Although it was the first visit to India in more than a decade by the Chinese Prime Minister, it did not receive there the media attention that it deserved. The affable premier, Zhou Rongji, however, gave not the slightest indication of his feelings over the level of protocol. The Chinese rarely do.
Then, his 6-day visit in mid-January,2002, almost coincided with that of the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, who had arrived in the subcontinent with an agenda having an immediate impact on the posture of India in the Indo-Pakistan stand-off. Incidentally, Mr. Rongji too had been persuading the two parties to settle their differences at the negotiating table.
The Time of India of January 15 attributed the Indian lukewarm attitude to “our genuine lack of knowledge of and interest in matters Chinese. Most of what we know about China is second-hand, mediated by the cares and concerns of the West. The sceptic would argue that given the special ties that bind Beijing to Islamabad, there is little realistic possibility of a serious Indo-Chinese engagement.”
Whatever the casuistry, whatever the extenuating circumstances , they hardly derogate the significance of the visit. It signals the willingness of China to put aside decades of mistrust and develop at least a working relationship with its great neighbor to the south. It also reflects the pragmatism of Chinese leadership and its ability to adjust to changed circumstances. The visit reflected clearly the Chinese intent to develop a balance in their ties with both India and Pakistan.
One cannot avoid the feeling that in the pursuit of their Pakistan-centric foreign policy and their consequent concentration of efforts on presenting themselves as the victims of “cross-border terrorism” and calling their own and the American systems as the “twin towers” of democracy, the Indian leadership might have missed grabbing the opportunity that the Chinese had offered to them.
Relations between India and China, that had remained under strain since India’s China war of 1962, went into further spin after India’s nuclear explosion in May 1998 and the Indian Defense Minister, George Fernandez’s provocative statement specifically describing China as the potential enemy and number one security threat to India. The Indian premier, Bajpai, too in his messages to heads of foreign governments, including Bill Clinton, had named China as “the primary cause “ of his government’s decision to weaponize its nuclear capability.
Premier Zhou had undertaken an 11-day visit to five Asian countries -Pakistan, Nepal, Maldives, Sri Lanka and Thailand - in May last year, three weeks after the US pledged to provide Taiwan with its largest arms package in a decade. India was not on his itinerary.
The shift in China’s position is underlined by the fact that the visit to India now extended to almost a week and included meetings with industrial magnates in Mumbai and heads of software giants in Mysore.
The Chinese who had so far been interested in selling their products through Indian distributors are now looking for collaboration with Indian companies to have more durable and abiding ties in the productive and vital sectors of both.
China wants to avoid getting embroiled in any cold or hot war. China is not a strong military power founded on a weak economy, but a powerful economy supporting a credible military force that is, nevertheless, backed by a nuclear arsenal. It has made exemplary strides in the industrial and economic fields recording annual growth rates of up to 12 percent since 1976. Its trade has expanded 17 times to more than $350 billion over the past two decades. Its goods reach 200 foreign lands. Their quality is high and price quite low
China has recently been admitted as a full member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) affording it increased access to world markets including those of India. At present bilateral trade between India and China does not exceed $3 billion, as against over $75 billion between US and China.
Chinese goods are three to six times cheaper than those produced in India. Obviously, the best choice in the circumstances is for India to enter into collaborative ventures with China.
The Chinese PM’s visit has however not been barren. Several agreements were concluded and the most significant outcome was the agreement on the resumption of air traffic that has remained suspended since the border war in 1962.
In the Chinese school books the conflict is referred to as a border skirmish, while the Indians have presented it as a major war -portraying the difference in perceptions.
India, a protégé of the Soviet Union till its disintegration, had been following centrally planned socialist economy in a democratic setup. The growth rate was slow. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the advent of economic globalism, India adopted a market-oriented, competitive economy and has been recording around 7 per cent growth rate. Its middle class has been fast expanding and is estimated to be as high as 300 million in a population of 1 billion. That constitutes an attractive market for foreign exporters and a potentially productive sector of the society.
Forty-six per cent of all software engineers in the US are from India. Most of the 1.2 million US-Indians are highly qualified professionals with high family incomes.
A very high percentage of foreign students in US colleges comprise Chinese and Indians pointing to the shape of things to come in the current century.
China is essentially an introvert, narcissist society. It built the Great Wall to keep the “uncultured, foreign barbarians” out of their “great middle kingdom”. Chinese patriotism is rooted in a long, humiliating century during which foreign imperialists carved out spheres of influence and reduced the highly advanced and cultured society to the status of “sick man of Asia” or in the words of Sun-Yat-Sen, the first great Chinese leader “a sheet of loose sand”.
Indian patriotism is clouded by its own divisive caste system and the history of a thousand years of rule by Muslim dynasties culminating into the partition of the country. Hindu nationalism being currently promoted finds a catharsis in such symbolic overtures as the demolition of the Babri mosque or the ridiculous claim of Taj Mahal having been a Shiva Temple.
A patriotism underpinned by religious fanaticism hampers the progress of any society. A glaring example is that of the Islamization under Gen. Zia of Pakistan. The deleterious effects of his tunnel vision continue to haunt that society to this day. Its economy went down the tubes and even the raison d’etre of the country became open to question.
Economists calculate that by 2025 China most likely will be as large an economy, if not larger, as the US. Western economists are also agreed that the rising power of China needs to be checked before it is too late. To avoid encirclement, the Chinese are seeking friendly ties with all neighbors including India even at the expense of Pakistan.
Pak-China ties have already lost some of their former glitter. If the Indian leadership is unable to take advantage of the Chinese overtures, their Pakistan-centric foreign policy and a suspicious mind-set might be blamed for it.
The 21st century belongs to China and India. They can march forward hand in hand only in a climate of peace, mutual trust and confidence, and conflict resolution through negotiations. The alternative is suicidal.