THE RELEVANCE OF THE ‘GUJRAL DOCTRINE’
Improving ties with neighbours has been a leitmotif of Indian foreign policy under all governments. An optimal policy has to address many difficulties: our smaller neighbours feel threatened by our size, they bristle at any perceived violation of their sovereignty, draw in other big powers as a balancing strategy, play domestic politics around our supposedly ‘big brotherly’ attitude, expect generous treatment without any reciprocal obligation and are, besides, apprehensive about losing their identity because of our shared regional, ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural links.
Prime minister and foreign minister twice, Inder Kumar Gujral— whose 100th birth anniversary fell on December 4—while aware of these complexities, was the first to enunciate in September 1996 a neighbourhood policy that would modify India’s image from a regional hegemon to one of an accommodating neighbour acting generously, without expectations of reciprocity. Labelled the ‘Gujral Doctrine’, it outlined five basic principles. First, with Nepal, Bangladesh, the Maldives and Sri Lanka, India would not ask for reciprocity, but do all it could in good faith and trust. (Bhutan was excluded from the list because non-reciprocity was embedded in our ties.) The other four principles pertained to not allowing one’s territory to be used against another country, non-interference in the internal affairs of another, respecting one another’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, and settling disputes peacefully through bilateral negotiations. The first principle constituted a major break from conventional diplomatic thinking.
Such doctrines reflect a preferred strategy without assurance of success because that would depend on the smaller neighbours adhering to the enunciated principles. With Pakistan’s abetment of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir at its height in the 1990s, it was unimaginable to expect it would respect the core elements of the Gujral Doctrine. Nevertheless, in June 1996, then prime minister Gujral green-lighted a foreign secretary-level meeting that sowed the seeds of the ‘composite dialogue’. The dialogue, however, did not bear fruit because Gujral rejected the creation of a separate working group on Kashmir. The composite dialogue began later, but eventually collapsed, demonstrating the limits of any doctrine of peaceful engagement with a Pakistan endemically hostile to India. Today, with the practical abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution and redrawing of the internal map of the erstwhile J&K state, the fundamentals of any bilateral dialogue with Pakistan on Kashmir have changed. With Bangladesh, the Ganga water treaty of December 1996 was a signal achievement of the Gujral Doctrine.
Despite international pressure, Gujral firmly refused to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in October 1996. Showing his mettle, he told india today then that India would neither surrender its nuclear option nor feared isolation. Gujral affirmed that “like individuals, nations who go on their knees or bend backwards are never respected”. He cited the China threat and its proliferating help to Pakistan, and called the CTBT a charade of nuclear-weapon states.
His comment at a Cairo meeting that I had arranged remains memorable. Reacting to British offers of mediation on Kashmir, Gujral remarked dismissively, “Britain is a third-rate power nursing illusions of grandeur of its colonial past. It created Kashmir when it divided India. Now, it wants to give us a solution.” And this, just before the state visit of Queen Elizabeth to India. Gujral’s reading of Britain’s steep decline as a power is striking today amidst the Brexit muddle.
I.K. Gujral, a gentleman and a man of principle, was a tough mind behind a soft exterior. He has left a significant legacy in terms of our neighbourhood policy, pursued by prime ministers since, even if no longer by the name of the Gujral Doctrine. Such politicians—rare today—need remembering. ■
Inder Gujral, a gentleman and a man of principle, has left a significant legacy in terms of India’s neighbourhood policy