Author: Gautam Siddharth
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: September 11, 2005
Claude Arpi, French author and journalist
living in India for the past 33 years, is a well-known name on the editorial
pages of The Pioneer - and the reasons are not far to seek. He writes with
a vision and a deep sense of history. His articles reveal the rigours of research
and a clarity of perception not ordinarily discernible in the writings on
the same subjects by most Indian commentators and journalists.
Claude's sensibilities are more 'Indian' than
those of most Indians, and that's what marks him out. His drive and tenacity
in holding forth on issues that confront India both as a nation and civilisation
- especially in relation to its neighbourhood - leaves lasting impressions.
In the process, he homes in on certain truths that are informative as well
as edifying.
Claude is one of the few ardent believers
in the need of free Tibet. It has, of course, made him enormously unpopular
with the Chinese, and to many his position may seem impractical or unreal.
But he took pains to dispel such notions when he told a small but distinguished
gathering at IIC on Friday at the release of his book, a compendium of his
journalistic writings (India and Her Neighbourhood; Har- Anand; Rs 495), that
he does not 'dislike' China; but neither would he stop believing that Tibet
cannot once again become a 'buffer' between India and China.
On the contrary, he thinks China as one of
the most important geopolitical powers which can help shape human destiny
in a variety of more creative and constructive ways than it has done so far,
and that much of it can be done through its leadership's rearranging its attitudinal
prism on Tibet. Claude's proposition is a very reasonable.
Great powers gain more respect if they recognise
their mistakes and apologise for those mistakes. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro
Koizumi apologised to China, saying, "In the past Japan, through its
colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering for the
people of many countries, particularly those of Asian nations." He said
this at a summit of more than 100 Asian and African nations in April this
year. "Japan," he added, "squarely faces these facts of history
in a spirit of humility." Though Chinese President Hu Jintao was present
when Mr Koizumi spoke, he did not react to the apology. But Mr Hu could nonetheless
take a leaf out of Mr Koizumi's book and apologise to Tibet for the way its
people, culture and religion have been trampled upon by the Chinese.
The curious thing, of course, is that such
a process may actually have started, far away from the stern and unmoving
gaze of the Chinese Communist Party in distant Beijing. As Claude said - quoting
one of the greatest French thinkers of the 20th century Andre Malraux, "The
21st century will be a spiritual century, or it will not be" - the Chinese
have not been able to change Tibet or Tibetans in spite of their forcible
occupation of that country for more than 50 years; rather, the Tibetans with
their spiritual stability, are now making the Chinese take a fresh look at
their own dormant orientation. Many Chinese youth have started visiting monasteries
inside Tibet and have in fact reverted to Buddhism. Some of those who burn
incense sticks in temples in Tibet include the bosses of the Communist Party!
To what extent, and how, can India play a
role in changing China? Claude believes this can happen only if India pulls
itself up to its full height every time it engages China. For instance (in
a private conversation), Claude was bemused when Chinese Consul General Song
De Heng reacted sharply to Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee's observation
in Mumbai recently, that "China has solved its border disputes with all
its neighbours except India and Bhutan." Mr Heng sprang to his feet and
promptly took off: "I fail to understand what you mean by saying that
China has resolved its border disputes with all its neighbours barring India
and Bhutan. Both the nations have been discussing. Is China difficult or India?"
Said Claude, "In any other country, the
Consul General would have been issued a demarche or a memorandum for such
glaring breach of protocol. A Consul General is not supposed to respond to
the Defence Minister of a country in that manner. But we saw how, instead,
there were discussions in New Delhi's drawing rooms on whether Mr Pranab Mukherjee
was right or wrong in 'raking' up the issue. Would the Chinese have tolerated
an Indian Consul General ticking off their Defence Minister during a public
function in, say, Shanghai?"
Would, indeed, an Indian Consul General have
dared, in the first place, to take on China's Defence Minister? The Chinese,
a rambunctious people whenever they perceive a slight, move heaven and earth
to prove their point even when they may be aware that they could be wrong.
But in India we seem to specialise in self-flagellation. Such tendencies are
not what make a nation great, but such is what we reveal of ourselves everytime
it comes to standing up and being counted.
A character trait of Tibetan leaders palpable
during their moment of crisis was to clamp up. Even after the PLA had reached
Lhasa, the rulers of Tibet chose to keep quiet for days fearing that if they
spoke, things could get worse. The Chinese must have loved such opposition.
Being peace-loving need not translate into such abject surrender before violence.
Certainly India is no Tibet, but then it also
does not appear as forceful and assertive as China on the international stage.
As an Asian rival China is today streets ahead of India whereas in 1949 it
was worse off than us in every possible sphere. This is not to suggest that
India needs to define itself in comparison or relation to another country
in its neighbourhood - far from it. But the Indian leadership does need to
realise that a great power is as a great power does.
