India's Look East Policy

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

"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."

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.

"Of late, the “Look East” policy has become a catchword not only of the desk for South East Asia and the Pacific of the Ministry of External Affairs, but even for lay persons in Northeast India. The policy gained popularity in the Northeastern region with the launch of the second phase of the policy in 2003. In this new phase the Northeast has been included as an important component of this policy. India is now looking towards partnership with the ASEAN countries integrally linked to economic and security interests of the Northeastern region.

Looking at the Look East policy strictly on the traditional concept of separation between foreign and domestic policy coupled with the decades of rivalry between India and China, there seems to be mixed feeling or even confusion on this policy. This paper discusses India’s foreign policy in brief since independence and looks deeper into the current phase, dominated by the policy of “Looking East”, which is synonymous with globalisation, regionalism and asianism."