India stands to gain if it plays its diplomatic cards well in the changing geopolitics of West Asia
Pranay Shome
Homeland. The idea of a home appeals to every single human being on the planet as the most personal and serene entity that can be thought of. Nationalism, as a force, has had a deeply anecdotal experience for its torchbearers across various societies. There are far more nations than there are states. Nationalism alone doesn’t result in the formation of a state of their own.
Kurdish nationalism is one such entity. The Kurdish people or Kurds are an ethno-cultural community, numbering around 40 million scattered across the countries of Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Syria etc. Their history of self-determination demand dates back to World War I when Kurdistan was a part of the imperial Ottoman Empire. The Allied Powers, particularly Britain, promised them an independent homeland of their own in exchange for rebellion against Turkey. While the Kurds did as they were asked, they were stabbed in the back because the Allied Powers, via various treaties, vivisected the Ottoman Empire into different parts, thereby dividing the Kurdish nation into a disjointed entity.
However, the embers of nationalism continued to remain alive and acquired momentum during the Cold War period, particularly in the Eighties when the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), in response to the demand for a separate homeland of their own, launched a violent insurgency cum terrorist campaign against the Turkish state in 1984. The insurgency has, over the years, claimed hundreds and thousands of lives and has spilled over into the neighbouring countries in the region.
However, a recent announcement has brought about a tectonic shift in the geopolitical future of West Asia. Abdullah Ocalan, the de-facto leader of the PKK (which roughly acts as the voice of the so-called Kurdish nation), urged the party cum militant organisation to lay down their arms i.e., disband and dissolve the party, and work in a constitutionally mandated peaceful manner with the Turkish state to fulfil the aim of self-determination.
While speculation was rife if the party would heed to the call of their ‘beloved leader’ who has been incarcerated by the Turkish state since 1999, the call proved to be fruitful as PKK has agreed to terminate the insurgency against the Turkish state by declaring a ceasefire and resort to peaceful means to achieve their goals and objectives.
This is a consequential moment in the politico-cultural history of West Asia; it not only brings the curtains down on one of the longest running insurgencies in West Asia but also holds valuable lessons which it can capitalise on to strengthen its position in the region.
A Stable Region?
The purported end of the insurgency in Turkey is a part of a large geopolitical jigsaw puzzle. The other pieces include the change of guard in Syria and the Israel-Hamas war. As far as the first piece is concerned, the Kurds were supported by the West in the past three decades and the end of the insurgency will more or less ensure that the external actors can concentrate their energies on other pressing geopolitical challenges, be it in Europe or Africa. This allows the native actors in the region to take more initiatives in stabilising their borders. For instance, Turkey will get a much-needed breathing space for concentrating on development and economic growth in the country’s south-east which has been the hotbed of Kurdish insurgency, this also provides the Turkish state the opportunity to do something concrete with the humongous Syrian refugee population in their country which fled to Turkey since the eruption of Syrian Civil War in 2011.
Linked to this puzzle is the second piece called the change of guard in Syria. The fall of the Ba’thist regime of Bashar Al Assad in a lightning offensive by opposition forces led by the Islamist group Tahrir Al Sham, a former affiliate of al Qaeda has changed the geopolitical equations in the region.
It is believed that Turkey provided key support to the opposition forces in their offensive against the regime. After the collapse, Ahmed Al Sharaa, also known as Abu Mohammed Al Jolani, announced himself as the de facto head of the new government and promised to lead Syria into a new dawn of development.
However, concerns over the secular nature of the government and the treatment of the ethnic minorities and the export of terrorism in the region remain a major point of concern. Turkey, however, will experience a breather in that the change of guard in Syria will now allow it to formulate concrete plans of action to resend the Syrian refugees in their country back to Syria, thereby allowing the release of the much-needed economic resources to allow development in the poorer regions of the country.
This allows the strengthening of a Turkish led axis of influence in the region, one where neo-Ottoman aims of Recep Tayyip Erdogan could see a revival on one hand and on the other hand, the emergence of a convergence of views of other important actors in the region like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc., vis-à-vis the Israel and the trans-Atlantic alliance.
The final part of this jigsaw puzzle is the Israel-Hamas war, with the end of the first phase of a temporary ceasefire deal that saw the release of roughly three dozen hostages from Israel and nationals of other countries held captive by Hamas and the release of thousands of Palestinians by Israeli authorities. The hopes of a permanent end to the war that has ravaged Gaza could see the development of an uneasy truce between Hamas and Israel, although the martial aims of the actors appear to be starkly contradictory to each other.
The potential release of all hostages marked by the post war reconstruction plan of Gaza drawn up by Egypt and proposed in a summit of the Arab states and its adoption had raised hopes of a possibly enduring peace in West Asia. While it is too early to make presumptions, yet hindsight observation states that the three pieces of the jigsaw puzzle shall reinforce each other firmly.
India to Benefit
While the Kurdish insurgency’s termination doesn’t have any direct geopolitical advantage for India, a deeper analysis show that India stands to benefit a lot. India has repeatedly called for, in accordance with her constitutional values, the need to end disputes, of whatever nature or kind using peaceful, diplomatic means. With the ending of such a major insurgency, India gets a breathing space to negotiate with the different actors in the region, most notably Turkey.
Peace in Syria and stability in Turkey will allow opening of new destinations for India’s exports. At a time when Indian exports are facing tariff heat from the American president Donald Trump, a possible diversification of destination would certainly augur well for India.
With Free Trade Agreement (FTA) diplomacy in vogue, India can open negotiations with Turkey, which until now saw India through the monochromatic lens of Pakistan using the carrot of trade and investment in collaboration with hosts of like-minded Arab states in the region to solidify India’s economic ties with West Asia.
However, as violence in Gaza has spiked again thanks to the renewed ground and air operations by Israel, India will find it difficult to deal with the breakdown of talks. Though given the goodwill India enjoys both among the Palestinians and Israelis, it is imperative that New Delhi makes use of its diplomatic capital to engage in shuttle diplomacy to broker a new ceasefire. India, with her deft handling of this fragile matter can become the linchpin of new negotiations just like Saudi Arabia has emerged in case of the Russia-Ukraine war.
Hence, India must react with alacrity and must try and restore peace among the Israelis and Palestinians. It is only through a genuine, legitimate and consensual agreement between the two sides in West Asia’s longest running conflict that the turbulent region can experience peace.