Abstract
India faces challenges from the United States (US) frequently either exclusively or combined with other countries. It is natural that a country will face challenges from another in the geostrategic context. This paper is on, as a US report states, excessive maritime claims (EMC) by India in its exclusive maritime zone in the Indian Ocean. This is announced by the US in its annual sua sponte EMC reports. The report is inclusive of India. Such reports from the US on various excesses are regular and outwardly credible, though sans international authority. They are universal complaints from a concerned country. The challenged, in this case India, has the right to offset it especially when the intentions are aimed at stability and universal good order. India needs to clarify the intentions. This paper examines the case and peripherals. The validity of the American term “excessive maritime claims” against the intentions of India in the geostrategic context needs examination. It has reference to maritime public law and international law associated with it. The term EMC is in vogue from the US standpoint in expressive geostrategic communications. The EMC, for this paper, is projecting authority by a party which it doesn’t overtly have under the precinct of accepted laws, denying certain opportunities of interest to the other party, who thereby perceives and challenges such authority in the form of its projection as a representative of the parties affected including itself. It lacks clarity of content demanding discussions between parties. The US report on EMC assumes the authority projected by India to inform military movements through its exclusive economic zone is a claim over a space or domain of a terrain which in this case is the ocean, and hence extralegal. The desired clarity is absent on both sides; hence needs to be explained under international law, which is mired by the question, “is international law law” posed by some who defy good order and conduct of collective well-being worldwide. EMC, that can be contested by both the parties, the challenging and the challenged, is the effort of a party to enforce restriction to a specific activity in a particular area in the ocean that though belongs to its rightful authority for exploitation of resources under law doesn’t provide the right to object another in exercising its freedom and associated authority without violation of the authorities and rights that the first party holds. The major part of the world ocean is the global commons. The ocean is allocated for resource exploitation to those who have the right of access in varying layers of ocean zones and areas under United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS) and other laws and treaties as applicable and in force. Other nations cannot oppose the right of resource of the eligible state in such zones by an activity of their choice unless the allottee consents to it under customary practices of good order. This point and associated arguments are examined in this paper from the point of India with respect to the exclusive economic zones and other maritime zones of India in the Indian Ocean. The relevant situations with respect to select other countries are also mentioned briefly to compare the case in point where the United States has challenged India among others whose intentions may differ. The study is also important with respect to the friendly engagements of India with the Quad and neighbourhood, and its responsibility to maintain good order and discipline in the Indian Ocean by virtue of its geolocation. It is not a matter of India’s security alone. In this attempt, the paper also raises certain collaterals in the geostrategic framework to ponder by researchers and scholars.
Keywords Semantic dissonance | National governance | Continuum stasis | Biomodel | Abstraction | Strategy | Right of nation
Introduction
Hasty terms and expressions can cause semantic dissonance1 in strategic thinking and thereby interactive transactions in national governance. This is especially so when such terms originate from decision coves of governments. Soon the dissonant terms percolate into the media and other infochains and go through natural twists and turns to which human communication falls prey. The chorus thereafter refuses to attenuate and branches out in grapevines all around. Many such words resurface in strategic dialogues. That’s when the problem starts. Therefore it is necessary to define a term prior to application highlighting the context of attribution. It will help to avoid decision flaws.
An example is a much-used term, “string of pearls.” The term originated from a private US consulting firm in 2004. It caught on with the strategic community starving for shot-glass terms worldwide casting confusion on the intentions of China in the baiting game. At the core of the context was India. India had never delved in such terms in geostrategic issues. China had never implied or declared its main opponent was India and it had a covert strategic plan to choke it with a single string or strand of pearls or some kind of lal dupatta2 a la the windshield kicking homicide scene in the car that shook the box office of the period in the film Godfather3. It was a third party tactless comment on two other parties. It is an American habit when the focus is geostrategy to provide a twist in the script. It can be argued as naturally human in interactive environment.
India doesn’t have existential pangs with any country. It is confident and is willing to work with all for the common good supporting all apparitions of god and belief systems according to the author. There is resistance from within4. India’s solidarity mindset with the world has been highlighted since ancient times in its continuum stasis of multi-social vitality. In spite of resistances, India has been moving with a “zen-like calm”5 through the continuum phase of all kinds of turmoils and turbulences. Indian business organisations operate with their counterparts in China. Indians adapt to any kind of social systems anywhere in the world. It could be attributed to its stodgy demographic density and continuum adaptability. There are political parties in India strongly affiliated to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the sole governing authority in China, through agreements and understanding. The affiliations are visible even when India fights wars or engage in border stability operations with China. It may look strange but India is used to it. In 1962, during a blood donation drive by the people and their government for Indian soldiers fighting a war with China, one of the political parties in India even issued a diktat to its members and followers not to donate blood to Indian soldiers. There was a difference of opinion within the party on the diktat by the higher command was another matter. Similar support from a section of people to China was visible when there were standoffs between the two countries at Doklam and Galwan in recent times6. Support to Palestine and Israel are repeatedly projected in the country whenever there is conflict between them. If there is any pun in these statements it is intended to drive home certain principles that the Indians should digest for collective security, not partisan influence. Anything can happen in love and power politics is supposedly what Clausewitz expressed as fog and friction in his theories on war. It could happen in governance too. India can have perennially disturbing issues that will make it the most difficult nation to govern by governments. And still, as per the author’s belief in continuum theory, India will be governed and will continue to remain a biomodel for the global system7. The United States will be the closest follower for the repeat global model. It will take time. In the meantime, it should observe India. “India is the world; the United States has the world in it” is the background view the author provides as a prop8. Both the countries are critical for the people of the world to stop hunting for stability and come to balance, though perfection is impossible under the law of limitations. This is a hypothesis that the author believes can be tested and proven positive.
Under such situational musings in relation to long-standing affinities, it is difficult to believe that China will choke India with some kind of a strand with pearls or stone beads. Whether it can, is another question. Semantic dissonance of such kind can create issues in strategic planning. The first step in any strategic thinking is to filter semantic dissonance while processing data and information. Hasty conclusions can mar relationships.
The posit of the US consultant firm, in referring to the string of pearls, probably was that China in its run to the peak that everyone desires for themselves would attempt to expand its naval presence by building civilian maritime infrastructure in the Indian Ocean fringe, which of course, is visible today. More than its naval strength, the present scenario projects China’s geostrategic capability to influence the oceanic rim countries9 in maritime infrastructure building. There are many among authorities in the world who listen to China ardently. It is in the news that Pakistan is purportedly discounting two of its near-shore islands off Karachi seaboard to China: Budhoo and Bundal10. The islands are part of Pakistan’s Sindh province. Gifting them centrally without the consent of the provincial government could be a violation of the constitution. But then, it is the predicament of the people of Pakistan. The politicians may sell off or collaterally wager national realties for money when they run low on it. They need money to run their daily expenses. Governance is not easy. Placing national properties at alien disposal in return for a consideration is one of the ways some governments make money. There are other realty ways also. One, though very primitive and ancient, is to march into another’s territory with all forces and hold ground. Saddam did it when he went broke after the ten-year war with Iran. He marched his troops into Kuwait. That was bad.
The “string of pearls” and similar terms are not extremely serious or sensuous for India to raise voice geostrategically or toss and turn around even if China or anybody else overtly commissions some such castles in geostrategic firmaments. The term is not appropriate or sufficient for India or anybody else to craft a counter strategy to any adversarial geostrategic approaches of China. The semantics is similar to the 70’s model of Panchsheel that Zhou Enlai propagated borrowing the term from Bahasa Indonesia. Sukarno was said to have advised Zhou on the term11. The term became dissonant when it was breached dissolutely and erratically leading to a war in 1962. There are lot of misleading grapevine on the 1962 war between China and India that cannot be attributed to the idea of fog and friction or absence of coup d’oeil popularised by Clausewitz in his abstractionist theories. Here it is important to understand that abstraction in strategy is neither real nor unreal. It exists in human thinking, hence a clear and present parameter in human governance. Abstractions are serious strategic inputs in governance.
The rights of a nation
It is time a nation is visualised independent of its people under specific rights. One of them is the right of the nation (nation rights) to decide its geostrategy for survival. It has to be done by the government for the nation. Government is the agent of the people as consented by them at different degrees of vacillating differences. This approach in “due process” can open a different vista for strategic vision and mutual respect among the world of nations in the collective system profile. In this perspective, a nation is different from the people it holds and provides identity through socio-psychological contract to a nation and its people. They are mutually inclusive giving an aspersion that they are one. They are not. The inclusivity of the “nation-people contract” is provided by the land that links them. The land-human system combine provides the conceptual origin of the nation in the present European model of the Westphalian system of the sovereign state. People of a country own the land and associated geoproperty, not the nation. A nation acquires its identity from the people among others. Its geostrategic format is shaped from the land it holds and its geolocation. No nation can be created in any other terrain even if there are people supporting it with rights of its own in the present context. This aspect of the right of a nation can be used to argue on the fallibility of referendums that some human systems advocate for nations sans landholdings. A nation under referendum is virtual, not actual for this reason.
The concept of a nation being a separate entity and different from the people it holds is similar to the status and legal rights of a corporate entity. A corporate organisation is a legal entity independent of its employees and other stakeholders. It stands alone legally in terms of rights; it can sue and be sued. Interestingly, while there is much talk on human rights internationally, the idea that a nation is an independent entity and hence entitled to rights of its own for recognition among nation systems is not seriously considered in spite of the dawn of the new century that is into its third decade. Humans are advanced by time, but it is not showing under the law of invariance12. Nations carry different human systems providing them with the identity of citizens in terms of nationality. It is also evident from the fact that a person can change his or her nationality. A nation cannot change its name or its geolocation. What is pertinent here is that a nation needs to be treated by people as an independent entity while comparing with others and in equality of status in interactive matrices. A nation’s rights (nation rights) are as vital and critical as human rights in international relations (box).
The imperativeness of nation rights similar to human rights
The author believes it is time for the global system to consider Nation Rights Commission (NRC) to ensure mutual respect and equality among nations and their people similar to Human Rights Commission (HRC) under the United Nations (UN) purview. It will call for a Universal Declaration of Nation Rights (UDNR) in line with Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR).
A nation is an identified and recognised human system. Beyond this concept, the nation as an identified land-human entity remains independent of the human system. It has dignity of identity of its own and an equal position among the nations of the world for survival and existence being an entity. This perspective may be seen different from the practised or ideated one so far. The respect for the equality of nations should be one of the guiding principles of international law and practice. It is already admitted when international law is invoked but not practised as there is no authority that can establish equality among nations like the judicial system in a well-governed country. It is necessary to look at every nation as an independent entity that supports a particular human system. As mentioned, a nation becomes a nation when it is over land occupied by an identified human system. An identified human system is an independently governable system. The land in this context is equally imperative to the people. It is the duty of the government, whatever type it may be, as the agent of the people to see the nation is protected first and then the people. This is the principle the captain of a ship follows while in command at sea: safety of the ship first, and then the safety of the people on board. Here the ship stands separate from the people it carries in the ocean terrain equivalent to the land for the nation. The term governance is nautical. The term was originally derived from the Greek term kubernaien meaning to steer. It was metaphorically attested to Plato’s Republic.13
To see a nation equal to another and avoid defilement of its status of equality with the usage of abusive or derogatory terms with a slur such as rogue nation, militant nation, failing nation, falling nation, racist nation, s***hole nation14, etc. is not expected out of the new Homo sapiens sapiens15, the “sapien human” who are expected to be more advanced in mutual behaviour by time. There can be rogue governments, not rogue nations; there are failed governments, not failed nations; there are militant human systems or communities, not militant nations. Reference to a particular human system may be with respect to its mod and style of governance. It is not by reference to the nation, the independent entity that stands separate from its people as an entity inclusively, though. This kind of approach will help to appreciate the nation-people combine with reference to a particular nation for decision making in geostrategy. This technique is not explained here being out of context.
The absence of equality among nations is very visible in the United Nations’ approaches itself whose charter is antiquated though not flawed. It needs revision. UN is a great institution from the founders’ ideology, but the law of limitations that govern the human system restricts the equity principles in the global system of nations. The global system is not a system since it hasn’t got a definable boundary (note 7). Around 30 per cent of nations are in the third level of authority in the UN. The levels in the UN separate a nation from another in the collective status of equality. In the EMC argument, the US and India are not equal in the UN perception. The US stands at the first level. India is behind it in importance, a second. Second, of course, is considered better than the third except that while the third perennially accepts its state succumbing to limitations, the second is always bogged down by counterfactual dilemma. Counterfactualism is an entity apparition that can happen to humans, organisations and also nations since nations are independent entities as being argued here. Counterfactualism is the silver medal syndrome in competitive events. But appreciating counterfactualism as an illusion, India will be able to handle its relationship with the US to the advantage of the global systems by allaying intermediary misgivings. But the problem is countervailing interests when the US, a recognised adherent of India as the latter believes, throws blame at it generating slander around. This could happen between any two countries in geostrategic context. The problem with such slander is dilution of equality in international comparison by clout in geostrategic affairs. It was very evident in the refusal of the US in ratifying UNCLOS, the law that decides the right of nations in the ocean terrain. The US in its complaints on EMC is interfering with the law it has not ratified. It will have reasons for it and also arguments to counter. Recognising international law is not an excuse when maritime zones are definite and under the UNCLOS. Clout and arrogance have been ruling the international system. History is replete with such behaviours and their consequences. It is not acceptable in the modern society of sapien humans. The world is not a planet of (great) apes today. It is advanced and the human system needs to rethink about good order and discipline in international affairs.
It is possible by recognising the equality of nations and other geoentities. Any government has the right to follow the geostrategy it deems fit as long as it is not violating the sovereignty of another and is affirmed on mutual respect. Every nation has the right to defend its sovereignty as it deems fit and remaining within the circle of mutual deference and esteem. The right to defend one’s sovereignty is a universally accepted dictum and any action taken in this regard by a country cannot be considered extralegal. The other party may align with it as long as its rights are not challenged by the stand of the other. A challenge of “excessive claim” is ab initio extralegal and adversarial unless the alleged claimant has been given the chance to explain to the collective of nations.
China once stated that the Indian Ocean was not India’s ocean. That is an acceptable statement. The Indian Ocean is an overflow when the Indian plate collided with the Eurasian plate many millions of year ago raising the Himalaya’s and spilling the Tethys Sea over the tub as said to have happened to the good old Archimedes (287-212 BCE). Part of it became the Atlantic division of the World Ocean, some reports say. A small remnant of the erstwhile Tethys Sea perhaps was lifted up and left in situ in the commotion as Pangong Tso which actually is a sea according to the author and not a lake. It should be called Pangong Sea or Pangong Sagar as it is between India and China. It should be treated as historic marine waters. The salinity and pH value and other indicators point out to the assumption. The inertia is still dynamic at the point of impact. The tectonic plates are ever dynamic like a group of tiny tots stuck in a single crib. The latitude and longitude of every point on the planet are minutely changing by the moving plates. Some scientists feel the Indian Ocean may turn around to become an expansive lake one day, millions of years from now. The entire South and South East Asia may festoon it around the rim. Does it matter? It depends. China and the US, the way they exist now, will still be external to the Indian Ocean in this hypothetical imagery. Just to say.
Another interesting gobbledygook in maritime law is the silly term “right of innocent passage.” Is there a non-innocent passage? There could be unlawful passage provided there is a law to define the unlawfulness of the passage. There could also be an aggressive or unauthorised entry. That is break in under the law. The limitations of international law in these cases are revealing. The question whether international law is law is a perennial rumble that can be argued from both sides of law.
The concern and the aftermath
The issue, if there is one, between India and the US is not the EMC. It cannot hold water in international arguments. The right of innocent passage is for vessels to pass through the territorial sea of another nation under acceptable reasons. It is not right “to” innocent passage. The coastlands and island states have the right to monitor such passage for their own security and safety reasons which may naturally extend to suppression of unlawful activities around. It is only a matter of good order and discipline that nations agree and coordinate such movements for the common good. There is nothing excessive about it unless the objective is deliberately inducing conflict. India, along with some other countries, is accused of excessive claim by the US. The alleged excessive claim was of requiring countries to seek prior consent of the government of India for military exercises and manoeuvres in its EEZ. The first time the US protested India’s position was in 1976. The relations were not encouraging at that time. Ambassador Dennis Kux had elucidated the hesitant mutuality of the two countries in his book “The Estranged Democracies: India and the United States 1941-1991”16. It was bad, extremely bad, and unbecoming of two responsible nations of the world (author). But the relationships changed subsequent to India’s turn to globalisation in 1991. Today it has come to a full swing with the engagement in Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QSD) between Australia, Japan, India and the United States, also called the QUAD. The book of Dennis Kux on India and the United States had an introduction by Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1927-2003) the former member of the United States Senate. Kux also wrote another book “The United States and Pakistan, 1947-2000: Disenchanted Allies” where he had served as a US diplomat in 1957-59. The two books among others were popular in his studies and observations on India, Pakistan and the United States.
The EMC reports have been an operational challenge to India since 2008. India is firm that in ratifying the UNCLOS, the country understands the treaty did not authorise other states to carry out military exercises on its EEZ as it can turn out to be detrimental to India’s security and safety concerns. The safety and security of a nation is its right. Besides, India is also vicariously and legally under agreements responsible to the Indian Ocean domain close to it for international navigation, suppression of unlawful activities, marine environment, maritime search and rescue, disaster management and other matters in relation to maritime affairs by charter and allocation of duties under various international regulations and understandings.
The US is yet to ratify UNCLOS though it was an active participant in its creation. But the author doesn’t consider it as an irony of sorts. The US has the right to question but it should also understand that India has the right to counter by answer. It is quoted by those who counter the US challenge that it is not competent to challenge it through redressal mechanisms as it is not a party to the treaty. But under the customary law and global commons freedom, the ocean cannot be restricted by another for its own usage however powerful it may be. For the US, the UNCLOS though not ratified is a customary international law. But the topic here can be discussed under responsible geostrategic demeanour by the parties involved, even under the QUAD platform. Interpretations under uncoded customary observance of specific international agreements, etc. are strictly not necessary.
India has not reacted much to the excesses of the “excess claims” in spite of certain actions from the US Navy that has been interpreted by the media as acts of defiance. The Pentagon document challenges India’s stance that the US Navy cannot conduct exercises within the Indian EEZ without India’s permission. At the same time India and the US are also genuinely engaged in naval exercises in the Indian Ocean and beyond. The two sides may also carry out joint patrols in future.
Others in the excessive bandwagon
There are thirteen or so countries besides India in the EMC list. Some of them have passed domestic laws on criminal activities that demand state permission for using airspace over maritime zones, maritime survey activities, passage for military vessels through territorial seas and so on. All these show that the cat and mouse games and playing chicken by military vessels during the Cold War period may make a comeback in modern times. This can happen anywhere in the ocean terrain including the close shore waters of the United States under legal transit more than innocent passage in accordance with international law and maritime international laws.
The US Navy is actively engaged in marine interdictions and stability operations in North Arabian Sea for a very long time. Its vessels based in the Persian Gulf regularly traverse the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean to its bases in Japan. Against this background and needs of the US Navy in its commitments, the concerns of the US are genuine and hence there is nothing extraordinary for concern over its disagreement with India. It can be positively negotiated. In the meantime, China is serious and has repeatedly demanded that the US avoid monitoring and surveillance operations within its EEZ. The scenario will continue to remain stormy as long as the China-US disagreements in the South China Sea prevail and Japan and Korea express anxiety over their apprehensions about China engaging the disputed islands. China also builds artificial islands in the sea. Under the UNCLOS such islands cannot claim territoriality as well as other maritime zones around them. But will the law hold?
Conclusion
This paper considers India is vital if not critical to the US not only in its strategic plans but also to poise global geostrategy appropriate to the needs of the sapien humans of the future. There were also admissions about such Indo-US geostrategic relations within the US administration from time to time. Close relation with India has been privately accepted and publicly advocated at times by successive US governments, post-1991. Till then the two countries, perhaps imprudently, remained as estranged democracies as mentioned by author Dennis Kux (note 15). To ally with any country in geostrategy is a tricky decision. India needs to tidy up its internal demographic collaterals and conflicts that keep vacillating. Demographic compatibles of India and the US are not similar. But, India and the US have many advantages and similarities as endearing and enduring nations in terms of geolocation, resources, environment and human system continuity. The United States has the advantage of demographic manageability being of low-density population whereas India has the strength acquired through its long continuum stasis though it carries almost the heaviest bag of assorted population among nations.
The alleged problem of EMC that the US has with India is not a serious matter to break the chain of solidarity in which both the countries are engaged. It can be prudently negotiated by mutual understanding and cooperation based on the fact that the stakes are very high in global governance. It is important the US understands India and appreciates its concerns and standpoint as a nation of equal status. India as a nation has the rights to safeguard its interests and those of its people under placation of domestic laws with or without the application of international laws and not by aggressive or irresponsible behaviour that will jeopardise the good order and discipline of the international system. The domestic laws permit India to proceed against any unlawful activity in its maritime zones including the EEZ. India has the notifications in force even before ratifying UNCLOS and hence application of Indian domestic laws is not inconsistent with UNCLOS. Even otherwise Indian domestic law will prevail in Indian maritime zones as defined under the Maritime Zones of India Act, 197617 and others. But there can be problems when the US refuses to budge under its primacy of global conduct. It will do better if the US ratifies the UNCLOS. It will not be able to apply resolution mechanisms that exist in the UNCLOS otherwise, not only with India but any other country without taking extralegal measures. There are quite a few countries that have not signed or ratified UNCLOS. Ratifying the Convention will do well for them too, especially if and when the UNCLOS is reviewed further. The world needs to change its vision and move forward sans reservations and apprehensions. It is not easy. A review of UNCLOS (say UNCLOS IV), the author believes, could contribute to stabilise the matters regarding freedom of passage, state control and accountability over EEZ, unlawful activities, extralegal authorities and claims, environment, interstate relationships, corporate ocean responsibility, sea-level rise and rehabilitation of internationally displaced people, artificial islands, reclamations at sea and so on for establishing good order and discipline in the World Ocean, the prime global commons intricately associated with the human system.
In this paradigm, no nation can be taken for a hell-bent adversary to another in the times to come. Everybody is needed for everybody. Everybody has concerns. China too has its concerns. It had ratified the Convention under the condition that it would require foreign states to notify passage of military vessels through its territorial sea. China made further declaration that it would not accept compulsory dispute procedures in maritime boundary dispute settlements with neighbours. There are more. Other countries too may follow suit. China is also not comfortable with QUAD which it thinks is a faction exclusively created against its interests. It is also reported that China warned Bangladesh against joining the quad18. All these demand preparations for UNCLOS IV or an alternate regime to govern the ocean that can turn turbulent and wild.
Geostrategic relationships between nations should be built on faith similar to personal relationships in a human system. There is no room for deception or adversarial behaviour. To that extent, nations are similar to individual humans. Once damaged, it will be difficult to reestablish. Indo-US and China-India relationships have this perceptional cloud hanging over them. The only way to overcome such a predicament is either to wait for generations to come or show the highest level of geostrategic maturity in international dealings. That is where national leadership matters.
Endnote
This paper will be presented at the International seminar scheduled on 21/22 June 2021 on “Indo-Pacific Construct: A New Regional Order and Implications” at the UGC Centre for Southeast Asian and Pacific Studies, Shri Venkateswara University, Tirupati.
1.The term used by the author in forthcoming researched publication to explain distortions by misrepresentation in strategic communication.
2.The dupatta is a cloth worn by Indian women as a symbol of modesty similar to a scarf. Lal means red. The depiction of lal dupatta is not meant to depict China in an adversarial demeanour but to remind of a famous Hindi song of the 1949 that is still popular in India. It was the most favourite song of a captain of the Indian Navy under whom the author fought the 1971 war. The author remembers his captain through lal dupatta (the red long scarf). For the author, the string of pearls is the lal dupatta, still an abstraction.
3.Puzo, M. (1969). The Godfather. William Heinemann. The fictional character Carlo Rizzi was killed by choking his neck in the car with a string.
4.An example was the internal criticism the government faced when it sent covid vaccines to the people of other countries on humanitarian grounds. The opposing groups complained saying “When we are dying, the government is helping others, who do not matter to us…” Well, a government should make birds of different feathers flock together. Relatively it is easy with a nation being a system but nearly impossible in the world not being a system.
5.Zen-like calm is about maintaining a state of mind focused on the moment in a self-actualised state. India has it, but it cannot be said about Indians collectively. A nation is different and separate from its people, the variables. Zen-like calm is a ninja term.
6.This kind of situations and system behaviour are indicative of a nation being a different and very separate entity from its people. This is mentioned later in this paper while discussing nation rights. This will also answer the oft-repeated question, “Are religions superior to nations?” Not amplified further in this paper.
7.The major constraint, in this case, is that that the global human system is not a system as it doesn’t have a definable system boundary like that of a national human system. This is an iteration of previous discussions made for reinforcement of the idea.
8.This statement was made by the author while speaking on “Redefining India to the West: Indic Imperatives in Mainstream America” at the Indic Forum, Houston, Texas, USA on 26 January 2012. It was based on the biomodel principle of national governance (author). This fact is important for India and the US to understand while crafting their strategic relations for national as well as global well-being.
9.The oceanic rim countries, according to the author, are not coastlands or islands but also landlocked countries which a nation has to relatively establish in geostrategy. In this run, Afghanistan can be considered as an Indian Ocean rim country by India. South Africa or those interested may consider Lesotho and Swaziland (now eSwatini) as Indian Ocean rim countries.
10.Shukla, M. “Pakistan planning to gift 2 Sindh islands to China on a platter, here’s why.” https://www. dnaindia.com/world/report-pakistan-planning-to-gift-2-sindh-islands-to-china-on-a-platter-here-s-why-2852122. Accessed 10 May 2021.
11.Paleri, P. (2007). National security: imperatives and challenges. Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited. pp.258-259
12.Paleri, P. (2007). National security: imperatives and challenges. Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited. pp.7-8
13.The term governance has been evolving continuously acquiring different explanations and legitimacy as human systems evolve. The nautical expression has been invoked only to suggest that geostrategy can be better governed by retaining the rights of a nation as universally equal to another and not based on power and its derivatives of one human system that occupies it. It also indicates that the nation comes first and then the people in it in governee as if in the command of a ship at sea.
14.This remark is (allegedly) attributed to the president of a nation who slurred on another in recent times. Denigrating a nation projects the “personality” the denigrator nation acquired through its people. It is, therefore, left to the people of the denigrator nation to apologise to the people of the other nation and reprimand the denigrator or the group responsible within. It is worse when it is done by their direct agents of governance—the government.
15.What the humans are since beginning, the subdivision of Homo sapiens in typology of species.
16.Kux, D. (1993). India and the United States: The Estranged Democracies, 1944-1991. National Defense University Press.
17.The informal working title in the Indian Coast Guard for the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 (TWCSEEZOMZA, 1976).
18.Patranobhis, S. 12 May 2021. www.hidustntimes.com. “Quad an exclusive clique working against China: Foreign ministry.” Accessed 13 May 2021.
