Implications Of Regional Asymmetry And Centrality On Peace And Cooperation:an Analysis Of Dysfunctional Regionalism In South Asia (1985-2012)

Post-Cold War international system has witnessed resurgence in regionalism. There have been several mushrooming regional groupings primarily in economic dimension with the objective to enhance regional integration to foster lasting peace and cooperation. Contrary to the prevailing trends, regionalism in South Asia has been futile. The thesis is an attempt to explain this lowest echelon of integration in South Asia through asymmetry theory and aided by centrality (centrality is employed in the thesis as an inward to outward dissemination of ideas, proliferation of cultural, religious and political philosophies, geographical amalgamation and economic ascendancy from an affluence center to peripheral territories that has a profound effect in shaping and influencing latter’s polices) of India.It asserts that asymmetry and centrality are essentially significant features to characterize regional dynamics of stability, peace and cooperation in South Asia. Akin to Womack’s theory, in an asymmetrical situation as in South Asia, disparities of size and capacities create difference of perspectives that evokes misperceptions to understand each other’s actions. Considering higher stratum of vulnerability and risk for the small in such situation, centrality adds up the apprehensions towards the large. Therefore, mechanism adopted by the smalls" is always circling around the large:India, the asymmetrical power in South Asia.With particular reference to regional asymmetry, regionalism:’old" and ’new’ can be viewed as a response to counter regional asymmetry of India, yet with different modus operandi. In first case, regionalism was based on security alliances on the pattern of a hub and spoke model:Pakistan joined SEATO and CENTO that engaged global asymmetry:the United States, to manage regional asymmetry. Nevertheless, having complementary interests, the framework of’old regionalism’did not work well for the potentially vulnerable and the second largest state; Pakistan in South Asia. Consequently, Bangladesh emerged in the aftermath of dismemberment of Pakistan. Meanwhile, gigantically large asymmetrical power:India, pursued greater regional identity to appease its thrust for leadership, economic potential and power capabilities. It successfully established NAM (Non-Aligned Movement), a less significant actor in regional and international political arena. Though it did not join formal alliance with either of the blocs but remained tilted towards the Soviet Union. These divergent paths chosen by the largest and the second largest states in the region allowed conflict and security to be more deep rooted by hampering regional cooperation and economic integration.Notably, the implications of asymmetry and centrality in the second wave of regionalism or’new’regionalism are also quite visible. Triumph in East Pakistan set the precedent for the large to be more confident in the capacity to pursue bilateralism in the region. That is why the event paved the way for regional power to have successive bargaining in bilateralism with small neighbors. Subsequently,’Shimla Agreement’ (1972) with Pakistan,’Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Peace’(1972) with Bangladesh and Annexation of Sikkim(1975) showcased increasing leverage of regional power with the rest. These series of diplomatic moves highly determined and controlled by regional asymmetry alarmed the smalls to restrain these capabilities of regional power through institutional designs. Thus once again to have a symbolic equality with regional power the small state; Bangladesh initiated the idea for collective regional identity. In a nutshell,’new regionalism’poured into South Asia by a coalition of smaller states’struggle to manage asymmetrical disparity.Since its independence from British rule, India pursued a greater regional identity such as’Asia", and’Afro-Asia’that finally transformed into NAM to appease New Delhi’s desire for leadership. Though comprising less than one-quarter of India, South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was the first regional organization that offered South Asian identity, yet participated by India. Additionally, once again the idea came from the small state in the region. In an environment full of suspicions and vicious circles around India vis-a-vis rest and vice versa, it was quite genuine for India to look suspiciously about the idea of SAARC. Noteworthy to explain the slow pace and gradual evolution of SAARC, New Delhi foresees eventual collaborative action by the small states aimed to constrain its powers.Putting bilateral issues out of SAARC"s agenda and unanimity in decision making along with principles of NAM, the regional power asserted its supremacy to restrain its neighbors around it. Furthermore, the momentum and impulse at the time of creation of SAARC gradually eroded by security issues such as Indian Peace Keeping Force (IKPF) in Sri Lanka (1987-80), economic blockade of Nepal(1989), militarily intervention in Maldives (1988) and arousing tensions in Kashmir (1990’s). Last but not least Kargil (1999) was the last nail in the coffin that had profound impact to postpone summit meeting for half a decade. At first, asymmetry prevented the smalls to seek out collective security mechanism at regional level, while the very next phase these security issues prevented embryonic struggles to cultivate lasting cooperation and greater integration. Contextually, second phase of regionalism failed miserably in consequences of risks and vulnerabilities of the small states vis-a-vis the large pertaining to security and economic issues.In addition to asymmetry, centrality paved the way for regional power to subdue the scope for the small states to seek alternate venues. As Pakistan’s failure of such experience, shut the window of opportunity once for all. Entombed in viscous circle of suspicions and misperception regional actors could not evolve higher degree of integration despite the need, desire and rationale for it. Thus idea of shared sovereignty in agreed areas under supranational authority:SAARC, could not transform into practice and the latter remained in the bottom half of the list with counterpart organizations.Thus thesis postulates that regionalism in South Asia evolved around the idea to bridge the gap of regional asymmetry, yet centrality intervenes in affirmation of regional asymmetry and adds up in latter"s abilities to neutralize the situation favorably. The lessons are twofold for both the large and the smalls that asymmetry is a situation that has to be managed to achieve normalcy instead of stability in mutual relations. For asymmetric normalcy both the large and the small have to observe deference and autonomy principle. The deference for the strong that its powers remain unchallenged and the autonomy of the smalls to be unthreatened. In South Asian perspective mutual treaties on distribution of water resources, agreement not to attack on nuclear installments, pre-notification of Flight testing of Ballistic Missiles agreement, prior notification for military maneuvering are the best examples of deference and autonomy in an asymmetrical relationship. This also set the precedent for other agreed areas of mutual cooperation and understating to be incorporated for the prosperous futuristic scenario.Chapterl introduces the dissertation, it starts with the regionalism as a modus operandi for peace and cooperation and debates about the increased regionalism and phenomenon of regional organizations in the post-cold war times, and it further links regionalism in South Asia. It is observed that South Asia has been an outlier in the otherwise powerful process of regionalism and while many other regions of the world have pushed rapidly ahead with expanded and deepening regional integration, South Asia has been laggard, why? To put simply, why the idea of regionalism appeared to be dysfunctional in South Asia? And what are possible explanations of worst performance by SAARC? A discourse has been made to address these questions. The study tries to hunt answers of these questions in chapters ahead. Contrary to given explanations within the prism of hard balancing and security centric approaches towards nascent and volatile peace in the region, this study opts, asymmetry theory and centrality as framework to explain the vacuum of cooperation and regional integration form a different perspective. Additionally, research questions, methodology and significance of the study are explained in the chapter.Chapter 2, analyses interstate relations between asymmetric and central state of South Asia; India, with smaller states and explains that these relations must be understood in twofold way i.e. viewing from perceived strong to week state and vice-versa week to strong state with two different lenses. Thus, replication of Womack’s concept along with centrality for the understanding of asymmetry in South Asia, facilitates to evaluate risks, misconceptions and suspicions of small states vis-a-vis large to overcome interstate insecurity, anti-pragmatism and mutual cynicism. In addition to this, this chapter traces hegemonic assertiveness and asymmetric leverage of India in disputes with smaller states in the region. A detailed prognosis of India’s relation in lieu of matrix of asymmetry and centrality is made right from 1947 to establishment of SAARC 1985 that explains how every single step by India:must generate over conscious and over attentive response in neighboring states, especially when more or less all remained victims of intervention by India.Chapter 3, identifies the asymmetrical and central position of India in the region of South Asia by comparing different dimensions of asymmetry of the earlier with the rest of the region. This asymmetry is discussed additionally in compliance with the Womack’s theory of asymmetry in international relations and in further discourse; incorporation of asymmetry with centrality is made with special reference to India in South Asia. Differing from centricity and center-periphery theory, an attempt has been made to redefine concept of centrality in regional context. Combining centrality with asymmetrical attribute of India, within the region; South Asia. It explains how the centrality is unique and core-characteristic for India that empowers it to be connected with all neighbors in a way to be the affluence epicenter of cultural, religious, political and economic activity within given geographic proximity. Hence, the chapter determines asymmetry and centrality of India in the region for the upcoming discourse about regional confrontation, cooperation and role of regional power in South Asia. In other words this chapter discovers matrix of Indian asymmetry and centrality in South Asia.Chapter 4, substitutes the literature review on regions, regionalism and regional integration in South Asia. To begin with definition problem of region and regionalism brief preview is made on the existing literature on subject area. Although, region and regionalism are so deeply embedded with each other to discuss separately, yet a thorough discussion is made to understand both concept and process of region formation, regionalism and regionalization. It then explores types;’new’and’old’ regionalism and differentiates regionalism from regionalization. Finally proceeds to idea of South Asia as region. Initiated from pre-independence, India’s thrust for greater regional identity can be traced back to the Conferences on Asian Relations. An idea further gave India the opportunity to host conference on Indonesia and to proceed for Bandung Conference. All were the aspirations by the regional power to appease the desire for greater leadership. Chapter differentiates waves of regionalism in the Cold War times from the one in the post-Cold War or in 1980’s. It asserts that both were aimed to seek out stability against regional asymmetry, yet from the small states in the region. It evaluates demand, scope and rational for the regional integration in South Asia and set the base for further discourse in chapters ahead.Chapter 5 is divided in three main parts. First, it explores evolution and growth of SAARC with reference to changing security context in 1970"s. The slow pace and reluctant attitude by the largest and second largest state is elucidated. This explains how asymmetry creates difference of perspectives in a situation when the small tries to engage the large through institutional mechanism, whereas the other small state suspects asymmetry behind the plea. Thus different actors in an asymmetric environment pursue different means to manage asymmetry. Encapsulating major developments in SAARC’s summits, the chapter further proceed with analyzing charter, objectives, principles and organizational structure. It then makes a comparative perspective with reference to India’s centrality and asymmetry in the region. India’s asymmetry and centrality outmatches rest of leading states in the world’s regions. However India has proved to be a malign hegemon particularly in 1970’s and 1980’s that resulted fear and suspicions among small states in the region. Finally, an appraisal of SAARC is made by comparing socio-economic indicators to mark the progress of the region and development towards peace.Lastly in conclusion, research questions are revisited and while identifying asymmetry and centrality of India as core issue of dysfunctional regionalism in South Asia, this study proposes asymmetric normalcy as the remedy to mitigate the regional distrust and misconceptions among actors. The application of asymmetric normalcy in South Asia is a sort of extended version of Gujral Doctrine for both the major and minor neighbors of India. Series of unilateral and non-reciprocity based actions are recommended from the asymmetric power, with prolong patience to build trust and nip the suspicions of smaller actors towards the greater. Similarly equal onus lies with small states who seek stability through extra-regional means, they must understand asymmetry is a situation not a temporary game with changing dynamics. Additionally, in case of South Asia this asymmetry is accompanied and empowered by centrality: another significant factor not to be ignored. Their short term strategy to engage extra-regional forces hampers process of regional integration that already has been crawling in lowest pace. Only then the trap of asymmetry would be overcome to promote mutual understanding and mutual confidence, to look ahead for the advancement of regional cooperation and regional integrity for one but supreme purpose; the regional stability, peace and cooperation.