A Geopolitical & Geopsychological Focal Lens: Structuring South-Asian Regional Politics of 2000’s Decade
A Retrospect on South Asian Regional Timeline of (2000–2009): Based on “South Asia in the Global Age”
Globalization — the interconnected and interdependent world order — has been recently structuralizing a change in — information network, commerce and cooperative security, due to the increasing dependency of ‘economic well-being’ and ‘national survival’ on it. The ‘global center of political gravity’ has shifted from the North-centric order to the Asia Pacific region. A mix of geoeconomic and geostrategic factors, propelled by increasing global cooperation, is drawing the near end of — ‘dominant-dominated power structure’.
A dominant feature of the globalization trend happens to be the regional integration among countries, in terms of economics, politics and security, to protect and promote their ‘commonly shared interests’. The regional economic integration, in essence economic trade patterns, have assumed various patterns in different countries. For example, the Western countries of European Union (EU) practices an unfair, discriminatory form of ‘trade protectionism’ against the Third World nations. Slowly, but eventually South Asia is becoming economically integrated in terms of trade, investment, and transfer of capital-intensive technology. Though democratic globalization aims to build a free world through the promotion of political pluralism and civil society, nearly four dozen countries have not yet experienced democracy, because of either radical militancy, intolerance or violation of human rights.
Democratization of societies is one of the hallmarks of the globalization phenomenon. At present, globalization and regionalization are complementary processes to establish integrated economic and political order.
The global politics is faced with a major challenge — consolidation of democratization. The possible solution lies in the remaking of society in accordance with democratic norms and values.
South Asia often referred to as a peculiar region in terms of history, culture, psychology and strategic thought, needs to redefine itself in the new global age, to grapple with the complex problems — as such the tyranny of oil.
Joseph Nye, in his famous work ‘Soft Power: The Means to Success (2005)’ argued that the USA needs to apply soft power, in order to remain a solo superpower. But here the problem and patent fact is, international community is incapable of controlling hard power. G. John Ikenberry, in this regard explains, a ‘distinctive type’ of international order has been organized together with European and East Asian partners around open markets, social bargains, intergovernmental institutions, and cooperative security.
Seen from this perspective, the South Asian region has acquired primacy in terms of geoculture, geopsychology, and geostrategy. It is therefore vitally important to analyze the ‘potency’ and ‘relevance’ of geopsychology in South Asia, which has been characterized as the ‘most dangerous hotspot’ in the world.
GEO-PSYCHOLOGY
Geopsychological paradigm, acquiring salience in a fast-globalizing world, helps to understand the post-Cold War international system — faced with nontraditional threats (i.e. reparatist movement, religious radicalism) in transitional societies. Geopsychology is, therefore, viewed as an organic combination of ‘geopolitik’ and ‘modern psychology’.
For instance, Pakistan’s late Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s proclamation in December 1971, for Pakistan to build nuclear weapons even if its own people were to eat grass.
It is needless to say that geopolitics is rooted in history, culture, and nationalism, including societal traditions and values. Cultural divergences between ethnocultural and religious groups — such as between Hindus and Muslims in Pakistan, between Hindus and Buddhists in Sri Lanka, between Buddhist and Muslims on Bangladesh — are sharpening because of faster communications and transportations. On the contrary, the geopsychology of congenial hostility between India and Pakistan — is further fueled by an interplay of ethnic and religious forces — as well as their age-old rivalry. The ‘geopsychology of mutual hostility’ makes it difficult for the government leaders in India and Pakistan, to resist the heterogeneous demands of distinct ethnic communities. As a result, in order to consolidate the vote bank, they resort to populist rhetoric, to woo their perspective populaces.
In Henry Kissinger’s perception, “local conditions are paramount in judging the psychology of a particular region.”
To simplify, over a long period of time — a nations’s feeling of hatred towards another nations (i.e. popular psychology) — transforms into a fixed geopsychology — through which populaces look upon their neighbours as ‘natural enemies’. Parallel examples exist in the Middle East and the Gulf region, between Arabs and Israelis, between Iran and Iraq, between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and between Lebanon and Syria.
In a broader sense, South Asian geopolitics and geopsychology are intertwined and interconnected. Pakistan’s civilian and military leaders have embarked upon projecting ‘nuclear-deterrence capability’, as a force, fully capable of challenging India’s preponderance not only in South Asia but also in ‘extended neighbourhood’. Consequently, South Asia will largely remain an area of psychological competition between India and Pakistan.
SOUTH ASIAN REGIONAL POLITICS or, REGIONALISM or, GEOPOLITICS
The new South Asia is apparently different from the old South Asia from both domestic and external point of views. The drastic eventual changes in the domestic paradigm include the newer republican state of Nepal, Pakistan’s return to the democratic regime, Maldives peaceful transition to democracy in October 2008, and the end of Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict by May 2009.
From the external point of view, the region’s geopolitical, geostrategic and security landscape has had major transformations following the nuclear weapons tests by India and Pakistan in May 1998 and the 9/11 tragic events. The geophysical relation between India and Pakistan is getting further complicated due to the Kashmir issue, cross-border terrorism issue, the possible consequence to which may be triggering off a nuclear exchange between them.
India as an Onlooker
Two major events has shaped India’s perception of South-Asia. First, attainment of strategic parity by Pakistan in 1998; Second, the 13/12/01 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament, shaking foundation of India’s pluralist democracy.
Pakistan’s hold over nuclear power “to bleed India” equates to the strategic application of “terrorism as an instrument” of its state policy. But Islamabad should not forget the fact that “the cancer of religious militancy has spread across Pakistan and it will take decades to fight.”
Though the USA appreciates India’s “exemplary restraint” on the issue of terrorism while dealing with Pakistan, the USA also realizes that India lacks political prowess, moral stamina to defend India from Pakistan’s terrorist threats. Simultaneously, as Pakistan is fighting against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, in a close collaboration with American forces, because of this reason the USA is unable to leverage its full influence on Pakistan.
Analyzed from the paradigm of realism, India has found itself in a ‘paradoxical conjunction’ of power and vulnerability.
New Nepal
In the new Nepal, for the first time in the country’s history, it witnessed a power shift from the monarch to the Maoists through a democratic process. The country abolished its 240-year-old monarchy and underwent a transition. A completely transformed Nepal bases its dynamics on prioritizing social good, good governance, social justice, political stability, equidistance between India and China, and resolving bilateral issues with its neighbours in accordance with mutual respect, mutual dignity and equality.
The abolition of monarchy has facilitated the role of peripheral political actors now emerging as the key political stakeholders. With the framework of a new constitution set up in 1990, the Maoist rebels got an opportunity to protest against the monarch — in order to broaden their political base. The Maoists’ revolutionary movement, launched in 1996 countrywide, lasted for more than a decade, costing around fourteen thousand people their lives. The interim parliament passed a resolution in 2007 to abolish the monarchy and hold national elections in April 2008, in which the Maoists secured the highest numbers of parliamentary seats.
The Indian foreign-policy establishment regularly interferes with Nepal’s domestic and external affairs, along with treating Nepal as its subordinate power. One of the major concerns of India, after the democratic transition, was the Maoists’ ideological proximity to China. Because of the ideological affinity with China, the Maoists want to use it as a card in economic and security concerns, to play against India. Beijing came forward offering multiple incentives, such as developing Nepal’s infrastructure and expanding trade and investment ties with Kathmandu, in order to offset India’s influence. And this can potentially cause negative geopolitical ramifications for India.
To solve this undesired consequence, India will need to redefine its policy toward a new Nepal, abandon its age-old hegemonic mindset and also alter its watertight-compartment mentality which is politically incorrect and morally indefensible.
Democratic Pakistan?
Since the 9/11 tragedy, in order to combat terrorism, the UN has been an arch supporter of ‘a new wave of democracy’ to help the transitional democracies grow. The lesson Pakistan has realized from General Pervez Musharraf’s ‘Kargail adventure’ in 1999 is, unless the military was placed under direct civilian control, the future of democracy in Pakistan could continue to be bleak and uncertain.
From the geopolitical perception, it is not likely to be anticipated that India and Pakistan will be able to transcend their historic animosity, nurtured, sustained and solidifies by the military in a nexus with the ISI and militant groups unless Pakistan’s nascent democracy takes firm roots in the country. And this can be considered as the single most important challenges to the growing democracies in South Asia.
Harmonious Bangladesh?
Islamic radicalism has spread out its roots in Bangladesh too. It has proliferated in a rapid speed originally due to the political patronage of militant outfits such as HuJI, Jama’atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB), and its affiliate, Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh (JMJB), causing a fatal blow to Bangladesh’s ‘ethos and culture’, notably during Begum Khaleda Zia’s regime.
The interim-military government of 2007 focused on anti-militancy, anti-corruption, and brought about political reforms. The Sheikh Hasina Regime, with a landslide victory in 2009, just after taking oath, faced a bloody mutiny by Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) in February 2009, killing nearly a hundred army officers. To be noted, India’s security concerns were also linked with this outbreak. The unsuccessful attempt to destabilize Hasina government was also a signal to India to be hyper-alert regarding its own internal security.
From this concern, both India and Bangladesh agreed to re-boost military and strategic CBMs, in order to check the overt and covert activities of insurgents and militants who are bent upon challenging the internal security and political stability of both countries.
Can Sri Lanka Emerge on its Own?
A new era was marked in Lankan history through the end of more than two decades of ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka following the killing of the LTTE supremo, V. Prabhakaran, and defeat of the LTTE in May 2009. Sri Lanka is a unique global example in terms of unbelievable accomplishment in eliminating separatist forces. This long, fierce conflict cost nearly seventy thousand people their lives and immense economic, infrastructural loss.
Sri Lanka is likely to experience major political and strategic upheavals for a number of reasons. First, at the political level, the Sri Lankan government under President Mahnedra Rajpaksa will need to redress the grievances of the Sri Lankan Tamils and a large section of the Muslim community, victims of the state’s discriminatory policies. Second, the Sri Lankan society demands a visionary and creative leadership to pursue a policy of social and political inclusiveness. Third, the strangulated nation’s rebuilding requires huge development assistance from donors. Fourth, the gigantic challenge before government is to resettle the internally displaced people (IDP).
Since China provided arms supply to Sri Lanka against the LTTE, the defence and strategic engagement of Sri Lankan government has increased with China, making India displeased. From the strategic perspective, Sri Lanka will need to follow more of a cautious and prudent policy while dealing with China, in general and India, in particular.
IDEA OF AN INTEGRATED SOUTH ASIA
The public policy-makers and pundits of South Asia emphasize on the discourse of an integrated South Asian community on the pattern of the European Union (EU). In the fast-globalizing interconnected world, the South Asian nations cannot remain isolated in the economic and trade realm since they have common stakes and interests, and the SAARC leaders do realize this. The idea of an integrated South Asia though sounds good theoretically, but it is not feasible to implement practically. For instance, unlike India, Pakistan favours the strategic presence of China in South Asia with a clear intent to content India. Further, small states of the region, such as Sri Lanka and Nepal, look upon India as hegemonic power rather than harbinger of peace. And this perception is deeply entrenched in the psyche of the national elites of most of the South Asian countries.
The challenges towards building an integrated South Asia is further compounded by the fractured geopsychology of the national elites of this region’s countries, who project one another as their arch enemy.
Moreover, there is a common perception among political elites in South Asia that given the abject poverty, hunger and mass illiteracy in the feudal, backward, and straight-jacked hierarchical societies of the region; it is much easier to manipulate mass psychology in their favor by invoking caste, cultural, racial, and religious symbols.
To drive the point home, unless South Asian countries rid themselves of mutual fear and mistrust, the idea of an integrated South Asia will remain a mirage. In brief, to integrate South Asia, at least in the economic realm, ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ elements in each country of the region need to be strengthened.
BOTTOM LINE OF A NOT-SO BOTTOMLESS BASKET
In South Asia, challenges are hard to define and even harder to predict. Without the support of the populace, the goal of a stable South Asia will remain a pipedream, considering the intense presence of the militants and Taliban elements. In envisioning a ‘new South Asia’, it is categorically important to see how the congenial hostility between India and Pakistan can be resolved.
The single most critical challenge should be targeted at changing the old mindset of government leaders, including civilian and military bureaucrats, acting as a block in the roadway of connected South Asia. As a solution, the geopsychology of a positive approach needs to be introduced and cultivated through the sociocultural and socialization of the ruling class and influential sections of society, based on people-centric social good.
[A Political Scientist’s Journal]
