The Great Games 

Kaushal Vepa 

The term Great Game popularized by Rudyard Kipling in his famous novel Kim, has its origin in the astonishing conquests of Temujin, the Mongol warrior more popularly known as Genghiz Khan. This child of the steppe was so effective in subjugating the duchies of Eastern Europe after laying waste many of the cities of Central Asia that he was called the ‘Scourge of God’. At its peak, the Mongol horde and the successor Khanates controlled not only Central Asia, China, Persia, most of what is now Russia, but (also) had crossed the major rivers of Eastern Europe. It was not until the 15th century, almost 2 centuries after the advent of Temujin, that the Muscovites stood up to the successors of the Golden horde. The small but significant Muscovite Duchy eventually conquered most of Asia and laid the foundation for the Great Game. Russia, the name for the land of the Rus, expanded eastward and southward in successive waves, waves so powerful that in the ‘course of four centuries, the Tsarist empire grew at the remarkable average of fifty five square miles a day.’

Thus was born the Great Game as it was called by the British and the Tournament of Shadows by the Russians. It was a deadly serious game starting from the late 1700’s just about the time the British had consolidated their hold on India. The main players in the game were Czarist Russia and Britain. What is interesting by today’s standards is the notion that it was Czarist Russia which was expansionist and the Soviet Union, its successor, that eventually dismantled a substantial portion of the empire in 1991. There were many subsidiary players including Napoleon, the Turks, the Germans, the Iranians, the Japanese, the Central Asian Khanates and last but not least the Chinese.

Is it a coincidence that the Great Game started at about the same time as the consolidation of British power in the Indian subcontinent? not really! Britain was the pre-eminent power during that period. It’s navy was unmatched and it ruled the sea lanes of the world. Yet as Victorian scholar J. R. Seeley observes "Every movement in Turkey, every new symptom in Egypt, any stirrings in Persia or Transoxania or Burmah or Afghanistan, we are obliged to watch with vigilance. The reason is that we have possession of India, and a leading interest in all those countries which lie upon the route to India. This and only this involves us in the permanent rivalry with Russia, which is for England in the nineteenth century what the competition with France for the New World was for the eighteenth century." It is very clear , the raison d’etre of the Great Game, was India.

Thus began a series of clandestine ‘explorations’ to exotic places such as Khiva, Merv, Bokhara, Samarkhand, Tashkent, Kashgar, Khokand, Herat, Kandahar, Chitral, and Leh by intrepid adventurers from both England and Russia. These adventures are chronicled in great detail by Peter Hopkirk and Karl Meyer, Shareen Brysacin in ‘The Great Game’ and ‘Tournament of Shadows’ respectively. The crucial point is to realize that the purpose of the Great Game, from the British point of view, was to retain control of India, the Jewel in the Crown.  On Russia's part, it was to wrest control of the heartland of Asia, challenge British rule in India and dominance at sea.

After World War II and consequent break up of the British Empire, the Great Game underwent a change and essentially morphed into the Cold War. Now there was an ideological underpinning to what was merely a land grab by Britain and Russia. Mackinder’s hypothesis was that whoever possessed the landmasses would dominate. It was now possible to cloak the suspicion of Russian imperial ambitions and the massive land grab, in an ideological garb, as a fight against Communism.  India’s compulsions in having to find a steady and reliable supplier of weapons, gave one more excuse for the US/UK alliance to wrest Kashmir from India.

But we are getting ahead of ourselves.  Newly released documents indicate that in 1945 Lord Wavell, then Viceroy of India, concluded that a Congress Party government in New Delhi would not support Britain in its endeavors to counter a Soviet thrust downwards towards the oilfields of the Gulf.  It would therefore be prudent on the part of Britain to concede to his demand for Pakistan.  In hopes that a loyal Muslim League would keep watch on behalf of Britain on the strategic northwest abutting Iran and Afghanistan. Mountbatten told Hari Singh, Maharaja of Kashmir, on June 1947 that New Delhi would have no objection if he acceded to Pakistan. In fact, it was never the intention of Britain that Kashmir fall into India’s hands.

Finally, we come to the latest incarnation of the Great Game.  Let us review the background and the principles of the "new" Great Game. The situation changed radically with the collapse of the Soviet Union resulting in several countries became independent overnight. Among them were the Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrghyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan, where much of the drama of the Great game played out. Countries that were a blur in people’s consciousness and could barely be pronounced, suddenly leapt into prominence. Of significance to the West and India are the secular leanings of these predominately Muslim countries who have extensive untapped oil and natural gas resources. The paramount question is how to transport the natural resources from these landlocked countries.

Other issues including religion will continue to play a major role in the region for many more decades. That Afghanistan is particularly crucial as it was during the days of the Great game is obvious even today, in spite of Pakistan's failed attempt to dominate this region. Afghanistan continues to be the hub of American operations to control the spread of international terrorism.

In summary, the factors of the current Great Game include theocracy, natural resources, drugs, terrorism, and territory.  The countries vitally interested in these issues and in the region are the US, Russia, China, Iran, India and Pakistan. From India’s standpoint, recent events have generally tended to favor its long term strategic interests. India’s relations with Afghanistan are being restored to a level that approaches friendly relations of early independence. It is obvious that Central Asia remains as important to modern India as it was to British India. This realization has definitely taken concrete shape in New Delhi, as seen by the steadily increasing Indian presence in these republics.

The US has also made significant gains. It now has a toehold in more than one country in the region and hence Kashmir loses the importance that it once had during the days when most of Central Asia was controlled by the Soviet Union. Thus, it is a reasonable premise to make that Kashmir is no longer central to the interests of the US/UK alliance. However, diminished interest does not mean complete neglect.  It is safe to say that the Western  motives in Kashmir are driven by more than mere altruism. Even the British are shedding long held post WW II aversion to a strong and economically prosperous India.  

Thus, while it is a reasonable premise to make that Kashmir is no longer central to the interests of the US/UK alliance, it is obvious that Central Asia remains as important as ever to India as it was to the British during their Imperial era. This realization
has definitely taken concrete shape in Delhi , as one sees a steadily increasing presence of India in these republics.