G. Parthasarathy
The Pioneer
June 7, 2013
India needs to recalibrate its policy towards Beijing. The timid approach which it has adopted and implemented until now, has clearly worked to its disadvantage, with China upping its aggression.
During the past month, China inflicted a national humiliation on India by intruding 19 kilometres across what has been the traditional border between Ladakh and Tibet since the 17th century, and forcing India to not only pull back from its own territory in the Daulat Beg Oldi sector but also to dismantle defence structures in the Chumar sector. China has consistently refused to define where the so-called Line of Actual Control lies and acted aggressively when it finds Indian defences neutralise its tactical and strategic advantages, by pushing its claims westwards, and well beyond what its own maps had earlier depicted. Moreover, apart from violating all past agreements on the Ladakh-Tibet border, China’s territorial claims also violate the provisions of the Wen Jiabao- Manmohan Singh Agreement of 2005 on the Guiding Principles for a border settlement, which state: “The (Sino-Indian) boundary should be along well defined and easily identifiable geographical features, to be mutually agreed upon”. India’s claims, based on historical data, also fulfill the provisions of the 2005 agreement, as they set the western borders up to the Indus River Watershed, with the Karakoram Mountains forming the natural boundary.
After being militarily humiliated, India chose to subject itself to diplomatic ridicule in the Joint Statement issued after the visit of Premier Li Keqiang. While the Joint Statement paid lip service to the 2005 Guiding Principles, there was no mention of the need for defining the LAC in accordance with these guiding principles. Unless we do this and insist on Beijing furnishing its version of the LAC, the Chinese will continue to stall and obfuscate, while placing our forces in an untenable position along the borders; with India meekly agreeing to pull down any defences the Chinese demand. Worse still, India agreed to accept some ridiculous and one-sided provisions which are clearly detrimental to national interests. The most astonishing provision of the Joint Statement was this sentence: “The two sides are committed to taking a positive view and support each other’s friendship with other countries”. This, in effect, was an endorsement of the Chinese policies of ‘low cost containment’ of India.
Over the past three decades China has provided Pakistan designs for nuclear weapons, allowed the use of its territory in 1990 by Pakistan for testing the weapons, upgraded Pakistan’s enrichment centrifuges, provided un-safeguarded plutonium production and reprocessing facilities and violated its commitment to the Missile Technology Control Regime, by providing Pakistan the wherewithal for manufacturing medium and long-range ballistic and cruise missiles. China is also Pakistan’s largest arms supplier, providing equipment ranging from JF17 fighters and T90 tanks to modern frigates. General Pervez Musharraf had made it clear just after the visit of then Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji that the Gwadar Port being built with Chinese assistance would be made available to China if there were tensions with India.
Moreover, does our ill-advised endorsement of the nature of Sino-Pakistani collusion not suggest an endorsement of Chinese growing presence in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and the Northern Areas of Gilgit-Baltistan? As the Chinese Government mouthpiece, Global Times, mockingly observed: “India must accept and adapt to the enviable friendship between China and Pakistan. China cannot scale down this partnership merely because of India’s feelings”.
On May 28, Sri Lanka’s President Mahinda Rajapakse signed a ‘strategic cooperation partnership’ agreement with President Xi Jinping in Beijing, in which the two sides agreed to strengthen defence cooperation, while jointly cracking down on the “three challenges of terrorism, separatism and extremism”, and expanding cooperation on “international and regional affairs”. Virtually every South Asian leader choosing to challenge India, ranging from President Mohammed Waheed in the Maldives to Begum Khaleda Zia in Bangladesh and Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ in Nepal, has received a warm welcome at the highest levels in Beijing. Moreover, China is bent on blocking India’s entry to forums like the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
Worse still, India grandiosely agreed to support a Chinese role in the Gulf of Aden, without getting similar Chinese endorsement for its maritime and energy interests in the South China Sea, most notably for its exploration projects in the Phu Khanh Basin off the coast of Vietnam. Interestingly, while commissioning the first Squadron of Carrier- based Mig 29 aircraft on May 13, Union Defence Minster
AK Antony asserted that there should be freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, adding that while India is not a party to disputes there, it believes that these disputes should be settled according to the UN Convention of the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS). Mr Antony added that the protection of the Sea Lanes of Communications is imperative for India’s trade, commerce economic development. Sadly, such clarity on Indian interests is not evident in other parts of South Block. Moreover, Mr Antony believes that, while there can be no “miracles” in the development of India-China relations, he has no intention of either taking up residence in Beijing or waxing eloquent on the serenity and tranquility surrounding Tiananmen Square.
New Delhi has to understand that appeasement of an assertive China is a recipe for global and regional marginalisation. Given China’s territorial claims, which have expanded from just Tawang, to the entire State of Arunachal Pradesh and its activities in PoK, India should not merely stop voicing the inane mantra that “Tibet is an Autonomous Region of China”, but make it clear that we did not invite the Dalai Lama to India. We would be happy if he reached an agreement to return to Tibet, with China respecting the provisions of the 17-point agreement it signed with the Tibetans in 1951. Moreover, apart from acquiring berthing facilities for the navy in Vietnam, India would be well advised to provide Vietnam the ability to protect its maritime interests, by the supply of Brahmos Cruise missiles, much in the manner that China provides Pakistan ballistic and Cruise missiles.
On river waters, India is well placed to work with lower riparian states in the Mekong Basin and, indeed, internationally, to isolate China on its refusal to engage in prior consultations on projects on the Brahmaputra river. It is time that the Prime Minister’s Office and the External Affairs Ministry summoned the courage to speak, particularly in forums like the East Asia Summit, on the South China Sea issue and over such other matters. After all, they have a bearing on national security.
