Abstract: This paper tries to trace the relationship of ‘Indian Foreign Policy’ and ‘Terrorism’ as a globally recognized phenomenon which has become a major security concern for India as well. Definitional difficulties apart, it shows India’s struggle at grappling with its cross-border security problems, its problematized domestic policy to address the problem of terrorism, and its diplomatic relations with other states (USA) and International Organizations (SAARC,UN)regarding the same. Being one of the constant recipient of its effects, the paper tries to portray how India is in a boomerang between good constitutional legal provisions(already in place) and her struggle with its practical feasibility. Finally, the paper looks at foreign policy orientation ‘and’ terrorism, for Indian foreign policy does not have a direct approach ‘on’ terrorism as USA (‘War on Terror’). This is seen in a positive connotation as then India remains flexible to join the ‘War’ at her own terms and not submit to external compulsory commitment.
INTRODUCTION:
The international order laid down in 1945 at the end of the Second World War has come to an end. The War on Terror is reordering the world. This war on Terror has now transformed the entire meaning and prospect as increasingly it has come to mean a war on Afghanistan (and the Rogue States) by the Bush Administration and now Obama is continuing its path. This twin attack on America is seen as a war on the entire world and 9/11 has now come to form a noun in its own right… ‘Mumbai’s 9/11’ . The atrocities that India had faced though terrorist activities go far back in the 1950s but the 9/11 has given it a more direct and all encompassing entity.
“The danger in South Asia today is not so much of a nuclear war, as of the disruption of peace and security by unabated cross-border terrorism. We believe there can be no justification for terrorism on any grounds – religious, political, economic, ideological or any other. Democratic societies are the most vulnerable, since terrorism exploits the freedom of speech, expression, faith and movement available in these countries.” This interview had portrayed quiet aptly India’s stand on its policy. Since its independence in 1947, India has been facing the problem of insurgency and terrorism in different parts of the country. India has faced exclusive terrorist elements in Punjab, J & K, and partly insurgent part terrorist movement in the north-east, bordering Myanmar and Bangladesh; in Bihar, bordering Nepal; and in certain interior states like Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa.
Therefore what the 9/11 had done is to bring into forefront the issue that has been rattling India and the region for quiet a long time, remembering E.H Carr’s ‘Harmony of Interest’, that when terrorism poised a problem for USA did the world focus struck on the issue and hence re asserting and re ordering the world and their foreign policy approach and focus. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell stated in May 2002: "In this global campaign against terrorism, no country has the luxury of remaining on the sidelines. There are no sidelines. Terrorists respect no limits, geographic or moral. The frontlines are everywhere and the stakes are high. Terrorism not only kills people. It also threatens democratic institutions, undermines economies, and destabilizes regions”.
CONFLICTING PROBLEM:
‘In the new millennium, we face the very real and increasing prospect that regional aggressor, third-rate armies, terrorist groups and even religious cults will seek to wield disproportionate power by acquiring and using weapons of mass destructions.’ As H. V. Savich has opined, the ‘best way’ to witness the wake of 9/11 is to perceive it as a change, a paradigm shift in focus to consider ‘public security, order, and protection’ of urban governance. The main problem that has faced India is the conflictual dilemma between the need for good terrorist activities combating laws and the lag attitude through how the implementation of the already existing laws to this effect has been addressed. Their being no lack of good laws and constitutional provisions already in place, the half hearted measure and the tardiness on the part of the authority seem to be the main problem as far as the enactment to arrest such activities has taken place
Another problem that rears its head is the very definition the term ‘Terrorism’, and the question as what does it entail or imply? There is no near universal accepted definition of the term and what is deemed a terrorist organization today is a constitutional entity tomorrow. The example of PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) would fit well in this particular respect. There is another basic dilemma in recognizing who or which organization is actually utilizing terror methods and to what ends. The 1975 declaration of Emergency under Mrs. Gandhi’s regime surpassed much violence against common men. Does that constitute Terror used by the state on its citizen? Pakistan is often accused of aiding Terror activist group by the ‘use of Pakistani soil’… is Pakistan then a Terror state? Or simply a failed state not able to regulate unlawful activity on its soil. What does one do in a situation when the government of a neighboring state dismisses and denies the fact of its territory being used for any such purposes, like Bangladesh till recently failed to acknowledge. What can a state do when the LTTE is termed and recognized as a terrorist organization by both India and Sri Lanka, even when sympathizing with the Tamil ethnic group and alarmed at the increasing problem of the influx of refugees. The dilemma in coining a consensual let alone a single definition to define ‘terrorism’ can be simply addressed by citing the two articles that was published in the ‘Economic and Political Weekly’. J. V. Despande notes that Achin Vanaik’s propositions on nuclear terrorism ('Nuclear Terrorism: A New Threshold?', January 26, 2002) lays more importance to ‘state terrorism’ as a greater menace to the mankind today than the terrorist acts of private, secret groups. Despande gives examples to show how terrorism ‘as practiced these days is not always a direct state activity. In some cases it is executed by proxy, using willing terrorist outfits as tools, a "mating of terrorist groups and a nation" as the US president (Bush) has described the phenomenon.’ He further argues, ‘Are not the states that actively sponsor terrorism of various groups as responsible for their actions as the terrorists themselves? Are these not instances of state terrorism?’ Vanaik then repeatedly addressed the point stating, ‘All regimes in some way or the other invoke terror and one could so easily fall into the unhelpful posture of calling all or most all regimes or states or countries terrorist in one way or the other. I believe it is far better, therefore, to make a distinction between terrorist regimes and democratic ones, which by definition are not terrorist governments or states but do and can carry out terrorist acts and campaigns internationally and at times domestically’
Charles Tilly observed, “No useful generalization covers all the different sorts of political interaction for which observers, analysts, and participants sometimes use the term terror, much less for terrorists and terrorism. But we can identify some order in the phenomenon by means of four steps: (1) noticing that a recurrent strategy of intimidation occurs widely in contentious politics and corresponds approximately to what many people mean by terror; (2) recognizing that a wide variety of individuals, groups, and networks sometimes employ that strategy; (3) relating the strategy systematically to other forms of political struggle proceeding in the same settings and populations; and (4) seeing that specialists in coercion ranging from government employees to bandits sometimes deploy terror under certain political circumstances, usually with far more devastating effects than the terror operations of nonspecialists.” He further elaborates on the ways in which ‘terror’ has been used as a strategy, its multiple uses for varied and differentiated ends. By large, he confirms that it would be an act of terror only when the end is in a specific, though not necessarily, political cause.
As Xenia Dormandy, Senior Associate, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs had pointed out, the five principle factor today in Indian Foreign Policy are; Conventional security, Economic growth, Energy security, Nuclear Capability and Nonproliferation and Strategic Stature and Leadership. India today is thus facing with a dual problem. Weak internal law regarding Terrorism and such activities and on the other hand the problem on the international and regional arena of addressing the same. Both have their respective short comings and need equal and urgent redressal. The approach of the paper would be normative, focusing on these domestic failings, and posing this problem in the larger context of India’s relation with its neighbours and those with whom she enjoys a strategic interest, inclusive of regional and International Organizations.
DOMESTIC IMPACT ON INDIAN FOREIGN POLICY:
Much in foreign policy depends on stability and strength at home. India is facing multifarious challenges in the management of its internal security. There is an upsurge of terrorist activities, intensification of cross border terrorist activities and insurgent groups in different parts of the country. Terrorism has now acquired global dimensions and has become the challenge for the whole world. The reach and methods adopted by terrorist groups and organization take advantage of modern means of communication and technology using high tech facilities available in the form of communication system, transport, sophisticated arms and various other means. This has enabled them to strike and create terror among people at will. The criminal justice system and Penal Code was not designed to deal with such draconian crimes. In view of this situation it was felt necessary to enact legislation for the prevention of and for dealing with terrorist activities.
In 2002 March session of the Indian parliament the Prevention Of Terrorist Activities Act (POTA) was introduced (after replacing Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance 2001) and it had widespread opposition not even in the Indian parliament but throughout India especially with the human rights organization because they thought that the act violated most of the fundamental rights provided in the Indian constitution. Gautam Navlakha has called the act ‘POTA: A Freedom to Terrorize’. The protagonists of the Act have, however, hailed the legislation on the ground that it has been effective in ensuring the speedy trial of those accused of indulging in or abetting terrorism. POTA is useful in stemming "state-sponsored cross-border terrorism", as envisaged by the then Home Minister L.K. Advani. The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA), was seen as a controversial piece of legislation ever since it was conceived as a weapon against terrorism. Chapter II , 3 (1)(a) of the same states, ‘Whoever,—with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people does any act or thing by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisons or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substances (whether biological or otherwise) of a hazardous nature or by any other means whatsoever, in such a manner as to cause, or likely to cause, death of, or injuries to any person or persons or loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property or disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community or causes damage or destruction of any property or equipment used or intended to be used for the defense of India or in connection with any other purposes of the Government of India, any State Government or any of their agencies, or detains any person and threatens to kill or injure such person in order to compel the Government or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act;’ Today, the National Security Act can be seen as a generic phenomenon to this effect of continuous thrive for a more productive and efficient legal recluse to address this security problem.
Shivsankar Menon in 2007 outlined India’s foreign policy outlook in these words, “Firstly, insuring a peaceful periphery, Secondly, relations with the major powers and Thirdly, issues of the future, namely food security, energy and environment.” Following from this perspective, the conclusion drawn can be relegated into the following spheres. To ensure peaceful periphery, what is required is a stable backyard and good relations with the neighbours. In 2005, Manmohan Singh remarked that liberal democracy is the ‘natural order’ with a brief suggestion that in India’s interest it would be beneficial if there is ‘stable, democratic order’ in the South Asian region. Terrorism is one of the ways through which instability is being forwarded and therefore even with caution India is slowly, but steadily, treading the USA pathway to democracy promotion as a feature in its foreign policy measures. On the aspect of India’ strategic interests with the major powers, India has pursued ‘strategic interest’ with USA on one hand, while simultaneously pursuing the same with the European Union. India has put up this issue of terrorism as frequently in both regional organizations such as SAARC and in the international counterparts as the UN. On issues such as energy, India is keener than on issues on environment, but this is largely the trend for all states, though recently India has voiced considerable concerns over issues in global warming, as linked it the hazard of bio-terrorism and environment-terrorism.
Therefore, the domestic element of the vast contours of India facing the problem of terrorism has equally surfaced reflection in its foreign policy approach towards others. The ministry of external affairs website shows Mumbai: War on Terror in its Home page flickering away to draw one’s attention to the level of importance that this issue is grappling with in the external affairs of our country.
ADRESSING TERRORISM IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD:
“When we look at India’s place in the world, we have to start with the region in which India is located… it faces important external security challenges ... we are wedged in an arc of autocratic states. We have Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the west, we have China to the north, and we have Burma (Myanmar), Bangladesh to our east… Several of the states around India are falling states, or problem states, or renegade states. These States pose important challenges to international and regional security.” Added to this we have Nepal added to Sri Lankan LTTE posing spillover effects in the south of India. Indian foreign policy approach since Pt. Nehru and down to Manmohan Singh has always laid importance to the flexile factor encompassing values and facts as and when needed, and learning lessons from the past defaults. Except for Bhutan and the Maldives, India has strained relationships with all of its South Asian neighbors. An analysis in a leading Indian magazine, conducted with the help of senior journalists from Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, identified the main reasons for this as follows: India
* takes its neighbors for granted;
* insists it is always right on all issues;
* does not grant concessions to its smaller neighbors;
* is not serious about correcting trade imbalances created by its becoming a regional economic power; and
* is excessively paranoid about its own security, placing undue emphasis on security at the cost of all other facets of a relationship. India has suffered for the past nearly two decades from terrorism in Punjab, in Jammu and Kashmir and in other parts of India. Countless innocent lives have been lost to the terrorist's bombs and guns.
India has consistently been highlighting the need for a unified international response to transnational and transborder terrorism which is today affecting many number of countries and challenging established societies and governments. The links between terrorists groups operating in India and other countries are quite clear today and the role that Pakistan has played in allowing this scourge to spread has also been amply documented.
India has sought to emphasize at international fora that terrorism is a global menace to which democracies are particularly vulnerable. India has called for concerted global action to counter terrorism and to ensure the enactment of measures such as sanctions against states responsible for sponsoring terrorist acts across international borders. The Government of India has actively supported the 1994 declaration adopted by the UN General Assembly on measures to eliminate international terrorism and the 1997 International Convention to Suppress Terrorist Bombings adopted by the UN General Assembly. India has also actively associated with resolutions in the United Nations Human Rights Commission condemning terrorism as a prime violator of human rights.
The state of terrorist attacks in different countries, irrespective of their forms of government, and the resulting causalities of innocent civilians lend greater urgency to the need for the international community to unite and fight the threat from international and transborder terrorism and to censure those states that give arms and financial support and sanctuary to terrorists. Looking in brief at its relations with its other neighbours mainly dealing with the security and border issue, a sort of schematic can be drawn:
Sri Lanka; India’s foreign policy regarding its southern most neighbour is filed in complications. Ever since the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi the foreign diplomacy is a little wary of it step and do not wish a repeat of its past mistakes. Pranab Mukherjee to Manmohan Singh had requested Rajapaksha to protect the ethnic Tamil speaking population and separate them from the LTTEs but with little tangible success as the ‘Container Security Initiative’ by the Sri Lankan army is exterminating Tamil speaking population as well. Human Rights violation is rampant both by the Army as well as the LTTE. LTTE delegations have toured a number of countries, including France, Spain, Switzerland and South Africa, to examine constitutional models and governance arrangements. Many important states (such as the UK, China, Germany, Italy and Japan) and international organizations (such as the World Bank, Asian Development Bank and several United Nations agencies) have, since the 2002 ceasefire, established diplomatic contacts with the previously ostracized LTTE. The mere geographical proximity to India pose a bit of security challenge and India has (perhaps prematurely) stated its position in this issue along with USA and UK in recognizing it as a terrorist organization. The LTTE has been included in the US FTO list amid the international 'war on terror’. The refugee problem is yet another factor. The Indian peacekeeping force is finding itself cornered as well.
Bangladesh; India and Bangladesh share a 4,096-km land and river line border, of which West and East Bengal share 2,216 km. Apart from the water dispute, terrorism has also become a focus today. India's Foreign Secretary Shivsankar Menon and his Bangladeshi counterpart Mohammad Touhid Hossain on a joint conference remarked, "We are convinced that our security is interlinked, and that terrorism will have to be tackled resolutely." Only recently
has Bangladesh admitted to the fact that its soil has been used for terror purposed and talks to counter the same have been forthcoming. The Refugee problem in West Bengal and Assam is also a factor. The foreign policy to Bangladesh is a schematic at best but at least recent talk on joint mechanism to combat cross-border terrorism is under way.
China; Traditionally, India and China has fought wars and has border disputes which have far remained unsolved but recently, security and defense exchanges became a highlight in bilateral relations. The Chinese Navy Marshal visited India for the first time and the two countries held the second round of consultations on defense and security. In December 2008, China and India successfully conducted the “Join Hands-2008,” a joint army training exercise on combating terrorism, in India.
Nepal; India has always played a significant part in Nepal’s domestic and foreign policy and had maintained good relations because of its geographical proximity as well as it was traditionally hoped to have a function of a buffer between India and China. But the constitutional breakdown of the state from a authorative monarchy to the Maoist strong-hold in Nepal, The Maoists demanded that the government annul the Memorandum of Understanding on "terrorism" in July 2003 was a further eye opener to India already with the acknowledgement of the fact that friendly relations between China and Nepal had been bettering as well. Again, India finds herself faced with the scourge of Maoist ‘terrorism’ in her states like Assam, West Bengal and in the larger north-east.
Pakistan; India and Pakistan relations have been in jeopardy since for the last sixty years and the question today may arise: is terrorism a product of anti-state elements or furthering Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s statement, “Do these non-actors come from air?” Perhaps it’s an act of ‘covert’ warfare against India. The 26/11 has only raised more such queries. As Kanti Bajpai had noted, “Fifty years of trying to pry Kashmir out of Indian hands has led Pakistan to use terrorism as its instrument of choice. This policy has served to strengthen within Pakistan forces that threaten that country's stability as much as India's.” The K-factor as it is called by many, is the ‘apple of discord’ between the two regions and has fought many wars over its fate. Inspite the Shimla Agreement explicitly mentioned the Kashmir problem to be a bi-lateral one; Pakistan has flouted its clause in bringing it in the SAARC. After long hesitation with the same, Zardari has recently called for a formation of a ‘Regional Organization’ to tackle the menace of terrorism (perhaps with the losing of FATA to insurgents and more recently Swat Valley to Afghanistan-Taliban. With the close nexus formulating between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and with a long history of Military coups resulting in dictatorship (Pervez Musarraf being the latest of such), the constitutionally elected Zardari has been facing challenges from the military under Kayani (an appointee by former President Musarraf).
This show quite clearly the fact that India is surrounded by security concerns all around, with recent eruptions in Sri Lanka and Pakistan only amplifying the already simmering cauldron. India also has a large arena surrounded by water bodies, Bay of Bengal in the East, Arabian Sea to her west and the Indian Ocean. India after ignoring its third wing for long, has finally strived to end the 'unnatural state of isolation' of the Indian Navy and to encourage greater interaction and joint naval exercises with regional and global powers. A closer relationship with the USA is considered vital by naval experts for maintaining the security and stability of the sea lanes through the ocean-from the Persian Gulf around India to Asia-Pacific. While concerns such as these could be explained from a strictly military security viewpoint, it is problematic to link environmental security with military matters even though it has been proposed by some that many apolitical areas such as marine pollution, oceanography and narcotic terrorism, among other areas, beckon and a preliminary interaction could be a bridge to greater cooperation between the navies of the Indian Ocean. The Mumbai attack using waterway and the Somalia Pirates can only be drawn as an apt example in this regard. Also states such as Sri Lanka and Burma divert their already scarce financial resources to acquire sophisticated weapons systems at the expense of the basic needs of civil society.
Following from Shivsankar Menon’s 2007 speech stating the dimensions of Indian Foreign Policy, (using it as a heuristic device) the second aspect to Indian foreign policy is her ‘relation with major powers’. In this aspect, both the individual states as well as the international or regional organizations are being considered. In states the consideration would be solely on the United States of America, as being the hegemon to pursue the ‘War on Terror’ today, and UN, EU and SAARC would be looked at for explaining her foreign policy initiative with organizations (regional and international).
INDIA’S RELATION WITH MAJOR PLAYERS:
United States of America;
India's counter-terrorism policies are based on the following principles; a genuine and well-functioning democracy, good governance, responsiveness to public grievances, effective policing and economic development as the best antidotes to terrorism. India has been the victim of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism since the 1950s. In those years, Pakistan's ISI had supported the insurgent/terrorist groups in India's northeast region and provided those sanctuaries, training, arms and ammunition. India had been earnestly taking up this issue for many years to declare Pakistan as a State sponsoring terrorism. Bangladesh (former East Pakistan) authorities have not been co-operating with India in taking effective action against the large-scale illegal immigration into India. However, keeping in view the otherwise good relations with Bangladesh, India has been trying to have these problems sorted out bilateral diplomacy. Since 9/11, Pakistan's military-intelligence establishment has been collaborating with the US in taking action against Al Qaeda elements posing a threat to US nationals and interests. But it has not taken any action against cross-border terrorism directed against India and to destroy terrorist infrastructure in PoK and the Northern Areas.
Hence, as C. Raja Mohan had expressed in ‘The Hindu’, Rather than banking on international cooperation, India will have to develop its own means to vacate the threat of terrorism. ‘India has sought to find a way out of the divide between the American emphasis on unilateralism and the focus of the other great powers on multilateralism by stressing on the creation of an alliance of democracies to deal with the challenges posed by terrorism. India has also argued that this alliance must come up with a new set of agreed rules that must fashion the response to terrorism. But India is a long way from creating the political basis for a new consensus on this question. While the debate on new methods to deal with terrorism will continue for a long time, the biggest disappointment for India has been the reluctance of the international community to confront the sources of terrorism in Pakistan.’ Raja Mohan further notes that ‘the global normative framework against terrorism has substantially expanded since September 11’.
The United States and India signed a 10-year agreement paving the way for stepped up military ties, including joint weapons production and cooperation on missile defense. Titled the "New Framework for the US-India Defense Relationship" (NFDR), it was signed on June 27/2005 by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and India's Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee. This was the culmination of a long series of ‘strategic alliances’ as advocated by both India and the US regarding its joint focus on combating terrorism. Already forming a good aid and military alliance with Pakistan, to secure its front against Afghanistan border (2003), India is both skeptical and alarmed at the close proximity of US-NATO forces as well as the constant aid with negligible result Pakistan is receiving from the US.
SAARC AND EU;
Terrorism and Economic Cooperation are the two areas that dominated the SAARC meet in Colombo, Sri Lanka on February 2009. During the 12th and 13th SAARC summits, extreme emphasis was laid upon greater cooperation between the SAARC members to fight terrorism. SAARC Ministerial Declaration on Cooperation in Combating Terrorism states quiet clearly their wish of the member states to combat and renew their commitment to strengthening comprehensive region-wide cooperation among SAARC Member States to combat and eliminate all forms and manifestations of terrorism and in this context affirm the need to reinforce further the regional legal regime and instituting pragmatic cooperation to address this issue effectively. With the backdrop of the Mumbai attacks and the Colombian LTTE tacking measures, SAARC has taken up the issue of regional security quiet seriously. It has a well placed Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism in force as early as 22nd August 1988 but its main drawback is often credited to the political and military rivalry between India and Pakistan. It is due to these economic, political, and territorial disputes that South Asian nations have not been able to harness the benefits of a unified economy and a workable solution towards efficiently addressing ‘terrorism’ issue. During the Twelfth SAARC Summit (Islamabad, 4-6 January 2004) the Council of Ministers signed the Additional Protocol to the SAARC Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism (which came into action on 2006). The purpose of this Additional Protocol is to strengthen the SAARC Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism, particularly by ‘criminalizing the provision, collection or acquisition of funds for the purpose of terrorist acts and taking further measures to prevent and suppress financing of such acts.’ Over the years, SAARC's role in South Asia has been greatly diminished and is now used as a mere platform for annual talks and meetings between its members. SAARC has also refrained itself from committing interfering in the internal matters of its member states since its own charter forbids it to take up issue like the Sri Lankan Civil War or the Kashmir problem. The conflict among its members fails the organization to reach its full potential.
In case of the European Union and India, as a natural outcome of the first India-EU Summit at Lisbon on June, 2000, India and EU has entered a ‘strategic partnership’ since 2004, The membership of the countries of the EU in the United Nations and other multilateral fora makes it a desirable partner for India, in influencing many dimensions of collective international cooperation in the spheres of security, development and globalization. India and the European Union are cooperating to combat international terrorism and recognize that, given their
tolerant character, open, democratic and multi-cultural societies are specially
vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Both sides also believe in the vital importance of
Multilateralism and the management and resolution of conflicts through peaceful
means, in accordance with the UN Charter (Resolution 1373). The convergence of policy orientations between India and Europe - the belief in democracy, human rights, pluralism in civil
societies, liberty, having independent media and judiciary, is widely acknowledged
by both sides as a factor of stability coupled with EU’s emergence as a major geopolitical
and economic force in the new world order.
United Nations (UN);
‘The United Nations is an organization of sovereign nations dedicated to the cause of world peace and working for peaceful settlement of disputes and avoidance of war. Faith in the United Nations and corporation with the world body is an important principle of India’s foreign policy.’ India being a member of UN had always tried to bring forth the issue of cross-border terrorism but with varying success till the 9/11. Resolutions like 1540/03 etc. had bought forth a special counter terrorism specialized committee to this effect. Indian representatives to the UN had always brought forth the matter to the general assembly and with a strategic alliance with the US and others have been trying to enforce more resolutions and actions (especially in declaring Pakistan a terror sponsoring state). This is perhaps the most important forum for Indian foreign policy holders to bring forth such security issues to the world forum as the UN diplomacy can arrest the world’s attention to her aims.
Apart from these actors in the international arena, India has recently been looking towards the larger regional arena to find friends who would aid her in combating the menace of terrorism. India and Kuwait has recently signed a security measure against terror measures. She has equally encroached towards Russia regarding the issue. With her geo-political situation, it is but obvious that Indian foreign policy would reach out to all corners to counter the malice of terrorism.
CONCLUSION:
Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of India had laid down a vision for the country, a vision to reach out to the global arena. During the cold war era, India was the one to propose the conception of ‘non alignment’ which gave the member states a head start in neutral grounds, to choose which side they would support (of the two Power Blocs) or to remain uncommitted if they so desire. Such a foreign policy approach showed the maturity of her foreign policy thinkers. Like in USA or UK, the foreign policy of this country reflected largely according to the head of the government, the Prime Minister as in case of the Parliamentary modeled India.
The same mature and somber tone can be witnessed even today in her approach towards the ‘war’ against terrorism, where unlike USA, who has cut out much criticism for itself throughout the world by her foreign policy embracing ‘War on Terror’ and ‘Democracy Promotion’, and recent ‘Af-Pakistan’ policy. India, on the other hand, has reacted to the Mumbai attack and other past incidents showing constraint and had utilized proper diplomatic channels like bringing the matter to international forums like UN, SAARC and INTERPOL. Even when participating on joint committees and measures on combating terrorism with states like USA, UK and her regional ‘friends’, India places much caution and consideration into committing herself into reacting or acting on situations, wary of the fact that it might envelope into something the state is not yet prepared to face.
This space and mobility which India has guarded around her is undoubtedly admirable. India’s aspiration for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council is firmly based on a perception of its universal role, apart from adherence and contribution to the UN’s goals and ideals since the San Francisco Charter. India, by virtue of its history, geographical location, size and population has
a definite role to play even outside its proximate neighbourhood. It is certainly admirable how India, inspite of requiring US and other states goodwill in her aspiration for a permanent seat and a greater role in the Bretton Woods Institutions, still refrains to fall into any compulsion or obligation inspite of the tough times it faces in making a commitment choice. But what Indian Foreign Policy requires at such times is a more stringent orientation towards addressing such issues of vital importance. It has been a long phase of word diplomacy, perhaps now its time for action. Then again, India today finds herself in trouble waters and has to tread with much caution or she would a victim of bad historical choices.
REFERENCES:
Text Books;
1. Ninan Koshy, The War on Terror: Reordering the World, Left World, 2002
2. ‘India the next decade’, ed. Manmohan Malhotra, pub. By Academic Foundation in association with the Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust.
3. V. K. Khanna, Foreign Policy of India, pub: Vikas publishing House Pvt Ltd.
4. Kanti S. Bajpai, The roots of Terrorism, pub. New Delhi, Penguin, 2002
5. M. S. Rajan, Studies on Indian Foreign Policy, pub. ABC Publishers, 1993
Internet Materials;
1. The Times Of India, 27.11.2008
2. Maciton (Thailand), 09.10.2003, Interview of the Prime Minister of India (A. V. Bajpai).
3. Shri Shivsankar Menon, “The Challenges Ahead For India’s Foreign Policy”, Speech by the Indian Foreign Secretary at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi, 10 April 2007, www.mea.govt
4. “PM’s speech at India Today Conclave”, New Delhi, February 2005, www.pmindia.nic.in
4. V. Sudarshan, "Next Door Boor," Outlook, September 2, 2002, http://www.outlookindia. Com/full.asp? IndiaNeighbours&sid= 1.
5. The Hindu, (FrontPage), 09.04.2009
6. Kathmandu Post, Kantipur daily, Himalayan Times, July 29, 2003.
7. SAARC Ministerial Declaration on Cooperation in Combating Terrorism, Annex VI, 28.02.2009, www.saarc.org/lega//
8. C. Raja Mohan, ‘ India and The War On Terror’, The Hindu (Opinion), 12.09.2003,
Articles;
1. H. V. Savich, Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 39, No. 1, p.p 103-127, 2003.
2. J. V. Despande, ‘Nuclear Terrorism and All That’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37, No. 14 (Apr. 6-12, 2002), pp. 1370-1371
3. Achin Vanaik, ‘Definition and Ethics’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37, No. 40 (Oct. 5-11, 2002), pp. 4164-4168
4. Charles Tilly, ‘Terror, Terrorist, Terrorism’, Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 1, Theories of Terrorism: A Symposium (Mar., 2004), pp. 5-13 Published by: American Sociological Association
5. Kanti Bajpai, Foreign Policy in 2001: What’s going on?
6. Gautam Navlakha, ‘POTA: A Freedom to Terrorize’, Vol 38 No. 29 July 19 - July 25, 2003
7. G.K. Noorani, ‘Anti-Terrorism Legislation’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 38, No. 18 (May 3-9, 2003), pp. 1741-1742
8. C. Raja Mohan, ‘Balancing Interests and Values: India’s Struggle with Democracy Promotion’, The Washington Quarterly,30.3 pp. 99-115
9. Radha Kumar, ‘ India as a Foreign Policy Actor- Normative Redux’, CEPS Working Document No. 285, February 2008
10. Rabindra Mishra, ‘India’s role in Nepal’s Maoist Insurgency’, Asian Survey, Vol.44 No. 5, (Sept-Oct 2004), pp.627-646
11. Daya Bhaskar, ‘Joint naval exercise in the Indian Ocean’, Journal of Indian Ocean Studies, 1993, p.p 15-18
12. Sanjay Chaturvedi, ‘Common Security? Geopolitics, Development, Security and the Indian Ocean’, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 4, Rethinking Geographies: North: South Development (1998), pp. 701-724 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
13. Rama Sampath Kumar, ‘Impact of US-Led War on Terrorism’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37, No. 33 (Aug. 17-23, 2002), pp. 3414-3419
14. K. Shankar Bajpai, ‘Untangling India and Pakistan’, Foreign Affairs, Vol.82, No. 3, pp 112-126
No comments:
Post a Comment