For every country, its national interests are paramount, irrespective of the collective view of any group of which the nation is a part of. Nations would be unwilling to bend if the common view moves against their national interests. The recently concluded Brics summit with the Bimstec outreach in Goa clearly indicated this. India expended maximum political energy raising the Pakistan bogey with the intention of cornering it and adding to its isolation. The Prime Minister termed Pakistan as the ‘mother ship of terror’ in the region, while the National Security Adviser requested all nations to compel the UN to adopt the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT), which was again aimed at Pakistan. This was in our national interest, as it affected our security and development as also the present enhanced problems in Jammu and Kashmir. However, it was not a matter of concern for other nations. In each of his interactions with heads of state of both organisations, Prime Minister Narendra Modi raised the Pakistan bogey.

The nations comprising Brics and Bimstec come from different regions of the globe and hence each has its own view, based on its national interests, when dealing with problems on a common platform. Further, within Brics, pressures of economic cooperation and development assume greater importance, hence opinions vary. Brazil and South Africa are currently facing a recession in their economy accompanied by a shrinking job market, while Russia is under western sanctions for its actions in Crimea and Ukraine, resulting in a falling economy. China, on the other hand, continues to grow, albeit at a slower pace than India, though its economy remains robust. Chinese largesse and economic leverage with nations forming part of the Brics community, enables it to overshadow discussions and views, compelling nations to follow its lead, since in this forum, economic compulsions dominate national interests.

It is an open secret that Brazil and South Africa had joined China in rejecting India’s membership claims to the NSG, on its pressure. Russia, since its isolation, has also jumped deep into the Chinese economic bandwagon.Further, threats facing each country vary, basically due to their diverse locations, which further impact their thought process. Brazil and South Africa are not directly affected by cross-border terrorism as is India, hence its views will never be similar, nor would it be very willing to support Indian opinion in a public forum, unless it had strong economic ties with India. Russia is deeply involved in Syria, supporting the Assad government and almost heading for a military showdown with the West. For Russia, terrorism implies the ISIS and groups battling the Assad government. Russia, like most western nations, is convinced that the ISIS, after its defeat in West Asia, would re-emerge in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which could then threaten its allies in Central Asia. Therefore, in its view, Pakistan would continue to play a major role in the future, hence cannot be discarded. China, on the other hand, has never considered Pakistan a terror state, for reasons which are well known to us. For India, directly affected by cross-border terrorism, Pakistan is the culprit that it seeks to isolate globally. Therefore, expecting nations as a group to censure Pakistan would have been asking for the moon.While all leaders, except China, in their one-on-one interactions with the Prime Minister accepted terrorism as a major international hurdle and in some way, the joint statements did indicate agreement with India, China remained defiant and openly announced its unwillingness to bend or accept Pakistan as a terrorist state. Russia, while signing several defence deals, prior to the summit, supported the Indian stand against Pakistan. For India, the bilateral meeting statements should carry greater weight than the group statement.

The statement issued after the summit could never be expected to support one nation of the group, especially, in the present context of China being a dominating force, with others beholden to it, as also varying threats and national interests of nations. India’s insistence on raising the Pakistan bogey in the main summit, meant for domestic consumption, backfired. Logically, India should have stuck to an economic agenda along with critical issues at the international level, common to most nations.The discussions within the Bimstec group were very different. The entire group is based around the region and has in some manner been affected by terrorism or Indo-Pak relations. Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bhutan are recipients of Indian economic largesse and are influenced by India as the dominant nation in the region. Bangladesh has been very vocal about its hostility with Pakistan in recent times. Myanmar is slowly moving out of its shell and would need Indian support in the times ahead. Most nations of the group also form a part of Saarc and have been equally affected by the lack of progress within the group, mainly due to Indo-Pak rivalry.

There is also a slow realisation that Saarc has outlived its relevance and hence bilateral Indian support is essential for future development. Therefore, their wholehearted support to India was clearly expected. India did make a foreign policy error in projecting only Pakistan as the source of terror, without considering the ISIS or other terror groups, which affect the larger grouping. Pakistan was not an issue for Brics nations, hence should never have been our major focus, especially since we are aware of our differences with China and its proximity to Pakistan. As a strong and powerful nation, considered a regional power, we needed to be careful before raising issues which were steamrolled, resulting in half-hearted justifications. The statement, post the Bimstec summit, was on expected lines and clearly elucidated Pakistan’s isolation within the region. 

(Harsha Kakar – THE WRITER IS A RETIRED MAJOR-GENERAL OF THE INDIAN ARMY)