Claude Arpi


Before India shone, it used to radiate. But it was
another sort of light that it shared with others. The
great rishi, Sri Aurobindo, wrote at the start of the
20th century: "This was an invasion of peace and not
of war, for to spread a spiritual civilisation by
force and physical conquest, the vaunt or the excuse
of modern imperialism would have been uncongenial to
the ancient cast of her mind and temperament and the
idea underlying her Dharma." Recently, these words
came to mind when I attended an international seminar
on "India and Central Asia, Classical to Contemporary
Period" organised in Delhi by the ICCR and Astha
Bharati.
   
Opening the seminar, Dr Najma Heptullah, the president
of the ICCR, said: "India has had age-old linkages and
interactions with the Central Asian countries. Over
the centuries close interaction of ideas, cultural
diffusion and continuous exchange of literature, and
technology, frequent and human migrations (took
place)."
 
Several experts from the newly independent Central
Asian republics were present. Dr BB Kumar, one of main
organisers, emphasised: "India and Central Asia, with
common and contiguous borders, climatic continuity,
similar geographical features and geo-cultural
affinity, have long traditions of socio-cultural,
political and economic contacts since remote past...
There has been uninterrupted flow of men, material and
ideas between the two." However, it is striking that
the geographical "continuity" between Central Asia and
India does not exist anymore. Why is something that
was done 2000 years ago no longer impossible?
 
First, some of the "natural" roads leading to Central
Asia (through Afghanistan) were severed by the
creation of Pakistan in 1947. Then, two months later,
the grabbing by Pakistan of the eastern parts the
State of Jammu and Kashmir followed. Gilgit and
Baltistan were offered to Jinnah's Dominion by a Major
Brown, Commandant of the Gilgit Scouts, who hoisted
the Pakistani flag on November 1, 1947, in this
strategic tehsil of Maharaja Hari Singh's state. Brown
had certainly the blessings of his bosses in Karachi
as a senior British officer commanding a battalion
specially trained to guard these strategic outposts
could not act on its own, without reference to his
hierarchy.
 
A few years later, one of the greatest (and mostly
unknown) foreign policy blunders was committed by
Nehru. During the first years of the Hindi-Chini
Bhai-Bhai policy, he accepted without protest the
shutting down of the Indian consulate in Kashgar. It
was a very ominous decision. The consulate, the gate
to Sinkiang, was closed for the simple reason that
Zhou Enlai, the Chinese Premier, did not want India's
ageless link with Central Asia to flourish. At the
same time, he was keen to open Chinese consulates or
trade agencies in Calcutta and Bombay. India could
have negotiated the issue and kept the Central Asian
road open in exchange of opening the new trade
agencies, but the demands of the machiavellian Chinese
premier were granted without discussion. India lost on
all the fronts.
 
Nehru had to explain to the Lok Sabha: "Revolutionary
changes took place there (in Sinkiang)... the Chinese
Government, when they came to Tibet, told us that they
intended that they wanted to treat Sinkiang as a
closed area..." Acknowledging the "revolutionary
changes", India complied and lost its trading road
with Central Asia which for millennia transited
through Kashgar and Yarkand. The severance of India's
ageless relations was accepted as a fait accompli.
Nehru also cited "the developments in Kashmir". It was
totally irrelevant since, after summer of 1948, India
controlled the Zoji-la pass and the Ladakh region. The
Karakoram Pass leading to Sinkiang was still open to
caravans.
 
Traditionally, trade and culture has always followed
the same trails. Today, though there is still a great
affinity between the people of India and Central Asia,
the physical "continuity" is absent. As a result,
trade has reduced to a minimum and cultural exchanges
are practically non-existent. Is there a remedy?
 
In 2003, Defence Minister George Fernandes and
External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha visited
Uzbekistan. A year before, Prime Minster Vajpayee went
to Almaty in Kazakhstan, but despite these efforts,
problems of access have not been sorted out. The
situation is such that experts thought to get
Turkmenistan gas through a pipeline passing
Afghanistan and Pakistan. One can understand that
Delhi is not too warm about this joint project.
 
China, very dependent on Central Asian oil and gas, is
now planning a railway line from Beijing to Europe
passing through Central Asia. It is doubtful that the
Chinese leadership would allow India's concurrence in
the area accept to reopen the traditional route in the
near future.
 
In case Delhi has a roadmap to solve the Kashmir
issue, the reopening of the route through Gilgit
through the Wakhan corridor is certainly worth
considering. When the "core issue" so dear to General
Musharraf comes on the negotiating table, let us hope
that the South Block officials will remember the
ancient links between Central Asia and its strategic
importance and will bargain hard. And, after all, the
people of Gilgit and Baltistan are deeply discontented
with Islamabad!