Chinese Conundrum

China has always been an enigma to Indian politicos.

After independence Pandit Nehru conceived Panchsheel, five principles of mutual co-existence as the basis of relations with China and enshrined as preamble in the treaty with China in 1954. This led to slogan “Hindi-Chini-bhai-bhai”. But later, it seems, Nehru was disillusioned about China.

Four years before1962 war, Nehru considered China “arrogant, devious, hypocritical and thoroughly unreliable” and advised his envoy to the country to bypass the then defense minister Krishna Menon in all communications from Beijing as his thinking on China was “clouded” due to his Communist background. The diary of G Parthasarathy, India’s ambassador to China in 1958 has revealed Indian premier was extremely wary of the country and thought that Beijing had “deliberately chosen to be anti-Indian”.

Notes made by Parthasarathy reveal that Nehru did not trust the country despite the Panchsheel agreement. The notes were made after the late diplomat met Nehru for a briefing prior to his assignment in China in 1958. “So, GP, when has the foreign office told you Hindi-Chini-bhai-bhai? Don’t you believe it. I don’t trust the Chinese one bit, despite Panchsheel and all that. The Chinese are arrogant, devious, hypocritical and thoroughly unreliable,” the diary entry says, quoting Nehru during the meeting on March 18, 1958.

Nehru was dismayed at China’s deliberate policy of hurting Indian interests despite India being the first to recognize communist China as the real republic of China and not Taiwan contrary to position of rest of the countries. It was Nehru who suggested that the permanent seat on UNSC held by Taiwan be offered to China when the same was offered to India

Congress leader and former UN Under-Secretary General Shashi Tharoor said in an interview in 2004 that Nehru “declined a US offer” to India to take a permanent seat at the UNSC in 1953, and said China be given the seat instead. Even in his book ‘Nehru – The Invention of India’, Tharoor writes that Nehru suggested the seat, held by Taiwan till then, be offered to Beijing. Nehru was reportedly known to have said that “the seat was held with scant credibility by Taiwan.” Further, a March 2015 report by historian Anton Harder titled ‘Not at the Cost of China’ shows that the US had begun mounting pressure on India for a permanent seat as early as 1950, wanting her to take the place of m

China. Harder acknowledges that “integrating PRC into the international community by conceding to China’s right to the seat” was in fact the “central pillar of Nehru’s foreign policy.” A 2002 Frontline article by historian AG Noorani on the ‘Nehruvian Approach’ also cited a 1955 note written by Nehru on the US and Russian offers to the UNSC. In this note, Nehru had acknowledged that suggestions were made by the US “informally”, but India was not anxious to enter the Security Council at that stage

I think Nehru’s opinion of China, after a short lucid interlude, underwent a sea change in view of the hard facts of China’s machinations against Indian interests. However, it is strange that although Nehru did not trust China and was repeatedly cautioned by army chiefs Gen. Cariappa and Gen.Thimmayya about the likely attack from China, he just ignored the threats so much so that he ridiculed Gen. Thimmayya : “It is not for the army to decide who the nation’s enemies will be.”  As late as 2012 Gen, V.K.Singh, the then army chief informed the defense minister and warned in a letter to  PM Man Mohan Singh that most of the military hardware was obsolete and in a critical condition. Their advice was ignored by successive governments.

Finally, I think, the hard lesson is learnt. Now, the government and the prime minister have decided not only to take military’s advice seriously but also to give it a free hand.

China’s relations with India must be viewed in the context of this historical perspective.

Border Disputes

There are several strategic points on the LAC, temporary demarcation of the status quo along the disputed border with the Himalayan neighbour at which China has been claiming territories controlled by India. It has unilaterally tried to alter the status quo by pushing India and grabbing territories on Indian side. Border conflicts can be ascribed to this undermarketed border. China does not recognize the McMahon Line which was drawn by the British between Tibet (now a part of China) and India. Notwithstanding the temporary truce China will continue to use force to press its claims along the LAC.

Sino Centric World Orderł

But the greatest challenge from China emanates from its ambition to have a Sino Centric Word Order. For achieving this dream, it has started cajoling or pressurizing its neighbors with whom it has border disputes. One such big area of dispute is South China Sea. China claims many islands in South China Sea and has constructed artificial islands to use as bases. It claims ownership of South China Sea overriding the claims of Brunei, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines and international community over sea lanes through which bulk of international trade moves. It has started bellicose advances in Indian ocean and started cultivating India’s neighbours like Shri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh.

Belt and Road project is another initiative to consolidate its power in South East Asia. India has maintained that Beijing’s BRI project undermines India’s sovereignty as CPEC, a part of it, runs through the disputed territory of Pakistan occupied Kashmir.

In its master plan China faces strong opposition from India which is emerging as a force to be reckoned with. India, being conscious of the ulterior intentions of China, has set in motion processes to check-mate China by aligning with countries adversely affected by Chinese expansionist policy.  Malabar Naval Exercises under QUAD by India, US, Japan and Australia is one such move.

China’s military move along the LAC is to be seen in the context of this overall scenario. China is messaging India that it must desist being an irritant in the Chinese devious objective of establishing its hegemony in Asia and later building a Sino Centric world order.

India now is not what it was in 1962. It has modernized its weaponry and increased its military strength substantially. Indian economy is comparatively stronger and more resilient. Above all, it has a democratically elected strong leadership having overwhelming support of its people, not to be brow beaten by Chinese belligerence. This was clear in the strong Indian retaliation and show of strength during face-off at Dhokalam and lately in Galvan Valley in Ladakh.

Corona Endemic

Another dimension is China’s complete isolation consequent to its deceitful suppression of information on corona virus causing death of millions around the world and maiming world economy. International community suspects that China knew this as early as November 2019. It is accused to have compromised WHO.

Story of China is not still over and demands our serious attention. On the one hand it apparently agrees to be peaceful and restore status quo ante but, on the ground, it is reluctant to withdraw its army.

China’s Indian policy has three objectives : (i) to put continued military pressure all along the LAC  (ii) to destabilize Indian economy by dumping cheap consumer goods and intermediates for Indian Industries, thus killing indigenous industries. and (iii) to befriend India’s neighbours and encourage them to be anti-India. Bold moves of Atma Nirbhar Bharat and ban on 59 Chinese apps have shaken China as could be seen from its strong outbursts against both.

Pandit Nehru was right. China is devious, unreliable and anti-Indian. But unlike him, we must wake up before it is too late. We must rejuvenate our economy, reinforce military capability, intelligence gathering and cyberoperations to surpass the dragon. We should increase our outreach to countries opposed to Chinese aggressive designs, cultivate closer relations with friendly neighbours like Bangladeshi Shri-Lanka and Nepal. We should take forthright positions on issues against Chinese interests like Hong Cong, Taiwan, atrocities on Rohingyas, Tibetan Buddhists and Christians.

Of course, we must not be averse to negotiate on disputes. But we must negotiate from a position of strength and finally tell China bluntly that, as John Fitzgerald Kennedy said, “We cannot negotiate with people who say what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable.”