between these two neighbours, has

Uneasy Neighbours: generated considerable debate

India, Pakistan and U.S. primarily in the US. The region is
Foreign Policy regarded as a ‘nuclear flashpoint’ or
by Kanishkan Sathasivan ‘the most dangerous place in the
Ashgate: Aldershot, world’ by many analysts in the US
and the West.
England, 2005.
In that sense, the book under
review by Kanishkan Sathasivam
Ashok K Behuria* builds on the already existing
prejudices and rather than examining
their authenticity, decidedly
Indo-Pak relation- reinforces them. Moreover, the title
ship has baffled many of the book (Uneasy Neighbours) is
observers over the impaled by the subtitle (India,
years. It has been Pakistan and US Foreign Policy),
characterised as the most enduring which in fact almost shades off into
of all rivalries by others. It is the barbed wires in the cover
interesting to find the relationship illustration. The book, in fact, focuses
between the two countries more on the interactions of the US
alternating between periods of acute with the ‘uneasy neighbours’ than on
crisis and periods of relative peace the different facets of uneasy
stifled by mutual suspicion and neighbourliness, which the author
distrust. No amount of external brilliantly alludes to in Chapter 2 of
pressure or persuasion, or internal the bookborrowing the formulations
readiness, could remove the clouds by Buzan and Weaver .
of antipathy between these two
countries. In the context of a nuclear The rudimentary discussion in the
South Asia, this persisting hostility, beginning through the maze of pre-

*Dr. Ashok Behuria is Research Fellow at Institute for Defence Studies and
Analyses, New Delhi, India.

Journal of Peace Studies 70 Vol 15, Issue 2, April-June 2008

 BBOOK REVIEW

colonial and post-colonial history of Similarly, in the discussions on the

the subcontinent, which is at best US foreign policy towards India and
sketchy, propels Kashmir as the bone Pakistan the author ’s over
of contention between the two states dependence on certain sources
of India and Pakistan. There is some impacts the formulation of his
sort of predestination, a strange sense arguments. He is helplessly waylaid
of determinism in the Kashmir- by the arguments he borrows from
centricity of the discourse, which is certain observers who have
given further impetus in the second specifically dealt with these issues
chapter of the book. But here again from the American view-point
the discussion fails to rise above the digging out their own sets of
ordinary and the facetious and allows evidences from classified and
itself to be guided by a particular unclassified official sources. The
strand of thought. It is strange to find author, rather than seeking to
the discussion toeing the familiar line question or examine these points of
of forced ‘even-handedness’ to de- view, scours these arguments and
recognise the fact of popular serves them as incontestable home
antipathy towards the Pakistan truths. These oft-quoted authors in
sponsored tribal raid on Kashmir, parentheses divide the honours for
which was even clearly brought out the discussions among them and
by the well-known Pakistani show Sathasivam’s over-dependence
General Akbar Khan, who had on limited sources. The old, familiar
planned the raid. The only story of personalities stalking the
innuendo that only the most careful foreign policy terrain and making
reader can stumble upon is the hostage to their fancies and caprices
statement that “the first Kashmir forms the bulk of the discussion.
war among India, Pakistan and Without demeaning the role of
Kashmiris themselves was fought personalities in the politics of these
from October 1947 to January 1949” countries, one can say that the
(p. 8). The expression seeks to hide possibility of discussing the political,
more than it seeks to reveal. In economic and social processes that
which sense the war was among limited the choices of these
Kashmiris themselves is left to personalities at the helm of affairs at
reader ’s imagination. There is different phases of history and
nothing more to the portrait than conditioned the foreign policies of
statement of facts in the second India, Pakistan and the US has been
chapter. given lesser emphasis.

Journal of Peace Studies 71 Vol 15, Issue 2, April-June 2008

 BBOOK REVIEW

There have been flashes of completely even when he hints at the

innovation, however, in unreasonable Nehruvian ‘nyet’ to
characterising the nature of Eisenhower ’s offer in 1958. The
relationship among these three Nehruvian worldview, being
countries. For example the author characterised as anti-US and anti-
describes Indo-US relations riven by capitalist in the book could have been
‘an undercurrent of mutual suspicion weighed in against his deep
and antagonism’ as a ‘long series of antipathy towards homegrown
steps forward followed by an equal communists.
number of steps backward’ (p. 57).
Similarly the author describes The fact remains however that the
Pakistan as the ‘arch nemesis of India’ two countries sought to court each
(p.9) or calls Pak-US relationship as other but were victims of their own
a ‘marriage of convenience’ (p.95), an self-images and national-interests.
‘uneven patron client relationship’ They ran into each other’s embrace
and ‘having a cyclical pattern without any effort when they chose
brought about through a series of to, and India was particularly eager
truly transformational events’. While to court US in the initial days but for
one may disagree with these the American inclinations to respond
formulations they point to the to Pakistani advances with ‘even-
author’s generalizations and make handed’ sympathy. The history of the
the conclusions predictable. subcontinent as well as the unfolding
cold war calculus stood in the way
The chapter on India and US of the three coming together in any
foreign policy dwells on the kind of triangular relationship of
unthinking rejection of US offers by inter-dependence. Even if things
the earlier Indian leadership and does have turned for the better and the so
not seek to explain the ‘whys’ and called process of ‘de-hyphenation’ is
‘hows’ of such reaction. The fact that on at the moment, the inertia of Indo-
the US thinking on Kashmir was Pak rivalry continue to pose serious
significantly conditioned by the challenges to US foreign policy
interpretation of the Pakistani and towards South Asia.
British Commonwealth Officials and
was completely apathetic towards the A serious flaw in the book is the
Indian point of view, which was the complete absence of any discussion
root cause of the hiatus in the on how the two neighbours have
beginning, escapes the author interacted with each other. There

Journal of Peace Studies 72 Vol 15, Issue 2, April-June 2008

 BBOOK REVIEW

have been several rounds of might be at posturing against each

negotiations, between these two other, a total ‘mutually assured
countries which have not been dealt destruction’ is off limits in south Asia,
with in any appreciable manner. if one looks at the self-sustaining
Some of them have been quite frank bonds of friendship among the
and open in spite of the trust-deficit people in spite of the walls of distrust
between the two countries, like the built officially around them.
Indus Water treaty of 1960 and the However, if Kashmir is to be
Nehru-Bogra talks of 1953-4 or projected as the most dangerous
Bhutto-Swaran Singh talks of 1962- place in the world then such
63. There is passing mention of the arguments had to be obliterated. This
1963 talks but the discussions on is not to berate the argument,
them could have thrown light on the however, that the two countries
nature of official interaction between should take care to acquire efficient
the two countries. This could have command and control systems and
given the author some background jointly work towards reducing the
to test his hypothesis of ‘uneasy risk of accidental nuclear
neighbours’. The role played by the confrontation.
US in all these could have been
analysed in detail as a measure of The discussion on strategic
American interest in India-Pakistan thinking in India and Pakistan makes
relations. interesting reading and provides the
book with some timber towards the
There is no mention whatsoever of end. The Indian war fighting
the non-official level of contacts doctrine as well as the recent move
between the peoples of these two by the Indian defence establishment
countries. There could have been to invest heavily in modernization of
another hypothesis here looking at defence forces finds mention here
the facile elitist version of hostility side by side with the Pakistani
struggling with the natural sense of concern about the continued
bonhomie between the two people predominance of India as a regional
who have shared experiences of power. The author also flags, quite
history over a considerable length of correctly, the Pakistani sense of
time. This can act as a buffer against insecurity since 1971. However, very
the dangerous portents of a nuclear soon Kashmir envelops the discourse
holocaust in the sub-continent. and one is back to the familiar
Howsoever competent the elites argument that Indian pre-eminence,

Journal of Peace Studies 73 Vol 15, Issue 2, April-June 2008

 BBOOK REVIEW

notwithstanding, Pakistan’s deter- pendence movement’. On the

mination to match India missile by whole, for a reader initiated into
missile and nuke by nuke will lead the triangular politics of India-
to a disastrous arms race and make a Pakistan-USA relationship, the
nuclear engagement quite probable. book is a welcome starter. It is
certain to lay the foundation for more
There are certain avoidable errors critical understanding and better
which could have been avoided like comprehension of the multifaceted
‘throws’ for ‘throes’ (p.100), ‘to decided’ and complex relationship that is
for ‘to decide’ (p. 69), ‘Taiwan Straights’ showing signs of creative
for ‘Taiwan Straits’ and mention of transformation in the post-9/11
Nehru as the ‘father of Indian inde- international politics.

Journal of Peace Studies 74 Vol 15, Issue 2, April-June 2008