China is Goliath but is India David?

Once the Indian leadership realised that the Chinese were indeed ‘teaching them a lesson’, Jawaharlal approached the Formosa (now Taiwan) leadership with an offer which he felt they could not refuse. A Indian recognition of Formasa as the ‘real China’ followed by an International campaign to back this recognition to the hilt. Formosa expressed thanks and regretted the ‘inconvenience’ which Indians had been put at by the Red Army. It added, however, that if Indian support was in expectation of Formosa’s support in the border fracas, it was bound to be disappointed. The Nationalist Government, which saw itself as the legitimate ruler of China, considered the core middle kingdom and adjoining provinces of Mongolia, Manchuria, Sinkiang, Formosa and Tibet as Chinese lands and hence there was no question of supporting any alien Nation which undermined, in their views, territorial integrity of the Chinese Nation.

Such is National consensus on territorial integrity among the Han that Taiwan has till date not relinquished Chinese claims over Mongolia. While the People’s Republic of China has recognised Mongolia as an independent Nation, it was under severe duress, when China was but a shadow of its powers. Nothing stops China from renewing its claim and annexing Mongolia once Taiwan reintegrates with the mainland. If single-minded obsession with territorial integrity were the benchmark for National pride, then the Han Chinese are definitely the most proud of all nationalities inhabiting the Earth. Just take the example of Tibet. A vast land of a pacifist couple of million trampled and contained by a bellicose bully which is 1200 million strong. Little chance that Tibetans can regain their autonomy or at least the way they would have wanted. Yet, China ensures that most Nations do not play host or their leaders do not grant any audience to the Dalai Lama. Any transgression of this code is met with demarches and diplomatic sanctions. One may wonder – what harm will the powerful middle kingdom suffer if some leader does meet the Dalai Lama? After all, there is neither any organised resistance movement against the Chinese rule nor does the Lama seek independence. And even if there were such a movement, what chance would it have to succeed against a mighty, determined Nation? Still, rather than taking any chance and ignore any activity which might fan separatist fires, China prefers to err on the side of caution and punishes the transgressors of its territorial integrity in the harshest possible ways.

What is the lesson for India?

For one – India is not China. It never was, and it never will be. For all those self-deluded individuals/organisations which hyphenate India with China or talk of inanities such as Chindia, if nothing else, the recent visit of the Chinese President should be enough to serve as a wake-up call. A salivating gentry was waiting with breathless expectations on what ‘gifts’ would China come bearing – a USD 100 Billion FDI, technology for high-speed trains, support for a permanent seat on UN security council, a border settlement! Is it a relationship of equals or even near-equals when one of them is so clearly the seeker?

Two – Indians do not value territorial integrity inspite of having suffered invasion after invasion in the last two millennium. We have had but one Chanakya who understood the need for securing our frontiers. After that, it was only the invaders – the Khiljis, the Mughals and later the British, who realised that a Nation vulnerable at its edges cannot ever be in peace. The British in particular, whatever their end objectives be, ensured that India was at its widest and most secure from foreign invasions in a long long time. But, after independence, the naïve Indian leadership, in constant affirmation of their ‘statesman’ image, goaded by the ‘peace-at-any-cost’ brigade, has somehow confused ceding of land with diplomacy. In each of its encounters with its neighbours, from Sri Lanka to Maldives, from Myanmar to Bangladesh, from China to Bhutan and of course Pakistan, we have ceded land, either voluntarily or under force. Today, we are a witness to China shrinking our frontiers through the very Chinese method of ‘creeping acquisition’ – slowly claim land pasture by pasture, prevent Indian activity in what was hitherto undisputed Indian land, deepen ingress into Indian territories so that more and more of the frontiers become ‘disputed’ and consequently, a non-go area for the India army.

In the last few decades, each time a Chinese dignitary visits, we have had border transgressions, each more serious than the other. But, so thick is the skin of Indian establishment that an ex-diplomat, who runs an influential blog on foreign policy, blamed the Indians for ‘provoking’ the Chinese. More seriously, a sort of consensus is developing that any border settlement with China should be maintenance of status quo, i.e., India retaining Arunachal Pradesh and ceding Askai Chin and the trans-Karakoram area to China. Such thoughts are fraught with immense dangers for our Nation on account of multiple reasons. One - unlike India, China takes a long term view of its territories and any piece of land, which was ever under the Chinese, is seen as being part of their Nation forever. Hence, an abdication of Chinese claims over Arunachal does in no way prevent future Chinese from staking claim. This becomes even more likely when one considers the stance of Taiwan over Mongolia. Two, Indian claim over Askai Chin is historically more valid and legally more tenable than compared to its claim on Arunachal, or at least large parts of it. The lands of Arunachal were ceded by Tibet to British under the Shimla agreement. This settlement was never accepted by the Chinese for they refused to recognise Tibet’s right to negotiate as a sovereign Nation. On the same lines, India has always recognised China’s sovereignty over  Tibet with Atal Bihari Vajpayee, in his characteristic search of validation, gratuitously recognised Tibet Autonomous Region as an integral part of China. Now, if Tibet was never a sovereign Nation, how can its act of ceding lands to India be considered valid ? On the other hand, the lands of Askai Chin were overrun by Dogra armies and administered by kings of Jammu & Kashmir and hence are more validly ours. Third, what will India gain other than tenuous peace at the cost of sacrifice of land? Is this lasting sacrifice for at best, a temporary reprieve, worth it?

The callousness of us Indians can be gauged from the mere fact that an official memorandum between Government of Gujarat and China contained a map which showed Askai Chin and Arunachal as disputed. Nothing highlights our selfishness better than the constant refrain of industrialists that increasing trade will force China to mellow down. The reality is that this trade is skewed heavily in favour of China and its imbalance has only magnified in the last few years. If anyone has to feel the pinch of an interruption in trade, it is the Chinese as they will lose a vast market for this finished goods. Yet, all the economic logic has not prevented China from strengthening its claim to what it feels are its core National interests. Indians on the contrary, ever so happy to save money, are aghast at the mere prospect of a stoppage of cheap Chinese goods from flooding our markets.

Given our vacuousness, the stance taken by Narendra Modi, while not substantial, is a welcome improvement from the vapid conduct of the previous NDA and UPA governments. Even as our home minister parroted the shameful UPA line that Chinese transgressions are but a result of different perceptions of border (wonder why India does not transgress, if this be the case), the Government allowed Tibetan refugees to demonstrate against the visiting dignitary and made pointed references to the border dispute. Yet, the same Government succumbed to Chinese pressure and withdrew from Chumar. In a case of callous oversight, India yet again recognised Chinese sovereignty over Tibet in the MoU signed on the new route to Kailash Manasarovar.

While the very nature of our people ensures that India can never be China, we need to be wary of this forceful Nation which has defeated us in both the armed encounters we have had with them (eighth and twentieth centuries). At the same time, Indians need to appreciate those qualities which have ensured that except for small intervals, China has stood like a colossus in the community of Nations. Developing a sense of territorial integrity and National pride would be a good beginning.

Unilateralism is not National Interest

Doing the same things again and again but expecting different results is a sure indication of madness.

The pending land swap deal with Bangladesh has taken a lot of space in newsprint and bytes. Most of these articles and op-eds refrain that it will be in the best interest of India to go-ahead with the land swap and that the opposition is putting sectarian interests over National interests.  On receiving end particularly is the Trinamul, which has been accused of constantly placing interests of West Bengal over interests of India, first when it torpedoed the Teesta water sharing treaty and now, when it has taken a stand against land swap. However, the accusers are probably not aware that such accusations in a way accept that the proposed treaties were not in the best interests of the State of West Bengal. Logically speaking, how could arrangements harmful for a state be beneficial for the Nation when it is states which comprise the Nation?

Another set of sage advice which our chattering classes have been offering pertain to our need to strengthen Nawaz Sharif and refrain from make a big issue of sundry killings of our soldiers. It is offered that while Sharif is keen on peace with India, the army establishment isn’t and hence is creating a situation where Indian reaction will force Sharif to adopt an anti-India stance. In the same breath, these worthies contend that it is the army which runs Pakistan and its nascent democracy rules only at the pleasure of the Army generals. If that be the case, then pray, what exactly will be gained by engaging with Sharif, a person not in control of his army’s actions?

A Nation displaying consistent behavior in its over 2500 years of chronicled history is not a commonplace occurrence. However, ethnographers have often commented on the amazing degree of continuity India has displayed over these centuries. In words of many, were it possible for people to travel across the dimension of time, an Indian villager of 500 B.C. would not have felt out of place in a 19^th century village. Why would he, when the mode of agriculture, allied occupation, festivals and the general way of life would hardly have undergone any change? Hence, given our natural tendency for status quo, it is not really surprising that India’s approach to its relations with neighbouring countries has been more or less consistent. There were aberrations though. Chandragupta Maurya, Kanishka, Chandragupta II, Alauddin Khilji and the British, all in varying degrees, followed policies which recognized that security of the heartland lies in fortifying its borders. Sadly, the cumulative impact of these regimes was not strong enough to bring about a change in the approach of other rulers. Overall, the approach of our rulers to our neighbours has been a mix of denial, disdain, fear and appeasement.

It must be said the Chinese cannot be accused of shortsightedness. Mao had seen the entire Himalayan region as ripe for China’s picking, with Tibet as the palm and Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and NEFA (Arunachal Pradesh), as its five fingers. And what has our approach been? India unilaterally and unequivocally gave up all its rights in Tibet and the result was a belligerent China entering our backyard. If Tibet had been the only foreign policy disaster bequeathed as legacy by our first Prime Minister, it could still have been explained away as a misstep. However, the same fantasy filled foreign policy saw India gift Manipur’s land to Burma without any reciprocity, failure to stand up for the rights of Tamils of Indian origin in Ceylon and the summary expulsion of Indians from Burma. In face of huge resistance from within the Congress and from the opposition, our first Prime Minster entered into a pact with Pakistan on protection of minorities in their respective Nations. Just how effective was this pact can be gauged from the large scale pogroms which East Pakistan unleashed on its hapless Hindu minority soon after this pact.

One could say that India found a resolute leader in Lal Bahadur Shastri when he took the war to the heart of Pakistan. However, Shastriji too succumbed to the very Indian trait of magnanimity and ended up frittering the gains of that war at Tashkent. Indira Gandhi proved that was a cut above most politicians when she took decisive action to create Bangladesh. However, it was the same Indira who gave away all the leverages at Simla. It was the same Indira who handed over a strategic island to Sri Lanka without any reciprocation. The iron lady gave wound up Shanti Bahini without any counter benefit from Bangladesh and proved ineffectual in protecting the interests of the Indian Diaspora in East Africa.  

One would have imagined that a Government headed by the hyper Nationalist BJP would have steered India’s foreign policy to a more pragmatic plane. Indeed, it did seem so when India detonated atomic bombs. However, the Nation soon realized that all the gains of the blasts were squandered away, first by a unilateral moratorium on further blasts and then by adoption of an ill-thought no first use policy. Fifteen years after the blasts, it will not be unfair to say that the only gainer from May 1998 was Pakistan. That Nation not only achieved a visible nuclear parity with India, today it has a larger and much more potent nuclear arsenal and more critically, a more reliable delivery system as compared to us. Some of us may take solace that our atomic and missile journey has been largely indigenous while Pakistan’s weapons are a bastard child sired by China and North Korea. But how does it matter on the battlefield? Pakistani weapons won’t decide to reduce their potency out of respect to our efforts. How effective are our weapons anyway when the blasts allegedly failed to meet all of their vitals and a no-first use policy is certain to allow a hostile Nation to decimate our seats of power before India is even ready to react?

Probably in his quest for a Peace Nobel, Vajpayee inflicted significant harm to our National interests. If surrendering our last leverage on Tibet was not enough, he created further openings for China in the hitherto uncontested region of Sikkim. It was the NDA Government which legitimized Musharraf’s coup when it invited him to Agra. Each abomination, be it the Kaluchak camp massacre or the Parliament attack, India was adamantly consistent in its efforts to engage with Pakistan. And who can forget the spectacle of the tortured, maimed bodies of16 BSF soldiers, hung on poles like carcasses of dead animals, paraded gleefully from village to village by bloodthirsty Bangladeshi mobs? Even in that year, it was an India friendly Awami League Government at helm of affairs at Bangladesh and India’s shamefully muted protests were explained away as being driven by the need to strengthen Sheikh Haseena’s hands in an election year.

As far as the need for having a land-swapping agreement with Bangladesh is concerned, it is a no-brainer. For more than half a century, residents of those enclaves have led virtually orphaned lives. With there being no practical way of connecting those enclaves with their respective Nations, it is best that those pieces of land be exchanged. But, like any other human transaction, International relations too cannot be unilateral and devoid of a quid pro quo. Bangladesh will gain land out of this agreement. Bangladesh will gain water out of the Teesta agreement. What will India gain, if we leave aside the nebulous talk of some goodwill with God knows who! Will India gain transit rights across Bangladesh or will it see firm action from that country in holding back those who infiltrate into India? Or at the very basic level, will it result in Bangaldesh handing over an equivalent portion of excess land to India?

This will not be for the first time that sundry voices have asked India to play the magnanimous big brother to a smaller Nation. However, past experiences indicate that none of our actions have resulted in any gains for India. Much was made of the need to transfer the Tis Bigha corridor to Bangladesh but what did India gain out of it? Likewise, the Tin Bigha transfer in early 1990s achieved little other than creating new Indian enclaves in Bangladesh. India signed a heavily biased Ganga water treaty with Bangladesh in the hope the hostile Begum Zia would become friendlier to us. What exactly did we gain out of that give-away?

It is a truism that a Nation ought to strive to maintain healthy relations with its neighbours. It is even truer that a rigid adherence to a singular approach cannot be effective. Our standard approach of engagement, even in the face of gravest indignities and unilateral appeasement is not going to secure our neighbourhood. For too long has the Nation been held hostage to an unrealistic make believe world of low-impact diplomacy. Let our policy makers go back in ages and recognize the genius of Chankaya. Let them adopt the principle of managing our neighbours through a judicious mix of Saam, Daam, Danda and Bheda.

Fight to Finish

‘Struggle’ is a peculiar Chinese invention combining intimidation, humiliation and sheer exhaustion. Briefly described, it is an intellectual gang-beating of one man by many, sometimes even thousands, in which the victim has no defense, even the truth…. The technique was a thing of utter simplicity: A fierce and pitiless crescendo of screams demanding that the victim confess, followed by raucous hoots of dissatisfaction with any answer he gave them… The Struggle was born in the thirties, when the communists first began making headway in great rural stretches of China. Developed over the years by trial and error, it became the standard technique of interrogating the landlords and their enemies who fell into the hands of rebellious peasants. There is a system and real rationale behind it all. The Communists were and remain very formalistic. A man must be made to confess before he is punished, even if his punishment has been decided beforehand. The captured landlord was pushed, shoved or carried to a handy open area and forced to kneel and bow his head as dozens or hundreds or thousands of peasants began surrounding him. Screamed at, insulted, slapped, spat upon, sometimes beaten, hopelessly confused and terrorized, no victim could hold out for long. ... There is never a time limit to a Struggle. It can go on indefinitely if the leaders of the game feel that not enough contrition has developed. .. a Struggle is rarely resolved quickly; that would be too easy. At the beginning, even if the victim tells the truth or grovellingly admits to any accusation hurled at him, his every word will be greeted with insults and shrieks of contradictions. … After three or four days the victim begins inventing sins he has never committed, hoping that an admission monstrous enough might win him a reprieve. After a week of Struggle, he is willing to go to any lengths. 

Source: Bao Ruo-wnag (Jean Pasgualini), Prisoner of Mao (New York, Penguin Books, 1976, 59)

.

Whatever ills may be attributed to our own liberal intelligentsia, they cannot be faulted on their commitment to the Red Book and their efforts to Indianise the war to dominate thinking prowess of a free Nation. Since India is a socialist democracy and not a ‘People’s’ Democracy, the way China is, there are of course, limits to what the leftists can do as far as replicating ‘Struggle’ in Indian context. Hence, while a physical ‘Struggle’ may not be feasible, a propaganda struggle is certainly within the realms of the doable. Like any struggle which requires an adversary and  foot soldiers to wage the war, the lines here too are clearly drawn – the feudal adversaries are those who can be called Nationalists, traditionalists, religious, law-abiding and those who believe in a culture defined way of life. The foot soldiers on the other hand are petty journalists, news anchors, ambitious politicians and their ilk – all guided by figures who may possess different backgrounds, but are brought together by their visceral hated of India.

In case such words seem out of place in our context and one may be moved to question if I am indeed talking about India, my request to the discerning observer would be to look around and judge for oneself, if the no-holds barred attack on Hindu Nationalism can qualify as anything less than a war fought with utmost application of Fascist principles.

The fact that the Indian Nation is a Hindu majority state cannot be wished away. Likewise, the fact that the majority of our population is religious and still retains its ties with its old cultural moorings is equally valid. That in times of struggle, people fall back upon religion and cultural totems for sustenance is another fact which social scientists of all hues will accept unquestioningly. Hence, it is not surprising that our Nation, with its tradition of deifying whatever it respects, considers the Land as a Divinity to be worshipped. Likewise, it shouldn’t surprise anyone to note that our freedom struggle was full of Hindu imagery and thoughts, right from Bankim Chandra to Gandhi. It was precisely this mooring to our cultural heritage that made independent India choose Sanskrit words and ancient motifs as its emblems and at the same time allowed Congressmen to associate with Nationalist organizations without guilt. 

However, things have changed and over the years and we now have a scenario where anything remotely associated to Hindu Religion or Culture is rabidly denounced as Communal. We have to bear witness to ridiculous scenes of icons being boycotted for hailing Narendra Modi’s model of development (though Modi is as away from being a Hindu Nationalist as possible), PILs being filed claiming dilution of Indian secularism when a bhoomi puja is conducted for commencing construction of High Court building, another crescendo of complaints that this secularism is compromised when mortal remains of a revered religious leader are draped in Indian tricolor, another controversy when the President professes her faith towards a religious sect - the list is endless and can go on and on.

It was not so long back that country was stuck by a series of bomb blasts. While none of the alleged perpetrators of these crimes have been punished till date, the entire investigative and judicial system seems to have zeroed in only on the so-called Hindu terror, which even if true, together has caused far lesser damage and casualties compared to even a single blast in Mumbai.

The entire state machinery, with able abetment of the press seems to have taken it upon itself to tar the RSS and associated Nationalist organizations with the polemical brush of communal terrorism. For a person to be declared an RSS wallah, it is enough to put a stop to his/her career, particularly if that person belongs to academia, performing fields, judiciary and bureaucracy. Since the pronouncements of all learned judges are not music to ears of our thought police, even as respected and upright judges as JS Verma and MN Venkatchalliah are today denounced for their ‘rightist’ leanings. While an AP Shah, whose only claim to fame is decriminalization of homosexuality, is feted as a progressive and right thinking judge, an erudite and thorough judge like Markendya Katju is dismissed as being sanctimonious and of donning  saffron behind his black robes.

One could imagine the furore it would have caused, had someone criticized the Nobel committee for having awarded the prize to Amartya Sen, solely on account of he being a leftist. Not surprisingly though, today’s vitiated atmosphere allows the Karnataka Governor to get away with a recommendation of not awarding a renowned literary figure only on account of his pro-Hindutva leanings. 

Works published by those scholars, who had in the past, spoken in support of the Ayodhya movement, are dismissed as communal rantings without even a cursory review, while dismissal of a noted danseuse from her official post is justified on account of her having sung in some function where some RSS leader was present. 

The closest this Nation has come to in organising mass movements in the last few years was around Anna Hazare’s fast for a Lokpal bill. Sadly, the fact that there was a Bharat Mata portrait, that Vande Ma Taram was chanted and that hawans were conducted, have proven to be proofs potent enough to have convinced our gullible friends that the entire event was stage managed by the RSS. What are these ‘secularists’ trying to convey? That any person who is a patriot is an RSS wallah or that the RSS has sole copyright over patriotism? Or more critically, is patriotism a vice or being religious and being moored to one's culture a taboo?

Are we far from that stage that mere whiff of association with our Gods, our temples and our forefathers, enough to cast aspersion on our commitment to democracy and civilization? Forget about us ever having a fresco of Rama in the Parliament or having Ganesha/Lakhsmi on our currency note, a re-evaluation of Gandhi will certainly show his to be a hardcore communalist.

While I may find lots of areas of improvement in RSS’s functioning, cannot deny that for good or bad, the RSS has occupied a banyan like presence in the sphere of Hindu Nationalism. Hence, any attack on the Hindu Right must necessarily mean an assault on the RSS and its associates. With allegations being thrown around thick and fast, it is but likely that even hardcore RSS supporters would find it more and more inconvenient to continue their association with the RSS. With the Government, Media and ‘civil society’ seemingly determined to finish off the RSS and the thought process which sustains it, it is likely that sometime in the near future, we may see a reappraisal of what happened in Tibet a few decades back.

These struggles were diabolically cruel criticism meetings where children were made to accuse their parents of imaginary crimes, where farmers were made to denounce and beat up their landlords; where pupils were made to degrade their teachers; where every shred of dignity in a person was torn to pieces by his people, his children and loved ones. Old lamas were made to have sex with prostitutes in public. And often, the accused was beaten, spat and urinated upon. Every act of degradation was heaped upon him – and it killed him in more ways than one. When someone was through in a thamzing session, no one ever spoke of him again. He was no martyr for the people, because the people had killed him. His death lay in the hands of those who honoured and remembered him; but in their guilt, the people tried to forget him and the shameful part they had played in his degradation. 

Source: Jamyang Norbu, Warriors of Tibet, 133) Warriors of Tibet: The Story of Aten and the Khampas' Fight for the Freedom of Their Country (originally titled Horseman in the Snow), Wisdom, 1987, Wisdom Pub