The prime minister’s proposed visit to China has rightly raised widespread speculation as regards its purpose and timing. In India, China evokes strong reactions largely due to ignorance, misinformation and misunderstandings. Brahma Chellaney’s article Beware of Dragon’s Designs (HT, June 8) is a specimen of this attitude.
Chellaney starts well by stating that every PM wants to show that he has achieved something by his foreign trip. That is natural. For every VIP visit costs the nation crores of rupees and a good VIP must show that the trip was worth the enormous expenditure. He has also rightly questioned the timing of the visit.
But the rest of his article is nothing but a tirade against China where he gives conclusions without assigning their reasons or giving any specifics. For example:
* The title states that China has designs on India. It isn’t specified what the designs are.
* China would extort concessions from the PM’s visit. What concessions?
* China will arrange for a breakthrough by making India “abandon some of the cardinal principles on which its bipartition policy is built”. What are these cardinal principles? Nehru had made “friendship with China” a cardinal principle of his foreign policy. Chellaney is certainly not referring to it. Do we have a China policy?
* He says China has all along undermined Indian interests. What interests, how and when?
{{/usCountry}}* He says China has all along undermined Indian interests. What interests, how and when?
{{/usCountry}}* He says: “CCP and PLA remain implacably antagonistic towards India.” He does not give any details. Has Government of India’s policy towards China any different?
* He finally concludes that “without the collapse of the anachronistic Chinese political system”, India and China will not become friends. He also feels that China is collapsing. Chellaney has a right to his opinion, but all indications available to the world suggest that China has become a mighty and prosperous near-superpower.
The article is, thus, an exercise in sweeping generalisations prompted by personal prejudice and some external advice. Chellaney’s main worry seems to be China having designs on India and that it will extort valuable concessions. One may well ask: what designs can China possibly have on India? Territorial, economic, military or political? China has a much larger territory than India’s and if China had wanted to occupy Indian territory, it could have easily done so when the Chinese troops entered India in 1962 and occupied territories in the NEFA area. But within a month, China withdrew all its troops to the north of the McMahon Line claimed by India but not recognised by China. Economically and militarily, China is far ahead of us and does not need to get any advantage from us. The only advantage that China might seek is political.
If India and China come together, they will be a powerful global force to stem the tide of American unilateralism. Second, China today faces a threat from Islamic terrorists in its western backyard and may want to forge a common bond with India. Is there anything wrong about it?
China has opposed Indian political moves in the past, but India should blame itself for it. For several decades, India had frozen relations with China and when the latter tried to seek understanding, the former rudely rebuffed her. It was only then that China started opposing India’s political moves (such as membership of the UN Security Council) and forging a full-scale relationship with Pakistan.
Our main grouse today is about a Sino-Pak collusion. We have vainly tried to rope in the US to contain Pakistan but without any result. Still we put all our eggs in the American basket and continue to woo the US despite the BJP’s realisation of American ‘double standards’. Would not improving our relations with China provide a better alternative to restrain an isolated Pakistan and win Chinese support to our many other political objectives?
* The Border Issue: Chellaney has talked about 22 years of futile border talks with China. He is evidently unaware of the facts of our border case. The border issue arose because we were trying to force China to accept a borderline that was unilaterally decided by the British. Even the British were careful in not pressing it too hard, but we proved to be more stubborn advocates of the British legacy.
Even then, the Chinese wanted to resolve the issue through negotiations. But India declared that the borders were not negotiable and China must accept our claims in toto. That gave rise to the border dispute. We refused to enter into any discussions with China. The border dispute is, thus, of our making.
When this line failed, India adopted the diversionary tactic of determining the line of actual control — a totally meaningless exercise. India never once suggested any alternative solution to the border problem, while Chinese did twice. Once, when Chinese Prime Minister Chou En-lai came to Delhi and suggested a compromise solution. We had then rebuffed him. A second time in 1979, when Vajpayee went to Peking and met Teng Hsiao-ping.
Vajpayee, under the clutches of MEA bureaucrats and without a mind of his own, refused to even listen to Teng’s idea of the package deal. Today, if the Chinese are resurrecting the idea, we should accept it.
In actuality, the border dispute has virtually ceased to exist. India and China have both got what they wanted. China has occupied Aksaichin, which was never under our control, while China has tacitly accepted our rule over NEFA and the border is peaceful. China is presumably asking us to legalise this reality through a package deal. Is anything wrong in that?
Chellaney appears to have received some briefing from officers dealing with China in the Indian government. If so, he has no reason to lose his sleep over the prospect of the PM making a breakthrough because the same bureaucrats would be near the PM and will undoubtedly prevent him from doing anything rash like improving Sino-Indian relations!
Chellaney has rightly raised the question about the timing of the visit. The answer cold be a simple one — the PM being a smart and seasoned politician perhaps realises better than anyone else that next year may not see him in political power or physical fitness which he enjoys today. So why not have a family picnic at government cost and Chinese hospitality when the sun still shines brightly.
According to Chellaney, Indian officials are receiving valuable training from the Chinese in ‘double talk’ and ‘double dealing’. Indians do not need such training because it comes naturally to them. But perhaps Indian officials could learn with some profit Chinese pragmatism which makes the Chinese move forward rather than remain stagnant as Indians do. There are undoubtedly internal and external pressures on the PM against a rapprochement with China. He is a mild man. Can he withstand these pressures and overcome them?
* Importance of Sino-Indian Friendship: Jawaharlal Nehru had the right vision of seeing India and China come together as a great combined force in world affairs. Although his vision was right, his efforts were miscarried. It is time that we revive this great vision and contribute to world peace and understanding.
We should also recognise that China has itself received a baptism by fire and is now a new country with people who are as good and able as Indians are. They are prompted by the same desires as Indians are and they have proved their worth through hard work. We cannot wish away China, which is a strong and important neighbour.
China seems to be keen on friendship with India. Both of us can gain a lot by cooperation. It is time that we recognise the new changed China that is more capitalistic than communistic and more Asian than ‘foreign’.
The present visit offers an opportunity and a challenge particularly to Atal Bihari Vajpayee to prove his leadership. Leadership implies vision and guts. If he has them, he will forge strong ties with China and return as a hero. If he does not, he would have missed a great opportunity and India a great future.