As we have been saying repeatedly the relationship within India between the Centre and the North Eastern Region has never been founded on an edifice of trust, equality and oneness. Howsoever the region may try to belong to India, there are always forces for repulsing. In recent periods the story starts from the Pande and the Wanchoo committee reports on backward areas, the Shukla commission report and the latest being the Backward Regions Grants Fund. We have already commented on all these umpteen times.

The mixing of security perspective with the trade issues has as well been the undoing of the inter-country trade through Moreh. There have been many noises and arguments against such an approach at different forums.

Unfortunately: As I had mentioned above, there have been signs of the government of India realizing the necessity and significance of revising its view and approach on the region. But at the end of the day, it always seems to be the conservative forces carrying the day.

The latest case is the interest and initiatives being taken up by the ministry of external affairs of the government of India. We have been hearing so much noise about the Look East Policy of the government of India. While this comes out in different formats and platforms, no concrete articulation on the issue has yet emerged.

During the last four months or so, there have been many rounds of discussions in the region on the policy sponsored by the ministry of external trade. It is exactly this that we need to ponder as to what is being cooked exactly. As per our understanding, this ministry has the responsibility of appreciating the external interests of India.

But quite contrary to this basic understanding, we now have this ministry actively engaged in an effort to understand the region. We have no qualms in any agency of the government of India trying to appreciate the issues of the region better, but there are issues of propriety involved. Given the relative involvement of the different ministries of the government of India on the Look East Policy vis-à-vis the region, we may legitimately look the foreign ministry’s initiatives with askance.

It is here: It is in this context that we may discuss once again as to what are the critical issues confronting the region in so far the Look East Policy is concerned. Are these matters related to the ministry of external affairs? If yes, what are those and why? If not, why not? Further, what are the ministries to be particularly involved in this?

By now it should be clear from what we have written so far that the issues confronting the region can hardly be issues of external affairs unless the government of India has written off the region as an equal and trustworthy component of the great Indian nation. If the issues are left practically as the predominant concern of the external affairs ministry, it can only imply continuation of distrust of the region and the ill-famed security approach to anything in the region.

We have articulated many times earlier that issues confronting the region are going to be shaped by and centre around the following: (a) once the Look East Policy is put in place fully, the Moreh trade would no longer be border trade, but a full-fledged trade as we understand it; (b) the security perspective would not be able to have the kind of upper hand it now has once the policy becomes operative; (c) the openings available to the region would become international rather than confined and constricted as they are now; (d) the relative preparedness of the differing sub-regions to take advantage of the emerging opportunities, given that a global opening would imply capability-based competitiveness; and (e) given the fourth point, the educational, scientific and technological interventions being put in place by the government.

What we are fundamentally arguing is that the issues surrounding the preparation of the region for the logical opening up to South East Asia can hardly be issues for the external affairs ministry. The issues relating to trade may kindly be left to the commerce ministry. The issues relating to science and technology may kindly be under the purview of the science and technology ministry. The issues confronting education may kindly be left to the ministry of human resource development. Similarly we would expect a much greater involvement of the various development ministries of the government of India rather than the attempts of the external affairs ministry to assess the pulse of the region.

Such an approach by the development ministries rather than the current efforts of the external affairs ministry would help much more in establishing a psychological bridge with the region. It is so unfortunate that the North East has too long been taken for granted, and the government of India has yet to learn trusting the region. Distrust on a region had and would never serve the long run national interests.