Strange way to make friends

George Fernandes, in the undulatory expressions of his China policies, reminds me of a proverb in my mother tongue, Malayalam, a rough trans...

George Fernandes, in the undulatory expressions of his China policies, reminds me of a proverb in my mother tongue, Malayalam, a rough translation of which refers to the contradictory intensities of a school boy: quot;He either sits on the teacher8217;s head or is seen nowhere near the school.quot;

Fernandes first tells the world that China is the no. 1 threat to India. There is the expected rap on the knuckles by China. Within 24 hours, speaking from the Andaman and Nicobar islands which he said was under hostile Chinese surveillance from Coco Island, he says he is committed to dialogue with China. He said his remarks were meant to focus attention on critical aspects of Sino-Indian relations and forging amity between India and China, and India and Pakistan. This is the first time one has heard of consolidating friendship through accusations. He clearly stumbled and tried to pass it off as a somersault, an achievement of diplomatic pyrotechnique.

The immediate impact was obviously negative. The Chinese have beencareful in responding. General Fu Quanyou, Chief of Staff of the Chinese Army, visited despite Fernandes generating controversy about the construction of a helipad around the line of actual control just before his visit. A five-member Chinese delegation led by Vice-Minister for Administrative Affairs, Feng Tiyun, has been on a nine-day visit after Fernandes8217;s outbursts. Most importantly, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhu Bangzao targeted only Fernandes and not the Government or people of India. Zhu asserted that the statements were too ridiculous to merit refutation and that the accusations about China8217;s relations with other countries were fictitious and had sabotaged the favourable atmosphere for improving relations. quot;China cannot but express utmost regret and resentment.quot;

General Fu himself stated that quot;China8217;s national defence policy is of a totally defensive nature with no intent at hegemony, aggression or expansion. While implementing a strategy of active defence China does not seek militaryalliances with any country, nor does it station any troops abroad or establish overseas military bases.quot;

That India and China will have to undertake damage control is obvious. But the defence minister has put the Prime Minister and the Foreign Office in an embarrassing position. They could not disown his statements given collective responsibility and the need to preserve the image of cohesion in government, but had to remedy his impulsiveness. His statements have perhaps introduced a certain orientation and alarmism in our defence planning exercises.

Some elements in our political circles and armed forces may wish to take advantage of Fernades8217;s threat perception to follow an agenda of avoidable! assertiveness against Myanmar and China. Two views are making the rounds. First, that sections in our armed forces had briefed Fernandes about China8217;s military orientation and that they were appreciative of his calling quot; a spade a spadequot;. Their point is that calling a spade a shovel distorts reality andenhances the prospects of a confrontation. An argument integral to this is that it strengthens the Army8217;s claims to allocation of more resources. The second speculation is that Fernandes was put up to dramatising threat perceptions about China to justify nuclear weaponisation and the missile-development programme, which the BJP desires.

If sections of our military establishment want a slowing down of confidence-building measures CBMs and desire a confrontationist stance towards China, this is undesirable adventurousness. And Fernandes and the BJP do not need to demonise China to strengthen India8217;s defence through nuclear weapons and missiles. Fernandes has generally vitiated our security environment vis-a-vis China and Myanmar. Myanmar has expressed resentment at his comments about its strengthening its own defence capacities.

Story continues below this ad

Fernandes8217;s statement may affect the bilateral joint working group and its expert groups dealing with the boundary question and further steps for normalisation of Sino-Indianrelations. This exercise originated with Prime Minister Vajpayee8217;s visit to China in 1979, was assiduously nurtured by Rajiv Gandhi and Narasimha Rao, and not disturbed by Deve Gowda and Gujral. We have to fashion negotiating stances and orientation towards China with realism and practicality as the guiding principles.

Resolving the boundary question will inevitably take a long time. So long as we maintain our stance without erosion our interim objective will be met. Secondly, while the agreement on stabilising the LAC, signed in September 1993, and subsequent CBM arrangements are being implemented as effectively as feasible, a major problem is to precisely delineate seven or eight segments of the LAC, about which there are differences. A purposeful effort should be made to get this problem out of the way. China and India can address the substance of the boundary question only after this.

The scope of the CBMs for maintaining peace on the LAC on the basis of quot;mutual and equal securityquot;, accepted in the1993 agreement, should be expanded by both undertaking not to enhance military deployment on the LAC or building new logistical and military support facilities. China should also show a constructive approach. Reasserting claims on Arunachal Pradesh when the boundary issue is not yet settled, and reviving questions about India8217;s jurisdiction in Sikkim should be avoided. China must let things be till the macrolevel political issues related to the boundary are settled. Not allowing the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh to visit China and not undertaking purposeful discussions with the Dalai Lama are also points of tension and difference. As far as the Tibetan issue is concerned, one is constrained to say that His Holiness the Dalai Lama and his followers have also been ambiguous and dilatory in not responding to China8217;s invitations.India and China have not been able to resolve the question of compensating China for the Bank of China assets frozen during the 1962 conflict. It is time that India worked for anacceptable compromise on this issue. There is no point in India indulging in public cogitations about China8217;s political and strategic equations with Pakistan, Myanmar etc. These are matters of sovereign discretion. Our effort should be to monitor these developments, strengthen ourselves and develop strategic and political equations of our own in South and Southeast Asia instead of making general accusations towards our neighbours.

More than 2000 years ago in advising rulers on international relations Chanakya said, quot;Dangers should be overcome after proper analysis and the ruler who is not calm and collected cannot accomplish tasksquot;. Perhaps our Defence Minister should read the quot;Chanakya Sutrasquot;.