Sino-Indian thaw, the protracted debate

After a gap of five years, Prime Minister Modi and President Xi met and talked during the Kazan BRICS meeting. The meeting invited the attention of the world press and opinions about the outcome were divided. Ram Madhav divides the commentators into two categories: the hawks and the doves. Hawks are for a hard-line policy toward China given her betrayal of trust with India while the doves plead for conciliation aiming at the elusive idea of peaceful co-existence between the two Asian giants who have a long common border along the Himalayan foothill.

In his brilliant write-up (The Thaw, Indian Express Nov 23 ), Ram Madhav has linked the dove ideology to India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru who remains a source of inspiration to his school of thought. Diplomacy and the science of international relations consider pragmatism as the essential barometer for evaluating relations among nations. PM Modi’s success as the most dynamic prime minister of India, who brought about a sea change in her foreign policy, lies in his perception of pragmatism.

Ram Madhav places both views before the reader to draw independent inferences based on historical facts. He has his views as well. Taking into consideration the historicity of Sino-Indian relations to the early years of India’s freedom from colonial power, Ram Madhav wants that the path should be tread with caution. It means that the much-touted new phase in the relations of the two countries should not be discouraged but at the same time it has to be monitored closely.

This is certainly a valuable suggestion and should be given its due. After all, these are the two most populous and economically as well as militarily powerful Asian states. They carry on their shoulders the big responsibility of ensuring peace in the Asian continent and the world at large.

This being said, an important aspect of the thaw also needs to be discussed.  It is to assess the reasons or circumstances that prompted the two leaders to rework their bilateral relations. If we can identify and analyse the circumstances, we will be facilitated in gauging whether the thaw is lasting or only circumstantial. 

Normally, we do not overlook the harsh truth of the axiom that in politics there are no permanent friends or foes. Changes in respective standpoints do not appear in a vacuum. For example, some commentators think that it was the Russian President Putin, who did good homework behind the curtain to bring about reconciliation between his two close friends. Whether Putin played the mediator or not is not what we need to discuss. The question is why he should accept the role.

India and Russia have a long and very cordial history of bilateral relations. The roots of this cordiality have to be traced to the policy of the Anglo-American bloc of boosting a military dictatorship in the close neighbourhood of India on her western border. To add to the annoyance of India, China, with whom Nehru wanted to be very friendly (Panchsheel and proposing a Security Council seat in favour of Beijing) tied up with Pakistan, thereby supporting the Anglo-American policy of containment of India in the Asian continent.

China had been dissuading India from joining Quad grouping, the American plan of containing China’s ambitious designs in the Indian Ocean with a focus on disallowing China any opportunity of blockading the Strait of Malacca which is crucial to the commercial interests of the West. India is a part of the Quad.  But Modi has often said that India’s interests pertain more to commercial and not military activities of Quad. He has repeatedly said that India strongly desires the free movement of commercial vessels in the Indian Ocean.

India’s perception gave rise to a fierce debate about whether she was pursuing an objective different from what the US and its allies pursued. In 2021, the US, UK and Australia sprang a surprise when they announced the formation of a tripartite alliance called AUKUS. It clearly stated that the AUKUS would disallow China’s hegemony over the Indian Ocean and the Far East.

The proposed International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), a 7,200-kilometer (4,500-mile) network of roads, railways, and sea routes that connects India, Iran, Russia, Central Asia, Europe, and Azerbaijan is to reduce the cost and time of transporting goods between these regions by providing a shorter route than traditional paths. At the same time, it will reduce the importance and commercial utility of China’s ambitious new Silk Road programme of which CPEC is also a part. China would want commercial collaboration rather than rivalry in the region. China sees the importance of India’s role in the project.

Dramatic developments in Bangladesh are a factor in a change in China’s policy towards India. The next probable move shaping Bangladesh would be that of Dhaka formally handing over St Martin Island to the US. The US intends to establish a strong army-cum naval base in St Martin which will have the potential of surveillance over military activities in China and India. In such a scenario, Beijing has no option but to mend the fence with India.

Donald Trump’s victory in the Presidential election in the US and his loud and clear message that his administration would be treating India as the closest ally in Asia together is an indirect warning to those scheming against the interests of the Indian nation. His intention of putting an end to wars in which the US has been involved directly or indirectly is a clear signal to warmongers all over the world.

Incidentally, many political figures of Indian origin have been named for being inducted into important administrative positions when Trump takes the oath of office in January 2025. The rising clout of India in the Trump administration has its impact on anti-India tirades whether in the UN or elsewhere like the Canadian parliament, is bound to become redundant. The efforts of the American deep state under the Biden administration to indict India for unsubstantiated allegations also convinced China that the US was trying to blackmail India.

Under these circumstances, we find many reasons for Beijing to revisit its anti-India policy for a long time. Should the Sino-Indian rapprochement last longer, it will certainly come to be labelled as the harbinger of an era of peace and prosperity in the Asian continent.