Chinese chequers

Antara Dev Sen is Editor of The Little Magazine, an independent publication devoted to essays, literature and criticism on social concerns and issues neglected by mainstream media (www.littlemag.com). Sen has earlier worked as a senior editor with The Hindustan Times and The Indian Express, among other assignments. She can be contacted at sen@littlemag.com

The dragon is seriously breathing fire. China is no longer the strong and silent economic superpower, bowing deeply while quietly taking over your life and country through cheap goods. It has now become quite unbending and garrulous, hitting out sharply against practically every country that has voiced any concern over human rights abuses following the protests in Tibet.

Tibetan protestors around the globe have managed to focus international attention on the issue of Tibet as China prepares to host the Olympics. The conscience of the international community should be stirred, said the Tibetan government in exile this week, urging the UN Human Rights Council to organise world support to intervene and stop human rights abuses in Tibet. Peaceful Buddhist monks and nuns were killing themselves, they said. Stop the violence.

Special: Blood on the Roof of the World | Full coverage: Tibetan uprising

Not surprisingly, China has not welcomed any criticism or suggestion. Mind your own business, it has been saying loud and clear to the international community (including the US, Australia and various countries in Europe) rejecting their well-meaning suggestions. No, the long-suspended dialogue with the Dalai Lama would not be resumed now. And suggestions of having independent enquiries into the Lhasa violence have triggered a knee-jerk response: shut up, don’t interfere, how we run our country is not your concern.

Curiously, India — the troubled neighbour which has been cowed into a corner by China’s territorial ambitions — has been at the receiving end as well. This in spite of our timid response to the Lhasa riots where we expressed our “distress” at the “unsettled situation” and violence, and called upon “all those involved… to improve the situation and remove the causes of such trouble in Tibet, which is an autonomous region of China, through dialogue and non-violent means.” At the same time, we clamped Tibetan protestors in jail, saying we cannot allow ‘anti-China’ activities on Indian soil.

This week, China threatened to withdraw the Olympic torch relay from India, called our ambassador to Beijing Nirupama Rao at 2 am to formally object to the Tibetan protestors creating a ruckus at the Chinese embassy in Delhi and effectively forced the Indian Government to cancel Trade Minister Kamal Nath’s April 1 visit to Beijing.

The last is a relief, really. We should not make a habit of flying ministers in to hobnob with repressive governments for our own limited economic interests the moment they start killing and maiming hundreds of protestors demanding democratic freedoms. We did it with Burma last year, with Petroleum Minister Murli Deora going over to lock the Burmese military junta in a warm handshake and seal a huge gas deal as they ruthlessly crushed the pro-democracy movement, murdering monks and activists alike. And now, as China clamped down with shocking violence on Tibetan protestors, we planned to embrace it in warm negotiations over the Regional Trade Agreement.

But then, we do need to be careful with China. Former defence minister George Fernandes had called China our “potential threat number one.” We have enough problems of our own, many of them caused by China’s activities in the region. We are also pretty vulnerable, surrounded as we are by failed and failing States, most of which have links with China and could work against us. Besides, as the host of the Dalai Lama, his government in exile and 100,000 Tibetan refugees, we are particularly suspect.

So we may not be able to take as strong a stand against China as we may wish. Especially since we have always maintained that Tibet is a region of China, albeit autonomous. And for those who may have forgotten, China has been explicit in its reminder: “Tibet is an internal issue. China firmly opposes any country’s interference in Tibet affairs and China’s internal affairs. We request the relevant countries to respect our sovereignty and territorial integrity and extensively recognised international laws and not to facilitate the Dalai clique and his separatist activities.” And, in a veiled threat, it declared that China had the “determination and competence” to protect its territorial integrity.

Read Antara's latest columns

Since India is still smarting from the humiliating defeat by China in 1962 — almost half a century ago — we tend to take such matters seriously. So seriously, in fact, that we don’t dare mention to China that we too may wish to oppose another country’s interference in India’s internal affairs. For decades, China propped up Pakistan as a potent rival to India, helping it to fuel cross-border terrorism in India. Intelligence sources maintain that China has also been assisting insurgents in the Northeast since the 1960s, nurturing insurgency in Nagaland, Mizoram and Manipur.

More importantly, on the matter of territorial integrity, China and India have a lot to argue about, the most prominent being Aksai Chin and the Macmahon Line. We do not accept China’s claiming part of Kashmir. Or claiming Tawang. But we certainly don’t want to take on the dragon.

There have been hundreds of intrusions within India by Chinese troops, and there are huge contingents of soldiers and missiles stationed at the border, ready to attack India. We keep mum. Even when they claim not just Tawang but all of Arunachal Pradesh, like they did in 2006. Or when they reportedly bomb our bunkers on the border, or blast to bits Buddha statues in Arunachal Pradesh. We have so neglected our borders and remote areas that we dare not take offence.

And given China’s firm friendships with Pakistan and Burma, and its strengthening ties with Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka, we may feel cornered. Through all this, we have worked on improving relations with China, which has worked to an extent. China is our biggest trading partner now, and has been supportive in international forums. It has also stopped overtly siding with Pakistan against India since the Kargil war. Besides, as Gandhi said, “Fear has its use, but cowardice has none.” We need to stand up for our principles first — for the right to protest, for basic human rights. Then maybe, some day, we can start talking about the border dispute.

As an exasperated George Fernandes said, “Unfortunately, the crucial issue of India’s security concerns vis-a-vis China is like a particularly huge elephant in the room, sitting on our sofa, making noises from time to time, nibbling at the snacks on the plate, yet being studiously ignored by large sections of the ruling establishment.” His essay ‘There’s an elephant in the room’ (The Little Magazine, vol. vii: ‘Security’, 2008, http://www.littlemag.com/security/georgefernandes.html ) written with Jaya Jaitly, gives examples of our backfoot behaviour in this game of Chinese chequers.

So why on earth is China so annoyed with us? Just because of the security lapse at the Chinese embassy — just because 10 Tibetans scaled the embassy’s outer wall before being arrested by the police? Or is it a warning to not join in the world’s protests about Tibet?

Our own human rights records in troubled areas like Kashmir — our “internal matter” that the world has not respected as much as we desired — has been disgraceful. So we may have to be careful in what we say to China on Tibet. But after this week’s petulant behaviour, maybe India needs to speak its mind with China just a bit. Just to preserve self-respect. Just to make it clear that the Indian democracy allows dissent, that it cannot crush protests with the brutal efficiency of China, certainly not in the national capital.

We cannot be so scared of China that we go back on our own democratic principles. We need to get off the fence we have been sitting on for decades, and take a good clear look around. Times have changed, as have power equations. Maybe our strategies should change as well.

The views expressed in the article are the author’s and not of Sify.com

SEARCH