Last year, Reuters published a news analysis on sailing Indian assault vassal – INS Airvat in South China Sea receiving a warning on an open radio channel by a Chinese warship official that the ship was entering Chinese waters.
Airvat was asked to explain its position and official of the Indian warship’s replied that it was 45 nautical miles off the Vietnamese coast considered within Vietnam’s economic zone. The Indian vassal was on a show-the-flag mission from Vietnam’s Nha Trang port near the deep-water harbour of Cam Ranh Bay toward another Vietnamese port of Haiphong. Because of the restraints exhibited by both sides, nothing happened and Indian ship safely sailed towards its destination. Both the Indian and Chinese officials and downplayed the issue wisely.
China – India Relations
On the eve when Indian Prime Minister Manamohan Singh was arriving in Beijing a news story appeared on the New York Times on January 13, 2008, titled “Two Giants Try to Learn to Share Asia”. Three years after that event former Canadian High Commissioner to India as well as nonresident Ambassador to Nepal and Bhutan; David M. Malone wrote a book on Contemporary Indian Foreign Policy named – ‘Does the Elephant Dance’? Malone, who also served his country as an Ambassador to United Nations and also as an Assistant Minister for External Affairs, has an interesting chapter -The Sino- Indian Relationship: Can Two Tigers Share a Mountain? In the book that was published in May. The title given by the news story of ‘The New York Times’ and the title of the chapter in Malone’s book portray the nature of relationship between India and China and its significance to the rest of the world in years to come.
But if the two nuclear power states, supported by great and rapidly rising economies and with world’s largest but most productive population; do not learn how to “share the same mountain” it could sooner or later lead on a collision course detrimental to their potential to lead the new century.
1. A Historical Maritime Power Proceeds With Strategic “String Of Pearls” Strategy
A U.S. Air force official Christopher J. Pehrson in his well researched paper has mentioned how China was a great maritime power more than 600 years from now. According to his paper published in 2006, an emperor of Ming dynasty of China had dispatched a ‘Treasure Fleet ‘of 62 ships under the command of the explorer Zheng He. Some of the ships he, commanded were over 400 feet long and 160 feet wide and were carrying nearly 30 thousands men and thousands of tons of Chinese merchandise. Some of the ships in his command were military and were carrying troops and weapons.
A country like China with such a wonderful maritime history, if has resources to finance and update its past, will not feel content without a strong naval capability at least to compete with other regional powers like India. Also as largest oil consumer of the world, China needs a new silk road to ensure safe route to its fuel tanks from the surrounding waters and run smooth its industrial arteries. Consequently, China’s new maritime strategy in the words of a U.S. defense consultant Booz – Allen Hamilton -“string of Pearls” is gaining bigger ground these days. The report which Hamilton was commissioned to prepare for U.S. Defense Department on ‘Energy Futures in Asia’, was published in the Washington Times (January 17, 2005). It says “China is building strategic relationships along the sea lanes from the Middle East to the South China Sea in ways that suggest defensive and offensive positioning to protect China’s energy interests, but also to serve broad security objectives.”
The Report further mentions that China intends to protect the sea lanes militarily, by strengthening its navy and developing undersea mines and a missile system to deter the potential disruption of its energy supplies from likely threats, including the US Navy. Therefore, Beijing has also been developing strategic alliances with the states along the sea lanes in an effort to increase its influence in the region of South and South East Asia.
But when compared with China, India has a very significant geographical location in Indian Ocean and this gives India a major strategic edge in its waters. Besides the long coastline of the mainland, Lakshadweep Islands in Indian Ocean and a group of 500 more islets of Andaman and Nicobar Islands near Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand have given India an amazing strategic advantage over other great powers. Therefore India is developing these islands as a major hub of amphibious warfare base and training facilities for Indian Army. The Airvat is a part of the fleet based in Port Blair in Andaman Islands- an entry route to the Bay of Bengal shared by Myanmar, Thailand and Bangladesh. The naval facility built in Andaman and Nicobar has also given India easy access to the waters of South East Asian countries – major trade partners of India.
Similarly China too, not only to fuel the second largest economy but also to feed the largest population of the world as well, needs chain of friendly ports for the smooth supply of energy and minerals for its ever hungry industries and safe passage to its manufacturing worldwide. For this reason, China has developed sea ports encircling India extending from port of Gwadar in Pakistan to Hambantota in Sri Lanka and Chittagong in Bangladesh.
In way to materialize its ‘String of Pearls’ strategy China has constructed one of the world’s deepest -sea port at Gwadar on the Southwest coast of Pakistan at a very important strategic location – a major oil supply route. Although Pakistan is making efforts to develop this base as a major naval base with the assistance of China, China is satisfied while using this port only as a “listening post” from where it can monitor naval activities of other countries in the region. And as China’s naval operations are expanding in Indian Ocean, gradually it might be developed into a military base to protect its interest from Middle East to Central Asia, however this time China has revealed no such intention.
But in Myanmar’s Kyaukphyu port in Rakine state and its access to the Bay of Bengal in order to pipe oil and gas to its land-locked southern and western hinterlands, China is seeking to have a strong foothold. Beijing is currently building two parallel oil and gas pipelines that will connect Kyaukphyu port to the Chinese in southern Yunnan province extending up to the city of Kunming as well as Guizhou and Guangxi provinces.
Another is Myanmar’s Coco Islands – just north to India’s Andaman Islands where China is developing military facilities including helipads and storage system for arms and ammunitions. The information and observatory system installed in Coco Islands are claimed to monitor Indian naval facilities and their operative activities in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and other navies throughout the eastern Indian Ocean.
2. Worried India And Concerned China
China’s Hainan Island, located in the South China Sea has developed underground nuclear submarine facility at Yulin Naval Base on the southern tip of Hainan. The submarines are capable of carrying dozen more nuclear missiles.
Yulin base was originally developed to serve mainly as a conventional submarine facility, located on the eastern bank of the Yulin Bay. It is close to the Parcel and Spratly Islands in the South China Sea disputed between China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines. But in recent years, the naval base is expanded up to the nearby Yalong Bay with capability of hiding large number of nuclear submarines from spy satellites. It can also house nuclear ballistic missiles and accommodate aircraft carriers. The naval base is one of the most important bases of the PLA Navy’s South Sea Fleet. The base is also strategically located close to the shipping lane of the narrow Strait of Malacca between Indonesia and Malaysia – a life line for the ASEAN and Pacific islands equally vital for the security and economic interest of India.
All these china’s naval power consolidation with facility to control over the surrounding Indian Ocean region, has been considered in India as a greater security threat to its vital interests in the region and this India takes as a part of China’s “string of pearls” strategy.
Beijing too, is equally concerned over expanded military presence of India on areas starting from west of Persian Gulf to the east of the Malacca Straits, from where China imports 80 percent of its energy needs. For this reason China obviously has deployed new types of submarines, frigates, aircraft and large support vessels ambulance boats, helicopters to support for sustaining long-time maritime missions around its territorial as well as international waters.
China’s defense white paper released in March end and another paper on its peaceful development, released few days ago, have clearly acknowledged that a country with a borderline of over 22,000 kilometers and a coastline of over 18,000 kilometers when confronting with multiple traditional and non-traditional security challenges including the threats of separatists and terrorist forces; upholds its right to modernize its defense capabilities to ensure its security and protect its peaceful development.
The white paper has also admitted that its navy has developed its capabilities of “conducting operations in distant waters” and in countering non-traditional security threats by enhancing its capabilities in strategic deterrence and retaliation. Few weeks earlier, a top Chinese Navy official Admiral Wu Shengli – close on the heel of Indian assessment admitted that China needed more advanced arsenals to boost the ability to fight the regional wars.
Undoubtedly, India has a powerful navy in Indian Ocean region and being guided by its “Look East” strategy is expanding its scope of activities to counter China’s “Look West”. As a part of this changed strategic focus; India during the last decade, has signed over a dozen defense cooperation agreements with Southeast and East Asian countries. Bigger naval facilities are being developed at Andamans with bases for nuclear submarines with guided missile destroyers, stealth frigates and maritime patrol aircraft. Indian Defense Report 2010-2011 has also claimed that its navy “by virtue of its multi dimensional capability, strategic positioning and robust presence in the areas of interest has been a catalyst for peace, tranquility and stability in the Indian Ocean Region during the year”. It has also acknowledged that India is engaged with other maritime nations to support national initiatives of cooperation and engagement and their fleets have sailed and experienced successfully in the South China Sea, African and the Mediterranean waters.
China seems worried on its neighbor’s “Look East” policy and has protested India’s joint naval exercises with the United States, Japan, Vietnam and Singapore in the East and South China Seas considering this as a part of the strategic encirclement of PRC. But this has added the confidence of countries like South Korea and Japan in the East to Vietnam and Indonesia to the South East – as a counterbalance to China in their region.
This way, China’s naval involvement in the coastal waters of India and India’s joint naval operations with East and South East Asian countries has given a new dimension to India –China strategic thinking and level of preparedness. Together with this, the limited nature of interaction with each other seems increasing the risk of misunderstanding between them.
3. Indo – China Rivalry In High Himalayan Mountains
Regardless of increased trade relationships crossing over $60 billions, Pentagon’s latest report on China has stated that a high degree of mistrust continues to strain the bilateral relationships between India and China. It affirms that with an aim to strengthen its deterrent posture relative to India, the PLA has replaced liquid fuelled nuclear capable Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBM) with more advanced and survivable solid fuelled Medium Range Ballistic Missiles (MRBM) facility in Tibet, making easy targets to whole of North India. Defense experts are claiming that China with improved defense infrastructures in Tibet, can now move over half million soldiers to the Indo –China border within a month – out numbering Indian with wide margins. This has created a deep sense of mistrust in India on the strategic intention of China.
While India has a better strategic edge over China in Indian Ocean Region, China with bigger military teeth is also blessed with greater geographical advantages over the land border on all major areas of operational capability, logistics and strategic planning in case of war breaking out. To exploit this situation at best, China has built an extensive network of roads, railways, airports, oil pipelines and other logistic hubs to gear up maneuverability to support its military operations against India.
Furthermore, it is reported that China in its efforts to allow heavier vehicles carry weapons and logistics, has widened Karakoram Highway (linking China to Pakistan) threefold. Different units of Defense Regiments, Mountain Infantry Brigades and Special Divisions are concentrated near the Indian border for providing strong response in case of a breakout of hostilities across the Himalayas.
In 2009, Chinese army ran a major military exercise in Sino – Indian border for over two months, involving nearly 50,000 troops with an aim aims of testing the PLA’s ‘capacity in responding any sudden events in Tibet and other border regions.
Correspondingly, ‘The Hindustan Times’ on March 26, 2009 published a news story disclosing a secret military exercise by Indian Army called ‘Divine Matrix’ fearing that a ‘Chinese aggression’ can take place before 2017. Quoting military sources Hindustan Times also stated that with substantial military build-up and improved infrastructure across Indian border, PLA can “launch an assault very quickly, without any warning”. Similarly, India’s renowned defense analyst Bharat Verma in a book – Threat From China (2011), has claimed that Beijing being pushed by multiple reasons – mainly internal – may desperately attack India by 2012.
Learning from the lessons of 1962 war, India, even with the most treacherous geography has deployed troops on its high mountains and toughest terrain of snow capped peaks, deep valleys, and dangerous passes.
Likewise, in addition to Mig 21s fighter jets, missile batteries and spy drones in the North-East, India is planning to deploy two squadrons of Su-30 MKI advanced fighter jets at its airbase in Tezpur – 150 kilometers south of the Chinese border in Arunachal Pradesh and is improving infrastructure and upgrading airfields in the North-East. It is also going to create a new mountain strike corps after raising two new divisions totaling over 60,000 hard fighting forces in Nagaland and Assam.
4. But Any Way, They Have To Learn To Share The Same Mountain
Obviously, formidable military power like India and China cannot afford the human, financial, environmental and even political cost of a war between them. Even a small human and technical error may cause them return to Stone Age. Indubitably, the leaderships of both countries representing 2.5 billion people, if are honest to their country and humanity as a whole can never let this happen.
Moreover, the two leading economies of the world, more than challenges, share astounding opportunities together, like never before in human history. And peace and better trade relations are sure to offer them with enormous prosperity.
Human endeavor endowed with advanced knowledge on Science and technology has revolutionized the nature of human geography of India and China and this ultimately has massively reinforced each other’s economy and share a common prosperity.
When people of both side of the border join easily with improved access; their economy if is developed in strengthening the needs and benefit of each other and when the relationship between them gains more worth, not only they, but the region as a whole will enjoy a new level of economic success and stability. Once the people of both India and China could substantively realize the benefit of shared progress, a new map of Asia would be sketched – with minimal regional conflicts and forces of chaos, anarchy and instability eliminated.
Two countries if continued with their average 8 percent GDP growth for another ten years, their share in global GDP will cross $ 6.5 trillion. when they will become the largest exporter of manufacturing goods and services adding millions of new middle class populations with their stakes across the border, they will naturally not let their rulers risk their economic prosperity.
The next decade will see the both India and China’s economy grow double in size. China can help India enlarge its manufacturing sector and India to boost China’s service sector and help each other achieve balanced development and make goods and service more competitive and cheaper for such a huge market in both countries. This will also help creating millions of jobs and billions of money for the people living there in poverty.
Nevertheless, the hardest truth for any country to achieve a sustainable global power status is that they must learn to change from within and bring change and share change in their neighborhood, which in return will contribute their stability and increase their prosperity many fold.
But, until India and China are able to solve the serious problems and misunderstandings between them, they have to live under a constant threat even for their internal peace and security with implications to political stability and economic prosperity in their neighborhoods as well. This resultantly will force both India and China to live with more burdens and frictions in their relations.
Nevertheless, to run a great country, is not only a matter of great pride and satisfaction, more than this, is a matter of great national capacity and moral challenge and to qualify themselves as great countries; there is no other way out for India and China than learn to share the same mountain.
Keshav Prasad Bhattarai
India and China - A Himalayan rivalry
Asia’s two giants are still unsure what to make of each other. But as they grow, they are coming closer—for good and bad.
MEMORIES of a war between India and China are still vivid in the Tawang valley, a lovely, cloud-blown place high on the south-eastern flank of the Himalayas. They are nurtured first by the Indian army, humiliated in 1962 when the People's Liberation Army swept into Tawang from next-door Tibet. India now has three army corps—about 100,000 troops—in its far north-eastern state of Arunachal Pradesh, which includes Tawang.
With another corps in reserve, and a few Sukhoi fighter planes deployed last year to neighbouring Assam, they are a meaty border force, unlike their hapless predecessors. In 1962 many Indian troops were sent shivering to the front in light cotton uniforms issued for Punjab's fiery plains. In a weeklong assault the Chinese seized much of Arunachal, as well as a slab of Kashmir in the western Himalayas, and killed 3,000 Indian officers and men. Outside Tawang's district headquarters a roadside memorial, built in the local Buddhist style, commemorates these dead. At a famous battle site, below the 14,000-foot pass that leads into Tawang, army convoys go slow, and salute their ghosts.
In wayside villages of solid white houses fluttering with coloured prayer-flags, China's two-week occupation of Tawang is also remembered. Local peasants, aged 60 and more but with youthful Tibetan features, light-brown and creased by the wind, recall playing Sho (Tibetan Mahjong) with the invaders. Many say they remember them fondly: the Chinese, they note, helped get in the wheat harvest that year. “They were little men, but they were always ready to help. We had no problem with them,” says Mem Nansey, an aged potato farmer. The Chinese withdrew to Tibet, their superiority established but their supply lines overstretched, barely a fortnight after they had come. “We weren't sorry to see the back of them, either,” says Mr Nansey, concerned, it seems, that no one should doubt his loyalty to Delhi, 1,500km (930 miles) to the west.
His ambivalence is widely shared. China and India, repositories of 40% of the world's people, are often unsure what to make of each other. Since re-establishing diplomatic ties in 1976, after a post-war pause, they and their relationship have in many ways been transformed. The 1962 war was an act of Chinese aggression most obviously springing from China's desire for western Aksai Chin, a lofty plain linking Xinjiang to Tibet. But its deeper causes included a famine in China and economic malaise in both countries. China and India are now the world's fastest-growing big economies, however, and in a year or two, when India overtakes Japan on a purchasing-power-parity basis, they will be the world's second- and third-biggest. And as they grow, Asia's giants have come closer.
Their two-way trade is roaring: only $270m in 1990, it is expected to exceed $60 billion this year. They are also tentatively co-operating, for their mutual enrichment, in other ways: for example, by co-ordinating their bids for the African oil supplies that both rely on. Given their contrasting economic strengths—China's in manufacturing, India's in services—some see an opportunity for much deeper co-operation. There is even a word for this vision, “Chindia”. On important international issues, notably climate-change policy and world trade, their alignment is already imposing.
Their leaders naturally talk up these pluses: at the summit of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China) in BrasÃlia in April, for example, and during celebrations in Beijing earlier this year to commemorate the 60th anniversary of India's recognition of the People's Republic. “India and China are not in competition,” India's sage-like prime minister, Manmohan Singh, often says. “There is enough economic space for us both.”
China's president, Hu Jintao, says the same. And no doubt both want to believe it. The booms in their countries have already moved millions out of poverty, especially in China, which is far ahead on almost every such measure of progress (and also dismissive of the notion that India could ever rival it). A return to confrontation, besides hugely damaging the improved image of both countries, would plainly jeopardise this movement forward. That is why the secular trend in China-India relations is positive.
Yet China and India are in many ways rivals, not Asian brothers, and their relationship is by any standard vexed—as recent quarrelling has made abundantly plain. If you then consider that they are, despite their mutual good wishes, old enemies, bad neighbours and nuclear powers, and have two of the world's biggest armies—with almost 4m troops between them—this may seem troubling.
Forget Chindia
There are many caveats to the recent improvement in their relationship. As the world's oil wells run dry, many—including sober analysts in both countries—foresee China-India rivalry redrawn as a cut-throat contest for an increasingly scarce resource. The two oil-gluggers' recent co-operation on energy was, after all, as unusual as it was tentative. More often, Chinese state-backed energy firms compete with all-comers, for Sudanese oil and Burmese gas, and win.
Rivalry over gas supplies is a bigger concern for Indian policymakers. They fear China would be more able to “capture” gas by building massive pipelines overnight. Water is already an object of contention, given that several of the big rivers of north India, including the Brahmaputra, on which millions depend, rise in Tibet. China recently announced that it is building a dam on the Brahmaputra, which it calls the Yarlung Tsangpo, exacerbating an old Indian fear that the Beijing regime means to divert the river's waters to Chinese farmers.
As for Chindia, it can seem almost too naive to bother about. Over 70% of India's exports to China by value are raw materials, chiefly iron ore, bespeaking a colonial-style trade relationship that is hugely favourable to China. A proliferating range of Chinese non-tariff barriers to Indian companies, which India grumbles about, is a small part of this. The fault lies chiefly with India's uncompetitive manufacturing. It is currently cheaper, an Indian businessman says ruefully, to export plastic granules to China and then import them again in bucket-form, than it is to make buckets in India.
This is a source of tension. India's great priority is to create millions of jobs for its young, bulging and little-skilled population, which will be possible only if it makes huge strides in manufacturing. Similarly, if China trails India in IT services at present, its recent investments in the industry suggest it does not plan to lag for long.
Yet there is another, more obvious bone of contention, which exacerbates all these others and lies at the root of them: the 4,000km border that runs between the two countries. Nearly half a century after China's invasion, it remains largely undefined and bitterly contested.
The basic problem is twofold. In the undefined northern part of the frontier India claims an area the size of Switzerland, occupied by China, for its region of Ladakh. In the eastern part, China claims an Indian-occupied area three times bigger, including most of Arunachal. This 890km stretch of frontier was settled in 1914 by the governments of Britain and Tibet, which was then in effect independent, and named the McMahon Line after its creator, Sir Henry McMahon, foreign secretary of British-ruled India. For China—which was afforded mere observer status at the negotiations preceding the agreement—the McMahon Line represents a dire humiliation.
China also particularly resents being deprived of Tawang, which—though south of the McMahon Line—was occupied by Indian troops only in 1951, shortly after China's new Communist rulers dispatched troops to Tibet. This district of almost 40,000 people, scattered over 2,000 square kilometres of valley and high mountains, was the birthplace in the 17th century of the sixth Dalai Lama (the incumbent incarnation is the 14th). Tawang is a centre of Tibet's Buddhist culture, with one of the biggest Tibetan monasteries outside Lhasa. Traditionally, its ethnic Monpa inhabitants offered fealty to Tibet's rulers—which those aged peasants around Tawang also remember. “The Tibetans came for money and did nothing for us,” said Mr Nansey, referring to the fur-cloaked Tibetan officials who until the late 1940s went from village to village extracting a share of the harvest.
Making matters worse, the McMahon Line was drawn with a fat nib, establishing a ten-kilometre margin for error, and it has never been demarcated. With more confusion in the central sector, bordering India's northern state of Uttarakhand, there are in all a dozen stretches of frontier where neither side knows where even the disputed border should be. In these “pockets”, as they are called, Indian and Chinese border guards circle each other endlessly while littering the Himalayan hillsides—as dogs mark lampposts—to make their presence known. When China-India relations are strained, this gives rise to tit-for-tat and mostly bogus accusations of illegal border incursions—for which each side can offer the other's empty cigarette and noodle packets as evidence. In official Indian parlance such proof is grimly referred to as “telltale signs”. It is plainly garbage. Yet this is a carefully rehearsed and mutually comprehensible ritual for which both sides deserve credit, of a sort. Despite several threatened dust-ups—including one in 1986 that saw 200,000 Indian troops rushed to northern Tawang district—there has been no confirmed exchange of fire between Indian and Chinese troops since 1967.
Hands extended—and withdrawn
It would be even better if the two countries would actually settle their dispute, and, until recently, that seemed imaginable. The obvious solution, whereby both sides more or less accept the status quo, exchanging just a few bits of turf to save face, was long ago advocated by China, including in the 1980s by the then prime minister, Deng Xiaoping. India's leaders long considered this politically impossible. But in 2003 a coalition government led by the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party—which in 1998 had cited the Chinese threat to justify its decision to test a nuclear bomb—launched an impressive bid for peace. For the first time India declared itself ready to compromise on territory, and China appeared ready to meet it halfway. Both countries appointed special envoys, who have since met 13 times, to lead the negotiations that followed. This led to an outline deal in 2005, containing the “guiding principles and political parameters” for a final settlement. Those included an agreement that it would involve no exchange of “settled populations”—which implied that China had dropped its historical demand for Tawang.
Yet the hopes this inspired have faded. In ad hoc comments from Chinese diplomats and through its state-controlled media—which often refer to Arunachal as Chinese South Tibet—China appears to have reasserted its demand for most of India's far north-eastern state. Annoying the Indians further, it started issuing special visas to Indians from Arunachal and Kashmir—after having denied a visa to an Indian official from Arunachal on the basis that he was, in fact, Chinese. It also objected to a $60m loan to India from the Asian Development Bank, on the basis that some of the money was earmarked for irrigation schemes in Arunachal. Its spokesman described a visit to Tawang by Mr Singh, ahead of a general election last year, as “provocative and dangerous”. Chinese analysts warn against understanding from these hints that China has formally revised its position on the border. But that is India's suspicion. And no one, in either country, is predicting a border settlement soon.
In fact, the relationship has generally soured. Having belatedly woken up to the huge improvements China has made in its border infrastructure, enabling a far swifter mobilisation of Chinese troops there, India announced last year that it would deploy another 60,000 troops to Arunachal. It also began upgrading its airfields in Assam and deploying the Sukhois to them. India's media meanwhile reported a spate of “incursions” by Chinese troops. China's state-controlled media was more restrained, with striking exceptions. Last year an editorial in the Global Times, an English-language tabloid in Beijing, warned that “India needs to consider whether or not it can afford the consequences of a potential confrontation with China.” Early this year India's outgoing national security adviser and special envoy to China, M.K. Narayanan, accused Chinese hackers of attacking his website, as well as those of other Indian government departments.
Recent diplomacy has brought more calm. Officials on both sides were especially pleased by their show of unity at the United Nations climate meeting in Copenhagen last December, where China and India, the world's biggest and fourth-biggest emitters of carbon gas, faced down American-led demands for them to undertake tougher anti-warming measures. A slight cooling in the America-India relationship, which President George Bush had pushed with gusto, has also helped. So, India hopes, has its appointment of a shrewd Mandarin-speaker, Shivshankar Menon, as its latest national security adviser and special envoy to China. He made his first visit to Beijing in this role last month; a 14th round of border talks is expected. And yet the China-India relationship has been bruised.
Negative views
In China, whose Communist leaders are neither voluble nor particularly focused on India, this bruising is mostly clear from last year's quarrel itself. The Chinese, many of whom consider India a dirty, third-rate sort of place, were perhaps most obviously to blame for it. This is despite China's conspicuous recent success in settling its other land disputes, including with Russia and Vietnam—a fact Chinese commentators often cite to indicate Indian intransigence. Chinese public opinion also seems to be turning against India, a country the Chinese have been wont to remark on fondly, if at all, as the birthplace of Buddhism. According to a recent survey of global opinion released by the BBC, the Chinese show a “distinct cooling” towards India, which 47% viewed negatively.
In garrulous, democratic India, the fallout is easier to gauge. According to the BBC poll, 38% of Indians have a negative view of China. In fact, this has been more or less the case since the defeat of 1962. Lamenting the failure of Indian public opinion to move on, Patricia Uberoi, a sociologist at Delhi's Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, notes that while there have been many Indian films on the subcontinent's violent partition, including star-crossed Indo-Pakistani romances, there has been only one notable Indian movie on the 1962 war: a propaganda film called “Haqeeqat”, or “Truth”, supported by the Indian defence ministry.
Hawkish Indian commentators are meanwhile up in arms. “China, in my view, does not want a rival in Asia,” says Brajesh Mishra, a former national security adviser and special envoy to China, who drafted the 2005 agreement and is revered by the hawks. “Its main agenda is to keep India preoccupied with events in South Asia so it is constrained from playing a more important role in Asian and global affairs.” Senior officials present a more nuanced analysis, noting, for example, that India has hardly been alone in getting heat from China: many countries, Asian and Western, have similarly been singed. Yet they admit to heightened concern over China's intentions in South Asia, and foresee no hope for a settlement of the border. Nicholas Burns, a former American diplomat who led the negotiations for an America-India nuclear co-operation deal that was concluded in 2008, and who now teaches at Harvard University, suspects that over the past year China has supplanted Pakistan as the main worry of Indian policymakers. He considers the China-India relationship “exceedingly troubled and perturbed” and thinks that it will remain “uneasy for many years to come”.
Fear of encirclement
For foreign-policy realists, who see China and India locked in a battle for Asian supremacy, this is inevitable. Even fixing the border could hardly mitigate the tension. More optimistic analysts, and there are many, even if currently hushed, consider this old-school nonsense. Though both India and China have their rabid fringe, they say, they are rational enough to know that a strategic struggle would be sapping and, given each other's vast size, unwinnable. Both are therefore committed, as they claim, to fixing the border and fostering better relations. Yet there are a few impediments to this—of which two are most often cited by analysts in Beijing and Delhi.
One is represented by the America-India nuclear deal, agreed in principle between Mr Singh and Mr Bush in 2005. Not unreasonably, China took this as a sign that America wanted to use India as a counterweight to China's rise. It also considered the pact hypocritical: America, while venting against China's ally, North Korea, going nuclear (which it did a year later), was offering India a free pass to nuclear-power status, despite its refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Indian analysts believe that China, in a cautious way, tried to scupper the deal by encouraging some of its opponents, including Ireland and Sweden, to vote against it in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a 46-member club from which it required unanimous approval.
This glitch reflects a bigger Chinese fear of encirclement by America and its allies, a fear heightened by a recent burst of American activity in Asia. The United States has sought to strengthen security ties with South-East Asian countries, including Vietnam and Indonesia. It has also called on China, in an unusually public fashion, to be more accommodating over contested areas of the South China Sea—where America and India share concerns about a Chinese naval build-up, including the construction of a nuclear-submarine base on the Chinese island of Hainan. In north-east Asia, America has launched military exercises with South Korea in response to North Korea's alleged sinking of a South Korean warship in March. Some Chinese analysts, with ties to the government, consider these a direct challenge to China.
China is deeply suspicious of America's military campaign in nearby Afghanistan (and covertly in Pakistan), which is supported from bases in Central Asian countries. It is also unimpressed by a growing closeness between India and Japan, its main Asian rival. Japanese firms are, for example, expected to invest $10 billion, and perhaps much more, in a 1,500km “industrial corridor” between Delhi and Mumbai. In 2007 Japanese warships took part in a naval exercise in the Bay of Bengal, also involving Indian, Australian and Singaporean ships and the American nuclear-powered vessels USS Nimitz and USS Chicago, which was hosted by India and was the biggest ever held in the region.
This seemed to back a proposal, put about by American think-tankers, for an “axis of democracies” to balance China. Officially, India would want no part of this. “We don't want to balance China,” says a senior Indian official. But, he adds, “all the democracies do feel it is safer to be together. Is China going to be peaceful or not? We don't know. In the event that China leaves the path of peaceful rise, we would work very closely together.”
India also fears encirclement, and with reason. America's Pentagon, in an annual report on China's military power released on August 16th, said China's armed forces were developing “new capabilities” that might extend their reach into the Indian Ocean. China has also made big investments in all India's neighbours. It is building deepwater ports in Pakistan and Bangladesh, roads in Nepal and oil and gas pipelines in Myanmar. Worse, it agreed in 2008 to build two nuclear-power plants for its main regional ally, Pakistan—a deal that also worried America, who saw it as a tit-for-tat response to its nuclear deal with India. (China has become Pakistan's biggest supplier of military hardware, including fighter jets and guided-missile frigates, and in the past has given it weapons-grade fissile material and a tested bomb design as part of its nuclear support.)
Muffling Tibet
Hawkish Indians consider these Chinese investments as a “string of pearls” to throttle India. Wiser ones point out that India is too big to throttle—and that China's rising influence in South Asia is an indictment of India's past inability to get on with almost any of its neighbours. Under Mr Singh, India has sought to redress this. It is boosting trade with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, and sticking, with commendable doggedness in the face of little encouragement, to the task of making peace with Pakistan. That would be glorious for both countries; it would also remove a significant China-India bugbear.
The other great impediment to better relations is Tibet. Its fugitive Dalai Lama and his “government-in-exile” have found refuge in India since 1959—and China blames him, and by extension his hosts, for the continued rebelliousness in his homeland. A Tibetan uprising in March 2008, the biggest in decades, was therefore a major factor in last year's China-India spat. It led to China putting huge pressure on India to stifle the anti-China Tibetan protests that erupted in India—especially one intended to disrupt the passage of the Olympic torch through Delhi en route to Beijing. It also objected to a visit to Tawang by the Dalai Lama last November, which it predictably called a “separatist action”. This visit, from which leftover banners of welcome still festoon the town's main bazaar, perhaps reminded China why it is so fixated on Tawang—as a centre of the Tibetan Buddhist culture that it is struggling, all too visibly, to control.
Mindful of the huge support the Dalai Lama enjoys in India, its government says it can do little to restrict him. Yet it policed the protest tightly, and also barred foreign journalists from accompanying him to Tawang. India would perhaps rather be spared discreet balancing acts of this sort. “But we're stuck with him, he's our guest,” says V.R. Raghavan, a retired Indian general and veteran of the 1962 war. Indeed, many Indian pundits consider that China will never settle the border, and so relinquish a potential source of leverage over India, while the 75-year-old lama is alive.
 |
| A Dangerous Child |
After his death, China will attempt to control his holy office as it has those of other senior lamas. It will “discover” the reincarnated Dalai Lama in Tibet, or at least endorse the choice of its agents, and attempt to groom him into a more biddable monk. In theory that would end a major cause of China-India discord, but only if the Chinese can convince Tibetans that their choice is the right one, which seems unlikely. The Dalai Lama has already indicated that he may choose to be “reborn” outside China. There is talk of the important role Tawang has often played in identifying incarnations of the Dalai Lama, or even that the 14th may choose to reincarnate in Tawang itself.
For the abbot of Tawang's main monastery, Guru Tulku Rinpoche, that would be a great blessing. “If his holiness chooses to be born in Tawang, we would be so happy,” he says in his red-carpeted monastic office, as half a dozen skinny lads file in to be inducted into monkhood. Silently, they prostrate themselves before the abbot, while he scribbles down their new monastic names. Outside his window, the early morning sun sparkles through the white clouds that hang low over Tawang. It is hard to think that this remote and tranquil spot could have caused such a continent-sized ruckus. Yet, if the abbot has his wish, it will cause a lot more trouble yet.
The Economist
No comments:
Post a Comment