INTRODUCTION:

India has adopted “Look East Policy” (LEP) since 1991 to promote an economic integration with Southeast Asia. This provides an opportunity to economic transformation and growth to its lagging regions particularly the Northeast states which can help India to shape an Asian economic community. The LEP has made Southeast Asia region become the Indian’s largest trade partner which brings several economic problems and prospect to India in general and Northeast region in particular. In this regard, policy makers concerned with the idea of opening a land road from the Northeast to the booming markets of Southeast Asia via Myanmar and China. This would enable the region to carry out a major industrialization driven by tapping the markets of East and Southeast Asia (Barua and Das, 2008). However, the present scenario of LEP of India is informal and back behind in many sides. The Policy did not find Japan on its radar and failed to improve India's economic ties with it. Trade with Japan actually declined dramatically dropping its share to one third of its level of 7% in 1993. This was the biggest failure of the Policy. However, following the reforms, the dedicated policy instruments of LEP should have succeeded in attracting Japanese FDI to India but that did not happened.

Evolution of the Look East Policy:

Look East Policy is an outcome of various changes in the political scenario of India Post Cold War era that affected the foreign relations of all political systems in the world; changed perception and expectations of India in the international environment. The disintegration of USSR brought fundamental changes in the international system of India. The concept of regional cooperation in the third world countries too has presumptuously greater importance which led to the series of reforms undertaken with respect to industrial sector, trade as well as financial sector aimed at making the economy more efficient. The basic aim of liberalisation, privatization and globalization (LGP model) was making the Indian economy as faster growing economy and globally competitive.

With the outset of reforms and the changed geo-political scenario and economic realities of the post Cold War period required new power alignments to unite for economic development and for achievement of modernisation, to open up a new chapter in the history of India and for her billion plus population, fortunately, different regions realized that cooperation alone offers the best opportunities for fulfilling the aspirations of, particularly, the third world countries. This change in economics impacted upon India’s foreign policy in a big way and India took bold initiatives in its politics as a response to the evolving circumstances and economic issues started moving from the periphery to the centre stage of its foreign policy.

Look East Policy was launched officially in the year 1991 by the government of Prime Minster P.V. Narasima Rao, although the term “Look East Policy” was mentioned for the first time in the Annual Report of Ministry of External Affairs, 1995-96.[i] I. K. Gujral had stated that, “What look east really means is that an outward looking India, is gathering all forces of dynamism, domestic and regional, and is directly focusing on establishing synergies with a fast consolidating and progressive neighbourhood to its East in Mother Continent of Asia.”[ii] India’s look East policy, thus, marked a dramatic shift in India’s perspective of the world. According to Thongkholal Haokip, “The Look East policy is being rigorously pursued by the successive governments of Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh.”

After Second World War period it was postulated that India will follow traditional values held after Independence in 1947, such as self-reliance and socialistic policies of economic development, comprises of restrictive forms of governance, resulted in the isolation, overall backwardness and inefficiency of the economy, amongst a host of other problem in India. But, India remained inconsistent to their cultural and traditional values and adopted track to prosperity by fostering the relations with regional organisation to safeguard the national interest that helped the nations to tackle the problems of economic development and of bargaining power of underdeveloped and developing regions of the third world nations with the developed nations or north bloc by reducing their dependence on industrialization within Asian region. The two regional organisations ASEAN and SAARC played an important role in Southern region of world in context of economic-development and mercantile.

“In the initial stage the focus of the Look East Policy was much on ASEAN. India’s conscious efforts to forge closer economic ties with ASEAN member states paid dividends; bilateral relations between India and ASEAN improved rapidly. India became a Sectoral Dialogue partner in March 1993 in the three areas, namely, trade, investment and tourism, a full dialogue partnership in 1995, member of ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in July 1996 and finally to a Summit Level Partnership in 2002.”[iii] Pertinently relation with ASEAN countries moved up a match towards the end of 1990s and the beginning of 2000. The then Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee intended to ameliorate India’s Look East Policy by promoting the concept of "extended neighbourhood" and pronounced strategic flavour to delimit the extension of Look East Policy to the countries other than ASEAN member like Australia, Japan and South Korea. India's then Foreign Minister Jaswant Sinha heralded the second phase of the Look East Policy in 2003, by saying: "The first phase of India's Look East Policy was ASEAN-centred and focused primarily on trade and investment linkages. The new phase of this policy is characterised by an expanded definition of 'East' extending from Australia to East Asia, with ASEAN at its aim. The new phase also marks a shift from trade to wider economic and security issues including joint efforts to protect the sea lanes and coordinate counter-terrorism activities. On the economic side, phase II is also characterized by arrangement for FTA and establishing institutional economic linkage between the countries of the region and India." In 2003 second phase began to extend relationships from Australia to East Asia. It remained comprehensive in its coverage with ASEAN as its core. This phase marks a shift from trade to wider economic and security cooperation, political partnerships, physical connectively through road and rail links. India-ASEAN covers wide field of cooperation including trade and investment, science and technology, tourism, human resource development, transportation and infrastructure, health and pharmaceuticals.

The another feature of the second phase of Look East Policy is that now India is trying to establish air and road links to East and Southeast Asia. As parts of its road diplomacy, India is now actively building transports corridors to the region. These include the trilateral highway project involving Myanmar and Thailand and the proposed rail link between New Delhi and Hanoi. Besides these, the second phase of India's Look East Policy has allowed India to break the artificial political barriers between the subcontinent and Southeast Asia. India's membership in the groupings like BIMSTEC and MGC has opened the door for the first time since independence to break out of the political confines of the subcontinent that have severely limited India's grand strategic optimism.[iv] India also signed “Long Term Cooperative Partnership for Peace and Prosperity” with ASEAN, which is the cornerstone of India’s Look East Policy.”[v]

India had further reforms and advanced relationships with the other nations and still is in the process of restructuring her economy, with aspirations of elevating herself from her present desolate position in the world, the role of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) has played an important role in the rapid economic growth of most of the Southeast Asian countries and importantly China, India has embarked on an ambitious plan to emulate the success of her neighbours to the east and is trying to sell herself as a safe and profitable destination for FDI.

In the era of economic globalization, expansion of foreign trade and investment is, of course, somewhat anaemic, reflecting the impact of global recession, although still vigorous in the sense of continuous international transmission of technology, information, ideas and social media. It has many meanings depending on the context and on the person who is talking about. Though the precise definition of globalization is still unavailable a few definitions are worth viewing, Guy Brainbant is of the opinion that the process of globalization not only includes opening up of world trade, development of advanced means of communication, internationalization of financial markets, growing importance of MNCs, population migrations and more generally increased mobility of persons, goods, capital, data and ideas but also infections, diseases and pollution. The term globalization refers to the integration of economies of the world through uninhibited trade and financial flows, as also through mutual exchange of technology and knowledge. Ideally, it also contains free inter-country movement of labour. In context to India, this implies opening up the economy to Foreign Direct Investment by providing facilities to foreign companies to invest in different fields of economic activity in India, removing constraints and obstacles to the entry of MNCs in India, allowing Indian companies to enter into foreign collaborations and also encouraging them to set up joint ventures abroad; carrying out massive import liberalization programs by switching over from quantitative restrictions to tariffs and import duties, therefore globalization has been identified with the policy reforms of 1991 in India.

Liberalization privatization and Globalization:

In the beginning of the 1990s the economy of India had undergone tremendous policy shifts. India had adopted new model of economic reforms commonly known as LPG or Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization model. The cardinal objective of this model was to make the economy of the seventh largest in the world these fastest developing economies in the global world with capabilities that help it match up with the biggest economies of the world.

The chain of reforms that took place with regards to business, manufacturing, and financial industries targeted at lifting the economy of the country to a more proficient level. These economic reforms had influenced the overall economic growth of the country in a significant manner. India by 1985 having balance in payment and by the end of 1990 Indian economy was in deep crisis. The government was close to default, its central bank had refused new credit and foreign exchange reserves had plummeted to such a point that India could hardly finance three weeks’; Inflation had roared to an annual rate of 17 percent; fiscal deficit was very high and had become unsustainable; foreign investors and NRIs had lost confidence in Indian Economy. Country was close to default loans, and at the same time in Western and Eastern Europe, South East Asia, Latin America and elsewhere transpired many unforeseeable changes that swept the economies of these nations. Also, there were the economic compulsions at home and abroad that called for a complete overhauling of economic policies and programs. Major measures initiated as a part of the liberalization and globalization strategy in the early nineties included the following:

Devaluation:

In order to resolve Balance of Payment [BOP] crises, devaluation of Indian currency by 18-19 percent was taken against major currencies in the international foreign exchange market.

Disinvestment:

To make globalisation process smooth, privatization and liberalization policies are moving along as well. Under the privatization schemes, most of the public sector undertakings have been sold to private sector.

There are numerous political, economic, securities and socio -cultural factors at making Asia Pacific a highly dynamic region. India needs to have a long term strategy to make use of these opportunities arising in the Asia-Pacific while keeping in consideration the security challenges. The Asia-Pacific is marked by the following key trends:

Rise of China, the rebalancing strategy of the US. These strategies are applied to maximise security and development opportunities ‘Asia-Pacific’ to sets out long term approach for India. The focus is mainly on Indo-ASEAN relations while other countries are discussed in brief.

Rise of China:

“China's rise has created a flux. An economic giant, with a GDP of USD 7.3 trillion (2011-World Bank) & an annual military expenditure of Yuan 650 billion (approx USD 103 billion) in 2012, China has overtaken Japan in economic and military terms and may overtake the US’ economy in the next 10-20 years depending upon the growth rate differential between the two countries.”

According to Guo, Sujian (2007). China’s “peaceful development” was an official policy in China under the leadership of Hu Jintao. The rise is altering the balance of power globally & regionally. The confidence in China's peaceful rise and peaceful development has been seriously dented due to rising tensions in South China Sea and in East China Sea. The new leadership is nationalistic & sharply focused on China’s ‘core’ interests.’

According to Henry Kissinger in his book On China, Zheng Bijian provided the "quasi-official" policy statement for China in a 2005 Foreign Affairs article. Zheng promised that China had adopted a “strategy to transcend the traditional ways for great powers to emerge.” China sought a “new international political and economic order,” but it was “one that can be achieved through incremental reforms and the democratization of international relations.” China would “not follow the path of Germany leading up to World War I or those of Germany and Japan leading up to World War II, when these countries violently plundered resources and pursued hegemony. Neither will China follow the path of the great powers vying for global domination during the Cold War.

China’s fast military modernisation and protection of its power beyond immediate neighbourhood has raised apprehensions among its neighbours. It has developed a powerful navy – with aircraft carriers, submarines, anti-ship missiles – which is rivalling that of Japan and the US. China is following Anti Access Anti-Denial (A2D) strategy to deter the US from entering the island chain in the area of Chinese influence.

It is quintessential to view rising tide of nationalism in China that has caused anxieties among neighbours. China’s formulations on ‘core’ interests with attendant focus on sovereignty, has created doubts in the minds of the neighbouring countries about China’s intentions. China regards the South China Sea as its internal waters. This will have major impact not only in the neighbourhood but also for international shipping. On the other hand, it must be recognized that China’s rise has also benefitted the neighbours, particularly in the economic field. According to Arvind Gupta, “China-ASEAN trade is $ 380 billion. The ASEAN economies have got integrated with that of China. People-to-people contacts between China and its neighbours have also deepened with greater connectivity, openness and transparency.” He further states that China is getting integrated with the regional architectures. This has increased the role of China in regional stability. The economic and social interdependence of China has increased. “China is participating in RCEP negotiations. RECP will bring about a higher level of economic integration between the ASEAN, China, Japan, Australia and India.”

The future is unpredictable and China’s economical performance is riddled with many problems which suspect its growth. It will be interesting to study elasticity of China’s economic performance and how long it will maintain its longevity of growth. Also, at this moment, it would be inconsequential to containment of China given the growing interdependence between China and most major economies of the region.

US rebalancing strategy:

As President Obama enters his second term, continuing to shift U.S. attention and resources to the Asia—/Pacific will be a leading U.S. foreign policy priority. While many in the region have welcomed this renewed commitment, the U.S. ‘‘pivot’’ to Asia has created heightened concerns in China about U.S. intentions[vi]. According to Ely Ratner, “U.S efforts to expand its military force posture in Asia, to strengthen security ties with allies and partners, and to enhance the role of regional institutions are viewed by many in Beijing as directly aimed at constraining China’s rise and as the principal cause of regional instability as well as the deterioration of China’s strategic environment.

China’s rise in economic and political influence is the single factor that will reshape the international politics of 21^st century. Though, China is not a threat but a challenge for America and other nations. Therefore, the focused should go to address the Chinese competition not through economic protectionalism but rather through sustained investment in the education and economic sector. Since America deepens its diplomatic, economic and military engagement in Asia, it would be a perceived sense of deterrence for USA to feel the presence of China in Asia. Furthermore, from a broader regional perspective, continued engagement with China will be a key element to actualizing the rebalancing strategy and ensuring that the United States can advance its multitude of interests in Asia.

“The US has been a key player in the security and economic architecture of the region. The biggest challenge before the US is to adjust to the rise of China. Having got entrapped in the highly expensive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and having been affected by the economic slowdown, the US is in a perilous condition. The US has been compelled to reduce its defence budget due to lack of resources.”[vii]

Many political and economic pundits believe that China will supersede US, though it will remain military and economic power in the foreseeable future – but if the situation worsens it can bounce back due to its vast capabilities in innovation and technology. Yet, according to certain speculative analysis across the globe China will overtake the US in the next two or three decades.

According to Fran Shor United States no longer dominates the global economy as it did during the first two decades after WWII, it still is the leading economic power in the world. However, over the last few decades China, with all its internal contradictions, has made enormous leaps until it now occupies the number two spot. In fact, the IMF recently projected that the Chinese economy would become the world’s largest in 2016. In manufacturing China has displaced the US in so many areas, including becoming the number one producer of steel and exporter of four-fifths of all of the textile products in the world and two-thirds of the world’s copy machines, DVD players, and microwaves ovens. Yet, a significant portion of this manufacturing is still owned by foreign companies, including U.S. firms like General Motors.[viii] This lead to the US to build on the rebalancing policy pivoting to Asia, Obama’s second phase in administration has adjusted rebalancing strategy, aiming at strengthening existing alliances, searching new partners like India, Indonesia, forging economic partnership (TPP) and achieving a constructive relationship with China.

But, it is pertinent that Beijing suspect rebalancing attempt as to contain China. It is obviously suspicious of the US partnership especially with India. Nevertheless, China has developed their own A2D strategies to preclude US from coming too close to the China shores. The Chinese assertiveness in South China Sea, East China Sea and other areas are part of its strategy to keep the US away and to signal Chinese area of influence.

There is a conjecture view about the US-China relations. Some analyst believe US is concerned about China but it has to avoid open confrontation. The US statements on China indicate the US’ desire to engage with China as deeply as practical. The strategic and economic dialogue between the two countries has been institutionalised. Yet, the relationship between the two countries is far from smooth. Elements of competition and confrontation are manifest in the US-China relations. The rest of the world is also unsure about the direction in which the US-China relationship is proceeding.

Readjusting: Other Countries:

It is pertinent that other countries are adjusting their policies.

1. Since 1997 ASEAN countries, divided by numerous internal fault lines, has sought to put its act together on Asian financial crisis engaged with outside world while emphasising the ASEAN centrality and are attempting to resolve their disputes through consensus and dialogue. ASEAN countries are crucially dependent upon internal as well as external factors and have emerged as a formidable economic force with a combined GDP of over $ 2 trillion (2011) and total trade of $ 2.4 trillion (2011). However, ASEAN is trying to forge an economic union by 2015. ASEAN+6 have Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) even as the US is pushing for a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which excludes China. Some countries like Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and Indonesia have doubts about joining the TPP negotiations on the other side China and the US factors have brought ASEAN to a crossroads. ASEAN unity is under strain. Vietnam and the Philippines are directly affected by China's rise. The South China Sea is a hotspot of tension and is likely to remain so. The mistrust between China and ASEAN is increasing because of South China Sea issues.

2. Prime Minister of Japan, Abe is determined to restore Japan’s primacy and is getting Japan revitalised. Japan is planning to devote more attention to contrive New Defence Policy guidelines to re-craft its military strategy and enhancing its defence postures. It has felt security concerns from the china’s assertiveness and North Korea’s nuclear programme, therefore, Japan is focussing on India as security partner. Prime Minister Abe is reported to have proposed “a strategy whereby Australia, India, Japan and the US state of Hawaii form a diamond to safeguard the maritime commons stretching from the Indian Ocean region to the Western Pacific… I am prepared to invest to the greater possible extent, Japan’s capabilities in this security diamond.” The Indian Prime Minister spoke of India and Japan as “natural and indispensable partners for…a peaceful, stable, cooperative and prosperous future for the Asia Pacific and Indian Ocean regions.” Clearly, India-Japan relations are important in the context of peace and stability in Asia Pacific.

3. There is another ineluctable factor, Australia. It sees opportunities for itself in the Asian countries, and, is adjusting to the rise of China in this regard Australia is pulling out all stops to deepen its relations, at the same, is seeking partnerships with India, Japan and South Korea. Australia is hedging against China by building its own defence capabilities and supporting US rebalancing and pivoting to the Asia Pacific; India also needs to deepen its relations with Australia, particularly in the context of coal and possibly Uranium in the future besides getting help in education and skill development.

4. It has become challenge for South Korea to preclude any skimirish with North Korea because of its nuclear and missile programme and its unpredictable behaviour. South Korea is worried about sea lanes of communication in the East Asia region and laid down major emphasis on it. Also, seek cooperation with India in this regard. Despite prescience that Chinese hegemonic outlook in the region South Korea maintains close ties with India, the Cheonan incident and Yeon Pyieng Island shelling in 2010 have highlighted the increasing military trend in that area. The RoKs realise heavily on international maritime lanes and shipping. In recent track-2 level discussions, South Koreans have underscored desirability of a cooperative mechanism and dialogue between RoK and the Indian navy; institutionalising an official bilateral mechanism for planning and coordination of maritime issues on the lines of an annual maritime dialogue. The South Koreans also want maritime cooperation with India such as joint naval exercises.

India’s Look East Policy- Challenges and Prospects:

The problem is that the policy falls upon the Northeast from above rather than arising from within the region. The present construction of the LEP reinforces the mainstream-periphery dichotomy within India. While the Northeast stands to benefit if the LEP assumes a robust continental thrust, the potential gains of the policy thrust will not be achieved unless the local people are turned into effective stakeholders in this gigantic project. The real challenge before a successful third phase of the LEP is to improve India’s ties with Myanmar so that India can access the more productive economies of Southeast Asia through it. But this connectivity needs to be achieved by involving the people of the Northeast and on terms that bring long-lasting benefits to it. A more risk-taking geographical imagination is needed to achieve this. Without softening territorial borders in the real sense and using the cultural ties to foster genuine people-to- people relations s across the extended Northeast, independent of the exigencies of great power politics, the promise of an economic turnaround of this region through the Look East initiative is not likely to come about. However the government of India needs to do several things to recharge and re-deploy its LEP with an eye to reaping benefits for the Northeast.

1. India needs to freely talk to and patiently hear the voices of the ordinary people of the Northeast, no

2. Without articulating a new geography of extended neighbourhood, there is little hope that the economic benefits accruing out of LEP will reach the people of the Northeast.

3. India needs to link up more effectively with the supply chain economies of Southeast Asia that are looking for new markets since the global recession has set in. A growth triangle connecting south-western China, India’s Northeast and Southeast Asia promises immense economic benefits to all stakeholders if political differences are carefully negotiated.

4. There is an immediate need to complete some of the infrastructural projects that link India with Southeast Asia through Myanmar. Without good roads, there cannot be any economic development of the region.

5. India needs to consolidate its diplomatic gains in Myanmar and improve ties at all levels. Myanmar and India share deep cultural, religious and historical bonds. Without being overtly drawn into a messy competition with the Chinese, India needs to play its cards well, as Myanmar is vital to India’s wider economic and geo-strategic interests.

6. India needs to consolidate its diplomatic gains in Myanmar and improve ties at all levels.

7. Myanmar and India share deep cultural, religious and historical bonds. Without being overtly drawn into a messy competition with the Chinese, India needs to play its cards well, as Myanmar is vital to India’s wider economic and geo-strategic interests.

CONCLUSION:

After the economic crisis in 1997, Southeast Asia has been the fastest growing region of the world. It appears to be a mounting identification of larger economic harmonization and cooperation among the major Asian countries to augment Asia’s role in world affairs. Regional economic integration has been adopted as a strategy for development in different parts of the world since 1990s followed by the formation of single market by the European Union and NAFTA. With the rising esteem of regional economic integration worldwide, more than half of the world trade is now conducted among the members of regional trading arrangements on preferential basis. In this regard, Southeast Asian countries have recognized this potential of regional economic integration which is clear from numerous free trade arrangements (FTAs), especially ASEAN. At the same time, the economic reorganization and liberalization have paved India’s rapid future economic growth and international economic relations.

A broader regional economic integration in Asia within the Indian framework could be an engine of growth for participating countries. India and Southeast Asian countries need to deepen their ongoing cooperation further and cooperate in shaping towards creation of an integrated Asian market. This could emerge as the third pole of the world economy after NAFTA and the EU. The whole stochastic analysis reflects that a rise in foreign exchange reserve would cause a rise in FDI of India. There has been considerable contribution of foreign exchange reserve on FDI in India from 1991 to 2008. On the other hand, one period lagged FDI also helps the current period FDI sustain itself and reduce the pressure of other non-economic factors. In this regard, the current foreign policy of India can help to encourage a more foreign exchange followed by FDI fascinated by LEP. However, closer economic ties with Southeast Asia require greater effort on India’s part to liberalize trade and investment.

The rise of India has introduced new dynamism in the process of Southeast Asia’s economic integration and in moving towards an Asian economic integration. India initially chose to focus on ASEAN. During the process of a closer economic integration, India faces the hurdles of lack of significant market for most Southeast Asian economies, insurgency problem, delayed infrastructural development, inefficient bureaucracy, and complex socio-cultural and ethnic frameworks. India-ASEAN economic relations improved over the years, leading to multifaceted institutional arrangements being developed by the two sides. For this, the central government and various state governments of the region must adopt a proactive role by providing infrastructure, political stability and good governance. There have been high expectations that further reforms to India’s investment regime will lead to a significant rise in foreign direct investment, which in turn will have a positive impact on India’s economic growth. In spite of that, free trade and a more foreign investment have a close association with India’s effort to reform its political, institutional and economic institutions. The LEP is an integral part of India’s reform package, and its implementation has resulted in the reorientation of India’s foreign economic policy.

LEP was launched in 1992 just after the end of the cold war, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. After the start of liberalization, it was a very strategic policy decision taken by the government in the foreign policy. Earlier, India's interaction with ASEAN in the cold war era was very limited. India declined to get associated with ASEAN in the 1960s when full membership was offered even before the grouping was formed. India became a sectoral dialogue partner with ASEAN in 1992, a full dialogue partner in 1995, a member of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in 1996, and a summit level partner (on par with China, Japan and Korea) in 2002. From the 1991, being a founder member of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), India became a signatory to the WTO agreements. The booming East and Southeast Asian countries were the natural choice for India in its search for market access and technological cooperation through foreign investment. India has a comparative advantage in many new products as is shown by her rising trade structure in East and Southeast regions.

India is one of the fast growing countries in the world with the rate of more than 8%. Large population of India provides market to the countries of the world. At the same time, the value of imports has increased because of rapid industrialization and policy of import liberalization within the country. However, the exports have not grown well due to primary product base, increased domestic consumption and inadequate export promotion measures. After 1970-1971 sharp increase of export and import is observed. Imports have grown faster than exports causing trade deficit. Asia & Oceania (e.g. China, Hong Kong, Japan, and Singapore) is a major trading region for India – 55% of total exports was made to this region followed by West Europe (e.g. U.K., Germany, Belgium, Italy), and America (particularly North America). India has entered into the second phase of the Policy which is the development of India's remote Northeast region. India's search for a new economic relationship with Southeast Asia is no longer driven by consideration of globalization, but to facilitate development of the Northeast by increasing its connectivity to the outside world. Northeast region is no longer in isolation and remoteness but prosper with business opportunities knocking at the door. There are examples of moves towards achieving the declared objectives: redefining of Asian Highways - AH-1 AH-2 and AH-4 to provide India easier road connectivity with the neighbouring countries, restoring Stilwell road connecting Arunachal Pradesh with Myanmar, holding of Thailand and India ministerial level Northeast Business Summit followed by Thailand ministerial visits to NER and showcasing Northeast India Trade & Investment Opportunity Week at Bangkok, setting up of Tourism Desk at the Embassy of Thailand and India Desk at Thailand’s Board of Investment.

REFERENCES:

1. Annual Report, 1995- 96, Ministry of External affairs, Govt. of India, pp. 7-118

2. Statement by I.K.Gujaral, Minister of External Affairs of India, In ASEAN Post- Ministerial Conference, Jakarta, July 20-21, 1996. http:\\www.asean.org\4308.htm

3. Haokip, Thongkholal (2011) Man and Society-A Journal of North East Studies, Vol. VIII, summer 2011, pp. 161-172

4. Mohan. Raja, October9, 2003, “Look East Policy: Phase Two”, The Hindu,

5. Address of the External Affairs Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security, Republic of Korea on “India’s Look East Policy” on 17/09/2007

6. For an official articulation of the ‘‘pivot’’ or ‘‘rebalancing’’ strategy, see Hillary Clinton

7. ‘‘America’s Paciﬁc Century,’’ Foreign Policy, November 2011, http://www.foreignpolicy.Com/articles/2011/10/11/americas_paciﬁc_century

8. Gupta, Arvind (2013) India's approach to Asia Pacific [source http://idsa.in/policybrief/IndiasapproachtoAsiaPacific_agupta_19091

9. Barua. A. and S. K. Das. 2008. “Perspectives on Growth and Development in the Northeast: The

10. Look East Policy and Beyond.” The Journal of Applied Economic Research 4 (2): 327-350.

11. Georgios, K. 1997. “Economic Integration and Convergence: Lessons from Asia, Europe and

12. Latin America.” Journal of Economic Integration 12 (4): 34-35.