Nepalese vice-president Paramanand Jha (second left) cuts the ribbon at the opening ceremony of the Messenger of Sunshine Program, in October 2015.

 

India and China have had a glorious history of cultural and material exchanges that developed into friendship. The relationship strengthened during the first half of the 20th century, when the two nations stood together in solidarity against Western imperialism. This tradition of fraternity and camaraderie has rendered border conflicts subordinate, even if they existed in some shape or form throughout history.
 

The southern Silk Road, also called the Assam-Myanmar and Yunnan Road, connected Chengdu and Yunnan to northeastern, central and northern India, where it converged with the Central Asian Silk Road.

Sima Qian (BC 145 - BC 90?), the great Chinese historian, documented the existence of the Southern Silk Road in his masterpiece Records of the Grand Historian, and he experienced it personally when he travelled to Bactria as a Han envoy. It is believed that Chinese silk was imported to India through this route. Kautilya (350 BC - 275 BC), an official during the reign of Chandragupta Maurya, recorded in his classic Arthashastra that silk was a product of China. If Kautilya’s statement is to be believed, Chinese silk was in vogue in India during the 4th century BC. One of the first provinces to engage in large-scale silkworm breeding was Sichuan, which is near Yunnan, an early passageway to India. For this reason, silk was one of the first industries to take root in northeastern India. By the 7th century, Assam’s silk industry had reached its pinnacle.
 

During the Song, Yuan and Ming dynasties  (960-1644), when trade replaced religion as the main carrier of culture between India and China, the route did not lose its relevance. Even in the 20th century, the Assam-Myanmar-Yunnan route was employed by the Allied Powers against the Japanese.
 

It was not until the post-colonial period that nation-states of the region decided to focus more on their disputed boundaries and distinct political cultures, thereby severing the historical ties among these peoples. The fact that China and India fought a war in 1962 and took opposite sides in the Cold War dynamics weakened the affinity created by these deep historical ties, and many decades passed before the neighboring countries could once again revive this connection.

 

Reviving ancient routes
Increasingly intense globalization and economic interdependence have given rise to various regional and sub-regional economic blocs, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the European Union , the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) in Latin America, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), and the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), covering Russia and the Central Asian republics.

With regard to Asia, the initiation of reforms and the open-door policy in China, especially since Deng Xiaoping’s southern tour in 1992, Indian economic reforms in 1991—especially its ‘Look East Policy’ (LEP) and similar opening from Bangladesh in the 1990s and Myanmar in the late 1980s—have created favorable conditions for further regional economic groupings and triggered trends of integration. These four nations are all members of one or more economic groupings in the region and together constitute a sub-regional group called the BCIM. The BCIM has since launched a new idea of creating the BCIM Economic Corridor, which is more than just another emerging bloc in this sub-region. Could we have similar mechanisms across the Himalayas-for example a China, Nepal, India Rail and Road Corridor-that would facilitate the integration of the region culturally and economically, and in the process, help us to have a paradigm of common and collective security?  What are the possibilities and what could be the challenges?

 

Infrastructure connectivity
If we look at the development of the BCIM, we realize that transportation connectivity has been the main theme of all 11 meetings on BCIM cooperation. It is unfortunate that we have not been able to reestablish the routes of communication from ancient times. Even if there have been some steps to develop the infrastructure, the task is uphill and the investment required is huge. It may take years before we can see the channels of communications open and fully connect the people across the Himalayas. For regional economic integration, it is extremely important to link the region with roads, railways, air and waterways wherever possible. The China Silk Road Fund, the BRICS New Development Bank as well as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank could be extremely helpful in realizing such integration.

 

Market access
If the transport in the area is integrated by better rail, road and navigation networks, it would give better market access to many of the interested companies in respective markets. Leaving the so-called security issue behind, if we look at the positive side of the 2007 Beijing-Lhasa train connectivity, goods from Nepal, northern India and Bhutan could easily be transported not only to Lhasa but also further east to Beijing. If a similar connectivity is established between northeast India, Bangladesh, Myanmar and China, goods will move overland instead of by sea, bringing prosperity and opportunities for remotely located communities along the route. Some of the sectors that would benefit could be pharmaceutical, information technology, agricultural products, food processing, textiles, fertilizers and minerals. Also, the smaller countries would benefit immensely by gaining access to bigger markets for their commodities as well as expanding their present capacities and diversifying products. The FDI inflows would also translate into technology transfer, thus pushing the economic growth rates higher. Furthermore, this would put an end to Chinese products flooding the markets through illegal means because that channel would become less attractive.  

 

Energy cooperation
The BCIM Economic Corridor has reserves of natural and mineral resources. For example, the southwestern region of China and eastern India have untapped reservoirs of oil and natural gas, coal, minerals and water resources. The BCIM Economic Corridor framework of cooperation will lead to joint investment in construction of relevant industries in the areas. There is huge potential for hydroelectricity in the region, which will complement the industrial activity in the area. Also, the regional power grids could be integrated to bring about the optimum utilization of electricity in the areas concerned. Furthermore, since these issues will essentially touch upon trans-border and river issues, better mechanisms could be put into place to manage and solve such issues, especially between India-Bangladesh and China.

 

Tourism cooperation
Two of the BCIM Economic Corridor counties, China and India, are ancient civilizations and have many places of historical and cultural significance. All the countries in the corridor have beautiful landscapes and rich biodiversity. The integrated transportation will not only foster deeper trade relations but also strengthen the tourism sector regionally as well internationally expanding people-to-people ties. The region could venture into ecotourism as well as heritage, spiritual and cultural tourism. This will also attract investment in the relevant areas and foster employment opportunities for the local people.

 

Security concerns
India has agreed in principle to cooperate with China and Myanmar to open new and old routes in northeastern India. However, it is apprehensive about security issues because it is hypersensitive about its turmoil-ridden northeastern region. It is almost a case of “once bitten twice shy” approach, especially after the Himalayan blunder of 1962. A senior fellow at the Vivekananda International Foundation argued that the “prevailing security situation thwarts the successful outcome of the BCIM forum and works against building trust and mutual confidence.” He cites conflicts between the armed ethnic groups in the region, Sino-Indian border tensions and the migration of Rohingya people from Myanmar to Bangladesh as factors that are not conducive to investment and development. 

However, there are even stronger reasons for opening these borders for the wellbeing of the local population and overall prosperity in the region. Sociologists like Patricia Uberoi, chair of the Institute of Chinese Studies in Delhi, who have been the part of the BCIM Track II cooperation mechanism have expressed optimism that at least the mechanism will see the light of “Track I.” However, she also said she fears that “soft” issues, such as society, culture and environment, which are directly relevant to the livelihoods and aspirations of peoples of the borderlands, are being diluted, as was the case at the 11th BCIM Forum in Dhaka.

 

B. R. Deepak is a professor at the Center of Chinese and Southeast Asian Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India, and Managing Editor of Think India Journal.