New Delhi, 18
June 2003
Mohan
Guruswamy has focussed on the prime minister's forthcoming visit to
China. He opines that in a decade India and China may be one of the
three lrgest economies of the world. He has suggested that the PM
should shed his conservative approach to diplomacy. There will be no
benefit in decrying China for having usurped Indian Territory gifted
by Pakistan or on harping on the vexed border question. The time has
come to leave the past behind, think big and benefit from the
growing trade between the two countries.
More
Than Just Beijing Duck!
By
Mohan Guruswamy
In early 1953 as President Harry
Truman of the USA contemplating the prospects of his successor, Gen.
Dwight Eisenhower, commented: “He’ll sit here, and he’ll say,
‘Do this! Do that!’ And nothing will happen. Poor Ike – it
wont be a bit like the Army. He’ll find it very frustrating.”
Truman described his experience as the most powerful man in the
world more pithily: “I sit here all day trying to persuade people
to do things they ought to have sense enough to do without my
persuading them. That’s all the powers of the President amount
to.” I recall a conversation on this in the early 1980’s with
Harvard’s Professor Richard Neustadt, who has a justifiable
reputation as being the foremost scholar on the US Presidency.
Neustadt half seriously suggested that the US is actually run by a
bunch of Presidents, CEO’s and Chairmen like those of General
Motors, IBM, Ford Foundation, Harvard University, Exxon, House
Speaker and the Chairman of Federal Reserve. When I asked “What
about the fellow in the White House?” Neustadt laughed and replied
“Oh! He is the fellow who talks to Col.Gaddafi!”
The relative powerlessness of the
US President on the domestic front has been a continuing theme of
study by American scholars. Domestic issues are invariably caught in
a gridlock of sectional interests, competitive politics and
bureaucratic lethargy. This is not just true of the USA. We see this
even in India. Witness how the government flounders on disinvestment
or on unraveling the telecom tangle or privatizing Indian Airlines,
Air India, Hindustan Petroleum and Bharat Petroleum or cleaning up
the bourses, just to mention a few of the many urgent matters crying
for attention. Like presidential power in the USA, prime ministerial
power in India is also severely circumscribed by the political
process. In any case few domestic issues hold the promise of instant
gratification, which is what a politician craves most. Democracy
generally is not conducive to statesmanship. To become a statesman a
democratically elected leader needs a national crisis, like a war or
economic collapse or a major natural calamity. The Second World War
turned a drunken outsider like Winston Churchill into a statesman,
the Great Depression made Franklin Roosevelt great, just as the
Bangladesh War made Indira Gandhi seem to even Atal Behari Vajpayee
to be the incarnation of Durga. Which brings me to Vajpayee.
Finally.
Atal Behari Vajpayee must be the most traveled Indian Prime
Minister now. He has visited exactly a dozen countries in the past
twelve months. His visits abroad hardly make any waves in the
countries he visits, but the huge press entourage tailing him at the
taxpayers expense ensures he gets plenty of exposure in India. When
he addressed the US Congress there were hardly a dozen Congressmen
and the hall was filled in with pull-ins, which is the case for most
third world dignitaries. But here it was a big story. During his
last visit to St. Petersburg after he was seated on the same dinner
table as George Bush and the host Vladimir Putin, a fawning media as
a sign of India’s new international status made much of it. It did
not merit even a single line even in ‘The Moscow Times’, even
though our imports give the Russian arms industry about half its
current turnover. Likewise his visit to Evian to coincide with the
G-8 meeting did not elicit much comment or notice from the French
media.
The only Indian Prime Ministers who
made a splash in overseas media were Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira
Gandhi, who being much more charismatic individuals often grabbed
center stage by the sheer power of their personalities. Like US
Presidents, Indian Prime Ministers too turn to foreign affairs when
they hit a wall domestically. After the Bofors troubles, Rajiv
Gandhi traveled abroad so much, that the media took to referring to
him as the NRI Prime Minister. Others do it too. The last Indonesian
President, the near blind Abdul Rehman Wahid, popularly called Gus
Dur in Indonesia, took to the road in a big way. No country was too
small for him and he visited dozens of them, sometimes staying away
for more than a month. He soon lost his job.
For all its nationalist hype, the
BJP’s leadership too is overly fond of foreign travel. The
institutional arrangements within the BJP led government make it
appear that, Vajpayee whose fondness for foreign travel is well
known, would bring to bear his somewhat truncated attention span on
world affairs, while the Sardar would tend to domestic affairs. But
apparently this is not so. Even the Sardar has now become
peripatetic.
Next week the Prime Minister is off
to China. But the China visit need not end up as a media circus for
domestic consumption and about how he enjoyed Beijing Duck and all
that makes news these days. Vajpayee who has a fondness for Chinese
food and frequently has it sent over from the House of Ming at New
Delhi’s Taj Mahal Hotel, might discover that real Chinese food is
quite different?
Vajpayee was last in China in
February 1979 as Foreign Minister. That trip however had to be cut
short due to the Chinese attack on Vietnam on February 17, when
85000 Chinese troops crossed into Vietnam to “teach them a
lesson” for signing a Friendship Treaty with the USSR and for
invading Cambodia. As it so happened it was the Chinese who learnt a
lesson and had to return well bloodied after taking huge
causalities. What was galling to them was that the Vietnamese
commander, Lt.Gen. Van Tien Dung, did not even bother to pull back
his crack divisions in Cambodia and dealt with them with a makeshift
force largely made up of militia.
Teaching a lesson is just an
extension of policy by other means, and the Chinese are unusually
quick to resort to it. Deng Xiaoping, who visited the USA in January
1979, told US President Jimmy Carter about the planned attack and
apparently got his blessings to do so. That was during the Cold War
when the USA was tilted towards China. Now that we seem tilted
towards the USA do we want to serve US interests in “containing”
China?
There are plenty of outstanding
issues that need to be resolved with China. We need to place the
continued Chinese assistance to the Pakistan nuclear weapons and
missile program, which is entirely India centric, high on the
agenda. And we have to also find a way to deal with the vexing
border question. Much of the blame for the uncomfortable position we
find ourselves in owing to the resolution passed by Parliament in
1962 is due to the exertions of people like Vajpayee.
Vajpayee, and other habitual Nehru
baiters hardly gave him any room to maneuver to a permanent status
quo, which was what Zhou Enlai had on offer then. That status quo is
pretty much what exists on the ground today. It is not within our
power to alter it, nor does it seem to be in China’s power to
alter it. For either side to be able to do so will require military
and political resources well beyond what is available now. The ends
are so meager that no cost justifies them. For India it is the Aksai
Chin, a barren, desolate, cold and wind swept desert high up amidst
the mountains.
Jawaharlal Nehru said it was so
useless that “not a blade of grass grows on it!” To which
Vajpayee is said to have remarked “does it mean that the Prime
Minister’s head is also useless because nothing grows on it
either?”
On 9 November 1962 Vajpayee
excoriated Nehru in Parliament saying: “We need not hesitate to
accept that we erred in matters of national security and being doing
so we have committed a grave crime; by neglecting the protection of
our borders we have committed a grave sin, and we today should be
prepared to seek repentance.” Having said this Vajpayee pushed for
Parliament to resolve to recover every bit of territory “lost”
to the Chinese. That resolution still hobbles us. But what is
worrisome is that Vajpayee seems to have little change of mind?
Jawed Naqvi reports the Indian PM’s conversation with Gen.Pervez
Musharaff in August 2001 at Agra in Dawn of 8 August as
follows: “Pakistan has given away our territory to China. By what
authority was it given away? If we have an agreement over Kashmir we
will take it back from China.” Quite clearly the Chinese are not
about to give back Aksai Chin and abutting territories, over which
our claims are quite tenuous if not dubious. The time has come for
Vajpayee to backtrack. Good sense and common sense both dictate that
sticking to unreasonable and unsustainable colonial positions
doesn’t make for better neighborliness. But given his history and
the company he keeps, can he do it?
India and China have been seeing a major upswing in trade
relations. Bilateral trade is now poised to cross USD 5 billion very
soon. In 2001 it was USD 3.59 billion, leaping by USD 1.29 billion
over 2000. The trade gap between the two countries is fast narrowing
with Indian exports growing at 54% as opposed to Chinese imports,
which are growing at a more modest 14%. If new overland trade routes
are opened, this trade will only accelerate further. We have much to
gain now that major hydrocarbon deposits are about to fuel a massive
economic expansion in the Xinjiang region.
Much water has flowed since 1962. Neither country is the
same. In a little over a decade we will be among the top three
economies of the world. This is the time to think big and put the
past behind us. For that to happen Vajpayee too must leave some
mental baggage behind when he goes to Beijing.
Disclaimer Copyright |