Big brother lands in a big mess

Big brother lands in a big mess
Kuldip Nayar

Self-righteousness is offensive even in an individual. But it takes the form of jingoism when a nation indulges in it. New Delhi's claim that it hasthe best of relations with its neighbours, except Pakistan, does not tally with facts. There is so much distrust among them vis-a-vis India that even a trace of slight bubbles over into an anti-India spectacle.

Disturbances in Nepal are one example. They are a symptom, not the disease. The disease is the deep-rooted suspicion of New Delhi. Whether or not Hrithik Roshan said anything against the Nepalese is not the issue. The real problem is the alienation based on distrust.

Again, Colombo found distant Norway to communicate with the LTTE rather than neighbouring India. The feeling that certain influential forces in India are mixed up with them is so strong in the Chandrika Kumaratunga government that it wants New Delhi nowhere near the initiative. There is sufficient reason for this distrust. After all, the LTTE was once trained and armed by India. Colombo wants New Delhi's help but without looking over its shoulders.

Dhaka is disturbed that India did not give it prior warning of floods when parts of West Bengal were inundated. True, New Delhi is a victim of thehostility between Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and opposition leader Khaleda Zia. But Khaleda's strength is based on the anti-India sentiment in Bangladesh. Elections are due in the country in the next few months. New Delhi should observe strict neutrality.

Most incidents between India and its neighbours are trivial but the reaction to them is intense. This is in part due to New Delhi's acts of omission and commission. True, India bashing comes in handy to them because this is the best way to cover up their own economic failings. Still New Delhi unnecessarily creates suspicion by, for instance, asking Dhaka to sell natural gas, and Kathmandu hydro-electric power. It is in their own interest to do so. New Delhi should not raise these points.

No doubt, India's large size is a deterring factor. Fears and doubts are bound to arise. The cold war syndrome also is still there. But what takes the cake is the arrogance of Indian envoys and visitors. They have a chip on their shoulder and tend to throw their weight about. ``Ugly Indian'' is the phrase coined for us, just as it was once used for the Americans.

New Delhi's assistance to neighbouring countries is not to be faulted, but its behaviour should be. The obsession that we must be recognised as a regional power has clouded our thinking. We behave as if we have already arrived when the fact is that one-third of our population is extremely poor. What we ask from our neighbours is submission or subservience, not savvy. Our biggest criticism against the US and the UK is their big brother attitude. We behave in the same manner. Watch the functioning of our foreign office and ambassadors when it comes to relations with small countries.

India's ambassador at Kathmandu is nicknamed ``the Viceroy''. Some of our envoys to Nepal, indeed, copied the regal, colonial style of viceroys of the Raj. Even a country like Mauritius has gone through that experience. One of our envoys thought he was a kingmaker and played havoc with local politics.

In Dhaka, a former prime minister has not been given a visa to India for more than five years because he had the audacity to say that India should be dismembered. No doubt an irresponsible remark and, coming as it does from an ex-premier, it is all the more reprehensible. But should Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh justify the denial of a visa for such a long period? There has to be a sense of proportion.

Here I may mention the difficulties Pakistani scholars, journalists or students encounter before getting an Indian visa. True, Islamabad is cantankerous in such matters but its policy is not to let its nationals mix with Indians. Why should a liberal country like ours pursue a tit-for-tat policy when it comes to issuing visas? And even if, after all the hurdles, a visa is issued, the foreign office sees to it that the sanction from New Delhi is communicated just before the scheduled departure.

The basic point is not the policy but the mindset of our bureaucrats, who have their own interpretation of what is good for India. In fact, the government has only reacted to specific situations. It has no long-term policy towards its neighbours. Myanmar is a case in point. Democratic forces have been left high and dry after sustained sympathy and support for manyyears. The military regime at Yangon has been accepted for pecuniary gains or ``some strategic considerations''.

The worst part of our policy towards neighbours is the carte blanche we have given to bureaucrats. Their prejudices have made a mess of our ties with them. Our foreign office lacks the sensitivity that responding to different situations demands. But the worst is the sense of superiority. Our bureaucrats make their counterparts in neighbouring countries feel small.

Late prime minister Lal Bahadur Shastri selected leading public figures to serve as ambassadors to Nepal and Sri Lanka. He gave them the rank of a cabinet minister to let the countries know their importance. Shastri would say he wanted top-most Indians to represent the nation in neighbouring countries. Jaswant Singh, once in the army, has so much faith in bureaucrats that he sees no virtue in public men. Leave alone the neighbouring countries, he has appointed bureaucrats to Washington, London, Moscow and Beijing, where tall Indians once represented New Delhi.

India could have overcome the deficiencies of policy and personnel through SAARC. But from its inception in 1985, India has been wanting to be treated as number one. Islamabad too has harmed SAARC by rejecting any proposal or initiative coming from New Delhi. After General Pervez Musharraf's coup in Pakistan, India has been more intransigent than Pakistan. New Delhi has expressed its unwillingness to participate in any SAARC meeting. Recently, a minister from Sri Lanka came to New Delhi to get India's view on Colombo, the SAARC chairman, fixing a summit. India has reportedly said no. How does our attitude help neighbouring countries which feel that SAARC is one forum where they can meet as equals?

In fact, New Delhi should have by this time engaged Pakistani officials in one or the other meeting of SAARC. This may have provided us a way out of the impasse in which the two countries are stuck. The Gujral doctrine not only gave unilateral concessions to neighbouring countries but also encouraged more and more contacts with them. Because that is the only wayto remove misunderstandings. Otherwise suspicions will pile up like a haystack, which may catch fire even with a stray spark.

Most incidents between India and its neighbours are trivial but the reaction is intense. The obsession that we must be recognised as a regional power has clouded our thinking