Ministry of External Affairs Government of India

Need For Look West Policy

• 

  By: Ambassador (Retd) Ishrat Aziz
  Venue: Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, U.P.
  Date: October 27, 2014
  

The trade figures are based on Department of Commerce data. These figures do not include service and Foreign Direct Investment but only trade in goods.

The population figures are based on internet sources. Since often there are slight differences in different sources they have been averaged and moderated for greater proximity to actuality.

Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan have been included under the term West Asia because of strategic linkages.

India’s Look East Policy gets a lot of attention at the leadership level and extensive coverage in the news media. However from the point of view of our national interests, the Gulf/West Asia/North Africa, are more important. Indeed next to our immediate neighbourhood namely South Asia, the most important area for our economic and geostrategic interests is the Gulf/West Asia/North Africa region, consisting of 22 Arab league countries plus Afghanistan Iran and Turkey. We need a Look East Policy but we need a Look West Policy even more. A country of India’s size with 18% of world’s population will increasingly have intercontinental interests, East, West, North, South, near and far.

Our Economic relationship with the Gulf and West Asia/North Africa region is much larger than with any other country or region.

As a single trading partner, GCC is our largest partner, with almost $160 billion trade. If we take into account our trade with two other countries in the Gulf region, Iraq ($21.5 billion) and Iran ($15 billion) the trade with the region becomes $195 billion. Additionally we get $30 billion annually as remittances from the GCC countries. Add all this up and our economic relationship with the region becomes $225 billion. Almost 60% of this trade consists of our energy imports - oil and gas - vital for our economic development and which will keep increasing rapidly for the foreseeable future. India’s economic development depends critically on secure energy supplies.

Some comparisons will give a sense of perspective. Our total trade with the ASEAN countries of the Look East Policy is currently $80 billion. Even if you add to this our trade with China $68 billion Japan $19 billion, South Korea $ 17 billion, Taiwan $ 7 billion it is still only $191 billion.

Similarly, our total trade with European Union is $ 104 billion. Even if one adds to that our trade with the United States $60.6 billion it is still only $165 billion.Our total global trade is $781 billion- exports $313.2 billion and imports $467.5 billion; so almost 25% of our total trade is with this region.

Apart from this huge current trade and foreign exchange relationship, there are other long-term geopolitical considerations in our relationship with the region.

From the Gulf to Morocco on the Atlantic coast, it is a land mass of great geo-strategic significance for us. Consisting of 25 countries, it covers a graphical area of approximately 15.5million sq km. Shore to shore, Gulf is less than 1400 km away from our West Coast. From Delhi to Muscat is shorter distance than Delhi to Gauhati or Trivandrum.

Our main air corridors and sea lanes for our connectivity with Europe and North America lie through this area. Straits of Malacca may be important for our trade with China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan but about 50% of our trade has to use the Straits of Hormuz, Bab el Mandeb the narrow entrance to the red Sea, Suez Canal and the Straits of Gibraltar, all located in this region. Air flights to Europe and North America must use air corridors through this area for cost effectiveness.

As the region with 60% of world’s oil and 40% of its gas, its energy reserves are vital for the world but critical for us. Central Asia and Russia are natural energy suppliers for China, Japan and South Korea; Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria and Angola for the US; Libya, Algeria and Russia for European Union. Because of geographical proximity, the Gulf is our natural energy supplier and we are their natural market. This special energy relationship between us, vital for our economic and industrial development will last, as long as oil and gas fuel economies.

There are seven million Indians living in the Gulf. There is nothing like this anywhere in the world. No country has 7 million of its citizens abroad living in such a small area. Dubai has more Indians, than any city in the world outside India. In a crisis their security and welfare will be our concern though the responsibility may be that of the host country.

There may be three million Indians in the United States but they are almost all of them US citizens, who can look after themselves.

Since there are 7 million Indians in the Gulf, it is not surprising that there are more flights from India to the Gulf than from India to the rest of the word. For airlines operating between India and the Gulf it is also very profitable.

Another reason for the importance of the region is the fact that it has important places of pilgrimage for Indian citizens professing Islamic faith, who number about 180 million. About 170,000 pilgrims go for Haj every year to Saudi Arabia. A larger number about 200,000 go for Umrah annually. Additionally a significant number of Shia Muslims go for pilgrimage to the holy shrines in Iraq, Iran and Syria. This connection between India and the region is of a permanent nature. It has been going on for more than 1000 years.

The total population of Gulf/West Asia/North Africa countries is 520 million and their combined GDP about $4.8 trillion.

Since Israeli is an important strategic factor in the region, some facts will put things in perspective. Without West Bank and Gaza, Israel has an area of 8020 sq.km, and a population of 7.85 million, including about 1.9 million Palestinians. Its GDP is about $273 billion and our total trade with Israel is about $7 billion. In this context it may be noted that the Palestinian population in West Bank is about 2,730,000 and in Gaza about 1,970,000.

Scope for Relations

What has been stated under this heading applies primarily to the GCC countries and while West Asia/North Africa is important for us, Gulf is absolutely vital.

As small countries they need reliable economic partners for their economic diversification and sustainability. They have a difficult security environment and they need trustworthy security partners. Geographically we are the country best located to fulfil these needs.

Being deficient in fresh water and arable land, they need agricultural partnership. There is a great opportunity for both sides for cooperation here.

They are a small market with a large surplus capital which needs reliable and profitable opportunities for investment. We are a large market in need of capital investment which provides opportunities for joint ventures.They have oil and gas and our need for oil and gas, already very large, would keep growing rapidly for the foreseeable future.

Petrochemicals and fertilisers is another any of complementarity. Our market for these products is large and expanding. The Gulf countries, including Iran and Iraq can supply us with finished products as well as raw materials for joint ventures in petrochemicals and fertilizers.

There is scope for Security cooperation because of common problem of extremism.

These opportunities will not automatically become realities. For practical cooperation to be achieved considerable spade work involving a lot of effort and persistence will be required. In our own interest and because of our expertise and experience, we should prepare specific project reports, confident that these countries will become dependable partners because of shared interests.

How to Manage our Diplomacy with the Region

For optimum effectiveness, diplomacy must be managed with constant focus on the circumstances, realities, concerns and sensitivities of the countries one is interacting with. It is particularly so when the nations are in our immediate or near neighbourhood, small and vital to our interests. In interacting with this region we are on a good, friendly and familiar wicket.

We have a long history of interaction but no historical baggage to weigh down our efforts to promote cooperation with these countries. Unlike many Western countries in the 20th century, we have never occupied, dominated or exploited them or followed a policy of divide and rule.

We have never pursued a one-sided policy on Israel, at the expense of the legitimate interests of others in the region.

With 7 million Indians living and working in the Gulf and about 400 thousand Indians visiting the countries of the region for pilgrimage, we have people to people contact with them, like no country.

We are the largest economy in their neighbourhood with prospects of rapid growth.

We have interests with all countries of the region, even though many of them have differences with each other. Taking sides therefore is not an option for us.European Union, the United States, Russia and China are power players in the region. The regional heavyweights are Iran, Turkey, and Egypt each with population exceeding 80 million. Yemen though geographically much smaller than Saudi Arabia, equals the latter in terms of population, about 20 million. Yemen is on one side of Babel Mandeb the narrow entrance to the Red Sea at the other end of which is the Suez Canal.

Oman has a special significance. It has blue water ports, which no other GCC state has. It sits on one side of the vital waterway, the Straits of Hormuz, through which 20% of world's oil passes every day.

European Union’s long term strategy for the region contained in Barcelona Declaration of 1995 is to integrate the Mediterranean Rim Countries from Morocco to Turkey with Europe economically and strategically. This has long-term significance for us.

We must keep away from bilateral conflicts and tensions in the region. We must promote inclusive security and avoid divisive security pacts.

In dealing with these countries we must constantly bear in mind one important consideration, which unfortunately has never been properly analysed and understood. All of them, including the GCC countries, pursue policies based on their perception of their own self interest.

Religious ideology is often the means but not the substance of their policy. In that respect it is not unlike what other countries do. They will expand their relations with India as with any other country based on the secular advantages of ties with a stable and developing country of 1225 million people. India’s diplomatic weight will wax and wane with its strength, most of all economic.

In diplomatic interaction with these countries we must at all times maintain low profile. These countries especially those in the Gulf like to avoid open controversies which are bound to arise when there is publicity. Sharp public expression of differences is contrary to their culture and traditions.

In interacting with the region, it must be kept in mind that it has much more diversity than is often realised. Iran and Turkey have their own non-Arab identity, history and culture. But even what is called the Arab world, has its diversity. The two most significant non-Arab ethnic groups in the West Asia and North Africa are Berbers in North Africa, and Kurds in Iraq and Syria, Turkey and Iran. Besides constituting majority in Iraq, there are a significant number of Shias in Lebanon, GCC countries and Yemen. It is well known that there are two main sects in Islam, Sunnis and Shias, but what is often not realised is that within these two sects there is much diversity. Even more important than sectarian divide is tribal diversity in these societies which comes into play when an authoritarian ruler is deposed and the question arises as to who should govern and how.

Current Issues

Arabs, Israel and Palestinians: For policy decisions, focus has to be on basic facts and long-term trends.

This is not the place to recount the story of the creation of Israel; the long history of the persecution and pogroms of Jews in Europe; the indifference to legality and morality of the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916), the Balfour Declaration (1917) and the role of Great Britain as mandate power; the violence on the part of Jewish organisations like Lehi (Stern Gang), Haganah and Irgun, during the mandate period for creation of Israel; the decisive victories of Israel since 1948 in various wars and the new realities they created. Suffice it to say that the history of Arab-Israeli confrontation since it started has been one of Israeli strengths and Arab weaknesses.

Moral declamations or judgements serve little practical purpose in such situations.

But in dealing with Arab-Israeli-Palestinian problem certain facts, realities and most important broad trends should be kept in mind.

Israel was created by a United Nations resolution in 1948, which gave Israel 55% of pre-1948-mandate Palestine.

As a consequence of its military victories in 1948, Israel managed to increase its territory to 78% of the 1948 Palestine.

In the June 1967 war, Israel occupied the rest of the 22% of the Palestinian territory namely West Bank and Gaza.

The November 1967 UN resolution 242 calls for Israeli withdrawal from territories it occupied in the 1967 war. Israel has its interpretation of the 242 resolution on the semantic basis, of the absence of the article ‘the”, before occupied territories. Israel maintains that the absence of the article "the” means withdrawal from some, but not all territory. For most people the normal interpretation is withdrawal from entire West Bank and Gaza.

Since 1988, when the Palestinian National Council in Algiers recognised the existence of Israel, and Crown Prince Abdullah’s Arab Peace Initiative accepted at the Beirut Arab Summit (2002) and re-endorsed at the Riyadh Arab Summit (2007) the fundamental issue has not been the existence of Israel but what should be its boundaries. So the core issue, after lesser issues have been shaved off, is territorial.

Irrespective of legal hair splitting, today Palestinians as well as Arab states accept the right of Israel to exist in its pre 1967 War borders.

Claiming to be a security requirement, Israel has constructed walls and fences for its settlements in the West Bank. This, along with roads linking the scattered settlements have reduced the territory available for a Palestinian state to less than 15% of the pre 1948 Palestine and that too without geographical contiguity. These settlements, walls and fences and linkage roads are a violation of international law.

Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon is a movement whose resistance capability Israel has failed to neutralise, since it represents the aspirations of the people and has their support. Hezbollah put up a stiff resistance against Israeli military action in 2006 and after weeks of fighting and casualties Israel withdrew from South Lebanon without being able to crush Hezbollah.

Similarly despite five rounds of military operations against Hamas, since its withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 Israel has failed to destroy Hamas capabilities.But the most intractable problem that Israel faces is demographic.

Despite immigration of Jews from abroad the Jewish population in Israel plus West Bank and Gaza became a minority some years ago. That was part of the reason for Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. The Jewish population then had or was about to become a minority in the territories under its control.

Presently the Jewish population is 5,850,000, which includes a considerable number of Jews in settlements in the West Bank or living abroad as dual citizens. The total Palestinian population is 6,600,000, of which about 1,900,000 are in Israel proper, about 2,730,000 are in the West Bank, and about 1,970,000 are in Gaza.

With Gaza included, Palestinians have a 53% majority versus 47% Jews; without Gaza Palestinians are about 45% and Jews about 55%.

Considering the demographic trends, the Palestinian population in Israel and West Bank combined should equal and surpass Jewish population in less than fifteen years, may be as early as ten. That is one reason amongst others why Israel does not want to formally annex West Bank. That is also why in recent years, Israel has been insisting on the precondition of its recognition by Palestinians as a Jewish state. Such recognition has many far reaching implications.

When the Palestinian population has become a majority in Israel plus West Bank, as it will in not too distant future, Israel will face a democratically untenable situation of a minority ruling a majority, and becoming in reality an apartheid state.

The problems that Israel faces cannot be dealt with by military power. The challenges from Hamas and Hezbollah and the frequent Intifada of the unemployed, frustrated youth in the West Bank, and the challenges of the changing demographics are political in their origin and call for diplomatic solution.

Israel cannot live as a fortress state behind walls and fences permanently.

The only realistic way out for Israel as well as for Palestinians and other states in the region is a two state solution with the Palestinians having a viable state in West Bank and Gaza. The hardest issue to resolve will be the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, not Jerusalem, the right of return or compensation to displaced Palestinians.

The tough security dilemmas that Israel faces are genuine and will have to be addressed squarely in any peace settlement. At the same time occupation of territory is not a solution to Israel's lasting and genuine security; indeed it comes in its way. Solution of the problem of Israeli security and end to Palestinian misery are inseparable and require simultaneous resolution.

Such a solution requires going beyond the atavistic tribal impulses that violate the concept of equal rights for all living in one state. It also requires overcoming the past and breaking the cycle of wrong and revenge through a truth and reconciliation process.

For us peace and stability are vitally important because of our high stakes. Whenever there is a crisis in the region we end up paying a heavy price. Tensions in the region prevent the fullest realisation of the potential for beneficial relations between and the region and us.

For these reasons we have always favoured a two state solution, involving the establishment of a Palestinian state in West Bank and Gaza. We should continue to do so and articulate our position on appropriate occasions. Our West Asia policy is based on the balance of our interests with the Israelis as well as with countries in the rest of the region. We have important defence, technology and security ties with Israel; at the same time we have vast, extensive and diversified interests with the rest of the countries of the region. We can develop technologies with research but not create oil and gas under our ground.

Iran and GCC: Pursuit of our relations with Iran in recent years has been complicated by strains in Iran’s relations with GCC countries, especially Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates and increased tensions between Israel and Iran.

The importance of GCC countries was detailed in the opening paragraphs of the presentation. As for Iran it is a very important country geo-strategically. With a population of 80 million, very large oil and gas reserves, water resources, arable land, education, technology and broad industrial base, it is a heavy weight in the region with the potential to become a strong regional player. Its geographical location makes it our gateway for access to Central Asia and Afghanistan.

The problems between the GCC and Iran arise from acute asymmetry between them. Iran’s total population is full three times that of the six GCC countries combined, besides many other assets for becoming powerful. This asymmetry makes GCC countries feel vulnerable.

Earlier during the time of Shah when Iran was an ally of the United States and GCC countries had close ties with the United States they felt secure. Things changed with the Iranian revolution and rupture of Iran’s ties with the United States.

Recently there have been other developments causing concern to the GCC countries. United States’ power is declining, and its capacity to provide security to far-flung regions is diminishing. Moreover United States’ dependence on the Gulf for its energy is lessening.

In the United States’ strategic calculus, the importance of Asia/Pacific has increased because of the rise of China and increased global economic importance of Asia/Pacific. Hence it is rebalancing its strategic resources and concentrating them more in the Asia Pacific region.

The GCC countries are acutely aware of the fact that for their security they need strong ties with outside powers. Given their small population base and other deficiencies, they cannot meet their strategic needs fully on their own. It is for this reason that they have traditionally had strong defence ties with the West, especially United States and United Kingdom and France.

It is in this context that their apprehensions about Iran particularly its nuclear program, which Iran claims is peaceful, should be viewed. Their unstated view is that once Iran has achieved the necessary enrichment nuclear technology, qualitatively and quantitatively, swift attainment of a weapons program will be a matter of decision not capability.

Since security is every country's entitlement, the best way out of this situation is a regional security structure which takes into account every party’s legitimate security concerns. Such a security structure must be inclusive; an exclusive defence pact against any party will be divisive, increase tensions and trigger arms race, to the detriment of the interests of the people.

The proposed security structure must have international support and guarantees but without military involvement of powers away from the region.The envisaged security structure must have credible confidence building measures, demilitarised zones and transparent early warning systems on the ground. One cannot be sanguine about such an idea getting traction; but it may gain increasing support if people realise that the alternative to this is militarization of the region, increasing tensions, arms race, without enhanced security for anyone.

India should promote this idea as a medium to long-term goal, through think tank contacts because Gulf security and stability is important for us.

Meanwhile India should strengthen security and defence ties with willing countries on a bilateral basis while keeping its distance from defence pacts aimed against any country explicitly or implicitly. A lot of wisdom, skill and firmness will be required to navigate our diplomacy through the rocks and eddies in the region.

Iran and Israel: Tensions between Iran and Israel cause policy complications for us. To make things more difficult, the policies of the strong countries, especially United States, overlap with that of Israel on the issue of Iran’s a nuclear program, adding to our pressures. Sanctions against Iran, those of the United Nations as well as United States, affect our economic relationship with Iran, particularly oil imports.

The basic goal of West and Israel is to freeze Iran’s nuclear program at a level where it will not have the capacity to weaponize, in a short time, even if it should decide to do so in future. In short they want to ensure that remaining non-nuclear should be a matter of inability not choice for Iran. The attempt is to restrict Iran’s enrichment capability to even less than 20 to 22% which is required for peaceful use in medical isotopes. For weapons grade uranium enrichment up to 90 to 92% is required.

Causes of tensions between Iran and the Israel however go much deeper and are much more ramified than the single issue of Iran’s nuclear program. The most important point, never to be lost sight of is that these differences are strategic not ideological. Iranians pursue self-interest not religious ideology.Israel's national security policy has always been to neutralise an existing military challenge in the region as well as to prevent one from emerging. It neutralised Egypt, then the strongest Arab country, through the 1967 War and then permanently through the Camp David Accords in 1978, which include an annual aid of dollars 2 billion to Egypt. For Israel Iran is the emerging strategic challenge on the horizon.

In Israel’s strategic calculus, a strong Iran is unacceptable, a nuclear Iran even more so.

It is not that a strong Iran would pose a direct military threat to Israel. Neither side has reason to choose a confrontation with the other. Iran probably wants to build its strength for its own security with other countries in its neighbourhood in mind. Iran has bitter memories of its dominance by strong powers in the past when it was weak.

Israel would like a free hand in dealing with the Palestinians and others in the region. A strong Iran will be a restraining factor. Iran’s support for Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria shows the kind of challenge that Iran poses for Israel.For removal of tensions and eventual normalisation of relations between Iran and Israel, the following are required:

a) In the immediate future a resolution of the issue of Iran’s nuclear program. This is under discussion between Iran, and the P5+1

b) Improvement of relations between Iran and the West particularly United States.

c) Improvement of relations between Iran and the GCC.

d) Most importantly a solution of the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian issue.All these issues are interconnected.

As for the United States its experience of two unsuccessful wars in the region, and continuing violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, may induce it to sort out its problems with Iran. After the reduction of its presence in the region as a consequence of its decision to rebalance, US will require a political strategy to protect its interests in the area which, without Iran’s cooperation will be difficult to sustain.

The key issue whose resolution can change the dynamics of relations between the countries of the region and revive United States sagging influence is the Arab/ Palestinian/ Israeli issue.

For example a resolution of Iran’s nuclear program is connected to Israel security. In turn Israel's security is dependent on a resolution of its conflict with the Palestinians, which cannot be achieved without a full and comprehensive peace between Arabs and Israelis. Without GCC countries’ legitimate security concerns being taken care of, they will not feel comfortable with prospects of an Iranian-US rapprochement.

Obviously all these issues cannot be resolved through one grand bargain, but focusing on one issue in isolation is also unlikely to get very far. Interlinked issues may be pursued in stages provided there is credible assurance that the resolution of one issue would clear the way for dealing with other issues. It will be recalled that in order to build international coalition against Iraq, the US before the 1991 and again 2003 had indicated that it would make an effort for a just solution of Palestinian and Israeli conflict after the war. US’ failure to do so eroded its prestige and credibility in the region. Many of the problems that the United States is facing in the region can be attributed to that failure.

While diplomatic initiatives and efforts on these issues will go on, we must continue with our basic stand on Iran’s nuclear program. Iran has the right to a peaceful nuclear program in accordance with Non Proliferation Treaty. Iran should abide by its obligations and commitments to Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Whether it is doing so or not should be established by IAEA and the matter can be taken to the United Nations Security Council only on the basis of facts established by IAEA and its recommendations. This has been our basic approach and we should remain firmly committed to it.

Arab Mass Movement and Political Islam

The phrase Arab Mass Movement is being used deliberately, because what started as a spring of hope and change has become a scorching summer of despair and chaos. Today the original expression Arab Spring sounds bitterly ironic.

It would be beyond the scope of this presentation and will serve little purpose to go into a detailed narrative of the mass movement and how Political Islam gained upper hand in the process.

The important point to bear in mind is that both Arab mass movement and Political Islam have a common factor for their origin - serious governance failure in West Asia since the Second World War. They may differ over the strategy and remedy for the ills of their societies, but the common basis of their origin is undeniable.

The Arab mass movement is an internal development in these societies, while political Islam has global ramifications and is a transnational phenomenon.The Arab mass movement is a call for good governance which people have to decide for themselves in each country. It is in the interest of all countries if the people in West Asia, North Africa, can achieve good governance, political stability and economic prosperity; but good governance cannot be exported or imported like a commodity. The best thing one can do for the cause of good governance abroad is to have good governance at home.

As for the Arab mass movement the best policy would be to deal with the government in place, and leave the rest to the people and historical forces at work. Open external prescriptions have the potential to be counter-productive, and are best avoided.

Since Political Islam has an international character, with implications for us we will have to deal with it proactively. To do that effectively we must understand the factors for its origin and appeal.

As was said earlier, political Islam has its origins in governance failure. This needs some elaboration.

But first it would help to be clear about what is political Islam. Political Islam is the belief that the political, economic and security problems of Muslim societies can be solved by turning to the ideals and values of true Islam.

Hence Political Islam is not a religious revival but a religio-political movement. It has more to do with politics, economics and power and less to do with religion. The goals of political Islam are political and economic to be achieved through Islam.

It should be borne in mind that there is no consensus let alone unanimity about what are the true Islamic ideas and values and how they can be implemented in today's world.

The fundamental factor leading to the rise of political Islam in the 20th century has been disastrous governance failure- external as well is internal, political as well as economic- in most West Asian countriesIn the absence of accountable governance, ruler’s ambitions and the perpetuation of regime took precedence over people's welfare.

Individuals continued to rule on for decades - in one case more than four decades - without constitutional mandate causing mounting frustration amongst the people. No serious attempt was made at progressive transition to consultative governance during all these years.

People were promised economic growth; democracy could wait. That did not happen as Arab Human Development Reports so vividly bring out. Japan's GDP of $4.9 trillion, a country of 127 million people is equal to the combined GDP of 22 Arab league countries plus Iran Turkey and Afghanistan which have a total population of 520 million but GDP of only $4.8 trillion.

People were fed the idea that restitution of Palestinian rights abroad was more important than democracy at home. That also did not happen. Today after untold sufferings, Palestinians are in a much weaker position than at any time in the past 60 years. They cannot get today what they could have got decades ago.

Why did people turn to religion rather than secularism? The main reason is that the republican authoritarian regimes that ruled over Iraq, Egypt and Syria did so in the name of secularism. Their failure discredited both republicanism and secularism and made many turn away from them.

Some sections of political Islam became extremists. The main reason for this is that no attempt was made to challenge the Political Islam through debate and democracy. Authoritarian regimes do not debate; they suppress and when moderates are suppressed extremists arise.

What about violent elements in Political Islam?

That is because of the environment in which Political Islam in West Asia and elsewhere has existed and mutated. West Asia has seen more wars, civil conflicts, suppression, deaths and violence for a prolonged period than any other region in the world. A brief summary will give a sense of perspective.

There have been four Arab-Israeli wars, 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, besides innumerable conflicts, clashes, air attacks, assassinations, kidnappings, hijackings, car bombs, letter bombs etc. Since its withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, Israel has attacked, strafed and bombarded that strip of land of 360 sq km crowded with 1.9 million people in five military operations.

There was a civil war in Yemen from 1962 -70 between Royalists supported by Saudi Arabia and Republicans by the Egypt: Estimated number of deaths 50-100 thousand.

King Hussein of Jordan crushed Palestinians with the full force of his military in 1970: Estimated number of deaths 10 -20 thousand.

In 1982 President Hafez al Assad of Syria suppressed uprising in the town of Hama with full military strength: Estimated number of deaths 20,000Iraq-Iran war 1980 - 88: Estimated number of deaths 1 million. Economic damage estimated at $1 trillion.

Jihad against Soviet Union in Afghanistan 1979 – 90: Estimated number of deaths 1 million. 35 years after the war started there is still fighting and violence and two generations of Afghans have not seen normal life.War against Saddam Hussein's occupation of Kuwait 1991: Full details of casualties not revealed by either side, but they were huge.

Lebanese Civil War 1975 – 90: Estimated number of casualties 120 to 150,000.

Algerian civil war 1990 -2002: Casualties estimated between 50 to100 thousand. Earlier in the War of Independence against France an estimated half a million died.

Second Iraq War in 2003 and occupation: Estimated deaths for the war and subsequent resistance against American occupation and sectarian fighting 500 thousand. One estimate is that since Iraq Iran war in 1980 Iraq has lost 2.5 million people.

The recent Arab Mass Movement which plunged into violence and degenerated into full fledged civil wars in some countries is further radicalizing the area and spawning extremism. Death estimates for the ongoing Syrian civil war are 100 to 150 thousand.

No detailed and reliable studies are available but a safe and conservative estimate would be that directly and indirectly as a consequence of these wars and conflicts about 5 to 6 million deaths may have taken place in the region while the economic losses could be $7-$8 trillion.

If these resources had been invested for public benefit, economic development, education, healthcare, food, clothing and shelter for the people there would have been prosperity not Political Islam and certainly not extremism. In most cases these were wars and conflicts not of necessity but of choice, which clearly can be attributed to wrong governance. Bad governance planted the crop of frustration, anger and resentment; narrow theology harvested it for its extremism.

For coping with the implications of Political Islam a few things must be borne in mind:

1) Political Islam extends from Nigeria to Indonesia in some form or another.

2) Far from being united and homogeneous, political Islam is diverse and even fractious.

3) We can broadly divided political Islam into moderates and extremist.Broadly speaking moderate Islamists would be those who accept the democratic system of governance and agree to assume and relinquish political power through democratic processes. They also tolerate, in varying degrees, diversity in the society as a practical necessity.

Based on this definition a large majority of political Islamists could be characterised as moderates. The extremists in political Islam can be defined as those who reject the concept of universal suffrage as the truly legitimate way to power and governance. The ultra-extremists amongst them are willing to resort to violence to achieve their political goals.

We can deal with those moderate Political Islamists, who are willing to interact on the basis of acceptable norms of managing relations between people today. There are a large number of political parties in Muslim countries from Nigeria to Indonesia, including of course West Asia/North Africa and the Gulf, which will fall under this category.

As for the extremists: we have to deal with them proactively, by every means available, justified and offering prospects of results. How you deal with each group will depend on circumstances, what our interests are and how our interests are affected in a specific case. Surgical use of force will require good and honest intelligence combined at all times with a sound political strategy.

We should constantly keep one thing in mind. The resentment focus of political Islamists, especially of the extremist variety is on their own regimes and Western countries, the latter because of their support of Israel, of bolstering unelected regimes in the region and political domination and economic exploitation. At the same time we must fully cooperate with countries with whom our interests overlap.

Our main problem is militants and terrorists crossing the border into India from Pakistan/Afghanistan. For that a different strategy is required which is beyond the scope of this presentation.

As far as the Gulf /West Asia region is concerned, apprehending individual extremists and terrorists though important is the lesser problem; the bigger challenge is to ensure that extremism and terrorism do not reach India from or through this region and get traction here. It will require strengthening security cooperation with countries of the region combined with a sound political strategy

The best way to ensure that moderate political Islam does not produce extremism is to let those who come to power through electoral process carry out and handle the responsibilities of governance. We should not buy the false argument that with Islamists "one man, one vote” will become a "one-time” affair. People have turned to Political Islam where ever they have, because of their hope that Political Islamists will give better governance than those who had ruled for decades incompetently and corruptly. One of the two things will happen: either they will become pragmatic to provide good governance or they will persist in dogmatism, fail to give good governance and lose power. It is for people to decide what should happen to Political Islam, not outside powers. If Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) in Algeria had been allowed to come to power in 1991 they would have lost their appeal by now, perhaps much earlier.

However the electoral process was aborted, with tragic consequences for the people of that country. Democracy is the best process for exposing the truth about dogmatic extremism. Similarly instead of their governance capabilities being exposed, Hamas maintains appeal as a resistance movement.

Some Policy Ideas

A long wish list in the name of policy ideas like having a "Maritime Agreements”, " Counter Piracy Cooperation Agreements”, "Counter Terrorism Cooperation Agreements”, "Labour Agreements”, "Creating Digital Records of Indians and Data banks”, "Providing Legal and Cultural Counselling to Expatriate Indians”, "Establishing Chairs of Indian Studies in the Region”, "Regular India West Asia Dialogue” through think tanks, and an exhaustive list of country specific projects is being deliberately omitted here.

Policy statements should be like Preamble to the Constitution, Articles on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, laying down foundations of governance. Innumerable specifics that flow from them have to be worked out by the officials.

So what should be the preamble to India's relationship with the Gulf and West Asia and North Africa?

First of all this area should be considered an Area of Vital National Interest and Focus, next only to our immediate neighbourhood.

As a region that has 60% the world’s oil and 40% of gas, the Gulf should be the centrepiece of our energy security policy. Without energy security no economy can work today.

Because of economic and strategic complementarity we should strengthen ties and develop partnerships. In the globalising 21st century ties are becoming partnerships.

Our historical, geographical, cultural and people to people contact should be the foundation of our relationship.

Cooperation with the countries of the region against the common threat of extremism and terrorism should be pursued on a sustained basis..

Though many countries in the region have tensions in their relationship with each other we should pursue ties with all of them bilaterally. As a growing India offers increasing opportunities, all countries will find it their interest to strengthen relations with us whatever their mutual differences.

A 10% growth rate for 15 years is the key to effectiveness of India's diplomacy.

Contacts at the leadership level should be made more regular and frequent commensurate with our interests.

The missions in these countries should be upgraded and strengthened with increased staff and technology to meet their obligations.

As we pursue our interests in the region the assets that we will most need are vision and self-confidence.