“Does India have a Neighbourhood Policy?” –

Indian Council of World Affairs Talk by

Foreign Secretary Mr. Shyam Saran

(New Delhi; September 9, 2006)

1. I had spoken on India’s policy towards neighbours in February 2005 at the India International Centre. Most of the points I had made then remain valid.

2. Our effort has been to construct an overarching vision for South Asia, so that we do not deal with neighbours in an ad-hoc and reactive manner, but formulate policies that fit into and promote this larger vision.

3. A vision of South Asia as an integrated and single entity is not new. Former Prime Minister Vajpayee had spoken about our aim to establish a South Asian Economic Union on the basis of a South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA). At the Dhaka Summit in November, 2005, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh elaborated further on this vision. He said that although South Asia is divided by political boundaries, the region forms a single geographical and economic unit. It occupies a shared cultural space and a shared cultural legacy. He said that we could not erase political boundaries or redraw them, we could certainly work together to make them progressively irrelevant. There should be a free flow of goods, peoples and idea across our borders in the same manner as in the European Union today. Over a period of time, the sense of division among our people would be erased.

4. For this vision to be realized, Prime Minister emphasized the overriding importance of connectivity among countries of South Asia. We must restore cross-border transport linkages through highways, railways, air and sea links as well as electronic communications. We are today not even as connected as we were in the sub-continent before 1947. The vision of an integrated South Asia cannot be realized without such connectivity.

5.India must start looking at national boundaries not as impenetrable walls which somehow protect us from the outside world, but as “connectors”, bringing India closer to its neighbours. This needs a mindset change.

6. Another mindset change, linked to the one mentioned above is to stop looking at our border areas as being on the periphery or serving as “buffer zones” preventing ingress into the heartland. We must rid ourselves of this “outpost” mentality and begin to accept our border states and regions as being as much a part of national territory as the heartland. The idea that such areas must be left largely underdeveloped and remote, as is reflected in the whole outdated system of “inner line permits”, must be jettisoned.

7. If borders are “connectors”, then border regions become extremely important as the points of mutual interaction with neighbours. They become the bridges linking countries and could be leveraged for development of border regions and their economic well-being. A new vision of South Asia demands a new mindset.

8. It is in this context that PM’s address to the Dhaka Summit elaborated a different kind of approach to our neighbourhood. When PM said, in relation to Pakistan, “I do not have the mandate to change borders; but I do have the mandate to make these borders irrelevant over a period of time,” he was enunciating a principle applicable to all our neighbours. Further, in order to implement this you must have as good an infrastructure as possible to enable easy cross-border movement. We may set up a SAFTA, but unless we have what I would call “transmission belts” across borders to permit the uninterrupted flow of goods, peoples and ides, SAFTA would yield little practical benefit.

9. Over the past two years, a major effort has been made to try and bring about a high level of connectivity among South Asian countries. These are a significant component of our neighbourhood policy.

10. Another significant part of this policy is based on the recognition of the crucial role of culture and of people-to-people contact. Culture can be a very powerful part of diplomacy. There are very strong cultural affinities among the people of the sub-continent and by giving full play to these affinities we can reinforce the sense of togetherness, a sense of shared identity. We have a plan to set up cultural centres in each and every one of our neighbouring countries. The new Embassy projects in Kathmandu and Dhaka have incorporated such centres. We are also not insisting on mechanical reciprocity in promoting cultural exchanges, but adopting a liberal and proactive policy of funding exchange of visits of scholars, academics, contacts and others.

11. Politically, our neighbourhood policy is now based on the recognition that what can best secure India’s interests in the region would be building a web of “dense interdependencies” with our neighbours. We must give our neighbours a stake in our own economic prosperity. This would impart a certain stability in our relations. We want a neighbourhood policy which is capable of adjusting, capable of shaping events. There will be moments in history when it may be difficult for us to influence events in our neighbourhood. We should assess when a neighbour is in the midst of a transformational process and take steps to make ourselves relevant to that change. There will be other moments in history where we could play a more definitive and active role to orient change in a constructive direction. Making the right judgement and adopting the policies appropriate to the nature of change, is the challenge to our diplomacy.

12. For example, there is momentous change taking place in Nepal. We do not quite know how this change will culminate but, in retrospect, by aligning ourselves with democratic forces in Nepal, by supporting the transformation in progress, we have done rather well.

13. A very major transformation is taking place in another very close neighbour – Bhutan. His Majesty, the King, has decided to introduce over the next couple of years, what would essentially be a constitutional monarchy. Here, as in some other countries, we will soon be dealing with much more diffused political structures rather than one single powerful leader, or an established elite. We must keep ahead of these changes rather than always playing “catch up”. We must identify and begin to deal with emerging leaders and institutions.

14. The same is true of Pakistan. We are dealing with President Musharraf because he happens to be the current leader of Pakistan. But Pakistan is also undergoing a transformation. We need to reach out beyond the Government, to the people in Pakistan, to other political forces that are emerging on the horizon. The policy of promoting people-to-people contacts assumes significance in this regard.

15. We can claim credit that our policy has been quite successful. Within just two years, traffic across our border with Pakistan has reached over 200,000, which is an incredible volume given the history of India-Pakistan relations. The train service between Khokrapar and Munnabao, connecting Sind and Rajasthan, was carrying 700 passengers every week. Now it is 400 because Pakistan has restricted the number of passenger bogies.

16. We have a sense today that change is coming about in India-Pakistan relations because it is more and more people-driven and we need to reinforce that. There can be no barriers from our side. Our motto should be that we are prepared to go as far as the comfort level of our neighbours would allow us to go.

17. I will now give you a sense of what we have been able to achieve in terms of promoting connectivity in our region:

Pakistan : Two years ago, we inaugurated the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service across the LOC. We have followed through in this landmark event, by inaugurating, recently, the Poonch-Rawalkot bus service. We have proposed a further bus service between Kargil and Skardu and Jammu and Sialkot. But Pakistan has not yet agreed. With Punjab, we have the Amritsar-Lahore bus service, the Amritsar-Nankana Sahib bus service and another is proposed to Kartarpur Sahib.

We have a major plan for the upgradation of border checkpoints and their backward linkages. Thus an Integrated Checkpoint (ICP) is planned at Wagah, which will house customs, immigration and warehousing, health facilities, shopping complex and parking. The road leading from Amritsar to Wagah is also going to be upgraded into a 4-lane highway.

Nepal : A number of Integrated Checkpoints are being planned on the India-Nepal border, as well upgradation of highways and extension of train links into Nepal. We have plans to develop Integrated Checkposts at (i) Jogbani (Bihar) – Biratnagar; (ii) Raxaul (Bihar) – Birgunj; (iii) Sunauli (U.P.) – Bhairawa; and (iv) Nepalganj Road (U.P.)– Nepalganj. The road linkages to these checkposts from the Indian side will also be upgraded. The Government is also working on development of a ‘Garland Road’ along the border for better patrolling, surveillance and border management.

As regards rail links, we are setting up new links or upgrading existing links between important border towns of India and Nepal. These include (i) Katihar-Jogbani (Bihar) - Biratnagar, (ii) Gonda (U.P.) - Nepalganj, (iii) Nautanwa (U.P.) - Bhairawa, (iv) New Jalpaiguri (W.B.) -Kakarbhitta, and (v) Jaynagar (Bihar) - Bardibas.

In addition, we are working to develop link roads to East-West highway in the Terai region of Nepal; as well as to implement pipeline between IOC and Nepal Oil Corporation for channelling of oil supplies between Raxaul (Bihar) and Amlekhgunj.

Bhutan: While we have invested in development of road infrastructure in Bhutan, there has not been commensurate investment on our side of the border. We are, therefore, planning to upgrade several approach roads to Bhutan including (i) Rangia-Tamalpur (Assam) -Jhonkar, (ii) Pathsala (Assam) - Nangalam, (iii) Santabari (Assam)-Gelephu, and (iv) Baribesa (W.B.) - Kalikhola. In addition, we are working on establishing rail links between border towns in India and Bhutan, including between (i) Hasimara (W.B.) - Phuentsholing, (ii) Darranga (Assam) - Samdrup Jhonkar, (iii) Kokrajhar (Assam) -Gelephu, (iv) Banarhat (W.B.) - Samte, and (v) Pathsala (Assam)- Nangalam. There are also proposals to establish Integrated Checkposts at Jaigaon (W.B.) and a dry port at Phuentsholing.

Bangladesh: We share a long land border of more than 400km, yet there are at present only few operational road links between the two countries. These include Kolkata-Petrapole and Siliguri-Phulbari road link in West Bengal; Agartala-Akhaura road link in Tripura and Shillong-Sylhet road link in Meghalaya. Of these the most important road link is Kolkata-Petrapole highway, which carries more than 80% of the trade. The infrastructural facilities on our side of the highway, however, are woefully inadequate, both at the checkpoint and the highway leading to it. This only hampers development of trade and economic linkages. We have therefore decided to expedite upgradation of Kolkata-Petrapole highway including by building bypass and over-bridges. In addition, there is also a proposal to establish Integrated Checkposts at Hilli (West Bengal), Chandrabandha (West Bengal), Akhaura (Tripura), Dawki (Meghalaya), Sutarkhandi (Meghalaya) and Kawarpuchiah (Mizoram). We are also at the same time working to complete the border fencing and construction of border roads for effective border management.

Myanmar: Similarly, with Myanmar, we are developing a network of linkages. These include cross-border developmental projects, such as (i) Upgradation of Tamu (Manipur) - Kalewa-Kalemyo, Rhi-Tiddim and Rhi-Falam roads (Mizoram sector); (ii) Upgradation of Jiribam (Manipur) – Imphal - Moreh road and integration with proposed Trilateral Highway; (iii) The Kaladan Multi Modal Transport Project, linking Mizoram with Arakan province of Myanmar and providing an alternative access to out North-East through the historic port of Sittwe (Akyab) bypassing Bangladesh. It incorporates a highway, river transport and a gas pipeline; and (iv) Jiribam-Imphal rail link, which may be extended to Mandalay as part of Delhi-Hanoi rail link.

China : The border trade point at Nathu La in Sikkim has just been inaugurated and the backward linkages on the Indian side are being upgraded. Here too, we intend to set up an Integrated Checkpoint. We have suggested another border trade point at Bumla in the eastern sector for which a response is awaited. We have approached Nepal for transit to Tibet. In general, there are plans to upgrade the entire road network in the North East including two inter-basin roads in Arunachal, 7 roads leading up to the LAC and reviewing the Inner Line Permit system so that tourism could be promoted.

Question & Answer Session (Edited)

Speaker (Shri Dalip Mehta): In the spirit of what you have said, there are two treaties that presently exist, the 1950 treaty with Nepal and 1949 treaty with Bhutan. Their clauses are really quite irrelevant; they are obsolete, and anachronistic. Given the kind of spirit that you have spoken of with respect to our neighbours, don't you think we should take the initiative in either revising them, amending them or even thinking about signing new treaties with them, taking into consideration present day realities.
FS: Well, I would say that whether it is the 1950 treaty with Nepal or the 1949 treaty with Bhutan, they served a very good purpose during a certain phase in our relationship. I mean, they provided a tremendous amount of support to these countries during a period when they were quite vulnerable. So, I don't think we should rubbish the role played by these treaties. But, India has been quite open to a possible revision of these treaties, or, a possible updating of these treaties, into something which is more in keeping with the current state of our relations, and in line with how we see our relations developing in the future. I do not think that this is a barrier.

Let me draw your attention to the fact that in the year 2000, the Prime Minister of Nepal, Mr. G. P. Koirala, did raise this issue with India about the possible revision of the 1950 treaty and we responded very positively to that and said we would be more than ready to look at the treaty afresh. It was even decided - in 2002 if I am not mistaken - that the Foreign Secretaries of the two countries will sit down together and begin the process of review. One round of talks was held to initiate the process but since then there has been a lot of turmoil in Nepal. We have not followed up on that. I do not think from the Indian side there is any problem in looking at revision.

With regard to Bhutan, yes, there are elements in the 1949 treaty, which are obviously out of date, precisely because of the kind of changes that you referred to, the constitutional changes which are taking place in Bhutan and if there is the need to revise the treaty or look at a more appropriate kind of a treaty text in the contemporary situation, we would have no difficulty with that. In fact, I may mention that this revision of the Bhutan treaty also has been raised in the past. It is not a new issue, it has been raised in the past, and I can only say that there is openness about this in India. There is no problem.

Speaker: You just said that we have to leave certain things in the neighbouring countries to themselves but here we are suffering because of our own thinking, is that so?
FS: Especially when you're dealing with your neighbours you have to accept the situation as a given. You need to take into account the domestic dimensions of your relationship with any of the neighbouring countries. For example, when you are dealing with Sri Lanka, there is no doubt that you have to take into account the Tamil Nadu dimension of your relationship with Sri Lanka. Now you cannot always be very successful in balancing these interests, because there are sometimes forces which are beyond purely foreign policy control. What you can try and do is that you have a policy, which is very broad-based. You have a policy, which puts in place a multiple series of interests which are binding the countries together. So, even if there are political changes, there is a certain stability which is given to the relationship, because there are those kind of very strong interdependencies, whether they are on the economic side, whether it is in terms of the sharing of river waters, whether it is in terms of our energy interdependence.

Take for example Bhutan. You have developed a very strong energy relationship with that country and, in the near future, you have some other major projects which are coming up like Tala, for example. It would mean that on Indian side this will be a huge contribution to the energy sector, but it will also present a major and significant contribution to the welfare and to the wealth of Bhutan. So, even if there are political changes which may be taking place in that country, which, of course, you should always be responsive to, the fact is that the stand of interdependence is to provide a certain stability to the relationship despite political changes, because the logic of the interdependence will not permit the political relationship to swing from one side to another.

So, in the long-term that is the kind of relationship we should look at, and, certainly with regard to neighbours, it cannot just be a relationship between governments. There are strong cultural linkages as I mentioned, there are strong people-to-people linkages. I just gave you one example of what happens on the India Nepal border. Now, partly our shortcoming has been that in our state-to-state relations with our neighbouring countries we have not also leveraged much of these assets that we have available to us.

So, I am not saying that we have been extremely successful with the policies but what I am trying to give you is a sense that, number one, we must know the limits of how far we can go. It is not like sending in the marines and taking care of a situation arising in our neighbourhood. We can not do that. There are certain very, very real constraints; as I said, there are moments in history when it is better to step aside and let whatever transformation that is taking place, take place, and not try to interfere with it nor try to interpose yourself in that transformation that is taking place. These require considered judgments. Sometimes you make good judgments; sometimes maybe you make the wrong judgments. But, I think, generally speaking, over the last few years we have not done too badly in managing our relationships, particularly in terms of making the kind of changes we need to do on our side.

As I said, you need to have a change in the manner in which you look at your neighbourhood. If you all the time consider yourself to be under siege from your neighbours, and you develop that kind of a defensive mentality, then you can not follow a successful neighbourhood policy. So you have to get away from that sense. You can not build walls between yourself and your neighbours. But if you have the framework of this vision of South Asia, as I have mentioned, and we recreate a subcontinent where there is a free flow of goods, of people, of ideas, and of trade, it is going to be a win-win situation for all the countries. We very sincerely believe that.

Now it is a question of how to translate that vision into practice. That is why I gave you a sense, modest maybe of an effort to try and bring about that connectivity on the ground. Merely having a vision is not good enough; you must be able to translate it on the ground, and I would submit that one of the great successes that we have had in the past two years is to get a sense in the government that they must really pay a lot more attention to connectivity, change our mind sets with regard to our periphery, and really get down to business. I want to give you a sense that we have got down to business in that respect.

Speaker: The rail, road connections with most of our neighbours.... It has taken us more than 50 years to think about these. It is a very good step. Now it is materialising and it is taking shape, but over the last 50 years most of our neighbours have built up linkages with outside powers who have been using these linkages to create problems, and I think it is the right step, the connectivity which you have talked about, but the other issue which you mentioned was sharing with our neighbours, since most of them are poorer than we are, but the issue is sharing of technology, whether it is in small-scale industry we are providing them, generating employment etc., and it is good to hear that we have succeeded in getting gas from Myanmar. My question is, we have not been successful with Bangladesh in getting gas, maybe due to political problems and other issues. Is the MEA thinking in terms of special economic zones on the border regions, either in the northeast or in West Bengal? We have built up successfully in Oman; now we're going to Egypt and other countries. The demand for fertilisers is growing and especially the air lifting of these in north-east. Is the ministry considering special economic zones where these factories are located, or other factories which could generate employment also and prevent other issues. The other point I have is, sometime back we had built up a road link with Afghanistan. Is there any new initiative to revive that to our interest, which I don't have to underline.

FS: Bangladesh gas, well I know. Whether we have access to Bangladesh gas is dependent upon Bangladesh's willingness to supply that gas. We can not force Bangladesh to supply gas. We offered various alternatives - one was that we build a gas pipeline from Myanmar through Bangladesh into India, which would provide some transit income to Bangladesh, it would provide a infrastructure which could be utilised for Bangladesh also to put its gas into the pipeline, if it so wished, in the future. But Bangladesh eventually did not agree to that and linked that up with several other conditions which were obviously not possible for us to agree to. Therefore, even though the direct pipeline between Myanmar and India will be somewhat more expensive, we think that it is a better alternative since our need for gas and energy resources are huge, so we believe that this investment is worth making.

Again, I come back to the point that barriers are not from our side. We have told our neighbours, we are prepared to go as far as you are prepared to go, what your comfort levels are, because we are a very large country, we have large resources, our room for manoeuvre is more, so, really, it is a question of how much comfort level our neighbours have, and, hopefully, as our linkages with our neighbourhood increase, the sense of shared prosperity, or the sense of having opportunities in India rather than looking at India as a threat or dominating power would begin to take hold. So, I think we have to continue soldiering on, and try and see whether we can over time change this kind of thinking in our neighbourhood.

The other aspect which you have mentioned about whether we can set up some special economic zones, or whether we can set up some industries, well, that was the logic of the very attractive investment proposal which was made by Tatas to Bangladesh. Three linked projects which would have been, I think, $2.5 billion and would have meant a huge change in the economic prospects of Bangladesh and would have used some of the gas available in Bangladesh itself, and that project alone by the exports to India would have actually completely wiped out the trade deficit which Bangladesh keeps complaining about. Now whether or not there is a willingness to accept such a thing is not in our hands; it is in the hands of Bangladesh. To say that because Bangladesh has not accepted, this means a failure of Indian foreign policy, I do not think that is very fair.

With regard to the resources, yes, we, again in terms of our energy requirements, have already drawn attention to what we have been able to do with Bhutan, we would certainly like to do with Nepal as well, because Nepal has a very large potential for hydropower. I think current estimates are above 87,000 MW and, by the way, if these were developed in Nepal, they would be more economical in terms of India's needs, because they are far closer to our main consuming sectors, so the transmission lines would not be as long as they are with Bhutan. What we are trying to do with Nepal is to really try and take this out of the political domain, and put it in the economic domain, and to say that let us look at these projects from their economic viability, if you can come up with a project, no matter who finances it, you have the power purchase agreement with the Power Trading Corporation of India or other consumers in India. You develop your resources, you sell your power to India, as long as it is economical for us, we will buy it. So try and take the political edge out of these discussions and, I think that in the longer term, that is probably what will work. We are headed in that direction.

Speaker: You have just talked about the India's vision actually. Do you think that this vision is being shared by our neighbourhood because I feel that there is a trust deficit among the countries of the region and you will find that the trust deficit between India and China has come down, Bhutan has been another addition but as far as the other countries are concerned, this deficit remains. In spite of the connectivity, what you have said just now, what do you think, because you have been meeting the people - whether this vision is shared by the neighbourhood and whether we can bring down this trust deficit which has been there for a long time? Secondly, whether the projects which you have mentioned just now, will there be a bilateral funding or it is going to be a some kind of an international funding of sorts?
FS: Most of the projects that I have mentioned to you just now, these are all being funded by India There is a willingness to make the kind of investment which is required in order to make these projects a reality.

Is the vision of South Asia shared by others? Well, it was Bangladesh which came up with a vision of SAARC to begin with, not India. So I presume they are committed to the vision of South Asia as a very vibrant, as a very co-operative entity. We are certainly taking the matter seriously and we are certainly prepared to work on that basis, but I do not think we should go too much into this aspect of, you know, is there a trust deficit or is there not a trust deficit, is India being loved by its neighbours, or is it being hated by its neighbours. At the end of the day what will count is self-interest. If this vision of a interconnected South Asia is something which brings benefits to all our neighbours, then reason demands that people should sign on to it. If somebody is not willing to sign on to it and says that because of trust deficit I do not want to be part of this, then he will become irrelevant.

We are a very large country; we have other options. We will not be prevented from developing because some neighbour of India is not prepared to work together with us; what we are saying is, here is the vision of South Asia that we subscribe to. We believe in it very strongly, particularly since the developments that have taken place in India over the last 15 years, where we have become a remarkably open economy, a very liberal economy, today we have really the ability to take our neighbours along with us. It is not just a theory.

If you look at, for example, how the free-trade agreement with Sri Lanka has worked, it is Sri Lanka which said that we want to now upgrade this free-trade agreement into a comprehensive economic partnership agreement. Why? Because they have seen the benefits that have come from this free-trade agreement; there has been a remarkable increase in the volume of trade, the trade deficit has come down, and there are a number of Indian companies despite the uncertainties created by insurgency. Despite that there are major Indian companies which are investing money in Sri Lanka, and, by the way, there are Sri Lankan companies investing in India. And the Sri Lankans are talking about economic integration with the economies of the southern states of India, not we. There are today, where there used to be maybe three flights a week or four flights a week between India and Sri Lanka, there are more than a hundred flights a week today. I mean the results are there for everybody to see, and we are not talking just about a vision. This is something I think which we have proved in practice, it works. So I think if self-interest, if national interest is something which drives countries or policies, including those of our neighbours, I think it is quite apparent where the future lies.

Speaker (Shri Jagat Mehta): Sir, I want to congratulate you. Reading between the lines I see a vision. I thought that it was quite apparent in the lines themselves. But I would like to say that in the 21st century both nationalism and interdependence have increased. And nothing is so difficult for diplomacy than to be a large country and to be surrounded by small countries. All large countries have failed in relationships with their small neighbours, not just India. You mentioned the initiative from Bangladesh on SAARC. Let me be quite frank. I am old, retired. That initiative was only because they feared hegemony. That all those who are neighbours of India should get together because they were all unwarrantedly afraid of India...

But our problem has been that except for Bhutan, where we started our diplomacy at the Summit level, there have been ups and downs. And the problem is memory. What we remember, others forget and what they remember, we forget. I will give you an example. Take IC-814. Nobody here has mentioned that after 814 what were the merits of it. We stopped flights to Kathmandu for three months. Every Nepalese knows that most Indians have forgotten it. So the problem is that of being a large country. South Asia has been rather slow in moving ahead, and it is a very difficult process. But it will have to be consistent. We have one foreign secretary like you who has a vision, then there will be others like me who do not have a vision and in between we sometimes pull in some direction. We sometimes get ignored and the problem now is we have resources, but it is really a shame that Bangladesh should not see its own interest in exporting surplus gas to India.

Nepal would have had a per capita income as high as Japan if only they had developed 20% or 30% of their hydropower. Having seen this, the contrast between Bhutan and Nepal is obvious. If Panditji had not gone to Bhutan in 1958, Bhutan by now would have been lagging behind.

In Afghanistan, it is beyond NATO, it is beyond Pakistan and it is now beyond us, but it is important in some ways. Afghanistan is a part of South Asia and we will never be able to establish the natural connection with the concentratic circles of Central Asia, unless we have a steady link with Afghanistan and Pakistan. Because I think that is extremely important.
FS: I would say that with regard to Afghanistan, it has been a constant endeavour to try and get a direct connection to Afghanistan. We have taken Pakistan at its own words, where Pakistan says that it is a natural bridge between South Asia and the Gulf and South Asia and Central Asia. We said, well, you mentioned a bridge from where to where, I mean you cannot have a bridge going only in one direction. A bridge means you are connecting two areas. So, this has been a constant refrain in our dialogue with Pakistan. We have gone to the extent of telling Pakistan that both India and Pakistan have a very important self-interest in the political stability of Afghanistan and in the economic recovery of Afghanistan. Rather than looking at India as somehow being a competitor to Pakistan in Afghanistan, why do we not work together in order to bring about that political stability in the country, and we can contribute much more than anybody else can.

We have also said to Pakistan that if you have any reservations about India's activities in Afghanistan, we are ready to sit down together with you and talk about that; we have no problems. From our side, I think, there has been a fairly proactive approach to precisely establish close linkages, to try and bring about a sense of shared interest between India and Pakistan with regard to Afghanistan, which, have to, by the way, be dependent upon that kind of an access. I am hoping that over a period of time this will work. But again, we may make efforts but if there is a lack of response, or if there is a partial response, I do not think it is fair to blame it on Indian foreign policy, that somehow or the other this has been a failure on our part.

I am making this point because this keeps happening, and it is said that you have not been able to get that, you have not been able to do that. We can try. If we were not making an effort, then we would be certainly subject to such allegations, but if we are making an effort, and if there is no response from the other side there is not much that we can do. I mean, when you mentioned, for example, Bangladesh and gas, and what benefits can come to Bangladesh. There are Bangladeshis themselves who are saying that this would be a major plus point for the Bangladeshi economy. Bangladesh came very close to accepting the Tata proposal.

So it shows that not all is lost; there is a sufficient body of opinion which is looking at the possibility of such co-operation. There is a sense in some of our neighbours that we are being left behind by India. That also they do not wish to see. Or a sense that India is losing interest in its neighbourhood because it wants more linkages with South-East Asia, it wants more linkages with dynamic economies in the West, and it does not really care about its neighbourhood. So there is also that pressure which is operating on our neighbours, which also I think we should capitalise upon and try and take advantage of.

So there is a certain opportunity today which I perceive, which was perhaps not there a few years back. These things will not happen overnight. It will not happen overnight because, as I said, part of the problem is our own mindset, whether we are able to change the way we think, the way we look at our borders, the way we look at our neighbours. But, equally, there is a problem of mindset on the part of our neighbours. There has to be a certain confluence in terms of these perceptions before we can really move ahead. I would submit that in several cases we have actually succeeded in moving ahead and the success of those efforts, say with Bhutan, say with Sri Lanka, is having an important impact on others. I think we should try and leverage that.