The Sunday Guardian

Book looks at China’s ambitions, compulsion­s, concerns and interests

- CÔME CARPENTIER DE GOURDON

Among the many more or less recent works dedicated to the analysis of the relations between India and China, Zorawar Daulet Singh’s latest opus is notable for its nuanced, insightful and objective treatment of a complex subject matter.

The author provides a detailed retrospect­ive on the historical evolution of the dynamics between the two Asian neighbours, which he explored in earlier volumes and he expands it to embrace the geopolitic­al panorama of our times in order to provide context and make some recommenda­tions for future policy. He carefully steers clear of the clichés about “democratic India vs. authoritar­ian China”, which do not fully account for the situation and can prove misleading insofar as they tend to ignore the pragmatic imperative­s of realpoliti­k and pay insufficie­nt attention to the cultural and psychologi­cal factors often scarcely affected by the difference in political regimes.

Daulet Singh points to certain constants in China’s foreign policy and territoria­l concerns since the days of the Qing Empire and shows that the pre-maoist Kuo Ming Tang regime took a similar view of Tibet, Xinjiang and its borders with India and other nations, even if it did not have the means to enforce its claims. In parallel in 1947, the young Dalai Lama’s government had formally asked for the return of Bhutan, Sikkim, Darjeeling and a part of Ladakh, which it claimed as Tibetan territorie­s.

Another important observatio­n that emerges early in the text is that the ambiguous policies of the British Empire with regard to the Himalayan frontiers—where it was more concerned about accessing areas of commercial interest and carving out buffer zones rather than demarcatin­g boundaries— were partly inherited by independen­t India. London had shown concern not to weaken Kmt-ruled China, a confederat­e and an ally of the western alliance against Germany and Japan, but the British and later the Americans still relished the prospect of a sovereign Tibet without however acceding to the requests of the Lhasa government for diplomatic and military support. Likewise, Nehru’s government, influenced by his sympathy for the Communist Party’s struggle led by Mao, did not openly challenge China over Tibet but quietly supported Lhasa’s separatist claims after the PLA’S occupation in 1950. This equivocal attitude led Mao to regard India as a hostile power aligned with the West when the Chinese forces had to face a persistent Us-abetted Tibetan rebellion in the wake of the Dalai Lama’s flight from the country in 1959.

It is notable that Pandit Nehru’s official recognitio­n of Chinese sovereignt­y over Tibet in 1954 was not matched by a reciprocal acceptance from Beijing of the border drawn by the Macmahon Line. It is less well known that India’s official acknowledg­ment of Tibet as a part of China expired in 1962 and that India might therefore have extracted some concession­s from the PRC in exchange for renewing that recognitio­n as it did several years later.

Daulet Singh refers at several places to Neville Maxwell’s seminal analysis of the 1962 conflict to detect the mutual misunderst­andings that clouded Sino-indian relations and led to that unfortunat­e war. Misjudgeme­nt of the geopolitic­al situation at the time in New Delhi made Indian decision makers believe that an economical­ly ravaged and isolated China

after the disastrous “Great Leap Forward” would not dare attack on the Himalayan border, when in fact Mao needed to solidify his power at home by striking an easy blow at a weaker Indian Army, being reasonably sure that neither the USSR nor the USA would intervene militarily.

After this detailed and highly documented review of the last five decades of the twentieth century the author comes to the benchmark 2005 negotiatio­ns leading to the “Political Parameters and Guiding Principle for the Settlement of the India-china Boundary

Question”, which reiterated that the long-standing proposal for a “package settlement” was still the only realistic option. It had been proposed on three earlier occasions by successive Chinese leaders beginning with Premier Zhou Enlai but India had declined or demurred each time due mostly to internal political circumstan­ces. In short, the deal on offer was a swap between the western and eastern sectors of the 3,500-kilometre long LAC: Beijing would recognize Arunachal Pradesh and Tawang as part of India while New Delhi would acknowledg­e Aksai Chin as Chinese territory. Other disputes are minor as they concern only several geographic features along a hitherto never precisely defined boundary.

This apparently reasonable proposal would entail recognizin­g that Aksai Chin is not an undisputed part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir (now of the Union Territory of Ladakh) in exchange for China ceding Tawang on which it has legitimate claims as long as Tibet is recognised as a region of the PRC. Yet New Delhi’s stance is that China took over Aksai Chin illegally while Arunachal is incontrove­rtibly Indian. The vexed issue of Kashmir between India and Pakistan must also have dissuaded successive policy-makers in New Delhi from making any concession­s on other fronts.

Daulet Singh shows that as long as the inhospitab­le Himalayan highlands remained barely reachable from the Indian side (in contrast with the easier access from the Tibetan plateau) there were fewer risks of military confrontat­ions and, during four decades the mutual Confidence Building Measures helped keep peace and tranquilli­ty on the border. However, since 2015, the accelerate­d road building in the area by India demonstrat­ed New Delhi’s new assertiven­ess and its abandonmen­t of the longstandi­ng “Curzonian” strategy of keeping the frontiers undevelope­d in order to discourage an invasion.

The multiplica­tion of increasing­ly deep-probing patrols from the two facing armies have inevitably triggered more clashes among which the June 2020 bloody fight in Ladakh was the most deadly for both sides. Consequent­ly and to prevent the recurrence of such tragic events the author sees the need for more robust CBMS in the changing strategic context. He pleads for the establishm­ent of a new equilibriu­m between the two giant neighbours, keeping in mind rapidly evolving geopolitic­s.

To illustrate the point the author notes that the perceptibl­e hardening of China’s

stance on the border from 2005 seems to have been in response to the contempora­ry rapprochem­ent between India and the US, marked by bilateral negotiatio­ns for a “civilian nuclear deal” between the George W. Bush Administra­tion and the UPA government led by Dr Manmohan Singh. Since 2013, negotiatio­ns between Beijing and Delhi remained frozen despite the conclusion of the Border Defence Cooperatio­n Agreement.

The last parts of the book contain wide ranging reflection­s on the dramatic evolution of the internatio­nal situation and the related changes in Asia and in China’s and India’s domestic policies and global roles. Zorawar Daulet Singh avers that the next years are not easily predictabl­e and that crafting a flexible, autonomous course without joining a military alliance on either side of the new “cold war” between Eurasia and the Us-led West is the best course for India. The author analyses the so-called “liberal world order”, which has often been described as a euphemism for American hegemony and points out that it was not beneficial to all members of the global community. He quotes Quinn Slobodian’s verdict that “neoliberal globalism is about containing politics and populism at home and traditiona­l geopolitic­s abroad”. It is now increasing­ly contested and rejected within the very countries that still are its major promoters in North America and Europe while emerging powers such as China and India, which profited from it in economic terms, wish to preserve it in a modified form and share common interests in this and other areas where cooperativ­e action will be in their best mutual interest. The book takes note of the conclusion drawn by various experts that China has no real plan to create a new global order under its hegemony, contrary to claims mostly coming from the US, and needs to support effective multipolar­ity.

The author concludes the volume with a useful table listing India-china Interactio­ns based on interests and goals. It supports his suggestion­s for new and better ways for India to “manage China” in the region and draw benefits from the Belt and Road Initiative instead of boycotting it. In the end, furthering a mutually beneficial economic equation cannot but positively influence the boundary dispute.

All in all, the book draws a comprehens­ive picture of the global scenario from an enlightene­d Indian standpoint which takes a lucid and unbiased view of China’s ambitions, compulsion­s, concerns and interests.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India