• Home
• Video
• Books by Ikram Sehgal
• About

AESSA concept and the Confederacy idea

India’s Defence Minister and strongman of the ruling United Front (UF) Government, Malayam Singh Yadav has talked about a confederation between India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Known to be a rather earthy political manipulator par excellence at the State level (Uttar Pradesh) rather than any great strategic thinker or visionary, Yadav’s pronouncement a fortnight or so before the SAARC Summit at Male in the Maldives seems to be an agenda annunciation on behalf of the intellectual PM he serves, Inder Kumar Gujral. India has been served by some cerebral and visionary PMs with integrity, among them Morarji Desai and VP Singh. However frail the political coalition that keeps him in power, Gujral is one of them. For some odd reason, Pakistanis seem to think that this genial man, born in Jhelum and therefore a fellow Punjabi, is a pushover. That is very far from the truth, as an affable diplomatic being who gives the impression of being easy going, Gujral is far more dangerous than a chest-beating Jan Sanghi. Among all the Indian leaders, he is closest to what Kautalya (remember the 5000 years old Kautalya Arthshastra, supposedly a book on economics and statecraft but actually the ultimate handbook of deviousness in statecraft) would have been today. His peace with Pakistan is without Kashmir and on Indian terms. Diplomatically isolating Pakistan within SAARC by the establishment of a sub-regional grouping comprising India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan during his tenure as Foreign Minister in the last United Front (UF) Government, Gujral is now “innocently” dangling a “carrot” in front of Pakistanis. He seems to be gambling that desperate to get out of our present dire economic straits, the main prop of which would be to reduce defence expenditures, we may opt to compromise if not entirely surrender our claims in Kashmir in whatever face-saving measure, to come together in peace and the economic security of either a regional sub-grouping or a confederation. This sweet old man (77 at last count) wants us to roll over and accept India’s hegemony, the establishment of Akhund Bharat by another mechanism in the region, as a fait accompli. Just in case we miss the point (of the sword) he intends to keep the pressure on Pakistan going, loudly musing about another sub-regional grouping within SAARC excluding Pakistan and comprising India, Sri Lanka and the Maldives.

That Pakistan was on way to being isolated within the South Asian sub-continent was very much apparent to those who were privileged to witness the SAARC Summit in the old National Assembly (NA) Building (now the Bangladesh PM’s Secretariat) in Dhaka in 1993. Though visibly embarrassed at being used by India, King Sigme Wangchuk of Bhutan made a frontal assault on the “export of terrorism by member states”. It was obvious that the vassal state of Bhutan was a reluctant mouthpiece for its Patron nation in condemning Pakistan. PM Mian Nawaz Sharif had weightier things to confront at home (in mid-April 1993 he had less than a week to serve as PM before feeling the edge of Ishaq’s 58(2)b dagger) than to pay attention to the explicit warning to “behave” delivered by the Indian proxy. Since then political changes in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have left us without their usual support. Their diplomatic and economic compulsions make them fall in line with Indian desires. Only Pakistan has stood upto India repeatedly over the years on disparate issues. In Siachen a very real war rages across the highest battleground in the world, across the ceasefire Line in Kashmir an undeclared war continues unabated as it has for many years.

Association can never be successful between unequal partners. In its present size and with its aggressive defence posture, India is very much a persistent threat to its neighbours in the region, forums that it organises can only be at best shotgun marriages in the manner it has presently with Pakistan. By suggesting confederation and sub-regional groupings on the basis of economic principles and geographical proximity justifying such moves, India has provided a window of opportunity for a more practical and comprehensive proposal for the entire region. The Gujral Doctrine, annunciated when IK Gujral was Foreign Minister in Deve Gowda’s Cabinet, clubs together the complementary economies with the geographical proximities of the Eastern States of South Asia ie. Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan with the other country in common to all the three, India. However it is only the troubled eastern states of India which are involved. Because of a lack of adequate transit facilities through Bangladesh, Assam and the other Eastern States of India, have to be served by road and rail around the periphery of Bangladesh. India has been neglecting this region, treating it as a source of raw material (mainly oil, timber and tea) more or less in the same way as during imperial times. To keep this neglect from boiling over, India has been using force for virtually the full 50 years of its independence. With as much as 17-18 full-fledged insurgencies to cope with because of perceived economic and political disparities, the Indian Army has been engaged in constant counter-guerrilla warfare to hold the country from disintegrating for nearly five decades. For some time after the creation of Bangladesh, these guerrilla movements suffered a setback, they are now back in full operation. The region is so cut off physically that it was abandoned administratively even before the Chinese forces were in a threatening position to come down from the mountains during the 1962 Sino-Indian conflict (the Chinese made a unilateral stop at the base of the mountains at Foothills). To have a more direct route, India has been pushing for the construction of a barge-bearing canal cutting across the width of Bangladesh but that would effectively divide Bangladesh into two halves and despite the good feeling for India in the present ruling Awami League (AL) government they will never risk public opinion which in Bangladesh seems to be more anti-Indian than pro. The logic behind PM IK Gujral’s arguments is a natural cohesion rather than any artificial re-configuration, unless this arrangement is structured around independent states it would run counter to his theory. Nepal and Bhutan’s hydel possibilities would provide Bangladesh with access to cheap electricity, at the same time the landlocked eastern states of India, among them Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura, etc would be best served by using the port cities of Chittagong and Chalna with direct road/rail access. To carry Gujral’s brilliant proposal to its logical conclusion, i.e in order to let the States which have commonality in economics and communications to come together in regional grouping due to accident of geography, why not conceive of an Association of Eastern States of South Asia (AESSA), with an economically resurgent Bangladesh as the hub country and having the independent republics of West Bengal, Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Gorkhaland, Bodoland, Meghalaya, Assam, Tripura, Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur, the North East Frontier Agency (NEFA), etc as a viable confederation? These countries would at least have more cultural and political affinity other than the economic and communications affinity at present with India.

The Gujral Doctrine thus holds out a tacit possibility that the break-up of India into four less threatening distinct regions, each of them comprising independent republics made up of the States in proximity to each other with good inter-communications, is a logical end requirement for peace and prosperity in the region. The dominant Hindu religion is very much class ridden and thus far from democratic. The ruling Brahman elite from Uttar Pradesh presides over an unnatural association of different cultures and disparate economies. With India divided into four contiguous, more governable regions, there would be a dramatically reduced need for Armed Forces in the four successor confederations and the present threat potential to all the countries in the region as an armed colossus that India poses will fade away. The North region would consist of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and the mountain States ie. Himachal Pradesh, etc. The South region would consist of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andra Pradesh etc. The Eastern Region having already been discussed, Central Region would consist of the independent republics of Uttar Pradesh (UP), Bihar, Orissa, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, etc. The independent republics of the North Region can then be associated economically and politically with Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran in a possible confederation. The independent republics in the South Region would make out a confederation with Sri Lanka and the Maldives. The present arrangement will ensure the desired confederations of economic affiliation among the regional independent states in their proximity on a basis of equality. Without the need to make substantial expenditures on Defence Services, the yoke on the economy would be mutually eliminated. The four distinct confederations could then have more confidence in forming a powerful South Asian economic bloc which the free trade among the member countries will make it a region of vast opportunity. Independent countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka remain wary and apprehensive of a dominant India having vast Armed Forces and forces these countries to spend a prohibitively commensurate amount on defence. This suspicion negates the concept of association in any form. Add that to a scenario of a less than benign neglect and constant conflict in its own backyard of constituent States, how can India convince other independent countries in the region that it is in their interest to surrender their independence for alleviation of the economic problems of their masses. The fear of dominance by a predator India can only be overcome if we deal with an India divided into four distinct regions, without that no real confederation in this area is possible. If India is sincere about the need to go the route of the Gujral Doctrine, let them start the experiment with the AESSA concept by giving full independence to their troubled eastern sector into the natural AESSA confederation, an entity India now tacitly recognises as a viable economically entity by sponsoring the sub-regional grouping within SAARC.

Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.