Author: Ashok Ganguly
Publication: The Telegraph
Date: June 10, 2008
URL: http://telegraphindia.com/1080610/jsp/opinion/story_9379204.jsp
China's animosity towards India is more than
historical
It was certainly not diplomatic, but it was
spot on. At the time it was said, it was felt that George Fernandes, India's
defence minister in the National Democratic Alliance government, had committed
a diplomatic faux pas. He had declared that China was India's biggest enemy.
Considerable embarrassment and indignation followed. "How could he?"
people asked, including his own colleagues. But Fernandes did not retract
his statement. In their heart of hearts, everyone knew that a long-festering
truth was out in the open. Diplomacy requires a certain manner of transactional
behaviour and dialogue even under the most trying circumstances. But the people
in a democracy are not bound to ignoring reality. History may credit Fernandes
for saying openly what needed to be said for a very, very long time.
China's animosity towards India has a history.
In recent times, it was rekindled by Mao Zedong in the Fifties. He was peeved
with India for providing refuge to a persecuted Dalai Lama and thousands of
Tibetans who were fleeing from the pogroms of the People's Liberation Army.
The other irritant for the Chinese was Jawaharlal Nehru's growing international
prominence as a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement. While the Soviet Union
was friendly towards India, it was with the full knowledge of, and understanding
with, Nikita Khrushchev, that Mao Zedong embarked upon an unprovoked military
attack on India in the Northeast - "to teach India a lesson" as
he is supposed to have put it. The end of hostilities left a festering and
what appears now to be a well-entrenched sore on the India-China border.
China has become a significantly strong global
military and economic power and its belligerence has become more erratic and
blatant. There is no other nation that has as many territorial disputes with
a majority of its neighbours as China has.
As far as India is concerned, what we want
has always been a reasonable neighbourly relationship and a sensible diplomatic
resolution to any border issues. China's aims are entirely different. It has
now dealt a hand by claiming Arunachal Pradesh and parts of Sikkim as its
own territory.
By the nature of our economies, China and
India have to transact bilateral trade and commerce. However, trade must be
seen entirely in commercial terms, without any emotions or long-term expectations.
Under the circumstances, it is strange that a section of our countrymen and
some prominent NRIs have been promoting the concept of 'Chindia' as a potentially
pre-eminent global joint entity of huge commercial and economic potential.
This is unlikely to ever bear fruit. Unlike us, the Chinese are neither emotional
nor starry-eyed about India, other than for the short- to medium-term gains
they wish to make in the Indian marketplace.
The recent events of the passage of the Olympic
flame through various countries, and the protests which followed in its wake,
were triggered by the disturbances in Tibet and some other parts of China.
The responses of the Chinese State were crude and heavy-handed. In India,
we have directly experienced their unsuccessful attempts to interfere in the
security arrangements for the passage of the Olympic torch through New Delhi.
Similarly, the Chinese foreign office summoning the Indian ambassador in the
dead of night was a display of the same arrogance and belligerence. Whether
the man on the street in China feels the same way about India is difficult
to know.
It is reasonable to expect that as China becomes
more economically powerful its belligerence towards India and other countries
is likely to increase. Fortunately, there is now greater access for the international
media in China. This was on display in the recent reporting of the devastating
earthquake in the Sichuan province. The media showed the world the soft side
of the Chinese State on display for the domestic as well as international
audience by the presence and participation of Chinese leaders in the rescue
operations. This was in stark contrast to the recent orchestrated tour of
Tibet for foreign journalists and diplomats. China will stay open as long
as it suits its purpose, and that is at least until the Beijing Olympics.
It may also be the case that China can no longer keep the Chinese people in
the dark regarding major disasters and crises, thus ensuring a degree of selective
openness.
In search of raw material and food, China
is exploring 21st-century colonialism in its neighbourhood and in Africa.
It will surely include South America in due course. All this presages a welcome
transition where management by absolute secrecy and isolation may no longer
be possible.
China's one-party rule will remain manageable
as long as the economy keeps growing and 1.3 billion Chinese remain reasonably
contented and hopeful. There are, of course, dangers that the Communist Party
of China may be faced with some unanticipated challenges in the future, triggering
major disequilibrium. The recent events in Tibet and in India's northeastern
borders make one wonder whether the PLA and CPC are in as much harmony as
they have been historically. In any future major domestic crisis, China's
immediate neighbours are more likely to bear the brunt of the CPC's belligerence
in its efforts to divert the attention of the Chinese people from its internal
problems.
The international community and India are
well aware of the fault lines in the fast-unfolding Chinese story and their
potential consequences. While diplomacy must remain, as it has through the
ages, the primary means of engaging with China, India has to be significantly
better prepared in the event of China's unprovoked belligerence, such as claiming
ownership of parts of Indian territory, as China has done.
It is the government's role to conduct diplomacy
and militarily secure India's northeastern borders against any Chinese designs.
However, the Indian public, and particularly the Indian business community
and consumers, must appreciate the fragile nature of what may appear to be
the huge trade and business opportunities between China and India. Naturally,
and at least for the time being, it has to be business as usual, but plans
for the long term have to be couched with caution. Chindia, as a concept,
is a non-starter. Fernandes had publicly raised an issue of the true nature
of the China-India relationship. The relationship has not changed much during
the last 50 years and is likely to remain as uncertain in the future.
