Navigating India’s dilemmas in the neighbourhood
In the aftermath of Pakistan’s humiliating withdrawal from Kargil, a colleague and I visited Washington for discussions with the United States (US) State Department and other agencies on the situation in India’s western neighbourhood.
A session was devoted to Iran. While US officials were hopeful that the Vilayat-e-faqih, Iran’s foundational clerical system’s popularity may be declining, that was not our assessment. It is no secret that, except during Barack Obama’s presidency, all US administrations have worked diligently for regime change in Iran but without success. Is it ever wise, especially in the long-term, to seek regime change in another State to secure national interest and, if so, for how long can such interests be thus secured?
Iran is not the only country where the US has sought to destabilise hostile governments through intensive intervention in domestic politics. Indeed, US interference in the internal affairs of many countries is taken as a fact of international relations even if it may be exaggerated in many cases. What is true for perceptions about the US globally are similar for India regionally. The political and security elites of many of India’s immediate neighbours assume Indian interference, at least on occasion, in their domestic politics as a fact of their political life.
What is presumed about India’s role in these neighbouring countries is largely the product of misperceptions, if not myths. The meetings of Indian diplomats and officials in most cases designed to seek information — an entirely legitimate exercise — are given extraneous meanings. Stray comments are construed as part of devious policy. Consequently, India’s assertions of political neutrality are always discounted.
As India is presumed to be an active and interventionist player, political groups and actors in neighbouring countries such as Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives and, even at times, in Afghanistan, among others, often seek Indian assistance of various kinds to promote their interests. Sometimes they seek to flaunt their proximity to India and its representatives. Others do the opposite. They take hostile positions against India, complaining of its partisan attitudes and, in this process, stoke national sentiments often couched in stridently anti-indian terms. This is especially true when territorial differences emerge between India and another country as was witnessed in Nepal last year.
It cannot be claimed that India has maintained a policy of strict neutrality over the past seven decades in matters of its neighbours. Certainly, it has, like any other State, sought to safeguard its interests, especially when political actors have deliberately sought to align themselves with powers hostile to India.
This is best illustrated in the case of Maldives President Abdulla Yameen who deliberately and completely irrationally went on provoking India in every possible way.
India has also had to take note and caution specific leaders of neighbouring states when they have adopted exclusionary domestic policies that have stoked resentments in India impacting on Indian politics. In both these situations, India has traditionally moved cautiously.
The Yameen case was noteworthy for it showcased Chinese aspirations to become a major factor in the national lives of India’s immediate neighbours. Over the past few years, China’s actions and policies all through South Asia and also in India’s maritime neighbourhood, including in the Indian Ocean island countries, have raised the need to give deep consideration to India’s approach to its neighbours.
Naturally, Pakistan is a case apart because of the nature of the bilateral relationship and the increasing consolidation of its nexus with China.
That Chinese moves in India’s neighbouring countries significantly impact Indian interests is an obvious reality. It is also a reality that some neighbours attempt to leverage an engagement with China to seek, if nothing else, better terms with India in critical areas.
How should India deal with its neighbours in the light of these considerations which will only increase in future? Should it clearly articulate red lines in different spheres with each country? To do so openly would invite charges of disrespect of the sovereignty of neighbours. Perhaps the way would be to subtly make it known that what India will never accept is the physical presence of a hostile foreign power in a manner that would adversely impact its security especially in a case of open borders. If the political class of neighbouring countries accepts this as a starting proposition, it would make Indian indifference to their internal politics far easier.
The case of security concerns makes for easier conviction than that of economic and commercial interests. It is here that India has made it known to the neighbours since IK Gujral was prime minister that it wants them to be participants in India’s growth journey. But that was before China loomed large in South Asia and made its push in terms of connectivity and commerce. Now Narendra Modi has compellingly reiterated the same policy. Despite the Chinese ingress, there are compelling factors for India’s neighbours to link up with the Indian economy; but will they recognise this reality?
India must always be wary of adopting interventionist policies in the neighbourhood. Equally, reflexive anti-indian sentiment among neighbours will always damage their national interest and the personal political interest of their leaders.
NEW DELHI: There was no consensus till Monday evening on what exactly may have triggered the flash flood in the Rishiganga valley on Sunday. At least 26 people have died and 171 were still missing till the time of going to print. Us-based scientists who looked at satellite images suggested it was caused by a landslide onto a glacier which led to debris flooding the river, while Dan Shugar of the University of Calgary suggested a landslide triggered an ice avalanche.
Not everyone agrees. Jimmy Kansal, deputy director, The Snow and Avalanche Study Establishment of the Defence Research and Development Organisation, said: “There was no landslide or avalanche. There could be a glacial lake which led to the breach, but we are still investigating that.”
The glacial lake theory (which means the flooding was a glacial lake outburst flood, or Glof) is supported by scientists at the Divecha Centre for Climate Change at IISC, Bengaluru, who say they have found clues to the origin of the flash floods. The team has concluded that release of water from an underground glacial lake led to flash floods and inundation in the valley.
Glacial lakes are typically formed when a glacier retreats, with water collecting in the area
where the glacier used to be, and dammed by the moraine. There are also instances of glacial lakes being damned by ice. When the dam bursts, it causes a Glof, resulting in flooding downstream, which is exactly what happened in this case.
The team at Divecha Centre used a tool to map the depression in bedrock below the Nanda Devi glacier and said the data suggests a depression of 25 ha upstream of glacier terminus.
The lower part of the ablation zone (zone of the glacier which has melted or calved and formed a lake), the scientists added, receives a significant amount of water from a tributary glacier at the northern side of the Nanda Devi glacier. “If this depression filled with water develops appropriate
hydrostatic pressure, it can accelerate the lower part of the ablation zone, possibly releasing water from the underground lake. It could be the potential reason for the flood,” a note prepared by IISC team said.
“This is a new tool developed in IISC which can be very useful to study such disasters. It is based on Laminar flow equation and surface slope; known as Himalayan Glacier Thickness Mapper. The tool was used to map depressions below South Lhonak lake in Sikkim and further estimate future expansion of the lake,” said Professor Anil Kulkarni, distinguished scientist, Divecha Center.
Responding to the Us-based scientists who said the floods may have been triggered by a landslide, Kulkarni said, “It appears to me they looked at the adjacent valley. Initial reports suggest flash flood was caused due to breaking of Nanda Devi glacier...we went deeper to see what happened under surface.”
But the landslide theory has other subscribers.
Uttarakhand chief minister Trivendra Singh Rawat said scientists of Indian Space Research Organisation have revealed that the tragedy was caused by a mix of snow and rock avalanche and that satellite images have shown no glacier breakage.
A glacial break usually means a piece of the glacier breaking off as a large piece of ice. That does not seem to have happened in this case.
Rawat said ISRO scientists told him that a few days back there was snowfall in the affected area. “And from one trigger point due to rockfall at the top, it all slid downwards. Due to all this, lakhs of tonnes of snow came gushing down which led to the tragedy. The ISRO scientists said the satellite imagery doesn’t show any glacier breakage and that this area is not avalanche-prone.”
Pradeep Srivastava, scientist at Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology Dehradun said that data suggests the tragedy was not caused by any glacial outburst. “Due to freezing and thawing, a rock mass broke away and slid down...this created a melting layer near debris. An avalanche was evident from the huge clouds of dust...,” he said.
MUMBAI: The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on Monday announced that it will purchase government securities worth ₹20,000 crore through open market operations (OMOS) in a bid to cap yields of treasury bonds and support an expanded government borrowing programme.
“The Reserve Bank stands committed to ensuring the availability of ample liquidity in the system in order to foster congenial financial conditions,” an RBI notification said on Monday. “On a review of current liquidity and financial conditions, therefore, the Reserve Bank has decided to conduct purchase of government securities under open market operations (OMO) for an aggregate amount of ₹20,000 crore on February 10, 2021.”
The central bank will purchase long-term security maturing in 2024, 2028, 2030 and 2034, the notification said.
The bond market had been waiting for the OMO announcement ever since the government announced in the budget its intent to raise ₹12 lakh crore for the next financial year and an additional ₹80,000 crore for this year. RBI in its monetary policy on Friday, however, did not give any explicit guidance on the same, which disappointed the market. The yield on the 10-year bond on Friday had jumped to 6.17%, the highest in more than five months. However, it cooled off after the OMO announcement with the benchmark 10-year yield closing 3bps lower at 6.04%.
Also on Monday, Bloomberg reported that RBI is expected to buy more than ₹3 lakh crore ($41 billion) of sovereign bonds in the next fiscal year to support the government’s borrowing plans, citing a person with knowledge of the matter. This will exceed the ₹3 lakh crore the RBI is expected to spend for the current year ending March, the
report added.