‘If you’re absent, you have no voice’

‘If you’re absent, you have no voice’

Sunanda K Datta-RayUpdated: Thursday, May 30, 2019, 06:30 AM IST
article-image

IF China indulges in hostile activity, India should end its $71 billion bilateral trade, with a huge $47 billion deficit in China’s favour. If China is the adversary, India should think of a contemporary version of the Hallstein Doctrine under which erstwhile West Germany rejected the notion of diplomatic relations with any state that recognized the former East Germany. Vacillation only creates an impression of indecisiveness or, worse,

opportunism. It also militates against our interest.  A Chinese diplomat was recently quoted as warning that non-participation in the BRI initiative could lead to events leaving India behind. “If India doesn’t attend the forum, the Chinese people will ask questions. It will give a feeling that you’re not constructive,” said the diplomat. “If you’re absent, you have no voice.”

China is always a step ahead of India. While Narendra Modi said he was ‘pained’ by Monday night’s terrorist bombing in Manchester, Xi Jinping telephoned Queen Elizabeth to assure her that China stood by suffering Britain. One hopes, therefore, that India will not have reason to regret being the only South Asian country not to sign any agreement on China’s ambitious One Belt One Road project, now renamed the Belt and Road Initiative. Dependent and vulnerable Bhutan is India’s only companion in isolation.

According to New Delhi’s official spokesman, the reason for boycotting the May 14-16 international conference in Beijing on the BRI was the belief that connectivity initiatives must be based on universally recognised international norms, good governance, rule of law, openness, transparency and equality. Beyond those high-sounding principles lie legitimate security concerns regarding and the absence of a well thought-out policy on coping with the challenge China presents. India feels the $57 billion “China-Pakistan Economic Corridor” which is important to the BRI ignores India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. This is a valid objection for the CPEC strides through Indian Territory that Pakistan invaded and annexed, and a slice of which Pakistan even handed to China on a plate. But what do we do about it? Should India go to war with Pakistan to get back the lost areas of Jammu and Kashmir?

India also sees the BRI as another link in a chain that encircles it by land and sea, adding to the worries of a country that already suffers from terrorist outrages. China’s rising naval power in the Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea and Chinese initiatives in Bangladesh, Myanmar, the Maldives, Sri Lanka and Pakistan, the so-called “string of pearls” are viewed with the deepest suspicion. It’s a replay of 1971 when China was accused of colluding with the United States and Pakistan to encircle India.

What weakens India’s case is that not content with these reasons which are based on the unexceptional grounds of national security, New Delhi is also trying to indict the BRI on seemingly rational grounds including principles of financial responsibility to avoid creating unsustainable debt burdens, balanced ecological and environmental protection, transparent assessment of project costs, and appropriate transfer of skill and technology. If these aspects had been ignored and the BRI were seriously flawed, nearly 70 countries and international organizations (including the 64 countries with a combined GDP of more than $21 trillion that attended the Beijing summit) would not have endorsed the scheme. Obviously, they expect to benefit from a mega infrastructure initiative that plans to connect the land-based “Silk Road Economic Belt” and the oceanic “Maritime Silk Road” to optimize linkages between Asia, Europe, Oceania and East Africa, bridge the infrastructure gap, and accelerate economic growth across the Asia Pacific area and Central and Eastern Europe.

Indian spokesmen maintain that New Delhi shares the international community’s desire for enhancing physical connectivity and believes that it should bring greater economic benefits to all in an equitable and balanced manner. India also claims to be working with many governments and international institutions in support of physical and digital connectivity in its immediate neighbourhood. As evidence that India is anxious to expand and strengthen connectivity as an integral part of its economic and diplomatic initiatives, it is cited that India is pursuing the Trilateral Highway project under the “Act East”’ policy; developing multimodal linkages with Myanmar and Bangladesh under its “Neighbourhood First” policy; is engaged with Iran on Chabahar Port; and with Iran and other partners in Central Asia on the International North South Transport Corridor under the “Go West” strategy. While the Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal Initiative is aimed at enhancing logistics efficiencies in the South Asian region, India will also soon formally join the Customs Convention on International Transport of Goods.

There is no contradiction between any of these commendable initiatives and the BRI. The “meaningful dialogue” India seeks with China probably refers to the Kashmir sector (the CPEC) and the BRI’s maritime implications. That is seen as important enough for Mr Modi, Arun Jaitley and the foreign secretary, S. Jaishankar, to voice concern at Mr Xi’s ambitious, even audacious, mega initiative to build seven economic corridors across several continents and oceans that might cost anything up to $8 trillion. They feel Beijing should have consulted New Delhi about a project which, to quote Mr Jaishankar, “passes through a piece of land, which we call Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, which is a territory that belongs to India and is illegally occupied by Pakistan.” This is seen as especially relevant because “China is very sensitive on matters concerning its (own) sovereignty.”

While there is considerable justification for India’s nervousness, an element of pique cannot be ruled out either. China and India began at the same economic level but there is no denying that China has left India lagging far behind. Realism demands we face up to the stark truth that China’s economy is five times the size of India’s, that China boasts the world’s fastest growth rate and has accumulated foreign exchange reserves of $3.5 trillion and that China’s president talks to the Queen. The world and his wife, including Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, would not have flocked to the BRI summit if they did not see China as a global player with considerable economic clout, and if major international corporations had not hankered for a share of BRI contracts. India might have been in a comparable position if Mr Modi had succeeded in these three years in attracting substantial foreign investment, given a fillip to domestic manufacture, encouraged savings and tackled the problem of massive overt and concealed unemployment. Instead, our jobless young men are incited to organize cow protection vigilante groups and lynch suspected beef eaters.

India’s non-existent China policy is a feature of this weakness at the top. If China indulges in hostile activity, India should end its $71 billion bilateral trade, with a huge $47 billion deficit in China’s favour. If China is the adversary, India should think of a contemporary version of the Hallstein Doctrine under which erstwhile West Germany rejected the notion of diplomatic relations with any state that recognized the former East Germany. Vacillation only creates an impression of indecisiveness or, worse, opportunism. It also militates against our interest. A Chinese diplomat was recently quoted as warning that non-participation in the BRI initiative could lead to events leaving India behind. “If India doesn’t attend the forum, the Chinese people will ask questions. It will give a feeling that you’re not constructive,” said the diplomat. “If you’re absent, you have no voice.” India will have only faithful Bhutan for company while China’s president hob-nobs with the Queen.

The writer is the author of several books and a regular media columnist.

RECENT STORIES

Editorial: Need To Look After The Aged

Editorial: Need To Look After The Aged

Analysis: Anonymous Electoral Bonds Reined In — But What About Anonymous Cash Donations?

Analysis: Anonymous Electoral Bonds Reined In — But What About Anonymous Cash Donations?

Editorial: Government Cannot Be Run From Jail

Editorial: Government Cannot Be Run From Jail

Decentralisation Can Build Better Cities

Decentralisation Can Build Better Cities

Analysis: Elections Are The True Test Of Democracy

Analysis: Elections Are The True Test Of Democracy