Fresh Perspectives on Border Studies: A Regional Account

In this edition of Sambandh Scholars Speak, Anushka Saxena interviews Dhananjay Tripathi, Chairperson, Department of International Relations at the South Asian University, on his book, Re-imagining Border Studies in South Asia, published by Routledge in 2021.

The book creates a foundational framework to explain why, despite being one of the fastest economically growing regions in the world, South Asia has yet to witness greater socio-economic integration by means of cross-border engagement and effective cooperation in regional governance. Using different frames and case studies across fourteen chapters, the book explains how borders and border regions in South Asia must play an integral role in transforming regional dynamics, while also creating scope for political peace and interdependent economic growth. A unique aspect of the book is that it lays equal emphasis on the significance of land and maritime borders, as well as internal and external borders and their dynamic nature.

This seminal and timely book does an excellent job at laying the theoretical and practical groundwork to understand the significance of borders for both state and non-state actors. From heavily influencing China’s current aggressive external policy towards its neighbourhood, to forming the psychological basis for the separation of identities across territorial lines, borders are not just “cartographic lines on the map,” but also have “histories of their own” (p. 43). At the same time, the authors within the book put an optimistic spin on the existence of cross-country differences by strategizing how borders can be used for negotiation and cooperation. This is evident from the case studies of energy connectivity in South Asia and the India-China transboundary water conflict, among others.

The book is divided into four sections, with chapters exploring theoretical frameworks for understanding border studies, regional connectivity and economy, border securitization, and the life and society of borderlands. In the Indian context, the detailed analyses presented by the book carry great contemporary relevance, whether on the issue of center-state relations extending to national borderlands, or on the blueprints for enhancing potential cross-border cooperation in the neighbourhood and beyond.

Anushka Saxena: The book argues that challenges to regionalism in South Asia, caused primarily due to the “waning of the liberal trade architecture” (p. 109), have stalled the overall economic integration and growth of the region. How can India drive up intraregional trade levels while balancing the drastic impact of factors such as disputes with Pakistan, an economic crisis in Sri Lanka, and the increasing protectionism in traditional markets of the West?

If South Asia gets connected to Central Asia, three South Asian countries will reap maximum benefits – India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

Dhananjay Tripathi: India is a big player in the region and the largest economy. It is certainly better placed to assist other South Asian countries. India positively and quickly responded to the crisis in Sri Lanka and extended support to other countries in the region like the Maldives. It is also willing to promote regional development, which explains its current strategy toward South Asia. While Indian efforts are essential, its small South Asian neighbours have apprehensions. It is popularly believed that India, due to its economic strength, may replace indigenous production in other South Asian countries. India needs to be sensitive to this, has to make bold decisions, and prioritize regional trade, but small countries too have to re-think such propositions. The liberal trading system will benefit everyone in the region, particularly when the West has started looking inwards. The recent economic growth in the region is a result of the successful integration of regional economies into the world. When there is no hesitation toward globalization, why is there a hesitation for regionalism? We have no easy answers to the India – Pakistan question but cooperation will benefit both. If South Asia gets connected to Central Asia, three South Asian countries will reap maximum benefits – India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. We have to think in terms of geo-economics.

AS: Using examples of Haats on the India-Bangladesh border and settlements in the Thar Desert, the book argues that there exist informal economies and trading communities in India’s borderlands. They depict a stark picture of how borders are perceived and utilized so differently by local communities than by the union government. How can Delhi leverage local knowledge and understanding to articulate better policies on cross-border trade, or on the environmental protection of the borderlands?

South Asia is a unique region – we are politically divided, economically not so integrated, but socially and culturally close to each other.

DT: South Asia is a unique region – we are politically divided, economically not so integrated, but socially and culturally close to each other. This dichotomous character of South Asia is quite apparent in border regions. The border represents the territorial limit of a state and, therefore, is guarded militarily. At the same time, borders also exhibit artificiality where states use ample force to deter the movement of ordinary people, imposing the concept of citizenship. Still, in socially and culturally connected regions like South Asia, people always invent ways to interact with each other and exchange/trade goods. For a border studies scholar, the Border Haat is like an official acknowledgment of economic connections between communities divided by borders. Although operating under strict rules and state surveillance, the Border Haats are regarded as a success, particularly because of the significant impact it has on border communities. Tripura wanted to open more Border Haats for this reason. While, at present, it is difficult to accept that the national capitals of this region will prioritize border trade over traditional security issues, we have to rethink our long-term policies. The same is true for India-Pakistan, where the volume of informal trade is more than formal trade. These political divisions may persist in some form or another in the near future. However, the way to address this is to allow border trade and formalize it because we have failed to deter economic connection between border communities in all these years, despite our best efforts. Every country will benefit if border trade in South Asia is given legal sanctity and promoted by the governments.

[T]he Border Haat is like an official acknowledgment of economic connections between communities divided by borders

AS: India has water disputes with several of its neighbours. From facing China’s “hydro-hegemony” (p. 199) to engaging in complex negotiations over waters of the Indus and Teesta rivers with Pakistan and Bangladesh respectively, India has gained considerable experience in dealing with the securitization of water boundaries. In this light, what are some of the best practices for the Indian state in specific and other South Asian states embroiled in transboundary water disputes in general, to deal with the resultant security dilemma?

DT: Water, as we know, is a complex issue in South Asia. Thankfully, we have still not indulged in any significant conflict on the water issue. Even during the height of political tensions between India and Pakistan, at least the Indus water treaty remained untouched and functional. Thus, there has been a willingness on the part of South Asian countries to resolve critical water disputes amicably. India, indeed based on its own experience, can contribute to this understanding. Although the situation in South Asia has changed over the years, we also need better preparation to deal with the looming concern of climate change. The 2022 IPCC report regards South Asia as a vulnerable region. Climate change is a cross-border issue, and just like water sharing, requires patience and understanding to be dealt with. Here, India has to use its expertise to create a conducive environment, ensuring that South Asian countries cooperate on climate change issues.

AS: With globalization, there has been a transformation in how states and non-state actors understand borders. This is evident from the fact that the Internet has created a “virtual space distinct from (but interconnected with) geographical boundaries” (p. 230). In this regard, how must we interpret attempts to create “cyber-borders” in an age where both scholarly and policy debates are trying to draw a balance between the concepts of ‘national security’ and the ‘right to information’?

DT:  The ‘cyber border’ is a new reality, but a lack of awareness exists. Even in academic circles, there are fewer discussions on these new kinds of borders that exist virtually but nowadays govern our lives in a big way. Lately, we have noticed that the cyber world is getting territorialized, and big powers are quite determined to control this space. In this, it is imperative that the other medium and small world states also try to assert control in cyberspace, making it more complex in the future. With our massive dependence on the cyber world, it is now an integral part of the national security of any country. This chapter draws our attention to this subject in a specific context; nevertheless, it has enough references for an interested scholar to work on. Yes, with the securitization of cyberspace, states wanted to regulate it, even though it was assumed to be an open, borderless space. Any black-and-white answer at this stage to the question is a little tricky because things are still in their nascent stage and evolving. Although, I prefer a more open and borderless cyber world.

AS: Border studies is an emerging field in India. For example, the book rightly highlights that issues such as the India-Sri Lanka fishermen disputes or the center-periphery disparity deserve as much focus as the India-Pakistan or India-China border tensions. In this light, what steps do you think should be undertaken to enable a shift, or rather, a transformation in the academic approach to this growing field?

DT: A pertinent question. The study of borders in South Asia, particularly in India, is primarily viewed from the security perspective. The post-colonial and post-partition South Asia is still very fixated on the idea of territoriality and is politically unwilling to move beyond a very conventional understanding of borders. This conceptualization of borders in South Asia limits the research agenda. This is not good for a developing region like South Asia, which faces several development challenges. We must cooperate, promote regional trade, and adopt an overall forward approach. There is a need for research on themes like border connectivity, borderland communities, border economics, borders, and climate change, and certainly border security, thereby going beyond the traditional security issues. At present, there is also a lack of institutional support for Border Studies in South Asia. We must learn from China, which is consciously backing research on borders and from varied perspectives. This is essential even for India. We need a few dedicated departments on Border Studies in universities, and think tanks must also come forward to endorse Border Studies. We can contribute immensely to the field, provided it gets the necessary support and encouragement.

About the author:

Dhananjay Tripathi is an Associate Professor and Chairperson at the Department of International Relations, South Asian Univesity.

E-Mail ID: dhananajay@sau.ac.in.

Anushka Saxena is a former Research Intern in the Foreign Policy & Security Studies vertical at CSEP. She is a Master’s Student at the O.P Jindal Global University and a Research Intern at the Institute of Chinese Studies, New Delhi.