Frozen Smiles, limp handshakes

The India-China Relationship

It was good to hear the Chinese ambassador in New Delhi speak of an irreversible China-India friendship. There have been manifest signs of improved ties with burgeoning trade, comprising our raw materials for shoddy Chinese manufactured goods, exchange of high-level visits, quadrilaterals in the form of Brazil, Russia, India and China and a trilateral mechanism with Russia and cooperation on climate change policies. The Chinese foreign minister is now in Bengaluru and Zhou Yongkang, standing committee member of the politburo, will visit India in November. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met his Chinese counterpart in Thailand last Saturday. Quite obviously, the smiles were frozen and the handshakes limp as the Chinese spoke of functional cooperation, which is quite different from President Hu Jintao’s formulation of a vision statement. This is one reality of apparent normality.

There is, however, another reality which cannot be ignored. There has been a gradual and a disturbing shift in the Chinese attitude towards India in the past few years and the voices that one has been hearing from Beijing in recent months have been less than comforting.

From an initial pretence of disdain about India’s economic rise, the mood has switched to some irritation with India’s new relationship with the United States, which the Chinese today probably evaluate as being more strategic than just relating to a civil nuclear deal. In recent months since August 2009, there have been increased intrusions into India, accompanied by a marked sharpness in tenor. The decibel of references to Arunachal Pradesh is higher — protests about the Dalai Lama’s planned visit to Tawang and belated protests about our Prime Minister’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh even in the official People’s Daily that reflects the Communist Party of China’s official position accurately. This message was delivered while Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and Nepal Communist Party boss Prachanda were in Beijing. There have been other worrying signs, notably the practice of issuing paper visas to residents of Jammu and Kashmir, thereby conveying that the state was disputed territory. All this underscores the reality that improved trade relations between neighbours do not necessarily mean improved political relations as long as there are undemarcated borders. Questions of demarcation have now been converted into territorial disputes, with the Chinese now repeatedly referring to Arunachal as “Southern Tibet”.

There are international and domestic issues that may be worrying the Chinese. The Tibet disturbances of March 2008 and those in Xinjiang in July this year alarmed Beijing. The decline of Pakistan and the present situation in Afghanistan are both challenges and opportunities for the Chinese. Pakistan’s instability means that an important plank of Chinese policy in the region, to contain India and secure access to the Arabian Sea, has become unsteady and may have an uncertain future. Apart from that, a weakened but Islamised central authority in Islamabad could have repercussions among the restive Uighurs of Xinjiang. The troubles in Xinjiang were serious enough for President Hu Jintao to leave the Group of Eight summit and head home. It is possible that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is now handling the situation both in Tibet and Xinjiang and the hard line from the Chinese foreign office on Arunachal Pradesh and the Dalai Lama’s visit to Tawang may be a result of this change.America’s predicament in Afghanistan provides China an opportunity to raise its profile in Afghanistan/Iran and Central Asia. With a $3.5 billion investment in the Anyak copper project in Logar province, one of the world’s largest copper deposits, China is today the largest investor in Afghanistan. China has also offered to build a railway line and a power plant which would treble its investment.

As India and China seek to progress there will be greater competition for resources, markets and influence. Cooperation will remain an ideal and both would want to avoid confrontation, or worse, conflict. In terms of military spending, India does not have the capability or even the intention to match China weapon for weapon, force for force. It is extrapolated that by 2050 China will be spending $775 billion on defence — three times India’s defence budget despite our huge land and sea boundaries. The high drama in the Indian press that the Chinese were anxious about Indian plans to develop Agni 5 is just that. No Chinese general is too bothered about this considering that the PLA has already covered India and most of the world with its missiles. What irks them really are the graphics that accompany such reportage, showing Beijing as having been brought within range of Indian missiles.

Quite often, many ask if India will ever catch up with China. The figures of military spending, the size of the economies, the rate of growth, the amount of money spent by each country on infrastructure, electricity production, agricultural produce, research and development and reserves held, confirm that the gap is enormous. Mohan Guruswamy and Zorawar Daulet Singh in their latest book Chasing the Dragon: Will India Catch Up with China? make this quite clear. Even though Goldman Sachs predicts that China, the US and India will be the three largest global economies by 2050, it would be more realistic for India to aspire to be a global player whose voice will be heard rather than attaining the status of a superpower. The question we need to ask is can China afford to catch up with India’s raucous democracy and still survive?China has endeavoured to restrict India’s influence to its borders. Only recently, it reminded our neighbours that India had hegemonistic tendencies while extending its “peaceful” relationship with them, while claiming “harmonious rise” in a wary neighbourhood. The prime example of this is the manner in which China has godfathered Pakistan’s India-specific nuclear and missile capabilities.

China is our powerful neighbour and India and China are not in the same league. Pakistan refused to accept this reality in its relations with India and today finds itself adrift despite valiant US efforts to shore up its ally. It is best to accept the India-China reality and fashion our responses accordingly.

There is nothing to be gained either by becoming a hysterical tabloid nation when it comes to a bigger neighbour or a helpless flailing state when we have to deal with a smaller neighbour. We simply have to evolve a method of peaceful cohabitation; there is nothing to be gained by jingoism and everything to be lost by seeming to be weak and succumbing to pressure. It is quite likely that the Chinese leadership will glower at us from across the Himalayas; should that happen we should not blink — and it should not be that His Holiness suddenly develops a diplomatic illness! That would be most unfortunate because that would, in effect, give the Chinese a veto on our relations with His Holiness and decide who visits Tawang.

Thus, we need to be able to protect our interests more effectively, at and inside our borders, in our neighbourhood, the seas that surround us and in Asia. Therefore, massive infrastructure development is required in the Northeast which is people-friendly and not simply meant to cater to our strategic requirements. There has to be two-way socio-cultural assimilation of the region with the rest of India. Instead of buying loss-making companies abroad, we should be adopting regions for development. It is in our interest to develop friendlier relationships with countries on China’s periphery and strengthening relationships with the US and Japan is part of this policy. The armed forces — all three wings — need upgrading, with long-range strike aircrafts as well.

Diplomacy would need to be more nimble-footed and proactive rather than reactive. We have to look at 2050 and work accordingly. Short-term “band aid” solutions will not do. Until then it would be good to follow Sun Tzu’s advice: “The side that knows when to fight and when not will take the victory. There are roadways not to be travelled, walled cities not to be assaulted”.

Source : Asian Age , 28th October 2009