India's Look East Policy

India’s ‘Act East Policy’, initiated in the early 1990s as ‘Look East’ policy by the Government of India (GoI), is now an important component of India’s foreign policy (IFP). Since the launching of this policy, India’s relationship with Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) becomes ‘a key feature of our foreign policy’. Six months after taking office in May 2014, India's newly elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi asserts that India’s ‘Look East' policy has been transformed into ‘Act East Policy'. The Prime Minister also reviewed the current status of the India-ASEAN Strategic Partnership and placed ASEAN at the “core” of India’s ‘Act East Policy’ calling for strengthening of relations in all sectors. This paper tries to analyse the historical background, its economic dimensions, strategic and diplomatic aims, the place of Northeast and Manipur, challenges and opportunities for Northeast, and finally ends with a concluding remark.

New Delhi is carefully following developments in the South China Sea as part of her “Looking East” policy and helping Vietnam exploit offshore oil and build her maritime capacities. However, Indian policy is cautious and aptly described as “multialigned”, rather than bent on building a coalition to resist China.

The Look East policy has emerged as an important foreign policy initiative of India in the post-Cold War period. It was launched in 1991 by the then Narasimha Rao Government with the aim of developing political contacts, increasing economic integration and forging security cooperation with countries of Southeast Asia. The policy marked a shift in India’s perspective of the world, where the strategic and economic importance of Southeast Asia to India’s national interests is being recognised. The second phase, which began in 2003, extends the coverage of the Look East policy from Australia to East Asia, with ASEAN as its core. The new phase, thus, marks a shift in focus from trade to wider economic and security cooperation, political partnerships, physical connectivity through road and rail links. In this paper the evolution of India’s Look East policy and its recent approach are analysed.

Northeast India is the home of numerous ethnic nationalities. B.G. Verghese (2004: 280) describes the region as “another India, the most diverse part of a most diverse country, very different, relatively little known and certainly not too well understood, once a coy but now turbulent and in transition within the Indian transition.” Even though the Northeastern region shares certain problems like ethnic unrests, insurgency, immigration, drug trafficking, communication gap, etc., there are severe intra-regional differences in socio-economic issues and ethno-political aspirations. Not only the hills and valleys are at different level of socio-economic development; the urban and rural areas of the valley exhibit social and economic disparities. The region is in fact, one of the most ethnically and linguistically diverse region in Asia and each state has its diverse cultures and traditions. J.B. Fuller wrote in 1909 that, “The province of Assam at the far northeastern corner of India is a museum of nationalities.”

The disruption of old trade routes by colonial rulers, the Partition of 1947 and India’s import substitution economy deprived northeast India of its natural markets. Of late, there has been much talk about the potentials of India’s Look East policy in transforming the region. The inclusion of the northeastern region as an important component of this policy in 2003 is dubbed as the new paradigm of development in the Northeast. The policy envisages the region not as the periphery of India, but as the centre of a thriving and integrated economic space. Thus, many people see it as an excellent opportunity to integrate not only with mainland Indian economy but also with its neighbouring countries in the east and even beyond. In contrast, others view this policy as an extension of India’s imperialism in a new form in that the Northeast will only provide a bridge between the rest of India and East and Southeast Asia. The main argument of such critics is that India is more concerned with the eastern neighbours and not its northeast. The article, while recognizing ‘borders’ as crucial in attempting to address the problems of the Northeast, assesses the prospects of ‘Looking East’ through this region and the challenges posed to it by post-colonial territoriality and other domestic problems. The integration of the Northeast economy with the neighbouring countries is basically implemented through the security-centric border management, wherein the opening of borders is limited to border trade points and fencing the rest of the erstwhile open borders. This increasing restrictive regulation and bureaucratic formalities on movement of people and goods across borders distort the traditional crossborder economic dependence and erode social ties with ethnic kins on the other side of the border. The article also explores the possible community–geography trade-offs in such borderlands.

The end of Cold War witnessed a realignment of equations amongst states to adapt to the changed world order. Within its 'Look East' policy, India initiated an economic engagement with its extended eastern neighbourhood to generate political trust and eventually forge multi-faceted bonds. Due to the salience of Southeast Asia in geo-strategic terms, cooperation among maritime security forces has lately become imperative to respond to transnational security threats and realize common politico-strategic objectives. The paper aims to examine the complementarities in that direction and explore avenues for cooperation in terms of coordinated operations and amelioration of crucial qualitative capacities. Such engagement would serve not only to enhance interoperability, but also further strengthen confidence at the political level and hence among the maritime forces.

The global security environment has undergone a major transformation in recent times. Non-traditional threats constitute a major subset of the security calculi of states. Added to these are the threats posed by states. Although the stakes are too high to resort to war, major powers continue to compete and seek a favourable balance of power. These complex and amorphous threats also confront India and would continue to determine the security environment in its maritime East. Yet, the Bay of Bengal and its adjoining seas hold tremendous stakes for India, and being the confluence of vital sea lines, have immense strategic relevance for other powers too. This translates into both challenges and opportunities for India.

While the analysis of normative power has dominated the debates in European international relations studies for the past 20 years, this topic has hardly been broached in the analysis of Asian international affairs. This investigation aims to redress this trend by taking stock of the current state of the art. This exploration therefore contends that normative powers are those actors that are recognized as such by others. This qualifies Ian Manners’ oft-quoted proposition that normative powers are only those actors that have the ability to “shape what can be ‘normal’ in international life.” The proposition
is that the definitions of the “normal” are not merely undertaken by normative power, but that they emerge in the context of its interaction with others. Recognition, in this setting, is indicated by the specific reactions of target states. In this respect, the issue is not merely about being and becoming
a normative power, but also about being recognized as one by others. The study will detail this proposition by undertaking an analytical parallel assessment of normative power Europe, normative power China, normative power India, and normative power Japan.

This chapter has laid down a critical alternative to understand ‘development through trade’ by relocating India’s Northeast in its highly debated Act East Policy. The Northeast which was ‘a meeting ground, a transit point and the southern trials of old trade routes’ became a frontier region for various ‘invading forces’; and was experimented by various post-colonial State initiatives, development packages and political measures to ‘reduce the frustration and schizophrenic alienation’ , which was created in the space. The chapter has argued that such state-led and bureaucracy managed ‘developmentalism’ created unintended consequences in the region with inherent red-tape, economic stagnation and nexus of corruption. By the 1990s, India’s open economic policy started to promote external trade with emphasis on immediate neighbours, and directed its Look East policy to connect with several East and Southeast Asian countries through its Northeast having cultural affinity with these neighbours. The State therefore shifted towards the strategy to cultural diplomacy for interdependent global and regional cooperation and to explore the potential of geo-economics of the Northeastern region as a ‘gateway’, and accordingly repositioned the space to ‘prepare’ for a conducive trade, investment and entrepreneural growth. Currently there has been another shift in policy strategy from cultural diplomacy to cultural economy with the renaming of ‘Look East’ to ‘Act East’  in 2014, and the Northeast once again is at the centre with its historical roots to these neighbours. While raising concerns about such policy shifts on livelihood issues of individuals, the chapter has proposed long term policy for sustainable development of the region by exploring comparative advantage in trade and giving stimulus in local partnership and entrepreneurship through a convergence of State and market, which also needs to bring all elements of ‘resistance’ and ‘rebellions’ to a ‘settlement’ for sustainable peace at this periphery.

Since 1992, India started giving importance to South and South East Asian Countries in order to expand its trading activities. These countries have been considered as important trading destinations besides U.K. and other European countries. Government of India has started taking serious steps towards promoting Look East Policy. India has developed various bilateral and multilateral trade relations with these countries. Of the bilateral trade relations Indo-China, Indo-Myanmar and Indo-Sri Lanka and multilateral trade relations with India and South East Asian countries through BCIM, BIMSTEC, SAFTA, ASEAN and ASEAN Regional Forum are significant. Geographically these South East Asian countries are connected continentally with its North Eastern States with maximum of their borders sharing with these countries. In order to take the maximum advantage of India's Look East Policy, there is a need to bring all round development of these North Eastern States.

The Look East policy has emerged as an important foreign policy initiative of India in the post-Cold War period. The essential philosophy of the Look East policy is that India must find its destiny by linking itself more and more with its Asian partners and the rest of the world, and that India’s future and economic interests are best served by greater integration with East and Southeast Asia. Thence, the Look East policy is an attempt to forge closer and deeper economic integration with its eastern neighbours as a part of the new realpolitik in evidence in India’s foreign policy, and the engagement with Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) is the recognition on the part of India’s elite of the strategic and economic importance of the region to the country’s national interests. As Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said, the Look East policy is “not merely an external economic policy; it is also a strategic shift in India’s vision of the world and India’s place in the evolving global economy.”

Look East Policy as India’s foreign policy in 1991 is the India government's effort to increase economic integration and security cooperation with other countries, including East Asian region. However, India has more bilateral comprehensive cooperation with Japan and South Korea than China which potentially provide more benefits to India. Therefore, the author questioned why India chose more close to Japan and South Korea than to China. By using the Balance of Threat theory, the author hypothesize that India more close to Japan and South Korea because China has a greater offensive capabilites and act aggressively, so India feels threatened. Then India adopted a hedging strategy which involve Japan and South Korea to face China threat.

The evolving Look East Policy of the Government of India has been the talk of the top functionaries of Government of India, media, academia and some NGOs for quite sometime. However, the recent effort of the ministry of external affairs, particularly its public diplomacy division, to invite debate and to interact with the wider civil society in the north eastern region, on this issue, has created some amount of curiosity and anxiety in the minds of the general public. As understood in its present evolving state, this policy has wider implications for the country as a whole and the north east in particular, in terms of trade, tourism, migration, cultural exchange, national and regional security, and above all rights of the indigenous people over resources and environment. Before the Government embark upon the north eastern dimension of this policy, it is absolutely necessary and prudent to make a careful analysis of the pros and cons of the different aspects of this policy. Since, this policy essentially means greater interaction and exchange through geographical and other connectivities, the timing of opening up, the sectors and lines of activities to be opened up, the process of opening up and the framework of opening up are vital decisions that need to be made judiciously. With in this limited space, it will not be possible to have a detailed analysis of each and every such aspect mentioned above, including myriad aspects of the derivatives of this policy.

... And then one day a wall in Berlin came down. Bipolar world became multi polar, calling for greater regional integration. Foreign policy choices were reoriented and India was no exception. It had begun to look east and northeastern states became a factor. But has the new policy succeeded in achieving what it strove for? Have the northeastern states benefitted from being the gateway of India to look east, or does New Delhi still suffer from myopia? In this incisive analysis of the Look East policy, the book unravels the past and future of this policy with a critical gaze on its present.

Food security problem has become an important concern for the entire world. The problem of chronic hunger which has increased over the decades in the world clearly indicates that the world does not have sufficient amount of food to feed the people. The problem is further exacerbated by factors like effects of climate change, unstable global economy, low agriculture production, rising poverty and unstable food prices. Therefore, these factors have brought new challenges to the world for producing and supplying continuous staple food to the people. However, the food security problem in Japan is different from the world. Food security for Japan is increasing the self-sufficiency ratio by increasing the domestic production so as to meet the demand for both types of food belonging to the traditional Japanese meal and the western meal. Thus, this paper, besides understanding the problem of food security in Japan also makes a suggestion of increasing self-sufficiency of food that are part of the traditional Japanese meal.

In  my paper, I have  looked  into ways as to how and whether issues of connectivity, economic cooperation and economic corridor can contribute significantly towards building up cooperation between our North-Eastern Region and ASEAN countries through the agency of sub regional organization like BIMSTEC, for the better interest of the region.

"Myanmar is a geo-strategic factor in the Asian political dynamics. It is located at the tri-junction of South Asia, Southeast
Asia and East Asia, thereby, historically serving as a trade corridor. Most importantly, it also maps as a critical juncture
between India and China, where it shares common borders with the two rising Asian giants- with a 1,643 kilometre border
with India and 2,185 kilometre border with China. It acts as a landbridge for both the countries- for India’s Northeastern
states and Southern provinces of China. This geostrategic location has made Myanmar a strategic convergence point
between India and China, through which they can expand their connectivity and cooperative links. In this context, India’s
concerns over Myanmar emerges from rising Chinese footprints in India’s ‘Look East’- whereby similar to Pakistan,
Myanmar is perceived to be a Chinese proxy for balancing India in the region. While for China, Myanmar acts as a
gateway to India’s sphere of influence- the Bay of Bengal and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. These factors contribute
to India’s rising security concerns as China’s strategic interests in Myanmar pose serious threats to India’s maritime and
economic interests in the Indian Ocean. In this context, this paper maps out the growing Chinese presence in Myanmar and
how it is impacting India’s security interests."

The Look East policy has emerged as one of the prominent foreign policy initiative India has undertaken in the post-Cold War period. It was launched in the year 1991 by the then Narasimha Rao Government with the aim of developing multifaceted relation with countries of Southeast Asia. Such aims include renewing political contacts, increasing economic integration, and forging security cooperation with several countries of Southeast Asia as a means to strengthen political understanding, and enhancing India’s political role in the dynamic Asia-Pacific region in general and Southeast Asia in particular. As a result the Look East policy is responsible in making India an inalienable part of the Asia-Pacific’s strategic discourse. It is rather a late recognition of the strategic and economic importance of the region to India’s national interests. After 17 years the Look East policy has yielded many benefits and supported India’s economic transformation and growth, including closer strategic contacts between India and Southeast Asian countries, an impressive increase in the quantum of bilateral trade with other developing countries in Asia and increased people-to-people interaction. India’s trade with countries bordering the Northeastern region witnessed a dramatic expansion, with the share going up more than five times. However, this increase in the volume of trade with India’s eastern neighbours has had little or no impact on the Northeast. As a result, in the second phase, the Look East Policy has been given a new dimension wherein India is now looking towards partnership with the ASEAN countries integrally linked to economic and security interests of the Northeastern region.

Thingnam Kishan Singh edited book Look East Policy & India’s North East: Polemics and Perspectives published by Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi is a collection of articles published in the first four issues of a quarterly journal Alternative frames which was rechristened as Alternative Perspective.

The civilian nuclear cooperation is the name assigned to a joint accord on strategic cooperation between the two countries. The energy segment is the key in enhancing India's economic intensification to double digit. The joint statement of 2005 between the two nations is considered as a historic step. Hyde Act, 123 agreement, IAEA Safeguards and NSG waiver were main postulates for the nuclear deal to take place despite domestic and international reactions. The passage of the agreement in both the countries legislatures finally paved way for the enforcement of the deal. Both the nations were able to have lot of benefits through this historic nuclear deal. It balanced the strategic and economic relation between the two nations.

In the present global scenario, every major rising economy including India is consuming massive amounts of energy. Population growth, rapid industrialization and other factors have contributed towards energy shortage in India. In consideration of its rising energy demand coupled with increasing dependence on oil imports, India needs to work towards long term energy strategies, policies, and targets to achieve sustainable energy security. Regional cooperation can be instrumental in enhancing energy security. BIMSTEC is one such sub-regional grouping which provides opportunities for India to meet its energy needs through regional energy cooperation. So far BIMSTEC has proposed many initiatives to ensure energy security for its member countries. In this context, this paper brings out a perspective on the potentiality of BIMSTEC Energy Sector's Initiatives in strengthening India's Energy Security position. Keywords: energy potential, energy security, renewable energy, India, BIMSTEC. India constitutes about 17percent of the world's total population. However, it is not adequately endowed with energy resources. Ensuring energy availability and energy access to such a huge population in the context of inadequate energy resources is a fundamental challenge for the country. The concurrent growth in its population and economy has led to exponential increase in energy needs and energy consumption in India.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Vietnam this week comes amidst a busy diplomatic season with him also attending the G20 Summit in China, the ASEAN-India Summit in Laos, and the East Asia Summit, also in Laos. Much has changed between New Delhi and Hanoi since 2001, the last time an Indian PM visited Vietnam. Most notably, the two countries have struck a strategic partnership and have bolstered military cooperation in light of China’s expanding capabilities. A further deepening of that partnership is expected during this visit.

In my article, I have analyzed with a deeper analytical insight to outline the absence of a policy perspectives and also makes out a case for a synergy in our approach and not to exclude China, an important actor as part of this policy, if the Look East Policy has to be a success in not only curbing the politico-ethnic conflicts but also in the harnessing of positive dividends in terms of balanced economic development and rural prosperity for the NE region under this Look East Policy.