India in a “ring of fire”
As a growing power which aims to rewrite global economic and geopolitical realities, India’s first order of business is to secure its strategic periphery without provoking a backlash from its neighbours.
Nepal has for long sat in India’s sphere of influence, but the rise of the Maoists has seen an increasing antipathy in the nascent Himalayan republic towards New Delhi.
In fact, the Maoists’ foreign policy chief told Reuters that India was to blame for precipitating the crisis by blocking Prachanda’s move to remove army chief Roopmangud Katawal.
India sees the Maoists, who control 40 percent of the parliament seats, as edging towards China. So, it wants to find a counterweight to the Maoists in a ruling coalition, many analysts say. The showdown over Katawal’s removal presented the flashpoint.
In its quest for strategic influence, many say India may have lit too many fires around itself.
War and misery blights Sri Lanka, with political ramifications in India; Bangladeshi politics remains volatile and the country eyes India with suspicion; the military junta in Myanmar is pro-China; Pakistan is wobbling under a spell of violence that has a direct bearing on India’s security.
Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram says India is caught in a “ring of fire”.
But does India have the diplomatic dexterity to manage regional flashpoints that critics say could in part be blamed on India itself?
The Economist magazine says a potential challenge to India’s rise is geopolitical (and the Nepal crisis bears that out). It says how successful a global power India becomes will depend partly on its ability to mediate and resolve the rising number of crises in its neighbourhood.
But will India be able to intervene in Nepal or in a post-war Sri Lanka without being resented by the local population or the government? Or will it be resented for its perceived paternalism towards its smaller neighbours?
(Reuters photos of protests in Nepal and soldiers patrolling streets in Pakistan)