Friday, Mar 29, 2024 | Last Update : 01:19 PM IST

  India has options too, but those come with risks

India has options too, but those come with risks

| SRIDHAR KUMARASWAMI
Published : May 1, 2016, 4:22 am IST
Updated : May 1, 2016, 4:22 am IST

Defence minister Manohar Parrikar with his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Chang Wanquan, before inspecting a guard of honour at the PLA headquarters in Beijing in April this year. (Photo: PTI)

china.jpg
 china.jpg

Defence minister Manohar Parrikar with his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Chang Wanquan, before inspecting a guard of honour at the PLA headquarters in Beijing in April this year. (Photo: PTI)

China’s recent decision to block India’s move at the UN — on Pakistani prodding — to get terror outfit Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) banned seemed to have opened up a new strategy of raising the costs for Beijing. Soon after China blocked the move, there were three high-level Indian interactions with that country. External affairs minister Sushma Swaraj held discussions with her Chinese counterpart in Moscow followed by high-level visits by defence minister Manohar Parrikar and national security advisor Ajit Doval to Beijing. The trio tried to impress upon the Chinese leadership that there could not be a differentiation made between “good” and “bad” terrorists and that such an approach would be dangerous for the neighbourhood. But the pleas fell on deaf ears.

Immediately afterwards, in a curious move, India issued a tourist visa to leading Chinese dissident and Uyghur activist Dolkun Isa — a leader of the World Uyghur Congress (WUC) who lives in Germany — who wanted to participate in a conference in Dharamsala, the home of supreme Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama. At one stroke, the unified voice of China’s oppressed minorities — the Tibetans and Uyghurs — seemed to have found global attention ahead of the conference that was to have been organised by a U.S.-based group to discuss democratic transformation in China. But it was not to be. After China retorted angrily, the ministry of home affairs cancelled the visa for the Uyghur activist on the grounds that it was a tourist e-visa and that such a visa could not be used to attend a conference. The episode, however, raised doubts on whether New Delhi, before backing off, had sent a subtle warning to Beijing that pressure could be applied, if necessary, on China’s vulnerable “pressure points” that include Tibet, Xinjiang (the Muslim Uyghur-dominated province also known as Chinese Turkestan), Taiwan and the South China Sea.

“We have put the Chinese on alert and have made it clear that our behaviour depends on reciprocity. There has been no sensitivity showed by China on Indian concerns, especially in the Masood Azhar case. New Delhi has found that Beijing is not really forthcoming on the issue of terrorism despite the fact that India had a decade ago accepted the Chinese concerns on the ‘three evils” that include separatism and extremism. India seems to have sent a clear message to China that if it does not behave, New Delhi is perfectly capable of issuing visas to prominent Chinese dissidents,” pointed out JNU professor in Chinese Studies, Srikant Kondappali.

“When the then Northern Army Commander Lt. Gen. B.S. Jaswal was denied a visa by the Chinese in 2010, India cancelled bilateral military engagements. Finally, they granted a visa (last year) to (the current) Northern Army Commander Lt. Gen. D.S. Hooda. It took the Chinese those many years to reverse their position,” Professor Kondapalli pointed out.

However, former Indian diplomat and China expert T.C.A. Rangachari points out that there are inherent risks in confronting China and adds that India should do a full cost-benefit analysis before taking such a stand. “You have to continue to talk to people. There has to be a process of dialogue. The Indian government has not yet reached breaking point. While we have serious differences of opinion on some issues with China, we should continue the dialogue along with attempts to persuade them on respecting our concerns. We have to be practical.” Mr Rangachari adds, “If you want to take it to a point of confrontation, you have to make a full calculation (of the risks). But it is not a position that I would take.”

Just recently, New Delhi had hosted US defense secretary Ashton Carter and had agreed to ink a defence logistics pact with the Americans that would permit the use of each other’s bases for refuelling and replenishments of defence platforms such as warships and fighter aircraft. Both sides once again emphasised the importance of freedom of navigation in international waters in the South China Sea, again seen to be one of China’s pressure points. This came amid an ongoing rebalance of US naval assets to the Asia-Pacific, an American move widely seen as a check on Chinese hegemony in the region.

Observers point out that any move by India in confronting China would have its risks. Army officers, speaking on condition of anonymity, say the situation at the Line of Actual Control (LAC) with China is peaceful and that there is none of the hostility associated with the Line of Control (LoC) facing Pakistan. It appears that the Modi government would like to keep it that way.