India On The Edge: Fractures And Fragile Relations – OpEd
As India approaches its centenary of independence in 2047, it faces a landscape fraught with both external challenges and internal discontent, revealing unsettling fractures in national unity.
The inauguration of the high-altitude Sela Tunnel in Arunachal Pradesh, opposed vehemently by Beijing, exemplifies the increasingly strained ties with China, as well as the precariousness of India’s regional diplomacy. This infrastructure project, intended to solidify India’s presence in a strategically sensitive zone, has intensified China’s unease. Chinese officials have openly criticized the development, viewing it as New Delhi’s attempt to assert military advantage in disputed territory (CNN, 2024; Business Today, 2024). According to South China Morning Post (2024), the Chinese response highlights Beijing’s perception of India’s border policy as overtly aggressive, a stance that could escalate beyond diplomatic protests. Such infrastructure-driven displays of strength suggest that India’s actions are not solely aimed at national security but also reveal its aspiration to dominate the region.
This approach is not limited to the Sela Tunnel. India’s maneuvers on the Doklam plateau, where New Delhi stepped in to counter Chinese infrastructure projects on Bhutanese soil, underscore a growing willingness to confront China and assert its sphere of influence (The New York Times, 2024). By involving itself in Bhutan’s affairs, India not only drew China’s ire but also sent a message to smaller states that it remains a dominant power in South Asia. However, this assertive posture risks alienating its neighbors. Scholars have suggested that such a dominance-based approach aligns with the theory of hegemonic power, which posits that a state often masks its control as stability-seeking behavior but in reality undermines the sovereignty of its smaller neighbors (The Diplomat, 2019). In India’s case, Bhutan, Nepal, and even Bangladesh may perceive these moves as less about regional security and more about consolidating New Delhi’s influence at their expense.
India’s strained relations with Nepal and Bangladesh further illustrate the ramifications of this hegemonic stance. With Nepal, a long-standing border dispute has fostered diplomatic friction and anti-India sentiment within Nepalese borders, reflecting broader concerns over sovereignty. In Bangladesh, relations have fluctuated, with recent tensions questioning India’s commitment to regional cooperation (BBC, 2024). For a country striving for leadership in South Asia, such rifts undermine India’s claims of being a unifying force, leaving a troubling void that could destabilize the regional order. As South China Morning Post (2024) notes, these issues exemplify the paradox of India’s regional ambition: the more it seeks to assert control, the more it risks creating a zone of instability.
While these international issues challenge India’s image as a stabilizing power, internal fractures hint at an even more profound threat to its unity. Societal divisions have grown more pronounced, reflecting deep-seated grievances among various communities across the nation. As tensions rise between different groups, the potential for conflict increases, exacerbating the fragility of India’s social fabric. The central government’s focus on a majoritarian agenda, coupled with inadequate attention to the needs and rights of minority communities, has led to growing disillusionment. The result is a country where the promise of unity in diversity is increasingly called into question.
The push for regional autonomy and recognition of diverse identities must be understood within the broader context of India’s federal structure, which has historically accommodated diversity through linguistic and cultural recognition. Yet, as The Diplomat (2019) observes, the increasing centralization of power under the current administration threatens to erode this delicate balance. A governance model that prioritizes regional identities over centralized control could offer a path to cohesion. But if the central government continues to dismiss these concerns, it risks widening the fault lines across different regions. India’s approach to its internal divisions must therefore become as nuanced as its diplomacy, or the calls for autonomy may evolve into a full-blown crisis of identity.
Looking toward 2047, the sum of these challenges paints a picture of a country at a crossroads. India has the option to pursue a more cooperative approach, both internally and externally, that respects the aspirations of its citizens and neighbors. Externally, India would benefit from recalibrating its approach to regional disputes—pursuing dialogue and trust-building with Bhutan, Nepal, and Bangladesh rather than asserting dominance. Domestically, it must engage constructively with all communities, acknowledging their cultural and economic needs. Through proactive measures that uphold unity within diversity, India could indeed achieve a stable and unified statehood in its centennial year.
However, if these challenges are met with rigidity and indifference, India’s future may indeed hold a disquieting turn. The implications are profound: failing to mend these fractures risks a future where 2047 marks not a century of unity but the unraveling of India’s fragile cohesion—a somber reflection on a path that could have been one of resilience and unity.
