The Gujral Doctrine and Beyond
The Gujral Doctrine is considered to have made a
substantial change in the manner in which India's bilateral relations
were conducted with its immediate neighbours, especially the smaller
ones. The latter too welcomed the doctrine and had a positive attitude
towards the principles it spelt out. In this background, when the
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led coalition government came to power in
India a year ago, there were apprehensions from some quarters within the
country and outside that under them the attitude of the Indian
government towards its neighbours might change.
The aim of this essay is two-fold. First, to look
into the principles of the Gujral Doctrine and the environment in which
it was enunciated. Second, to briefly look into the manner in which the
BJP-led coalition government has conducted the foreign policy with its
neighbours with reference to the principles of the Gujral Doctrine. And,
in doing so, to observe if they have adhered to it or deviated from it
and, most important, if in certain aspects, the BJP-led coalition
government has tried to move beyond the Gujral Doctrine, achieving
success in areas the earlier government could not. The essay would,
thus, observe the elements of continuity and change for India in
conducting the foreign policy with the neighbours.
Gujral Doctrine
The Gujral Doctrine is a set of five principles to
guide the conduct of foreign relations with India's immediate neighbours
as spelt out by I.K. Gujral, first as India's foreign minister and
later as the prime minister. Among other factors, these five principles
arise from the belief that India's stature and strength cannot be
divorced from the quality of its relations with its neighbours. It,
thus, recognises the supreme importance of friendly, cordial relations
with neighbours. These principles are: first, with neighbours like
Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka, India does not ask
for reciprocity, but gives and accommodates what it can in good faith
and trust; second, no South Asian country should allow its territory to
be used against the interest of another country of the region; third, no
country should interfere in the internal affairs of another; fourth,
all South Asian countries must respect each other's territorial
integrity and sovereignty; and, finally, they should settle all their
disputes through peaceful bilateral negotiations. According to Gujral ,
these five principles, scrupulously adhered to, would achieve a
fundamental recasting of South Asia's regional relationships, including
the difficult relationship between India and Pakistan. Further, the
implementation of these principles would generate a climate of close and
mutually benign cooperation in the region, where the weight and size of
India is regarded positively and as an asset by these countries.1
An important question that arises is whether it is
easy to implement these principles. It is evident that these principles
not only reflect India's attitude towards its neighbours, but also
express the attitude which India would like its neighbours to adopt in
conducting relations with India in particular and the countries of
South Asia in general. Thus, it is a package as a whole whereby India
has stated in one go what it will do on its part and similarly what it
expects its neighbours to do. Those who agree, will have to adhere,
fully and completely, to all the principles and not in parts, to one of
the principles in isolation or in exception to the others. In this
sense, it is implied that, to a great extent, the principles of the
Gujral Doctrine can be successful only in a specific environment whereby
the neighbours too perceive them as being beneficial to their country
and the region as a whole. What follows from this, which is unstated,
is that beyond a particular point whereby the neighbours do not adhere
to these principles, India in its national interest may also not be able
to adhere to them. Surely, India cannot continue to stick to its
principle of non-reciprocity if any of the neighbouring countries
believe either in internationalising bilateral issues or supporting
elements inimical to India's interests. Further, these principles are
open to different interpretations as each country views them.
On closer examination, it is further observed that
these principles are not altogether new and have been spelt out
earlier too.2 The principle of non-reciprocity is considered to be
one of the most novel elements, applying specifically as it does to
India whereby the country acknowledges its additional responsibility
towards the region, given its economic strength and other potentials.
However, even this principle is not new because there have many
occasions when India has acknowledged that it will have to give more to
its neighbours and has done so. But by stating it as a policy, India was
making its intention clear which was welcomed by the neighbouring
countries. Non- reciprocity also meant that the solution to one
bilateral problem would not be linked to concessions by the other
country for India on an issue that the latter considers beneficial.
Gujral, as foreign minister, had stated while negotiations were taking
place with Bangladesh towards finalisation of the Ganges water treaty
that it was not in any way linked to Bangladesh giving transit through
its territory to India to access the north-eastern parts of the latter.
Thus, he clearly delinked water and transit, removing any apprehensions
which might have been there in this direction.
Similarly, the principle that all the disputes be
settled through peaceful bilateral negotiations is a known stand which
India has held for long. On the other hand, India's neighbours have on
many occasions internationalised bilateral disputes. The principle that
none should interfere in the internal affairs of the others becomes
difficult to define because the South Asian region has many similarities
in terms of culture, language and other factors. Events and activities
in one country influence happenings in another. While one country may
call it interference, the other may not think so. It is interesting to
note that following the demolition of the Babri Masjid in India, the
Parliament of Bangladesh, the Jatiya Sangsad, passed a resolution
referring to the unfortunate events and also stated that it hoped that
the promises made by the Government of India on its reconstruction would
be implemented soon. India categorically stated that this act of
Bangladesh constituted an interference in the internal affairs of India.
Bangladesh thought otherwise and felt that it did not constitute any
kind of intervention.3 The problem, thus arises in trying to define some
of these principles in black and white because in reality they exist in
shades of gray. The principle that all South Asian countries must
respect each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty clearly
assures the neighbours that India has no expansionist or ulterior
motives on its agenda.
The timing of the enunciation of these principles
was very appropriate. Together, these five principles spelt out in a
crystallised form India's attitude towards its neighbours. One witnesses
a positive atmosphere already being created (in spite of the bilateral
problems being present), especially in the post-1990s. A series of
steps taken by India during this period, some of which were related to
economic aspects, facilitated the acceptance of these principles by
other countries in the neighbourhood and making them relevant to the
South Asian region. It is, difficult to imagine how the doctrine would
have been relevant if it had been enunciated either when the Indian
Peace-Keeping Force (IPKF) was in Sri Lanka or when the Indo-Nepal
stand-off had taken place towards the end of 1989. In this sense, the
Gujral Doctrine, as spelt out in 1996, owes a certain share of its
success to the actions of the previous governments, (including those
taken during the tenure of Gujral as external affairs minister in
1989-90), when the ground work, to a great extent, had been done. In
this context, some of the positive steps taken in the 1990s by India
towards its neighbours, thus, require a brief mention.
India and its Neighbours in the First Half of the 1990s
In order to understand the significance of the
positive moves, it may not be out of place to mention that relations
with Nepal and Sri Lanka were particularly at a low ebb towards the end
of the decade of the 1980s.The relations had reached such a nadir that
any positive step could be considered a forward movement. As regards
Bhutan, India has always had friendly relations with it and, in fact,
in a region characterised by mistrust and suspicion primarily directed
towards India, Indo-Bhutan relations have been an exception. Similarly,
with the Maldives, India has had friendly relations, with no
differences at all. As regards Pakistan, it is seen that in the first
half of the 1990s, the relations could not make substantial progress.
This section does not deal with Indo-Pak relations as they existed in
this period. A major breakthrough was, in fact, achieved at the 1997
Male Summit when Nawaz Sharif and Gujral met and as a result, the
secretary level talks commenced with a purpose and the issues to be
discussed were spelt out. Later, however, the talks were stalled, to be
restarted again under the Vajpayee government. A certain section in
Pakistan was of the opinion that one of the aims of the Gujral Doctrine
was to isolate Pakistan by building up relations with the other South
Asian countries.
In April 1990, India welcomed the success of the
mass movement for multi-party democracy in Nepal which led to the
installation of an interim government headed by Prime Minister Krishna
Prasad Bhattarai. In June 1990, Prime Minister Bhattarai's visit to
India ended with the signing by the two prime ministers of a joint
communique which restored status quo ante in bilateral relations to
April 1, 1987, the period before the bilateral tensions emerged. During
the visit, both sides undertook to fully respect each other's security
concerns, not to allow activities in the territory of the one
prejudicial to the security of the other, and to have prior
consultations, with a view to reaching mutual agreement on such defence
related matters which, in the view of either country, could pose a
threat to its security. Having done so, they seriously moved to
cooperation in the spheres of industrial and human resource development
and for harnessing of the waters of the common rivers for the benefit
of the peoples of the two countries, and for protection and management
of the environment. Various possibilities of widening bilateral economic
cooperation were also considered. Later many new agreements were also
signed. The Indian prime minister visited Nepal from February 13 to 15,
1991, which was the first such visit in 14 years and Prime Minister
Chandreshekhar's first bilateral visit abroad. During this visit, many
significant decisions were taken and work programmes finalised for
intensifying bilateral economic cooperation for mutual benefit.4
With reference to Sri Lanka, the withdrawal of the
IPKF, in March 1990, brought an end to India's direct involvement in
Sri Lanka and led to a new phase in Indo-Sri Lanka relations. India
expressed its concerns at the outbreak of hostilities between the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and Sri Lankan armed forces,
which had led to civilian sufferings and casualties. This had also led
to an influx of refugees into Tamil Nadu. The Government of India
believed that only a negotiated political settlement that takes into
account the legitimate demands and aspirations of the Tamils could bring
lasting peace to the island. India clearly stated that the political
settlement must be finally arrived at between the government and Tamils
of Sri Lanka. It was also agreed to upgrade the Joint Economic
Commission to a Joint Commission at the foreign ministers' level. 5
It is interesting to note that President Maumoon
Abdul Gayoom visited India from January 25 to 27, 1991, as the chief
guest at the Republic Day celebrations. During the meetings, new areas
of cooperation were considered and it was decided to review the 1981
Bilateral Trade Agreement.6
With regard to Bangladesh, it is observed that the
meeting of the Indo-Bangladesh Joint Economic Commission was held after a
gap of seven years. India announced a Rs. 30 crore
government-to-government credit to Bangladesh. India also welcomed the
restoration of the democratic rights of the people of Bangladesh and
stated that it was looking forward to working closely with a
democratically elected government in Bangladesh. 7
In 1991, the newly elected prime minister of Nepal
visited India in December. This was preceded by four months of active
and extensive consultations between the two sides. For the first time,
an Indo-Nepal High Level Task Force was set up—chaired by the cabinet
secretary or equivalent on both sides and including the foreign
secretary, finance secretary and commerce secretary—which prepared a
comprehensive programme for bilateral cooperation. This was a unique
effort, for this was the first time such an approach had been adopted
between Nepal and India. The emphasis on expanding economic and
industrial cooperation was highlighted by the fact that Prime Minister
Koirala was accompanied by a delegation of Nepalese industrialists and
businessmen besides ministers and senior officials. The subsequent
discussions at the prime ministerial level resulted in a wide-ranging
set of decisions of crucial significance for intensifying Indo-Nepal
cooperation for mutual benefit. As many as five important treaties and
agreements were signed. These include a new trade treaty, a new transit
treaty, an agreement for cooperation in controlling unauthorised trade;
a Memorandum of Understanding for cooperation in agriculture, meant to
promote rural development and rural employment in Nepal; and another
Memorandum of Understanding for the estabilishment of the B. P. Koirala
India-Nepal Foundation. Many measures regarding cooperation in water
resources and economy were taken. An especially favourable access regime
has also been provided for the products of approved Indo-Nepal joint
ventures.8
With regard to Sri Lanka, in July 1991, both
countries decided to establish the Indo-Sri Lanka Joint Commission. Its
Sub-Commissions include those on Trade, Investment and Finance, and
Science and Technology.9
During 1992, with regard to Bangladesh, a positive
development was that the Tin Bigha issue was satisfactorily resolved.
However, bilateral relations came under strain following the violent
reactions in Bangladesh to the Ayodhya incident, whereby the Indian
diplomatic premises in Dhaka came under attack. The relations also saw a
setback due to the controversy regarding the steps to push back illegal
Bangladeshi migrants and the resistance by Bangladesh in accepting
them.10
The year 1992 saw expanding cooperation in various
fields between India and Sri Lanka. Especially significant were the
increasing contacts between the business communities of the two
countries as illustrated by the convening of the Indo- Sri Lanka Joint
Business Council in Delhi in March 1992, after a lapse of 11 years, and
the participation of over 100 business delegates from India in the
EXPO'92 held in Colombo in November 1992.11
In May 1993, the King of Nepal, His Majesty King
Birendra Shah, paid a state visit to India. India's economic
cooperation programme with Nepal continued with the commissioning of an
industrial estate at Rajbiraj and a telephone exchange at Rangeli in
Nepal. Under the new trade regime that came into force in April 1993,
access to the Indian market free of customs duty for manufactured
articles was improved to include articles containing not less than 50
per cent of Nepalese materials and labour. 12
With regard to Bangladesh, it is seen that
differences persisted on the repatriation of Chakma refugees to
Bangladesh and illegal immigration from Bangladesh. The
internationalising of the bilateral issue of river waters at the UN
General Assembly with references to the Farakka Barrage and related
issues was noted with regret. India stated that it remained committed to
devising, "an equitable, long-term and comprehensive arrangement" on
water sharing with Bangladesh through bilateral discussions. However, a
positive point was that in July 1993, the first meeting of the
Indo-Bangladesh Business Council was held in New Delhi. 13
The year 1993 also saw an active interaction between
India and Sri Lanka in economic, commercial and technical areas. The
meetings of the Sub-Commissions on Science and Technology, and on
social, educational and cultural matters were held in Delhi. The Joint
Business Council also met in Colombo apart from many other bilateral
exchanges.14The following year too, many economic activities took place
between India and its neighbours.15
With specific reference to Sri Lanka, in 1994, it is
seen that the second session of the Indo-Sri Lanka Joint Commission was
held in New Delhi. Some decisions taken in pursuance of the meeting
include : restoration of preferential tariff margins on Sri Lankan
cloves; reduction in tariffs on select items of export interest to Sri
Lanka such as ceramic tiles, glycerine, graphite and rubber; extension
of a new line of dollar -denominated credit; permission to the Bank of
Ceylon to open a branch in Madras; and enhanced seat capacity for
airlines following civil aviation talks in July 1994. Further, India's
interest in broadening economic relations with Sri Lanka resulted in two
delegations from the Confederation of Indian Industries visiting Sri
Lanka in March and October 1994. A joint task force was also set up to
identify and follow up implementation of specific proposals.16
In 1995 too, it is seen that the diverse economic
relations continued. However, the disturbing element was the continued
attempts at internationalising the issue of river waters: the prime
minister of Bangladesh raised the issue at the United Nations General
Assembly in October 1995.17
In 1995, President Kumaratunga visited India and as a
result, the friendly ties between the two countries were further
cemented. The Sri Lankan government sought tariff concessions and
greater investment from India as part of efforts to reduce the trade
imbalance. A credit line of US$30 million had been extended to Sri
Lanka and an announcement made granting reduction in customs duties on
18 items of export interest to Sri Lanka. During the visit, various
issues were discussed which included problems pertaining to fishermen
from both countries straying into each other's territorial waters. It
was decided that both sides would avoid incidents of violent actions.18
We, thus, observe that there was already a
favourable atmosphere created by the time the Gujral Doctrine was spelt
out. The economic aspect of the relations with the neighbours, as has
been seen, was already in focus. This is not to say that differences
did not exist. The important aspect is that in spite of the
differences,clear positive movement was evident and the economic aspect
of the relations could get started. As we have seen, some of the Joint
Business Councils were established for the first time or some which had
been set up earlier and were non-functional, were reactivated.
Further, to discuss various issues, the relations were upgraded,
signifying the importance the concerned country attached to them.
Democracy in Nepal and Bangladesh facilitated a new beginning, putting
behind the past. Similarly, in Sri Lanka, the withdrawal of the IPKF
and later the coming to power of Chandrika Kumaratunga provided a fresh
start to the establishment of mutually beneficial relations.
This process continued with added vigour and vision
during the tenure of Gujral, and he built on this crucial base, first,
as foreign minister and, later, as prime minister during 1996-97. His
own personality had a lot to do with the positive response that his
doctrine evoked. By putting his words into action in the manner he
conducted relations with the neighbours, Gujral was able to prove beyond
doubt India's sincerity. He clearly understood the importance of
maintaining friendly relations with the neighbours and clearly stated
the five principles necessary to do so. The result was the creation of a
positive constructive atmosphere in South Asia and especially in the
relations between India and its neighbours.
In 1996, India and Nepal renewed the Indo-Nepal
Trade Treaty for a period of five years up to 2001. As a result, the
articles of Nepalese manufacture could enter the Indian market free of
customs duty and quantity restrictions. It was also agreed to accord
parity to Nepalese products in the levy of countervailing duty, which
would be equal to the treatment provided to Indian products, on the
basis of a certificate issued by the Government of Nepal. With regard
to Bangladesh, a landmark Treaty on Sharing of the Ganga Waters at
Farakka was signed by the prime ministers of India and Bangladesh on
December 10-12, 1996. A change of government in Bangladesh which brought
the Awami League led by Sheikh Hasina to power was an important factor
for the successful conclusion of the treaty. This treaty received
widespread international notice and was welcomed by the UN
secretary-general. Discussions on security related issues also yielded
positive results with both sides reiterating their determination not to
permit their territory to be used by insurgents and undesirable
elements. India and Sri Lanka continued to hold discussions on the
economic aspects of cooperation . India extended a fresh line of credit
worth Rs.105 crore through an agreement signed in January 1996.India
maintained that it had always stood for a peaceful political settlement
of the ethnic issue.19 The year 1997 saw the continuation of friendly
relations between India and its neighbours. With reference to
Bangladesh, it is seen that over 12,000 Chakma refugees from Tripura
voluntarily returned to Bangladesh. As has been spelt out, 1997
witnessed the historic meeting between Gujral and Nawaz Sharif on the
sidelines of the ninth South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation
(SAARC) Summit in Maldives. The secretary level talks could get started
and the areas of differences were spelt out.
Vajpayee Government's Relations with the Neighbours
When the BJP-led coalition government came to power
in 1998 there was scepticism that the principles spelt out by the
earlier government would not be followed. Though to begin with,
relations started out on a doubtful note with India conducting the
nuclear tests and the neighbours doubting India's intentions, it is seen
that later the relations have been conducted on a positive note.
India's relations with the neighbours in the past one year have been in a
sense a continuation of the principles of the Gujral Doctrine without
referring to the doctrine per se. The aim of the Gujral Doctrine could
not be disputed and its importance has been fully realised. While there
have been some differences, the Indian government's seriousness in
conducting its foreign relations with the neighbours and the forward
movement thereof has been clearly visible.
Four specific events clearly point towards this
understanding: first, the two specific economic proposals spelt out by
India at the Tenth SAARC Summit; second, the visit of Sri Lankan
President Chandrika Kumaratunga to India towards the end of 1998,
resulting in the conclusion of the historic Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade
Agreement; third, the visit of the King of Nepal to India in January
1999 as the chief guest at the Republic Day parade in Delhi; last, the
historic bus journey by Prime Minister Vajpayee to Lahore.
These four events have led to continuity in the aim
of the principles of the Gujral Doctrine to establish friendly
relations in the neighbourhood and have, in a certain sense, moved ahead
too. For, while the Gujral Doctrine was seen by those in Pakistan as
an attempt to isolate it by India, Prime Minister Vajpayee's bus
journey to Lahore would have removed this apprehension to a great
extent.
Soon after the BJP-led government's coming to
power, India conducted the nuclear tests which took the world community
by surprise. In a scenario wherein the world community was taking a very
tough stand with resolutions being passed in various international fora
condemning India, the regional association, SAARC, did not do so. It
needs to be mentioned here that Pakistan did try to include the agenda
of peace, security and development in the subcontinent in the changed
scenario but this did not happen. SAARC decided that the nuclear issue
would not be taken up for it required a broader forum to do so.
This is not to say that the members did not mention
the nuclear tests at the Tenth SAARC Summit held in Colombo. They did
so by using the phrase "recent developments". Thus, the support which
India got from the smaller member countries of SAARC was critical in
meeting the global onslaught. One can, of course, debate whether these
countries could have taken a different view and discussed the nuclear
issue. They could have, because the issue of nuclear tests was not a
bilateral one, limited to the two countries, India and Pakistan, and
thus the SAARC Charter would not have been violated . But they chose
not to do so. India soon realised that the positive position of these
countries had a lot to do with the benefits that had accrued to them as a
result of the Gujral Doctrine and specifically with its principle of
"non-reciprocity". Most important, a positive atmosphere had been
created in the subcontinent by the Gujral Doctrine .Even before the
commencement of the Tenth SAARC Summit, though the smaller member
countries had expressed their concern over the nuclear tests, they had
not taken a view which was against India. The same policy was reiterated
at the SAARC Summit.
That the Vajpayee government was conscious of the
positive developments following the Gujral Doctrine was clearly visible
in the seriousness with which the Indian government went to the Tenth
SAARC Summit with two specific proposals dealing with the economic
aspect of relations. First, that India would unilaterally lift
quantitative restrictions on over 2,000 products when imported from the
SAARC countries, and, second that it would be willing to conclude
bilateral free trade agreements with the member countries. The first
proposal has been implemented since August 1998 through the requisite
government notification. According to studies done, the removal of these
non-tariff barriers is going to benefit Pakistan and Bangladesh in a
limited number of products, but is likely to benefit Sri Lanka the most
.20
Later, towards the end of 1998, the Indo-Sri Lanka
Free Trade Agreement was signed during President Kumaratunga's visit to
India. Prime Minister Vajpayee stated that India respects Sri Lanka's
territorial integrity and sovereignty. The Sri Lankan president said
that the agreement would not only cement close relations between India
and Sri Lanka but also serve as a pacemaker for regional cooperation in
South Asia.21 However, it is important to note that while the agreement
has been welcomed not only in both the countries but also in the region,
there have also been dissenting elements on both sides of the border.
Some have argued that the trade gap is bound to increase and that a new
form of imperialism is emerging. That, since both Sri Lanka and India
produce similar types of goods which are also exported, issues may arise
which may be difficult to resolve. Opinions in Sri Lanka have also
questioned the need for all the secrecy that was associated with
conclusion of the free trade agreement. They have questioned India's
political agenda in rushing through this agreement.22 Thus, the working
of the agreement would have to prove such sceptics wrong in order to
make real, meaningful forward movement.
One of the most significant steps in bilateral
relations with Nepal was made with King Birendra being the chief
guest at India's Republic Day ceremony. This was welcomed by the Nepali
people and government as an honour and respect shown to the King by the
government and people of India. A Nepali newspaper reported, "The
Nepalese have much to thank India for, and now, by honouring their
beloved monarch, the people and the government of India have touched the
core, the hearts of a thrilled Nepalese populace." There was an almost
unanimous opinion that the visit would add a new dimension to the
relations between the two nations which would further deepen the good
neighbourliness. India too welcomed the visit as a great milestone in
the history of Indo-Nepal relations. However, it needs to be pointed out
that there was a delay in renewing the Indo-Nepalese Transit Treaty by a
month and this caused unnecessary mistrust and uncertainty in Nepal.
The treaty was finally renewed on January 5, 1999, in Kathmandu. The
provision for automatic renewal every seven years in the new transit
treaty was welcomed as a positive step, enabling further consolidation
of the close and special relations between the two countries.23 But the
episode clearly points to the fact that delays on certain issues have a
tendency to whip up animosity, and various doubts are raised regarding
India's intentions.
Around the same time, during the end of January
1999, the prime minister of Bangladesh visited India. A special
convocation was held by the Vishwa Bharati University at Shanti Niketan
to honour Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.24 Further, in April 1999, the
trial run of the bus service from Calcutta to Dhaka took place. A
section of the Press in Bangladesh has termed it as neighbourliness on
wheels, the bus ride taking place after a gap of 52 years. They have
expressed the opinion that this should in future facilitate the bus
journeys from Dhaka to Ajmer, Kathmandu and Thimpu.25 However, one of
the major controversial issues between the two countries was regarding
the deportation of illegal Bangladeshis by the Maharashtra government.
The prime minister of Bangladesh has gone on record to say that there
are no illegal Bangladeshis in India. The officials of the two countries
have met to discuss this issue and it was agreed that the matter would
be resolved through discussions and that there would be no forceful
deportation by the Indian authorities. The issue, however, has the
potential to raise emotions on both the sides of the border, thereby,
seriously disrupting relations.26
The positive trend in relations between Bhutan and Maldives continued and they were tension-free.
If an analysis of the performance of the Vajpayee
government in conducting its foreign relations with the neighbours was
being undertaken prior to the outbreak of fighting to oust the Pakistani
backed infiltrators at the line of control in May, one would have
easily concluded that the bus journey from Delhi to Lahore and the
consequent Lahore declaration were very significant events. Though the
events since the first week of May have shown that the intentions of
Pakistan were not sincere, one need not reach a hasty conclusion that
the bus diplomacy has failed. Whatever talks take place between India
and Pakistan in the future (for there is no other way than dialogue),
the Lahore Declaration will be the reference point.
It is important to note that the declaration covers a
number of issues concerning both the countries and is just not
restricted to the Kashmir issue. Given the nature of strained relations
that exist between the two countries and the tendency to go from a
"peace-like" situation to a "war-like" situation, there is no doubt the
Lahore Declaration will provide the parameters within which the two
governments will work.
Taking a broader view, it is noticed that through
the bus journey Vajpayee has conducted relations without making Pakistan
feel that his actions or policies were aimed at isolating it with
respect to the other countries of South Asia, which, to a certain
extent, was the case with the Gujral Doctrine. Second, the visit is
equally important with regard to the positive signals it sends for
bilateral relations between India and the other SAARC members.
Vajpayee's bus journey clearly shows that India is ready to go that
extra mile to establish good relations with its neighbours. In this
sense it will reinforce the principles and working of the Gujral
Doctrine as far as the smaller countries are concerned.
It is evident that Vajpayee has not only been able
to build on the gains of the Gujral Doctrine by strengthening ties with
the smaller neighbours but, through his bus diplomacy, tried to make a
dramatic change in conducting relations with Pakistan.
Conclusion
The above discussion clearly brings out the
continuity that has existed in the Indian foreign policy in the
Nineties, thereby, inaugurating a period in which relations with the
neighbours have seen a positive trend. It brings out the importance of
the economic aspect of cooperation in the overall relations with the
neighbours. The analysis also brings out that the beginning of the
Nineties had seen the start of a positive movement between India and its
neighbours which got intensified under Gujral. Thus, there was already
a positive base on which the Gujral Doctrine could build itself in
the absence of which the doctrine would not have been relevant and
effective. The Gujral Doctrine played the cardinal role of clearly
defining for India the importance of friendly relations with its
neighbours. It gave a direction and sense of purpose which will forever
remain one of the objectives of the Indian foreign policy. The
advantages of the Gujral Doctrine could be clearly felt in the aftermath
of the nuclear tests by India, and the international reaction to it
contrasted with the reaction of the South Asian neighbours. The manner
of articulation of these objectives by various governments may be
different but their permanence cannot be questioned.
We, therefore, see that under the Vajpayee
government too there was a continuation of these policies without per se
saying so. In certain aspects, the Vajpayee government tried to move
beyond the Gujral Doctrine, through bus diplomacy with Pakistan.
Whichever government comes to power at the centre in India, the
principles and purposes of the Gujral Doctrine will remain at the
forefront. But it should not be forgotten that the success of the
doctrine depends on the attitudes of the neighbours too, towards India
and the region. In this sense, it will be dynamic in its
implementation, calling for a great degree of maturity from all the
countries of the region.
No comments:
Post a Comment