Economic, security cooperation go hand in hand: Shyam Saran

Shyam Saran, a former Foreign Secretary as well as the former Chairman of the National Security Advisory board, has many feathers in his cap.

In an interview with BusinessLine , the Chairman of the MEA-sponsored think-tank, Research and Information System for Developing Countries, cautions that India’s stance on PoK and Balochistan may have a bearing on how the China-Pakistan relationship shapes up in the future. Excerpts:

What are the challenges for India and South Asia vis-à-vis the rise of China?

Whenever you have a power emerging with very substantial economic and military capabilities, it poses a challenge to the neighbourhood. The rapidly growing India-China trade and investment is a positive in this new dynamic.

At the same time, we have an unresolved border. There is concern about China’s long-standing alliance with Pakistan and it’s increasing recourse to unilateralism in trying to change the security order in the Asia-Pacific.

The region is witnessing the fastest addition to military capabilities, in particular naval capabilities.

No doubt, the security situation has sharpened, much of it due to China’s capability over the South China Sea. The nuclear test by North Korea have added to the concerns, particularly of South Korea and Japan.

We are faced with a very new landscape. This region is perhaps the most rapidly growing component in terms of India’s external economic relations.

The challenge is to take advantage of the economically prosperous China and at the same time ensure that in terms of the political and security situation, there is room for everyone.

So, the $80-billion India-China trade is no insurance for peace and stability, as one would have imagined till about five years ago?

Economics is very frequently trumped by political, ideological or security factors.

Yes, bilateral trade is $80 billion. But China’s total trade runs into trillions of dollars. Let us be realistic. Currently, China is more important to India in terms of trade and investment. Not the other way.

It is incorrect to think that merely by focusing on mutually beneficial economic exchanges, peace will naturally follow. You have to work on both because, there are important security and political concerns. This may inhibit us from actually opening the door to say, large-scale Chinese investment.

Should the India-US defence logistics deal impact our relationship with China and Russia?

A stronger India-US relationship has been good for managing the relationship with China, as it adds to India’s options.

There are many things other than security in the US relationship. If India is looking at its development over the next 20-30 years, the US will be a key partner, because it is still the knowledge capital of the world.

So, short of a military alliance targeting China or any other country, somebody cannot have any objection to the India-US relationship.

To reduce the India-US relationship to the prism of whether it is ‘anti-China’ is a wrong perspective. China is a factor, but not the only factor.

Also, China-US trade is five times the size of India-US trade. The story is similar in investments. The density of exchanges - within academic institutions, think tanks etc is far in excess of exchanges between India and the US. So, for anybody to believe that with the lower volume of the relationship that we have with the US, there should be some cause of concern for China — I think it is completely misplaced.

What is your view of the Indo-Russian relationship?

If we look at the security relationship, then since 1990, Russia has been a major supplier of arms to China. That has not affected our relationship. We continued to be a very key security partner as far as Russia was concerned.

Though we do not share a border, we still have a very substantial energy partnership.

Therefore, I don’t think that India-Russia relations have in any way diminished in importance. But the nature of the relationship has certainly undergone a change as one would expect.

The proposed China-Pakistan economic corridor will pass through Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) and end at the Gwadar port in Balochistan. Did the Prime minister take aim at China from Pakistan’s shoulder, by raking up issues about PoK and Balochistan?

I don’t think the impulse for that was China. It was Pakistan. But I have pointed out that whatever be your posture now with respect to PoK or Balochistan, it will impinge on how China is developing its relationship with Pakistan. We should be aware of this whilst working out our strategies.

Do you think the government is right in raising the volume on Balochistan?

Raising the Balochistan issue, to me, is not unjustified. And to the extent that it gives you an additional pressure point on Pakistan, certainly I see no reason why we should not use it. But, this needs to be carefully thought out.

With regard to PoK, your formal position is that the whole of the erstwhile State of J&K, including Gilgit-Baltistan, is an integral part of India. But your tactical diplomacy over the last several years has not been aligned to this.

The question is whether by raising these issues publicly, we are aligning our tactical diplomacy with our formal position. This is something which I am not in a position to say.

COMMENT NOW