, September 07, 2011; PMs Bangladesh
Visit: A Non-Starter, The Shillong Times, Shillong, September 09, 2011; and Indian Media
blamed Mamata, The Samakal, Dhaka, December 07, 2011. For an Indian perspective,
see Devadeep Purohit, PMs Teesta Dismay Flows, The Telegraph, Kolkata, September 08,
2011.
Sarath Kumara and Wimal Perera, Indian Prime Minister Visits Bangladesh, September
10, 2011, at http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/09/indi-s10.html
Adverse public opinion led to the halt of trial run of overland transportation of Indian
44
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.

cargo through Ashugunj-Akhaura route during SeptemberOctober 2011. For details, see
No Transit without Preparation, Prothom Alo (Bangla), Dhaka, October 27, 2011.
Ishak Mia, India-Bangladesh Land Transit: An Environmental Perspective, International
Policy Digest, August 11, 2012. Also, see Asjadul Kibria, Rush for a Transit Deal, The
Daily Star, Dhaka, June 30, 2011.
M. Emdadul Haq, Integrity Pact for Indo-Bangladesh Relations, The Daily Star, Dhaka,
June 21, 2013.
Moinul Islam, India Will Lose If It Cheats on Transit Issue, Prothom Alo (Bangla), Dhaka,
November 06, 2011.
Khalilur Rahman, Controversy over Ramphal Power Plant Site, The Financial Express,
Dhaka, April 21, 2013; Disastrous for the Sunderbans: Eminent Citizens for Site Change,
The Daily Star, Dhaka, October 07, 2013; Mohammad Badrul Ahsan, Railroading Ramphal
Power Plant, The Daily Star, Dhaka, October 04, 2013; Government Unmoved by
Environmentalists Concerns: Ramphal Foundation Stoke Laying on Oct 22, The Daily
Star, Dhaka, September 25, 2013; and Anu Muhammad, Ramphal Power Plant: A Project
of Deception and Mass Destructions, bdnews24.com, Dhaka, September 19, 2013.
Hasan Jahid Tusher and Amanur Aman, Ramphal Get Rolling, The Daily Star, Dhaka,
October 06, 2013; and PM Asks Not to Create Confusion over Ramphal Power Plant,
The Daily Star, Dhaka, November 13, 2013.
Sheikh Shahriar Zaman, India: Elections Must Be Held on Time, The Dhaka Tribune,
Dhaka, December 05, 2013; Manik Miazee and Abu Baker Siddique, JPs Resignation
Drama Lingers, The Dhaka Tribune, Dhaka, December 09, 2013; M. Serajul Islam, A
Diplomats Disappointing Visit, The Financial Express, Dhaka, December 09, 2013; Harun
Ur Rashid, Indian Foreign Secretarys Visit to Dhaka: What does it mean?,
PriyoAustralia.com, Canberra, December 05, 2013; Suhasini Haider, Back Bangladesh, Not
Hasina or Zia,CNN-IBN Blog, New Delhi, January 11, 2014; Jayanth Jacob, Bangladesh
on Boil, India Part of the Cauldron, The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, December 17,
2013; Sudha Ramachandran, Bangladesh Elections: Was India Right?, Gateway House,
Mumbai, January 16, 2014; and Indian Responsibilities, Editorial, Anandabazar Patrika,
Kolkata, January 10, 2014.
Bangladesh Government took several initiatives against the local militants and alleged Indian
insurgents in Bangladesh just after the assumption of power in January 2009. For details,
see Bangla: Leader of Indian Terror Group Arrested, Rediffnews, New Delhi, July 17,
2009; Indian Militant Arrested in Bangladesh, Rediffnews, New Delhi, October 01, 2009;
and Blow to ULFA, NLFT: Top Leaders Held in BDesh, Rediffnews, New Delhi,
December 02, 2009. For an interesting analysis of the positive fallout of the Bangladesh
Governments strong stand against extremism, see Anand Kumar, Crackdown on
Northeastern Insurgents: Dhaka Prepares for Hasinas India Visit, Institute for Defence Studies
and Analyses, New Delhi, November 18, 2009; and Jyoti Malhotra, Looking East via the
North-East, The Business Standard, New Delhi, March 01, 2010.
Hasnat Abdul Hye, India Disappointing?,The Daily Sun, Dhaka, February 17, 2011.
M. Humayun Kabir, Bangladesh-India Relations in the Age of Globalization: Post Prime
Ministerial Summit Conference: Track-I Diplomacy, Paper presented in a seminar at the
University of Dhaka, Dhaka, September 11, 2011.
Pankaj for Reducing Dhaka-Delhi Info Gap, The Morning News 24, Dhaka, March 29,
2014.
Omar Khasru, Refusal of Indian Access to Bangladeshi TV Channels, The New Age, Dhaka,
July 01, 2012.
Information available on the website of High Commission of India, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Sadeq Khan, Discordant Indian Sound Waves Sours Indo-Bangladesh Amity, The Holiday,
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
45
Dhaka, July 04, 2013; Abdul Hanna, A Raw deal, from a friendly neighbour, The Holiday,
Dhaka, August 15, 2013; Delhi Again Fails to Introduce LBA bill, Bdnews24.com, Dhaka,
August 19, 2013; and Kamal Davar, Lets Not Miss the Big Picture,South Asia Monitor,
September 05, 2013.
Jyoti Malhotra, Where did India-Bangladesh Talks Go Wrong?, Wall Street Journal, New
York, September 14, 2011.
For an assessment on the progress on the implementation of projects under $1 billion loan
from India, see Jagaran Chakma, India to Give 85 pc Raw Materials; Tough Strings Tie
Five India-Funded Projects, The Independent, Dhaka, December 08, 2011.
For a glimpse of perilous life along Indo-Bangladesh borders, see Maher Sattar, BangladeshIndia Border: Wall of Death, The Global Post, January 04, 2012. Bangladesh had to issue
a protest note to the Indian authorities following the killing of four Bangladeshi nationals
along the border in late December 2011.
Brad Adams, Indias Shoot-to-Kill Policy on the Bangladesh Border, The Guardian, January
23, 2011.
Mizanur Rahman Shelly, Bangladesh Politics: The Indian connection, The New Age, Dhaka,
November 24, 2013; Embraceable You: Growing Geo Political Interest Push India to Seek
Better Relations Nearer Home, The Economist, July 30, 2011; Haroon Habib, Resistance
to Jan 5 Polls Continues, The Hindu, Chennai, January 04, 2014; and Pratyush, Indian
President Visit a Tumultuous Bangladesh, The Diplomat, March 08, 2013.
For civil society perspective on Bangladesh-India relations, see Rehman Sobhan, Restoring
Commonsense into Indo-Bangladesh Relations: Graduating Diplomacy and Politics into
the 21st century, The Daily Star, Dhaka, September 05-06, 2011; M. Humayun Kabir,
Bangladesh-India Relations: Confidence Building Initiatives, Paper presented at a seminar
hosted by the Rashtrabiggan Samity (Political Science Association) at the Press Club, Dhaka,
September 04, 2011; and Mamun Rashid, Manmohans Upcoming Visit, The Financial
Express, Dhaka, September 04, 2011.
Pranay Sharma, East Indiaman Afloat, Outlook, September 12, 2011; Mission to
Bangladesh, The Shillong Times, September 03, 2011; and Manmohan Singhs Bangladesh
Visit to Transform Ties, The Gulf News, Dubai, September 05, 2011.
Shah Husain Imam, A Glimpse of the Indian Mind, The Daily Star, Dhaka, September
30, 2013; Sandeep Dikshit, Prime Ministers Comment on Bangladesh Raises Eyebrows,
The Hindu, Chennai, July 01, 2011; and Harun Ur Rashid, Manmohans Incredible
Remarks, The Daily Star, Dhaka, July 06, 2011. For a recent perspective, see Kanwal Sibal,
India Has to Take a Long Hard Look at Its Foreign Policy, Indian Defence Review, New
Delhi, June 02, 2014.
For an overview of this policy line, see Christian Wagner, From Hard Power to Soft Power:
Ideas, Interaction, Institutions, and Images in Indias South Asia Policy, Working Paper No.
26, South Asia Institute, University of Heidelberg, March 2005.
Framework Agreement on Cooperation for Development between India and Bangladesh,
Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, September 06, 2011, at http:/
/mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/5218/Framework+Agreement+on+Cooperation+
for+ Development+ between+India+and+Bangladesh
4
The Geo-Strategic Matrix and Existential
Dimension of Sri Lankas Conflict, Post-War
Crisis and External Relations
Dayan Jayatilleka
I think geopolitics has been underestimated; perhaps overestimated earlier, then

there was a reaction, and the pendulum swung too far in the other direction. I
am not a geopolitical determinist. I do not believe that geography is destiny. If
we look at the case of Cuba, for instance, it is very clearly a dramatic rupture
from any notion of geopolitical determinism. However, if we have a notion of
long-term history as recommended by Fernand Braudel, Marc Bloch and Lucien
Febvre, then we understand the importance of place. We are materially and
psychologically constituted at least in part by where we are. Though I would not
say that who we are is determined in a monocausal sense by where we are, it is
certainly one of the decisive and perhaps one of the determinant factors.
Sri Lanka, as most of us know, is an island. This is a constitutive factor because
Sri Lanka is shaped by the fact that it is embedded in the sea. It has no land
borders, and this is important.
Geopolitical Component
In the tourist books and the journal articles, Sri Lanka is often identified as the
island off the tip of India. It is the most obvious introduction, the shortest
introduction to Sri Lanka. However, it is a fundamental factor in a geopolitical
sense, in understanding the history and the trajectory of Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka has
The Geo-Strategic Matrix and Existential Dimension of Sri Lankas Conflict
47
been defined by India, but it has also defined itself, demarcated itself, as against
India. Thus, it is this dialectical relationship with India that has been the single
most important geopolitical component in Sri Lankas evolution.
Usually, we tend to forget the specificities, the concreteness, of a society or a
nation, and put them in categorieswhich is necessarybut without due
reference to their concrete specificities. However, there is also the other and
opposite phenomenon, and this is true not only for Sri Lanka but also for the
United States (US). Specificities are often confused for, or give rise to, notions of
exceptionalism and of manifest destinies.
If we consider the notion of the long-term blocks of several thousand years
of history, which historians like William McNeill and theorists like Gunder Frank,
Giovanni Arrighi and Immanuel Wallerstein have been using, then to understand
Sri Lanka today we, perhaps, would have to go back to an early version of the
struggle between Catholicism and Protestantism and between Hinduismthe
Brahminic conceptand Buddhism, which unlike in the case of the Protestant
reformation did not result in a major clash of arms as such. But there was a
Counter-Reformation. I use the term Counter-Reformation because Buddhism
had not only no notion of caste, the sociological hierarchy into which one is born,
which the Brahminic or Hindu faith placed great emphasis on, but even critiqued
its very notion. In India, after the zenith of the Emperor Ashoka, who was a
Buddhist, there was a counter-reformation, and Buddhism itself was pushed back,
downwards to the South. It also migrated to the North and the East, that is,
Nepal, Tibet, China, the Far East and Japan. In the South, there was only one
place that it could go, and that was Lanka, or Sri Lanka.
Sociological Colouration of Pre-existing Society

The successful counter-reformation or counter-revolutionideological,
sociological, and, interestingly, non-violent in terms of the well-known great
warspushed Buddhism to this little island to the South of India. Moreover,
there this philosophy was retained, one might even say contained, because unlike
to the North of the subcontinent where there was the Silk Route, this was an
island. Buddhism either converged or became an over-lay, on the ethnic
community, the Sinhalese, who may have auto-centrically evolved or come from
India, the latter view is open to debate.
The Sinhalese constituted the arithmetical majority of the island, roughly
two-thirds, living in two-thirds of the island. Three factors converged: ethnicity,
language (which is Sinhala) and the religion of Buddhism. Moreover, Buddhism
appraised itself as a philosophy rather than a religion. However, when it was
absorbed and retained by this island, it naturally took the sociological colouration
48
and configuration of the pre-existing society. And one might even say that it shifted
from a cerebral philosophy to a religion. Further, Sri Lanka was an island with
only one neighbour, the Maldives, and nothing to its south. The next constellation
of Buddhism was far away, in what is known as Indo-China, the Far EastLaos,
Cambodia and Myanmar. Thus, there was a strong amalgam of a religion which
no longer dominated, was almost non-existent and had no co-religionists in the
vast landmass of the Indian Subcontinent; and an ethno-linguistic community
which had no co-ethnics or co-religionists and a language which had some affinities
with one or two other languages in the area but was not spoken by a large collective
anywhere else in the world. Though for a language that was isolated in the island,
it developed considerably. It did not remain an underdeveloped language, and it
is said that at least one of the texts is among the oldest pieces of history writing:
the Mahavamsa.
Sri Lanka has been constituted by its relationship with India in terms of
migration, religious diffusion/transmission, as well as military interference and
power play, incursion and resistance. Sri Lanka is also defined by the dialectics of
its relationship with India.
India inheres in the very fabric of the island; or to change the metaphor, Sri
Lanka is an inverted and miniaturised mirror of India: the belief system of the
majority in the Southern two-thirds of the island is derived from the teachings
of, and is identified with the greatest son and sage of India, Gautam the Buddha,
while the minority in the Northern third of the island shares the same language
and ethnicity as those in the South of the Indian Subcontinent. In this strange
inversion, the domestic geopolitics of the island of Sri Lanka is the reverse, a
camera obscura, an upside down image of its giant neighbour India. In India, the
southernmost part contains Tamil Nadu: 70 million people, who speak the Tamil
language, consider themselves of the Tamil ethnicity and are for the most part
Hindu. On the island of Sri Lanka, which is separated from India by a very thin
strip of water, it is exactly the opposite. It is not the Southern tip but the Northern
tip that is pre-eminently Tamil. So, one-third, the top, of the island, is predominantly
Tamil, the southern two-thirds is predominantly Sinhala.
Interpretation of Facts
This domestic geopolitical configuration has given rise to a certain narrative.
(I would not call it a history because I do not know whether we are talking about
objective facts all the time.) From Nietzsche we know that interpretation is as
important, and perhaps more important, than factthough that itself is an
interpretation. The interpretation or the pre-eminent narrative, the hegemonic
narrative of the history of the island has been one of a southward push from
South India by the Tamil kings invading the island and leaving behind a residue
49
from ancient times: of constant waves pushing southward and the Sinhalese
pushing back northwards and attempting to rule the entire island. Therefore, this
is partly a story of dual power, of shifting balances in a bipolar situation and
much longer periods of unipolar hegemony. We can see how the geopolitical
configuration gives rise to a kind of a domestic geo-strategic narrative of competing
centres and bipolarity: one pole in the North attempts to be auto-centric, and
the other in the South, which considers that it has no strategic defence in depth
because it is a small island, attempts to constantly prevail, re-impose itself in a
project of unification or reunification, reconquista.
In this context, the aforementioned concepts of specificity and exceptionalism
become relevant. There are more than two major communities in Sri Lanka. In
terms of religion, there are Buddhists, Hindus, Christiansthe only religious
community comprising both Sinhalese and Tamils (about 7 per cent)and
Muslims. So, there are four religious communities, and two major ethno-lingual
communities. Each of these two ethno-linguistic communities has a specific,
distinctive kind of a collective psyche where both the Tamils and the Sinhalese
consider themselves at one and the same time a minority and a majority. The
Tamils feel that they are a minority on the island and therefore discriminated
against, and so oppose that discrimination, but at the same time they see themselves
as a majority because there are 70 million co-ethnics across the water and of course
another million in the diaspora including in the West. This is possibly why the
Tamil armed movements and even the unarmed Tamil nationalist parliamentary
parties will not accept the kind of solution that Northern Irelands Catholics,
including the Sinn Fein, have accepted. This strange duality is true also for the
Sinhalese. The Sinhalese feel that they are the majority on the island, and therefore,
they deserve a certain special status, but this is reinforced by the sense of being
a minority in the sub-region and in the larger region and in the global space.
Thus, there is a striving to assert as a majority but also to defend as a minority.
And the fact that Buddhism in what is considered in a pure or more rigorous
form (Theravada) is the most predominant faith among the Sinhalese gives them
a sense of exceptionalism. They are defending, protecting Buddhism in the area
in which Buddhism hardly exists, and a Buddhism which they feel is purer than
the variant of the doctrine found in Japan or China. If you look at it in terms of
the history of Christianity, the parallel is the kind of Catholicism that prevailed
on the Iberian Peninsula in Portugal and Spain until a few decades ago, a somewhat
rigid orthodoxy. This is part of the matrix of conflict.
Contemporary Violence
I would embed the contemporary violence and history in this aforementioned
matrix of conflict. It is in this matrix that the war took place, the war of 30 years.
50
Sri Lanka has been an independent state for 64 years, and a little under half of
this has been in a situation of war. Interestingly, these wars have not only been
between North and South or the two power centres which are preponderantly
Sinhalese and Tamils. There have also been wars, anti-systemic wars, waged by an
ultra-left insurgent movement, two insurrections in the South of Sri Lanka. Even
in the North, while the secessionist war was going on, there was a struggle between
the left of the Tamil movement which was drastically weakened and the ultranationalist right of the Tamil movement represented by the Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Now we have testimonies from former founder members
of the Tigers, testimonies which say that at the beginning of the movement, the
leader of the Tigers, Velupillai Prabhakaran, was already an admirer of Adolf Hitler,
that Mein Kampf had been translated and that even the LTTEs salute was the
fascist salute. (As a political scientist, I note that in the 1920s and 30s, in some
parts of Central and Eastern Europe, there were movements that were ethnonationalist but also of a fascist character.)
The two power centres on the island, almost naturally, instinctively, tried to
play the larger geopolitics of reaching out to allies, in the region and outside the
region, over the past 30 years. These attempts of alliance and of blocs of power
balancing underwent drastic, radical recomposition. It was not the same set of
alliances that prevailed during the period of 30 years. Most dramatic is the role
of India, which, because of Tamil Nadu, was originally supportive not of the
project of an independent Tamil country but of the armed movement as a kind
of counterweight to the central government in Sri Lanka, the power centre in
Colombo. For one phase of the war, from the late 1970s through the 1980s, Delhi
was dragged in by Tamil Nadu. The role that Tamil Nadu played and still plays
is rather like the role of Miami in the US, in relation to Cuba.
There was a dramatic turning point, when the grandson of Jawaharlal Nehru,
the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, used coercive diplomacy but played a kind
of Bonapartist balancing role and got the Sinhalese Government to sign a peace
accord which provided provincial autonomy to the Tamil majority areas and sent
a peace keeping force of 70,000 Indian troops to police this ceasefire. Now,
dramatic as that was, what was more dramatic and illustrative of the specificities
of the Tamil ultra-nationalist movement and of the Tamil Tigers was that the
Tigers far from supporting this reform and making it work, and perhaps playing
a longer term game of greater autonomy, instead fought a war against the Indian
peace-keeping force. Moreover, after the peace-keeping forces were withdrawn,
not least because of the Tamil Nadu politics, they assassinated Rajiv Gandhi using
a suicide bomber on the soil of Tamil Nadu. That caused a dramatic shift in all
these alliances, and from that point on, it was not that there was a convergence
or an open alliance between Colombo and Delhi but there was a steady
51
rapprochement. When the decisive stage of the war arrived three years ago, the
enormousand now, stronger than evergeopolitical weight of India was on
the side of the Sri Lankan State in determining the final outcome.
Element of Competition between China and India

From the point of view of geopolitics, it is also interesting that not only India
but also China supported the Sri Lankan State in the final phases of the war. It
is interesting because the relationship between India and China is not devoid of
an element of competition though there is great economic cooperation as well.
Why did India and China put aside their competition and support the Sri Lankan
State in the end game of the war? In this context, the term Eastphalia is relevant.
Even Henry Kissinger in his new book on China has made a pointmade by
others as wellthat the classic Westaphalian notion of state sovereignty which is
no longer observed strictly in the West, certainly in Europe, has migrated to Asia.
Why? I would reason that perhaps Asia is at that particular historical stage of
state-buildingwhich had been superseded by Europewhere national/state
sovereignty becomes of paramount importance.
Thus, it is the convergence of a particular historical moment and particular
geopolitical balances on the island, in the region and beyond, between the East
and the West, one may even say the global North and the South, which jointly
determined the outcome of the Sri Lankan conflict.
Certainly, the story is not over yet. It is still being played out, in the aftermath
of the war, in the debate and struggle on the kind of peace. While Sri Lanka has
won the war, could it lose the peace? We have seen this happen in the Middle
East in the decades after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War which Israel so brilliantly
won.
While domestic dynamics and dialectics led to the Sri Lankan war and its
outcome, we may, borrowing a term from Lacan and Althusser, say that geopolitics
played a role of over-determination.
Geo-strategic Imperatives of Co-existence

Sri Lanka views India from a Southern or Southernist perspective. In international
politics, a perspective from the south is quite distinctive. The third-worldist
perspective, later known as the perspective of the global south of global dynamics,
is well known. Moreover, a southern perspective is quite specific in terms of the
narrative, the causal relationship, and things look differently when viewed from
the south whether it is the tri-continental world looking at the global north or
whether it is a neighbour looking up at a great landmass. So, I would like to
draw attention to the southern vantage point, a rather legitimate notion in the
52
study of politics. (Interestingly, Antonio Gramsci, the great Italian political thinker,
often referred to the southern question within Italy too.)
Furthermore, Sri Lankas is a perspective from the periphery of India. One
may think that these two perspectives are co-terminus, but of course they are not
because India has a periphery that is not to its south, but Sri Lanka exists at the
southern periphery of India, and its relationship with India is, going by Sri Lankan
perceptions, mediated by the complex relationship between itself and Indias own
inner periphery, that of Tamil Nadu. So, it is a story of two or perhaps even three
intersecting peripheries: Tamil Nadu being the inner periphery of the Indian State,
northern Sri Lanka having co-ethnics from Tamil Nadu or Tamil Nadu being the
northern periphery of Sri Lanka, and the relationship between Sri Lanka and India
being perceived as filtered through and mediated by the relationship between these
two peripheries. In other words, Sri Lanka is on the periphery of India, the north
of Sri Lanka is Sri Lankas northern periphery, Tamil Nadu is the inner periphery,
or the southern periphery of India, and Sri Lanka is on Indias outer periphery
with the point of contact, or the interface being Tamil Nadu and Sri Lankas north.
It may be argued that this is a distortion and an exaggeration, but once again I
wish to remind that we are talking about the view from the south, the way things
look from the south and from a complex concatenation of peripheries internal
and external.
Sri Lankas relation to India is almost unique. There are no neighbours to the
south of Sri Lanka or around it except for the Maldives, and only the Indian
Ocean surrounds it right down to Antarctica. There is, as I have mentioned earlier,
no other landmass in which Sinhala is spoken by a community. Buddhism,
especially Theravada Buddhism, is not practiced in any adjacent land area, the
closest being Myanmar, Thailand and Indo-China. Thus, in geographic and
cultural terms, Sri Lanka stands alone, next to the giant India.
Even if the Tamil factor did not exist, Sri Lankas relationship with India would
be its most vital external relationship. However, in as much as the Northern part
of Sri Lanka ethnically mirrors the Southern part of India and is separated only
by a narrow strip of water, or in so far as there exists a demonstrable and felt
ethnic kinship between the Tamils of Northern Sri Lanka and those of the Tamil
Nadu state of India, the relationship with India is a vital constituent of its
management of the internal ethnic relationships, just as its relationship with its
own Tamil minority is intrinsic to the management of the larger and essential
relationship with its sole and giant neighbour India.
Given the demographic reality of an ethnic group that cross cuts the borders
of India and Sri Lanka, Sri Lankas Tamil issue is not only a domestic problem
for Sri Lanka, it is a domestic problem for India as well. For Sri Lanka, it is an
53
internal problem with an external dimension, while for India it is an external

problem with an internal (Tamil Nadu) dimension.
An unresolved problem with Sri Lankas Tamils can and probably will
jeopardise Sri Lankas relations with India. At the same time, a bad relationship
with India will deprive Sri Lanka of one of the instruments which can help safely
regulate its relations with the Tamil minority.
Given its aloneness on Indias doorstep, Sri Lanka cannot afford to sustain a
negative strategic relationship with India. For this reason too, it has to resolve the
problem with its own Tamil minority.
Similarly, given the fact that the Tamils and Sinhalese have to live together
on a small island, Sri Lanka has to resolve its problems, and for this it needs
Indias leverage; therefore, it needs good relations with India.
There is thus an existential imperative of dual co-existence: Sri Lankas coexistence with India and Sinhala co-existence with the Tamils. Co-existence would
be unsustainable and impossible if it were to be purely on the terms of one or the
otherIndia or Sri Lanka, Tamils or Sinhalese.
Indias is an ethnically multi-polar mosaic, which is safely accommodated by
a federal framework. Sri Lankas is an ethnically bipolar model, the bipolarity of
which must not be aggravatedespecially given the pull factor of the adjacent
Tamil Naduby a federal system. The Sinhalese majority will resist this, as it has
for half-a-century and as it fought secessionism for a quarter. Conversely, a unitary
system with no serious devolution of power, in a state that is non-secular and
gives a privileged place to one language and one religion, cannot be imposed on
the Tamil minority. The minority, let us recall, is not a minority in the sub-region.
It has leverage upon New Delhi through Chennai and on Washington DC through
the Tamil diaspora.
India cannot afford recrudescent Tamil Nadu separatism, which thrives on
the charge that New Delhi is insensitive to Tamil Nadus feelings for their ethnic
kin in Northern Sri Lanka. Tamil is an important and influential component of
the Indian Union; when push comes to shove, it could carry more weight than
Sri Lanka and the Sinhalese in New Delhi, Washington, Moscow and Beijing. If
faced with a serious crunch in domestic geo-politics, Delhi will choose Chennai
over Colombo. It is up to Sri Lanka to prevent matters coming to that.
Sri Lanka needs to countervail and neutralise the anti-Sinhala extremists in
Tamil Nadu and the Tamil diaspora. It can do so only by satisfying at least the
anti-Tiger Sri Lankan Tamils and the no less anti-Tiger Tamil Nadu elite fraction
of the all-India power-bloc (visibly represented by The Hindu newspaper grouping).
A bitter ethnic polarisation and socio-economically ruinous protracted
occupation is unavoidable unless sufficient political space is opened up at the
54
periphery and Colombo has Tamil allies/partners who are truly empowered. Tamil
(sub) nationalism cannot be contained by the status quo of the unitary, undevolved, non-secular Sri Lankan state structure and concomitant centralist
political culture.
The balanced solution of fullest autonomy within a unitary framework may
be opposed by smaller extremist and fundamentalist forces among the Sinhala
majority in the island. The grim reality though is that even at their most disruptive
and violent, these forces can do much less harm to the Sri Lankan State than a
potential decision by India, under mounting Tamil Nadu pressure, to tilt against
or simply stop tilting towards Sri Lanka, and a corresponding decision by Indias
strategic partner, the US, to mount economic pressure through multilateral
institutions and agencies. Under the unlamented George Bush Administration,
there was daylight between the positions of the US and the European Union (EU).
Under the incumbent and universally welcomed Barack Obama Administration,
there may be convergence between the positions of the US, EU and India on Sri
Lanka.
Dilemmas of Post-war Devolution

Devolution of power to a province which is a frontier or buffer, is a sensitive
affair, especially when the prospective administration may not be allies.
Maintaining a sufficiently strong but smart (not heavy) military presence in
the province, on its perimeter and embedded in small deployments within the
community (as recommended by David Petraeus COIN doctrine), could allay
Colombos security concerns. While the degree of devolution cannot be excessive,
a dilution and delay of devolution could have even worse consequences of a hostile
populace in a sensitively located province. Attempts to tamper with the
demographics of the area will only cause disaffection to deepenwhich would
undermine stability and security. The dominant Tamil nationalist party, the Tamil
National Alliances (TNA) recent election manifesto citing self-determination
(without even the qualification of internal) has further complicated its
relationship with the state and the Sinhala south in general which may perceive
its reluctance to drop the slogan as inflexibility on the part of a party which until
the defeat of the Tamil Tigers a year ago was a strident proxy of the LTTE.
What are the consequences for the Sinhalese and Tamils if the path of mutual
moderation and convergence is not taken or deferred? With the Southern/Sinhala
equivalent of the Sangh Parivar trying to compensate for the erosion of its electoral
representation, manifestations of Tamil civil disobedience could be met, as in the
past, with violent counter-measures. Both communities will pay heavily. The
Sinhalese will find that any use of coercion against unarmed Tamil federalists meets
globally and regionally with a reception entirely unlike cracking down on armed
55
Tamil secessionists (who murdered former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi). A restive
Tamil Nadu will cause worries for Delhi again. If Sri Lanka begins to lose the
legitimacy war (Emeritus Professor Richard Falks phrase), it will find itself
becoming an easier target for a combination of international players (far and near)
who see it as a pawn in the grand strategic power struggle (especially maritime)
in and for an emerging Asia. Sri Lankas most consistent friend, China, is too far
away to project power and in any case does not allow itself to be provoked into
conflicts, which will disturb the great harmony it requires in its external relations
for its overarching economic purpose.
Reading a spate of recent reports highly (and less than fairly) critical of Sri
Lanka, such as those of the International Crisis Group (ICG), Amnesty
International (AI), and Human Rights Watch (HRW), it is clear that a crucial
variable in the successful conclusion of the war against the LTTE was the conduct
of India, much to the dismay of the international humanitarian intervention
lobby and some in Western capitals. In the face of serious and targeted external
pressure, failure to fulfil Sri Lankas solemn and reiterated bilateral commitments
with India with respect to devolution will only leave it with a vital regional
umbrella furled.
Referring to the continued US presence in Asia, and the rise of China,
Singapores Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew spoke to the editor of Japans Asahi
Shimbun, seeking to enjoy the shade in the spot beneath where the branches of
those two great trees intertwine. It is in the interest of Sri Lanka to adopt the
same perspective with regard to India and China. The latter is too far away to
project power to its environs, while the former has demonstrated the clear ability
to do so during the tsunami, even up to Indonesia. So of course has the US,
much more impressively and far further. Speedily settling the Tamil issue in the
spirit bilaterally agreed upon with its great neighbour India is a security and
strategic imperative, which would enable Sri Lanka to pre-empt or contain the
threat of the near enemythe hostile elements in Tamil Naduand balance
against the far enemy, the pro-Tamil Eelam secessionist strand of the Tamil
diaspora and its sympathisers in the West.
PART II
MUTUAL PERCEPTIONS
EXPECTATIONS
AND
5
Perceptions and Memories: Making Sense of
Bangladeshs India Outlook
Partha S. Ghosh
The argument that the Bangladeshi society is divided between the Bengali
nationalists and the Bangladeshi nationalists, is not completely valid. There is
a fairly large cusp zone between the two, otherwise the Awami League (AL) and
the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) would not have alternated in power. At
the core of the recent controversy over the issue of dealing with the criminals of
the 1971 liberation war is the question of punishment and forgiveness. Did
Bangladesh forgive the war criminals all these years, and suddenly it has woken
up to punish them? Though efforts were made in the initial stages to punish those
who collaborated with the Pakistani military junta to suppress the Bengali freedom
struggle, nothing happened in the post-Mujib era to bring them to book.
Evidences, however, suggest that at the subcutaneous level the traumatic
memory of 1971 remained in public consciousness though Jamaat-i-Islami and
BNP did succeed in obfuscating the discourse by injecting into it the controversy
over secularism at the expense of Islam. In the same context, questions arose as
to what extent India too mattered in the collective memory of Bangladesh. Has
the political divide between Muslim Bengal and Hindu Bengal, which had its
first expression in the Partition of Bengal of 1905, been a matter of the past? Or,
has it remained as a constant fixture in the politics of East Bengal which neither
the Partition of India in 1947 nor the creation of Bangladesh in 1971 in which
India had a substantive and positive role to play could do away with? In what
way would Bangladesh be able to reconcile itself to the baggage of this multifaceted
60
memory and how would the process shape its India outlook? This paper tries to
understand precisely these issues.
Introduction
Historically, Bangladesh, or for that matter undivided Bengal, is a mix of HinduMuslim harmony and discord. If one looks at the way East Bengal was peopled,
which historian Richard Eaton has discussed,1 or the way one social community
was in the process of being constructed there during the same period based on
the sahajiya (meaning, easy-going) philosophy, which social anthropologist
Ramakrishna Mukherjee has explained,2 one would argue that had the British
intervention not taken place, probably, Bengalis would have emerged as one
composite nationality allowing neither Islam nor Hinduism to leave their divisive
marks. The divide started in the latter half of 19th century, in the aftermath of the
1857 revolt, which witnessed both Hindu and Muslim revivalism. Against this
background, on the one hand, Bengali Hindu historians started rewriting Indian
history to prove that the decline of India was a consequence of Muslim conquest
of India, meaning thereby that Muslims were aliens whose presence was detrimental
to Indias interests, and on the other, Islam started getting more rigidified which
found its expression in the Persianisation drive of the Bengali language, expunging
Sanskrit words and substituting them by Persian words, a subject that Sufia Uddin
has explained in detail.3
This emerging social dichotomy was reflected in the ways Hindus and
Muslims started viewing their opposition to the British rule. Thus, while the
Partition of Bengal in 1905 was seen by Bengali Hindus as a British ploy to strike
at the roots of Bengali nationalism (which was then in the forefront of Indian
nationalism), it was not viewed that way by Bengali Muslims. One can get a sense
of this divide in the officially sponsored Banglapedia, which has a chapter on the
event. It subscribes to the British logic that the 1905 Partition of Bengal was an
administrative decision to streamline the administration of Bengal. The Partition
of India in 1947 marked the culmination of the process. It was championed by
both Hindu and Muslim Bengalis, more so by the latter who went to the extent
of even trying to make Calcutta (former name, until 2000, for Kolkata) the capital
of East Bengal. It is not surprising, therefore, that this dichotomy would remain
in the postcolonial period. The difference is that while the assertion of secularism
in Indias constitution together with the Nehruvian emphasis on democracy and
socialism coupled with the rise of Leftism in West Bengal prevented Hindu
nationalism from raising its head to the critical level in those formative years, the
emphasis on Islam in Pakistan and the dominance of Muhajirs in the then politics
of the country allowed the pro-Islamist forces to thrive in Pakistan, including
East Pakistan/Bengal. How the introduction of Urdu as the national language
drove a wedge in Pakistans Islamic unity is another story.4
61
Three Influences, Three Events

The history of the Indian Subcontinent during the last 150 years has seen three
social trends vying for pre-eminence in South Asian politicsHindu nationalism,
Muslim nationalism and the composite Hindu-Muslim nationalism. In the
development of Bengal politics too, all these three trends have been equally relevant
but with a difference. In West Bengal, there is an added dimension of a Leftist
trend. To understand the respective influences of these trends on Bangladesh
politics vis--vis India and West Bengal, we would refer to three events, namely,
the Partition of Bengal in 1905, the Partition of India in 1947, and the creation
of Bangladesh in 1971. The first event (1905) can be explained through an analysis
of the second and third trends, the second (1947) can be explained through an
analysis of all the three trends and the third (1971) by the second and third trends.
In these three analyses are contained the germs of present Bangladeshs dichotomy
of Bengali versus Bangladeshi nationalisms and their impact on the countrys split
image of India.
It is commonplace to understand Bangladesh politics in binary terms: as a
contest between the forces of Bengali nationalism and those of Bangladeshi
nationalism, the first representing the composite Muslim-Hindu social ethos of
the nation, while the second the Islamic ethos at the cost of minority (Hindu)
interests. This kind of analysis does not hold water because between the two
elements there is a huge cusp zone which floats between the two depending upon
political and social circumstances which can be empirically tested. The alternation
in power of AL, the so-called Bengali nationalists, and BNP, the so-called
Bangladeshi nationalists, vindicates the point. The important point to note is that
in Bangladesh society there are strong pro-Islamic forces as well as strong prosecularist forces that vie for power, and their respective rise and fall depend on
their record of governance in which the role played by the international
community, most notably India and Saudi Arabia, matter a lot on account of
geographical, economic and cultural connections.
The Flashpoint Shahbag

The controversy over the Shahbag agitation of February 2013 hovered around
three questionspunishment, justification and pardon. Who did what during
the liberation war of Bangladesh and why not those responsible for suppressing
the freedom struggle in collaboration with the Pakistani military junta be brought
to book? While AL argued that such criminal elements which organised the
massacres of 1971 should be punished, the forces supporting the Islamists, most
notably the BNP and the Jamaat-i-Islami, tried to whitewash their crimes as most
of them formed the core of these parties. Since the politics of Bangladesh is
polarised, arguably, between secularists and Islamists, the issue assumed political
62
colour. In the late 1980s, too, it was a big issue when Jahanara Imam had become
a household name in the country for her forceful tirade against some of the war
criminals of 1971.5
Let us recapitulate some important developments prior to the Shahbag
agitation. After coming to power, following its victory in the elections held in
December 2008, the AL Government started the proceedings to try the proPakistan Islamist elements which had committed war crimes in 1971. In 2009,
the International Crimes Tribunal was set up, and in January 2010, Bangabandhu
Mujibur Rahmans killers were executed. In July, the same year, a number of Jamaat
leaders were arrested. In the next few months, the Fifth and the Seventh
Amendments to the Constitution were annulled. These amendments had
indemnified the assassins of the Bangabandhu and had legitimised the military
regimes, including that of H.M. Ershad. This opened the gates for all those who
had been victimised by the military regimes to seek justice in the courts of law.
Simultaneously, the AL Government also restored the secular character of the
country. The war crimes tribunal announced several verdicts, the most important
being the one in February 2013 about the Assistant Secretary of Jamaat-i-Islami,
Abdul Quader Molla. He was first given life imprisonment, but the pro-Liberation
forces wanted more stringent punishment, which meant the death sentence. The
social media went viral in making such a demand which eventually led to the
Shahbag agitation. Subsequently, the verdict was converted into capital
punishment, which was endorsed by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
The opposition to the Shahbag agitation came both from Jamaat and BNP,
but in their respective political positioning, a subtle difference was noticeable. For
Jamaat, the argument was that the agitationists were anti-Islamic in the garb of
secularists who must be taught a lesson for their heresy. True to their ideological
commitment, they brutally killed Ahmed Rajib Haider, a pro-Shahbag blogger, on
March 02, 2013 just outside his house. The BNP, however, took a political route
to decry the agitation. Unlike Jamaats violent rant, BNPs opposition was tempered
by a mixture of antagonism and moderation, for after all it was a leading political
party which had a significant presence in the aforementioned cusp zone. Thus,
while the BNP initially expressed its support for the Jamaat, it soon cautiously
welcomed the Shahbag protest. It, however, warned the government not to succumb
to street agitations demanding capital punishment for war criminals. It questioned
the legality of the court proceedings and launched a 60-hour general strike starting
from October 27, 2013. When the death sentence of Molla was carried out on
December 12, 2013, the party argued that as per the constitution of Bangladesh
the ruling AL Government had no legitimate authority to go on with the proceedings
of the International Crimes Tribunal. According to the constitution, the ruling
party must step down three months ahead of the national elections (scheduled for
63
January 2014) to make room for a free and fair election. Expectedly, the party
boycotted the election held on January 05, 2014 along with other opposition
parties resulting in a massive victory for the ruling AL.
Elections of 2014
In the absence of any electoral challenge, the election was a walkover for the AL.
Of the 300 elected seats, AL won 154 seats uncontested. In the remaining seats,
the contests were between AL and its rebel leaders or between AL and some friendly
parties. Overall, AL won 232 seats, which meant more than a two-third majority.
The percentage of voting was as low as less than 30 per cent compared to 2001
and 2008, when it was 74.37 per cent and 85.93 per cent, respectively. In the
election violence, at least 20 people lost their lives. Hindus in several places were
on the receiving end for their alleged support for the ruling party.6 Internationally,
Sheikh Hasina Wajed as the AL leader earned a bad name for failing the democracy
in the country. Indias approach was conciliatory to AL. India said that the election
was a constitutional requirement which should be left to the people of Bangladesh
and that the democratic processes must be allowed to take their own course.7
Memory as Collective Memory

In the current scenario of Bangladesh, the discourse is how much of vengeance
the tormented souls can think of perpetrating on the tormentors of 1971, how
much they can collectively remember of those traumatic events, what kind of
punishment they want to give to those responsible and, last but not the least,
should one forget and forgive and move ahead to build a new Bangladesh. How
long can Bangladesh nurture a split personality where even a consensus on who
is the father of the nation has not yet been built? From a long-term perspective,
was 1971 the starting point, or, behind that was another set of memories of a
Hindu-Muslim divide going back to the days of the second phase of the British
rule? One must not forget that had the verdict of the 1970 Pakistan general election
been honoured by the Pakistan military authorities, history would have taken a
different course. One must not as well forget that the Bangabandhu himself was
a failure as a democratic ruler. Therefore, even if AL seems to be in command
now, forces opposed to it are no less powerful and the situation can change
overnight. It is thus a clash of memories, 1905 and 1947 on the one hand and
1947 and 1971 on the other. Does international literature on memory research
give us any clue to make sense of these puzzles?
Evolution of Memory Research

Even in ancient times, many Greek social thinkers had preoccupied themselves
64
with the discourse on memory. However, it was only in the late 19th and early
20th century that a distinctly social perspective on memory emerged. The first
explicit use of the term was by Hugo von Hofmannsthal in 1902. He referred to
the damned up force of our mysterious ancestors within us. Still, no clear
sociological theory of memory was in place, and it was largely piled up layers of
accumulated collective memorya poetic allusion. Hofmannsthal distinguished
between autobiographical memory and historical memory, the former
representing the events in ones own life experienced directly while the latter
constituting the residuesevents by virtue of which groups claim a continuous
identity through time. Olick writes: The individuals memory is shaped by
personal recollections. But no one is alone with his or her memories. In fact,
each human being is influenced by events in the distant pastby a grandmothers
stories as well as by traditional rites, history lessons at school, films at the cinema.
Without such a collective perspective, after all, it is difficult to provide good
explanations of mythology, tradition, and heritage, among other long-term
symbolic patterns.8 It was, however, in 1925 that the exact phrase collective
memory was coined by the French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs: Entire
peoplesjust like religious or ethnic communities or familiesare capable of
maintaining a collective memory. In recent times, Aleida Assmann in
collaboration with her Egyptologist husband, Jan Assmann, has greatly contributed
to the further development of the notion. She is considered a pioneer of the
young subject Memory Studies, which in contrast to history, does not focus on
the past as such, but the forms in which this past is upheld in present
consciousness. According to her, Each I is connected with a we, from which
it draws fundamentals of its identity.9
Principles of Collective Memory

There are three principles for the analysis of collective memory. Firstly, collective
memory of an entire society is hardly monolithic though there is a tendency
amongst politicians, commentators and academics to invoke it that way. Collective
remembering is a complex phenomenon that involves numerous individuals,
practices, materials and themes. No society has one collective memory, and no
one is certain what kind of public memories would be produced. Olick writes,
It is important to remember the different demands on participants in different
discursive fields, such as politics or journalism, religion or the arts, and to
appreciate subtleties of context and inflection. Doing so, of course, makes it
difficult to judge a whole epoch or a whole society.10 Secondly, since history
and mythmaking go side by side, collective memory is seldom authentic. It is
often the case that history is invented to suit the requirements of the power elites.
As Barry Schwartz puts it, Sharp opposition between history and collective
65
memory has been our Achilles Heel, causing us to assert unwillingly, and often
despite ourselves, that what is not historical must be invented or constructed
which transforms collective memory study into a kind of cynical muckraking.11
Thirdly, collective memory is somethingor rather many thingswe do, and
not somethingor rather many thingswe have. We therefore need analytical
tools sensitive to its varieties, contradictions, and dynamism. How are
representations of and activities concerning the past organized [sic] socially and
culturally? When and why do they change? How can we begin to untangle the
diverse processes, procedures, and practices through which societies confront and
represent aspects of their pasts?12
Memory and Reconciliation

The memory discourse has close connection with the idea of social capital, which
is generated by connections among individuals and groupssocial networks and
the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. When social
cohesion weakens, social capital loses its effectiveness. Boundaries separating the
other are created and norms of mutual respect and tolerance are threatened.
Objects, events and histories are re-presented to rationalise suspicion and distrust.
From the normative sense, one is forced to ask what political and institutional
instruments would help in the expansion of social capital and in the making of
mature democracies. In the same context, one should show greater interest not in
the origins of memory but more in its effects in the present. William Gladstone
famously said that the cause of the problem in Ireland is that the Irish will never
forget and the British will never remember.13
Since the days of the Holocaust, there has been a growing literature on these
issues. The Rwandan and Bosnian massacres have given further fillip to the
discourse. The following is a 2005 statement of M. Subasdic, President of the
Association of Citizens Mothers of Srebrenica and Zepa Enclaves:
The word forgiveness insults me. It makes me victim again. I have never
been in [a] fight with anybody hence there is no need to forgive the other.
Nobody has the right to demand from the victim to forgive or to reconcile
with the offender. We want neither forgiveness nor reconciliation. All we
want is that each perpetrator gets its name and surname, hence to be
punished. It is a shame to talk about forgiveness while the main perpetrators
who have killed our children and husbands still have not faced legal
prosecutions.14
Martha Minow writes: To seek a path between vengeance and forgiveness is also
to seek a route between too much memory and too much forgetting. Too much
memory is a disease, comments Michael Roth. In his afterword to Death and
the Maiden, the chilling play of post-terror revenge and justice, Ariel Dorfman
66
writes, How do we keep the past alive without becoming its prisoner? How do
we forget it without risking its repetition in the future?15 She narrates the joint
efforts of Mona Weissmark, whose parents survived Nazi concentration camps,
and Ilona Kuphal, whose father was a Nazi SS officer, in organising a get-together
of the children of Nazis and those of the Holocaust with the intent of rebuilding
the future through explorations into their sense of guilt, anger and resentment
piled up in their memories. 16 Nelson Mandelas Truth and Reconciliation
Commission was a testimony as to how to put the idea into practice. The meeting
between Priyanka Gandhi, daughter of Rajiv Gandhi, and Nalini Sriharan, one
of the killers of Rajiv Gandhi, on April 15, 2008 in the Vellore jail (Tamil Nadu)
was yet another example of reconciliation of a dreadful past though it was at a
very personal level. Priyanka Gandhi reportedly said on her return to Delhi that
It was my way of coming to peace with the violence and loss that I have
experienced.
The Bangladesh Context

Did Bangladesh forgive its war criminals and has suddenly woken up? The answer
is: No. Even the countrys first Prime Minister Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib-ur
Rahman had banned the Jamaat and passed ordinances such as the Collaborators
Order and the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act. But his assassination in August
1975 and his growing loss of popularity before his death came in the way of
reaching these goals. The subsequent coming to power of his detractors reversed
the situation though many activists under the leadership of Jahanara Imam kept
the torch burning, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s.17
Indeed at the subcutaneous level, the painful memory of 1971 remained in
the public consciousness through literature such as Ekatturer Dinguli (Those Days
of 1971), Ami Birangana Bolchi (I, the Brave, Speaking) and Narir Ekattur (1971,
As Experienced by Women). The contribution of documentaries and cinema in
this regard was even more forceful. Some of these productions were Muktir Gaan
(The Song of Liberation), Shei Raater Kotha Boltey Eshechi (Came to narrate the
stories of those nights), The War Crimes Files and Itihash Konya (The Daughter of
History). It was not actually collective memory but collective remembrance
memory is the act of gathering bits and pieces of the past, joining them together
in public [but] it is the palpable messy activity which produces collective
remembrance.18 The Shahbag agitation, however, proved that the Jamaat and the
BNP have been successful in obfuscating the discourse by injecting the virus of
secularism versus IslamShahbag demonstrators are atheists, secularfundamentalists, Hindus and Indias agents.
67
Bangladeshs India Outlook

From the perspective of memory-policy interface, Bangladesh faces two
challengeshow to work out its Pakistan outlook on the one hand and how to
define its India outlook on the other. So far as the first is concerned, let us
paraphrase Gladstones statement mentioned above: The cause of the problem is
that the Bangladeshis would never forget and the Pakistanis would never remember.
Any reconciliation between Bangladesh and Pakistan which the Pakistan
Government would accept, given South Asias complicated strategic reality, must
start with an apology from Pakistan for what it did in 1971. Hamid Mir, the
Chief of Geo TV of Pakistan, had suggested exactly that:
I am sure that Pakistan is changing fast. A day will come very soon when
the government of Pakistan will officially say sorry to Bengalis and March
26th will become an apology day for patriotic Pakistanis. I want this apology
because Bengalis created Pakistan. I want this apology because Bengalis
supported the sister of Jinnah against General Ayub Khan. I want this
apology because I want to make a new relationship with the people of
Bangladesh. I dont want to live with my dirty past. I want to live in a
neat and clean future. I want a bright future not only for Pakistan but
also for Bangladesh. I want this apology because I love Pakistan and I love
Bangladesh. Happy Independence Day to my Bangladeshi brothers and
sisters.19
But Mirs advice has no takers in Pakistan.20 The execution of Mollah has been
protested at the highest political level, that is, in Pakistans National Assembly
which passed a resolution condemning the act. The Bangladesh Government
equally retaliated at this interference in its domestic affairs. Sheikh Hasina said it
was clear that Pakistan has proved that it never accepted the victory of Bangladesh
in the Liberation War of 1971, and they still have allies in Bangladesh.21
As long as Bangladeshs Pakistan outlook remains blurred, its India outlook
cannot be any clearer. The ghosts of 1947 and 1971 would keep haunting all the
three countries in three different ways. India would love to do away with Partition,
but Pakistan would love to cling to it; Pakistan would love to do away with its
dismemberment in 1971, but Bangladesh would love to cling to it. For both
Pakistan and Bangladesh, 1947 and 1971 are their umbilical cords. Flashbacking
this story to 1905, Bangladesh would have to handle its memory discourse at
two levels: one, Hindu zamindari oppression during the pre-Partition days which
justified the partitions of 1905 and 1947, and two, the indispensable Indian help
in its liberation struggle of 1971 but for which Bangladesh would not have been
created. While the former has its constituency in the pro-Islamic forces, the latter
in the secularist forces of the country which owe their origin essentially to the
days of the liberation movement. It is this dichotomy that gets epitomised in the
Bengali and Bangladeshi nationalisms. The way the Shahbag agitation gathered
68
momentum and then the way it was challenged prove the persistence of this social
divide. Indias split image in Bangladesh, therefore, is foreordained.
Conclusion
Perceptions and memories of Bangladesh about India are contradictory. The
country suffers from its collective memory of Hindu oppression during the colonial
times and at the same time from a sense of inferiority for it was India that was
its real liberator. The cleavage gets perpetuated because of lack of appreciation of
each others ways of thinking. Most Indians have no clues to the realities of
Bangladesh which is simply a potential den of future Taliban. Bangladeshs
ignorance about India is no less. Whenever I speak in Bengali in Bangladesh, a
common man on the street is surprised that I can speak Bengali. He is virtually
unaware that an almost equal number of Bengali speakers live in India. Both the
countries must be exposed to each other much more than what it is now to get
to know each other better. Jean Dreze and Amartya Sens 2013 book is an eye
opener to the world to know how that basket case (Henry Kissingers phrase)
Bangladesh is now ahead of India in terms of several social indicators.22
ENDNOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Richard M. Eaton, The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204-1760, Oxford University
Press, Delhi, 1994.
Ramakrishna Mukherjee, Nation-building in Bangladesh, in Rajni Kothari (ed.), State
and Nation Building, Allied Publishers, Bombay, 1976.
Sufia M. Uddin, Constructing Bangladesh: Religion, Ethnicity and Language in an Islamic
Nation, Vistaar, New Delhi, 2006.
For more on this point, see Partha S. Ghosh, Cooperation and Conflict in South Asia, Manohar,
New Delhi, 1989, pp. 20-22.
Partha S. Ghosh, Bangladesh at the Crossroads: Religion and Politics, Asian Survey, 32
(7), July 1993, pp. 697-710.
Garga Chatterjee, Bengali Hindus in Muslim-majority Bangladesh, The Hindu, New Delhi,
January 16, 2014 and Pranay Sharma, Half-Tone Country, Outlook, New Delhi, January
20, 2014, pp. 24-26.
Haroon Habib, Election amid Anarchy, Frontline, Chennai, February 07, 2014, p. 47.
Jefferey K. Olick, From Collective Memory to the Sociology of Mnemonic Practices and
Products, in Astrid Eril and Ansgar Nuenning (eds.), Cultural Memory Studies: An
Interdisciplinary Handbook, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2008, pp. 156-57.
Quoted in Christina Berndt, Constructing Memory, Humboldt Kosmos, Bonn, No. 94,
2009, p. 45.
Jefferey K. Olick, no. 8, pp. 158-59.
Ibid., p. 159.
Ibid.
Martha Minow, Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History after Genocide and Mass
Violence, Beacon Press, Boston, p. 119.
Nadine Murshid, The Shabag Uprising: War Crimes and Forgiveness, Economic and Political
Weekly, Mumbai, March 09, 2013, p. 14.

15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
69
Martha Minow, no. 13, pp. 118-19.

Ibid., p. 119.
For details, see Partha S. Ghosh, Conservative Ascendancy in Bangladesh, South Asian
Survey, 12 (2), New Delhi, July-December 2005, pp. 247-265.
Bina DCosta, War Crimes, Justice and the Politics of Memory, Economic and Political
Weekly, Mumbai, March 23, 2013, p. 43. It may be noted that any genocide is always an
important element of remembrance, but its quantification can sometimes be politicised as
it has happened in Bangladesh. The statement of Mujibur Rehman after his release from
the Pakistani jail to triumphantly return to the newly created nation of Bangladesh in 1972
as its leader was one of that kind. He said that three million Bengalis had perished in the
hands of the Pakistani military junta, a figure which has assumed iconic sanctity ever since
particularly among the forces supportive of the liberation struggle. Though several estimates
in subsequent years have shown that that it was not more than 300,000 to 500,000, still
it is virtually a blasphemy in Awami League circles to question this figure. In early 2014,
this was dramatically demonstrated when the on-going War Crimes Tribunal initiated
contempt proceedings against a Bangladesh-based British journalist, David Bergman, for
questioning the death toll during the liberation war. In an article published in an Indian
newspaper, the journalist convincingly proved that the three-million-figure was not a wellfounded one. See David Bergman, Questioning an Iconic Number, The Hindu, New Delhi,
April 24, 2014.
Hamid Mir, Apology Day for Pakistanis, Point Counterpoint, March 30, 2010.
Hamid Mir was recently violently attacked, ostensibly for his these kinds of sentiments
which were not what an important section of the Pakistani ruling establishment would like
to hear. See Hamid Mir, The Truth will Set us Free, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, May
10, 2014.
Strategic Digest, New Delhi, January 2014, p. 46.
Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen, An Uncertain Glory: India and its Contradictions, Allen Lane,
New Delhi, 2013.
6
Changing Dynamics in Nepal-India
Relations
Dinesh Bhattarai
Nepal-India relations are multidimensional, unique in character and scope. The

relations recognise the complete sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence
of each other. Nepal shares borders with India (south, east, and west) and China
(north), and enjoys with them historic and friendly relations, which have acquired
new dimensions and dynamics over the years. While relations with the two
neighbouring countries are the lynchpin of Nepals international relations, the
geopolitical realities and wide-ranging relations with India make it an indispensable
neighbour. Probably no other neighbours in the world share so many similarities
and comprehensively interact on a daily basis both at the government and peoples
level. The bilateral relations are deep-rooted and interdependent, yet they have
reoccurring irritants, constraints and complexities born out of misperceptions and
conflicting narratives of the emerging dynamics. The gap between fact and fiction
has blurred the necessary debate on core issues in Nepal-India relations, and has
added new complexities. Since 2006, Nepal has been undergoing historic democratic
transformation after over a decade-long armed conflict (1996-2006) and struggling
to institutionalise democracy. A rare second Constituent Assembly (CA) election
was held on November 19, 2013 as the first CA failed to deliver a constitution.
While the prolonged political stalemate continues within Nepal, emerging
dynamics at both domestic and external fronts are causing shifts in areas of security,
political and economic power and social values. The global power shift to the
Asia-Pacific region based on the economic growth of China and India has brought
71
Nepals neighboursIndia and Chinainto prominence in global affairs. Their

rise puts Nepal on the geo-strategic spotlight without it being a beneficiary of
their rapid economic transformation. The recent pivoting to Asia in American
foreign policy further adds to the significance of Nepal. Reviewing facts from
emerging dynamics, this paper seeks to present an overview of historical
perceptions, political mindsets, values, and attitudes towards these dynamics. It
intends to look at how the emerging dynamics are shaping Nepal-India relations
and how they can be adjusted to make the best and most from the existing
opportunities.
Background
Nepals relations with India are intimate, complex, multifaceted and unique in
character and scope. The relations between the two countries have acquired new
dimensions and dynamics over the years. Nepal shares its borders with both India
and China and enjoys with them historic and friendly relations that are under
more scrutiny than usual.1 While relations with both the neighbours takethe
highest priority, the geographical reality and historical, socio-economic and cultural
affinities make ties with India, operating on a daily basis both at the peoples and
governments level, crucially important.
The international relations being the realm of great power politics,2 added
by the recent power shift to Asia based on the growth of India and China, have
heightened geopolitical interests on Nepal, historically termed as a yam between
the two big boulders. The simultaneous and cooperative rise of China and India,
which together have 40 per cent of the worlds people, has brought the gravity of
geopolitics and geo-economics to the region. They have emerged as the two fastest
growing economic powers and emerging markets from the shadows of Europe,
Japan and the US that dominated world affairs during most of the 19th and 20th
centuries.3 The speed, scale and reach of Chinas rise are without precedent in
modern history. Within just 30 years, Chinas economy has grown from smaller
than that of the Netherlands to larger than those of all other countries except the
US. If China soon becomes the largest economy, it will be the first time since
George III that a non-English speaking, non-Western and non-democratic country
would be leading the global economy.4
The ongoing fundamental transformation of the economy of India and China
has brought in an unprecedented range of opportunities and challenges at Nepals
doorsteps. Nepal can find a better place in the emerging world order by reprising
its historical role as a vibrant bridge between India and China.5 It needs to work
wisely amidst its interminable political transition, to benefit from its proximities
to these economic powerhouses, and contribute to the construction of a shared
peaceful, stable, democratic and prosperous order.
72
The current deadlock in international discussions on trade and climate change,

energy, food security and conflicts over water can be attributed to the big
geopolitical transformation that accompanies the rise of emerging countries in
the world economy. The politics of resources for development has been one of
the commanding factors shaping global politics today. China and India as planetary
powers are shaping the global biosphere, and are therefore central to whether the
world succeeds in building a healthy, prosperous and environmentally sustainable
future for the next generation.6
History testifies to the fact that political and strategic power has followed
economic power. The increased global attention on the region is not without
considerable significance for Nepal. Chinese power in Tibet is no less of an issue
today.7 Nepals proximity and affinity to Tibet has made it a meeting point of
overlapping and intersecting interests of various kinds for multiple power centres
including that of the European Union and the US. The recent pivot or rebalancing
strategy in American foreign policy focusing on strategic significance of Asia as
a counter balance to the Chinese giant, is being watched with great interest not
because China is perceived as a threat but because governments in Asia are
uncertain what a China dominated region would mean.8
Under the new circumstances, gone are the days of Nepals parroting the past
policy and tacking northward or southward as the occasion demanded and as
a tactic rather than a policy with severe limitations on its utility.9 This places the
conduct of Nepals relations with its immediate neighbours on highest priority at
a time when it is passing through the most critical phase in its history and remains
one of the poorest and most politically turbulent countries in Asia.
As stated earlier, no other neighbours in the world probably share so many
similarities and interact as comprehensively and regularly as Nepal and India do.
They continue to be dominated more by historical antecedents than by the
demand of time and context.10 Personalities, traditional institutions and their
political cultures have influenced their domestic policies and external relations. It
has been aptly stated that There is much that binds and little that divides our
two countries except the fact that, politically, the two are separate and distinct
entities.11 The deeply interdependent relations, however, often exhibit reoccurring
irritants that emanate from misperceptions and conflicting narratives of emerging
dynamics. It seems the structure of parties elites and their game of political survival
is not fundamentally different from their predecessors, regardless of the change
of political system and the composition of the elites. Thus, an elite approach to
Indo-Nepal relations is as much significant today as the determinants of
bilateralism.12
The dynamics of India-Nepal relations have been inextricably linked with
that of domestic political developments in the two countries.13 This makes the
73
mutual interests on either side immediate and wider. Unlike Nepals relations with
other countries, Nepal-India relations tend to be easily politicised due to the
domestication of relations. There has been a tendency to link each domestic issue
with India, as if India has all the leverage against Nepal.14 It is argued that political
culture created and nurtured during the underground movement is not sacrosanct
for the constitutional processes. The movement parties that dramatically
transformed themselves into the new evolutionary roles in the post-movement
phase still need to follow a modest democratic culture.15 Parties often carry on
with their own standard of political culture, which sometimes appeared to be
more parochial than opting for shared gains.
The blind jingoism of some political parties often hurts bilateral relationships.
When nationalism is equated to anti-Indianism by some left or left-leaning parties,
especially, while in opposition, bilateral relationship between Nepal and India
remain unclear when such parties come into power. In a scathing criticism of the
narrow and blind nationalism that afflicts sections of Nepals political class
particularly the left, including his own party, a senior communist leader underlined
the need for the country to shed its suspicion of Indian actions.16 Such double
standards often create confusion, turning Nepali official position unclear and
vague.17
Nepal matters to India for all sorts of deep historical, cultural and economic
ties. Moreover, with Nepal forming a key part of the sacred geography of
Hinduism, the large southern population of relatively recent Indian origin or with
close ties to India; a degree of competition with China for influence in the South
Asian region; and more recent concerns over Indias vulnerability to a terrorist
attack mounted through Nepal, 18 the country is bound to be particularly
important to India.Since no part of national life remains untouched in the
spectrum of Nepal-India relations, several lenses are used to observe them. The
gap between perception and reality has blurred the necessary debate on core issues
in Nepal-India relations, and has added to the complexity in bilateral ties. With
great discrepancy between perceptions and realities, the results to a countrys
foreign policy may be disastrous.19 For a clear and better understanding of the
perceptions of both the countries and creating a congenial environment for
cooperative partnership, it is necessary to have discourses in the complexity of
geo-politics and emerging dynamics in bilateral relationship.
Political scientists have identified a host of areas of divergent security
perceptions, conventional approach to Indo-Nepal relations, external factors, either
perceived or real that generate conflict and lack of understanding of Indo-Nepal
relations.20 Some political parties and policymakers are said to have three negative
perceptions about India: First, a weak Nepal is in Indias interest; second, India
always tries to extract maximum concessions from a falling regime and ends up
74
supporting the emerging ruler, and third, it extends hospitality to rebel political
personalities or organisations to use them as a leverage with the Nepali regime of
the day.21
The problems between Nepal and India also emanate from open borders, the
1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, human trafficking, Gurkha recruitment,
cross-border criminal activities, movement of terrorists across the border, growth
of religious fundamentalism, Nepals ballooning trade deficit, delayed
implementation of agreed projects, politicisation of the utilisation of water
resources, economic offences includingfake currency, presence of extra regional
powers in Nepal, anti-India feelings in Nepal and anti-Nepal activities in India,
mistreatment of Nepali workers and concerns of Indian business houses in Nepal.
Covering all these issues is beyond the scope of this article. This paper will focus
on pressing issues in Nepal-India relations and recent developments including
the dynamics of the peace process. The engagement of the West including that of
the United Nations (UN) in the peace process and Indias approach to these issues
will be discussed here. This paper will also look at the role of the emerging
dynamics in Nepal-India relations and how it can be adjusted to create conducive
environment for both the countries.
Changing Dynamics: Rise and Revolt of Maoists

Ever since Nepal was unified in 1769, Nepali politics and external relations have
witnessed sea changes, new dimensions and dynamics. There has been rise and
fall of ruling families in Nepali politics. History is full of internecine conflicts
and conspiratorial politics within the ruling families for power struggle taking
the forms of coups, counter coups, plots and counter plots against each other.
This struggle for power within the ruling establishment paved the way for outsiders
to influence the evolution of internal politics and weaken the countrys external
freedom of manoeuvres. Rana family that ruled Nepal for 104 years (1847-1951)
with an iron hand sought British support to perpetuate its autocratic rule, and
kept the country in isolation from the rest of the world. The regime was, however,
able to maintain countrys independence and sovereignty.
The popular revolution of 1950-51 led by the Nepali Congress (NC) party
overthrew the Rana regime. The monarchy that was captive during the Rana period
came into prominence following the Nepali freedom movement, which had its
origin in the Indian soil, and to a large extent the Indian nationalist movement
served as a model and inspiration to the Nepalese.22 Prime Minister Jawaharlal
Nehru of India brokered an agreement in February 1951, popularly known as the
Delhi Agreement, and supported gradual transition to democracy in Nepal.23 Nepal
had diplomatic relations with just four countries until 1950 that included the
United Kingdom (1815), the US (1947), India (1947) and France (1949). The
75
diversification of diplomatic relations after 1950 (the number now stands at 138)
has introduced new dimensions and dynamics in Nepals international relations.
Post 1950s, incessant internal conflicts among the political parties gave
political space to the king to manoeuvre, manipulate and prevail in the day-today governance. The king dissolved the first democratic constitution of the country,
abolished an elected parliament and imprisoned the first democratically-elected
Prime Minister B.P. Koirala and his cabinet colleagues without any charges when
they were just 18 months (1959-1960) into office, thereby throttling the
parliamentary system of democracy. India expressed regret over the end of
democratic experiment and called it a setback to democracy.24 NC launched a
movement against kings moves but was neutralised following Sino-Indian War
of 1962. The king introduced a partyless panchayat system, which continued until
the restoration of the parliamentary system of democracy in 1990.
The use of foreign policy issues in the domestic power play is a glaring
dynamics in Nepals relations with India. Nepali politicians have long invited
Indian involvement by turning to the Indian Government for support against
their rivals.25 However, the difference is noted during the B.P. Koirala-led
government that did not feel the need to use foreign policy as a means of
strengthening its political position.26 In the years that followed, the king started
to appease the political parties who opposed NC, and permitted them to function
despite the fact that political parties were banned in Nepal. The leftist parties
were even encouraged at times27 and awarded key positions in the state structures
to counter the democratic forces. The king and the communists worked hand in
glove and overtly adopted an anti-India posture under the cover of nationalism,
farsightedness and progressivism, and termed NC as an anti-nationalist party.
The Sino-Indian war in October 1962 changed the regional power balance
and led India to pay more attention to its security concerns in the Nepalese sector
of the Himalayas than to the establishment of parliamentary government in
Nepal.28 NC suspended its movement against the royal rule. India appeared to
be more accommodating toward the royal regime than toward the struggle of
the NC.29 In subsequent years, India maintained a faade of sympathy for the
opposition forces by allowing the opposition democratic forces and leftist forces
to reside in India. Such sympathy was often overshadowed by Indias desire to
appease the monarchy as a means to ensure stability in the Himalayan region.30
Restrictions were placed on political activities of Nepals democratic forces in India.
Against the unfolding strategic developments in South Asia and the growing
tendency to look to foreign hands in Nepal, B.P. Koirala felt that national crisis
was taking a turn for the worst, endangering the very existence of Nepal.31
He called democracy as a prerequisite for countrys survival and returned home
from exile to work for his policy of national unity and reconciliation.
76
Following Koiralas return, the tight political climate gradually eased out, with
the declaration of the national referendum that put question on the partyless
Panchayat system for the first time. Panchayat system through manipulated
referendum results continued with more contradictions amidst internal repression.
Sharp disagreements surfaced in the late 1980s between India and Nepal on
economic and security matters particularly over Nepals purchase of weapons from
China in May 1988 and non-renewal of trade and transit treaties between the
two countries. Peoples Movement of 1990 highlighted the total failure of the
system to respect peoples democratic rights, provide economic security to them
and maintain the best of relations with neighbouring countries particularly India.
When the movement was at its peak, an Indian delegation led by Foreign Secretary
S.K. Singh reached Kathmandu with a proposal to conclude a new treaty. It seemed
to the Nepali people that the Government of India was eager to strike an
advantageous deal with a tottering establishment in Nepal, regardless of the popular
sentiments32 and amidst voices in Indian political circles which was of the view
that we do not want a relationship with one person only. It was the people to
people relationship that mattered.33 The popular movement, however, succeeded
in restoring the parliamentary system of democracy. The ensuing transition faced
intense struggle between traditional and democratic forces for the primacy of
priority and place in the new democratic set up.
Though a new constitution, considered a unique role model by its creators,
was promulgated in 1990 with provision for a parliamentary democratic system
and a constitutional monarchy, but barely six years into the practice, democracy
came under sharp attack from the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).34 Maoists
called for the revision of discriminatory treaties with India and strict regulation
of the open border. They repeatedly claimed that Indian expansionist designs
were the most crucial factor in the underdevelopment of Nepal.35
Amidst the ongoing armed revolt by the Maoists, King Birendra, Queen
Aishwarya and all members of their family were decimated under mysterious
circumstances on June 01, 2001. The blame for this carnage was placed on severely
inebriated Crown Prince Dipendra who shot himself to death. Prince Gyanendra,
brother of the late king, was thereafter crowned as the King of Nepal on June 04,
2001. The new king took unconstitutional and arbitrary steps in the name of
removing difficulties under Article 127 of the 1990 constitution. The three-way
power struggle between an assertive king who wanted to be seen in action;
parliamentary political parties devoid of capacity, vision and leadership to push
for political and economic reforms; and the rebel Maoists who identified the issues
without the required capacity to address them, intensified in the following years.36
Though the Maoist revolt appeared to be a product of internal social, political
and economic dynamics, it was not without external linkages. Owing to Nepals
77
open border with India, the Maoists successfully used the Indian territory as safe
haven and its base from which to plan operations,37 and built a robust support
network supplying trained manpower, weapons and finances into Midwestern
Nepal.38 The Maoists were reported to be creating bases of their own in the
inaccessible areas of north Bihar region to target security forces in Nepal.39 Whereas
India declared Maoists as terrorists long before Nepal did, and though New Delhi
promised Nepal its increased support in denying the Maoists sanctuary in the
Indian territory, yet the main international support base of the Maoists was
primarily in neighbouring India.40 Maoist leaders in June 2002 assured the Indian
leaders in writing that they wanted the best of relations with India and would
not do anything to harm its critical interests.41 Some communist politicians in
Nepal see this as a threat of Indian expansionism in Nepal, and consider that
India has been using Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) to serve its
interests in Nepal.42
Maoists maintained links with the Peoples War Group (PWG) and
Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organisations in South Asia
(COMPOSA)which are active in some Indian states such as Andhra Pradesh,
Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar. Their coming together was said to be for
strengthening functional unity among the ultra-left parties and to further heighten
the Peoples War being launched in South Asia. The Maoists also established ties
with the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) and other insurgent groups
in Indias northeast. It is also believed that the Maoists had ties with the Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) of Sri Lanka.43 Maoist chief had termed Sri Lankas
Tamil Tigers as an organisation of the brave.
Despite adopting the ideology of Mao Zedong, there is no evidence that the
Maoists received any support from China.44 China viewed Nepals Maoists as
anti-government outfits, who were misusing the name of the great Chinese
helmsman, and can serve as an excuse for the international anti-China forces to
create troubles.45 Though China termed the absolute takeover by the king in
2005 an internal matter, it later noted the change of politics in Nepal and felt the
need for all parties in Nepal to narrow down their differences. It was a clear signal
to the palace.46 This was a perceptible shift in Chinas Nepal policy since March
2006 when State Councillor Tang Jiaxuan met political leaders and urged the
king to reach out to the political parties to restore democracy and peace in the
country.47 Since the start of the peace process, China has been playing a proactive
role to determine the future shape of Nepali politics. The Chinese leadership
believes that any political instability in Nepal has a bearing on Chinas Tibet
Autonomous Region (TAR).48 This has enhanced the significance of Nepal as the
next-door neighbour to Tibet.
78
End of Armed Conflict with Indias Help

There are three rather different poles to international engagement with Nepal.
India and China each has its own distinctive interests in Nepal. Then there is
what is commonly called the donor community. This includes the UN,
represented by some 20 different agencies, and the major bilateral development
partners: the UK, the EU, Japan, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Germany, the
Netherlands, the US, Australia and Canada.49
Indias role in Nepals transformation has been predominant. The 12-point
understanding between the agitating political parties and the armed Maoist rebels
which concluded in 2005 in Delhi played a very important role in the political
evolution of Nepal, clearing the way for the Maoists to join the political
mainstream.50 It underlined the need for implementing the concept of full
democracy through a forward-looking restructuring of the state to resolve the
problems related to all sectors including class, caste, gender, region, political,
economic, and social and cultural by bringing the autocratic monarchy to an end
and establishing full democracy.51 After the success of Jana Andolan (Peoples
Movement) in 2006, the king issued a proclamation, which was virtually dictated
by G.P. Koirala in consultation with other Seven Party Alliance (SPA) members
and the Indian Embassy.52 The proclamation restored the parliament, which
through its May 18, 2006 resolution stripped the king of all his executive powers,
moved towards the abolition of the autocratic monarchy and the establishment
of full-fledged democracy by safeguarding the achievements of the 1990 Peoples
Movement and institutionalising the achievements of the present Peoples
Movement It also declared that Nepal shall be a secular state53 though it was
not a part of the 12-point understanding and demands of the movement.
Indias role was recognised by the UN Secretary General (UNSG) Ban
Ki-moon, who thanked India for her engagement in Nepal and said that itsrole
is important for the successful transition of Nepal to democracy and stability.54
However, various publications talked of secrets of Indias heavy influence on
Nepals political activities. These publications perceived that India trying to
micromanage Nepal would be detrimental to it and hamper its relationship with
Nepal.55 To the larger world, including China, the Maoist leadership works more
closely with India. This is also reflected in China not inviting Baburam Bhattarai
during nearly two years of his premiership, apparently because of that suspicion;56
however, Bhattarai was invited to a week-long private visit to China beginning
on May 07, 2014 at the expense of the Chinese Government.
79
Peace Process and the UN

Ever since the then Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, publicly offered to
use his good offices in 2003 to seek an end to an increasingly bloody armed conflict
between the Maoist insurgents and the state in Nepal, the UN engaged itself with
various actors in support of Nepals peace process. The UN in-country involvement
with the conflict deepened when, in April 2005, the government of King
Gyanendra sought to defuse international condemnation of both conflict-related
abuses and its violations of democratic rights by accepting the establishment of
the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Nepal (OHCHRNepal). Later, parliamentary parties, the Maoist leadership and civil society, all
lobbied for the presence of UN in Nepal to assist in the peace process.57 The
engagement further deepened after the Government of Nepal and the rebels
formally wrote to the UN on August 09, 2006 inviting it to:
continue its human rights monitoring through OHCHR-Nepal;
assist the monitoring of the Code of Conduct during the Ceasefire;
seek UN assistance in the management of arms and armed personnel of
both the sides;
deploy qualified civilian personnel to monitor and verify the confinement
of CPN-M combatants and their weapons within designated cantonment
areas;
monitor Nepal Army to ensure that it remains in its barracks and its
weapons are not used for or against any side; and
provide election observation facility during the election of the CA.58
The mandate was incorporated in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA)
signed on November 22, 2006. The CPA formally ended the armed conflict and
turned the ceasefire into the peace process. Over 19,602 Maoist combatants were
sheltered in various cantonments throughout the country after UN verification.
CPA provided the much-needed ground towards institutionalising the democratic
gains made by the movement. Subsequent months saw the adoption of Interim
Constitutiona consensus document among the political parties and
establishment of the Interim Parliament with a significant number of
representatives from the Maoist Party through nomination. This made the Maoist
party one of the major actors in the transformation process.
The UN Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) was established in 2007 with the
mandate to monitor the management of arms and armed personnel of both sides,
to assist in the monitoring of ceasefire arrangements, and to provide technical
support for the planning, preparation and conduct of the election of a Constituent
Assembly in a free and fair atmosphere, in consultation with the parties.59 India
reluctantly accepted the need for any UN role, and initially hoped that Nepal
80
could be kept away from the Security Council. Delhi certainly did not want to
see a UN peacekeeping force in a neighbouring country with which it has an
open border.60 India was feeling increasingly uncomfortable about the UN presence
in Nepal.61 It was mainly Nepals deference to Indian wishes that precluded a
request for the UN technical assistance to resolving security sector issues in the
mandate and staffing of the mission.62
The CA elections on April 10, 2008 produced an Assembly with the Maoists
as the largest political party, winning 38 percent of seats (30 per cent of the vote).
The post-election phase witnessed the most serious breakdown in power sharing
and consensual decision-making. The shock saw the end of cooperation among
the major parties, which could not be achieved either by a Maoist-led coalition
or by a coalition without the Maoist which replaced it.63
The UNMIN sought extension of the original mandate. But deference in
views of Nepali political leaders and of Security Council members to Indian
opposition to a larger UN role stood in the way.64 The UNMIN though initially
came on a high note, its acts were publicly criticised for not monitoring Maoists
movement, and letting the Maoists get away with not registering weapons. It also
did not care about the consequent tensions in the cantonments and barracks.
Further, the UNMIN was criticised for accepting thousands of combatants who
had never been part of the Maoists army in the verification process, thus making
them potentially eligible for integration into the state security forces. It also failed
in the task of supervising the Maoists in cantonments.65 Its chief was said not to
have acted as a referee, but as the Cultural Tsar of the West consolidating its
strategic and cultural interest.66 India remained extremely sensitive about
international meddling in what it considered to be its sphere of influence. It was
concerned that the UN would use the Madhesi card to steadily expand its
mandate and term to stay on and treat Nepal as its protectorate.67 The UNMIN
term ended in January 2011 without resolving the management of the Maoist
combatants. India was blamed for being instrumental in pushing the Mission
out of its backyard; the reason supposedly was that the presence of the UN had
thwarted Indias desire to control the political process in Nepal.68 With the
UNMINs departure, it seemed inevitable that India would have to step up to
more of a leadership role.69 The OHCHR also left the country in 2012 as the
government refused to grant further extension.
Open Border between Nepal and India

Nepal and India share an open border; people on either side cross the border
daily in hundreds of thousands for socio-cultural and economic purposes. Activities
related to human, arms and drug trafficking, and kidnapping and economic
offences, are also reported from across the border. It is often highlighted that Indian
81
security personnel cross into Nepal to carry out their searches and arrests without
informing Nepali authorities. Politicians and scholars alike often take up border
issues to flare up nationalism. After having resigned as prime minister on the
issue of dismissing the army chief in 2009, Pushpa Kamal Dahal found it
convenient to use the term foreign lordmeaning Indiabehind the reasons
for his resignation, raised the issue of civilian supremacy, stirred up Nepali
nationalism of Panchayat-era, strongly marked by anti-India rhetoric, and took
flag marches to border areas in the South. Scholars in Nepal say that the border
was encroached at 53 places 10 years back, and it has reached 71 places to-date.70
A leading Nepali weekly editorialised that after having arrested two terrorists
and taken them to India without the knowledge of Nepal police, Indian security
forces repeated their high handedness in carrying out a raid in a private house in
Gulariya of Bardia District of Western Nepal in search of criminals, who fled
India after committing crimes there. The editorial termed it as unfortunate for a
democratic country to have openly encroached another sovereign country.71 Some
are of the view that India deals with Nepal in an undignified manner, as if Nepal
was nothing but its wagging tail.72 The Nepali elites overwhelmingly feel that
repetition of the Gulariya chapter could stoke the issue of self-dignity73 and
sovereignty. One of the early reactions to the raid came from former prime minister
and senior Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) leader Baburam Bhattarai
in his tweet, Incursion of Indian police in Bardia is a gross violation of Nepali
sovereignty.74 This exposes the high vulnerability of the open border to misuse
to each others detriment. The management of open border calls for close
cooperation and increased intelligence sharing between the intelligence and security
agencies of two countries.75
Treaty of Peace and Friendship 1950

The 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Nepal and India and the Letters
of Exchange (LoE) attached to the treaty on July 31, 1950 are indicative of the
depth of Nepal-India friendship and also perceived as a source of problems. The
Treaty along with the LoE and the 1965 Agreement on Arms appeared to have
been carefully designed to insulate the Chinese influence from the south of
Himalayas. The 1965 Agreement remained secret until revealed by a newspaper
in March 1989. India considers Nepali Himalayas as a common defence to be
protected by both Nepal and India. Two overriding factors remained instrumental
in formulating the 1950 Treaty. These include clear assertion of the Chinese
sovereignty in Tibet and increasing probability of an armed revolution in Nepal,76
affecting the Gangetic belt, the heartland of India. India thought any violent
upheavals in Nepal could create anarchy and chaos and lead to communist
takeover.
82
The Treaty is a pointer to Indias intention to keep Nepal within its sphere of
influence.77 The LoE, interpreted as penalty clauses imposed by a big power over
a small one, 78 were made public in 1959 and contained far more important
provisions than the treaty itself. They contained clauses requiring the two
governments to consult each other and devise effective counter measures, which
required seeking the assistance and agreement of India for the import of arms and
ammunition or warlike materials. They also mentioned that both the governments
agreed not to employ any foreigners whose activities may be prejudicial to the
security of the other.79 An aide memoire handed over to Nepal by the Government
of India in July 1958 demanded among others that Nepal consult the Government
of India to any matters relating to foreign policy or relations with foreign powers,
with a view to coordinate policy, in particular in matters relating to the relations
with Tibet and China.80 The review of the 1950 Treaty is, therefore, one of the
major issues in Nepal-India relations. Political parties in Nepal feel that many of
treaty clauses are an affront to the dignity of Nepal.
From Monarchy to Republic

The CA on May 28, 2008 declared Nepal a federal, democratic, republic state
by legally ending the monarchy.81 It was an important day for Nepal to fulfil the
long held aspirations of its people for sustained peace, stability, development,
economic and social progress, rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms.
It was also hoped that a democratic constitution will be drafted through peoples
representatives. The Assembly served an ultimatum on the king to vacate the palace
by June 15. On June 11, the last king of the Shah Dynasty left the Narayanhity
Royal Palace after holding a press conference. He said that he wanted to be a
facilitator for the implementation of peoples decision at the CA. With the
abolition of monarchy, Indias policy on Nepal that was based on constitutional
monarchy and multiparty democracy as twin pillars of peace and stability too
changed.
People-to-People Relations
The people of Nepal and India have enjoyed unique harmony, tolerance and
mutual understanding since time immemorial. People-to-people relations reached
their height when Nepali leaders joined the Civil Disobedience and Quit India
Movement at the call of Mahatma Gandhi for Indian Independence. Leaders of
that generation, who were educated in India and had cultivated deep friendship
with Indian leaders, benefitted from their direct contacts with Mahatma Gandhi.
However, with the older generation of leaders gone, a new class of people with
Western education, thinking and much wider exposure of the world has since
emerged in Nepal.
83
Such emotional bonding, cordiality and closeness derived from informal

people-to-people relationship created positive atmosphere for decision making at
the governmental level and thus made a significant contribution in bringing the
two countries closer. Many organisations operating at the regional and local level
have also facilitated people-to-people relationship between Nepal and India.
India disburses pension worth NRs. 22 billion annually to the army pensioners
in Nepal.82 People who have taken up jobs in India have been a very important
factor in lobbying and influencing the policymaking process at home. They are
being engaged in various spheres of national life, and have a positive perspective
on traditional relationship between Nepal and India. Though India remained the
primary destination for Nepali jobseekers almost until recently, lately over
three million Nepali people have taken up jobs in third countries. The dynamics
of such a young and dynamic population exposed to Western ideas and way of
life and proliferating domestic media need to be factored not only in the discourse
of Nepal-India relations but also on the development of Nepal.
Water Resources
Nepal is a least developed and a landlocked country. Despite its abundant water
resources, the nation endures 16 hours of blackouts on an almost daily basis. Its
total power generation at present does not exceed 700 MW, whereas its projected
potential stands at 120,000 MW. Nepal exemplifies a resource curse. This curse
has come without exploiting its resources reserves, let alone making exports.83
Water resources in Nepal have been highly politicised. Misinformation,
guesswork bordering on suspicion, misperception and press reports based on
ignorance or illicit influence is frequently at the root of hydro politics. Many of
the issues can be resolved if hydro harmony is allowed precedence over hydro
politics.84 Nepals immediate neighbours could benefit from the utilisation of
Nepals immense water resources. However, India is viewed to be always aiming
at monopolising Nepals water resources according to its needs and binding the
Nepalis into signing agreements including a clause like prior use.85 Often floods
and landslides cause heavy losses of life and property every year. The worst such
incident occurred in 2013 when flood and mud slides in the Uttarakhand State
of India killed hundreds of people, mainly pilgrims. There are recurring problems
of natural disaster and inundation along the Nepal-India border. This demands
that Nepal and India work together and adopt a joint approach to make diverse
uses of shared rivers including flood control.
Aid and Trade

Nepal receives resources from foreign countries in the form of aid, loans, grants
84
and investments. India has been its long-standing development partner. India is
Nepals largest trading partner. It is a country best placed to invest in Nepal. With
a view to offer assurances and incentives to attract significant investment from
India, Nepal and India concluded a Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection
Agreement (BIPPA) in 2011. Though yet to be ratified, the agreement is considered
to have introduced a new trend in practice with regard to the conclusion of bilateral
investment treaties.86
The development partnership includes a multilayered programme comprising
477 ongoing and completed projects at the cost of over NRs. 65 billion in almost
all key economic sectors.87 However, around 23 per cent of the foreign aid is still
off the government budget. Nepal faces a daunting challenge to bring foreign aid
under budgetary system to enhance transparency and accountability on spending
in Nepal.88
Two-thirds of Nepals foreign trade (66 per cent) is with India. Nepals imports
stand at 87.09 per cent while exports are mere 12.01 per cent. Despite years of
trade diversification measures, there has been no shift in the direction, structure,
and composition of Nepals foreign trade. India accounted 65.09 per cent of
Nepals total imports, while its exports to India alone constituted 66.03 per cent.
Ratio of exports to imports with India is 13.09 per cent. Trade experts opine that
concentration of trade with a single country has increased the vulnerability of
Nepals economy.89 Nepals escalating trade deficit is a matter of serious concern.
While Nepal needs to undertake rigorous restructuring of its economy, India will
continue to remain a major market for Nepali products in the foreseeable future.
Recent Developments
The historic CA-I that was the symbol of inclusiveness and proportionality and
legitimate instrument of social transformation failed to deliver a constitution. It
is hoped that the second CA that was elected on November 19, 2013 will complete
the remaining task of constitution writing within the stipulated time, that is, by
January 22, 2015. In the CA II election, Maoist Party was downsized from the
first to third position. Now in the opposition, Maoists often use nationalism card
strongly backed by anti-India rhetoric. However, at certain point, after realising
the follies and futility of double standards, Prachanda-led Maoist faction often
drops its anti-India rhetoric and proposes for reconciling with the neighbouring
giant. The souring of relations between Nepals major political parties and New
Delhi often gets locked in a war of attrition.90 It appears that most political leaders
in Nepal have diverted all their energy to appease Indian establishment so that
the southern neighbour could put them into power. Such a mindset of Nepali
political elites is not shaped by their understanding of the emergent geopolitical
dynamics; rather, they are driven by their own desire and complex.91
85
India places its relations with Nepal as a matter of the highest priority.92 It
has provided support for CA-II election, peace process, and institutionalisation
of democracy and socio-economic development of Nepal. For example, India
provided 764 vehicles (48 vehicles to the Election Commission and 716 vehicles
to the Nepal Police) and other support to CA II elections. It also agreed to resume
the supply of defence hardware to the Nepal Army as identified in the Bilateral
Consultative Group on Security Issues.
India considers federalism to be a thorny issue and though has stated that it
has no federal model to offer, but wants voices of all communities to be heard
and reflected in the law. In the Indian perception, Nepal is attempting an
unprecedented transformation, and everyone is uncertain about their future. No
external power has any magic wand to resolve the concerns of little over 27 million
Nepalis. Indias role was to offer support, not specify prescriptions.93 Further,
according to the then Indian Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai, Whatever decision
Nepali people take on future federal setup has to be sustainable decision.That
decision can be sustainable only if political parties have consensus on it.94 It is
perceived that India desires the Terai politically stronger than the hills.95
The psychology that India is an important factor when it comes to staying in
power seems to have moderated the position of politicians in the country vis-vis India. So, India is always a major preoccupation with Nepali politicians, though
the veracity of such thinking needs to be established.96 India holds that it has no
favourites in Nepal and that it would maintain relations with all political parties.
It is said that Indias influence is much the greater, and its spies have been active
in splitting parties it dislikes, and in ferrying favoured leaders to Delhi to shop
and be flattered by bigwigs.97
Conclusion
The mainstreaming of the armed Maoists into the democratic process and peaceful
transformation of Nepal from an authoritarian monarchical to a democratic
republican order, presents a rare example in contemporary history. However, high
expectations and hopes generated by this transformation have been shattered by
prolonged political transition and failure of the first CA to deliver a constitution.
Peace process stays on hold amidst mounting social, political and economic
challenges and ethnicisation of politics. Political parties remain locked in power
politics. Though engaged in mutual dialogues and negotiations, political parties
continue to be plagued by a cycle of distrust and confusion. Leaders have repeatedly
failed to deliver on democracy and development promises. As a result, the nation
suffers from political gridlock, underdevelopment, poverty, inequality, and lack
of job opportunities for young people entering into the job market. The middle
class that provides the backbone to sustaining the democratic transformation
86
process remains disillusioned. This pushes the country into a volatile mix of
political instability, social decay and economic stagnation, each reinforcing the
other.
Though the peace process is labelled as home-grown, a deeper analysis of
conflict reveals a set of causes deeply rooted in uneasy geopolitics.98 What appeared
to be internal in the beginning became a complex synthesis of several micro and
macro factors. With continued lack of necessary democratic institutions in place
to sustain the change and institutionalise the democratic transformation after it
turned into a republic, Nepal risks becoming a proxy state to outside forces, a
laboratory for them to test their theories, exploit its weaknesses and reap strategic
benefits.
Nepals highest national priority is to have a democratic constitution
promulgated by the CA to create a supportive environment to manage the historic
democratic transformation, and institutionalise the fundamentals of a republican
state. This is possible only with the goodwill, support and assistance from
neighbours and friends in the international community. India and China have
greater roles to play in Nepals political and economic development. Extensive
social, economic, cultural and political ties give India a bigger role. China
recognises this hard fact and reality, and is of the view that it would be better
and fruitful for Nepal to maintain good relations with India.99
Nepalis do not need to be anti-Indian to be patriotic. The era of equating
Nepali nationalism with anti-Indianism by left parties in Nepal should be over
now. Nepals assertion of its independence and sovereignty should not be taken
as its being against the interests of India. Nepal is never ignorant and insensitive
to Indias legitimate concerns. At the same time, Kathmandu wants New Delhi
to understand that as an emerging global power, already the second largest economy
and trading superpower in the world, China is just on the other side of border,
and Nepal has to live with it. India, being Chinas immediate neighbour with
extensive ties, is no stranger to its increasing assertiveness on various issues. Further,
it should be appreciated that Nepal is walking a tightrope from a very sensitive
geopolitical position. Nepals concern for its integrity and independence should
be appreciated by both of its neighbours as much as Nepal appreciates their security
concerns.
Nepal lives in paradox-pervasive poverty in the midst of abundance of human
and natural resources which have liberating capabilities from growing scarcities.
It has suffered from a decade-long Maoist insurgency and has witnessed many
lost opportunities, costly misjudgements and avoidable misunderstandings.
Moreover, successive governments in Nepal and India have rather comprehensively
failed to establish a stable, mature relationship based on mutual trust and a longterm vision of cooperation.100 Given the continuation of the present state of affairs,
87
there is real danger of radicalisation of political life in Nepal, conflict residues

that remain unmonitored threatening to reignite, and massive outflow of Nepals
young and dynamic population in search of job opportunities abroad leading to
disruption of families and rural communities in the country. This generates the
biggest threat from within.
Continued stalemate and absence of stable and rule-based institutions will
deprive the country of the much promised democracy and development, and
encourage those who talk of seizing the state amidst chaos and instability. A
communist takeover in Nepal would have grave implications for the country and
the region. For India, a Maoist Nepal would mean moral and military support to
insurgencies in its northeast and other radical groups that aim to destabilise the
government in New Delhi. India might be pressured to intervene if such a scenario
arises. China would view a possible control of Nepal by India as a serious security
threat, and both nuclear rivals would be pushed to the brink of conflict.101 This
would only please those forces who want India and China to remain at loggerheads
and make Nepal a playing ground for their narrow self-interests.
In an increasingly interdependent and interconnected world, things have gone
from local and linear to global and exponential. The traditional concept of
security has undergone change and is extended to include economic, societal,
identity, demographic, cultural and environmental dimensions. Whatever happens
over here impacts over there. This makes challenges common to all and demands
common solutions in a comprehensive manner.
We cannot remain oblivious to the unleashing of peoples aspirations and the
winds of change sweeping across the region and the globe. It is time for leaders
of both the countries to call a spade a spade in bilateral relations, discuss
comprehensively the entire gamut of relations and work towards reorienting them
to the changing dynamics. It is said that an Indian initiative could alone set a
positive tone for better ties in the future.102 Nepali leaders should end double
talks, assure India in no uncertain terms that they are sensitive towards its legitimate
concerns, and express ardent desire to maintain the best of relations within the
framework of an independent, sovereignand a democratic nation. The recent
contacts at the highest political level are highly inspiring. This has opened up
avenues to uplift Nepal-India relations to a newer level, paving way for building
trust and confidence at the political level, transforming the quality of relationship
constructively and creating a win-win situation for improving the quality of life
of the people.
ENDNOTES
1.
Nepal and Its Neighbours: Yam Yesterday, Yam Today, The Economist, January 18, 2012,
at http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2012/01/nepal-and-its-neighbours?zid=306&ah
88
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

=1b164dbd43b0cb27ba0d4c3b12a5e227.
Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1979, pp. 7273.
Christopher Flavin and Gary Gardner, China, India and the New World Order, in The
State of the World: A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society,
W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 2006, p. 3.
Kevin Rudd, Beyond the Pivot: A New Road Map for US-Chinese Relations, Foreign
Affairs, March/April, 2013, p. 9.
The Economist, no.1.
Christopher Flavin and Gary Gardner, no.3, p. 3.
The Economist, no.1.
Kevin Rudd, no. 4, p. 10.
Leo E. Rose, Nepal: Strategy for Survival, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1971, p.
287.
Lok Raj Baral, Political System and the Elite Behaviour in the Context of India-Nepal
Relations, in Kalim Bahadur and Mahendra P. Lama (eds.), New Perspectives on India-Nepal
Relations, Har-Anand Publications, New Delhi, 1995, p. 66.
Arvinda Ramchandra Deo, India-Nepal: Few Steps, Giant Strides, in India-Nepal Relations:
The Challenge Ahead, Rupa& Co., in association with Observer Research Foundation,New
Delhi, 2004, p. 44.
Lok Raj Baral, no.10, p. 28.
S.D. Muni, India and Nepal: A Changing Relationship, Konark Publishers, Delhi, 1992, p.
27.
Lok Raj Baral, Democracy and Indo-Nepal Relations, in India-Nepal Relations: The
Challenge Ahead, Rupa &Co., in association with Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi,
2004, p. 79.
Lok Raj Baral, no. 10, p. 33.
Prashant Jha, Former Nepal Premier criticises his countrys blind nationalism, The Hindu,
July 25, 2013, at http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-international/former-nepalpremier-criticises-his-countrys-blind-nationalism/article4950651.ece. Former Nepali Prime
Minister and senior leader of the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist),
Madhav Kumar Nepal, said that it was time his country shed its suspicions of Indias actions,
and also that India should empathise with the insecurities of its smaller neighbour.
Andrew Hall, Nepal: An Incomplete Peace,Asian Affairs, XLII (III), November 2011,
p. 413. Hall is former British Ambassador to Nepal.
K.J. Holsti, International Politics: A Framework for Analysis, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1992,
pp.119-120.
Yubraj Ghimire, Nepal: Dignifying interdependence: Neighbourhood Views of India, The
Gateway House, Indian Council on World Affairs, Mumbai, 2012, p. 60.
Rishikesh Shaha, Nepal and the World, 1955, p. 38, as quoted in Jayant Kumar Ray, Indias
Foreign Relations, 1947-2007, Routledge, New Delhi, 2011, p. 415.
Ramjee P. Parajulee, The Democratic Transition in Nepal, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
Inc., New York, 2000, p. 179.
A.S. Bhasin (ed.), Documents on Nepals relations with India and China 1949-66, Academic
Books Ltd.,New Delhi, 1970, p. 51.
The Economist, no. 1.
Bhuwan Lal Joshi and Leo E. Rose,Democratic Innovations in Nepal: A Case Study of Political
Acculturation, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1966, p. 364.

27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
89
Leo E. Rose, as quoted in Dinesh Bhattarai and Pradip Khatiwada, Nepal-India: Democracy
in the Making of Mutual Trust, Nirala Publications, Jaipur, 1993, pp. 170-179. Prof. Rose
shared this view with the Independent Weekly in Kathmandu on May 22, 1991.
Frederick H. Gaige, Regionalism and National Unity in Nepal, University of California Press,
Berkeley, 1975, p. 91.
S.D. Muni, no. 13, p. 194.
Ramjee P. Parajulee, no. 23, p. 179.
B.P. Koirala, Appeal to the Countrymen Issued on the Eve of Returning Home in December
30, 1976 after 8 years of Exile in India, in Sushil Koirala (ed.), Democracy Indispensable for
Development, Sandaju Publications, Varanasi, 1982, pp. 137-140.
Dinesh Bhattarai and Pradip Khatiwada, Nepal-India: Democracy in the Making of Mutual
Trust, Nirala Publications, Jaipur, 1993, p. 140.
The Times of India, New Delhi, February 23, 1990, as quoted in Dinesh Bhattarai and
Pradip Khatiwada, no. 32, p. 121. Janata Dal leader Chandra Shekhar said this at a meeting
in New Delhi organised by the CPM in support of the Nepalese movement on February
22, 1990.
On February 04, 1996, Chairman of the United Peoples Front, Nepal, Baburam Bhattarai,
submitted a 40-point demand to Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba of the Nepali Congress
and gave an ultimatum to fulfil the demands within two weeks. Nine of these demands
related to nationality starting from the abrogation of many treaties considered to be
discriminatory including the 1950 Nepal-India Treaty of Peace and Friendship, banning of
all vehicles with Indian license plates from Nepal and strictly regulating the open border
between Nepal and India. Baburam Bhattarai did nothing when he became the Prime
Minister to address his own demands, instead received a 70-point demand from the splinter
group of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) led by his former senior party colleague,
Mohan Baidya.
Ali Riaz and Subho Basu, Paradise Lost: State Failure in Nepal, Lexington Books, Maryland,
2007, p. 133.
For details, see Dev Raj Dahal, Nepal: Supporting Peace Process through a Systemic
Approach,Berghof Foundation for Peace Support, Berlin, October 03, 2005, at http://
www.berghof-foundation.org/fileadmin/redaktion/Publications/Other_Resources/
NEP_Supporting_Peace_Processes_Through_a_Systemic_Approach.pdf
M.A.Thomas, Nepal: Political Uncertainty amid the Maoist Threat, in William M.
Carpenter and David Wiencek (eds.), Asian Security Handbook: Terrorism and the New Security
Environment, M.E. Sharpe, New York, 2005, p.196.
Ibid., p. 198.
Pranava K. Chaudhary, Maoists bases in N Bihar likely, The Times of India, New Delhi,
October 15, 2003, at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/Maoists-bases-in-NBihar-likely/articleshow/233956.cms
M.A. Thomas, no. 37, pp. 196-199.
S.D. Muni, Bringing the Maoists down from the Hills: Indias Role, in Sebastian von
Einsiedel, David M. Malone and Suman Pradhan (eds.), Nepal in Transition: From Peoples
War to Fragile Peace, Cambridge University Press, New Delhi, 2012, p. 321.
My Repblica, May 12, 2013. General Secretary of CPN-Masal Mohan Bikram Singh was
reported talking to the media.
M.A. Thomas, no. 37, p. 198.
Ibid.
Statement by Ambassador Wu Congyong at the launching of the Chinese Embassy website
in Kathmandu on May 10, 2002. Chinese Ambassador Yang Houlan on October 16, 2011
claimed to have authentic information that our oldest and nearest friend Nepal is turning
90
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.

into a playground for anti-Chinese activities. Some international and domestic forces are
coordinating their activities against China. He repeated them in his remarks made at the
Nepal Council of World Affairs in Kathmandu on September 13, 2012.
Prashant Jha, A Nepali Perspective on International Involvement in Nepal, in Sebastian
von Einsiedel, David M. Malone and Suman Pradhan (eds.), Nepal in Transition: From Peoples
War to Fragile Peace, Cambridge University Press, New Delhi, 2012, p. 353.
Yubaraj Ghimire, Nepal: China Wants King, Parties Patch up, Indian Express, March 18,
2006, at http://www.indianexpress.com/news/nepalchina-wants-king-parties-patchup/619.
Abanti Bhattacharya, China and its Peripheries: Strategic Significance of Tibet,Issue Brief
220, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, May 2013, at http://www.ipcs.org/issue-brief/
china/china-and-its-peripheries-strategic-significance-of-tibet-220.html
Andrew Hall, no. 18, p. 413.
For Shyam Sarans interview to The Kathmandu Post, see India isnt constantly trying to
subvert Nepali politics, January 14, 2013, at http://www.ekantipur.com/2013/01/14/topstory/india-isnt-constantly-trying-to-subvert-nepali-politics/365586.html
See 12-Point Understanding Concluded between the Seven Political Parties and the
Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), in Peace Agreements 2005-10:From Conflict to Peace
in Nepal, Asian Study Center for Peace and Conflict Transformation, Kathmandu, 2011,
pp. 1-4.
S.D. Muni, no. 41, pp. 329-330.
For details, see May 18, 2006 Proclamation of the House of Representatives, in Peace
Agreements 2005-10: From Conflict to Peace in Nepal, Asian Study Center for Peace and
Conflict Transformation, Kathmandu, 2011, pp. 8-11.
Indias role in peace process crucial: Ban, April 28, 2012, at http://www.ekantipur.com/
2012/04/28/top-story/indias-role-in-peace-process-crucial-ban/353087.html. According to
the Spokesperson of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs Syed Akbaruddin, as quoted by
Mahesh Acharya in The Kathmandu Post, the United Nations Secretary General (UNSG)
Ban Ki-moon mentioned that Indias role in Nepals peace process will be more useful as
the United Nations, which used to be deeply involved in the process, has now just a small
team in Nepal.
The Kathmandu Post, September 24, 2013. Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal made these
remarks at a book release function: Prayogshala: Nepali Sankramankalma Delhi, Darbar ra
Maobadi (Laboratory: Delhi, Palace and Maoists in Nepals transition) authored by Kantipur
Daily (Nepali) Editor-in-Chief Sudheer Sharma. Dahal called on the Indian leadership to
desist from instigating Nepali political parties. He rather emphasised on holding direct talks
to address common concerns between both the countries, including economy, security, and
sovereignty, at the political level. The Maoist leader admitted that his party made diplomatic
agreements with national and international powers, as mentioned in Sharmas book, but he
claimed that all those accords were not against the interests of the Nepali people.
Yubaraj Ghimire, China in Nepal, The Indian Express, April 22, 2013, at http://
indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/china-in-nepal/99/
Ian Martin, All Peace Operations Are Political: A Case for Designer Missions and the Next
UN Reform, in Review of Political 2010 Missions: A project of the Center on International
Cooperation, New York University, 2010, p. 9.
Peace Agreements 2005-10:From Conflict to Peace in Nepal, Asian Study Center for Peace
and Conflict Transformation, Kathmandu, 2011, pp. 39-40.
Security Council Establishes United Nations Political Mission in Nepal, Unanimously
Adopting Resolution 1740 (2007), United Nations, January 23, 2007, at http://www.un.org/
press/en/2007/sc8942.doc.htm
Ian Martin, no. 57, p. 9.

61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85 .
86.
87.
88.
91
Bhojraj Pokharel and Shrishti Rana, Nepal Votes for Peace, Foundation Books, Delhi, 2013,
p. 101.
Ian Martin, no. 57, p. 10.
Ibid., p. 11.
Ibid., p. 10.
Prashant Jha, no. 46, p. 349.
Tarun Vijay, India Must Speak Out,The Times of India, April 17, 2008, at http://
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tarun-vijay/the-right-view/India-must-speak-out/articleshow/
2960238.cms
Prashant Jha, no. 46, p. 351.
Bhojraj Pokharel and Shrishti Rana, no. 61, p. 185.
Andrew Hall, no. 18, p. 414.
A leading surveyor and expert on border issues, Buddhi Narayan Shrestha, shared the details
with the media in The Kathmandu Post. See India has encroached border at 71 places:
Scholars, April 05, 2013, at http://www.ekantipur.com/2013/04/05/top-story/india-hasencroached-border-at-71-places-scholars/369536.html
Michaha Prabriti (Encroachment Trends), Kantipur Daily (Nepali), September 20, 2013
(Ashwin 04, 2070).
Kirti Nidhi Bista, Neighbourly Help,My Repblica, Kathmandu, October 02, 2013. Bista
is former Prime Minister of Nepal.
Surya Nath Upadhyay, Kina dohorinchha Gulariya prakaran? (Why Gulariya Chapter
Gets Repeated?), Kantipur, Kathmandu, September 30, 2013 (Ashwin 14, 2070).
Utpal Parashar, Not kept in loop, Nepal irked by Indian police incursion, The Hindustan
Times, September 20, 2013, at http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/not-kept-inloop-nepal-irked-by-indian-police-incursion/article1-1124574.aspx
Asian Age, September 24, 2013.
Prem R. Uprety, Nepal and South Asian Regional Security,Contributions to Nepalese Studies,
18 (1), CNAS,Tribhuvan University, January 1991, p. 24.
Kirti Nidhi Bista, no. 72.
Prem R. Uprety, no. 76, p. 22.
See detailed text of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the Government of India
and the Government of Nepal and Letter Exchanged with the Treaty dated the 31st July
1950 in S.D. Muni, India and Nepal: A Changing Relationship, Konark Publishers, Delhi,
1992, pp. 188-192.
Jhyali, July 08, 1958, p. 2, as quoted in Prem R. Uprety, no. 76. The aide memoire was
handed over to Dr. Dilli Raman Regmi in New Delhi.
The Interim Constitution of Nepal 2063 (2007) as amended by the First to Sixth Amendments.
The amendment was inserted on 2065 Jestha 15 (May 28, 2008) by the Interim Constitution
of Nepal (Fourth Amendment) Act, 2065.
My Repblica, August 15, 2013.
Brahma Chellaney, Water: Asia: New Battleground, Georgetown University Press, Washington
D.C., 2011.
Jayant Kumar Ray, Indias Foreign Relations, 1947-2007, Routledge, New Delhi, 2011, p.
470.
Kirti Nidhi Bista, no. 72.
For details, see Surya P. Subedi, Indias New Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection
Treaty with Nepal: A New Trend in State Practice,ICSID Review: Foreign Investment Law
Journal, 28 (2), 2013, pp. 384-404.
My Repblica, August 15, 2013.
My Repblica, September 22, 2013.
92
89.
90.
91.
Ibid.
Dahal and Delhi, Editorial, The Kathmandu Post, April 26, 2013.
Lok Raj Baral, Nepal-Nation-State in the Wilderness: Managing State, Democracy and
Geopolitics, Sage Publications Inc., New Delhi, 2012, p. 184.
92. See Salman Khurshid arrives in Nepal on day-long visit, The Economic Times, July 09,
2013, at http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-07-09/news/40469215_1_
nepal-constituent-assembly-khil-raj-regmi. The Indian External Affairs Minister Salman
Khurshid had also expressed the commitment of India to working with the people of Nepal
for a democratic, stable, peaceful and prosperous Nepal.
93. Prashant Jha, In Nepal Visit, Khurshid to Press for Timely Elections,The Hindu, July 09,
2013, at http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/in-nepal-visit-khurshid-to-press-fortimely-elections/article4897577.ece.
94. Foreign Secretary of India Ranjan Mathai was reported to be talking to a group of Nepali
journalists at his office in South Block. See My Republica, April 23, 2013.
95. Politics in Nepal: Adhoc Country,The Economist, June 22, 2013, at http://
www.economist.com/news/asia/21579882-election-called-political-stability-remains-distantdream-ad-hoc-country.
96. Lok Raj Baral, no. 14, p. 79.
97. The Economist, no. 95. The Kathmandu Post on May 18, 2012 reported an Indian diplomat
at the Consulate General of India in Birjung, Nepal, urging the political leadership of the
Central Terai to take to the streets for the sake of Madhes and bring about a storm in the
Madhes before May 27, the last day of the term of the Constituent Assembly. Nepali
media reports also pointed out that the UK Department of International Development
(DFID), International Institute for Democratic, Electoral Assistance (IIDEA) and others
are funding the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN) to form ethnic parties
in Nepal. The formation of the Federal Socialist Party led by Ashok Rai, a former UML
leader, is often cited in this regard. DFID in a Press Statement on May 12, 2012 claimed
that funding under the Janajati Empowerment Programme (JEP) for greater economic, social
and political inclusion ended in May 2011, when it became apparent that NEFIN was
supporting bandhs.
98. The Economist, January 03, 1998. It describes geopolitics as the maneuverings (sic) and
counter-maneuverings (sic) of the worlds big powers, and the question of who does what
to whom around the globe, and why. It is a subject, you might think, that you ignore at
your peril.
99. The Economist, no. 1. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao reportedly remarked to the Nepali Prime
Minister Baburam Bhattarai, We (China) and India have been developing very cordial
relations in the recent times and it would be better and fruitful for Nepal to maintain good
relations with India.
100. K.V. Rajan, Nepal, in J.N. Dixit (ed.), External Affairs: Cross-Border Relations, Lotus
Collection: Roli Books, New Delhi, 2003, p. 97.
101. M.A. Thomas, no. 37, p. 201.
102. Lok Raj Baral, India-Nepal Relations: Continuity and Change, Asian Survey, XXXII (9),
September 1992, pp. 815-829.
7
Rising India and Bangladesh-India
Relations: Mutual Perceptions and
Expectations
M. Ashique Rahman
Introduction
The importance of Bangladesh-India relations in the ambit of Bangladeshs foreign
relations is indisputable. Relations with India constitute the most important
cornerstone of Bangladeshs external relations architecture. Geographical
imperatives, socio-cultural affinities, historical ties and the shared South Asian
civilisational heritages have created a natural bond of inter-dependence between
the two close-door neighbours. They, however, could not augment this natural
bond; and their bilateral relations did not follow a linear trend in the past, either.
In spite of Indias extraordinary assistance during the War of Liberation of
Bangladesh both in terms of extending military assistance as well as providing
refuge to the millions of Bangladeshis displaced during the War, Bangladesh-India
relations for the last four decades have been beset with many strains and
tribulations. As one scholar remarks, The relationship has often been marked by
occasional setbacks, thereby, making the bilateral ties rather lukewarm and
uneven.1 Many factors, ranging from unresolved bilateral issues to domestic
factors of both the countries as well as regional/international geopolitical settings,
are playing their respective part in forming and sustaining constraints in
Bangladesh-India relations. While this is very natural that the two neighbouring
countries sharing common borders will have their fare share of problems and
94
uncertainties, in case of Bangladesh-India relations especially after a magnificent

start following the Independence of Bangladesh in 1971, rocky relations in the
last more than four decades have left analysts wondering and deliberating on the
predicaments of Bangladesh-India relations.
Perceptions or for that matter misperceptions are often also highlighted as a
significant variable responsible for creating and sustaining lukewarm relations
between Bangladesh and India.2 Whether relations in the past had been friendly
or un-friendly, the existence of unresolved bilateral issues3 for long have created
an environment of mistrust and suspicion rather than mutual trust and respect
for each other. This mistrust and suspicion has got further amplified with how
each country is perceived by the other. How the people of one country perceive
the other has an important bearing on how an act of foreign and security policy
by one country is viewed and perceived thereof.
It is often said that the changing nature of Bangladesh-India relations
profoundly impacts peoples perceptions of India in Bangladesh. When there is
bonhomie in bilateral relations, peoples perceptions usually remain positive about
India. It is normally expected that in a state of mutual understanding and friendly
transactions, Bangladesh will receive more friendly treatment, and might also
receive unilateral concessions regarding outstanding bilateral concerns. In an
adverse state of relations, the expectations of a friendly treatment fall short of
accomplishments leading to widespread disappointments which further germinate
peoples adverse perceptions about India. However, an exception was discernible
during the last term of the present government. Despite very friendly relations
since early 2009, peoples perceptions often did not follow the positive pitch made
during 2009-2013 by the governments of both the countries. The reason in this
case lies more in the gap that exists between the expectations and the achievements
rather than the mood and disposition of their bilateral relations.
This expectations-achievements gap increases further in the context of Indias
rise both economically and politically. In contemporary times, few would argue
against Indias emergence as a major global power, and, this particular setting of
emerging India has imparted a new dimension to the expectations and desires of
its small neighbours. While some of Indias neighbours, especially Pakistan and
China, are critical of Indias emergence at the regional and global levels, smaller
neighbours of India including Bangladesh usually hold a position more propitious
against such scenario. Bangladesh, not perceiving any threat from India in the
traditional understanding of security, believes that Indias rise will benefit the region
and countries like Bangladesh. The people of Bangladesh, therefore, perceive that
India with its rising status will emerge more magnanimous and compassionate as
far as its smaller neighbours are concerned. The prevailing common expectations
are that India will follow a friendlier neighbourhood policy while making utmost
Rising India and Bangladesh-India Relations
95
efforts to resolve all outstanding bilateral issues with its neighbours especially the
smaller ones. The experience of last few years since 2009, however, does not fulfil
those expectations. In spite of improving bilateral relations, India could not deliver
on some of the issues or could not provide concessions in some areas that affect
peoples perceptions about India, often contributing to the persistence of negative
perceptions in the minds of the people. Negative perceptions in turn create and
sustain anti-India sentiments, constraining advancements in Bangladesh-India
bilateral relations.
It is, therefore, imperative to analyse the roles of perception and/or
misperception in Bangladesh-India relations especially in the context of Indias
contemporary political and economic rise. It is to be noted that we are discussing
peoples perception here, not Bangladeshs threat perception vis--vis India4
although such a threat perception has crucial impact on the processes of public
perception formation in Bangladesh. A good number of studies show that
perceptions do matter in foreign relations.5 Perceptions influence the decisionmaking process, and sometimes decision-makers and negotiators find that their
range of alternatives is constrained by (popular) moods and viewpoints.6 In case
of Bangladesh, it is difficult to ascertain direct linkages between peoples perception
and its impact in the foreign policy decision-making process especially given the
underdeveloped and dysfunctional state of democracy in Bangladesh. How far
leaders pay heed to popular attitude to a particular policy initiative is difficult to
substantiate. Nevertheless, it can easily be assumed that a favourable mass would
provide more political space for governments manoeuvring than a mass wielding
adverse perceptions towards its policies. This is truer in case of Bangladesh-India
relations. Given the importance of India in the domestic politics of Bangladesh
as many political parties use peoples perceptions of India to garner popular
support and score electoral advancement, decisions taken by the incumbent
government needs to be driven and supported by the favourable attitude of the
general masses. Therefore, the policy-makers and the decision-makers need to be
well aware of the processes of perception formation concerning Bangladesh-India
relations. A good grasp of how perceptions are shaped, and more importantly,
how they are sustained in the long run will enable them to undertake informed
policy initiatives.
Some very crucial questions, therefore, need to be raised and answered: To
what extent perceptions do really matter in Bangladesh-India relations? How
perceptions are formed and shaped in Bangladesh as far as India, particularly its
global rise, is concerned? What are the key drivers, institutions, actors and
stakeholders that are contributing in forming and shaping these perceptions and
with what ends? And, finally, what is the way forward? Do addressing and fulfilling
mutual expectations regarding many outstanding bilateral issues and immediate
96
resolution of some very long-standing gridlocks, shred misperceptions between

these two friendly (but strained) neighbouring countries? This paper follows a
holistic approach towards understanding the key drivers, institutions, actors and
stakeholders of perception formation in Bangladesh vis--vis India, thereby making
an effort in providing an overall analysis of the process.
Four Decades of Bangladesh-India Relations:

Changing Perceptions of India in Bangladesh
Relations between Bangladesh and India are complex, sensitive and
multidimensional in nature.7 Over the last more than 40 years of relationship,
Bangladesh-India relations have experienced, contrary to expectations, many ups
and downs, but as one analyst noted, India factor, as a positive force or a negative
one, has remained constant and continued to affect Bangladeshs foreign policy
behaviour.8 Soon after the Independence of Bangladesh, bilateral relations
commenced with a very close cooperative partnership which is generally dubbed
as the honeymoon period 9 of Bangladesh-India relationship. The 1972
Bangladesh-India Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Peace, popularly known
as the Indira-Mujib Friendship Treaty, set the tone and texture of BangladeshIndia relations. The treaty was crucial for Bangladesh especially at a time when
not many countries had recognised the newly born member of the community of
nation-states and also against the international geopolitical order of bipolarity.
The two countries had also been able to amicably resolve many of the outstanding
issues, viz. the return of the Indian troops who entered Bangladesh territory during
the War of Liberation, and the demarcation of land boundary through the 1974
Land Boundary Agreement (LBA). They also succeeded in inking agreements
regarding cooperation on communications and trade and atomic energy
development, thereby widening and deepening their areas of cooperation.10
In the period following 1975 military coup and the tragic assassination of
the Father of the Nation Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and with the Bangladesh-India
honeymoon period ruined, the bilateral relationship plummeted into an
irreversible discord and disparity. From the Bangladesh side, the two major
contributing factors were: first, a significant shift in the foreign policy orientation
of the post-1975 governments in terms of increasing their ties with the middle
eastern countries as well as with China and the US bypassing India and, to some
extent, using them as countervailing weight against India; second, the emphasis
on the religious identity as a major component of Bangladeshi nationalism that
had been construed by many as having an inherently anti-India connotation.
Therefore, mistrust and mutual hostility were the dominant norms in BangladeshIndia relations during General Ziaur Rahmans regime.11 However, some scholars
maintain that notwithstanding the warm beginning, the two countries developed
97
seeds of discord on some issues in the later years of the Awami League (AL)
tenure.12 The creation of a para-military force by the AL Government called Jatiyo
Rakkhi Bahini (national defence forces) were perceived by the Bangladesh Army
as Indias blueprint to keep the armed forces divided and weak in order to
perpetuate its influence on Bangladesh. As also pointed out by Smruti S. Pattanaik,
Indias training of Jatioyo Rakhi Bahini, the 10-mile-long free trade zone, the
non-requirement of visas just after the liberation of Bangladesh and the signing
of the 1972 friendship Treaty, all added to the suspicion regarding Indias
intentions.13 However, it was the Farakka Barrage incident in the last year of the
AL Government that contributed the most in forging suspicion and mistrust
against India in the psyche of the general masses. The Barrage was constructed to
divert water from the Ganges River to the Hooghly River for flushing out the
Kolkata harbour. Bangladesh protested at the construction of the Barrage as it
was assessed to have tremendous environmental and livelihood impact on
Bangladesh. Paying due attention to Bangladeshs concern, India started operation
of the Barrage on test basis so that if it was found seriously harmful, India might
consider termination of the operations. But in the later years, in spite of
Bangladeshs severe concerns, India continued with the operation of the Barrage,
and this severely added to the perception of India as not a trustworthy country.
During General H.M. Ershad regime, Dhaka more or less followed a similar
approach towards India as that of its predecessor, General Ziaur Rahman. In the
aftermath of Ershad regime, Bangladesh witnessed the advent of democratic
governance in the country after 16 years of autocratic rule. An elected government
through widely acclaimed free and fair election led by the Bangladesh Nationalist
Party (BNP) came to power in 1991. During the BNP tenure (1991-1996),
Bangladesh-India relations still remained basically frozen. BNP was created by
General Ziaur Rahman and it followed similar foreign policy orientation,
emphasising religious identity and strengthening relations with the Muslim
countries and China. It was widely believed that New Delhi also demonstrated
little interest in improving relations with Bangladesh under the BNP Government;
hence, the icy relationship continued.14
The relationship reverted to normalcy when the AL returned to power in
1996. Although falling far short of the historical ideal of the early 1970s,
Bangladesh-India relations improved considerably under the first Sheikh Hasina
regime (1996-2001). After decades of mistrust and discrepancy, the relationship
started to thaw as both Dhaka and New Delhi began to pursue positive approaches
towards each other. The conclusion of the Ganges water sharing agreement, which
New Delhi had refused to sign with the previous governments, demonstrated the
inclination for gradually improving relationship. Yet, there were limitations
hindering further improvement in the bilateral relations. First, the AL had a thin
98
majority in parliament, which resulted in diminished space for the government

to manoeuvre against strong opposition from several political parties, mainly the
BNP and the Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh (JIB). Second, following the capture of
power in India by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 1998, the steady
improvement in Bangladesh-India relations was stymied as the BJP Government
strongly raised the controversial issue of illegal Muslim immigrants from
Bangladesh to northeast India.15
The Bangladesh-India relationship deteriorated again when BNP returned
to power after winning the 2001 general elections. The policies of the two countries
once again divulged discrepancies as they developed differences on security
perceptions, owing in particular to Indias suspicion of Bangladeshs hand in the
insurgencies of northeast India, and in reverse, Dhakas perception that New Delhi
wanted to punish Bangladesh. Although there was some security cooperation
during the period of indirect military rule from 2007-08, negative attitude and
mistrust against each other continued in Bangladesh-India relationship. All that
changed during the second tenure of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina (2009-2013).
Prime Minister Hasina initiated a radical departure in Dhakas approach towards
New Delhi, adopting a very India-positive foreign policy orientation in order to
build a long-term irreversible bilateral relationship. New Delhi has also responded
in similar fashion; consequently, the bilateral relationship has been on an upward
trajectory since 2009, a trend that has been hardly evident since 1975.16 Some
maintain that it is natural for an AL Government, given the ideological similarity
between itself and the Indian National Congress, to pursue a decidedly pro-India
policy and get closer to India. However, as Bhumitra Chakma noted, the
underlying causes of the second Hasina Governments India-positive foreign policy
orientation run deeper being a consequence of multiple interactive variables
emanating from three sources: personal, national and regional/international.17
Whatever are the causes, peoples perception as far as AL and BangladeshIndia relations are concerned remains that during the AL Government bilateral
relationship improves. Consequently, a widespread perception prevails that India
favours AL over other political parties of Bangladesh. This has contributed to the
negative perception that India pays little attention to the well-being of the people
of Bangladesh by rather favouring a particular political party especially given the
multi-party system of Bangladesh. Therefore, barring the period of the AL
Government during 1996-2001, mistrust and suspicion has primarily characterised
peoples perceptions about India since the mid-1970s to the end of 2008. Even
from 2009, in spite of tremendous improvement in the bilateral relationship at
the government level, peoples perception about India at the mass level, as already
mentioned, has undergone little or no transformation owing to the lack of success
by both the governments and especially by India to resolve many outstanding
99
bilateral issues. During the second tenure of Sheikh Hasina which also coincided
with the Congress regime in India, there were elevated expectations amongst the
people that this is the most opportune moment for Bangladesh and India to take
their bilateral relationship to a new height. Lack of success in that direction
hardened peoples perceptions about India.
Rising India: Bangladeshs Perceptions and Expectations

As pointed out by Rajesh Basrur, in contemporary times, Indias external
relationships must be viewed from the larger perspective of its expanding strategic
horizons and its emergence as an Asian and potentially global power.18 Looking
at Indias regional relations through the prism of rising India assumes greater
prominence as this has been a major contributing factor in enhanced expectations
among the people of Bangladesh. Indias rise has produced renewed expectations
in Bangladesh that with its rising status and massive economic advancement, India
will turn out to be more generous to its neighbours, especially the smaller ones,
by providing more concessions or by being forthcoming in resolving various
outstanding bilateral issues.
Rising India
Despite many vicissitudes, Indias riseeconomic and political at the global as
well as regional levelsis now a reality. Overcoming many weaknesses, as predicted
by Stephen Cohen in his celebrated book, India: Emerging Power,19 a decade ago,
or, to be more accurate, enduring those weaknesses, India is moving forward.
Some of these weaknesses having contemporary relevance are: Indias difficulty in
translating its economic success into political and strategic influence; the economy
is slowing down, and like many other countries, suffers from the general global
economic stagnation; the dangers of ideological fanaticism are still there; and failure
to resolve Kashmir dispute and establish a normal relationship with Pakistan, let
alone not very inspiring advancement in bilateral dispositions with its smaller
neighbours including Bangladesh.20
On economic front, Indias advancement is more evident (see Table 1). In
the last one decade, India has achieved significant improvement in the quality of
life of its people. The GDP of the country has increased three times (in current
US$) from US$ 618 billion in 2003 to US$ 1.85 trillion in 2012. The GDP per
capita has also increased in similar fashion from US$ 565 in 2003 to US$ 1533
in 2012. This has been possible due to the average growth rate of 7.66 per cent
in the last one decade with the highest growth of 10.26 per cent in 2010. The
trade performance of the country is also very impressive. Trade as percentage of
GDP stood at 55 per cent in 2012, nearly doubled from 30 per cent in 2003.
Total exports of goods and services in 2012 was $443 billion (in current US$),
721,5
650
7.92
36.86
618.3
565
7.86
30.07
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

(current US$ billions)
GDP per capita (current US$)
GDP growth (annual %)
2.83
2.68
Military expenditure (% of GDP)
2.75
1,017
137
67.22
35
181
154
41.31
9.28
740
834,2
1,127
2005
Source: World Development Indicators (Online Data Bank), World Bank, 2013.
131
917
103
..
ICT service exports (% of service exports, BoP)
761
..
..
ICT service exports (BoP, current US$ billions)
Military expenditure (in billion Rs.)
..
95
Imports of goods and services

(BoP, current US$ billions)
Total reserves
(includes gold, in current US$ billions)
..
90
Exports of goods and services

(BoP, current US$ billions)
..
1,110
1,093
Population (in millions)
Trade (% of GDP)
2004
2003
2.53
1,085
178
68.29
47
225
193
45.30
9.26
830
949,1
1,143
2006
2.34
1,168
276
68.15
58
278
240
44.88
9.80
1,069
1,238
1,159
2007
2.55
1,436
257
69.29
73
379
305
52.27
3.89
1,042
1,224
1,174
2008
2.89
1,874
284
66.34
61
328
260
45.48
8.48
1,147
1,365
1,190
2009
Table 1: Macro-Economic Performances of India during 2003-2012
2.71
2,108
300
64.10
75
439
348
48.31
10.26
1,417
1,708
1,205
2010
2.57
2,316
298
61.84
85
553
446
54.08
6.64
1,540
1,880
1,221
2011
2.41
2,523
300
65.89
95
579
443
54.73
4.74
1,533
1,858
1,236
2012
100
101
nearly five times higher than the US$ 90 billion exports in 2003. Imports have
shown similar growth from US$ 95 billion in 2003 to US$ 579 billion in 2012.
An important aspect of Indias exports is its export of ICT services which amounted
to US$ 95 billion in the year 2012, and made up 66 per cent of the total services
exports in the same year. The countrys foreign reserves (including gold) now stand
at US$ 300 billion. On a different plane, during the period 2008-2012, the
country has also emerged as the largest arms importer21 in the world although
military expenditure as percentage of GDP hovered between 2.68 per cent to
2.41 percent during the decade of 2003-2012. In 2012, Indias total military
spending was US$ 46.1 billion (Rs. 2.5 trillion), giving it the status of seventh
largest military spender in the world.22
Politically, Indias global power status is yet to be certain, but as Peter R. Lavoy
puts it, Experts recently stopped asking if India will become a great power and
began to wonder what kind of great power it will become.23 Moreover, Indias
rise at the world stage is best captured by Amrita Narlikar, who argues that India
would be the most potential negotiating partner of the West, i.e., the established
world powers, although sided with the more cautionary segment of the debate.24
Again, falling back to the analysis in one of the chapters in Cohens book, The
India that Cant Say Yes, Narlikar upholds the view that India is learning very
fast to say yes, thereby sketching out its position as a rising power at global stage.25
Indias rise is positively viewed by Bangladesh. Bangladeshs threat perception
vis--vis India has transformed in recent years. Bangladesh, in this age of mutual
inter-dependence, no longer perceives traditional security threats from India.
However, security concerns between the two countries remain. In fact, cross-border
criminal activities, water resource security, smuggling and trafficking networks,
environmental degradation, etc., have emerged as the new security concerns, and
addressing them require Indias active participation and cooperation. Bangladesh
also believes that it will be benefited from Indias economic advancement. An
economically advanced India will pose for a market for Bangladeshi commodities
at least in the north-eastern regions of India. From political point of view,
Bangladeshs acceptance of Indias global rise could also be observed in its
unequivocal support for Indias UN Security Council candidature as mentioned
in the January 2010 Joint Communiqu. This can be construed as an indication
that Bangladesh no longer perceives India as a regional hegemon against which it
has to pursue a policy of bandwagoning to secure its own national interest.
However, concomitant to the positive perception in Bangladesh vis--vis rising
India is the expectation that India will also get rid of its old stereotypes, and
perform like a growing power by undertaking initiatives to stabilise and settle its
neighbourhood. A significant way of doing that is to be more forthcoming in
resolving outstanding bilateral issues with its neighbours especially the smaller
ones. Failure to do so could adversely impact the positive perceptions.
102
Processes of Perception Formation: Key Drivers, Actors,

Institutions, Stakeholders
State of bilateral relations and dominant bilateral issues are the key drivers in
shaping perceptions about India in Bangladesh. Moreover, outstanding issues,
unresolved disputes and bilateral differences are all contributing to the formation
and shaping up of perceptions, especially negative perceptions, in peoples psyche
in Bangladesh.
The Changing Nature of Dominant Issues and their Role as Key Drivers in
Shaping Perceptions
Because of the dynamism in Bangladesh-India relations, dominant issues between
the two countries also change. After Independence, demarcation of border, the
Farakka Barrage, Ganges water sharing, etc., were some of the major issues of
discord between Bangladesh and India. After successful completion of the Ganges
Water Sharing Treaty in 1996, water sharing as a major focus of Bangladesh-India
relations subsided. Border killings and informal migration from Bangladesh
appeared as major outstanding concerns impacting and shaping each others
perceptions. In the early 1990s, due to Indian allegations of illegal immigration
from Bangladesh, the bilateral relations deteriorated to the extent that all
negotiations on bilateral issues...came to a halt.26 In 2000s, bilateral trade issues
and trade deficit dominated Bangladesh-India discourse. In the mid-2000s, the
Bangladesh-India formal trade which stood at about US$ 3.5 billion (see Table
2) and was nearly matched by the informal trade totalling US$ 7 billion, wherein
the deficit was almost US$ 6 billion, had stirred peoples perceptions of India as
not a friendly country. Later, China emerged as the largest trading partner of
Bangladesh and here again Bangladesh incurred huge trade deficit with China.
This factor together with the emergence of other pressing issues subsequently made
trade deficit issue less significant. For the last few years, sharing of Teesta River
water, implementation of the border demarcation agreement and border killings
have been dominating the discourse of Bangladesh-India relations. These issues
that are dominant drivers, shaping perceptions about India in Bangladesh in
contemporary times, are discussed below:
The Water Issue
Sharing of trans-boundary water resources remain at the core of Bangladesh-India
relations. The process of water sharing and the successes and failures of the
respective governments in resolving trans-boundary water-related discord, have
been the major drivers of perception formation in Bangladesh. In the immediate
post-Independence era, water issues, i.e., the Farakka Barrage and the sharing of
Ganges River water, dominated Bangladesh-India relations. The issue was resolved
103
with the conclusion of the Ganges Water Sharing Treaty in 1996. However, by
then, years of disagreements over sharing of Ganges water and the debilitating
socio-economic and environmental impacts 27 of the Farakka Barrage had
contributed to the deep-seated mistrust and aversion against India among the
people of Bangladesh. Even after the Ganges Treaty, on many occasions, there
have been claims by Bangladesh that the water flow in the River Padma drops
below the benchmark agreed in the treaty. Therefore, the perception of lack of
trustworthiness created by the Farakka Barrage in the mid 1970s still continues
in the minds of the people. However, for the last few years, especially since
September 2011, the Teesta River water sharing issue has emerged as the dominant
discourse leading to bitterness between Bangladesh and India.
Bangladesh and India share 54 trans-boundary rivers, and currently there is
only one treaty, i.e., the Ganges Water Sharing Treaty. Both the countries are
negotiating for the second one, the Teesta River water treaty. Bangladesh and India
need to reach agreements for water sharing on at least seven of the riversTeesta,
Dharla, Dudhkumar, Manu, Muhuri, Khowai and Gumtiimmediately, with
Teesta being the top priority. The two countries came very close to inking a deal
on Teesta in September 2011. The progress for the agreement was very promising
as the two countries agreed to sign a 15-year interim accord on sharing the waters
of common rivers, such as Feni and Teesta, at a secretary-level meeting in January
2011.28 The countries have also exchanged drafts of the interim agreement on
the Principles of the Sharing of Teesta waters During the Dry Season at the
37th meeting of Bangladesh-India Joint Rivers Commission in New Delhi in March
2011.29 Both sides reportedly agreed to a 50-50 sharing of the water,30 and the
agreement was expected to be signed during the visit of the then Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh to Bangladesh in September 2011. But the agreement could
not be signed as Mamata Banerjee, Chief Minister of West Bengal, refused to
accept the water sharing formula agreed by the central government pointing out
that it would severely harm her states interests. Failure to conclude the Teesta
Agreement generated enormous resentment and frustration among the people of
Bangladesh. And since then Teesta water sharing issue has emerged as one of the
key drivers of perception formation in Bangladesh vis--vis India. It contributed
enormously to the negative perceptions of suspicion and mistrust towards India
and also a perception that there was lack of seriousness on the part of India.
Some arguments are put forward on Indias failure in inking the Teesta Agreement
as Indian states in recent times assume greater influence and power in the foreign
policy decision-making of the country, and as state governments assert the
legitimate right to defend states interests.31 While both arguments are valid, India
cannot escape the fact that it had failed to do its own homework before advancing
with the agreement. Moreover, nearly three years after the debacle, failure to make
any progress towards achieving the Teesta Agreement sustains the adverse
104
perceptions about India among the people of Bangladesh. Indian policy-makers

have to take into cognisance the fact that extended delay in reaching the agreement
will only harden negative perceptions about India in Bangladesh.
Apart from lack of success in sharing trans-boundary water resources, some
of Indias mega water resource development projects are also generating adverse
perceptions in Bangladesh. Two of such projects have been the River Linking
Project (RLP) and the Tipaimukh Dam. RLP is a mega project which envisages
linking the Brahmaputra River with the Ganges to carry waters to Odisha and
eventually to South India, thereby linking Indias eastern peninsular rivers with
the western peninsular ones. It will connect 38 rivers through 30 links, 9000 km
long canals, 74 reservoir and several embankments. The project is estimated to
cost between US$ 112 billion to US$ 200 billion.32 If implemented, the project
will cause severe impact in Bangladesh in terms of diminishing water flow in the
downstream of Brahmaputra-Ganges river basins. Experts have estimated that
Brahmaputras flow will be reduced to 40,000 cusecs from its normal flow of
140,000 cusecs, while the combined flow of Padma and Brahmaputra at Maowa
point in Bangladesh will also be reduced to 30,000-40,000 cusecs from the normal
flow of 200,000 cusecs. As there will be very little or no water flow in many of
the rivers of Bangladesh even during the regular monsoon season, the impact of
the project for Bangladesh will be devastating.33
Tipaimukh Dam is another project envisaged by India on the Barak River in
the state of Manipur to produce hydro-electricity, despite dire warning by experts
regarding the dangers of such projects for the area and for lower riparian
Bangladesh. The Dam was originally conceived for containing only flood waters,
but later the focus shifted to hydroelectric power generation. The project would
be built parallel to the border of Karimganj in Assam above the river Barak, which
is also the main stream for the branch river Surma and Kushiyara that flow through
Bangladesh and conjointly create the river Meghna. Therefore, implementation
of the project would cause diminished water flow in three major rivers of
BangladeshMeghna, Surma and Kushiyaracausing severe impact on
Bangladesh. Increased rate of sedimentation due to diminished flow of water,
dilapidated water carrying capacity of the river and aggravated rate of sudden
and frequent floods in the region are some of the key devastating impacts that
would be caused by the implementation of the project as per experts estimation.34
These effects will be seen in the Northeastern region and especially in the Haor
areas of the country, which would totally transform the existing landscape of the
area. The fertile land of the Haor would turn into desert, agriculture would be
destroyed and some of the local rice varieties will be lost, impacting regional
biodiversity.
Indias unilateral planning and implementation of these projects without
105
discussing and taking Bangladesh into confidence, the lower riparian country,
has contributed to the perception that India is not a very friendly country as it
remains negligent about Bangladeshs concerns and the devastating impact of these
projects on the country. These perceptions easily convert into anti-India
sentiments. Being a big and not an enemy country, India is expected to
appropriately consult with Bangladesh and demonstrate its seriousness in paying
due attention to the persistent hue and cry in Bangladesh against these projects.
The Border Issues

Bangladesh and India share 4,096 km of a porous land boundarythe longest of
Indias land border among its South Asian neighbours. Outstanding BangladeshIndia border issues consist of demarcation of the 6.5 km of borders, exchange of
enclaves, resolution of the adversely possessed lands, border fencing, informal
immigration, illegal movements, smuggling and trafficking along the border and
the border killings.
Soon after independence, issues of undemarcated borders, exchange of enclaves
and the adversely possessed lands were resolved through the 1974 LBA between
Bangladesh and India. According to the constitution of both the countries, the
agreement has to be ratified by their respective parliaments. Bangladesh
Government was quick to ratify the agreement in 1975, and handed over the
BeruBari enclaves to India. India, on the other hand, is yet to ratify the agreement
in its parliament, thereby failing to implement provisions related to enclaves and
adversely possessed lands. The two sides though signed a protocol to the agreement
in 2011 to expedite implementation of the 1974 LBA, but it is yet to achieve
success. Indias failure to ratify the agreement in the parliament and implement
it, again, germinates mistrust and suspicion and the perception of not a
trustworthy country. There was huge possibility and expectation that the
constitutional amendment bill would be passed in the Indian Parliament during
the budget session of the Congress Government in 2013.35 But with great dismay,
it was found that the amendment bill could not be placed in the Indian Lok
Sabha. In spite of the assurances by President Pranab Mukherjee, the then Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh and the External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid,
the bill could not even be placed in the parliament due to the opposition of
Trinamool Congress (TMC), Asom Gana Parishad (AGP) and the opposition
BJP MPs.36 While the opposition had reasons, as expressed by the BJP leaders,
the fact that the ruling party went on to ink a deal with Bangladesh without
consultation with the Opposition, and failure to place the Bill in the parliament
despite assurances by the president and the prime minister, significantly
contributed to the adverse perception about India in Bangladesh.
Other issues pertaining Bangladesh-India border include: a) Indias claims
that cross border movement of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh are
106
transforming demographics in its north-eastern states and in many other parts of

India, causing various socio-economic and political problems, and b) claims and
counterclaims by both India and Bangladesh about hosting terrorist groups to
conduct terrorist activities against the other. However, a significant border issue
that acts as a key driver of perception formation about India in Bangladesh is the
border fencing endeavour of the Indian authority. The 1974 LBA envisaged that
no defensive structure would be erected within 150 yards of the Bangladesh-India
border. After 1982, barbed wire fencing was erected by India, which has been
viewed by Bangladesh as defensive structure. India argued that only walls or
bunkers can be claimed as defensive structure as those can impede movement of
military vehicles. Since a tank can easily pass through a barbed wire fence, it does
not contradict the 1974 LBA, rather the fencing is needed to restrict movement
of illegal immigrants, smugglers, suspected militants, etc. While this may be
true, Indias unilateral construction of border fences, however, created suspicion
and adverse perception among the people of Bangladesh.
Nevertheless, the most important driver of perception formation, especially
the negative one, and sustaining it for long, has been the killing of Bangladeshis
by the Indian Border Security Force (BSF) at the Bangladesh-India border.
Although cross-border movements and related criminal activities, viz. smuggling
and trafficking are highlighted as mainly responsible for such casualties, this is a
negation of the most elementary norms of inter-state behaviour unheard of in
modern inter-state relations between two supposedly friendly countries having
normal political, commercial and cultural relations.37 According to a human rights
body in Bangladesh, Odhikar, on an average one unarmed Bangladeshi is killed
every four days on the Bangladesh-India border by the BSF.38 These deaths at the
Bangladesh-India border are germinating deep-seated resentments contributing
to the persistence of adverse perceptions among the people of Bangladesh. Stressing
the importance of border killings for Bangladesh-India relations, Shaheen Afroze
noted, (Border) killings (are) highly sensitive matter for Bangladesh. For every
mile of progress made in respect of bilateral relations in other sectors, we regress
two miles with the death of every Bangladeshi at the hand of the BSF.39 A severe
outcry was raised in early 2011 when a 15-year-old Bangladeshi girl named Felani
Khatun was murdered at the Kurigram border, and her dead body was left hanging
on the barbed wire fence for some days. This had created extreme resentment
and anger in Bangladesh, tremendously hampering Bangladesh-India relations.
The Indian Government launched a lawsuit against the perpetrators to bring them
to justice. This led to some expectations in Bangladesh that perhaps for the first
time a death at Bangladesh-India border will be awarded justice. The acquittal of
the defendant in 2013 ditched that expectation, and the verdict of not guilty
engendered extreme frustration in Bangladesh. There were protests in Bangladesh,
and some were of the opinion that the Indian court failed as it did not award
107
even a single day jail time for the defendant. Therefore, the perceptions such as
India not being serious and does not care prevailed in Bangladesh.
Trade Deficit
Bangladesh-India trade issues, particularly the trade deficit, remain a major driver
of perception formation in Bangladesh. As can be seen from Table 2, Bangladeshs
trade deficit with India has been a recurrent phenomenon. Bangladesh-India formal
trade in 2012-13 was more than US$ 5 billion and the deficit was US$ 4.2 billion.
If we add the informal trade, Bangladeshs trade deficit will be doubled. This deficit
between Bangladesh and Indian trade continues as a major issue of discord and
discussion. Tariff and Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) imposed by India are highlighted
as the contributing factors generating and sustaining trade deficits in the bilateral
trade. This has also contributed to the general perception that India wants to
restrict its market for Bangladeshi products, thereby severely hampering national
interests of Bangladesh.
Table 2: Bangladesh-India Bilateral Trade
Years
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
Exports to
India
(In US$
millions)
101
187
279
289
358
277
305
513
498
521
%
Change
85.15
49.20
3.58
23.88
-22.63
10.11
68.20
-2.92
4.62
Imports
from India
(In US$
millions)
1,602
2,030
1,868
2,268
3,393
2,864
3,214
4,569
4,755
4,741
%
Change
26.72
-7.98
21.41
49.60
-15.59
12.22
42.16
4.07
-0.29
Total
Trade
(In US$
millions)
Trade
Deficit
(In US$
millions)
1,703
2,217
2,147
2,557
3,751
3,141
3,519
5,082
5,253
5,262
1,501
1,843
1,589
1,979
3,035
2,587
2,909
4,056
4,257
4,220
% Change
22.78
-13.78
24.54
53.36
-14.76
12.45
39.43
4.96
-0.87
Sources: Bangladesh Economic Reviews 2011, 2012 and 2013. Data for the year 2012-13 has been
collected from the Bangladesh Bank.
For tariff barriers, India imposes a higher average tariff on Bangladeshi products
compared to the tariff imposed on Indian products in the Bangladesh market.40
For NTBs, the excessive requirements of documentation, varying methods of
assessing duties, expensive mandatory certificates for meeting technical and health
standards that need to be collected from distant locations such as Kolkata and
Delhi, non-recognition of Bangladeshi certification and testing laboratories and
Indias ad hoc policy changes regarding tariff quotas, limited designated ports of
entry, etc.,41 are significantly constraining Bangladeshs competitiveness in the
Indian market. These trade policies of India, intended to restrict its market for
108
Bangladeshi products, are generating adverse perceptions about India as not a

very friendly country in Bangladesh.
However, some positive initiatives were undertaken during and following the
visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. In 2011, India provided duty free access
to 61 products from Bangladesh of which 47 were textiles. India also withdrew
the NTBs on two jute products and acknowledged Bangladesh Standard and
Testing Institution (BSTI) for 15 imported products. More progress has been
made in the later years, as now almost all products, including Readymade
Garments (RMGs), from Bangladesh except tobacco and liquor get duty free access
in the Indian market. However, in September 2013, the Indian Government
imposed a 12.36 per cent Countervailing Duties (CVD) for imports of branded
readymade garments from Bangladesh.42 While the Indian authority argues that
the tax measure was necessary to provide level playing context for both Bangladeshi
RMG exporters and the local manufacturers, as revealed in a study,43 Indian
manufacturers retain an advantageous position as they pay excise duty at the rate
of 6 per cent. Question can be raised then, does the 12.36 per cent CVD is
providing level playing field for Bangladeshi exporters? These ambiguities in Indias
trade policy vis--vis Bangladesh generate adverse perceptions in Bangladesh.
Shaping of Perceptions: Institutions, Actors and Stakeholders

Different actors, institutions, and stakeholders are involved in shaping and forming
perceptions in Bangladesh vis--vis India. As for negative perceptions, various
actors and institutions act according to their vested interests or to fulfil some
narrowly defined agenda. The existence of unresolved bilateral issues as well as
lack of success on both sides of the border in resolving them are providing greater
scope for the actors and the stakeholders to mould and influence public perception
in Bangladesh. It is to be noted that the termsactors, institutions and the
stakeholderscan be used interchangeably. For example, political parties are
important institutions of a democratic system, but they are also key actors and
inexorable stakeholders in the processes of perception formation in Bangladesh
vis--vis India. In addition to political parties, the media and the civil society are
the two other major actors, institutions and stakeholders of perception formation
in Bangladesh.
The Media
Media in Bangladesh has been a key actor and institution in shaping peoples
perception in Bangladesh. Scholars and their theoretical works have extensively
highlighted medias role in perception formation amongst the masses of a country.
In fact, there is a general consensus among scholars that peoples perception about
any incident are shaped and sometimes destroyed by the media.44 According to
the communication theory, two very essential roles of media are issue-framing
109
and agenda-setting in a particular community. Agenda-setting theory of mediaeffect suggests that the main effect of media is to influence people on what to
think about and what not to think about.45 Building on this agenda-setting theory,
Noam Chomsky observes that media have a vibrant effect on manufacturing
consent on any social issue.46
With regards to issue-framing role, scholars have agreed that media is a central
agent in the construction of social frames about politics.47 Isabelle Blondel,
therefore, argues that how the media chooses to frame an incident can result in
the media acting as either a catalyst in the escalation or de-escalation.48 It can
either magnify the importance of an actors behaviour, giving positive or negative
connotations, or vice versa. Media framing can also influence the level of credibility
of political actors by defining their incompatibility and interpreting their
behaviour.49 Noelle-Neumann notes that media has the capacity to change ones
perception of what is important.50 Similarly, Gerbner suggests that media
cultivates within users a particular view of the event.51
All this theoretical construction of the medias role in forming and shaping
peoples perception is particularly relevant and instrumental in case of peoples
perceptions in Bangladesh about India and Bangladesh-India relations. There are
566 national, 2,475 local newspapers and 26 television channels currently
operational in Bangladesh.52 However, only around three per cent of the total
population constitute the circulation of Bangladeshi newspapers. Media plays both
the issue-framing and the agenda-setting role in case of Bangladesh-India relations.
For issue-framing role, media in Bangladesh mostly highlights the unresolved
bilateral issues and more particularly the disputed nature of the issues. Often they
focus more on failures or setbacks rather than the successes or improvements. For
example, border killings are always greatly focused in the news media than the
positive developments of Bangladesh-India relations.
For agenda-setting, media often sets the agenda according to the vested
interests. Bangladesh-India relations inhabit enormous significance in the domestic
politics of Bangladesh. Therefore, various groups with vested interests often use
the print media to mould and influence peoples perception and steer them in a
particular direction to fulfil their narrowly-defined objectives. The agenda-setting
role assumes greater significance when there is over sensitisation of some of the
issues as well as desensitisation of some by the media, adversely impacting
Bangladesh-India relations. The commercial interests of the news media also
operate in this regard. A very senior Bangladeshi journalist, therefore, once
remarked that the media in Bangladesh has to endure many hurdles such as
government censorship, owners dictating the policy to safeguard their interests
and threats of pressure groups.53 Whatever the scenario, one way or the other,
110
the media exerts tremendous sway over the perceptions of the people and, therefore,
it is the most significant actor in shaping peoples perception in Bangladesh.
Indian Media
An interesting aspect is that Indias media also exerts tremendous influence on
peoples perception in Bangladesh. In terms of size, coverage and circulation, the
Indian media is much larger than Bangladesh. Even the circulation of the Bangla
daily Anand Bazar Patrika from West Bengal is higher than the total circulation
of Bangladeshs all newspapers. Very often news reports in the Indian media either
in newspapers or television channels make a tremendous impact on the minds of
the people in Bangladesh, thereby contributing to the persistence of adverse
perceptions against India.
Political Elites and Political Parties
Political elites and political parties are major actors, stakeholders and also
institutions involved in forming and shaping peoples perception in Bangladesh.
Political elites and political parties to fulfil their political objectives often take
advantage of the dwindling Bangladesh-India relations. Due to the significance
of Bangladesh-India relations in the domestic politics, political parties also take
advantage of it for electoral advancement. In both cases, vested political interests
guide political parties motive. And due to the emotive value of India in
Bangladesh, political parties are significant actors shaping peoples perception in
Bangladesh.
If we look back, the very process of exploiting bilateral issues in shaping
peoples perception started as early as 1972 following the Indira-Mujib Friendship
Treaty. The Treaty was criticised by the opposition political parties in Bangladesh
as an instrument of Indian hegemony.54 Similarly, in later years, the debacle of
the Farakka Barrage, failure to implement the 1974 LBA, years of negotiation for
sharing the Ganges water, border killings by the BSF, recurrent trade deficit and
border fencingall have been narrated by the opposition political parties in a
way to portray India as an enemy country of Bangladesh. Such narratives have
also contributed to the approach of some of the political parties to view the entire
gamut of Bangladeshs relations with India as a zero-sum game. 55 The
circumstances got further complicated with the existence of ideological divide in
the domestic politics of both Bangladesh and India. The religion-based political
parties of Bangladesh especially the JIB upholds a position disfavouring India.
The reason lies in the processes of the genesis of the party as well as their particular
ideological orientation which is antithetical to India. In all circumstances, political
parties are major stakeholders and also significant actors in shaping peoples
perception in Bangladesh. However, a positive shift is evident in Bangladesh as
the general masses in contemporary times are less inclined to follow the direction
111
fabricated by the political parties. Rather, they would like to view outstanding
bilateral issues from a national interest perspective and would like to see their
immediate resolution.
Civil Society
Civil society in a country has similar agenda-setting and issue-framing role as far
as shaping peoples perception is concerned. In Bangladesh, civil society plays a
significant role in shaping peoples perception, thereby emerging as an essential
actor in the processes of perception formation in the country. A significant way
of participating in the process is through discussion sessions, seminars and
conferences. Media comes to the aid of the civil society in this regard. In recent
times, there has been an upsurge of the so called Talk Shows in the media of
Bangladesh where intelligentsia and members of the civil society participate in
the discussion and analysis of a particular issue of concern. In view of certain
outstanding issues dominating the Bangladesh-India relations, this sort of public
discussion significantly impacts peoples perception. The intelligentsia are respected
as the knowledgeable section of the society; therefore, their opinion assumes greater
significance in the psyche of the people.
Way Forward: Addressing the (Mis)perceptions and Meeting

Expectations
Geographical imperatives and commonalities of interests necessitate mutual
cooperation and shared responsibilities rather than hostility and indifference in
Bangladesh-India relations. Mutual perceptions and how one country is perceived
by the other impacts the success of the measures undertaken to advance
Bangladesh-India relationship. Failure to resolve outstanding bilateral issues for
long, functions as major drivers of adverse perception in Bangladesh against India.
Therefore, it is absolutely essential that both the countries take initiatives to address
the adverse perceptions of each other.
Resolution of all outstanding bilateral issues is the foremost way of addressing
the adverse perceptions persistent in both the countries. The two countries need
to pay due attention to the national interests and objectives of each other. India
has to understand the importance of every bilateral issue, since lack of progress
on any of the issues incites adverse perceptions and anti-India sentiments in
Bangladesh. For instance, success of the Teesta Agreement would have gone a
long way in improving Bangladesh-India bilateral relations and shredding adverse
public perceptions in Bangladesh. Similarly, ending border killings and taking
effective measures against the perpetrators of such hideous acts will tremendously
impact negative perceptions and anti-India sentiments in Bangladesh.
Immediate implementation of some of the agreements and projects will also
112
contribute in shredding misperceptions. India needs to make all-out efforts to

see that it fulfils all its commitment on the various agreements signed during the
high-level visits of 2011.56 Immediate implementation of the 2011 Land Protocol
in this regard can be a key driver in engendering positive perceptions about India
in Bangladesh. The implementation process has made some great progress in recent
times as the constitutional amendment bill is already approved by the Union
Cabinet and highly acclaimed in Bangladesh. Passing the bill in the parliament
will contribute enormously in addressing adverse perceptions in Bangladesh.
India also needs to grasp proper understanding of the expectations of its
neighbours in the context of its rising status as a global power. It has to be more
forthcoming in resolving bilateral issues and, if needed, should provide unilateral
concessions to immediately resolve outstanding issues with its neighbours. India
seems to lack a proper awareness of the politics and processes of perception
formation in Bangladesh,57 and how the action and policies of India often
inadvertently generate anti-India sentiments in the country. Also, India often
appears convinced that economics would remove the negative perceptions and
take the Bangladesh-India relations forward on a sustainable basis, wherein
Bangladesh, by becoming the subregional connectivity hub, would reap the benefits
of cooperation with India. Such a perception fails to factor in the political
divisiveness in Bangladesh where it does not have the luxury to wait for economics
to launch bilateral relations, and delays mean playing into the hands of the
Opposition, further constraining the Bangladesh-India relations.
A significant way forward, therefore, involves policy-makers or incumbent
governments of both the countries undertaking measures to incorporate the
Opposition into the policy-making process, at least as far as policies and initiatives
regarding bilateral issues are concerned. Both Bangladesh and India assume special
significance in the domestic politics of the respective countries. Opposition as a
major actor and institution in the processes of perception formation has to be
recognised and due consideration must be showed to them by the incumbent
government to advance Bangladesh-India relations.
Media also has a significant role in moving forward Bangladesh-India relations.
Media needs to be sensitised to the fact that they have a larger role to play. It has
to realise that it needs to serve the greater purpose of contributing towards
improvement and advancement of Bangladesh-India relations, and thereby serving
the national interest, rather than pursuing parochial commercial and sectional
interests.
It is inspiring to note that there has been some significant advancement in
Bangladesh-India relations in recent times. Both the countries have been able to
conclude an Extradition Treaty that will help them to address the long-standing
allegations against each other of harbouring criminals. Bangladeshs initiatives to
113
bring to justice some of the extremists who are involved in separatist movements
in Indias Northeast as well as measures taken to prevent them from using its
territory to launch and instigate insurgencies in the north-eastern states of India,
have contributed tremendously in improving Indias confidence over Bangladesh.
Since 2009, Bangladesh and India have signed 10 Memoranda of Understanding
(MoU) and four other bilateral instruments (see Appendix). Indias relaxation of
the visa regime and easing the consular services in Bangladesh is an excellent
initiative affecting peoples perceptions in Bangladesh. Both the countries have
also agreed to a Joint Border Management Plan which will have enormous impact
in terms of reducing border casualties and unintended border incidents. However,
in case of Bangladesh-India relations, there is no scope for complacency as due to
the hyper sensitiveness of the relations, a trivial incident has the potential to
undermine the achievements made so far. Both the countries, therefore, have to
make continuous efforts to build on their successes while being cautious of not
moving backwards in any circumstances.
Conclusion
Many factors in the last four decades have contributed in effecting divergences in
Bangladesh-India relations. Regime changes, changes in the system of governance,
change in foreign policy orientations and even changes in the constitutional
principle of Bangladesh have contributed in creating and sustaining divergences
between the two countries. On the other side of the border, Indias own internal
domestic factors have also played their respective roles in creating discrepancies
between the two countries. However, from the foregoing discussion, some very
crucial points have emerged as far as peoples perception of India and BangladeshIndia relations are concerned. Perceptions of India in Bangladesh manifest through
the image of India, i.e., how India is viewed or perceived in Bangladesh. India is
not a friendly country, lacks seriousness when it comes to its relations with
Bangladesh, not a trustworthy country as it intends to impose its natural
asymmetry in bilateral transactions with Bangladesh, etc., are some of the
expressions illustrating peoples perception of India in Bangladesh. Mutual mistrust
and suspicion developed over the years have added to these adverse perceptions,
in turn generating and sustaining anti-India sentiments in Bangladesh.
Outstanding bilateral issues are the key drivers in forming and sustaining
peoples perception; at the same time, media, political parties and the civil society
are some of the crucial actors, institutions and stakeholders involved in perception
formation about India. Gap in expectations and achievements in managing
bilateral issues have further contributed to the anti-India sentiments. The historical
baggage and the construction of the enemy image both by the political vested
interest groups and the media have their fair share in compounding the peoples
114
perceptions. The ideological differences are a key factor in Bangladesh-India

relations as highlighted by some of the analysts,58 but in an age of mutual
interdependence, in the 21st century, bilateral issues and interests are to be managed
and dealt with.
During the second tenure of the Sheikh Hasina Government (2009-2013),
Bangladesh and India have been able to make tremendous advancements in their
bilateral relations. They are now more confident about both the countries wanting
to pursue cooperative partnership with each other. Moreover, both would certainly
refrain from taking any initiative or policy measure that might hamper the national
interests of the other while making every effort possible to address the grievances
of the other. However, failure in resolving some of the issues, viz. the Teesta
Agreement, implementation of LBA, continuing deaths at the border despite
assurances from India at the highest level as well as sluggish progress in opening
up of Indian markets for Bangladeshi commodities, continue to constrain
Bangladesh-India relations. Policymakers and decision-makers of both countries,
therefore, need to undertake immediate measures to resolve these outstanding issues
which will enormously contribute in shredding Bangladeshi peoples adverse
perceptions of India, thereby sustaining the momentum achieved in the past to
steer the trajectory of bilateral relationship towards a new height.
ENDNOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
Shaheen Afroze, Security Dynamics and Bangladesh-India Relations: Bangladesh

Perspectives, in Smruti S Pattanaik (ed.), Four Decades of India Bangladesh Relations:
Historical Imperatives and Future Direction, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New
Delhi, 2012, p. 217.
Ibid., p. 217. For instance, Shaheen Afroze noted, It will not be an exaggeration to say
that they (Bangladesh-India relations) plummeted to a low (level) of mutual mistrust and
suspicion from the heights of very close friendship that lasted a brief period in the aftermath
of Bangladeshs independence Neither the warmth or nor the trust in the relationship
could be sustained for very long. This uneven relationship appears to be caused by the
misperceptions regarding each other in both countries. Similar observation was made by
A.K.M. Abdus Sabur in early 1990s: Relations between Bangladesh and India in real terms
however reveal serious perceptional gaps. See A.K.M. Abdus Sabur, Some Reflections on
the Dynamics of Bangladesh-India Relations in Iftekharuzzaman and Imtiaz Ahmed (eds.),
Bangladesh and SAARC: Issues, Perspectives and Outlook, Academic Publishers, Dhaka, p.
131. Also, see Serajul Islam, Indo-Bangladesh Relations: The Importance of Perceptions,
The Daily Star, October 09, 2010, at http://archive.thedailystar.net/newDesign/newsdetails.php?nid=157691 (accessed October 20, 2013).
Bangladesh-India unresolved bilateral issues range from implementation of land boundary
demarcation agreement, sharing of trans-boundary water resources, exchange of enclaves
including the Tin Bigha corridor, problems of adversely possessed lands to the problems of
trade concessions and the persistence of non-tariff and para-tariff barriers hindering bilateral
trade.
For a comprehensive analysis of Bangladeshs threat perception vis--vis India, see V.K.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
115
Vinayaraj, India as a Threat: Bangladeshi Perceptions, South Asian Survey, 16 (1), 2009,
pp. 101-118.
Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics, Princeton University Press,
New Jersey, 1976; Arthur A. Stein, When Perception Matters, World Politics, 35 (4), 1982,
pp. 505-526; Glen Fisher, The Role of Culture and Perception in International Relations, 2nd
ed., Intercultural Press Inc., Yarmouth, 1997; Jack S. Levy, Political Psychology and Foreign
Policy in David O. Sears, Leonie Huddy and Robert Jervis (eds.), Oxford Handbook of
Political Psychology, Oxford University Press, New York, 2003, pp. 253-284; and Janice Gross
Stein, Threat Perception in International Relations in Leonie Huddy, David O. Sear and
Jack S. Levy (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, 2nd ed., Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 2013, pp. 364-394.
Glen Fisher, no. 5, p. 12, as quoted in Smruti S. Pattanaik, Indias Neighbourhood Policy:
Perceptions from Bangladesh, Strategic Analysis, 35 (1), January 2011, p. 74.
V.K. Vinayaraj, no. 4, p. 103.
Bhumitra Chakma, Bangladesh-India Relations: Sheikh Hasinas India-Positive Policy
Approach, RSIS Working Paper No. 252, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies,
Singapore, 2012, p. 7.
Harun ur Rashid, Bangladesh Foreign Policy: Realities, Priorities and Challenges, revised ed.,
Academic Press and Publishers Library, Dhaka, 2010, p. 89.
The Agreements regarding telecommunication and trade were signed on March 27 and 28,
1972, respectively. The agreement on cooperation in the field of peaceful uses of atomic
energy was concluded on August 27, 1973. Other instruments inked during this period
included: November 01, 1972 Protocol on inland water transit and trade, November 24,
1972 statute of the joint river commission and January 04, 1973 Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) regarding joint power coordination board.
Bhumitra Chakma, no. 8. p. 8.
Akmal Hussain, The Bangladesh-India Relations 1972-75: Seeds of Future Discord, in
Muzaffar Ahmed and Abul Kalam (eds.), Bangladesh Foreign Relations: Changes and Directions,
University Press Limited, Dhaka, 1989, pp. 9-19; Ishtiaq Hossain, Bangladesh-India
Relations: Issues and Problems in Emajuddin Ahmed (ed.), Foreign Policy of Bangladesh: A
Small States Imperatives, University Press Limited, Dhaka, 1984, pp. 34-51. Vinayaraj, no.
4, also maintains that Bangladesh-India relations began to show signs of stress and strain as
early as 1972. He highlighted some very important factors: Indias failure to realise the
sensitivities and psychology of a people who had just emerged from a long history of colonial
exploitation; the presence of the Indian army; the posture of the Indian bureaucrats who
reminded Bangladeshis of the high-handed attitude of West Pakistani bureaucrats; visits by
a large number of intellectuals from West Bengal who had migrated from East Bengal in
1947; the self-glorification of those Bengalis who had crossed the border during the liberation
war; large-scale smuggling; the subservient attitude of Awami League leaders of Bangladesh
and the alleged removal of abandoned Pakistani arms and ammunitions from across the
border by the Indian army all aroused Bangladeshi suspicion.
Smruti S. Pattanaik, no. 6, p. 75.
Bhumitra Chakma, no. 8, p. 10.
Ibid., p. 10
Ibid., p. 1.
Ibid., p. 2. Chakma mentions that Sheikh Hasinas personal relations with the leadership of
the Indian National Congress and the domestic political dynamics of Bangladesh have
directed her India-positive policy as far as personal and national level sources are concerned.
For regional/international sources, Indias regional and global emergence as economic power,
improving India-China relations despite their outstanding border issues and India-US close
116
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.

cooperation have greatly informed Sheikh Hasinas policy towards India.
Rajesh M. Basrur, Global Quest and Regional Reversal: Rising India and South Asia,
International Studies, 47 (2-4), 2010, p. 267.
Stephen P. Cohen, India: Emerging Power, Brookings Institution Press, Washington D.C.,
2002, pp. xiii-xiv.
Ibid.
Indias share in the worlds total arms imports is 12 per cent; the second largest is China
with 6 per cent share, i.e., half of Indias imports. See Paul Holtom et al., Trends in
International Arms Transfers, 2012, SIPRI Fact Sheet, Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute, Stockholm, March 2013, p. 4.
Sam Perlo-Freeman et al., Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2012, SIPRI Fact Sheet,
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Stockholm, April 2013, p. 2.
Peter R. Lavoy, India in 2006: A New Emphasis on Engagement, Asian Survey, 57 (1),
January-February 2007, p. 114.
Amrita Narlikar, India Rising: Responsible to Whom?, International Affairs, 89 (3), May
2013, p. 595.
Ibid.
Vinayaraj, no. 4, p. 107.
Experts have found that water diversion at Farakka has severely affected the natural flow of
water in the downstream of the Ganges, i.e., decreasing flow of water in the River Padma
on Bangladesh side. Agriculture, navigation, irrigation, fisheries, forestry, industrial and
economic activities have all been severely affected by the changes in the hydrological system
of the Ganges basin in Bangladesh. Furthermore, salinity intrusion in the coastal rivers,
ground water depletion, riverbed silting, coastal erosion and sedimentation are also directly
or indirectly caused by the diminishing flow of water in Bangladesh.
Segufta Hossain, Cooperation on the Water Issue: Bangladesh Perspectives in Smruti S.
Pattanaik (ed.), Four Decades of India Bangladesh Relations: Historical Imperatives and Future
Direction, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi, 2012, p. 155.
Ibid.
Teesta Failure Unfortunate, The Daily Star, September 08, 2011.
For detailed analysis on this, see Anand Kumar, Impact of West Bengal Politics on IndiaBangladesh Relations, Strategic Analysis, 37 (3), 2013, pp. 338-352.
Segufta Hossain, no. 28, p. 151.
For elaborate discussion on RLPs probable impact on Bangladesh, see Mohammad Humayun
Kabir and Sufia Khanom, Indias River Linking Project: Possible Implications for
Bangladesh, BIISS Journal, 29 (2), April 2008, pp. 177-209.
Segufta Hossain, no. 28, p. 152.
In February 2013, the Union Cabinet gave their positive nod to the Constitutional
Amendment Bill. See Indo-Bangla boundary bill okayed by the Indian Cabinet, The Daily
Sun, Dhaka, February 14, 2013.
Mahmood Hasan, Delhi lets Dhaka down, The Daily Star, Dhaka, September 16, 2013.
M. Afsarul Qader, Management of Bangladesh-India Border, Paper presented at the
Roundtable on Bangladesh-India Relations: Exploring New Horizons, organised by
Bangladesh Institute of International and Strategic Studies, Dhaka, January 09, 2010.
Shaheen Afroze, no. 1, p. 221.
Ibid.
Mahfuz Kabir, Bangladesh-India Trade and Investment: Bangladesh Perspectives, in Smruti
S. Pattanaik (ed.), Four Decades of India Bangladesh Relations: Historical Imperatives and Future
Direction, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi, 2012, p. 136.
Ibid., pp. 137-138.

42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
117
Mahfuz Kabir, Regional Trade Liberalisation and Non-tariff Barriers: The Case of
Bangladeshs Trade with South Asia, BIISS Journal, 35 (2), 2014.
Ibid.
Richard West and Lynn Turner, Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application,
2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 2004, pp. 376-380.
See John Zaller, A Theory of Media Politics, University of Chicago Press, USA, 1999.
E.S. Herman and N. Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass
Media, Vintage, London, 1994.
Gadi Worfsfeld, Media and Political Conflict: News from the Middle East, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1997.
Y. Isabelle Blondel, Violent Conflict and Roles of the Media, Uppsala University, Uppsala,
2003.
Jaap Ginneken, Understanding Global News, Sage Publications, London, 1998.
E. Noelle-Neumann, The Theory of Public Opinion: The Concept of the Spiral of Silence
in J. A. Anderson (ed.), Communication Yearbook 14, Sage Publications, Newbury Park,
1991, pp. 256-287.
G. Gerbner and L. Gross, Living with Television: The Violence Profile, Journal of
Communication, 1976, pp. 172-199.
S. Rozana Rashid and Azharul Islam, The Role of Media in Influencing Public Opinion
on Violence against Minorities: The Case of Ramu in Bangladesh, Journal of International
Affairs, 17 (1-2), June/December 2013, p. 2.
Reazuddin Ahmed, Role of the Media in a National Crisis, Paper presented at the AMICSIDA Seminar on The Role of the Media in a National Crisis, Colombo, May 15-17, 1991,
quoted in Ibid., p. 5.
Vinayaraj, no. 4, p. 106. The Treaty had the validity of 25 years with renewal option.
However, in 1996, when it had to be renewed, both Bangladesh and India decided otherwise
as they deemed it has lost its relevance due to the changed regional and international settings.
Ibid., p. 82.
Serajul Islam, no. 2.
118
APPENDIX
Treaties, Agreements and MoUs since 2009 (Total 21 Instruments)

Treaty
July 28, 2013: The Extradition Treaty
Agreements
January 12, 2010:
(1) Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance on Criminal Matters
(2) Agreement on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons
(3) Agreement on Combating International Terrorism, Organized Crime and Illicit Drug
Trafficking
September 07, 2011:
(1) Protocol to the Agreement Concerning the Demarcation of the Land
(2) Framework Agreement on Cooperation for Development
(3) Boundary Agreement between India and Bangladesh and Related Matters
[Total = Six Agreements]
MoUs
January 12, 2010: Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in Power Sector
September 07, 2011:
(1) Addendum to the MoU between India and Bangladesh to Facilitate Overland Transit Traffic
between Bangladesh and Nepal
(2) Memorandum of Understanding on Renewable Energy Cooperation
(3) Memorandum of Understanding on Conservation of the Sundarban
(4) Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in the field of Fisheries
(5) Memorandum of Understanding on Mutual Broadcast of Television Programmes
(6) Memorandum of Understanding between Jawaharlal Nehru University and Dhaka University
(7) Memorandum of Understanding on Academic Cooperation between National Institute of
Fashion Technology (NIFT), India and BGMEA Institute of Fashion and Technology (BIFT),
Bangladesh.
February 16, 2013:
(1) Memorandum of Understanding for Establishment of Bangladesh-India Foundation.
(2) Memorandum of Understanding on establishment of Akhaura-Agartala Rail link.
[Total = 10 MoUs]
Others
January 12, 2010: Cultural Exchange Programme
2011
(1) July 30: Coordinated Border Management Plan
(2) September 07: Protocol on Conservation of the Royal Bengal Tiger of the Sunderban
July 28, 2013: 28 July: Revised Travel Arrangement
[Others = Four]
Sources: Collected and collated from websites of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of
Bangladesh and the Indian High Commission in Dhaka.
8
Indo-Afghan Relationship: Afghan
Expectations and Indian Reluctance
Davood Moradian
Introduction
From the Buddhist heritage in the western Afghan city of Herat to the mausoleum
of great Persian poet Mirza Abdul-Qader Bedil in the heart of Delhi, AfghanIndia relations are almost unique in enjoying all elements of a truly historical and
strategic partnership. India is an inspiring nation for Afghanistans young
democracy, its multicultural society and status as a developing nation. Delhi and
Kabul share a number of identical interests and concerns, primarily in security
and economic sphere. For the intertwined state-sponsored and transnational
terrorism, Afghanistan and India are strategic targets. Indias vast market presents
golden business and economic opportunities for Afghanistans emerging economy.
Afghanistans natural resources and its geo-strategic location as Asias roundabout
have made it a vital economic partner for India. However, Delhi and Kabul have
failed to fully utilise their almost inseparable history and convergence of common
values and shared political, security and economic interests and concerns. Delhis
cautious geo-strategic mindset and its entrenched bureaucracy is primarily
responsible for a significant gap between the reality and the potential of
Afghanistan-Indias partnership; followed by Wests Pakistan-centric and myopic
understanding of the region and Kabuls transitioning political and institutional
landscape.
Indias popularity in Afghanistan is immense. People are fond of its Bollywood
films and Indian actors are very popular among Afghans. There have been several
120
opinion polls in which India stood out as the most favored and most popular
nation among the Afghans. Since the American intervention in 2001, India has
played an active role in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan. Its
early engagement was seen as a strategy to undermine Pakistan by many in the
West and in Pakistan, whereas preventing the return of Islamist government in
Afghanistan is one of the core interests of India. The Islamist government, in
Indias view, may give strategic depth to Pakistan which will further encourage
the Kashmiri and other militant groups to destabilise India. Therefore, India would
like to closely engage with the democratically-elected Afghan Government and
try to make sure that it does not fall after the drawdown of the NATO-led
international force in 2014.
India actively engages the civil society of Afghanistan as well. India and the
United States (US) cooperate mainly in the field of agricultural development and
women empowerment in the NGO sector in Afghanistan. The Self-Employed
Womens Association (SEWA) is an Indian NGO that has been actively working
in Afghanistan since 2008. SEWA earlier achieved remarkable success in the Indian
state of Gujarat. An estimated US$ 1 million is provided to SEWA by the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID) for the vocational training
of Afghan women. It is estimated that SEWA has trained over 3,000 Afghan
women so far, and despite two fatal terrorist attacks on its staff it continues its
mission in Afghanistan. The US provides around US$ 3 million in the field of
agricultural development including various scholarship and exchange programmes
while linking Afghan students studying in Afghan agricultural colleges with the
Indian universities. Moreover, a trilateral dialogue between the US, Afghanistan
and India took place in September 2012, which could result in further cooperation
between India and the US towards the social and economic development of
Afghanistan.
In 2011, the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL)-led consortium, during
a bid, won the mining rights of three iron ore blocks in Hajigak in Afghanistan.
It is believed that some of the members of SAIL were wary of the deal due to the
uncertain security situation in Afghanistan. However, the Indian Government
encouraged the bid as part of its economic diplomacy. SAIL was planning to invest
about US$ 10.8 billion initially but later reduced it to US$ 1.5 billion, apparently
due to the last-minute refusal of the Indian Government to finance the deal for
security reasons.
There is a possibility that Afghanistan could become a means for building
confidence and cooperation between the arch rivals India and Pakistan. Pakistan
can benefit financially if it agrees to allow the transit of iron ore from Afghanistan
to India. This could lead to improved relations among the three countries.
However, Pakistan militarys hard stance against India leaves it with no other option
121
but to look for alternative ways. The development of Chabahar Port of Iran and
the Zaranj-Dehlaram Road built by India is one such alternative to lessen
dependence on transit via Pakistan. The Iranian port permits the transportation
of iron ore and would act as a hub of transportation of various goods between
India and Afghanistan.
The Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA)

The two countries signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) during President
Hamid Karzais visit to India in 2011. It is the first ever agreement where
Afghanistan has formally entered into a strategic partnership with any country.
With the international security forces scheduled to withdraw at the end of 2014,
the timing of the SPA could not have been better, which increases its significance
many times.
In the region surrounding India and Afghanistan, there is a conflicting
interplay of interests. It is obvious that the responses to the Indo-Afghan
partnership by various nations in the region differ substantially. The problem is
further aggravated when the different nations follow different objectives and
agendas. However, the people of Afghanistan and its government both view SPA
as an outcome of strong historical ties between the two nations. In a more practical
view, there is a growing consensus in Afghanistan that the country needs assistance
in the reconstruction of its economy. India, being a growing economy, is perceived
to be in a much better position to help Afghanistan in reviving its economy
shattered by decades of conflict. On its path towards developmental assistance to
Afghanistan, India has already committed nearly US$ 2 billion in aid so far. Apart
from the developmental assistance, the government of Afghanistan sees India as
a means to alleviate the insecurity, which could possibly deteriorate after the
withdrawal of international forces. India has cultivated goodwill among the Afghan
people by involving itself more in the developmental activities, such as
development of roads, telecommunication and power generation, in addition to
investing in the field of education, health care and future leadership programmes.
Afghanistan believes that Pakistan is nowhere close to competing with Indias
contribution regardless of whether it is in the field of developmental activities or
foreign policy, where India is seen as a more mature and trustworthy partner.
Moreover, in September 1964, the government of India launched the Indian
Technical and Economic Cooperation (ITEC) programmea bilateral programme
of assistance that covers a large number of countries, which are in need of assistance
around the world. Afghanistan has been a beneficiary of this programme for many
years. The agreement on the strategic partnership might seem to reaffirm the past
ties between the two countries; however, it mainly aims at propelling the
relationship between India and Afghanistan beyond the aid relationship. An
122
important and integral part of the agreement is training of the Afghan National
Security Forces (ANSF). The stability in Afghanistan and sustenance of its
democratic set up is a critical element of Indias security interest. Therefore, to
contribute towards building up the capacity of the Afghan Government to tackle
the security issues on its own is the first step from the Indian side to pursue its
objective of security interest in Afghanistan.
In India, two completely opposite views prevail when it comes to engagement
in regional affairs, especially in regards to Afghanistan. One view suggests that if
India wants to emerge as a regional superpower, it would have to step up its
engagement in regional affairs to show its preeminence in various fields. This
view further suggests that India should grab the opportunity provided by
Afghanistan to project itself in the region. In contrast to this, there are others
who believe India should refrain from any direct involvement in regional affairs
and especially in Afghanistan where Britain, USSR and the US have failed
miserably in the past. As per the second view, it is believed that India should first
solve its internal conflicts and secure its borders with hostile neighbors. Only
when it is secure internally, it can engage itself more proactively in regional and
global affairs.
To the US and the Western powers, SPA came as a surprise and questions
were raised as to why Afghanistan chose to sign a strategic partnership with India
in the first place. This paper identifies three factors to explain why Afghanistan
chose India as a strategic partner.
The first factor is convergence of certain values. It is a well known fact that
India is the largest democracy and a great example for pluralistic and multi-cultural
societies. Afghanistan needs democracy and development to bring lasting peace
and stability in the region. Since Afghanistan is a young democracy, there is a lot
to be inspired from the model of Indian democracy. India is currently a developing
nation but until few decades back it too was poor and underdeveloped. India
had to bear the trauma of partition and faced severe crisis from within. The society
was largely rural and mostly based on agricultural economy. Afghanistan today
faces several of such challenges and there is lot that it can learn from Indias model
of democracy, governance and development.
The second reason Afghanistan sees India as a strategic partner is the
convergence of national interests of both the countries. For Afghanistan, terrorism
presents the biggest threat on a daily basis. The country is confronted with and
threatened by terrorists who have the power to disseminate their radical ideologies
across the region. India too is troubled by terrorist activities in its northern, northeastern and central regions. A regional cooperative approach is needed to tackle
this menace of terrorism. This suggests that there is something beyond the historical
and cultural relations between the two countries that bind them together.
123
The third primary reason is that the economies of the two countries are
compatible as they complement each other. India with its huge human resource
is a large market for Afghan products and at the same time Afghanistan has a
wealth of natural resources that can offer plenty to Indias rising economy.
Afghanistan acts as a land bridge between South Asia and Central Asia. For India,
Afghanistan is a gateway to Central Asia and a part of Middle East; in a similar
manner, India can be the gateway for Afghan products. Thus, it is the abovementioned three reasonsshared values, common national security interests and
complementary economythat bind India and Afghanistan as strategic partners.
Afghanistans Expectations and Concerns

Except for the short span of five years from 1996 to 2001, when Taliban controlled
Kabul, the two countries have long shared cordial relations. Currently, Afghanistan
is concerned about Indias weaknesses and not about its rise. Earlier, three presidents
of Afghanistan had an excellent relationship with India: Sardar Mohammad Daoud
Khan, Mohammad Najibullah and Burhanuddin Rabbani were great friends of
India. However, India could neither prevent the fall of their governments nor
could it protect them against the threats that they were confronted with. All three
Afghan presidents had virtually pleaded for Indias support; but, despite its good
intentions, the Indian power was not sufficient enough to protect their
governments. There is a considerable amount of fear in Afghanistan that the same
forces that toppled the previous three governments are again giving a tough time
to Kabul. It would be interesting to see whether India will repeat the same or will
it approach the Afghan crisis in a different manner this time.
Afghanistan does not need or expect any muscular support from India. Kabul
has a functioning army that is capable enough to defend the nation. Peace and
stability in Afghanistan is of vital national interest to India too and, therefore,
India should provide necessary equipment required by the Afghan national army
to tackle terrorism on its soil. Also, India can help Afghan army in training and
consultation on security and defence matters. Moreover, India can help Afghanistan
in the field of modern education and health care. India is a fast developing nation
and has made several advancements in the field of science and technology while
Afghanistan, being rich in mineral wealth, needs expertise not exploitation for
developing its mineral wealth. The infrastructure required for establishing a
modern industrial base in any country is the need of the hour and Afghanistan
is not an exception to it. India has a great potential in this sector and can help
Afghanistan in this respect as well. Furthermore, in order to revive the economy
of Afghanistan, it has to be integrated with regional economies. In the ancient
and even medieval times, Afghan economy has done better than the regional
economies when there were centers of trade around Afghanistan. The role of India,
124
China, Russia and Pakistan is very crucial in this regard. There is an urgent need
for a strong regional consensus on building connectivity and infrastructure in
and around Afghanistan.
The problem here is that the government of India has taken a very cautious
approach in Afghanistan. Even the strategic partnership to some extent came as
a surprise. India needs to cooperate whole-heartedly with Afghanistan without
bothering about what Pakistan or other countries think. Also, India does not have
a regional policy except towards Myanmar and Afghanistan. It seemed to be more
interested in developing strategic partnership with the US and other global powers.
Except for the time of Inder Kumar Gujrals government in the mid-90sarguably
the best phase in Indias relationship with regional countriesIndia did not have
an explicit regional policy approach. However, after 2004, the Congress-led
government had shown a renewed commitment to engagement in regional affairs.
Indias foreign policy towards Afghanistan is frequently justified in these terms.
India believes that a socially and economically developed Afghanistan is crucial
for regional stability.
Initially, the US was concerned about Indias growing influence in Afghanistan
mainly reflecting Pakistani concerns. Recently there seems to be a shift in the US
stance, as it wants more involvement from the Indian side but without their
military presence in Afghanistan, which it acknowledges, would concern Pakistan.
However, it is very unlikely that India will send its troops to Afghanistan on a
peacekeeping mission, as it has no desire to take a unilateral security role in
Afghanistan. It is because of the fact that India is yet to forget the long-standing
memories of its failed peacekeeping mission in Sri Lanka from 1987-90, and also
more importantly India does not want to alarm Pakistan by its troops presence
in Afghanistan.
Indias Reluctance
Due to Indias overall reluctance to engage in regional affairs, there are fears in
Kabul that India might not be able to help the country for the fourth time in
succession. The first manifestation of that reluctance is the language that has been
used by the Indian establishment to describe Indo-Afghan relationship. After 2010,
the language was one of a developmental partnership between the two countries,
and a strategic partnership was considered a taboo in the establishment and the
strategic community of India. Despite the fact that the strategic partnership has
already been signed, India is still reluctant to fully implement it as one component
of that partnership is security cooperation between Afghanistan and India. It was
very disappointing for the Afghan administration when their request for stronger
defence and security cooperation was not received warmly by Delhi. India needs
to recognise the difference between Afghanistan and African or Latin American
125
nations. Afghanistan is an important strategic country, not only for India but
also for the region as a whole, and it is hard to imagine that India is reluctant to
fully engage with Afghanistan on security and defence matters.
Another point of concern is that, with respect to Afghanistan, India does not
have an independent foreign policy. Moreover, Indias engagement with Pakistan
and the US shapes the Indo-Afghan relationship to a large extent. Therefore, Kabul
does not see an independent Indian foreign policy, one that is irrespective of
Pakistani concerns, Western wishes and perceptions of its other partners.
The other problem between the two countries is the existence of the
socialisation gap. It is a well-known fact that Afghan politicians, academics,
journalists and travelers visit India on a regular basis unlike the Indians who hardly
show up in Afghanistan. Therefore, this socialisation gap needs to be addressed
if the two countries want to promote cooperation in various fields. The other
concern in Kabul is Indias obsession and appeasement of Pakistan which prevents
it from whole-heartedly involving itself in Afghan affairs. It is time both India
and Afghanistan realised that appeasing Pakistan has not helped so far and nor
will it help any side in the near future. Pakistan needs to be confronted for its
policies and actions.
To further understand the Indian reluctance to engage fully in Afghanistan,
this paper identifies five probable reasons. The first reason is the Gandhian legacy
of non-violence which is an integral part of Indias national psyche and character.
However, the Gandhian legacy emphasised various principles and Mahatma
Gandhi himself was not afraid of confronting difficult issues. The Gandhian legacy
has resulted in a kind of strategic autonomy, i.e., the ability to work independently,
in Indias foreign policy approach.
The second probable reason is that India is an evolving and a rising power
and is in the process of transition to becoming a full-fledged global power. It is
unfortunate for Afghanistan to be caught in the middle of this transition period
because rising powers are often not very predictable. Also, they are often reluctant
and sometimes they overdo or underdo things as it is the nature of transition
which does not provide predictability.
The third probable reason is a sort of trust deficiency between the two
countries. India is not sure about its own capacities and is not confident enough
to fully assert or involve itself on the international stage. There is a kind of internal
doubt about Indias capabilities and part of that is reflected in its trust deficiency
in the future Afghan leadership and the future of Afghanistan as a whole. The
Afghan Government too is partly responsible because some of the statements made
by top government officials and foreign policy makers do not enforce trust in the
Indo-Afghan relationship.
126
The fourth probable reason is the resource constraint. There are high
expectations and demands from other developing nations in Indias neighborhood.
India does not have the resources to simply meet all of their demands.
The fifth probable reason is the institutional inefficiency of the Indian
bureaucracy, which further adds to the problem. Indias Ministry of External Affairs
(MEA) is not structured in a way that is compatible with the dynamic world of
the 21st century. It is somehow a static bureaucracy. Indias foreign policy has to
be more dynamic and adaptable if India is keen enough to involve itself as a major
power in regional or international affairs.
The Way Forward

The way forward for both countries is all about building trust in each other. To
build trust means that the two countries should be more confident and have selfbelief that they can get things done without worrying about how their actions are
perceived by other nations in the region. India has been a great civilisation for
centuries now and continues to be one. Therefore, any doubt or uncertainty about
how to deal with the region is not justified here. Moreover, India needs to actively
take part in regional initiatives. Turkey took the opportunity to co-initiate the
Istanbul Process, also known as the Heart of Asia Process. India could have taken
on the role of the co-steward following the third conference of Heart of Asia
Process in Almaty, but instead stayed back while China showed more commitment,
allowing it to become the co-steward of the most comprehensive regional initiative
ever initiated by Kabul.
India needs to understand that it has the capacity to lead the regional
initiatives. Its proximity to Afghanistan gives it prominence over Turkey; hence,
it must step up its involvement in regional security and stability initiatives. India
is a well respected country and with the exception of Pakistan, every other nation
respects Indias role in coordinating regional efforts. Furthermore, there is the
need for India to engage itself more with the US. The US is currently facing a
difficult situation; it has an identity crisis when it comes to its regional and/or
global objectives. India can help Washington to have a better relationship and a
more effective policy in South Asia; and particularly in the context of Afghanistan,
could help in working towards creating a trilateral process consisting of India,
Afghanistan and the US.
Last but not the least, Afghans are Muslims by faith. India enjoys the status
of being a country with second largest majority population as Muslims. The
Afghans have been at war for decades now. Indian Muslim scholars can help their
Afghan brothers in reengineering their mindset in accordance with the teachings
of Islamthe religion of peace. India is unique among all the Muslim countries
127
and enjoys supremacy in this regard. It can work wonders in transforming

Afghanistan into a peaceful, developed country and a model for other Muslim
countries. It is noteworthy that the great Muslim scholar of the erstwhile India,
Muhammad Iqbal, had once referred to Afghanistan as the Heart of Asia. A
peaceful and developed Afghanistan could revitalise Asia including India.
Afghanistan has the potential and it only needs unfolding. It would be interesting
to see if India is willing and ready to play its historical role.
9
Shift in Maldivian Perception Towards India
During the 2012 Political Crisis
Mohamed Naahee Naseem
As proposed by Tim Junio, States perception of one another in the international

system stems from how individuals in the states view one another.1 This paper aims
to shed light on the perceptions of the Maldives towards its regional neighbour
India, with an emphasis on how this perception had been impacted by the
Maldivian political crisis following the unprecedented transfer of power in
February 2012.2
The Maldives and India have shared a strong cultural, economic and social
bond that dates back far beyond the establishment of formal diplomatic ties in
1965.3 In the past few decades, India has undoubtedly become a strong regional
partner in the course of development in the Maldives. This continued friendship
has arguably benefited the Maldives more than India. As of today, on the one
hand, a number of Maldivian families reside in different regions of India for
purposes that primarily include higher education and better health care, wherein
the Maldives still lags behind, and on the other, a sizable portion of the Maldives
expatriate workforce comprise Indians who work in almost all major sectors in
the country including the construction industry, education and health sector as
well as the lucrative tourism industry which makes a significant contribution to
the Maldivian economy.
Similarly, following the ascension of the countrys first democratically-elected
President Mohamed Nasheed in 2008, a number of privatisation projects were
initiated. These primarily included large Indian investments in the Maldives
Shift in Maldivian Perception Towards India During the 2012 Political Crisis
129
through Indian corporations such as TATA Projects, Tatva Global and most
notably GMR Group, which brought in the single largest foreign investment
through the privatisation of the Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA).
Hence, the stakes and interests remained high for both countries in almost all
aspects.
However, as mentioned before, the Maldives went into a political crisis in
February 2012 following the unprecedented fall of the government that was elected
in 2008. President Nasheed stepped down following days of continued antigovernment protests that were later backed by both the police and the military.
Nasheed subsequently claimed that he had been ousted in a bloodless coup dtat,
but that was eventually dismissed as a baseless claim in a report released by the
Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI)a commission formulated by the
incoming government to investigate the circumstances surrounding the
controversial transfer of power.4
Nasheed was succeeded by his Vice President Dr. Mohamed Waheed Hassan
Manik with the backing of the then opposition led by former President Maumoon
Abdul Gayooms Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) and other smaller parties
including the Jumhoree Party (JP) led by business tycoon Gasim Ibrahim and
religiously conservative Adhaalath Party. The incoming President Waheed
Hassanwhose legitimacy to remain in power was consistently challenged5 by
Nasheeds Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)led an unstable government up
until the 2013 presidential elections.
One of the most predominant justifications given by Nasheeds opponents
in removing him from power was that he had, through his privatisation plans,
attempted to sell off countrys major national assets to foreign states and
corporations. They were particularly critical about the privatisation of INIA in
November 2010.6
Nasheeds government, through a competitive international bidding process
managed by the International Financial Corporation (IFC)an arm of the World
Bank, had awarded India and Malaysia Airports Berhad (MAHB), a consortium
of the GMR Group, the concession of INIA, whereby GMR-MAHB was to
manage and develop the airport within a period of 25 years, extendable for an
additional 10 years.7 The tri-party agreemententered between the Government
of Maldives, the Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL) and the GMRMAHBwas strongly opposed by then opposition political parties, which had
announced country-wide protests against the decision.8 After the agreement had
been signed, series of protests took place in the next two years largely led by a
national front called GaumeeHarakaai (translated as National Movement).
When Waheed assumed power with the backing of GaumeeHarakaai and
political parties opposed to Nasheed, he was pressurised to decide on the fate of
130
the concession agreement of INIA and GMR-MAHB. The GaumeeHarakaai,

meanwhile, continued with its protest. During some of these protests, senior
government officials and leaders of the GaumeeHarakaaiwho also held key
political positions in Waheeds governmentmade slanderous remarks towards
the Indian High Commission including the High Commissioner D.M. Mulay.
These contemptuous remarks alleged that the Indian High Commissioner was
involved in bribery and was heavily influenced by the GMR-MAHB consortium.9
Allegations were also levied against GMR-MAHB, claiming that it had tried to
induce opposition politicians including parliament members to defect to the
government by promising financial benefits.10
Despite concerns raised by the Indian High Commission, the government
failed to take any measures, let alone condemn the remarks made by its own
officials. Instead, the Waheed Government issued a statement disassociating from
the remarks made by its very own officialsincluding the presidents office
spokesperson and the minister of state for home affairs.11
In November 2012, Waheed Government publicly announced the repudiation
of the agreement in a press conference broadcast live on state television. The
government argued that it had to terminate the agreement primarily on two
grounds: Firstly, the government claimed that the contract was not lawfully entered
as per the existing laws of the Maldives and, therefore, it was void ab initio, that
is, invalid from the outset. Secondly, the government claimed that the contract
had become frustrated due to decisions made by the Maldivian courts of law.12
The previously mentioned two incidentsthe ridiculing of the Indian
diplomatic presence in the Maldives and the repudiation of the GMR-MAHB
contract by the governmenthit hard both the Indo-Maldives ties as well as the
general Maldivian public perception towards India.
Indias decision to change the interpretation of the agreement signed between
India and Maldives regarding the granting of visas for Maldivians travelling to
India, which increased the visa processing time (resulting in long queues at the
Indian High Commission), further added to the negative view towards India,
which had already been initiated by the Gaumee Harakaai.13 In addition, local
media reports on restrictions placed by the Indian Government on Maldivian
imports, particularly construction materials including construction sand and
aggregate, further contributed to the shift in the perception.14
Moreover, deposed President Nasheeds decision to seek refuge in the Indian
High Commission in Male when the Hulhumale Magistrate Court ordered the
police to summon him to the court, on charges of arresting the Chief Judge of
Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed15 during his final days in power, led to a public
perception that India was meddling in the domestic affairs of Maldives by siding
Shift in Maldivian Perception Towards India During the 2012 Political Crisis
131
with Nasheed and his party MDP. This was particularly to the dismay of parties
supporting the Waheed Government.16
Despite efforts by the Indian High Commission to dismiss these allegations
and disassociate itself from the allegations made, the local media continued to
link these events to the governments decision to evict GMR-MAHB from INIA.
This did not fare well for the diplomatic ties between the two countries as well
as the perception of Maldivians towards Indiaparticularly among those who
opposed Nasheed and his governmentleading to noisy anti-Indian rhetoric.
However, as the Maldives entered into the 2013 presidential election
campaigning, the focus quickly shifted towards partisan politics and flaws within
the judiciary. The 2013 presidential election was continuously interrupted by
interventions of the Supreme Court.17 Following the elections, which voted former
President Gayooms half-brother, Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom, into power,18
the Maldivian Government made positive efforts to mend the strained ties with
India.
The 2012 political crisis may be over, but the incidents during 2012-13 period
show how critical India remains for the Maldives as a neighbour. Critical in the
sense, a sizable number of Maldivians rely on India in terms of trade and
commerce, healthcare and education. Similarly, India too has its interests in the
Maldives. In order to further avoid such instances, both the Maldives and India
need to realise and understand their obligations, responsibilities and duties towards
one another in protecting each others interests. The Maldives has benefited from
the famous Gujral Doctrine, but that does not exempt it from its obligation
towards protecting Indian investments and Indian people working and residing
in the country. The Maldivian media should also realise the critical role that it
could play in shaping up perceptions. A stronger coordination by the Indian High
Commission with the Maldivian media would prove extremely helpful, not only
in avoiding misreporting on bilateral issues, but also in strengthening the media
for informed, independent and impartial reporting.
ENDNOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
Timothy J. Junio, The Role of Social Autonomy in Perceptions of Other in the

International System, APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper, at http://ssrn.com/
abstract=1450311
J. J. Robinson, Maldives Government Changes in Dramatic Scenes after Police Elements
Join Opposition Protest, Minivan News, February 07, 2012, at http://minivannews.com/
politics/live-police-join-opposition-protests-attack-military-headquarters-31592
N. Sathiya Moorthy, India and Maldives: Towards Consolidation, IPCS Issue Brief, 145,
March 2010, at http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/IB145-Maldives-Sathiyamoorthi.pdf
J. J. Robinson, No Coup, No Duress, No Mutiny: CNI Report, Minivan News, August
30, 2012, at http://minivannews.com/politics/no-coup-no-duress-no-mutiny-cni-report43074
132
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

Mohamed Naahee, Sacked Human Rights Minister Files Case in Court to Declare Waheed
Government Illegitimate, Minivan News, March 21, 2013, at http://minivannews.com/
politics/sacked-human-rights-minister-files-case-in-court-to-declare-waheed-governmentillegitimate-54943
Ahmed Nazeer, DRP Plan For Sale Protest, Minivan News, September 16, 2010, at http:/
/minivannews.com/politics/drp-plan-for-sale-protest-11237
J. J. Robinson, Government Signs Male International Airport to GMR-Malaysia Airports
Consortium, Minivan News, June 29, 2010, at http://minivannews.com/politics/
government-signs-male-international-airport-to-gmr-malaysia-airports-consortium-8720
Ahmed Nazeer, Airport Opposition Seeks Injunction over GMR Deal, Minivan News,
June 30, 2010, at http://minivannews.com/politics/government-signs-male-internationalairport-to-gmr-malaysia-airports-consortium-8720
J. J. Robinson, Mohamed Naahee and Mariyath Mohamed, Televised Allegations by
President Spokesperson against Indian High Commissioner Spark Diplomatic Incident,
Minivan News, November 11, 2011, at http://minivannews.com/politics/televised-allegationsby-president-spokeperson-against-indian-high-commissioner-spark-diplomatic-incident47174
Neil Merrett, Gasim Calls for Public Vigilance over Political Parties Trying to Buy MPs,
Minivan News, June 30, 2013, at http://minivannews.com/politics/gasim-calls-for-publicvigilance-over-political-parties-trying-to-buy-mps-60489
Luke Powell, Presidents Office Spokesperson Stands by Comments against GMR, Indian
High Commissioner, Minivan News, November 18, 2012, at http://minivannews.com/
politics/presidents-office-spokesperson-stands-by-comments-against-gmr-indian-highcommissioner-47534
J. J. Robinson, Cabinet Voids US$511 Million GMR Contract, Gives Airport Developer
Seven Day Ultimatum to Leave, Minivan News, November 27, 2012, at http://
minivannews.com/politics/cabinet-voids-us511-million-gmr-contract-gives-investor-sevenday-ultimatum-to-leave-48023
Luke Powell. No choice But to Wait, Maldivians Facing Overnight Queue for India Medical
Visas, Minivan News, December 24, 2012, at http://minivannews.com/politics/no-choicebut-to-wait-maldivians-facing-overnight-queue-for-india-medical-visas-49538
Construction Companies Experiencing Aggregate and River Sand Shortage, Minivan News,
March 21, 2013, at http://minivannews.com/news-in-brief/construction-companiesexperiencing-aggregate-and-river-sand-shortage-54923
Eleanor Johnstone, Chief Judge Held in Good Condition at MNDF Training Center
Girifushi, Minivan News, January 19, 2012, at http://minivannews.com/politics/chief-judgeheld-in-good-condition-at-mndf-training-center-girifushi-30952
N. Sathiya Moorthy, What after Nasheeds Refuge in Indian Mission?, Minivan News,
February 14, 2012, at http://minivannews.com/politics/comment-what-after-nasheedsrefuge-in-indian-mission-52955
J. J. Robinson, Supreme Court Annuls First Round of Presidential Elections, Minivan
News, October 08, 2013, at http://minivannews.com/politics/supreme-court-annuls-firstround-of-presidential-elections-67952
J. J. Robinson, Abdulla Yameen Wins Maldives 2013 Presidential Election with 51.39
Percent of the Vote, Minivan News, November 17, 2013, at http://minivannews.com/
politics/abdulla-yameen-wins-maldives-2013-presidential-election-with-51-39-percent-of-thevote-71981
10
Myanmars Perception of India
Denzil Abel
Myanmar is located at the strategic crossroads of South and Southeast Asia. It is

nestled between two giants, India and Chinawith populations of roughly 1.2
billion each and areas of over 3 million sq. km and 9 million sq. km, respectively.
The GDP of India is almost US$ 2 trillion and that of China over US$ 8 trillion.
In comparison, Myanmars GDP is just over US$ 55.416 billion. It is 676,578
sq. km in area and has an estimated population of only 50 million. Hence, the
perception in Myanmar of being sandwiched between two giants and treating
the two with considerable respect. After all, one can choose ones friends but not
ones neighbours.
Myanmar is Indias only land bridge with Southeast Asia and is largest of all
the mainland states of Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in terms
of land area. Myanmar and its people are oriented towards Southeast Asia in terms
of perceptions. Myanmar does not see itself as a South Asian country, rather sees
itself as an observer looking in from outside.
However, Myanmars links to India go back to antiquity. They are deeply
embedded in history, culture, religion, literature, law, tradition and in the psyche
of the people. The very word Burma is derived from Brahma, the god of creation
and one of the Hindu trinity. Hence, Brahmadesa was the name given to this
land. The art of writing came from India. The Hmannan Yazawin royal history
compiled during the last Myanmar Dynastythe Konbaunggives the account
of the first Myanmar city of Tagaung as being founded by Indian princes of the
Sakya race. Myanmar kings were called rajas and queens devis. Kings and cities
134
carried Sanskrit or Pali names. The links between the two countries in antiquity
are undeniable.
The people of Myanmar view India as the birthplace and cradle of Buddhism.
The vast majority of the people of Myanmar are followers of Theravada Buddhism,
which reached Myanmar from India via Sri Lanka. Famous Buddhist pilgrimage
sites including Bodh Gaya continue to draw thousands of Myanmar pilgrims from
all strata. Moreover, Myanmars leaders usually visit the pilgrimage sites at Bodh
Gaya before conducting their official business in New Delhi.
In antiquity, the Indians came to Myanmar in two streams, one by overland
route through Assam to Upper Myanmar, and the other by sea from South India
to lower Myanmar. Hence the word Ka-la or Ka-laar, derived from the root word
kur-la, meaning to cross over. An alternative explanation is that the word means
people who adhere to a caste system.
The pre-colonial environment and setting underwent a major transformation
during the colonial period. Burma became a province of India ruled from Calcutta
(now Kolkata) as part of British India between 1886 and 1937, following three
Anglo-Burmese Wars. In the British colonial era, Indians freely crossed over the
Bay of Bengal to find their fortunes in what was known as the Golden Land.
Interestingly, it is during the British colonial time that the word ka-la took on a
pejorative meaning.
The British brought Indians to assist them in conquering Myanmar and in
governing the new and rich provinces. The Indians were substantively engaged in
administration, police, education, trade and agriculture. They were extensively
used by the colonialists in enforcing law and order and maintaining security, thus
putting them in the unenviable role of oppressors of the occupiers. As the Indian
community grew after the First World War, the lucrative business and industry
fell increasingly into its hands, creating further resentment and dissatisfaction.
Particularly, the Chettiars from South India, who were prominent moneylenders,
caused immense unrest and ill will as a result of their foreclosure on lands held
by the Myanmar farmers in the vast Irrawaddy Delta in the wake of crash in the
rice prices during the great economic depression of the 1930s. It led to nationwide
anti-Hindu and anti-Muslim riots.
At the start of the Second World War, more than 16 per cent of the countrys
population was estimated to be ethnically Indian. Half-a-million Indians fled the
country overland into Assam as a result of the Japanese Invasion in 1942. After
independence, in 1948, Myanmars law saw the Indian community as resident
aliens. The 1982 Myanmar citizenship law restricted the citizenship to groups
which had immigrated before 1823, largely excluding Indians from acquiring
Myanmar citizenship.
135
Thus, it was from the colonial period onwards that the pejorative perception
of Indians, irrespective of their religion, Christian, Hindu or Muslim, took a firm
hold in the minds of the people of Myanmar. Unfortunately, it still exists among
the majority of the Myanmar people. At the same time, two important events
continually remind the Myanmar and the Indian people of their common suffering
as a consequence of British colonialism. First is the exile until death of Indias last
Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar in Yangon, and that of Thibaw, the last
King of Burma, in Ratnagiri in India. Second is the story and accompanying
image of General Aung San in a long coat that Jawaharlal Nehru insisted on getting
his personal tailor stitch for him on his way to London for Independence talks,
is still recalled with much pride by the people of Myanmar.
Myanmars and Indias struggle for Independence from the same colonial
master helped promote solidarity among the leaders of the two countries. Myanmar
drew as much inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of non-violence, as
from Subhash Chandra Bose who set up the Indian National Army (INA) to
liberate India from the colonial rule.
Post-Colonial Era
Relations with India following Independence can be classified generally into four
periods: the U Nu era (1948-62), the Ne Win era (1962-88), the transition (198890) and the military-dominated era (1990-2010), and the current period.
The U Nu Era
The era immediately following the independence of the two new nation states
from colonial bondage is considered by many as the Golden Age of the IndoMyanmar relations. The then premiers of Myanmar and India, U Nu and
Jawaharlal Nehru, had a high degree of intellectual affinity and commonality of
interests in charting and managing their respective nation states orientation amidst
the superpower rivalry at the time. Together with Chou En-Lai of China, they
pioneered the five principles of peaceful co-existence as the fundamentals of
international relations and were the founding fathers of the Non-Aligned
Movement of the newly independent Asian and African states. The two countries
and people had positive perceptions of each other in spite of critical postindependence adjustment issues. The Indian Government even airlifted a planeload
of armaments for the beleaguered new government in its battle against the
communist and the Karen insurgency that had swept over the newly born state
of Myanmar.
136
The Ne Win Era

In the Ne Win era that followed, however, relations cooled perceptibly. General
Ne Win who seized power in a military coup in 1962 immediately began isolating
Myanmar from the outside world in a bid to preserve Myanmars hard won
independence from what was then seen as right and left-wing plots to drag the
country into one of the two opposing blocs. People of both Chinese and Indian
ethnicity were greatly affected by the isolationist socialist policies of the Ne Win
regime. The wholesale nationalisation of private businesses in 1964 led to the
emigration of over 300,000 ethnic Indians to India. Although personal relations
between Indira Gandhi and Ne Win remained good, the overall relationship was
one of mutual neglect and estrangement. Indians in particular became the target
of discrimination and oppression by the military junta. Later, the visit of the then
Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to Myanmar in 1987 raised the expectations
for better ties. However, the events of 1988 in Myanmar put paid to such
aspirations.
The Transition and the Military-Dominated Era: 1988-2010

In 1988, Myanmar experienced a nationwide uprising and protests of epic
proportions against the one-party states inept policies that had reduced Myanmar
to a Least Developed Country (LDC) status. In mid-September, the military seized
power and brutally put down the nationwide protests.
India condemned the suppression of the demonstrations and extended strong
support to the pro-democracy movement. In 1992, India even sponsored a UN
resolution calling on the military junta to respect the 1990 election results and
restore democracy. The military regime perceived India as having strayed from
the five principles of peaceful co-existence. It viewed India as a major regional
player whose support for the democracy movement could be a game changer.
Myanmar-India bilateral relations had reached their lowest point ever with open
mutual recrimination.
Only China maintained close ties with the regime at that point of time. As
a consequence, Chinas influence in Myanmar surged dramatically in the absence
of a counterbalancing element. However, beginning from 1992, successive Indian
governments changed the policy course and began to establish warmer relations
with Myanmar as part of a wider effort to deepen Indias engagement and influence
in Southeast Asia in the light of the surging influence of China. This came to be
known as the Look East Policy.
This policy re-orientation on the part of India was perceived by the prodemocracy movement in Myanmar with much disappointment. The military
regime of course welcomed the Indian move as an opportunity to rebuild bilateral
137
ties while simultaneously redressing the imbalance that had crept in its relations
with China.
In Myanmars perception, following are the reasons for change in Indias policy
stance:
1. India has finally come to recognise the importance of Myanmar for the
successful realisation of its ambitious Look East Policy.
2. Indias four Northeastern states of Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur
and Mizoram border on Myanmars Kachin State, Sagaing Region and
Chin State.
And, the Indian Government places importance on Myanmar-India bilateral
relations because of the following reasons:
1. India wishes to fulfil its energy needs from Myanmar which has vast oil
and gas reserves.
2. India desires to gain the cooperation of Myanmar in the suppression of
armed rebellions seeking secession or autonomy in its Northeastern states
bordering MyanmarArunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur and
Mizoram.
3. The Government of India has analysed that the traditionally friendly
relations between Myanmar and India were overtaken in the past few
decades by closer ties of Myanmar with China, and therefore, wishes to
rectify the situation in its favour.
4. India realises Myanmars strategic position as the bridge connecting it
with the ASEAN states in order to implement its Look East Policy by
furthering its cooperation with Southeast Asian nations for economic,
commercial and energy security.
5. India recognises that Myanmar is the gateway for the development of its
Northeastern states, which it recently incorporated in the Look East Policy
framework.
6. India believes that it has to cooperate more closely with an increasingly
influential ASEAN in its bid for a leading role in the international
community. This is the reason why India is paying greater attention to
Myanmar as a member state of ASEAN and its role as ASEAN Chair in
2014.
7. The Government of India supports the democratic transition process and
the political, economic and social reforms undertaken by President
U. Thein Seins Government.
8. India does not want to lose the opportunity presented by the open door
economic policy of Myanmar.
138
Current Period
Myanmar has been undergoing major transformation since 2011 when the military
handed over power to a newly constituted parliament following the 2010 elections
held under the new constitution of 2008. As a result of this ongoing process, the
government under President U. Thein Sein has embarked upon reforms in the
political, economic, and social and media sector, and is currently deeply engaged
in administrative reforms. These reforms are needed because of the state the
country is in as a result of decades of isolation, mismanagement, Western sanctions
and enforced deprivation.
As a consequence of these reforms, the locus of power is gradually moving
away from the military to power centres based upon the constitutional structure
of the country. Significant developments include the participation in parliament
of the National League for Democracy (NLD) and its Chairperson Daw Aung
San Suu Kyi as a result of the 2012 by-elections in which the NLD swept 42 of
the 43 seats contested. The next general elections are scheduled for 2015.
As the transition to democracy gained recognition from India, the MyanmarIndia cooperation too has been re-ignited. The visit of President U. Thein Sein
to India in October 2011 and that of the then Indian Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh in May 2012, have substantively laid the basis for a much closer and realistic
relationship between the two countries. A quarter of a century had passed since
an Indian prime minister had visited Myanmar. Prime Minister Singh also held
talks for the first time with democracy icon Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
Analysts see the developing ties between India and Myanmar as having
particular significance, even with some wider strategic importance for Southeast
Asia and the international community as a whole. However, as it comes out of
isolation, some others see Myanmar as bypassing India and turning to the West,
especially the US, to balance Chinas growing influence. India is seen as only a
defensive power, incapable of contesting Chinese influence in Myanmar. ASEAN
and Japan seem to have done more for Myanmar in this period. Myanmar analysts
to this day point out that India was not around when it was needed most to
counter Chinas surging influence.
Trade
In contrast with the rich base for economic growth provided by rapidly developing
neighbouring Chinese province of Yunnan, the states on both sides of the
Myanmar-India border are among the poorest in each country. Border trade alone
cannot be expected to lead to a large growth in bilateral trade and investment.
Besides, the trade routes to the more dynamic domestic markets in both countries
139
are longer and much less developed along the Myanmar-India border, thereby
making other markets more attractive.
In the fiscal year 2012-13, the bilateral trade was valued at US$ 1.324 billion,
with Myanmar exports accounting for US$ 1.019 billion and Indian exports at
only US$ 304 million. It is far short of the nearly US$ 5 billion estimated trade
value with China. A Myanmar-India two-way target of US$ 3 billion by 2015
may not seem ambitious, but even that may not be achieved. Also, India is a less
attractive market for Myanmars business community. China, Southeast Asia, Japan
and Korea are seen as preferred opportunities.
Defence and Security

The visit of Vice Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, Commander-in-Chief of
Myanmar Armed Forces, to New Delhi in August 2012 and his meeting with the
then Indian Defence Minister A.K. Anthony, and the latters visit to Myanmar in
January 2013, marked the growing bilateral defence cooperation. Following the
commencement of democratic reforms in Myanmar in 2011, military leaders from
both sides have exchanged visits to enhance military-to-military cooperation and
enter into a dialogue on border security threats and challenges.
In the past few years, three Indian service chiefs have visited Myanmar to
foster a closer defence relationship. Land and maritime security concerns were,
in all likelihood, among the topics discussed. The cooperation included provision
for training facilities, visits by naval ships, and supply of equipment. However, at
this point, it cannot measure up to the existing level of cooperation between
Myanmar and China. Someone once said that Myanmar goes to China for arms
and India for salvation. Another aspect is that with the opening up of the country
and ongoing democratic reforms, the Myanmar Tatmadaw is eager to tap into
Western training facilities and even purchase arms from them. Some analysts think
defence ties with India will continue to be under-developed because they are
constrained by Indias past anti-Myanmar military policies.
In terms of soft power, India is more than on equal terms than China, given
the legacy bequeathed by antiquity and the positive aspects of the colonial
association. As the cradle of Buddhism, India does have a special place in the
hearts of the Myanmar people. Yet this advantage is being eroded. While India
has been idle, China has stepped up its cultural diplomacy by regularly sending
the Sacred Tooth Relic of the Buddha from Beijing to Myanmar for veneration.
It should also be noted and analysed that the sacred Buddhist monuments in
Bodh Gaya are being meticulously replicated by the government in Naypyitaw
for veneration.
140
Future
The democratic transition underway in Myanmar offers a welcome opportunity
for a new beginning in India-Myanmar relations. Bilateral high-level visits have
started a new dialogue and shared perceptions and plans have been recorded in
joint statements for implementation. The two countries share similar perceptions
on regional or subregional cooperation. India has a unique opportunity and role
to play in supporting the success of Myanmars Chairmanship of ASEAN in 2014.
In all of these worthy endeavours, a cautionary note needs to be sounded.
The colonial experience has scarred Myanmars perception of Indians. Two
perceptions exist in parallel. One is that the Indians who were themselves enslaved
by British colonialism acted in turn as the instruments of British colonial rule,
suppression and oppression. The other perception is that that the vast majority
of Indians were of the menial classcoolies, sweepers, rickshaw pullers, pony
cart drivers, malis and durwans and usurious moneylenders (Chettiar). As a
consequence of this Kala syndrome, even today Indians are consciously or
unconsciously looked down upon and continue to bear the brunt of
discrimination. The result is that Myanmar consistently attaches lower priority
to its ties with India.
11
Bhutan and Its International
Collaborations-2013
Pema Tenzin and Chhimi Dorji
Bhutan came out of its self-imposed isolation only in the late 1960s when the
outside world had already undergone centuries of modern development and
interactions. Bhutan has been through rapid socio-economic development in the
last four decades. The Gross National Happiness (GNH) philosophy,
conceptualised sometime in the 1970s, is a very earnest system that the government
is committed to and working on. From an absolute monarchy since 1907, year
2013 saw the second democratically-elected government take charge after the
fourth King started the process in 2006.
India was and is still the largest economic partner and supporter to the country.
Bhutan has also started opening up to the outside world wherein tourism is a
high contributor to the national income, but well behind the hydropower
electricity sale to India which is about 45 per cent of the national revenue. The
last decade also saw Bhutan taking even further interest in foreign direct investment
(FDI) and international collaborations. Bhutan currently has diplomatic relations
with some 50 countries, a noticeable increase from mere 20 until a few years ago.
Even with just less than 700,000 people in the country and with some 50,000
foreign workers, the government is also considering joining the World Trade
Organisation (WTO), opening a big education city, and further expanding the
scope of FDI to diversify and amplify the economy. Bhutan has also been very
keen on South Asia cooperation and further strengthening the regional
collaborations.
142
Background of Bhutan
Bhutan is a small landlocked country with 38,394 sq. km area on the eastern
Himalayas between China and India. It is divided into 20 administrative districts
with some 700,000 people.1 The district administrations are housed in forts called
Dzongs, which are both centres of local administration and religion. There are
205 gewogs/panchayats/counties across the country.
It is located on a very fragile Himalayan topography. The terrain ranges from
tropical foothills in the south at 200-300m to extremely rugged high mountains
in the north, which are more than 7,000m. Winters are generally cold and dry
with occasional snow in some parts, while the summers are warm and wet. The
country basically consists of three physical zones with the sub-tropical foothills
in the south, the inner Himalayas in the middle, which has temperate state, and
the higher Himalayas that are of sub-alpine and alpine conditions.
More than 70 per cent of the country is under forest coverage, and there are
strict environmental regulations such as requiring 60 per cent of forest coverage
to be maintained for all times to come. There are also nine protected areas in
Bhutan that cover more than 50 per cent of the countrys total area. Bhutan is
home to 7,000 species of vascular plants, 700 bird species and 167 mammal species
including some globally endangered species such as tiger, snow leopard, golden
langur, white-bellied heron and black-necked crane.2
Dzongkha is the national language of Bhutan, while English is the medium
of instruction in schools and the language of communication in offices. Buddhism
is the most common religion, and a strong Buddhist culture is showcased in most
parts of the country. Preservation and promotion of tradition and culture is
considered as a very important national identity. The Bhutanese men and women
wear their national dress, Gho and Kira, respectively, on a daily basis. The national
tree is Cypress, national animal is Takin, national flower is the Blue Poppy, national
bird is Raven, and national sport is archery which is very popular among men.
Agriculture is the predominant occupation with about 69 per cent of the
population depending on subsistence farming. Most farming methods are still
very manual and labour intensive. Hydropower sale is the countrys biggest national
revenue earner followed by tourism. Currently, the country has about 1500MW
power capacity from which about 85 per cent is exported to India. There are
major investment plans to harness 10,000 MW by 2020.3
History of Bhutan
History of Bhutan can be basically divided and explained in three simple, yet
major periods. The first period, or the earliest history of Bhutan, dates back to
746 A.D. when Guru Rimpoche, the Buddhist master, considered as the second
Bhutan and Its International Collaborations-2013
143
Buddha, came to Bumthang, Bhutan, from India. He sowed the seeds of Tibetan
Buddhism in Bhutan. It is also believed that he hid numerous treasures around
the valley that were later revealed by treasure discoverers called Tertons. Future
Tertons discovered the treasures and further transmitted Buddhism in Bhutan for
many years through their lineages. The most notable is Terton Pema Lingpa in
Bumthang (1450-1521), who is renowned for knowing all the 13 traditional
Bhutanese artesian skills.4
The second period of the history of Bhutan dates to the 17th century. Bhutan
was unified under one rule by Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyel, a Buddhist Lama
who fled from Tibet in 1616. Zhabdrung established the dual system of
governance, whereby authority was shared between a secular and a religious leader.
He is also the one who set up all the centres of administration and religion through
the construction of fortresses called Dzongs in all major valleys in the country.
The dual system of governance (1651-1907) was carried forward by 54 secular
administrative heads called Druk Desi, also known as Deb Raja, and religious
chief abbots called Je Khenpos.
The third major period was 1907 onward when Bhutan became a monarchy
with Sir Ugyen Wangchuck as the first hereditary King of Bhutan (1907-1926).
The country thereafter was ruled by King Jigme Wangchuk (1927-1952) and King
Jigme Dorji Wangchuk (1952-1972). The Third King of Bhutan is known as the
Father of Modern Bhutan for leading the country to the outside world, ending
centuries of isolation.
King Jigme Singye Wangchuk (born 1955), who became the worlds youngest
leader at the age of 19 in 1974, abdicated the throne at the age of 51 years for his
young prince Jigme Khesar Namgyal Wangchuk in 2006 when he was only 26
years of age. King Jigme Singye Wangchuk initiated the process of decentralisation
by starting the District Development Committee in 1981, having an elected
cabinet of ministers from the national assembly in 1998 and the drafting of the
constitution. The current king is His Majesty King Jigme Khesar Namgyel
Wangchuk (born 1980).
Exactly after 100 years of the Wangchuk Dynastys reign, Bhutan transitioned
into a democratic constitutional monarchy in a peaceful process in 2008. The
first parliamentary elections were held in 2008 and the National Council of Bhutan
and the National Assembly were formed the same year. Bhutan adopted a written
Constitution on July 18, 2009. The Druk Phuensum Tshogpa ruled the country
from 2008-2013 under the leadership of Prime Minister Jigme Y. Thinley. The
second parliamentary elections were held in 2013, and currently the Peoples
Democratic Party (PDP) is the ruling government that is headed by Prime Minister
Tshering Tobgay who was the former Opposition Leader.
144
Current Economy
Bhutan, even as a poor developing country, provides free health care and education
to all its citizens. The government even bears the cost of medical treatment
including travel and living expenses for patients, along with escorts, who are
referred outside the country for specialised tertiary level care. The employees of
the civil service are also given paid medical leave for one month to enable them
to escort their relatives who are referred outside the country for medical treatment.
The medical personnel make periodic visits to religious institutions, schools and
prisons to conduct medical check-ups and impart health education on various
topics of interest to beneficiaries. As of 2005, life expectancy is 68.9 years with
a literacy rate of 63 per cent. The maternal mortality ratio is 255/100000.5
The government provides free education to all children right from the preprimary level. Besides tuition, even stationary, textbooks, sports items, boarding
facilities and meals are provided free based on needs. There are plans for universal
education by 2020.
Bhutanese economy was traditionally confined to subsistence farming and
animal husbandry. Today, around 70 per cent of the countrys population has
access to electricity with 1500 MW of hydropower capacity, which contributes
to almost 45 per cent of the national revenue. There are plans to build 10,000
MW of hydropower projects by 2020 through collaboration with the Government
of India from the total potential of 30,000 MW.
Other industries are minimal and labour intensive, such as the production of
handicrafts, ferro-silicon, cement and export of minerals. Tourism, the largest hard
currency generator within the services sector, earns on an average US$ 35 million
annually with 27,000-41,000 visitors per annum. The tourism policy of Bhutan
is High Value, Low Volume with a minimum tourist all-inclusive royalty of US$
200/person/day.
The Gross Domestic per capita income has increased from US$ 51 in 1961
(the lowest in the world at that time) to US$ 870 in 2005 and US$ 1055 in
2011. Poverty has also decreased from 23 per cent in 2008 to 12 per cent in
2012. Unemployment in Bhutan in 2012 was 2.7 per cent. Currently, Bhutan
has a money reserve of US$ 906 million as of 20116 as shown in Table 1.
Trade
Bhutan has a fixed exchange rate with the Indian rupee, and both countries share
a free trade agreement. India is Bhutans largest trading partner, absorbing over
90 per cent of Bhutans exports consisting of fruits, crops, electricity, timber, spices
and gemstones. Imports, of which nearly 75 per cent originate in India, consist
primarily of petroleum products, machinery and vehicles.
145
Table 1: Bhutans Key Socio-Economic Indicators

Sl
Title
Figure
Category
Source
Year
Posted
Life Expectancy at Birth
68.9 years
Key Indicators
Population
Projecions2005-2030
2005
May 14,
2013
Literacy Rate
63%
Key Indicators
Bhutan Living
2012
Standards Survey
2012
May 13,
2013
Poverty Rate
12 %
Key Indicators
Bhutan Living
2012
Standards Survey
2012
May 13,
2013
Maternal Mortality Ratio
255/100000 Key Indicators
National
Health Survey
2000
March 15,
2013
Gross Domestic Product

(US$Million)
1055.48
Key Indicators
National Accounts 2011

Statistics, National
Statistics Bureau
(NSB)
March 15,
2013
Money Reserves
906.0
Balance of
Payment
NSB
January 08,
2013
2011
Bhutan has been an exporter of hydroelectricity to India since 1986, and since
the construction of additional facilities the exports have only increased. The ability
to harness hydropower with close collaboration with India marked the beginning
of bilateral cooperation in strengthening Bhutans energy security and water
resource management. The export has increased by 45 per cent from 2004 to
2012. About 77.66 per cent of the total electricity generated (from 2004 to 2012)
was exported to India, out of 49903.17GWh of energy harnessed. It has been
contributing to significant growth in countries Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
with the Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR) of 14.5 per cent since 2003 (as
per World Economic Outlook, International Monetary Fund). In 2011, the largest
share to countrys GDP was from hydropower with 17.05 per cent of the total
revenue. The sectoral revenue from electricity was 24 per cent with revenue from
sectors constituting 73.01 per cent of total revenue.7
Bhutans share in world trade in goods and services has so far been negligible,
given the small size of its economy. Its merchandise exports were $133 million in
2003, which was an increase of 23 per cent over the previous year 2002. However,
the annual percentage increase of exports growth has been 3 per cent between
1995 and 2003. Imports, on the other hand, were to the tune of $249 million,
an increase of 51 per cent over 2002. The annual percentage increase of imports
during the period 1995-2003 was 11 per cent.
Besides hydropower, the other main exports from Bhutan are agricultural
products, followed by manufactures and mining products. The main destinations
of these exports are India, Bangladesh, the US, Nepal and the European Union
146
(EU). On the import side, manufactures account for the maximum share of its
total exports. The main importing countries are India (about 75 per cent),
Singapore, Japan, Thailand and EU.
Bhutans Foreign Relations

The Department of Foreign Affairs of Bhutan was established in 1970, which
was upgraded to a full-fledged Ministry in 1972. Currently, there are formal
diplomatic relations with 52 countries and the EU. The oldest relationship is
with India dating back to 1968; whereas bilateral ties with 31 countries have been
established in the last five years.8 Bhutan is also a signatory to many UN,
international and multinational organisations.
There are three foreign embassies in Bhutan, which are India, Bangladesh
and Kuwait. Countries such as Thailand, the Netherlands, Denmark and Japan
have consulate offices. Bhutan has embassies in India, Bangladesh, Thailand,
Kuwait and Belgium (an EU member state). Most diplomatic relations with other
countries are through the Royal Bhutanese Embassy in New Delhi and Thailand.
The UN has an office in Bhutan and Bhutan has permanent missions in
Geneva and New York to the UN. As a principle of state policy, the Royal
Government of Bhutan strives for cooperation with all nations, respects
international law and treaty obligations, and promotes settlement of international
disputes by peaceful means in order to promote international peace and security.
According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bhutan, the objectives of
Bhutans foreign policy are as follows9 :
Political
Enhance and maintain national security.
Promote world peace and security by engaging in meaningful dialogue
with the international community.
Promote and contribute towards international understanding and
cooperation as well as international peace and security on the basis of
peaceful co-existence.
Economy and Trade

Develop and expand mutually beneficial bilateral, regional and
multilateral economic and trade co-operation.
Contribute towards the development of a dynamic and a sustainable
economy through mobilisation of external resources.
147
With the support of India, Bhutan joined as a member of the UN on September

21, 1971. As a small country located in a geo-politically sensitive region, Bhutans
admission as a member of the UN reaffirmed its status as a sovereign independent
country and laid the foundations for cooperation with the UN and its specialised
agencies.
Over the years, Bhutans status as an active and responsible member of the
UN has gained prominence through its involvement in the numerous bodies of
the UN. Bhutan has served on many important posts such as the Vice President
of the UN General Assembly (New York), President of the Trade and Development
Board, UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD, Geneva), two
terms as member of the UN Commission on Human Rights (Geneva), two terms
as member of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC, 1993-1995),
Executive Board of United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF), World Health
Organisation (WHO) and Chairman of the Third Committee during the 50th
Anniversary Celebrations of the UN (New York, 1995).10 Bhutan had also bid
for a non-permanent member seat in the Security Council of the UN in 2012,
which was unfortunately unsuccessful.11
Current Donors and Relations

Foreign aid plays a very important role in the socio-economic development of
Bhutan. Between 2005 and 2010, external grants amounted to about 15.5 per
cent of the GDP, and on an average Bhutan received about US$ 175 million a
year as shown in Table 2.12 In the financial years 2008-2010, Official Development
Assistance (ODA) funded 39 per cent of the total expenditure and 74 per cent of
capital expenditure in Bhutan.13 India contributes to about 70 per cent of the
external fund every year. Other major donors include bilateral development
partners such as Austria, Denmark, Japan, Netherlands and Switzerland and
multilateral partners like the UN Agencies, EU, the World Bank, Asian
Development Bank (ADB), International Fund for Agricultural Development
(IFAD), etc.
Table 2: Grants, FDI and GDP in Bhutan
Indicator
2001-2005
2006
2007
2008
Grant Inflows in Million Nu.
4,169 (average)
6011
5,935
6,575 10,423 13,314
Grant Inflows as % of GDP
16.4% (average)
13.8%
16%
12%
17%
18%
262.8 (average)
3,238
1,198
710.8
534.6
580
70
77.8
147
191.9
FDI in Million Nu.

Remittances in Million
Nu from NRBs
Source: MoF, BPFSS.
2009
2010
148
There is a strong consensus among development partners that aid has been highly
effective in Bhutan and has been catalytic in the countrys extraordinary socioeconomic transformation from among the poorest nations to one that today is
among the fastest growing economies in Asia and stands as a medium human
development country.14
Policy and Plans in View of GNH

GNH is the development philosophy of Bhutan that puts a wholesome and holistic
achievement of materialistic, spiritual and social needs at the centre of decisions
and plans. Instead of comparing the countrys development to traditional GDP
values, Bhutan is advocating and implementing a valuation of the happiness index
of people to gauge its success or failure.
Foreign Direct Investment, though marginal in Bhutan, is mainly associated
with the tourism sector, particularly for starting new hotels and resorts. The FDI
policy and its revision in 2010 also highly encouraged environmentally conscious
investments, and FDI in other sectors with certain limitations and conditions15
are permissible. Currently, there are FDIs in the tourism, banking, agriculture
and security services in Bhutan. The Government of Bhutan is also investing in
a mega education city project in Thimphu to attract foreign investors and students
in a 1000 acre FDI project. The city is expected to host some 15,000 students at
the campus from Bhutan and abroad.16
Bhutan has also made preliminary assessments to join the WTO. The newly
formed government, the Peoples Democratic Party, has pledged to join the WTO
within their term considering the benefits to the economic development of the
country.17 Bhutan is also considerably interested in furthering diplomatic and
economic collaboration with its South Asian neighbours and is looking for further
interaction to the existing ties such as the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA),
Bay of Bengal Initiative for Mutli-sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation
(BIMSTEC) and Preferential Trade Agreement with Nepal and Thailand.18
Conclusion
Bhutan has a very interesting physical location. The country is surrounded by
the two most populous and culturally distinct nations in the world. This is further
aggravated by the fact that the country is very mountainous where one community
is isolated from another. This has shaped Bhutan in the sense that there are more
than 27 different languages spoken in such a small area; further, its population is
smaller than a district in India.
Furthermore, it is very fortunate that the donor community supports the
development of the country. The recent policies and programmes are all geared
149
towards making the country self-reliant in the next decade or two, which is indeed
timely as donors are also pulling back with the improvements shown in Bhutan.
Bhutan on itspart seems to be making cautious steps, but at the same time
embracing globalisation and realising the need to have more and better
international collaboration.
The SAARC Development Goals (SDG) report 201119 shows that Bhutan is
on track on most of the SDG indicators. Under the livelihood theme, Bhutan
has fared well in the areas of reducing poverty, reducing inequality, increasing
rural infrastructure, increasing access to justice and in mainstreaming concerns
of women and children. However, challenges do remain in addressing rising
unemployment, especially among the youth, with 3.1 per cent unemployment in
2011. The report also reveals that child and maternal health have improved. In
the area of education, gross enrolment ratio has exceeded 100 per cent with 117
per cent in 2010.
ENDNOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
2012 Annual Report, National Statistics Bureau (NSB), Bhutan.

Climate Change in WCP, WWF, 2011.
DGPC 2013, at www.drukgreen.bt
History of Bhutan, Ministry of Education, Bhutan.
no. 1.
Bhutan and Its Socio-Economic Development, EU Country Strategy Paper 2012.
National Revenue Report 2011-2012, Department of Revenue and Customs, Ministry of
Finance, Royal Government of Bhutan, at http://www.mof.gov.bt/wp-content/uploads/2014/
07/nr2011-2012.pdf
Bilateral Relations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Royal Government of Bhutan, at http://
www.mfa.gov.bt/foreign-policy/bilateral-relations
Bhutans Foreign Policy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Royal Government of Bhutan, at http://
www.mfa.gov.bt/foreign-policy/bhutans-foreign-policy
Multilateral Relations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Royal Government of Bhutan, at http://
www.mfa.gov.bt/foreign-policy/multilateral-relations
A non-permanent seat to the UN Security Council, Kuensel Online, at www.kuenselonline.
com
Turning Vision into Reality: The Development Challenges Confronting Bhutan, Eleventh
Round Table Meeting, Gross National Happiness Commission (GNHC), Royal Government of
Bhutan, at http://11rtm.gnhc.gov.bt/RTMdoc/RTM_Text_Final15July2011.pdf
Budget Policy & Fiscal Framework: Bhutans Macro-economy and Public Finances in the
Medium-Term, Eleventh Round Table Meeting, Ministry of Finance, Royal Government of
Bhutan, September 02, 2011, at http://11rtm.gnhc.gov.bt/presentations/daytwo/Final%20
Version%202011.09.01.pdf
no. 6.
Economic Development Policy of the Kingdom Of Bhutan, 2010, Royal Government of
Bhutan, at http://rtm.gnhc.gov.bt/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/EDP.pdf
Bhutan Education City, DHI Infra, at http://www.dhiinfra.bt/
150
17.
18.
19.

Manifesto, Peoples Democratic Party, at www.pdp.bt and The Mineral Sector Is Our Low
Hanging Fruit, Kuensel Online, September 30, 2013, at http://www.kuenselonline.com/
the-mineral-sector-is-our-low-hanging-fruit/#.VLxIasnvn3E
Ibid., Manifesto.
Mid-Term Review Report 2011, SAARC Development Goals (SDGs), Gross National
Happiness Commission (GNHC), Royal Government of Bhutan, at http://www.gnhc.gov.bt/
wp-content/uploads/2011/12/SAARC-DEVELOPMENT-GOALS-BHUTAN.pdf
PART III
PERCEPTIONS ON REGIONAL
COOPERATION
12
South Asian Economic Integration: Potential,
Challenges and the Way Forward
Nagesh Kumar*
The Context
Regionalism became a very important trend in the world economy in the 1990s
with the rise of very important blocks like the European Union (EU), North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other regions following their lead
Mercosur in South America, the South African Development Community (SADC)
in Africa and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Southeast Asia.
Although the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), the
Economic Cooperation Organisation (ECO) and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for
Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) were formed
in Southern Asia, the region has been slow in exploiting the potential of regional
economic integration and has largely been relying on rising demand for its products
in the advanced economies to support its growth over the past two decades.
However, the region now faces a new, dramatically altered, economic context in
the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2008/09.1 The US and the Eurozone
economies currently face a subdued and uncertain medium-term outlook with
high-levels of sovereign debt build-up and ageing populations. It is clear, therefore,
that the world economy is unlikely to go back to the business as usual scenario
*This paper represents the text of the presentation made at the 7th IDSA South Asia Conference
held in New Delhi on October 30-31, 2013. Views expressed should not be attributed to the
United Nations or its member states.
154
that existed before the onset of the crisis. The Asian and Pacific economies will
have to look for alternative engines of growth to support their dynamism in the
coming years. Regional economic integration can play the role of a new growth
engine for sustaining the Asia-Pacific regions dynamism over the coming decades.2
Another factor that makes regional economic integration a viable development
strategy is the emergence of large and dynamic markets in developing Asia,
including in South Asia, which are contributing significantly to global growth.
Significant complementarities exist across the region and subregions as the patterns
of development over the years have diverged between countries. This creates space
for development of vertically integrated regional production networks that can
enable the region to harness economies of specialisation and economies of scale.
The eight countries of South Asia share cultural, ethnic, linguistic and historical
commonalities that can facilitate integrated production networks.
The relevance of regional economic integration for the South Asia region also
arises from its potential to contribute to a balanced and equitable regional
development benefiting smaller and poorer parts of the region more. It has been
demonstrated that regional economic integration leads to a process of efficiency
seeking industrial restructuring across borders, aimed at exploiting the economies
of vertical specialisation and regional value chains. The industrial restructuring
takes place in such a manner that relatively smaller and lesser developed parts get
more of this and so it needs to balance regional development, and some literature
which has come on the experiences of the regional groupings around the world
has actually documented that it does lead to that kind of industrial restructuring
which is of a more balanced type.3
The South Asian subregion turns out to be among the least integrated in the
world, and much of the potential for regional economic integration remains
unexploited. While a number of initiatives have been taken over the past decade,
the time has come to expedite implementation schedules, consolidate progress
and move on to new initiatives in view of the new international context. Regional
economic integration can lead to more balanced outcomes and experiences are
now available from different countries and regions that can benefit South and
South-West Asia, as the subregion seeks to design its own plans of cooperation.
Finally, an integrated South Asia would be in a better position to play its
due role in the broader Asia and the Pacific market alongside the formation of
transcontinental mega-Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) like Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
Apart from deepening its own integration, ASEAN is driving the formation of a
broader Asia-Pacific integrated market by consolidating ASEAN+1 FTAs with
six dialogue partnersAustralia, China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea and New
Zealandthrough the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (R-CEP).
South Asian Economic Integration: Potential, Challenges and the Way Forward
155
R-CEP is widely seen as the nucleus of an incipient, broader Asia-Pacific

integrated market.4
Taking into consideration the new international context for regionalism, this
paper summarises major initiatives for regional economic integration undertaken
in South Asia, their limitations and challenges. It presents some proposals for the
future on how to exploit the potential of regional economic integration in a
mutually beneficial, inclusive, balanced and sustainable manner.
Initiatives for Regional Economic Integration in South Asia

The South Asian subregion has a number of multilateral frameworks for regional
economic cooperation and integration. SAARC came into being in 1985, but did
not adopt a programme of economic cooperation until 1991 when the Committee
on Economic Cooperation (CEC) was formed. It created a SAARC Preferential
Trading Arrangement (SAPTA) in 1995, and in 2004 eventually agreed to create
a SAARC Free Trade Area (SAFTA) to be implemented over 10 years from 2006.
The 16th Summit held in Bhutan in 2010 adopted a SAARC Agreement on Trade
in Services (SATIS) and established the SAARC Development Fund (SDF).
Initiatives together with other subregions in Asia and the Pacific also include
ECO initially formed with Turkey, Iran and Pakistan in 1985, but later expanded
to cover Afghanistan and six Central Asian countriesAzerbaijan, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. ECO established the ECO
Trade Agreement (ECOTA) in 2003 which became effective from January 2009
and seeks a phased reduction of tariffs on 80 per cent of tariff lines over eight
years to a maximum of 15 per cent. It is likely to evolve ultimately into a FTA.
In 2006, ECO also set up an ECO Trade and Development Bank based in Istanbul
with a capital base of Special Drawing Rights (SDR) 300 million contributed by
Turkey, Iran and Pakistan, and plans to admit new members.
Another notable initiative is BIMSTEC involving five South and South-West
Asian countries (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka) and two SouthEast Asian nations (Myanmar and Thailand), bridging the two subregions.
BIMSTEC adopted a Framework Agreement for an FTA to be implemented
within 10 years at its first summit held in Bangkok in July 2004.
Besides the above subregional and inter-subregional arrangements, bilateral
preferential trading arrangements also exist between India and Nepal (transit and
trade), India and Bhutan (transit and trade), India and Sri Lanka, Pakistan and
Afghanistan (transit and trade), as well as Pakistan and Sri Lanka, which contribute
to economic integration in the South Asian subregion.
These are complemented by the Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA) (earlier
called the Bangkok Agreement) which was signed under the auspices of the United
156
Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP)
in 1970s with some of the South Asian countries like India, Bangladesh and Sri
Lanka under which member countries exchange tariff preferences between them.
Together, SAARC, ECO, BIMSTEC and APTA present overlapping sets of
multilateral frameworks for regional cooperation in South Asia (see Figure 1).
However, among them, SAARC presents the most comprehensive framework
combining the eight countries with a functioning FTA that has been under
implementation since 2006. The effectiveness of the SAARC framework in
achieving its objectives is worth examining.
Figure 1: Regional Cooperation Frameworks in Southern Asia
Source: ESCAP.
Note: Countries outside South and Southwest Asia are shown using a relatively smaller font.
SAFTA and Regional Economic Integration in South Asia

SAFTA is being implemented from 2006 in a phased manner over a 10-year
schedule. However, the proportion of intraregional trade in SAARC countries
total trade has been one of the lowest among the regional groupings. This has
been seen as an indicator of the poor potential of SAARC and of SAFTAs
ineffectiveness. The share of intraregional exports in SAARC countries global
exports has fluctuated around 5 per cent between 2002 and 2011. However, if
Indian exports are excluded, the intraregional share of other SAARC countries
157
exports to all SAARC countries (including India) is on a rising trend, and fluctuates
between 8 to 10 per cent.
Country-wise detail presented in Table 1 suggests that smaller countries like
Afghanistan, Bhutan, Maldives and Nepal have a greater proportion of their
exports directed to the subregion. Furthermore, since the signing of SAFTA in
2004 and the beginning of its implementation in 2006, the share of intraregional
trade among the individual South and South-West Asian countries has already
increased for a number of countries in the subregion. Table 1 show how
intraregional exports since 1995 have nearly tripled their share of Afghanistans
exports and almost increased fourfold as a share of Nepals exports and of Pakistans
exports. Figure 2 additionally shows a rising trend in Indias share in Nepals and
Bangladeshs exports. Thus, there are distinct signs that trade within the subregion
is growing. Yet the overall proportion of intraregional trade in SAARC is low
compared with other groupings like ASEAN where it stands at around 22 per
cent.
Table 1: Intraregional Exports Trade as Share of Total Trade (in per cent)
1995
2000
2005
2010
17
44
44
46
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Bhutan
91
93
85
92
India
Maldives
23
14
16
12
Nepal
19
40
70
74
Pakistan
11
13
Sri Lanka
10
Source: ESCAP-SSWA (2012).
Figure 2: Indian Share of Exports from Two Trading Partners (in per cent)
A. Nepal
B. Bangladesh
Indias Share of Nepals Exports
80%
70%
3%
60%
2%
50%
2%
40%
30%
1%
20%
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1995
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
0%
1996
1%
10%
0%
Indias Share of Bangladeshs Exports
3%
158
The present low level of intraregional trade, however, is neither an indication

of low level of complementarities between the member countries nor is it a sign
of SAFTAs ineffectiveness. The ESCAP analysis shows that South and SouthWest Asia has substantial complementarities within it. The value of the
complementarity index for intraregional trade within the subregion is 37 compared
with the maximum value of 64 for intraregional complementarities within AsiaPacifics subregions.5 It is also important to remember that complementarities are
a dynamic concept and change over time with changing economic structures. In
fact, SAFTA represents the case of a regional trade agreement with unexploited
potential.
Potential of SAFTA and the distribution of welfare gains

The complementarities that exist within the subregion provide for a much higher
level of intraregional trade than has been realised to date. ESCAP estimates that
the US$ 16 billion in intraregional exports of SAARC countries in 2010 only
partly achieved the full potential of US$ 37.5 billion in intraregional exports.
Therefore, nearly 57 per cent of the potential of intra-SAARC trade remains to
be exploited. The estimations of potential intraregional trade summarised in Table
2 use an augmented gravity model, which suggests that the bulk of the potential
of intra-SAARC trade remains to be exploited. ESCAP estimations also show that
by 2017, the intraregional export potential could double to US$ 72.4 billion.
Table 2: Underexploited Trade Potential in South and South-West Asia
Export potential in South and Southwest Asia
(in millions of US$)
Country
Actual
export to SAARC
country 2010
Potential export
2010
Potential
export 2017
Unexploited
(percentage)
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Bhutan
India
Maldives
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
271.0
427.9
591.9
11,104.7
48.2
473.9
2664.3
589.0
718.0
2,112.7
1,149.8
26,146.8
285.6
996.6
4572.5
1564.2
1,635.7
4,229.8
2,549.5
48,240.4
585.3
2,662.9
8,928.3
3,630.2
62.3
79.7
48.5
57.5
83.1
52.4
41.7
62.3
SAARC
16,170.8
37,546.2
72,462.1
56.9
Among SAARC countries, in most cases, more than half the export potential
remains to be utilised. The proportion is particularly high for Maldives (83 per
159
cent to be exploited) and Bangladesh, with nearly 80 per cent untapped potential
remaining.
Empirical studies have analysed the welfare gains from implementation of
SAFTA for the participating countries and the rest of the world. In general, studies
conducted using computable general equilibrium models and the Global Trade
Analysis Project (GTAP) database have found SAFTA to be trade creating, leading
to stronger growth and enhanced welfare for its participants.6 Furthermore,
estimated welfare effects from SAFTA are distributed equitably with relatively
poorer countries receiving a greater proportion of welfare gains when normalised
by the size of the economies. The largest gains accrue to Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan
and Maldives. The studies showed many favourable effects of SAFTA on the
participating economies in terms of opportunities for vertical specialisation,
exploitation of economies of scale, expanded inflows of FDI by 30 per cent,
formation of regional production networks and strengthened overall
competitiveness.7 Table 3 summarises findings of another recent study computing
welfare gains from trade liberalisation and trade facilitation under SAFTA for
member countries normalised by their GDP. This study corroborated the previous
findings that poorer countries benefit proportionately more from SAFTA.8
Table 3: Welfare Effects from Trade Liberalisation and Facilitation in SAFTA as a
Proportion of GDP of the Participating Countries
Countries
Total welfare gain

(in millions of
US$ in 2007 price)
GDP
(in millions of
2007 US$)
Welfare gains as a
percentage of GDP
Bangladesh
1,431.5
65,398
2.2
India
5,761.9
1,004,750
0.6
Nepal
1,769.0
8,858
20.0
Pakistan
2,887.4
122,550
2.4
Sri Lanka
2,160.4
28,064
7.7
Other South Asian countries

(Afghanistan, Bhutan and Maldives)
1,324.8
10,842
12.2
Source: ESCAP-SSWA (2012) based on Raihan (2012) and ESCAP online database 2012.
Not just producers and industry, but consumers as well will gain from the
integration of South Asiastudies of SAARC integration have additionally
predicted some US$ 2 billion in static gains to South Asian consumers.9 This
could be an underestimate since it is purely in terms of price adjustments and
wage improvements and does not count the potential knock-on effects that a better
investment climate, stronger cross-border supply chain integration, and other
positive externalities will bring.
160
Reasons for low level of intraregional trade in South Asia

The level of intraregional trade remains below its potential, owing to structural
barriers such as high transport costs and other non-tariff and tariff barriers. The
low level of intraregional trade can also be explained in terms of a number of
factors described as follows:
High-level of under-reported or informal trade
While official trade statistics show South Asia to be one of the most underexploited
areas for intraregional trade, it is important to realise that an enormous amount
of informal trade goes unreported. South West Asian countries share long borders
and given their shared history, language and culture, and despite political barriers
to trade, a great deal of informal trade is thriving, particularly in border areas.
Measuring informal flows poses a significant amount of methodological difficulties
and often relies on small or limited sample sizes. However, most estimates agree
that the scope of informal trade in South Asia is in many cases comparable to
formal flows, in some cases even exceeds them.
As India is the largest and most centrally located country in South Asia, most
informal trade in the subregion occurs between India and its neighbours. While
India has a trade surplus based on the official figures with all of its neighbours,
taking into account informal trade, it would still have a moderate trade surplus
with Bangladesh, Bhutan and Pakistan, but a trade deficit with Nepal, and a
balanced trade with Sri Lanka.10 Estimates of informal trade between Pakistan
and India ranged between $ 500 million and $3 billion in 2005, well above that
of formal levels.11 Similarly, informal trade between India and Nepal is estimated
to be approximately eight to 10 times the official trade, while informal trade flows
between Bangladesh and India are estimated to be twice as large as official flows.12
However, informal flows between India and Sri Lanka are somewhat lower in
magnitude, mostly owing to the fact that goods must travel via sea or air. The
armed conflict that prevailed in the north of Sri Lanka for much of the last three
decades may also have constrained informal trade.
Simple estimates of the current magnitude of informal trade between India
and its largest neighbours can be made. UN-ESCAP-SSWA (2012) estimated that
exports of Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka to India in 2011 may have
been underestimated by nearly $8 billion and their imports from India by $3.8
billion.13
Further regional trade liberalisation will help formalise many of the trade flows
currently taking place informally in South Asia. Nonetheless, the difference
between the composition of informal flows and the composition of products traded
formally indicates that even under a free trade regime, many of the goods traded
may still take place off the books. This is because many of the goods traded are
161
low value-added products and consumer goods like food items and textiles, rather
than high value-added, complex manufactured and capital goods.
In addition to informal cross-border trade, South Asia also experiences a great
deal of third-country trade to overcome the official trade barriers. This is the
case for example of many trade flows between Pakistan and India. While the main
channel of official trade flows between the two countries occur along the narrow
Amritsar-Lahore corridor, a potentially larger amount of trade between the two
countries takes place via the more indirect routes passing by Dubai and Iran or
by Singapore, as a number of products that were not on the positive list governing
Pakistans imports from India were imported through these third countries. That
however should change now with Pakistan moving towards granting India the
Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status and scrapping the positive list in favour of
a negative list.
Poor transport connectivity leading to high trade costs
SAARC countries are contiguous neighbours, however, the trade costs encountered
by intra-SAARC trade at 113 per cent of import prices are higher than those
encountered by SAARC countries trading with far distant markets like the EU,
at 101 per cent, and the US, at 99 per cent (see Table 4). Furthermore, while
trade costs for exports to different regions have declined between 2007 and 2009,
there has not been such a movement for intra-SAARC trade. It is clear that the
intra-SAARC trade has not been able to exploit the benefit of geographical
proximity and is incurring costs greater than those applicable to distant locations.
To further lower trade costs, physical connectivity and trade facilitation needs to
be improved.
Table 4: Non-Tariff Intra- and Extra-Regional Trade Costs in Asia-Pacific, 2007-09
(as percentage of import prices)
Region
ASEAN-4
79
(-10)
East Asia-3
73
(-6)
North and Central Asia-6 291
(-14)
SAARC-4
134
(-0)
Australia-New Zealand
90
(-12)
East Asia-3
North and
Central Asia-6
SAARC-4
AustraliaNew Zealand
EU-3
ASEAN-4
47
(-21)
187
(-33)
119
(-3)
78
(-16)
149
(-21)
270
(-22)
270
(-22)
113
0
130
(-3)
45
(-24)
(Contd.)
162
Region
ASEAN-4
East Asia-3
North and
Central Asia-6
SAARC-4
AustraliaNew Zealand
EU-3
EU-3
97
(-5)
77
(-0)
70
(-19)
53
(-14)
149
(-26)
165
(-17)
101
(-3)
99
(-1)
89
(-17)
82
(-11)
32
(-33)
51
(-18)
United States
Note: Trade costs may be interpreted as tariff equivalents. Percentage changes in trade costs between
2001-2003 and 2007-2009 are in parentheses. ASEAN-4: Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines and Thailand; EastAsia-3: China, Japan and Republic of Korea; North and
Central Asia-6: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and the Russian
Federation; SAARC-4: Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka; EU-3: France, Germany
and the United Kingdom.
Source: ESCAP Trade Cost Database (version 2).
Poor supply capabilities and potential of regional trade liberalisation

in augmenting them
One of the reasons for persistent trade imbalances between India and the SAARC
countries has been the poor supply capabilities or productive capacities in Least
Developed Countries (LDCs) and other SAARC countries for the products of
import interest to India. A recent study found that with duty free access to India,
Bangladesh could be a potentially competitive supplier for nearly $6 billion worth
of Indias exports.14 However, existing supply capabilities will permit additional
exports of a few hundred million dollars. A similar situation holds for other
countries. ESCAP analysis shows that productive capacities in South Asian LDCs
have actually decreased in relative terms compared with other countries in terms
of technical complexity and product variety.15
The India-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA) could be indicative of
the potential of SAFTA in creating balanced regional development and addressing
the poor supply capabilities through flows of FDI between the FTA partners. As
ISFTA has been operational since 2000, it is possible to analyse the impacts on
trade flows and their balance, flows of FDI and build-up of supply capabilities.
ISFTA has led to massive expansion of bilateral trade while reducing imbalances.16
The FTA has enabled Sri Lanka to export value-added goods often produced
by Indian companies in Sri Lanka through FDI, which has created more supply
capabilities. For instance, an Indian tyre company set up a joint venture with a
Sri Lankan company to produce automobile tyres in Sri Lanka for export to South
Asia and the rest of the world, capitalising on the availability of natural rubber at
a cheaper price in the country.
FDI is now flowing from Sri Lanka to India as well and is creating supply
chains for the textiles and clothing industries. This includes a huge special
economic zone in India being set up by the company Brandix to bring together
163
the entire supply chain in textiles and clothing industry in a single location.17 It
is this kind of efficiency-seeking industrial restructuring that produces supply
capabilities and jobs in relatively lesser developed locations, and also helps in
strengthening the overall international competitiveness of products, exploiting
economies of scale and specialisation.18
Recent Initiatives Towards Deepening Economic Integration

Over the past year, a number of favourable developments have unfolded that are
likely to help remove some barriers to regional economic integration. These include
movement by Pakistan towards granting MFN trading status to India sometime
soon (Pakistan already enjoys MFN status in India since 1996). When granted,
this would be an important step in normalising the trade relations between the
two countries and towards the full implementation of SAFTA. It would also help
avoid routing of trade through third countries rather than directly importing from
the neighbouring country, thus saving on freight costs and raising consumer
welfare. India has also allowed investments from Pakistan to be made in the
country, a move that would assist in formation of joint ventures as a part of the
efficiency-seeking industrial restructuring between the two countries.19
Another development has been a series of meetings and official visits since
early 2010 between the Prime Ministers of Bangladesh and India as well as other
high-level representatives, which culminated in the announcement in September
2011 that India was removing all 46 textile lines which are of interest to Bangladesh
from Indias negative list for LDCs under the provisions of SAFTA. This reduced
the applicable duty rate in India for the goods from Bangladesh to zero with
immediate effect. Bangladesh, in response, conveyed its appreciation for this major
step on improved market access aimed at reducing the existing trade imbalances.
Interestingly, at the same time, the trend growth of Bangladeshi exports to
India increased dramatically. UNESCAP-SSWA (2012) showed how India
recorded nearly three times the import volumes from Bangladesh in the period
following the beginning of those discussions, than the previous eight years. India
has subsequently removed all the products from the negative list for LDCs under
SAFTA barring 25 items of a prohibited nature like alcoholic liquor and cigarettes.
Harnessing the Potential of Regional Economic Integration in

South Asia
Expediting the Implementation of SAFTA
The regional trading arrangements in South Asia, viz. SAFTA has a rather long
implementation schedule, long lists of sensitive or negative products and other
restrictions that do not allow the process of liberalisation and industrial
164
restructuring to take place. Having committed to regional economic integration,

the participating States should compress the implementation schedules. The
subregion can take cues from the ASEANs experience which advanced the
implementation of ASEAN FTA from the original deadline of 2008 to 2002 in
the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis. SAFTA includes a provision for
accelerated implementation.
Besides the lengthy implementation period, the scope for tariff liberalisation
among SAFTA trading partners is reduced by large sensitive lists of products that
remain outside the tariff cuts under SAFTA. One way forward to expand the
scope of trade liberalisation is for member countries to cut down on the sensitive
lists. In this context, Indias recent initiative to virtually eliminate the sensitive
list for the LDCs is encouraging. This may hopefully encourage other non-LDCs
such as Pakistan and Sri Lanka to follow suit. The sensitive lists should also be
reduced for non-LDCs. Removal of non-tariff barriers also merits urgent attention,
as they could become instruments for protection despite the phasing out of tariff
barriers.
Exploiting the Potential of Regional Trade in Services

South Asian countries have vibrant services industry and their trade in services is
growing fast. Another observation is that services capabilities are more balanced
and complementary than the goods trade, where India dominates the productive
capabilities of the subregion.20 For example, India specialises in computer and
information services, while other economies in the subregionparticularly the
least developed countriesspecialise in traditional services such as travel and
transport. This indicates outstanding potential for mutually beneficial trade in
services within the subregion. Some of the trade is already vigorously happening.
For instance, following the liberalisation of air services and the visa facility between
India and Sri Lanka, India has emerged as the biggest services market for Sri
Lanka.21 Significant trade also takes place in health and education services,
although barriers preventing its full potential from being exploited remain.22
A key reason for the limited level of intraregional trade in services is the failure
to liberalise intraregional service trade including removal of behind-the-border
barriers. A SAARC Agreement on Trade in Services or SATIS was signed at the
16th SAARC Summit held in Thimphu in 2010. However, the actual liberalisation
of trade through national schedules within the framework of SATIS needs to be
expedited.
Facilitating Intraregional Foreign Direct Investments
The real gains from a regional trading arrangement result from efficiency-seeking
industrial restructuring, which also builds productive capacities in relatively lesser
developed economies. Therefore, many new FTAs combine trade in goods and
165
services with investment liberalisation.23 In South Asia, some countries are now
emerging as the sources of FDI. In this context, the South Asian Agreement on
Promotion and Protection of Investments, a draft of which has been nearly
finalised, needs to be signed at the earliest. A SAARC Limited Multilateral
Agreement on Avoidance of Double Taxation and Mutual Administrative
Assistance in Tax Matters has already been signed. SAARC could also adopt the
SAARC Industrial Cooperation (SICO) Scheme. Under this scheme, the products
of joint venture projects (set up with involvement of intraregional investments)
could be accorded duty-free access in the home countries without waiting for the
implementation of the SAFTA schedule of trade liberalisation to facilitate industrial
restructuring.
Strengthening Banking and Financial Links

Banking and financial links play a very important role in facilitating trade and
investments between the countries. The absence of reciprocal banking links makes
it difficult for banks to accept letters of credit issued by exporters banks. The
subregion has very perfunctory cross border banking links. Liberalisation of
banking services could be prioritised under SATIS. However, even without waiting
for negotiations to take place, South Asian countries could expedite the
liberalisation of banking and financial linkages by providing national treatment
to designated banks originating in the subregion on a reciprocal basis.
Capital Raisings and Development Finance
One of the constraints on industrial development and supply capabilities, especially
in LDCs, is their access to capital as local capital markets are shallow, if they exist
at all. The access to international capital markets is constrained by poor sovereign
credit ratings and currency risk problems. Raising capital at the stock exchanges
of the advanced countries by enterprises registered in developing countries is made
difficult by high initial expenses. These include getting them listed and making
an initial public offering as well as bearing the high costs of compliance with
accounting standards and other regulations. Only a handful of larger well-known
enterprises from countries like India have been able to raise capital at the Western
bourses like New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ or Luxembourg. In that context,
allowing enterprises from South Asian LDCs to list and raise capital in more
developed capital markets in the subregion such as in India, Pakistan or Sri Lanka
may be fruitful. The cross-listing of securities on the subregions various stock
exchanges should also be encouraged as that would provide more options for
raising capital to enterprises.
The SAARC Development Fund is an innovative scheme for development
financing in the subregion. It was set up in 2010 as a part of SAARC financial
cooperation with an authorised capital of SDR one billion and paid up capital of
166
$300 million. The Fund will finance infrastructure projects in the subregion,
including the preparation of feasibility studies. It has three windows for financing,
namely, the social window for poverty alleviation and social development projects;
the infrastructure window for projects in the energy, power, transportation,
telecommunications, environment, tourism and other infrastructure areas, and
the economic window devoted to non-infrastructural economic projects. The
Secretariat of the SDF has been established in Thimphu, Bhutan.
In view of the huge infrastructure deficits faced by the SAARC countries, it
may be appropriate to focus on infrastructure. However, considering rather small
capital base of $300 million, SDF should focus on playing the role of catalysing
rather than funding infrastructure projects. A useful model in this respect is that
of ASEAN Infrastructure Fund (AIF). AIF has been created as a part of an ASEAN
initiative to mobilise resources for infrastructure development in 2010 with an
initial equity base of US$ 485 million, of which $335 million will come from
ASEAN members and remaining $150 million being provided by the Asian
Development Bank. Malaysia with $150 million and Indonesia with $120 million
are major contributors of the equity capital of the AIF. Based in Malaysia, AIF
will function as a limited liability company and hopes to have a total lending
commitment of $4 billion by 2020 which will be co-financed by ADB to the
tune of 70 per cent. Therefore, it expects to catalyse more than $13 billion in
investments in realising the Master Plan on ASEAN connectivity adopted in 2010.
AIF will be administered by ADB in terms of due diligence of the projects
identified for funding.24
SAARC can also establish a SAARC Development Bank, as advocated by
ESCAP-SSWA (2012), catalysing much bigger projects that are of critical
importance for regional connectivity and subregional development needs through
a co-financing arrangement with ADB among other financing institutions. As a
regional institution, it should help prioritise the regional projects that may
otherwise remain unfunded or underfunded. It could also be more effective if it
undertook to catalyse regional infrastructure development projects that would
have a larger impact across the subregion rather than in any one member state.
Strengthening the Asian Clearing Union Mechanism

Nine countries of the region (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Iran, Maldives, Myanmar,
Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka) are members of the Asian Clearing Union (ACU),
headquartered in Tehran, a grouping which heavily overlaps those of SAARC and
ECO. ACU provides a useful mechanism for promoting intraregional trade by
reducing the need to transfer hard currencies for mutual trade. It provides for
settlement of balances in hard currency in a settlement period. It operates as an
association of the central banks of the nine members. It also provides a swap facility
167
enabling the members with a deficit to draw upon the reserves of other members
for taking care of the short-term liquidity problems. ACU is an important
mechanism for regional cooperation and needs to be strengthened. It might
consider opening its membership to Afghanistan to have all SAARC countries on
board. It might be a useful vehicle for financial and monetary cooperation in
South Asia. It should also coordinate with the SAARC Finance which is a body
of SAARC Central Banks.
Strengthening Transport Connectivity and Trade and Transport Facilitation

Trade and transit facilitation measures need to complement the removal of tariff
and non-tariff barriers to be effective. SAARC is addressing the issue of
simplification and harmonisation of customs operations and standards with the
establishment of the SAARC Standards Organisation (SARSO) in Dhaka. An
innovative way of trade facilitation could be to consider creating a SAARC Single
Window which would allow SAARC goods to pass through customs more rapidly.
Transit and connectivity along with trade facilitation are important issues in the
subregion. There are important opportunities for developing extended transport
corridors to not only facilitate intra-regional trade but also to make the subregion
a hub of East-West trade that it was in the days of Silk Route.25 Among the specific
opportunities available include extending the Istanbul-Tehran-Islamabad (ITI)
container train corridor to Dhaka and beyond through Delhi and Kolkata (DKD)
making it a vital trunk route for intraregional trade with feeder routes to
Afghanistan, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Maldives. Besides facilitating
intraregional trade, it could help the subregion harness its strategic location to
emerge as a hub of the East-West trade in the Eurasian region.26
Longer-term Vision and Target-setting
For regional groupings, it is important to adopt a long-term vision and objectives
and to take incremental steps to achieve those goals. In the case of SAARC, the
Eminent Persons Group had proposed a long-term vision of a South Asian
Economic Union to be achieved by 2020. SAARC may revisit those proposals
and articulate a vision of the grouping to be achieved by a certain year. ASEAN
has successfully moved towards the goal of ASEAN Economic Community that
is now set to be achieved by 2015 and was advanced from the initial 2020 target.
ECO could develop a similar vision for itself.
Furthermore, SAARC should take note of the broader trends in Asia-Pacific
regionalism. For example, ASEAN is adopting a framework on RCEP of East
Asia that will bring together six FTA partners of ASEAN in a single Regional
Trade Agreement (RTA) with itself. SAARC will have a better chance to play an
important role in the incipient broader regionalism through its own deeper
integration.
168
Concluding Remarks
This paper has shown how despite large potential for intraregional cooperation
in South Asia, intraregional trade in goods and services and intraregional
investment remain low. In fact, South Asia has been one of the least integrated
subregions in the world. From such a low level, however, trade flows and increased
cooperation are growing in magnitude. Spurred on by common historical
backgrounds, shared languages and existing informal trade links of impressive
size, there are increasing reasons for South Asians to be optimistic about the
prospects for regionalism.
The most important reason for South Asian countries to pursue further
regional integration is to facilitate efficiency-seeking investment and industrial
restructuring. Building an intraregional trading network that exploits
complementarities across the subregions various countries in both merchandise
and service trade can pave the way not only for improved trade balances with the
rest of the world but also improved productive capacity, particularly in the
subregions LDCs.
The obstacles facing increased subregional cooperation are not economic, but
rather are political in nature. Overcoming these political barriers has increasing
relevance and importance today, given the geopolitical situation prevailing in the
subregion, and given faltering demand in the subregions principal trading partners
in the developed world.
For far too long, politics has held back the progress in the subregion. The
time has come for letting economics to play a greater role and for regional
cooperation to finally take the centre stage in South Asia. Despite long-standing
political differences between some countries, the pressures of faltering demand in
developed markets due to the crisis, and the prospect of higher costs in the worlds
workshop of East Asia, are opening a door of opportunity for South Asia to regain
its former position as a crossroad between the East and the West.
ENDNOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Growing Together: Economic Integration for an Inclusive and Sustainable Asia-Pacific

Century, UNESCAP, United Nations, Bangkok, Thailand, 2012a.
Ibid. Also, see Economic and Social Survey of Asia and the Pacific 2012, UNESCAP,
United Nations, New York, 2012b.
UNESCAP, 2012a, no. 1.
Ibid.
Economic and Social Survey of Asia and the Pacific 2011,UNESCAP, United Nations,
New York, 2011, pp.112-113.
Quantification of Benefits from Regional Cooperation in South Asia, UNCTAD-India
and ADB, 2008, as cited in South Asia Development and Cooperation Report, Research
and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS), Oxford University Press, New Delhi,
2008.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
169
Ibid.
Selim Raihan, SAFTA and the South Asian Countries: Quantitative Assessments of Potential
Implications, MPRA Paper # 37884, 2012, at http://mpra.ub.uni-munchen.de/37884/
Bipul Chatterjee and Joseph George, Cost of Economic Non-Cooperation to Consumers
in South Asia, CUTS International and The Asia Foundation, New Delhi, February 01,
2012.
Nisha Taneja, Informal Trade in SAARC Region, Economic & Political Weekly, March 17,
2001, pp. 959-964.
Shaheen Rafi Khan, Can Illegal Trade between Pakistan and India Be Eliminated?, SDPI
Research and News Bulletin, 12 (3), May-June 2005, at http://www.sdpi.org/
re s e a rc h _ a n d _ n e w s _ b u l l e t i n / Vo l . % 2 0 1 2 , % 2 0 No. % 2 0 3 % 2 0 % 2 8 Ma y % 2 0 %20June%202005%29/can_illegal_trade%20.htm
Nisha Taneja and Sanjib Pohit, Characteristics of Indias Informal Trade and Formal Trading
with Nepal: A Comparative Analysis, Indian Economic Review, New Series, 37 (1), JanuaryJune 2002, pp. 69-89.
Regional Cooperation for Inclusive and Sustainable Development: South and South-West
Asia Development Report 2012-13, ST/ESCAP/2644, UNESCAP-SSWA, United Nations
and Routledge, New Delhi and New York, October 2012.
See RIS, no. 6.
UNESCAP-SSWA, 2012, Chapter 9, no. 13.
See S. Kelegama, Regional Economic Cooperation and Connectivity in South and SouthWest Asia, Development Paper Series No. 1205, UNESCAP-SSWA Office, New Delhi, 2012;
and UNESCAP-SSWA, 2012, Chapter 4, no. 13.
UNESCAP-SSWA, 2012, no. 13.
Nagesh Kumar, Investment Provisions in Regional Trading Arrangements in Asia: Relevance,
Emerging Trends, and Policy Implications, Working Paper Series, 46, Asia-Pacific Research
and Training Network on Trade, October 2007, at http://www.unescap.org/tid/artnet/pub/
wp4607.pdf
Sujay Mehdudia, Now, Pakistanis Can Invest in India, The Hindu, New Delhi, August
01, 2012, at http://www.thehindu.com/business/Economy/article3712510.ece
Nagesh Kumar, R.U. Das and Prabir De, Potential for Trade in Services under SAFTA,
SAARC Regional Study, SAARC Secretariat, Kathmandu, 2008.
S. Kelegama, no. 16.
Rupa Chanda, Integrating Services in South Asia, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2011;
Safdar Sohail, Noorulain Hanif and Maliha Quddus, Liberalization of Trade in Services
under SAFTA: Prospects and Challenges for Pakistan, in Sultan Hafeez Rahman, Sridhar
Khatri and Hans-Peter Brunner (eds.), Regional Integration and Economic Development in
South Asia, Edward Elgar, Chaltenham, United Kingdom, 2012.
Nagesh Kumar, no. 18.
UNESCAP, no. 2.
See UNESCAP-SSWA, 2012; and Towards Seamless Connectivity in South and SouthWest Asia, UNESCAP-SSWA Office, 2013, at http://sswa.unescap.org/pdf/Towards_
Seamless_Connectivity_in_South_and_South_West_Asia.pdf
Ibid. For more details of the ITI-DKD container train corridor.
13
Stepped-Up Inter-State Dialogue as a Key to
Improving SAARC Development Prospects
Gabriel Ian Lynn Ockersz
The Challenge for SAARC

Another Chola invasionthese are the disconcerting terms in which a Sri Lankan
english language weekend newspaper had sometime back described the alleged
incursion into Sri Lankan territorial waters of fishing boats from Tamil Nadu.
The illegal fishing problem is one of several issues which need to be sorted out
in Indo-Lanka relations, but such a process would be stymied by the absence of
a constructive dialogue between the political leadership of the countries, besides
other relevant opinion-making sections. In addition, this quote is adequate proof
that we are still some distance from launching and sustaining a dialogue process
of this nature.
In the realm of inter-state ties in South Asia, perceptions could prove to be
of vital importance and are perhaps more decisive in their impact than reality. It
could be seen from just the above quote how decades long prejudices continue to
mar perceptions that influential sections in Sri Lanka have been having about
India in general and the state of Tamil Nadu in particular. In other words, India
is being viewed through lenses which are centuries-old. We are left to conclude
that nothing very positive has been done by both Sri Lanka and India to rectify
these misperceptions over the years. However, the new Indian Prime Minister
Narendra Modi has clearly stated that he is for improving the inter-state SAARC
ties. This could bode well for the South Asia region if it is put into practice in
earnest, and if he wins the ready support of the rest of the SAARC members on
this score.
Stepped-Up Inter-State Dialogue as a Key to Improving SAARC Development Prospects 171
What is true of Indo-Lanka ties is also true of Indias relations with many of
its neighbours in the post-independence times. While security issues such as crossborder terrorism figure strikingly among the contentious ones between India and
many of its neighbours, territorial disputes, sharing of river waters and movement
of displaced people across state boundaries, particularly, emerge as divisive issues
in their bilateral relations.
Nothing particularly new would be said by taking-up the position that these
divisive questions in the bilateral ties between India and its neighbours have, among
other things, got in the way of the South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation (SAARC) graduating into a successful exercise in regional cooperation and solidarity.
The case of Sri Lanka indicates that prejudices regarding India among some
sections in Sri Lanka could be even centuries-old and are very much part of the
collective memory of the Lankans. This is very much a matter for the Lankan
state and other sections, such as higher education authorities, which need to
concern themselves with educating the consciousness of the public. If Sri Lanka
needs better relations with India, misperceptions and prejudices about India among
Lankans need to be dislodged through a process of public education. That is, a
mindset change about India needs to be effected. This is a long-term undertaking
which needs to be taken on by mainly educated and responsible sections in Sri
Lanka, including the state, and it is hoped that forums, such as the current one,
launched by the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi
would contribute towards this positive change in attitudes.
However, in the short-term, both India and Sri Lanka would need to engage
in confidence-building measures continually to improve bilateral relations, and
thereby put their relations on a better footing so as to benefit mutually from
qualitatively improved ties. The consequences of these long and short-term
measures aimed at improving bilateral relations could be a closer bonding between
India and Sri Lanka. This process could contribute towards fostering regional
amity, which is so essential for the smooth functioning of the SAARC.
The initiation of confidence-building measures between the two states in this
region needs to be premised on the launching of a bilateral dialogue process which
would thereafter be sustained. The challenge before our states in South Asia is to
engage in constructive dialogues among each other in a spirit of openness. Very
often, the constructive element is missing in these bilateral and even multilateral
exchanges, and the result is usually a further straining of inter-state ties, especially
if these relations are already far from cordial. Accordingly, the South Asian states
would need to have an eye on the quality of their dialogues and exchanges.
However, the above aims could be achieved even to a relative degree if the
SAARC provides the forum for the broaching of issues which are seen as dividing
172
the South Asian states at the bilateral and multilateral levels. Right now, this
exercise is not provided for under the SAARC Charter. While it could be argued
that this stipulation could help in keeping the SAARC process afloat in view of
the disruptive impact an unconstructive airing of controversial issues could have
on the process of regional cooperation, the non-resolution of controversial
questions in a spirit of openness and constructive engagement would not be of
much help either because unaired and unresolved grievances tend to get in the
way of full-blown regional cooperation. Stifled, unarticulated grievances or those
that are swept under the carpet of diplomatic niceties and graces, only tend to
simmer within the consciousness of state representatives, for instance, and mar
the atmosphere attendant on inter-state engagements and diplomatic exchanges.
Accordingly, a case could be made for a degree of openness in the relations
among the SAARC Eight. There was the encouraging news when in 2013 an
Indian parliamentary delegation had visited Pakistan and engaged in fruitful and
informal discussions with its Pakistani counterpart. It had helped in easing out
some strain in the India-Pakistan ties, and it goes without saying that more of
such exchanges among even other states of the SAARC region could help in
bringing a degree of unprecedented cordiality to the inter-state relations in this
part of the world.
It needs to be recognised that democratisation in South Asia has been taken
several notches higher with a democratic administration in Pakistan completing
its term of office for the first time in that countrys post-independence history.
This is a most positive development, and it is hoped that India would make the
most of this opportunity to strengthen ties with Pakistan, bearing in mind that,
usually, relations among democracies are of a cordial kind. SAARC needs to put
to good use this relatively widespread spirit of democracy, although this region is
also deeply troubled by divisive political forces such as the identity politics.
Therefore, Track Two diplomacy and other forms of informal interaction among
the SAARC states and the people need to gather pace, while formal diplomatic
exchanges and engagements continue among the countries as well. It is hoped that
Track One would be nourished by Track Two and informal interactions.
Accordingly, this spirit of informality and openness needs to inform the
SAARC deliberations too because as long as the task of resolving bilateral
contentious issues is approached by the association in a constructive and
cooperative spirit, there is a possibility of SAARC narrowing these seemingly
intractable differences among its membership.
Momentous Opportunities
SAARC needs to grab this moment because India and numerous countries of
the South are on an unprecedented economic growth trajectory. As is well known,
while the economic fortunes of the developed world are currently on the decline,
the growth prospects of the developing world are on an unprecedented upswing.
Today, it is the South or the developing countries which are evincing the highest
growth rates and are proving to be the engine of growth of the global economy.
A recent vital document of the international community that needs to be
studied in depth is the UNDPs Human Development Report 2013. Subtitled,
The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World, a summary of the report
states thus:
Although most developing countries have done well, a large number of
countries have done particularly wellwhat can be called the rise of the
South. Some of the largest countries have made rapid advances, notably
Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa and Turkey. But
there has also been substantial progress in smaller economies, such as,
Bangladesh, Chile, Ghana, Mauritius, Rwanda and Tunisia.1
Elaborating on the growth prospects of the South, the summary goes on to state:
The middle class in the South is growing rapidly in size, income and
expectations. The sheer number of people in the Souththe billions of
consumers and citizensmultiplies the global human development
consequences of actions by governments, companies and international
institutions in the South. The South is now emerging alongside the North
as a breeding ground for technical innovation and creative
entrepreneurship. In North-South trade, the newly industrializing
economies have built capabilities to efficiently manufacture complex
products for developed country markets. But South-South interactions
have enabled companies in the South to adapt and innovate with products
and processes that are better suited to local needs.2
Touching on the importance closer regional integration in its concluding
observations, the summary further states:
New institutions and partnerships can help countries share knowledge,
experiences and technology. This can be accompanied by new and stronger
institutions to promote trade and investment and accelerate experience
sharing across the South. One step would be to establish a new South
Commission to bring a fresh vision of how the diversity of the South can
be a force for solidarity.3
SAARC needs to take its cue from these observations. Certainly, a new South
Commission would be welcome and prove timely, but more vitally, we need what
may be called a South Asia Commission which would seek to address the issue
of how the South Asian region could harness its economic growth and vibrancy
on an equitable basis for the material advancement of the SAARC Eight.
But there is no need to re-invent the wheel. SAARC would be playing a role
that is most appropriate to it by discharging the functions of this envisaged South
174
Asia Commission. This is how SAARC needs to see itself in current times. It
should take on anew the task of ensuring, to the extent possible, the advancement
of regional growth and prosperity on an equitable basis, for this was seen as one
of its primary tasks, although it did not live up to the expectations over the decades.
However, SAARC would be resurgently functional and effective only to the
degree to which it is rendered so by its membership and to the extent to which
it enjoys the latters wholehearted backing. Accordingly, in order of priority,
SAARC needs to be rejuvenated and rendered dynamic and effective before it
takes on the momentous responsibilities outlined above, such as ensuring shared
and exceptional material advancement for its member states.
Eschewing Short-term Gains

All South Asian eyes inevitably turn towards India and Pakistan at the very mention
of the aforementioned challenges. It goes without saying that the advancement of
the SAARC region would depend on the degree to which these regional
heavyweights put their shoulders to the wheel of the SAARC development agenda.
They would be enabled to do so only if they keep their sights on long-term
development goals and eschew short-term political gain in particular.
Admittedly, this is no easy task, but it must be made to work if even a degree
of shared economic gain is to accrue to the region and conflicts among states are
to be better managed. However, these times are propitious because the Nawaz
Sharif Government in Pakistan is on record that it is for improved ties with India.
Political relations have also improved with parliamentarians from both sides
establishing closer and cordial contact. Hopefully, Track Two diplomacy and
people-to-people contact between India and Pakistan would improve too.
Both India and Pakistan too need to seize this moment. Apparently, the Indian
and Pakistani polities need to be convinced of the need to keep in mind the larger
picture of a South Asian region which is at relative peace with itself, conducting
its relations in a spirit of amicability, bearing in mind the greater good that would
accrue to it through expanded and intensified economic cooperation. Such
conversations are starkly lacking in almost all the polities of South Asia, including
Sri Lanka. Consequently, it should not come as a surprise if misunderstandings,
misperceptions and prejudices persist in the inter-state relations of this region.
The South Asian governments, in short, should relay the vital importance of
good neighbourliness and cordial inter-state ties to the general public. This
conversation needs to be eloquent, vibrant, and consistent, and the material
benefits which could be reaped from it clearly underscored for the purpose of
winning public support for the attendant programmes of the SAARC economic
cooperation.
This development conversation needs to supersede all divisive concerns in

the ties among the countries in South Asia. For, of the present international
situation, it could be said with considerable justification that economics drives
politics. Moreover, if South Asia is lagging behind in the development race among
regions, it should not come as a surprise because most states in this region have
permitted divisive inter-state issues to cloud the larger aim of regional economic
cooperation.
Therefore, an effort needs to be made on the part of governments to effect
a change in their political cultures which are currently, in the main, of a populist
bent. Such political tendencies and habits would enable political parties to win
power, but would not help in efforts to mend fences with neighbours. This
observation applies to Indo-Pakistan and Indo-Lanka relations in particular.
There are security issues figuring in India-Pakistan ties, for instance, which
have been thus far leading to accusations and counter-accusations between the
two countries. With Pakistan making an effort to stabilise democracy within its
borders, amid a number of internal challenges, including those emanating from
a politicised military, obligates India to relate to Pakistan with exceptional patience.
Ideally, incidents on the India-Pakistan border should not lead to an acrimonious
exchange of allegations which strains ties very disconcertingly.
However, joint security arrangements need to be in place on the common
border to minimise the occurrence of incidents that tend to mar Indo-Pakistani
ties. There should not be a tendency on the part of the two governments to resort
to populist politics on these issues. Majoritarian chauvinism, a species of populist
politics, needs to be strongly guarded against by governments, but this norm is
usually observed more in the breach because of the obvious importance to ruling
parties, in particular, of their vote banks.
SAARC has to take upon itself the task, as mentioned, of fostering democracyfriendly ideals and values in this region which would help in blunting the impact
of populism and majoritarian chauvinism. But this must be effected very
unobtrusively and delicately. Nevertheless, for now, we need to focus on the need
for stepped-up economic interaction among the SAARC countries which would
prove mutually-beneficial.
The International Situation

The importance of the latter process is underlined, among other things, by the
strong economic and political links the West has been forging with India. Over
the past few years, both the US and Britain have made it plain that they intend
bolstering business, trade and investment ties with India. This is on account of
Indias strengths as a global economic power. But to the extent to which economics
176
drives the Wests efforts to build strong bridges to India, to that extent are realpolitik
considerations being diluted in the Wests ties with Pakistan and other countries
of this region. This is on account of the primacy of India in the Wests policy
outlook for the region.
There was a time when security and strategic considerations propelled the
West to foster close ties with Pakistan rather than India. Those were the heydays
of the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) and the South East Asia Treaty
Organisation (SEATO), and it could be argued that security issues continue to
determine, to some extent, the Wests ties to Pakistan down to the present times.
For example, the West needs the assistance of Pakistan to manage its issues in
Afghanistan. But it is India that is steadily acquiring primacy for the West in
South Asia.
Some South Asian commentators have been quick to notice the changed
international situation in the Asian region. Today, it is the Eagle, the Dragon
and the Elephant which are seen to be the principal players in the region. That
is, the US, China and India are seen as playing a pivotal role in the Asian strategic
landscape. Commenting on current global realities, analyst Jasjit Singh, for
instance, had stated: But within this larger complex landscape, and for a variety
of reasons, three key playersthe United States, China, and Indiaand their
relations among themselves and the rest of the worldstand out as the core strategic
triangle of the future that would exercise increasing influence on the world at
large, and security issues in Asia, in particular.4
These crucial changes in the international situation, involving mainly
economic, strategic and material considerations, need to be taken cognisance of
by the SAARC countries. India and China are the most important economic,
military and political actors on the Asian stage, and SAARC should set its priorities
right in this changing situation. There are vast markets to be tapped in India, for
instance, and Indias neighbours would have only themselves to blame if they let
these opportunities go.
But prior to doing so, they must relate with increasing cordiality to India,
and for this purpose India and its neighbours need to recognise each others
sensitivities and core concerns and fashion their ties accordingly. So, continuing
inter-state conversations are of the first importance and the SAARC should,
ideally, facilitate this process.
Quality Dialogue
It should be plain to see that it is quality in inter-state dialogue that would prove
pivotal in improving the tone and timbre of regional relations. As suggested earlier,
such dialogue or conversation should be constructive in orientation, and it is
the constructive element that imparts quality to the envisaged dialogue process.
From this point of view, what needs to be eschewed in inter-state dialogue is
destructive criticism of each other by states.
Indias neighbours need to see that although it is easy and even fashionable
to destructively criticise India over the plethora of contentious issues that keep
the SAARC region divided, what is needed, if the emerging economic strengths
of this region are to be equitably tapped, is a constructive approach to India.
Sections in India habitually call for the dismantling of what they allege are
jihadist militants training facilities in primarily Pakistan and to a lesser extent in
Nepal. It is made out by some that such jihadists of Pakistan origin are even in
Sri Lanka, aiming to infiltrate India from Sri Lankan shores. These are recurring
security questions, as mentioned, which keep some SAARC states divided. Besides
some security-linked irritants, Sri Lanka has a plethora of issues with India,
including those related to the West-initiated human rights-linked accountability
questions being probed by the UN Human Rights Council.
Unless handled constructively and imaginatively by the states concerned, these
bilateral issues could lead to irrevocable rifts among the SAARC Eight. The record,
thus far, regarding the handling of these issues by the states concerned, leaves
very much to be desired, and this is the reason why inter-state dialogue needs to
be conducted within a value structure which would be adhered to region-wide.
SAARC as Humanising Influence

In effect, SAARC has its work cut out for itself. It needs to strongly consider
making itself a vehicle of open and constructive dialogue among its membership,
within reasonable limits, so that even divisive issues could be aired and discussed.
SAARC should ensure that such conversations are conducted in a constructive,
civilised fashion and do not degenerate into finger-pointing acrimonious debates.
It needs to set the rules and guidelines for these dialogues and ensure they are
observed.
Easier said than done, the cynics may argue, but this would not prove an
uphill task if a SAARC consensus is formed for a united vision and action. Such
unanimity could be forged if vibrant efforts are made by the leaders of the SAARC
to underscore the collective gains which could be reaped by the region in the
current international economic and political milieu. India and Pakistan would
need to put principles above politics and take upon themselves the bulk of this
undertaking, since they are the pivotal states in the SAARC.
SAARC also needs to take on itself a humanising and civilising mission. As
indicated earlier, democratic ethos is currently pervading SAARC, although divisive
politics remains. The most number of countries in the South Asian region are
178
democracies and apparently, understand democracys basic norms and values. Why
cannot these values underpin our dealings with each other?
This is a long gestation project, but needs to be undertaken right now. Slowly
but surely, divisive political ideologies and beliefs that keep people divided,
domestically and internationally, must be eschewed. In order to achieve this, the
costly consequences of division must be underscored. Such programmes could
be undertaken by the SAARC, without necessarily referring to them as being aimed
at democratisation, since the sovereign rights of states must be respected. Public
education programmes could be imaginatively devised to achieve these aims, and
SAARC needs to take on such challenges.
Accordingly, a degree of revamping of the SAARC is necessary to meet some
of the challenges just outlined. For one, the constitution of SAARC must be amended
to provide for the constructive discussion of issues that are being viewed as divisive
by its members, but which have, in fact, stymied the growth of the association.
This provision should be underpinned by a carefully thought out regime of
unanimously accepted rules. However, before such issues are taken up formally by
the SAARC, they need to be subjected to informal trouble-shooting discussions
among the relevant parties to the dispute, under the arbitration of, perhaps, the
SAARC Secretary General, or some such eminent official of the SAARC.
Furthermore, the interests of the SAARC region would be served, if the
organisation could adopt a Regional Convention on the Humanisation of
Domestic and International Politics. This could help in the process of civilising
the politics in this region because, as noted, there are far too many destructive
political forces at work in this region. There is, of course, no guarantee of the
ready acceptance and adoption of these ideas, but they must be tried out if this
region is to accept the challenges of the current age. We certainly cannot forge
ahead as a region if communalism and fascism, for instance, are winked at by
states under the assumption that we live in free societies. What needs to be
provided, for the development of societies, are human values which are the defining
essence of democracy, as generally understood.
We need to take a page from the European Union (EU), which is, today, a
success story in regional cooperation. What has undergirded the success of the
EU is democracy and its values and ideals. Despite some occasional differences,
the EU has forged ahead as a regional body and its successes in regional economic
cooperation speak for themselves. Besides, the EU has been single-minded in its
pursuits. It has not, for instance, adopted conventions and done little about them.
But SAARC has adopted quite a number of conventions over the years, and one
wonders how successfully and effectively they have been implemented. There was
a convention for the adoption of a regional food reserve some time back, for
instance, but what is the current position with regard to this valuable initiative?
Therefore, SAARC needs to take stock of its achievements as it goes along

and see itself as a change agent. Public education programmes and such tools
must not only be devised to ingrain democratic values, such as the respect for life
and the Other, in the consciousness of the rulers and the ruled, the urgency of
collective economic well-being too must be clearly underscored. In other words,
the cruciality of SAARC unity must be ingrained in the minds and hearts of the
people of the region.
ENDNOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World, Summary UNDP Human
Development Report 2013.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Alyssa Ayres and C. Raja Mohan (eds.), Power Realignments in Asia: China, India and the
United States, SAGE Publications, 2009.
14
China and South Asian Cooperation
Under SAARC
S.D. Muni
In order to understand Chinas role in the South Asian regional cooperation and
how this role is being perceived within South Asia, we must begin by looking at
the drives behind Chinas engagements with and interests in South Asia. China
has been South Asias neighbour, though a new one, since its military absorption
of Tibet in 1951. Not that China did not have historical contacts with the South
Asian countries before absorbing Tibet, but such contacts were sporadic, confined
to political and trade matters generally, and made nominal impact on each other.
There was hardly any engagement at the level of societies and people. Geographical
distances and barriers, which have started melting away under technological
innovations, played dividers too.
China now has a strong desire to engage with the South Asian countries for
three specific reasons. First of all is its sense of vulnerability in relation to its western
periphery, comprising Tibet and Xinjiang. Both these outlaying regions of China
are restive and unstable. Despite its massive administrative control, financial
investments, and military presence, Tibet erupted into a major revolt in 2008,
marring Chinas otherwise masterly organisation of Olympic Games. The
vehemence and anger with which the Chinese authorities react to His Holiness
the Dalai Lama reflects their inherent sense of insecurity. Like Tibet, Xinjiang
also has been simmering with discontent for a long time. Islamic upsurge has
further complicated Chinas internal security concerns in Xinjiang so much so
that President Xi Jinping has been initiating special measures to deal with the
China and South Asian Cooperation Under SAARC
181
situation, even by spreading nets from earth to sky to catch the terrorists
thugs influenced by religious extremist ideology.1 Since both these peripheral
regions of China share borders with South Asian countries, China has to cultivate
these countries to ensure that the discontented and rebellious groups do not receive
support and encouragement from across the borders.
Second, there is an economic drive pushing Chinas increasing engagement
with South Asia. The rising Chinese economy is looking for opportunities of
investments and natural resources all over Asia and the world, and its neighbouring
South Asian region cannot be an exception. More so as South Asia is the worlds
most populous sub-region with 1.5 billion population and growing economies.
China cannot neglect this region in the interest of its own continuing prosperity
and growth. In this context, let us recall Chinas drive to develop Yunnan, which
led to closer engagement with the countries surrounding the south-western
province, i.e., Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia.2 Yunnans further growth
and development would also require connectivity and cooperative relations with
some of the South Asian countries like Bangladesh and India. Similarly, if Tibet
and Xinjiang have to grow economically, they will need South Asian outlets. The
noticeable emphasis in Chinas efforts on connectivity with the neighbouring
regions can also be explained by the hunger of the Chinese infrastructure
companies that are facing some sort of saturation in opportunities internally.
Chinese leadership has clearly shown its intent to boost the infrastructure sector
and thus the Chinese economy.
The third drive is obviously strategic which may have multiple objectives
ranging from keeping India boxed within South Asia to securing transit and access
points in the Indian Ocean/Bay of Bengal region. This access will also cushion
its so called Malacca dilemma to ensure uninterrupted flow of trade and commerce.
Chinas investments in developing ports like Humbantota in Sri Lanka, Chittagong
in Bangladesh, Gwadar in Pakistan, Kyaukpyu in Myanmar and building
economic/transit corridors in Pakistan and Myanmar are indicative of this
objective. Chinas proposals to develop new Maritime Silk Road and the Silk Road
Economic Belt are also a part of it. Under these proposals, China wants to connect
with whole of Asia and access its markets and natural resources, creating new
opportunities for its infrastructure sector as well in the process. While ostensibly
commercial and economic projects, these accesses and facilities will also establish
a strategic Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean, and the Asian region, curtailing
strategic space that naturally exists for other countries including the US and Russia.
Driven by these three objectives, China is approaching the South Asian
countries both bilaterally and regionally as a group. Chinas phenomenal economic
rise and growing military muscle has given it a new confidence, allowing it to
engage with the South Asian region assertively. According to one assessment, South
182
Asia is third priority, after East and South East Asia, vis--vis Chinas strategic
engagement with Asia.3 South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
(SAARC) being the only viable regional organisation for development cooperation
in South Asia, China has been interested in it from the beginning.
There are two different ways in which the South Asian countries look at
Chinas interest in South Asia. One is led by India, and the other by almost all
other countries of the region, mainly Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh. One may
take Bhutan as an exception to this as it has so far generally followed Indian lead
in critical strategic aspects of the SAARC development. It was during the 1970s
that early moves were made to explore the possibility of regional economic
cooperation for development in South Asia. These moves were sponsored by the
European funding agencies, the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) for undertaking studies for
regional cooperation. Pakistan and Nepal since then have been interested in getting
China involved in regional initiatives. The imperative was more political than
economic development, whereby China was expected to provide a political
counterweight to India in regional affairs. While Pakistan wanted to contain Indias
rising stature in the region following the emergence of Bangladesh, Nepal had
been feeling uncomfortable with India for its overall dominance in bilateral affairs
and strong resistance to Nepals country-specific proposals like Nepal as a Zone
of Peace. King Birendras proposal initiated in 1975 was meant to erode the
burden of the bilateral Treaty of 1950 with India which underlined a kind of
special relationship between the two countries. China was perhaps not that keen
at the time to engage with the South Asian regional affairs, as its economic
development had not yet begun in any serious manner. However, China was always
forthcoming in assuring Pakistan and the other neighbours of India that it would
stand by them against any pressure and interference from India.
When SAARC came into existence in 1985, and even when it was being
formed, there was a very strong plea made by Chinas South Asian supporters
that China should be involved. The argument extended was not only based on
using China as a counterweight to India, but also on the basis of Chinas growing
economic strength and advantages of making it South Asias development partner.
Reference was to Chinas emphasis on economic growth under Deng Xiaopings
reforms.
The efforts of some of Indias neighbours to get China involved in SAARC
did not succeed until 2005 largely because of Indias resistance. SAARC functions
on the basis of unanimity in decision-making, which in effect means a veto right
to every member of the grouping to abort a given decision. However, in 2005, at
the 13th SAARC summit, China was granted an Observer status along with many
other countries including the US, Japan, the European Union, South Korea,
183
Australia, Myanmar, Mauritius and Iran. It is interesting to note that in 2005,

India became a member of the East Asia Summit (EAS) and was also accepted as
an Observer in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) comprising China,
Russia and the Central Asian countries. Both in the EAS and the SCO, Indias
entry was being resisted by China.
One wonders if there was any informal swap between India and China
regarding the organisations involved. If there was any, it is interesting to speculate
its implication for the current developments as China has offered India to
participate in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and also supports
its full membership of the SCO.4 India may still find it difficult to concede the
SAARC membership to China as decision-making processes are widely different
in the SAARC from the APEC and the SCO. China attended the 14th SAARC
summit in 2007, first as an Observer. In his statement, the Chinese Foreign
Minister Li Zhaoxing had described SAARC as an important organisation for
regional cooperation...as well as peace and stability in South Asia. He added
that China respects the aspirations of SAARC countries and the principles of
equality, mutual trust and win-win cooperation and is ready to carry out exchanges
and expand practical cooperation with SAARC...5
Since 2007, the demand of making China a full SAARC member has gradually
gathered momentum among Indias neighbours, particularly Pakistan and Nepal.
India has been resisting this under the pretext that status of the Observer countries
in the SAARC has not been defined. It may also be kept in mind that since 2005
China has keenly moved to improve its credentials for closer engagement with
the SAARC. It has set up a China-South Asia Business Forum which held its
ninth annual meeting in June 2014 in Kunming, and was inaugurated by the
Bangladesh Prime Minister Shiekh Hasina Wajid.6 Possibly with the view of
building public opinion in favour of its closer engagement with the SAARC, China
has also been holding the meeting of South Asian think tanks in Kunming. Prior
to the 17th SAARC Summit held at Male in 2011, Kunming also hosted a
conference sponsored by the China Institute of International Studies, Beijing,
the Yunnan Academy of Social Sciences, Kunming and the Institute of Policy
Studies, Islamabad, on China-SAARC: Towards a Better Understanding through
Enhanced People-to-People Exchanges during July 26-27, 2011.7
At the 17th Male Summit, the ADDU Declaration issued on November 14,
2011 undertook a comprehensive review of all matters relating to SAARC
engagement with Observers, including the question of dialogue partners, before
the next session of the Council of Ministers (Para 19). The reference to Dialogue
Partners in this declaration was interesting and must have come up to avert the
pressure for elevating Observers like China to the full membership level. The
inspiration for this has obviously come from the Association of Southeast Asian
184
Nations (ASEAN) and other regional groupings. Indias strong reservations about
China becoming a full member of the SAARC emanate from the legitimate fear
that SAARCs decision-making may get undermined in view of the veto rights its
members are accorded. Obviously, India may not want regional decision-making
to be held hostage to Chinas political and economic preferences. Will India or the
other SAARC members find an alternative to full membership for China in SAARC+1
Summits, on the lines being held by ASEAN, remains to be seen. Chinas efforts
to deepen its engagement with SAARC and express its interests and commitment
to its processes, however, continue. China had organised a SAARC Officials Exchange
Programme with the China Foreign Affairs University from October 21-November
01, 2012. SAARC has not yet firmed up its consensus on the role of Observers.
There was no reference to the proposed review of this question at the 2012 session
of the SAARC Council of Ministers. No SAARC summit has been held after Male.
There is also no certainty if this issue will be resolved by the next summit expected
to be held in Kathmandu in November 2014.
In contrast to the approach of its other neighbours, India has reservations
because if the neighbouring countries are trying to use China as a counterweight
to its own strategic space in South Asia, obviously India cannot but resist it.
Gradually, however, this resistance has been diluted. For example, as mentioned
earlier, India accepted China as an Observer in SAARC. An important factor
behind this has been Chinas rise as a formidable economic power opening up
economic opportunities, and one South Asian country which has taken the most
advantage of it is India. How can India then grudge its other neighbours for doing
the same, i.e., enhancing their economic engagement with China? Indian economy
has also become stronger over the years, and there is increased confidence in the
government as also the corporate sector to engage with China to their advantage.
This confidence can be seen in the multifaceted engagements between India and
China (e.g., the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar [BCIM] forum, which was
initiated by China to help expand the reach of its Yunnan region to South Asia).
India at first stoutly resisted from participating in the forum. But in 2013, India
agreed to work with China in developing the BCIM economic corridor. According
to the Joint Statement issued at the end of the then Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singhs visit to China during October 22-24, 2013:
Pursuant to the understanding reached between the two leaders in May
2013, India and China have each established a Study Group on the BCIM
[Bangladesh, China, India and Myanmar] Economic Corridor. The visit
of the Chinese delegation to India in this regard was noted as a positive
step. Further discussions on concepts and alignment of the economic
corridor are envisaged. Both India and China would continue to discuss
with the other parties to this initiative, and hold the first BCIM Joint
Study Group meeting in coming December to study the specific programs
on building the BCIM Economic Corridor.8
185
The Indian and Chinese prime ministers have in principle and in practice also
agreed to collaborate on enhancing connectivity with Bangladesh, Myanmar, and
also Northeast of India in order to develop that region. Another reason behind
the Indian shift is also the initiative to develop Indias Northeast region and link
it with the Look East Policy. There was no such link initially when the Look East
Policy was launched in the early 1990s. It is important to note in this respect that
some of the Southeast Asian countries like Singapore and Thailand, as also Japan,
have been quietly prodding India to develop its Northeast region in view of
expanding Chinese influence in Myanmar and Bangladesh. To facilitate its greater
and easy access to South Asia, China has also been proposing that joint
development effort should be encouraged between India, China and Nepal. The
idea of trilateral cooperation was highlighted by a senior Chinese official in
Kathmandu in the last week of August 2014. China has already promised to link
Kathmandu with Tibet through the Tibet rail link in Shigatse. This is compatible
with the idea of the former Maoist Prime Minister of Nepal, Baburam Bhattarai,
to develop Nepal as an economic link between India and China.
Some Pakistani analysts have also proposed that India could become a partner
in China-Pakistan economic corridor that would connect Pakistans Gwadar sea
port developed by China to Chinas Xinjiang Province through Karakoram
Highway. India may not find it easy to respond to such proposals positively, at
least in the near future. But all these moves fit in with the Chinese keenness to
have smooth and expanded access to South Asia in view of its interests and stakes
outlined earlier. India will have to evolve a fitting response to deal with China in
South Asia. There are surely areas where the two will continue to compete, but
there may also be issues on which the two Asian giants can cooperate and coexist
in South Asia to their respective mutual advantage.
It is, therefore, clear that India or any other country in South Asia cannot
wish away China, particularly its growing economic and strategic interest in the
region and its desire for greater role and participation in the SAARC activities.
India is learning slowly and hesitatingly to cope with the growing Chinese presence
in the region which is of critical strategic significance, and is increasing its
engagement with China both bilaterally and in regional affairs. However, this
engagement need not be considered synonymous with a full membership of
SAARC for China, and in this context, not only India but also other SAARC
members must think through seriously. Simply in economic terms, Chinas
engagement with the South Asian countries has been growing steadily, and will
continue, irrespective of China becoming a full SAARC member. If China is
elevated to full membership from its present Observer status, other Observers
will also ask for the same, and that raises the question of the expansion of SAARC.
Can SAARC accommodate all the Observer countries as its full member? Will it
become unwieldy and meaningless to call it SAARC then? Will it not open SAARC
186
to avoidable strategic competition, for instance, between China on the one hand
and Japan and the US on the other? Will it in any case benefit the original SAARC
members or will it tend to polarise them?
There is also a strong possibility of SAARC getting further divided with
Chinas co-option as a full member. SAARC was originally planned as a forum
for development cooperation that would in due course of time also soften the
intra-regional political and strategic conflicts. This has actually not happened as
the process of development cooperation has been stifled. Moreover, SAARC is
not progressing not because of the lack of economic theories or economic analyses
or economic data or the prospects and opportunities which the economists are
bringing out. SAARC is not progressing essentially because of political hurdles
that operate at two levels: firstly, in terms of bilateral relations amongst the SAARC
countries and, secondly, in terms of internal politics and instability within the
SAARC countries. The major bilateral hurdle is the India-Pakistan hiatus. China
is a part of the problem in the India-Pakistan hiatus rather than a part of the
solution. Therefore, Chinas entry as a member of SAARC is not going to diminish
this hiatus, if at all it will enhance it. Chinas presence in the SAARC will also
encourage other smaller neighbours of India to play China card to counter-balance
India even in matters related to development cooperation.
Internally, the South Asian countries are struggling to consolidate and
establishtheir democracies, and SAARC would not really gather its full
developmental momentum unless these democracies get firmly institutionalised,
ensure stability and orient respective internal political dynamics towards
development, away from inflated nationalist or emotional issues with reference
to regional relations. China has no sympathy either for democracy or for
developmental politics. In fact, China is characterised by its preference for strong,
assertive, centralised regimes on its periphery. One must look around to see if
China has ever helped or encouraged democratisation in any of its neighbouring
countries. South Asias democratisation is forcing China to come to terms with
democratic processes, and in some cases like Nepal and Myanmar, it is getting
sucked into the depths of domestic politics to create supportive constituencies.
In Nepal, for instance, China is encouraging resistance to ethnicity-based
federalism. Chinas fear is that if its close neighbours get democratised, they may
start distancing themselves from China, as is evident in the case of Myanmar.
While considering a SAARC membership to China, the South Asian countries
need to look closely at Chinas participation in other regional groupings. Strong
arguments have been made to underline Chinas increasing comfort level with
multilateral diplomacy and its strategy towards multilateralism at the global level.9
Multilateralism at the global level, however, is different from the role in a given
regional organisation where critical national interests are at stake. In this context,
187
for instance, it would be worthwhile to consider Chinas approach towards

ASEAN. When Chinas core interests came in conflict with ASEAN regional
harmony, China did not hesitate to break it. In July 2012, the ASEAN Summit
unity was breached by Cambodia under the Chinese influence on the question of
South China Sea. While some ASEAN members like Vietnam and Philippines
wanted ASEAN to take a strong position on the South China Sea dispute contrary
to Chinas interests, the regional unity was shaken as the Summit could not even
adopt a declaration under the Cambodian Chair.10 With Chinas presence in
SAARC, such a regional breakdown is more likely because internal SAARC
cohesion is far more fragile than what we see in ASEAN. Some of Indias
neighbours are ever prepared and looking forward to using China against India
on regional issues. That being so, who will care about building SAARC unity
and advancing regional cooperation under its umbrella.
ENDNOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Spreading the Net, The Economist, London, August 09, 2014, at http://www.economist.
com/news/china/21611110-new-episodes-violence-and-repression-have-heightened-tensionsxinjiang-spreading-net (Accessed August 10, 2014).
S.D. Muni, Chinas Strategic Engagement with the New ASEAN, IDSS Monograph No.2,
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore,
2002.
Mohan J. Malik, South Asia in Chinas Foreign Relations, Pacific Review, 13 (1), February
2001, pp. 73-90.
The APEC participation was offered by the Chinese President Xi Jinping in his meeting
with Indias new Prime Minister Narendra Modi at Brazil BRICS summit in July 2014.
Indrani Bagchi, Xi Calls Modi to Apec Meeting, Scores over US, The Times of India,
New Delhi, July 16, 2014, at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/xi-calls-modi-to-apecmeeting-scores-over-us/movie-review/38448569.cms (Accessed July 24, 2014)
See Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing Addresses Opening Ceremony of the 14th SAARC
Summit, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Peoples Republic of China, April 03, 2007, at
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjdt_665385/zyjh_665391/t308922.shtml (Accessed July
24, 2014).
9th China-South Asia Business Forum (CSABF), 7 June 2014, Kunming, Yunnan, Peoples
Republic of China, at http://www.saarcchamber.org/index.php?option=com_content&
view=article&id=472:9th-china-south-asia-business-forumcsabf-7th-june-2014-kunmingyunnan-peoples-republic-of-china&catid=3:main-news-articles&Itemid=911 (Accessed July
12, 2014).
For the papers presented at the conference, see Policy Perspectives, 9 (1), 2012, Institute of
Policy Studies, Islamabad. Also, see the special Issue on China and SAARC.
Para 04 of the text of the Joint Statement. See Joint StatementA Vision for Future
Development of India-China Strategic and Cooperative Partnership, Ministry of External
Affairs, Government of India, October 23, 2013, at http://mea.gov.in/bilateraldocuments.htm?dtl/22379/Joint+Statement+A+vision+for+future+development+of+India
China+strategic+and+cooperative+partnership (Accessed October 25, 2013).
Jagannath P. Panda, China in SAARC: Evaluating the PRCs Institutional Engagement and
Regional Designs, China Report, 46, 2010, pp. 299-310. Also, see Elmie Konwar Rengma,
188
10.

Soft Power Game: A Study of China, India and South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation (SAARC) Tripartite, Emerging Scholars Papers 2012, India China Institute,
New York, at http://indiachinainstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Elmie-Soft-PowerGame-A-Study-of-China-India-and-SAARC-Tripartite.pdf.
Patrick Barta and Carlos Tejada, Sea Dispute Upends Asian Summit, The Wall Street Journal,
July 23, 2012, at http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240527023039195045775
24133983292716?mod=_newsreel_1 (Accessed June 24, 2013).
15
Indias Trade with Neighbours: Perceptions
and RealityWith Special Reference to
India-Pakistan Trade
Indra Nath Mukherji
Introduction
This paper brings out the role of perceptions of Pakistani stakeholders in its trade
relations with India. While some of these perceptions cut across other neighbouring
countries of India, the focus of this paper is primarily on Pakistan. It brings out
the background to regional trade liberalisation, in particular, the deliberations at
the official level meetings under the previous Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP)
Government in Pakistan and the previous United Progressive Alliance (UPA)
Government in India. It was expected that once the electoral process is over and
new governments have been formed, the earlier long drawn dialogue process would
chart out the steps towards fulfilment of trade normalisation between the two
countries. Yet many commitments remain unfulfilled and a rethinking process is
on among a section of Pakistans stakeholders, strongly asserting that unless a level
playing ground is provided by India, the grant of Non-Discriminatory Market
Access (NDMA) to India should be kept in abeyance. This paper examines the
Pakistani perceptions from an assessment of ground reality.
Background to Regional Trade Liberalisation

Over the past decade, India has been moving towards greater trade liberalisation
or normalisation with its neighbours, both through bilateral free trade agreements
190
as well as through regional approaches, such as South Asian Preferential Trading

Agreement (SAPTA) activated since2005 and, its successor, South Asian Free Trade
Agreement (SAFTA) activated since July 2006. India used its bilateral approach
to have free trade with its traditional trading partners such as Nepal and Bhutan,
long before bilateralism came to be accepted as the most popular instrument of
foreign trade policy of both developed and developing countries. The India-Sri
Lanka Free Trade Agreement, signed in December 1998, has been in operation
since March 2000. Under this Agreement, India and Sri Lanka engage in free
trade, barring products in their respective sensitive lists. India has used the regional
framework of SAFTA to offer all contracting Least Developed Countries (LDCs)
duty-free, quota free access to its market barring only 25 items. It has pruned its
sensitive list for Non-Least Developed Countries (NLDCs) to only 614 items.
All South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) members
are signatories to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), with the exception of
Bhutan, and as such are obliged to give Most Favoured Nation (MFN) treatment
to each other. The only exception to this has been Pakistans non-acceptance of
this principle in its market access to India. Till 1965, India-Pakistan trade was
governed by positive list1 approach under which only products specified by each
country in their respective positive lists were allowed to be exported by the other.
With the outbreak of hostilities between the two countries in 1965, any formal
trade between them during 1996-1974 ceased.In accordance with the Shimla
Agreement of 1972, a Protocol on Resumption of Trade was signed by India and
Pakistan on January 23, 1975 which provided that the trade would be on MFN
basis as provided for in General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). India
accorded MFN status to Pakistan in conformity with its general approach.
However, Pakistan continued with the positive list strategy, which is, allowing
only selected items for import from India.
The PPP Government of Pakistan appeared well disposed and reconciled to
granting India the MFN status in November 2011,2 and considerable time and
effort in attaining the same was reflected in the long drawn official level meetings
both at the secretarial and ministerial levels that was initiated in 2004 under the
composite dialogue process. With the initiation of composite dialogue process,
Pakistan de-linked, for the first time, trade issues from Kashmir. The Composite
Dialogue between India and Pakistan from 2004 to 2008 addressed all outstanding
bilateral issues. It had completed four rounds and the fifth round was in progress
when it was paused in the wake of Mumbai terrorist attacks in November 2008.
As a result of their meeting in April 2010 in Thimpu on the sidelines of the
SAARC Summit, the then Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his
Pakistani counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani mandated their foreign ministers and
foreign secretaries to hold discussions on the modalities to pave way for a
17th
Indias Trade with Neighbours: Perceptions and Reality
191
comprehensive and sustained dialogue on all issues of mutual interest and

concern.3 The meeting of the then Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna
and his Pakistani counterpart Hina Rabbani Khar in New Delhi on July 27, 2011
marked the culmination of the first round of the resumed dialogue.4
The 7th Round Table on Commercial and Economic Cooperation (RTCEC)
reiterated that the road map for liberalised trade drawn in earlier ministerial
meetings would be scrupulously adhered to.5 Both sides developed a long-term
plan of trade liberalisation during the 7th RTCEC: It was noted that Pakistan
then had 936 tariff lines at 6-digit under its SAFTA sensitive list, as against 614
tariff lines at 6-digit of India. It was agreed that after Pakistan had notified its
removal of all restrictions on trade by Wagah-Attari trade route, India would bring
down its SAFTA Sensitive List by 30 per cent before December 2012 keeping in
view Pakistans export interests. At present, Pakistan allows only 137 items to move
via the land route.6
According to the 7th RTCEC: As Pakistan would transition fully to the MFN
status for India by December 2012, as agreed earlier, India would thereafter bring
down its SAFTA sensitive list to 100 tariff lines by April 2013. As India notifies
the reduced sensitive list, Pakistan, after seeking approval of the cabinet, will also
notify its dates of transition to bring down its SAFTA sensitive list to a maximum
of 100 tariff lines within the next five years (i.e., before the end of 2017). Moreover,
before the end of year 2020, except for this small number of tariff lines under
respective SAFTA sensitive lists, the peak tariff rate for all other tariff lines would
not be more than 5 per cent.7
Growing and Persistent Trade Imbalance

One of the major issues in Indias trade relations with its neighbours is the persistent
and growing trade imbalance with India. While it is true that South Asian
Countries (SACs) trade imbalance with India has been increasing, their similar
imbalance with the world has been increasing even faster, such that the share of
India in SACs global trade deficit has declined from 41.02 per cent in 2000 to
21.08 per cent in 2011 (see Figure 1).
Examples of country-specific trade imbalance of some SACs such as Sri Lanka,
Bangladesh and Pakistan with China (another developing Asian country) show
that their trade imbalance with China is far more pronounced than that with
India. An illustration of Pakistans trade imbalance with China, India and world
is presented in Figure 2. As observed, Pakistans trade deficit with China in 2012
was around four times of that with India. A counter factual to this is that SACs
trade deficit with the world could have been much higher had they not sourced
their essential requirements from India.
Source: Based on authors estimates from UN Comtrade Data, World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS), World Bank, at wits.worldbank.org.
Figure 1: South Asian Countries (Excluding India) Trade Deficit with India and World (US$ Million)
192
193
Figure 2: Pakistans Trade Deficit with China, India and World (US$ Million)
Source: Based on authors estimates from UN Comtrade Data, World Integrated Trade Solution
(WITS), World Bank, at wits.worldbank.org.
Another dimension of trade deficit is to observe trade not merely in value

terms, but also in terms of its content. According to Figure 3, Pakistan imports
mainly capital and intermediate goods from China (around 80 per cent in 2012).
Pakistans imports from India are dominated by intermediate goods and raw
materials (around 90 per cent in 2012).The share of consumer goods and capital
goods combined was10.75 per cent in 2012 from India compared to 57.84 per
cent from China (see Figure 4). There can be little doubt the pattern of market
access realised by India and China has much to do with Pakistans positive list
approach to India, combined with preferential access to China (discussed later).
Tariff and Non-Tariff Barriers

It is contended by Pakistani stakeholders that India imposes high tariff barriers
against Pakistans imports. Figure 5 demonstrates that overall tariff incidences in
both India and Pakistan are not very dissimilar, both applied and final bound.8
The difference arises in that while Pakistan imposes lower tariffs on agricultural
goods, it imposes higher on non-agricultural goods as compared to India.
Pakistani stakeholders have more often expressed concerns of the prevalence
of opaque Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) being faced by exporters in Pakistan. The
NTBs are those costs, other than tariffs, that have a bearing on the trader. This
Figure 3: Pakistans Imports from China by End Use Classification (Per Cent of Total Imports)
194
Figure 4: Pakistans Imports from India by End Use Classification (Per Cent of Total Imports)

195
Source: Tariff Profiles, WTO.
Pakistan
Figure 5: Tariff Profiles of Pakistan and India

India
196
197
term is quite often used synonymously with Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs). These
measures designed to protect health, safety or environment, are quite legitimate
under the WTO rules provided they are non-discriminatory as between domestic
and third country suppliers and implemented in a transparent manner. When
these conditions are not met, these measures could take the shape of barriers.
The NTBs generally go beyond border issues and often extend to trade
facilitation measures covering customs clearance procedures, transport and transit
infrastructure logistics, etc. To the extent that a cheaper available alternative is
not provided when available (e.g., use of port facility or land route), in traders
perception, this could constitute an NTB. There always remains the possibility
the when NTMs are not implemented in a transparent manner, or within a
reasonably accepted period of time, these could translate to NTBs.
A recent study by the Pakistan Business Council (PBC) expresses concerns of
the agricultural lobby and domestic manufacturers, particularly automobiles and
pharmaceuticals. With only a limited number of products allowed on the sensitive
list under the SAFTA regime, the cheaper Indian products, the study observes,
could hurt domestic interests. India, on the other hand, continues to protect its
interests with its systematic network of para-tariffs, non-tariff barriers and subsidies,
not offering reciprocal treatment to Pakistan.9
The PBC study further recommends that the Government of Pakistan as a
prelude to trade normalisation with India, establish a strong regulatory and
safeguard mechanism and strengthen regulatory bodies such as National Tariff
Commission (NTC) and Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority
(PSQCA) to protect its local interests, while negotiating with the Indian side for
a level playing field for Pakistans exports into the Indian market. Such a level
playing field can be achieved if Pakistans decision to grant MFN/NDMA status
to India and opening of the Wagah border for all items is reciprocated by India,
categorically addressing its non-tariff barriers that have played a significant role
in limiting Pakistans export potential.10
In order to discuss in detail the concerns of Pakistani stakeholders on nontariff and tariff barriers, a comprehensive discussion, Nuts and Bolts of Trade
Facilitation, was organised in Delhi by Federation of Indian Chambers of
Commerce and Industry (FICCI) on September 29, 2011. Participants included
Pakistani and Indian business delegates, technical experts, representatives of Indian
regulatory bodies and senior government officials. The seminar, according to the
feedback received, was most useful in addressing issues raised by businesspersons
and in dispelling various misapprehensions. It was clarified that all standards and
specifications were non-discriminatory, viz., they applied to all countries exporting
goods to India. The discussions also explained how insistence on specific standards
198
by importers was due to commercial considerations and not because of any

governmental requirement.11
In the 6th Round of India-Pakistan bilateral trade talks held in Delhi from
November 14-16, 2011, a special slot was allotted for discussing the non-tariff
barriers perceived by the Pakistani side in respect of exports to India in sectors
such as textiles, leather, cement, agriculture and surgical instruments.12 A summary
of issues raised and addressed under the comprehensive discussion was appended
to the talks under the 6th Round of trade talks. These relate to:
(i) Compulsory certification/long time in renewal of Bureau of Industrial
Standards (BIS) for cement
(ii) Opacity of sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures /import permit/
non-availability of labs
(iii) Food products: testing and packaging requirements
(iv) Marking and labelling requirements
(v) Surgical instruments: Indian conformity assessment certificate mark
(vi) Valuation procedure
The Indian side clarified that BIS is mandated to give license within six months
and inspection visit has to be completed within one to two months after an
application is registered. Delay occurs in cases where the Indian inspection team
is not allowed certain site visits owing to security reasons. Moreover, renewal license
was being given to all manufacturers who have applied for the same.
Regarding textile consumer protection regulation, it was clarified that testing
labs for azo dyes in Mumbai/Delhi were available. A certificate by accredited
certification bodies/labs of the Pakistan National Accreditation Council was
acceptable.
Regarding marking and labelling, BIS has not prescribed any mandatory
standard on textiles. However, marking and labelling is a national requirement.
Regarding SPS measures, the Indian side clarified that fresh fruits and
vegetables are tested at the lab at Attari, and all perishables are cleared the same
day; further, no delays were being reported. Regarding food products testing and
packaging requirements, the Indian side agreed to send a team for educating the
exporters as and when a request is made.
Part of the perceived problems arises from underdeveloped consumer
protection legislation in Pakistan. While Punjab enacted Consumer Protection
Act in 2005, other provinces have yet to enact the same. On SPS risks, there is
yet absence of a legal framework for quality control system in its domestic and
global markets. A national level authority to deal with harmonised food safety
control system is yet to take shape in Pakistan. Inadequate information is another
factor.13
199
Concerns of Farmers
A major concern of farmers in Pakistan is that Indias agriculture is heavily
subsidised and more protective. Liberalising agricultural trade would call to
question Pakistani farmers livelihood concerns. The influential farmers lobby has
been most vocal in opposing free trade with India. Their contention is that
Pakistans agriculture would suffer from highly subsidised farm imports from India.
It is contended that the farmers of Pakistan were taken on board while taking
the decision to grant MFN status to India. Such a decision should not have been
hastily taken without prior cost-benefit analysis of the two countries respective
agricultural subsidies. It appears that the ground reality of Pakistans apprehensions
is somewhat more complex. According to Kugelman, some food producers
actually relish the prospect of acquiring foodstuffs from India because they believe
such products will be of higher quality than their own, and hence generate greater
profits.14
A study sponsored by International Trade Centre (ITC), as part of its Technical
Assistance Programme to Pakistan, on Enhancing Pakistans Agricultural Sector
Exports to India has brought out that Indian agriculture is more protected than
in Pakistan. While Indias SAARC Sensitive List contains 122 agricultural products,
there are only 57 such products under Pakistans sensitive list. Further, the average
applied and bound tariff rates on agricultural products are substantially higher in
India as compared to those applicable in Pakistan. Similarly, subsidies in agriculture
are substantially higher in India.15
It must be considered here that Indias food security programme is not to
subsidise exports of food grains, but for the domestic consumption of its
impoverished population. In case, Pakistan feels threatened by cheap food imports
from India, the solution is not to ban such imports, but to include the same
under its sensitive list. A look at notifications issued by the Government of Pakistan
shows that out of 16 agricultural products in Pakistans negative list, eight are
already in its sensitive list. The remaining products could likewise be brought
under its sensitive list after bilateral negotiations.16 As suggested under the ITC
study, Pakistan could further consider managed trade liberalisation in agricultural
trade with India. Before full trade liberalisation in agricultural sector, the study
suggests import quota regime under the Pakistan Safeguard Ordinance 2002.17
Concerns of Industrialists
Pakistan uses its negative list for restricting its imports from India for avowedly
protecting its domestic industries from competition from India. If this objective
is followed to its logical conclusion, the country would similarly limit its imports
from all competing third countries. The data presented in Table 1 relating Pakistans
200
imports from China, India and the world shows that no effort has been made to
limit such imports. On the contrary, Pakistans free trade agreement with China
offers preferential access to China in those very products restricted to India. The
table shows that China is making deeper penetration in Pakistans market for those
very products in Pakistans negative list. Imports from the world are considerable.
Chinese products, under the selected groupings including pharmaceutical
products, iron and steel, paper and paper board, electrical machinery, and vehicles,
benefiting from restricted entry of Indian goods, are making deeper inroads in
Pakistans industrial market. More notable is that India is suffering a double
whammy in respect of products under the grouping organic chemicals and
mechanical appliances. While India is prohibited from entering into Pakistans
industrial market, China has been granted duty-free access. A logical consequence
of India not getting a level playing ground and China benefiting from first mover
advantage is an increase in Chinas share in Pakistans industrial market.
Table 1: Pakistans Imports of Products in its Negative List for India from China,
India and World (US$ Million)
Year
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Remarks
Organic chemicals (HS 29)

Import from China
Import from India
Import from World
222
456
1761
276
339
1518
321
261
1721
395
373
2213
371
308
2032
40
22
433
35
7
539
32
22
498
31
20
534
28
14
598
216
44
1629
104
31
1683
243
29
1695
268
29
1680
358
28
1848
39
1
439
52
1
377
55
1
440
92
1
528
85
1
467
Electrical machinery and equipment (HS 85)

Import from China
1392
990
Import from India
18
8
Import from World
3782
2619
1245
7
2442
1366
7
2430
1741
4
2750
Vehicles other than railway or tram (HS 87)

Import from China
80
77
Import from India
0
0
Import from World
1184
969
111
0
1308
152
0
1502
172
0
1583
Pharmaceutical products (HS 30)

Import from China
Import from India
Import from World
Iron and steel (HS 72)
Import from China
Import from India
Import from World
Paper and paperboard (HS 48)
Import from China
Import from India
Import from World

Year
2008
2010
2011
2012
Remarks
Nuclear reactors, boilers & mechanical appliances (HS 84)

Import from China
856
604
802
Import from India
34
33
43
Import from World
3943
3140
2962
856
25
2978
872
23
3084
All selected products

Import from China
Import from India
Import from World
2304
430
8887
2755
355
9277
1989
540
9229
2009
201
1534
386
7706
2008
320
8104
Here,
a Pakistan offers China duty-free access on 118 products under this category. 30 products under
this category are included under Pakistans negative list for India.
b 23 products under this group are in Pakistans negative list for India.
c 97 products in this group fall under Pakistans negative list for India.
d 94 products under this group have been placed under Pakistans negative list.
e 106 products in this category are in Pakistans negative list for India
f 180 products in this category are in Pakistans negative list for India.
g Pakistan has offered China duty-free access on 268 products under this category while keeping
197 such products in its negative list for India.
h This is the total of all the selected negative list products categories.
Note:
Most products under the two-digit HS classification are under Pakistans negative list for
India. Pakistans imports of products under these categories from India are likely to have
taken place for those not in the negative list. Besides, sometimes Pakistan relaxes import
of products from India even though they are in its negative list.
Figure 6 shows the trend when all the selected product categories in Pakistans
negative list are aggregated. It is observed that overall, while the share of India in
Pakistans world imports for products under its negative list for India has remained
stagnant at around 4-6 per cent, the same for China has gone up from 21 per
cent to 30 per cent during 2008-12.
Concluding Observations and the Way Forward

Overall tariff incidence in both India and Pakistan is not very dissimilar, both
applied and final bound. The ground reality is that while Pakistan imposes lower
tariffs on agricultural goods, it imposes higher on non-agricultural goods as
compared to India.
Most South Asian countries perceive that India imposes non-tariff barriers
on their exports. It has been clarified under official India-Pakistan trade dialogue
that all standards and specifications are non-discriminatory as they applied to all
countries exporting to India.
202
Figure 6: Pakistans Imports of Major Products in its Negative List from China,
India and World
Consumer protection legislation is still at a formative stage in Pakistan as

compared to India, and accordingly, so are standards. The solution lies in Pakistan
upgrading its own standards, rather than expecting India to comply lower ones.
It is true that agriculture in India is more protected than in Pakistan and also
subsidies are higher. But in India, subsidies are targeted mainly at the domestic
poor as a core element of countrys food security policy. Rather than ban such
imports, Pakistan has the option to negotiate to put such products in its sensitive
list, or else apply import quotas on them. If considered necessary, it can, on valid
grounds, even raise its applied rates.
Pakistans concerns for surge in industrial imports of products included in its
negative list are misplaced as the country is importing in large quantities the same
products from the rest of the world and in particular from China, the latter, in
fact, benefiting from its free trade agreement with Pakistan. Here the question of
providing India a level playing ground for industrial imports in Pakistan arises
similar to Pakistani farmers seeking the same with respect to agricultural imports
from India.
The two most prominent NTBs applied by Pakistan on Indias exports need
to be removed. Under its first NTB, Pakistan needs to move forward in its
commitment to grant India NDMA status by dismantling its negative list since
203
its perception of threat of surge in imports from India is highly exaggerated. In

sectors where India is competitive, imports from India will only replace more
costly imports from third countries. In any event of a sudden surge in imports
from India, Pakistan can always apply SAFTA-specific safeguard measures. Under
the provisions of the WTO, it can also raise its applied rates so long as they are
below the bound ones.
Under its second NTB, Pakistan allows only 176 products to be imported
from the Wagah border. As committed, it needs to open up for all products. It
also needs to strengthen land customs stations on its side of the border as India
has done on its side. In fact, more land and rail routes need to be opened up.
As a means to overcoming Indias NTBs, the two countries signed the
following three agreements in September of 2012:18
(i) Cooperation and Mutual Assistance in Customs Matters;
(ii) Bilateral Cooperation Agreement between BIS and PSQCA; and
(iii) Redressal of Trade Grievances
However, these three agreements are still to be formally implemented.
In final analysis, all bilateral perceptions, including those on trade, are
ultimately shaped by the overall relations between the concerned countries. Under
very adverse bilateral security environment, quite often the NTMs are likely to
be implemented in a more trade restrictive manner translating into the NTBs.
ENDNOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Under positive list approach, products so listed are permissible for trade, the remaining are
banned.
The present government of Pakistan has changed this nomenclature to a more politically
satisfying Non Discriminatory Market Access (NDMA) connoting the earlier meaning that
India would be getting the same market access terms as those being offered to any third
country member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
Saarc Summit: PM Manmohan Singh Meets Gilani, The Times of India, November 10,
2011, at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Saarc-summit-PM-Manmohan-Singhmeets-Gilani/articleshow/10676482.cms
SM Krishna to Meet Hina Rabbani Khar Today, Terror Top Agenda, IBN Live, July 28,
2011, at http://ibnlive.in.com/news/sm-krishna-to-meet-hina-rabbani-khar-today-terror-topagenda/289488-3.html
Joint Statement of the 7th Round of Talks on Commercial and Economic Co-operation
between Commerce Secretaries of India and Pakistan, Department of Commerce, Ministry
of Commerce & Industry, Government of India, September 21, 2012, at http://
commerce.nic.in/pressrelease/pressrelease_detail.asp?id=2978
Ibid.
Ibid., para 12.
Under WTO rules a member country is permitted to raise its applied tariffs up to the
maximum permissible limit of its bound rate in case of a sudden surge in imports threatening
its domestic industry/agriculture.
204
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

Preliminary Analysis of Pakistan India Trade and a Viable Roadmap for Trade Liberalization,
Pakistan Business Council (PBC), at http://pbc.org.pk/preliminary-analysis-of-pakistan-indiatrade-and-a-viable-roadmap-for-trade-liberalization
Ibid.
Joint Statement of the 6th Round of Talks on Commercial and Economic Co-operation
between Commerce Secretaries of India and Pakistan, Department of Commerce, Government
of India, November 15, 2011, at http://commerce.nic.in/writereaddata/pressrelease/
Joint_Statement_India_Pak_Round6th.pdfand India Pakistan Trade Talks: India, Pakistan
Make Rapid Progress in Round 6, FIEO News, December 2011, at http://www.fieomail.org/
uploads/files/1323671993ojut97ii3d1lesd4lu20q0v2r5India-Pakistan.pdf
Ibid.
Trade Time, 2 (2), Quarterly Newsletter, Trade Related Technical Assistance (TRTA II)
Programme, ITC and WIPO, June 2012, at http://trtapakistan.org/wp-content/uploads/
2012/05/TRADE-TIME-5.pdf
Michael Kugelman and Robert M. Hathaway (eds.), Pakistan-India Trade: What Needs to be
Done? What Does It Matter?, Wilson Centre, 2013.
Enhancing Pakistans Agricultural Sector Exports to India, EU funded TRTA II Programme,
International Trade Centre (ITC), Islamabad, 2012, at http://www.academia.edu/5125748/
enhancing_pakistans_agricultural_sector_exports_to_india_trade_related_technical_
assistance_programme_the_ programme_is_implemented_by_unido_in_association
List of items not importable from India (negative list),Trade Development Authority of Pakistan,
at http://www.tdap.gov.pk/pdf/SRO-280-I-2012.pdf and Pakistans Revised Sensitive List
under SAFTA, December 12, 2011, at http://saarc-sec.org/uploads/document/07%20
Pakistan%20-%20Revised%20Sensitive%20List%20(Phase-II)_20120319120622.pdf
Ibid.
no. 5.
16
Seizing New Opportunity for Regional
Cooperation and Understanding
Shahmahmood Miakhel
History writing in every age is a biased operation. This is because no

historian, no matter how much they try, can be free of all bias. Therefore,
there are different versions and books on history, since if one could write an
unbiased and objective version of history, all the other historians would
be out of business.1
Introduction
Myths and (mis)perceptions are invisible and inseparable parts of eastern culture,
especially within South Asia. Unfortunately, South Asian politicians have often
turned to exploiting historical myths and misperceptions within the region in
order to divert the attention of people from the real problems. While this may be
an effective populist tool for re-election or consolidation of power, it has historically
led to a fractured regional politics.
In a conference organised in 2012 by the National University of Singapore,
I had spoken about myths and perceptions about Afghans amongst the
international community, and vice versa.2 It is important to mention that these
myths have not only become a part of the popular narrative, but have also
significantly influenced policy formulation, albeit negatively. As the former Interior
Minister of Afghanistan Ali Ahmad Jalali once said, The Afghan government
and international community are both partners in Afghanistan, but unfortunately
neither side understands the other very well.
206
Fortunately, the 7th Annual South Asia Conference organised by the Institute
for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) was dedicated to exploring regional
perceptions in South Asia. I strongly believe that these myths and (mis)perceptions
have had an adverse impact on security, economic growth, governance and regional
cooperation amongst all the regional states. Changing these deleterious perceptions
will depend on sincere efforts by political leaders and elites of the respective
countries to work towards removing unsubstantiated allegations against each other.
Politicians and elites of the region should justify their argument and policies based
on the needs of the 21st century, and not on the myths and perception of the
past. South Asias political leaders must move away from the rhetoric of the Cold
War or the old Great Game in the region, and look towards developing a new
political culture that embraces modern challenges as well as opportunities for the
region. The regional leadership must move away from the politics of blaming
neighbours and foreigners for their failure to provide good governance and stability
in their respective countries. There is a strong need for elites and politicians of
the region to change their mindset.
In this paper, I will share a few examples of (mis)perceptions since 2001 about
Afghanistans relationship with India and Pakistan. I believe the key to improving
relationship among states in our region lie in improving governance in each of
the countries, and an increased role of a new generation of leaders who have the
energy and the vision to look at the region from a fresh and new perspective.
Historical Background about Afghanistan and India

India and Afghanistan are distant neighbours, but have enjoyed very close
historical, cultural, economic and political ties over the centuries. Since the
inception of Pakistan in 1947, successive Afghan governments have had much
stronger relations with India compared to Pakistan. Even people-to-people
relationship between Afghanistan and India was strong till the 1978 coup in
Afghanistan. Both the countries were members of the Non-Aligned Movement
(NAM), and had close relationship with the former Soviet Union as well. At the
time when India and Afghanistan were looking up to the Soviet Union, Pakistan
was part of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) and Central Treaty
Organisation (CENTO)3 and had close links with the US and other Western
countries.
The dynamics of the India-Afghanistan relationship changed after the coup
of 1978 and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Millions of Afghans
rose against the Soviet occupation and millions immigrated to Pakistan and other
regional countries. Pakistans influence in Afghanistan affairs increased, while
Indias influence declined as it supported unpopular communist regimes until
1992 when the government led by President Najibullah finally collapsed.
Seizing New Opportunity for Regional Cooperation and Understanding
207
Before 1978, traditionally, India had close ties with Pashtuns on both the
sides of the Durand Line and supported Afghanistans Pashtunistan policy towards
Pakistan. During the partition, Mahatma Gandhi and Bacha Khan (Khan Abdul
Ghafar Khan) had close ties and supported the Pashtun cause.
After the collapse of the Najibullah Government in 1992, India was in an
odd position because most of the Pashtun groups were then supported by Pakistan,
and India had shifted its support to the non-Pashtun groups, such as the Northern
Alliance. Pakistan used this relationship as a tool of propaganda to support the
Taliban inside Afghanistan, which analysts and experts argue still continues in
the form of support to a select group of Taliban insurgents, while at the same
time portraying itself as a supporter of Pashtun nationalist movement. In reality,
the rivalry between India and Pakistan has had a considerably negative impact on
the stability of Afghanistan.
After 2001, India pledged its support to the new government led by President
Hamid Karzai and took an active part in rebuilding of Afghanistan. Today, India
is the fifth largest bilateral donor in Afghanistan and its assistance totals up to $2
billion.4
Some activities of India in western or south-eastern parts of the country might
have alarmed Pakistan, but in most cases these concerns are exaggerated. Pakistan
has publicly criticised Indias large presence in the country and has raised its
concerns with Afghan authorities in various forums. At one point, there were
even exaggerated reports coming from Pakistan claiming that India has 32
consulates in Afghanistan.5 This exaggeration about Indias presence in Afghanistan
was rooted in historical mistrust and misperception between these two countries,
and was not based on reality and facts. Rather, it is based more on strategic depth
policy between India and Afghanistan since the inception of Pakistan. There is
no doubt that the difficult relationship between India and Pakistan has a direct
impact on peace, stability and economic growth of Afghanistan. Though free trade
and transit between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India would benefit the people in
the region, but due to the past hostilities, myths and misperceptions there has
been very little progress on the issue and, as a result, millions of people continue
to suffer from poverty. William Dalrymple, the British historian, had aptly titled
his article published in The Guardian, Forget NATO v the Taliban. The real
Afghan fight is India v Pakistan.6
Relationship of India with Afghanistan and Reaction of Pakistan

Since 2001
As mentioned before, Pakistan is very suspicious about Indias presence in
Afghanistan. I have seen these reactions first hand during various track two and
208
track one-and-a-half dialogues between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, which I

have attended since 2008.7 Pakistans argument is that India would like to support
anti-Pakistani elements in Afghanistan, especially Balochistan Liberation Army
(BLA), a separatist movement in Pakistan. Most recently, the ministry of foreign
affairs of Pakistan openly stated that such outstanding issues as Indias interference
in Baluchistan, needs to be addressed. But India denies Pakistans claim and has
stated repeatedly that they are involved in Afghanistan at the behest of the Afghan
Government to contribute to its reconstruction and rebuilding efforts.
Undoubtedly, Indias assistance is very diverse in naturesupporting agriculture,
civil service commission, hydroelectric lines from Tajikistan and Uzbekistan,
scholarship programmes, and road construction and so on. However, at the same
time, Pakistan sees Indias involvement in Afghanistan as an attempt to enhance
its strategic depth. Pakistanis are especially very suspicious about Indias projects
close to the borders of Pakistan, such as building Zarang-Dilaram road. Pakistanis
were always suspicious about Indias soft power projects such as scholarship
programmes and support to the civil service commission. In fact, offering military
assistance and training to the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) in the
long run may increase Indias influence in Afghanistan.
Therefore, Pakistan has repeatedly requested the Afghan Government to allow
it to support the same kind of programmes such as offering scholarship, training
of the ANSF and involvement in other key areas. Moreover, it has even encouraged
Afghanistan to cut ties with India and instead sign a strategic partnership agreement
with Pakistan.8 But the government of Afghanistan has been reluctant to send
Afghan students or ANSF personnel for training to Pakistan or sign a strategic
partnership with Pakistan.
In July 2004, after long discussions among the leadership of Afghanistan,
the then Interior Minister Ali Ahmad Jalali visited Pakistan and agreed to send
some token number of Afghan police personnel for training there. However,
Pakistan always wanted a more robust relationship. Even though the Afghan
Government was ready to have a better relationship with Pakistan, but due to
worsening security situation in the country since 2005, it openly began blaming
Pakistan for supporting and harbouring Taliban. Pakistan constantly denied these
accusations. Though many high level meetings between Afghanistan and Pakistan
took place in various countries, mediated by the US, the UK, Turkey and other
countries, but to no effect.
Many examples illustrate that some of the engagements between Afghanistan
and India are based on reactions from Pakistan. In October 2011, when India
and Afghanistan signed the Strategic Partnership Agreement,9 Pakistan was
alarmed. Just few days before, the Chairman of High Peace Council Burhanudin
Rabbani was killed by a suicide bomber at his residence in Kabul. Afghanistan
Seizing New Opportunity for Regional Cooperation and Understanding
209
openly stated that the assassination plot was planned in Pakistan.10 Additionally,
Pakistan wanted Afghanistan to sign a strategic partnership agreement, but there
has been no progress to date.11 The signing of the partnership agreement between
India and Afghanistan and Rabbanis assassination may have been a mere
coincidence, but Afghans perceived it as a plot originating from Pakistan. As a
result, it further contributed to negative perception about Pakistan. At the same
time, when the security situation got tense after skirmishes between Afghanistan
and Pakistan at a border post in the eastern Goshta District, President Karzai
visited India and asked for lethal and non-lethal arms.12 Again, many interpreted
Karzais request as openly hedging bets on hostile matters, such as the Durand
Line, and instigating negative view against Pakistan.
Peace and reconciliation with Taliban is another sensitive issue. Pakistan has
been trying to keep it on the top of the agenda and is open to dialogue with
Afghanistan, but India has always been concerned about these talks, especially
with the Haqqani network.13
Pakistan sees strong relationship between Afghanistan and India against its
strategic interest. Moreover, there are several other unresolved issues between
Afghanistan and Pakistan, such as Durand Line, trade and transit and water issues.
In order to improve the relationship between these two countries, there is a need
for direct negotiation. Pakistan sees the current scenario in Afghanistan as a golden
opportunity to approach these contentious issues, thinking that the Afghan
Government is in a weak position and may accept its terms and conditions.
However, a key factor that may hinder such efforts is lack of strong support for
the current Afghan Government within the country.
Conclusion
There is a famous saying that you can pick your friends, but not your neighbours.
By default, each country has close and distant neighbours. One thing that the
three neighboursAfghanistan, India and Pakistanmight agree is that the
instability in Afghanistan will have an adverse impact on the entire region. For
the three countries to reject the status quo and improve perceptions about each
other, sustained dialogue is the essence. Continued bloodshed in Afghanistan has
impacted millions of lives in the region. The recent wave of terrorism resulting in
loss of thousands of innocent lives in Pakistan, and collective Pakistan-Indian
concerns about violence in Kashmir and Balochistan, will not serve either countrys
interests.
It is important to steer the region towards peace in the post-2014 period.
While Western forces will withdraw, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India must seize
the opportunity that would follow to work together. The three countries must
enter into a sincere dialogue and address even the most contentious of issues,
210
such as the role of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the border disputes, and shift
the focus to working towards the economic prosperity of the region. If the three
neighbours miss this opportunity to restart negotiations, it will further reinforce
negative perceptions in the region and people will continue to view each other
from the prism of suspicion.
ENDNOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Yaqoob Bangash, Historical Myths and Realities, The News International, September 15,
2013, at http://jang.com.pk/thenews/sep2013-weekly/nos-15-09-2013/pol1.htm#1.
The proceedings of the conference were published as a book. See Shahmahmood Miakhel,
Myths and Impact of Bad Governance on Stability in Afghanistan, in Shanthie Mariet
DSouza (ed.), Afghanistan in Transition: Beyond 2014?, Pentagon Press, New Delhi, 2012.
Mohammed Ayub Khan, The Pakistan-American Alliance, Foreign Affairs, January 1964,
at http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/23567/mohammed-ayub-khan/the-pakistanamerican-alliance (Accessed September 12, 2013).
India-Afghanistan Relations, Indian Ministry of External Affairs, August 2012, at http://
mea.gov.in/Portal/ForeignRelation/afghanistan-aug-2012.pdf (Accessed September 12, 2013).
Anita Joshua, Indian Consulates Theory Incorrect: Pakistan, The Hindu, March 22, 2013,
at http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/indian-consulates-theory-incorrect-pakistan/
article3155622.ece (Accessed September 12, 2013).
William Dalrymple, Forget Nato v the Taliban. The real Afghan fight is India v Pakistan,
The Guardian, June 26, 2013, at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/
26/nato-taliban-india-pakistan
Islam, Politics and Security in South Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and
Bangladesh),Track one-and-a-half annual meetings supported by IISS-NESA; Track Two
Dialogue between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, supported by The Delhi Policy Group;
and Ottawa Dialogue between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, supported by University of
Ottawa, Canada.
Anita Joshua, Pakistan Denies Asking Afghanistan to Snap Ties with India,The Hindu,
March 29, 2013, at http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/south-asia/pakistan-deniesasking-afghanistan-to-snap-ties-with-india/article4562463.ece (Accessed October 05, 2013).
India-Afghanistan Sign Strategic Partnership Agreement, Outlook, October 04, 2011, at
http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=737276 (Accessed October 05, 2013).
Ghanizada, Rabbanis Assassination Plotted in Pakistan, Khaama Press, September 25, 2011,
at http://www.khaama.com/rabbanis-assassination-plotted-in-pakistan (Accessed October 05,
2013).
Ali Hussain, Security matters: Pakistan, Afghan parliamentary panels hold talks today,
Business Recorder, September 10, 2013, at http://www.brecorder.com/general-news/
172:pakistan/1229658:security-matters:-pakistan-afghan-parliamentary-panels-hold-talkstoday?date=2013-09-10 (Accessed October 07, 2013).
Karzais Wishlist, The Indian Express, May 23, 2013, at http://www.indianexpress.com/
news/karzais-wishlist/1119306/ (Accessed October 05, 2013).
Indrani Bagchi, Afghan peace talks: India voices concern, The Times of India, June 21,
2013, at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Afghan-peace-talks-India-voices-concern/
articleshow/20704621.cms?referral=PM. Also, see Indrani Bagchi, India wary as Haqqanis
may join peace process, The Times of India, June 21, 2013, at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.
com/world/south-asia/India-wary-as-Haqqanis-may-join-peace-process/articleshow/
20692396.cms? (Accessed October 07, 2013).
In this section, key recommendations have been collated based on the proceedings
and outcomes of the roundtable discussion* held among key country participants
in the Concluding Session of the 7th South Asia Conference.
It was pointed out that perceptions are influenced and shaped by diverse
factors in the region. Perceptions prevalent within and among countries in the
region are mixed and there is no one or single dominant determining factor.
However, negative perceptions outweigh positive perceptions in the region, a fact
that has to be factored in while addressing issues pertaining regional integration
and cooperation. In general terms, negative perceptions or misperceptions are
preponderant and play a crucial role in shaping inter-state relations, particularly
vis--vis India.
Key reasons broadly identified for negative or misperceptions prevalent within
the region are:
(i) Historical memories or baggage from the past. Contesting identities,
conflicting histories and unresolved border disputes have distorted
perceptions in the region.
(ii) Internal developments in countries grappling with political and social
transition.
(iii) Poor knowledge about the region and of each other particularly among
the youth.
*The roundtable discussion in the Concluding Session of the conference, held on October 31,
2013, was moderated by the then Director General, IDSA, Dr. Arvind Gupta. Key country
participants were Dr. Yaqoob Khan Bangash (Pakistan), Mr. Shahmahmood Miakhel (Afghanistan),
Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka (Sri Lanka), Ambassador Humayun Kabir (Bangladesh), Ambassador Phae
Thann Oo (Myanmar), Ambassador Dinesh Bhattarai (Nepal), Mr. Pema Tenzin (Bhutan) and
Dr. Ashok Kumar Behuria (India).
212
(iv) Indias failure to respond to several aspirations in the region in keeping

with its size and preponderance which remains an unavoidable fact.
(v) Failure of regional integration due to Indias inability to deliver on
promises and agreements has seriously dented its image among its
neighbours.
(vi) Negative role of media in creating and reinforcing myths and
misperceptions.
(vii) Social media often contributes to creating misunderstandings at a much
rapid pace than the print media.
(viii) Lack of media coverage to positive stories coming out from the region,
stories of various achievements and growing people-to-people contacts.
(ix) Chinas increasing footprint is changing perceptions in the region
particularly vis--vis India, which is largely perceived both as a reluctant
power and an unsteady partner in its neighbourhood.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
Following are some of the key takeaways from the roundtable discussion which
may be of policy as well as academic relevance:
Need to Nurture Public Intellectuals

Public intellectuals are a key constituency and must be nurtured. As South Asia
becomes more democratic, rather than less, the role of public opinion becomes
more salient. The role of opinion makers, the opinion moulders and thought
leaders become absolutely strategic in such a scenario. It is lamentable that despite
greater connectivity, due to huge advancement in the field of information
technology, there was a greater degree of commonality and mutual acquaintance
between opinion makers and intellectuals of the earlier generation than the present
one.
The previous generation of public intellectuals in Indias neighbouring
countries were often educated in Indian universities and would return to their
countries with greater understanding of India and its philosophy. There are still
some such inter-connections but those are on the fringes such as the cultural
intelligentsia and university academics. If a university academic is also a public
intellectual, i.e., someone with significant national audience, then she/he has to
be counted as one. A singer or a film maker or a newspaper editor, who has a
national audience and someone who is read by the elite of the country, should
also be regarded as a critical/target constituency. The connectivity among these
constituencies, which somehow existed in previous decades, has now thinned out.
There is an urgent need to explore why it has happened and how to address
213
it. If the countries of the region could collectively address the issues and re-grow
the connectivity among the public intellectuals in the region, then the region will
also have a common corpus of ideas and concepts and develop a common South
Asian discourse, which in turn can lead to a common idea of and for the region.
An idea of not only what it is to be an Afghan, a Sri Lankan, a Pakistani, or an
Indian, but also a South Asian, just as there was an idea of what it was to be
European, long before the idea of European Union was conceptualised. That is
the trajectory that the region must get back on.
Need for Clarity in Indias Policy

There is a need for greater clarity in Indias foreign and security policy. India is
generally seen as a reluctant power by its neighbours. This view was generally
endorsed. It was pointed out that this is not only in the context of South Asia,
but also at the wider global level where often questions on what exactly is Indias
strategy, what does India see for itself, what role India is going to play in
international relations, and why India is unable to come up with a clear position
or mission statement on its security and foreign policy, are bring asked. The
continuing ambiguity about Indias security and military policy often reinforces
misperceptions in its neighbourhood.
It was also argued that after making a good start in bilateral relations and
emphasising on non-reciprocal relationship often India develops a statist mindset
or statist perspective, which makes it difficult for India as well as the neighbouring
countries to sustain the momentum of their engagement.
India Should Take the Lead

By and large there is positive perception about Indias rising stature and profile in
the region and also at the global level including in the Indian Ocean Region.
Indias reach is now not just confined to South Asia. To create positive perceptions,
India should be helping neighbouring countries to build their capacities but at
the same time should not be seen as interfering. Indias soft power is well
acknowledged in the region and could go a long way in a creating a more positive
perception about India. India must expand the scope of its soft power in its
neighbourhood. India must take the lead in initiating joint reconstruction projects
with its neighbours.
There are diverse views about India in the region. In some cases, there are
clearly very negative perceptions. Nevertheless, there was consensus among
participants that a rising India, a more sensitive, capable and strong India, will
create positive perceptions in the region. India should not be reluctant to use its
leverages in a positive way. South Asia is perceived as one of the least integrated,
214
highly deprived, and also one of the most militarised regions in the world. If we
have to correct perceptions or misperceptions, we will have to focus on, and
collectively address, socio-economic issues, particularly poverty, harnessing of
natural resources including water resources which are abundant. None of this
would be possible unless India takes the lead.
It was also argued that democracy is a precondition to several contentious
issues in the region. When democracy brings people to the centre of governance,
it goes a long way in correcting perceptions. Indias democratic strength and
credentials also add to its soft power in its neighbourhood.
Indias Global Reach is Beneficial for the Region

India has always had some sort of global reach including in the Indian Ocean
Region. Global image of India has always been there and it worked to a great
extent for a long time. That kind of an idea where India can take its neighbours
along as it used to in earlier times need to be resurrected.
Even under the British, India had lot of influence in and around West Asia,
Africa and Southeast Asia. If that is tapped into, things can go forward and India
can become a much stronger world power with a much clearer vision and with
a lot more comfortable neighbours. At the moment, neighbours are apprehensive
about the way India is moving ahead. If India would choose to bring transparency
into its strategic outlook and let it be communicated effectively, things will get
better between India and its neighbours.
India Must Reassure and Intellectually Support Pakistan

For some reasons, there is a perception among a section of people in Pakistan
that India hasnt yet accepted its existence. It was suggested that India must keep
reassuring Pakistan that it has accepted its existence. Unilateral concessions are
often not taken as something positive. Pakistanis often think Indians want to undo
the partition. Former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayees visit to Minar-e
Pakistan is cited in Pakistan as a lone positive move on the part of India, which
needs reiteration given the extreme insecurity persisting in Pakistan about Indian
behaviour for all the wrong reasons.
Pakistanis do understand that 2008 Mumbai attacks were Indias 9/11 which
really changed Indias attitude towards them. However, what is lacking from the
Indian side is the understanding that Pakistan itself is the largest victim of these
terrorist groups. They are now carrying out attacks both against the armed forces
and the civilian population in an indiscriminate manner and tearing into the social
and political fabric of the country. Pakistan has lost to a large extent its ability to
control several such groups which it had helped create. They have become
215
Frankensteins monsters and are posing a serious threat to the very existence of
the country. This is something that needs to be understood more from the Indian
side. Perhaps, there is a need to explore how India could help Pakistan in this
regard. India should at least render intellectual support in terms of ideas to deal
with terrorism, which would go a long way in building bridges with the people
of Pakistan and diluting negative perceptions about India.
The strength of India-Pakistan relationship lies in helping Pakistan strengthen
its position against several odds that it is faced with. Indias intellectual support
could go a long way in helping Pakistan handle its threats better. A more
destabilised Pakistan would affect India badly. A more stable Pakistan means a
less violence-prone and less-extremist Pakistan, which is likely to change its
outlook, if India were to contribute to its stability and growth.
Provincialise Contacts at Sub-regional Level

To further strengthen India-Pakistan relations, it was suggested that there is a
need to provincialise lot of issues. Both Indian and Pakistani Punjab(s) want to
cooperate on several issues. Students exchange at college and university levels, for
instance between Lahore University and Panjab University in Chandigarh, and
provoncialising contacts at a lower level where it is more possible, where lot of
things can move positively, can help change entrenched negative perceptions.
Indian universities must open up to students aspiring to come to India for higher
education from Pakistan. This would further boost Indias soft power and help
develop a constituency for peace and greater understanding among the youth.
Engage Media
There is a need to engage media in a more robust and meaningful manner. Role
of media including social media is very critical in reshaping and correcting
misperceptions. Media must give wider coverage to positive stories coming out
from the region, including on growing people-to-people contacts. Joint ventures
among leading media groups whether at the bilateral, trilateral or multilateral
levels could play a significant role in dispelling misperceptions and in building
peace constituencies in the region.
Specific reference was also made to lack of media coverage to the news and
developments pertaining SAARC. This often creates confusion and somewhere it
has also reinforced the perception that SAARC is irrelevant. Therefore, there is a
need for greater dissemination of information regarding several initiatives taken
at the level of SAARC and achievements made by its various bodies over the years.
At the same time, it was argued that we are depending too much on media
and are often misguided and misled by negative reporting. As it is difficult to
216
manage media which is a very dynamic and vibrant sector, perhaps, a more
institutional approach to disseminating correct information and countering
disinformation is required. One way of doing this is to establish more research
centres and country chairs in universities across the region. It was stated that there
is not a single research centre on India Studies in the neighbouring countries.
This remains a major missing link in the region.
It was also suggested that South Asia needs a common perception survey
mechanism to gauge changing perceptions. Pew Global Research Centre, which
does various kinds of survey and in several countries and regions across the world,
was cited as an example. Establishing something like Pew Centre in South Asia
was proposed which could be a good tracking mechanism to see how people are
thinking, which policies are working and how and what policy adjustments need
to be made.
Address Gaps in Bilateral Relations

It was stated citing India-Bangladesh relations that although concept-wise the
bilateral relationship is well woven into the psyche of the people in both the
countries, there are still major gaps which both sides have not been able to address.
How to rectify gaps in bilateral relations, remains a major challenge. Similar
observations were made about India and its other neighbours including India
and Nepal where often there is no clarity on each others policy. Often
neighbouring countries too do not have anything called India Policy. At the
broader regional level, the big concept of how regional countries want to look at
South Asia is important. India is definitely the leader in the region and both India
and its neighbours would have to find ways to overcome gaps in their bilateral
engagements.
It was also suggested that there is a need to look beyond the rhetoric of
politicians and foreign services officials. Unless clarity and consistency in foreign
policy is enhanced, it will have no credibility. Foreign policy goals should be
pursued through institutional approach particularly in view of emergence and
rise of various illegitimate actors trying to determine bilateral relations.
Gujral Doctrine Stays Relevant

The value and relevance of the Gujral Doctrine was repeatedly referred to. It was
said that the doctrine resonated through every section of society and was welcome
by all in South Asia. It was generally endorsed and accepted in Indias
neighbourhood. None of the successive Indian governments abandoned the Gujral
Doctrine. They simply modified it and without using the same name continued
to follow the principles of the doctrine. But the question is why are we so hesitant
217
in telling our neighbours as to what we want or expect from each other. If we

have a set of ground rules we know what we expect from each other and based
on that set up our relationship and move forward. In that case, lot of confusion
and misperception that often clouds the relationship could be avoided or removed.
Economy Should Drive Foreign Policy

It was further stated that South Asia region has entered into a new phase of
relationship with the rise of India. India is now an upcoming economy, an
emerging giant, and would definitely play a positive role in the context of economic
relationship with neighbouring countries. South Asia has a huge population and
is itself a big market. It presents several mutually beneficial opportunities, which
need to be explored.
India has been trying to advance economic tools to consolidate or improve
its relationship with its neighbours, but there also India is kind of hesitant.
Economy should be the driver and India could be more generous in dealing with
its smaller and immediate neighbours. However, it was pointed out that strict
reciprocity should not be insisted upon given the asymmetry.
Create Peace Constituencies

There is also a need for creating peace constituencies in the region by strengthening
people-to-people contacts. The states can help through relaxation of visa regimes,
encouraging more and more of dialogue and interaction.
Often bilateral relations in South Asia, for instance between India and Nepal,
are premised and founded on people-to-people relations. It is regular and healthy
interaction among the people that promotes cohesion and removes
misunderstanding.
Shared cultural values should be duly acknowledged and used as an asset by
the countries of the region to build people-to-people contact. It should not be
manipulated to divide people along sectarian, ethnic and religious lines.
Peace education should be integrated into the school syllabus and college
systems. Peace tours among school children of different countries of the region
could be useful in dispelling misperceptions among the youth.
The idea of regionalisation of the UN peacekeeping and whether it can come
on the SAARC charter may be explored.
Develop Diplomatic Capacities

It was pointed out that the diplomatic corps of regional countries are not well
prepared to deal with several complex challenges of the 21st century. The foreign
218
policy establishment of respective countries must reinforce their diplomatic

capacities both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Familiarise Youth about South Asia

The issue of lack of common socialisation process in the region was highlighted
by several participants. It was said that there are different discourses on the issue
among South Asia countries. At the SAARC level, countries have been talking
last few years about harmonising of syllabuses, acceptance of degrees at regional
level, but there is a need to go down perhaps at the school and college level and
assess how youth are looking at the region. There is no such mechanism whereby
socialisation among youth in the region could be coordinated.
It is important to take into account the fact that South Asia has a huge young
and enterprising population. It was stated that nearly 1700 youth everyday on an
average leave Nepal for various reasons. They are in different settings and often
come back with a different exposure, understanding and orientation. Youth also
often question the traditional relationship among countries of the region. It is
important to make them understand our traditional relationship. The region
cannot afford to ignore its youth population and needs to collectively address
issues relating to them urgently.
In history textbooks in some of the countries, often India does not exist, even
neighbourhood does not exist. Same is the issue with the Indian textbooks. We
need to look at how are we going to familiarise our younger generation, who
would be different and operating in a different context than the present generation.
How are we going to groom them, what kind of information we need to provide
to them. If we could do some work on coordinating school syllabus, study tours,
etc., it would be a good idea to work on.
Similar sentiments prevail among youth in Myanmar, which in the past shared
close cultural and political and economic linkages with India. The present
generation in Myanmar think that they belong to Southeast Asia just because
Myanmar is a member of ASEAN. They do not know much about SAARC,
BIMSTEC or South Asia. They know much more about ASEAN though
Myanmar was initially reluctant to join it. New generation tend to look further
towards Southeast and East Asia particularly Japan, Korea and China.
Myanmar belongs to the eastern part of South Asia. Like in old days, Myanmar
would like to consider itself as a member of South Asia and intensify not only
government-to-government but also people-to-people contacts particularly with
India and Bangladesh. India can play a very constructive role through Myanmar
in Southeast Asia. However, India has been a reluctant partner compared to China.
219
Myanmar does not see speedy and actual realisation of Indias Look East Policy
(LEP).
There is a perception that South Asian countries tend to look more westwards
as was the case in previous centuries. India has a huge soft power in view of its
old cultural and religious linkages with countries in Southeast Asia. Training in
English language and exchange of students could further boost Indias soft power
in the Southeast Asia region. At the moment, majority of ministers in Southeast
Asian countries are graduates from Australia which plays a role in shaping
perceptions about that country in the region.
Improve Air Connectivity

Improving air connectivity within the region was said to be critical to building
people-to-people contact at grassroots level and thereby perception management.
There are either no direct flights or the frequency of flights are low between various
regions in South Asia. Still there are no direct flights between India and Myanmar
(one has to travel via Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur or even Singapore). It was reiterated
by several participants that stronger intra-regional connectivity is essential to
building trust and confidence at the regional level.
Change of Mindset
When the gap between reality and rhetoric increases, the results could be disastrous.
Even a small incident could stir negative perceptions. The South Asian countries
would have to shed their historical baggage which has led to certain mindsets
which need to be changed. It was argued that though mindsets are products of
history, but it is possible to change mindsets without compromising our respective
national interests. Reference was made to the Maoists in Nepal who had submitted
a 40-point demand in 1996 in which nine points directly related to the IndiaNepal relations. They talked of American imperialism and Indian expansionism
and had called for abrogation of even the 1950 Indo-Nepal Treaty. But such is
not case with their latest manifestos where hardly such things are mentioned.
Strengthen Informal Channels Within SAARC

It was stated that SAARC has a very productive and meaningful window, and
that is retreat. SAARC has not been able to hold even such informal meetings.
The grouping has missed 11 such meetings between leaders in retreats which are
held in an informal way.
220
Common Regional Approach Against Terrorism

There is a need to study and enhance our understanding of various dimensions
of security. There is a changing concept of security which the region needs to
understand. Nearly all South Asian countries have suffered on account of terrorism
and some have long been victims of various forms of terrorism. The region must
have common approaches in dealing with terrorism, drug trafficking, smuggling,
etc. Terrorism must be condemned in all its forms and manifestations. However,
this is not possible without clarity and consistency in the foreign policy of the
regional countries.
Factor in China
Rise of China has to be factored into the broader regional discourse. China has
grown phenomenally in profile and influence. Today it is the worlds second largest
economy and in close proximity to South Asia. Chinas rise is not without geopolitical implications which need to be scrutinised and studied by all South Asian
countries.
Promote Inter-cultural Learning

Though South Asia is a region of contested histories, of unresolved borders and
protracted rivalries, and that regional countries are haunted by negative perceptions
of each other, but the discussions revealed a huge consensus on the need to find
a way out. The common urge to rid the region of misperceptions or negative
perceptions itself could be seen as a positive perception. It was reiterated again
and again that countries and people need to talk to each other and try to reshape
perceptions about one another.
It was pointed out that IDSA has been organising South Asia conferences for
the last seven years, and if one looks at the outcome of each of them, there is not
much difference among them. But what is reassuring is the fact that even if same
things are being said again and again, there is a deeper conviction that we all are
thinking the same thing the same way. That way we are all together in this struggle
to make a better South Asia and with a stronger regional consciousness. The geopolitical reality is changing and if the regional countries do not work together,
the world is not going to help the region.
Gradually, people in general and from different walks of life, economists,
politicians, historians and businessman, all are realising the need for each of us to
know more about the other. There is a value in inter-cultural learning and greater
interaction provides an impetus to our inherent instinct to know each other in
better ways. Informal meetings and discussions play a big role in dispelling myths
and negative perceptions about each other. South Asians live in a larger common
221
cultural matrix that people may not be aware of. There is a value in coming
together and discussing contentious issues again and again. It provides an
opportunity to convince ourselves of our own convictions.
Changing the Governmentality

Reference to the term governmentality was made in the context of statist mindset
that Indias political and bureaucratic elite often display in their approach to
neighbouring countries. It is not something limited to South Asia region alone.
People in other regions and parts of the world too often allege that they are victims
of governmentality. However, it was argued that it is important to understand
and shape governmentalities as it too is informed and influenced by prevalent
perceptions.
There is thus a value in changing perceptions. It was further stated that there
is a contention among two different points of view. Many people are of the view
that since conflicts and differences among nations creates negative perception of
each other, so the conflicts and tensions have to be resolved before perceptions
change. But there is a contrarian view as well, which is that perceptions have to
change first to create conducive atmosphere for governments to be able to take
up issues in much more constructive ways.
It was a commonly held view that series of conferences like the one organised
by IDSA should be held at regular intervals, bringing policy analysts, academics
or former foreign policy officials together on a common platform. The ideas that
are generated in such interactive conferences could go a long way in correcting
and clearing misperceptions.
Another key takeaway from this conference was that at the civil society level,
at track 1.5 or track 2 level, it is important to churn out consensual models and
practical way forwards that can be fed into governmental structures so that
governmentality can change.
Index
7th Round Table on Commercial and Economic
Cooperation (RTCEC), 191
7th South Asia Conference, 211
ACU, 166-67
Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), 122,
208
Afghanistan needs democracy and development,
122
Afghanistan, 119-127, 155, 157, 158, 167, 209
Africa, 153
al Qaida, 26
All India Muslim League, 19
Aman ki Asha, 24
Ami Birangana Bolchi, 66
Amnesty International (AI), 55
Anand Bazar Patrika, 110
Anglo-Nepal relations, 8
Another Chola invasion, 170
Anthony, A.K., the then Defence Minister, 139
Arrighi, Giovanni, 47
ASEAN Infrastructure Fund (AIF), 166
ASEAN+1, 154
ASEAN-4, 161
Ashuganj river, 34
Ashuganj-Akhaura land route, 34
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), 183
Asian Development Bank (ADB), 147, 182
Asian Survey, 5
Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA), 155-56
Asom Gana Parishad (AGP), 105
Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN),
133, 137, 138, 140, 153, 184, 187
Australia, 78, 154, 183
Australia-New Zealand, 161
Awami League (AL), 59, 63, 97
Azerbaijan, 155
Baburam Bhattarai, 81
Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), 208
Ban Ki-moon, 78
Banaras Hindu University (BHU), 9
Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), 59, 61, 9798
Bangladesh Standard and Testing Institution
(BSTI), 108
Bangladesh Television (BTV), 37
Bangladesh, 3, 11, 21, 26, 29-41, 66, 67, 145,
155, 158, 159, 160, 166, 173
Chittagong in, 181
civil society, 111
media in, 108-9
politics, 61
threat perception, 101
Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar [BCIM]
forum, 184
Bangladesh-India
bilateral relations, 93, 96, 97, 102, 107,
109, 111
border issues, 105-6
demarcation of border, 102
Farakka Barrage, 102
Free flow of information, 36-37
Ganges water sharing, 102-3
honeymoon period, 96
socialisation process, 37
Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and
Peace, 96
Visa, 41
Banglapedia, 60
Barak River, 104
Barry Schwartz, 64
Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral
Technical and Economic Cooperation
(BIMSTEC), 153, 155-56, 218
Index
Bay of Bengal, 181
Bedil, Mirza Abdul-Qader, Persian poet, 119
Bengali Hindu, 60
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), 98
Bhattarai, Baburam, former Maoist Prime
Minister of Nepal, 185
Bhutan, 3, 6, 36, 141-49, 155, 157, 158, 160,
166, 167
Agriculture, 142
Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR), 145
Buddhism in, 143
Department of Foreign Affairs, 146
Druk Desi, 143
Dzongkha, 142
Dzongs, 142-43
energy security, 145
Father of Modern Bhutan, 143
FDI, 147-48
GDP, 144-45, 147
governance, 143
High Value, Low Volume, 144
history, 143
hydroelectricity, 145
India is largest trading partner, 144
Je Khenpos, 143
poor developing country, 144
Poverty, 144
share in world trade, 145
Unemployment, 144
Bhutto, Zulfikar Ali, 20
Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection
Agreement (BIPPA), 84
Blondel, Isabelle, 109
Bodh Gaya, 134, 139
Border Security Force (BSF), 38, 106, 110
Brahmaputra-Ganges river basins, 104
Brazil, 173
British India, 134
Buddhism, 47, 142
Bureau of Industrial Standards (BIS), 198
Cambodia, 48, 181, 187
Cambodian Chair, 187
Canada, 78
Central Asia, 123, 155, 183
Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO), 176,
206
Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies (CNAS), 57
Centre for the Study of Nepal (CSN), 9-11
223
Chaudhuri, K.C., 8
Chauhan, R.S., 9
Chile, 173
China, 47, 51, 55, 70, 76-78, 82, 86, 96, 124,
136, 139, 142, 154, 173, 176, 180-83, 18586, 193, 201
Chou En-Lai of, 135
economy, 181
Rise of, 55, 71, 220
Xinjiang Province, 185
Chinas Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), 77
China-Pakistan
economic corridor, 185
China-South Asia Business Forum, 183
Civil Disobedience, 82
CNAS Forum Current Issue Series, 5, 6
CNAS Year Review, 5, 6
Cohen, Stephen, 99
COIN doctrine, 54
Cold War, 5, 206
Commission of National Inquiry (CoNI), 129
Committee on Economic Cooperation (CEC),
155
Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), 76
Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), 79
Constituent Assembly (CA), 70, 82, 84-85
Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties and
Organisations in South Asia (COMPOSA),
77
Countervailing Duties (CVD), 108
Crown Prince Dipendra, 76
Cultural Tsar, 80
Dalrymple, William, 207
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, 138
Deng Xiaoping, 182
Denmark, 78
Dharamdasani, M.D., 9
Dharla River, 103
Dialogue Partners, 183
DKD, 167
Doordarshan, 37
Dreze, Jean, 68
Dudhkumar River, 103
Durand Line, 207, 209
East Asia Summit (EAS), 183
East Asia-3, 161
Eastphalia, 51
ECO Trade Agreement (ECOTA), 155
224
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), 147

Economic Cooperation Organisation (ECO),
153, 156, 166
Ekatturer Dinguli, 66
Eminent Persons Group, 167
Enhancing Pakistans Agricultural Sector Exports
to India, 199
Ershad, H.M., 62
ESCAP, 158, 162
ESCAP-SSWA, 166
European Union (EU), 54, 72, 78, 145-47, 153,
161-62, 178, 182
Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce
and Industry (FICCI), 197
Finland, 78
First World War, 134
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), 141, 162
France, 74, 162
Frank, Gunder, 47
Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), 154
Gandhi, Mahatma, 82, 125, 135, 207
Gandhi, Rajiv, the then Prime Minister, 50, 55,
66, 136
Gandhian legacy, 125
Ganges Water Sharing Treaty, 102, 103
Gangetic belt, 81
GaumeeHarakaai, 129-30
Gayoom, Abdulla Yameen Abdul, 131
Gayoom, Maumoon Abdul, former President,
129
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT), 190
General Aung San, 135
General Ayub Khan, 67
General H.M. Ershad regime, 97
General Min Aung Hlaing, 139
General Musharraf, 22
General Zia ul-Haq, 19, 22
General Ziaur Rahman, 96, 97
George Bush Administration, 54
Germany, 78, 162
Ghana, 173
Gilani, Yusuf Raza, 190
Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), 159
GMR Group, 129
GMR-MAHB, 129, 130, 131
Golden Age, 135
Gross National Happiness (GNH) philosophy,
141
Gujral Doctrine, 131, 216

Gumti River, 103
Guru Rimpoche, 142
Halbwachs, Maurice, French sociologist, 64
Harkat-ul-Mujahidin, 25
Hasina, Sheikh, Prime Minister, 33, 67, 98-99
Hawaldar Lalik Jan, 21
Heart of Asia Process, 126
Heart of Asia, 127
Himalayas, 75, 81, 142
Hindu Bengal, 59
Hindu India, 21
Hindu-Muslim divide, 63
Hitler, Adolf
Mein Kampf, 50
Human Rights Watch (HRW), 55
Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA),
129-31
Immanuel Wallerstein, 47
Independence Day, 23
India, 26, 31, 33, 39, 51-52, 55, 70, 74, 83,
86, 112, 134, 141-42, 145, 154-55, 15860, 164, 166, 173, 176, 184-85, 209
macro-economic performances of, 100
media, 110
Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), 126
popularity in Afghanistan, 119
rise, 99, 101
role in Nepals transformation, 78
Indias four Northeastern states, 137
India-Afghanistan
relations, 206
India-China, 52
relations, 6
India-Myanmar
relations, 135, 140
Indian Council for Social Science Research
(ICSSR), 7
Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA), 8
Indian Journal of Nepalese Studies, 10
Indian National Army (INA), 135
Indian National Congress, 20
Indian Ocean, 52, 181, 213-14
Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation
(ITEC), 121
India-Nepal, 9
relations, 10, 72
trade, 6
Index
India-Pakistan
bilateral trade, 198
business meets, 24
rivalry, 36
ties, 172, 175
trade, 190, 201
India-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA),
162, 190
Indira-Mujib Friendship Treaty, 110
Indo-Afghan partnership, 121, 125
Indo-Lanka ties, 171
Indonesia, 55, 162, 166, 173
Inland Water Trade and Transit Protocol, 34
International Crisis Group (ICG), 55
International Financial Corporation (IFC), 129
International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD), 147
International Monetary Fund, 145
International Trade Centre (ITC), 199
intra-SAARC trade, 158, 161
Iqbal, Muhammad, 127
Iran, 155, 166, 183
Chabahar Port of, 121
Irrawaddy Delta, 134
Islamic ideology, 20
Istanbul Process, 126
Istanbul-Tehran-Islamabad (ITI), 167
Itihash Konya, 66
Jahanara Imam, 62
Jalali, Ali Ahmad, the then Interior Minister of
Afghanistan, 208
Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh (JIB), 98
Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam, 26
Jana Andolan, 78
Jang, Urdu daily, 24
Jang Group, 24
Japan, 47, 78, 138, 139, 146, 154, 182
Asahi Shimbun, 55
Jatiyo Rakkhi Bahini, 97
Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), 9, 118
Jihad in Kashmir, 25
Jinnah, Mohammad Ali, founder of Pakistan,
18-19, 21, 23
Jumhoree Party (JP), 129
Karakoram Highway, 185
Karzai, Hamid, President of Afghanistan, 121,
207, 209
Kazakhstan, 155
225
Khan Abdul Ghafar Khan, 207

Khan, Sardar Abdul Qayyum, 24
Khan, Sardar Mohammad Daoud, 123
Khar, Hina Rabbani, 191
Khowai River, 103
King Birendra, 76, 182
King Jigme Dorji Wangchuk, 143
King Jigme Singye Wangchuk, 143
Kissinger, Henry, 51
Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN, 79
Koirala, B.P., Prime Minister of Nepal, 75
Koirala, G.P., 78
Korea, 139
Krishna, S.M., Indian External Affairs Minister,
191
Kugelman, 199
Kushiyara River, 104
Kyaukpyu in Myanmar, 181
Kyrgyzstan, 155
Lahore Resolution, 23
Lahore University, 215
Land Boundary Agreement (LBA), 33, 96
Land Protocol, 112
Laos, 48, 181
Lashkar-e-Toiba, 25
Lavoy, Peter R., 101
LBA, 38, 40, 105, 106, 110, 114
Least Developed Countries (LDCs), 162, 190
Least Developed Country (LDC), 136, 168
Letters of Exchange (LoE), 81-82
Li Zhaoxing, Chinese Foreign Minister, 183
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), 50,
54-55, 77
Look East Policy, 136, 137, 185, 219
M. Subasdic, 65
Major Aziz Bhatti, 21
Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL),
129
Maldives, 48, 157, 158, 166, 167
Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), 129
Mamata Banerjee, Chief Minister of West
Bengal, 103
Mandela, Nelson, 66
Manik, Dr. Mohamed Waheed Hassan, Vice
President, 129
Manu River, 103
Maritime Silk Road, 181
Mauritius, 173, 183
226
McNeill, William, 47
Meghna River, 104
Memoranda of Understanding (MoU), 113
Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, Singapores Minister, 55
Mexico, 173
MFN, 163
Military-Dominated Era, 135-36
Minow, Martha, 65
Minto-Morley Reforms, 20
Mir, Hamid, 67
Modi, Narendra, Indian Prime Minister, 170
Mohamed, Abdulla, Chief Judge of Criminal
Court, 130
Mohammad Najibullah, 123
Molla, Abdul Quader, 62
Most Favoured Nation (MFN), 161, 190
Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar, 135
Muhajirs, 60
Muhuri River, 103
Mujahid-e-Awal, 24
Muktir Gaan, 66
Mulay, D.M., 130
Muni, S.D., 9
Musharraf formula, 23
Muslim Bengal, 59
Muslim Pakistan, 21
Myanmar, 48, 52, 124, 133-40, 155, 166, 181,
183, 186, 218
exports, 139
GDP, 133
Myanmar-India
bilateral relations, 137
border, 138, 139
Narayanhity Royal Palace, 82
Narir Ekattur, 66
Narlikar, Amrita, 101
NASDAQ, 165
National League for Democracy (NLD), 138
National Tariff Commission (NTC), 197
Nawa-i-Waqt, Urdu daily, 23
Ne Win era, 135, 136
Nehru, Jawaharlal, former Prime Minister, 8, 50,
74, 135
Nepal as a Zone of Peace, 182
Nepal, 3-11, 36, 47, 70-87, 145, 148, 155, 15760, 166-67, 177, 182, 185-86, 190, 21619
foreign trade, 84
maoists, 77
Nepal-China, 9
Nepali Congress (NC) party, 74
Nepal-India
border, 83
Open Border between, 80-81
relations, 6, 70-71, 74, 87
1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship
between, 81, 219
Netherlands, 71, 78, 146-47
New York Stock Exchange, 165
New Zealand, 154
Noelle-Neumann, 109
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), 135, 206
Non-Discriminatory Market Access (NDMA),
189
Non-Least Developed Countries (NLDCs), 190
Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs), 193, 203
Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs), 197
North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), 153
North-South trade, 173
Norway, 78
Observers, 183-85
Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights in Nepal (OHCHR-Nepal), 79
Official Development Assistance (ODA), 147
Olick, 64
Operation Bluestar, 22
Pakistan Business Council (PBC), 197
Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), 189-90
Pakistan Standards and Quality Control
Authority (PSQCA), 197
Pakistan, 3, 6, 11, 18-27, 31, 60, 63, 67, 94,
99, 120-21, 124-26, 155, 157-61, 163-66,
172, 174-77, 181-83, 185, 189-91, 193,
197-99, 200-3, 206-9, 214-15
Gwadar in, 181
imports, 200
imports from India, 193
military, 120
Panjab University, Chandigarh, 215
Peoples Democratic Party, 148
Peoples War Group (PWG), 77
Prachanda-led Maoist, 84
President Mohamed Nasheed, 128-30
President Najibullah, 206
President U. Thein Sein, 137-38
President Xi Jinping, 180
Index
Prince Gyanendra, 76
Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), 129
Pushpa Kamal Dahal, 81
Qayyum, Sardar Abdul, 25
Queen Aishwarya, 76
Quit India Movement, 82
Rabbani, Burhanuddin, 123
Rahman, Maulana Fazlur, 20, 26
Rajan, M.S., 8
Rana regime, 74
Readymade Garments (RMGs), 108
Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership
(R-CEP), 154-55
Regional Trade Agreement (RTA), 167
Republic of Korea, 154, 162
River Linking Project (RLP), 104
Russia, 124, 181, 183
Rwanda, 173
SAARC Agreement on Trade in Services
(SATIS), 155, 164
SAARC Central Banks, 167
SAARC Development Bank, 166
SAARC Development Fund (SDF), 155, 165
SAARC Development Goals (SDG) report
2011, 149
SAARC Free Trade Area (SAFTA), 155
SAARC Industrial Cooperation (SICO), 165
SAARC Preferential Trading Arrangement
(SAPTA), 155
SAARC Standards Organisation (SARSO), 167
Sacred Tooth Relic, 139
Sangh Parivar, 54
Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS), 198
School of International Studies (SIS), 9-11
Second World War, 134
Self-Employed Womens Association (SEWA),
120
Sen, Amartya, 68
Seven Party Alliance (SPA), 78
Shah Dynasty, 82
Shahbag agitation, 61
Shaheed, Sawar Mohammad Hussain, 21
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), 183
Shei Raater Kotha Boltey Eshechi, 66
Sheikh Hasina Government, 114
Sheikh Hasina Wajed, 63
Sheikh Mujib-ur Rahman, 66
227
Shimla Agreement, 190

Silk Road Economic Belt, 181
Silk Route, 47
Singapore, 146, 161, 185, 219
Singh, Manmohan, the then Indian Prime
Minister, 34, 138, 184, 190
Sino-Indian War, 75
Sir Ugyen Wangchuck, 143
South Africa, 173
South African Development Community
(SADC), 153
South America, 153
South and Southeast Asia, 133
South and South-West Asia, 154
South Asia Commission, 173
South Asia Studies Centre (SASC), 9-11
South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation (SAARC), 5, 11-12, 32, 35-36,
153, 155-57, 161-62, 166, 171-72, 175,
177-79, 182, 184-87, 190, 215, 217
13th summit, 182
14th summit, 183
17th summit, 183, 190
Eight, 172-73
Finance, 167
South Asian Countries (SACs), 191
South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA),
156, 157, 158, 159, 163, 190-91, 203
South Asian politics, 61
South Asian Preferential Trading Agreement
(SAPTA), 190
South China Sea, 187
South East Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO),
176, 206
South Korea, 182
Southeast Asia, 136, 139, 153
Special Drawing Rights (SDR), 155
Sri Lanka
Humbantota in, 181
Sri Lanka, 11, 46, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 77,
134, 155, 157, 158, 159, 164, 166, 167,
177
Sriharan, Nalini, 66
Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya, 19
Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), 120
Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA), 121
Strategic Studies Series, 5, 6
Surma River, 104
Tajikistan, 155, 208
228
Taliban, 26, 68
Talk Shows, 111
Tamil National Alliances (TNA), 54
Teesta Agreement, 103
Teesta River, 40, 103
Thailand, 52, 146, 155
The Eagle, the Dragon and the Elephant, 176
The Guardian, 23, 207
The Hindu, 53
The News, 24
The Times of India, 24-25
The War Crimes Files, 66
Thinley, Jigme Y., Prime Minister, 143
Tibet, 47, 77, 81-82, 180, 185
Tim Junio, 128
Tipaimukh Dam, 104
Track Two, 172, 174
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
(TTIP), 154
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), 154
Tribhuvan University, 5, 7
Trinamool Congress (TMC), 105
Tshering Tobgay, Prime Minister, 143
Tunisia, 173
Turkey, 126, 155, 173, 208
Turkmenistan, 155
Two Nation Theory, 18, 20-21, 23, 26
50th Anniversary Celebrations of, 147

United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF),
147
United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP), 182
Human Development Report 2013, 173
United Nations Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific
(UNESCAP), 156
United Progressive Alliance (UPA), 189
United States (US), 47, 54, 72, 74, 78, 96, 120,
124, 145, 161-62, 176, 182, 208
bypassing India, 96
foreign policy, 71
presence in Asia, 55
United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), 120
United States of Kashmir (USK), 25
University Grants Commission (UGC), 8, 1011
Upper Myanmar, 134
Uzbekistan, 155, 208
U Nu era, 135
UN Commission on Human Rights, 147
UN Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD), 147
UN General Assembly, 147
UN Mission in Nepal (UNMIN), 79
UN Secretary General (UNSG), 78
UN Security Council, 101
UN-ESCAP-SSWA, 160, 163
Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), 77,
81
United Kingdom (UK), 74, 78, 208
United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA), 77
United Nations (UN), 18, 74, 78
peacekeeping, 217
force, 80
resolutions, 24
Wagah-Attari trade route, 191

Wangchuk Dynasty, 143
Water resources in Nepal, 83
West, 49, 51, 55, 74, 80, 101, 138, 175
policy, 176
ties, 176
World Bank, 129, 147
World Economic Outlook, 145
World Health Organisation (WHO), 147
World Trade Organisation (WTO), 141, 148,
190, 197, 203
Vajpayee, Atal Behari, Former Prime Minister,

214
Vellore jail, 66
Vietnam, 181
Yazawin, Hmannan, 133

Zarang-Dilaram road, 208
Zaranj-Dehlaram Road, 121

Book IndiaandSouthAsia PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Book IndiaandSouthAsia PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Book IndiaandSouthAsia PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INDIA AND SOUTH ASIA

Exploring Regional Perceptions

INDIA AND SOUTH ASIA

INSTITUTE FOR DEFENCE STUDIES & ANALYSES

India and South Asia: Exploring Regional Perceptions

Does Academia Matter to the Shaping of Mutual Perceptions

Not India: Pakistan, India and the Self

Changing Relations between Bangladesh and India: Perceptions in

The Geo-Strategic Matrix and Existential Dimension of Sri Lankas

Perceptions and Memories: Making Sense of Bangladeshs India Outlook

India and South Asia: Exploring Regional Perceptions

Changing Dynamics in Nepal-India Relations

Rising India and Bangladesh-India Relations:

Indo-Afghan Relationship: Afghan Expectations and Indian Reluctance

Shift in Maldivian Perception Towards India During the 2012

10. Myanmars Perception of India

11. Bhutan and Its International Collaborations-2013

12. South Asian Economic Integration: Potential, Challenges and the

13. Stepped-Up Inter-State Dialogue as a Key to Improving SAARC

14. China and South Asian Cooperation Under SAARC

India and South Asia: Exploring Regional Perceptions

Brig. Rumel Dahiya, SM (Retd.)

India and South Asia: Exploring Regional Perceptions

I would be failing in my duty if I do not acknowledge several of my other

Average Annual Growth Rate

India and South Asia: Exploring Regional Perceptions

Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organisations

Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad

India and South Asia: Exploring Regional Perceptions

South East Asia Treaty Organisation

About the Contributors

Pratyoush Onta is Chair, Martin Chautari, Kathmandu. He has a Ph.D in History

India and South Asia: Exploring Regional Perceptions

New Zealand and as Deputy High Commissioner in Kolkata, India. He also

About the Contributors

M. Ashique Rahman is Research Fellow, Bangladesh Institute of International

India and South Asia: Exploring Regional Perceptions

Pema Tenzin is Regional Head of Kuensel Corporation, Kanglung, Trashigang,

About the Contributors

Thou Gives, a collection of devotional poems (July 2010). He was conferred

India and South Asia: Exploring Regional Perceptions

deputy interior minister of Afghanistan. He has also worked as a reporter for

List of Map, Tables and Figures

Map: South Asia

Table 2: Bangladesh-India Bilateral Trade

Table 2: Grants, FDI and GDP in Bhutan

Table 2: Underexploited Trade Potential in South and South-West

Table 3: Welfare Effects from Trade Liberalisation and Facilitation

Table 4: Non-Tariff Intra- and Extra-Regional Trade Costs in

India and South Asia: Exploring Regional Perceptions

Figure 2: Indian Share of Exports from Two Trading Partners

Figure 2: Pakistans Trade Deficit with China India and World

Figure 3: Pakistans Imports from China by End Use Classification

Figure 4: Pakistans Imports from India by End Use Classification

Figure 5: Tariff Profiles of Pakistan and India

Figure 6: Pakistans Imports of Major Products in its Negative

Welcome Remarks by Dr. Arvind Gupta,

Honble Raksha Mantri

India and South Asia: Exploring Regional Perceptions