The Hindu Business Line : India, growling and grovelling

A friend from a neighbouring country recently remarked: "India is behaving like a regional bully." He was alluding to comments about India's policies towards Sri Lanka by the National Security Adviser (NSA), Mr M. K. Narayanan. When I asked my friend what he felt were the characteristics he had observed, which led to him labelling Indiaus as a "bully," he said: "Like all bullies India growls at its smaller neighbours like Sri Lanka and grovels before its large neighbour, China".

My friend was outraged by Mr Narayanan's response to a question on India's reaction to Sri Lanka's arms purchases arms from Pakistan or China: "We are the big power in the region. Let us make this very clear. We strongly believe that whatever requirements the Sri Lankan Government has, they should come to us. And we will give them what we think is necessary. We do not favour their going to China, Pakistan or any other country. We will not provide the Sri Lankan Government with offensive capability. That is our position."

Mr Narayanan's statement is quite untenable. Under what treaty obligations, bilateral or international, is Sri Lanka required to acquire weapons exclusively from India? If we are the "big power" in the region, which demands our neighbours must follow the newly enunciated "Narayanan Doctrine" on arms acquisitions, has he forgotten that the IPKF was compelled to use helicopter gunships and tanks to deal with the LTTE? What right have we to ask Sri Lanka not to use similar offensive capabilities, when the LTTE is much better equipped today than earlier? Finally, why should Sri Lanka undermine the effectiveness of its armed forces by buying weapons exclusively from us if it can get better weapons from elsewhere?

Unwarranted Comments?

It has taken us years to persuade even anti-India Sri Lankan parties such as the JVP (Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna) that we stand fully committed to their country's unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Sri Lanka is a neighbour with whom we enjoy extremely good relations. Mr Naryanan's comments have provoked outrage and anti-Indian sentiments in Sri Lanka. The Pakistanis have proclaimed that these comments are yet another manifestation of India's "hegemonistic" designs. By making unwarranted comments — labelled as "growling" by outsiders — India may have eroded its capability to influence Sri Lanka on the credible devolution of powers to the Tamils.

In contrast to our "growling" at Sri Lanka, how have we approached our relations with China recently? Just on the eve of President Hu Jintao's visit to India, China's envoy to India, Sun Yuxi proclaimed: "In our position the whole State of Arunachal Pradesh is Chinese territory. And Tawang is one of the places in it. We are claiming all of that. That is our position." New Delhi developed cold feet and avoided a formal protest. China subsequently firmly endorsed its envoy's claims by denying a visa to an IAS official from Arunachal Pradesh, claiming that since he belongs to part of China, he does not need a visa to accompany over 100 of his colleagues being sent to China on an official "training" visit. China had earlier refused to issue visas to the then Arunachal Chief Minister, Mr Gegong Apang, and to the Assembly Speaker.

China's Tough Posturing

China now appears to feel that it can afford to be more aggressive and tough in its postures on the border and other issues of concern to India. Article VII of the April 2005 "Agreement on Political Parameters and Guiding Principles" to resolve the border issue states: "In reaching a border settlement the two sides shall safeguard populations in border areas." But when meeting Mr Pranab Mukherjee in Berlin on June 6, China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi is reported to have stated that "mere presence" in populated areas would not affect China's claims on the Sino-Indian border. China was thus repudiating the provisions of Article VII of the 2005 Agreement on guidelines the Special Representatives would observe in addressing the border issue. Its apologists would, however, claim that it was merely giving its own interpretation of that Agreement.

The lone Lok Sabha member from Arunachal Pradesh, Kiren Rijiju, says that New Delhi's weak response is alarming people in the State. Rijiju avers that Arunachal Pradesh is the only State in the North-East where there are no separatist movements and people proudly proclaim that they are Indian. He adds that when the Chinese repeat their territorial claims and New Delhi fails to respond, people get demoralised and start doubting New Delhi's determined to protect the country's territorial integrity. Even as Mr Narayanan was meeting his counterpart, Dai Bingguo, in the border talks in January, the Dalai Lama, speaking in Tripura, endorsed India's claim to the whole of Arunachal Pradesh, including Tawang.

This totally punctures China's claims to Tawang on the ground that it was making the claim in view of strong Tibetan spiritual and cultural links with the monastery town. Surely the Mandarins in Beijing, who show scant regard for Tibet's cultural and spiritual heritage, cannot claim to be more concerned about Tibetan sentiments than the Dalai Lama! China recently took positions on Pakistan sponsored terrorism that have serious implications. When the Lashkar-e-Taiba changed its name to the Jamat-ud-Dawa, the United States moved the UN Security Council to declare the outfit an international terrorist organisation under UN Security Council Resolution 1373. China blocked passage of this Resolution. The net result of this Chinese action has been that in the absence of UN sanctions, the Lashkar-e-Taiba can still raise funds for terrorist activities in India.

China also does not accept the widely endorsed international position that incidents of violence in Jammu and Kashmir are acts of terrorism. At the same time, China's assistance to Pakistan's nuclear, missile and conventional build up continues unabated. In these circumstances, one wonders how our Prime Minister could honestly tell President Hu Jintao that the people of India regard China as their "greatest" neighbours.

Woo Taiwan

New Delhi has to respond firmly to China's strategic containment of India. We should invite Ministers from Taiwan and establish Joint Mechanisms to promote economic ties with Taiwan, in line with the policies followed by many South-East and East Asian countries. Taiwan has sophisticated high-tech industries. Enhanced Taiwanese investment in India (which unlike Chinese investments, comes with little possibility of being used to influence domestic politics) can strengthen our hardware industry to complement our software skills. New Delhi should also facilitate wider publicity for the Dalai Lama's views on the Sino-Indian border. Strategic ties with Vietnam should be strengthened with military supplies, including Brahmos and Prithvi missiles, apart from a Plutonium Research Reactor. A similar approach should guide our relations with all countries that have maritime border disputes with China. Finally, the India-Russia-China triangular cooperation has to be complemented by strengthening of the US-Japan-India partnership.

These measures combined with readiness for dialogue and enhanced economic cooperation will signal that while India does not wish to be confrontational, it will not sit by idly in the face of Chinese policies inimical to its interests. China respects power and firmness. It has contempt for actions perceived by others and especially our neighbours, as Indian "grovelling," while dealing with its powerful neighbour.

(The author is a former High Commissioner to Pakistan.)

More Stories on : Foreign Relations | Politics

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
India, growling and grovelling

Engaging Russia

Short-circuited power reforms

The motivation disconnect

How IPO grading can help

Needed, better direction on directors

How to set up a business in China

Crises and cherries

Attrition control