The Chinese Defence Minister and State Councillor Chang Wanquan, rushed to Kathmandu and Colombo recently seeking to resolve blockages in ties and to enhance military-to-military cooperation.

The Chinese state media warned India prior to the visit that China would ‘fight back’ if India interferes against Chinese enhancing relations with South Asian nations. In their opinion, India considers South Asia (less Pakistan) as its backyard. It also indicates China recognizing growing Indian influence in the region. For India, Chinese military presence in the vicinity enhances security concerns.

The Indian Army Chief General Rawat, visited Nepal and Bangladesh last week. He justified his first visits abroad stating that neighbours are a priority. His visits assume importance since in Nepal he followed the Chinese defence minister and in Dacca he went on the eve of the visit of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to India in the first week of April.

India’s attempts to counter growing Chinese influence failed in Sri Lanka, where China presently possesses 80 per cent equity in the Hambantota port. With bases nearing completion in Djibouti and Gwadar and the latest in Hambantota, the Chinese string of pearls is a reality. Chinese military forays into Bangladesh, Myanmar and Nepal would complete the circle. Hence, India has begun giving greater importance to its relationships with close neighbours. Therefore, the forthcoming visit of Sheikh Hasina assumes importance.

Nations in the immediate neighbourhood are in a state of political flux. Nepal faces political insecurity with the Madhesis unwilling to back down from their demands and a shaky coalition government at the helm. India, seeking to mend ties and indicate support to the country, signed an agreement last week to smoothen supplies of petrol, diesel and cooking gas.

The Nepal government has its hands full in trying to balance its relationships with India and China. For the first time, China and Nepal are contemplating joint military exercises. Bangladesh goes to the polls in end 2018.

Terrorism has begun rearing its ugly head and targeting of foreigners, bloggers and minorities is on the rise. Elections in the country have traditionally thrown up one of two major parties. While the government with Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League is pro-India and refuses to permit any anti-India insurgent group on its soil, as promised by her to the Indian army chief, a regime headed by Khaleda Zia and her Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has always done the opposite. They have openly advocated an anti-India approach. Hence prior to elections, India seeks to sign a collection of agreements, including on defence, with the aim of restricting open Chinese entry into the country, even if the government changes post elections.

The political flux in Nepal has placed its army in an advantageous position. While it has refrained from being involved in the political struggle, it however continues to wield power from behind the scenes. It provides stability to the nation in this moment of crisis. There have been demands internally for the army to assume power, which it has rightly rejected. Hence decisions pertaining to security matters would require the concurrence of the army chief and not be the sole prerogative of the government.

In Bangladesh, the Army has always been a silent ruler from behind the scenes. Except for a short while, when it assumed power, it has ensured stability. It has enforced calm when political parties resort to open street battles. All major decisions, mainly on security, military procurement, provision of bases, joint training and coordination in battling terror outfits would essentially be the Army chief’s decision. Hence bilateral defence agreements would only be feasible if acceptable to their Army chief.

This possibly was the reason for General Rawat to visit these nations at this critical juncture. In Nepal, being a Gorkha officer, conversant with the language and customs, he would be able to strongly project the Indian case for provision of equipment and enhanced military-to-military cooperation to their Army chief. The aim would be to ensure China remains at arm’s length.

India is seeking to enhance security cooperation including provision of military hardware to Bangladesh. Presently they are dependent on China for military equipment based on an umbrella agreement on defence cooperation signed during the tenure of Khaleda Zia in 2002. Bangladesh is keen to expand its procurement base to include India and Russia. The Army chief would seek to convince his Bangladeshi counterpart on the benefits of engaging with India. Military issues are best discussed between military heads. Further, satisfying his counterpart that India has no hegemonistic designs would indirectly benefit in clearing most proposed agreements during the forthcoming visit. Security cooperation, including countering common threats would only bring the two militaries closer, leading to better government cooperation.

India knows that it cannot match the level of economic investment which China makes in these countries. However, it realises that it can advise nations to separate economic from military deals. How better than for two military heads to discuss and establish a bond of understanding. This would prevent a recurrence of the Sri Lankan Hambantota incident. I wonder if the government had this in mind when it approved the visits. If not, and if only coincidental, the visits are beneficial to India. Foreign policy incorporating military diplomacy, especially in countries where the military plays a quiet but dominant role, should become the norm rather than an exception.

While India has always expressed a desire to talk to the government of Pakistan, it is their army chief who holds the cards, as he dictates the government’s India policy. No Indian government is willing to talk to the Pakistani Army chief, one of the reasons why talks have always faltered. However, if the two chiefs could meet outside the subcontinent and establish an understanding, it could possibly herald the commencement of a change. It is for both governments to consider, as for the first time Pakistan has an Army chief who is not staunchly anti-Indian. 

The writer is a retired Major General of the Indian Army.