India and the path of ‘principled realism’

TKA Nair

AS Prime Minister Narendra Modi was busy  crisscrossing the globe in his tireless pursuit of winning friends, influencing people and marketing India in its many manifestations— from Yoga to space technology — loud  rumbles of disquiet were heard from our backyard border. Not quite surprisingly, as our Prime Minister and Chinese President Xi Jinping  exchanged greetings on the sidelines of the G20 meeting in Hamburg, the spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry in Beijing accused India of "ulterior motives," referring to the disturbing developments in the trijunction with Bhutan in the Doklam area, triggered by the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA).  

That the Doklam faceoff is not an isolated impromptu initiative or response of the local PLA command is clear from the recent developments in India-China relations, the latest being India's boycott of the One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative unveiled by President Xi Jinping not long ago. In the inaugural address, President Xi hailed the OBOR as a "vehicle for achieving sustainable globalisation" and invoked Panchsheel, the doctrine of peaceful coexistence  propounded by India and China in the 1950s.  He defended globalisation with his integrated plan and asserted that China would not export its social system or development model to other countries.  

Xi Jingping  sought to emerge as the messiah of peaceful coexistence for sustainable globalisation before the galaxy of world leaders, including several heads of government and representatives of the US and Japan and multilateral institutions like the World Bank and the  IMF.  No Indian was reportedly present in the audience to hear him preaching Panchsheel, thanks to a vigilant Ministry of External Affairs! Subsequently, echoing Xi’s sentiments, Director of the Institute of South and South-East Asian Studies, Hu Shisheng, exulted that China and India could fill the void in global governance caused by the withdrawal of the US and other western countries.  He expected India and China to come together on the Belt and Road initiative as it is aligned with India's Look-East policy.  Looking at China-India-Pakistan relations in the global context, especially the changing roles of the US and Russia, he envisioned "a new day of friction-free geopolitical relations between China, India and Pakistan when India and China merge their respective regional cooperation strategies.”  For obvious reasons, India has not shared this grandiose  vision of China, India and Pakistan bhai-bhai. The Ministry of  External Affairs came out with a public statement explaining India's objections and concerns about the OBOR initiative.  

Most importantly, India objects to the China-Pak Economic Corridor (CPEC), a the flagship project of OBOR, passing through Gilgit-Baltistan areas of Pak-occupied Kashmir (PoK), infringing India's sovereignty over the area. India also flagged environmental and viability issues relating to projects as also its implied apprehensions about the OBOR being more for enhancing China's geopolitical interests than for improving regional connectivity and economic cooperation.  India's concerns were duly conveyed to the Chinese leaderships at differrent levels several times, but there was no positive response.   However, before the conclave, the Chinese Ambassador to India suggested a four-point initiative to improve India-China relations and the possibility of renaming the CPEC.  Similarly, the Chinese Foreign Minister hinted at working around the sovereignty issue over PoK in order to address India's concerns.  Apparently, these ideas and possibilities were not seriously pursued by either side at any level as would be evident from the latest developments centring  round the Doklam trijunction.

Connectivity across countries and continents is critical for regional and global partnerships in security, trade and commerce and accelerated socio-economic development.  On account of its strategic location, size, population, humungous market and potential for global leadership,  India is central to several regional and global partnership groupings and initiatives. Significantly, the Trump administration has recently renewed its interest in prompting two major transnational infrastructure projects, namely the New Silk Road (NSR) and the Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor (IPEC), linking South and South-east Asia.  Way back in 2011, announcing the Afghan-centric NSR, former US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, had said: "Turkmen Gas fields could help meet both India's and Pakistan's growing energy needs and provide significant transit revenue for both Pakistan and Afghanistan.   Tajik cotton  could be turned into Indian linens.    Furniture and fruits from Afghanistan could find markets in Astana, Mumbai and beyond".    Later in 2013 at the Indo-US strategic dialogue, Secretary of State John Kerry declared that the IPEC would spur development and investment as well as trade and transit between the dynamic economies of South and South-east Asia.   The project was projected to  be  in perfect sync with the US-Asia pivot, Japan's Partnership for Quality Infrastructure (PQI) and India's Act-East policy.

Today, the US is perceived to be fumbling its way to maintain its super power status under an erratic leadership while China is seen to be surging forward under an unchallenged helmsman assured of his country's path to power and glory.  No doubt, the US still enjoys tremendous comparative advantages, including its legacy of democracy, but China is adroitly playing its cards to seize opportunities for pursuing and assuming global leadership, whether it is in the area of climate change or sustainable globalisation. Aspiring young India is not far behind in its ambitions and is paradoxically pivotal to the global power plays of both— whether it is in the OBOR or IPEC.  India too is  aware of the implications of the great global power games.  Non-Alignment  stood India in good stead in the days of the Cold War.  Much water has flown down the Volga and the Potomac as well as the Brahmaputra and the Indus since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Evil Empire.  Both India and China have changed beyond recognition since 1962.  Changing in tune with the changing times, the mantra of Non-Alignment is slowly but steadily giving place to the mantra of alignment — alignments which are inclusive, which serve our national self interests, in the emerging global context.  The OBOR and the IPEC need not be mutually exclusive and could be complimentary to each other in the wider context of global trade and development.  China and the US have their geopolitical agenda to pursue through them.  

The complex world of today is witness to strange bedfellows as there are no permanent enemies or friends amongst nations in spite of their periodic protestations of “natural partnerships”.  Netanyahu has married Israel to China and India in Heaven with great aplomb within less than six months. Russia and the US cooperate with each other and China, notwithstanding their differences and suspicions of the motives of each other.   Not only Russia and our neighbouring countries, other than Bhutan, but the US and Japan too were present at the conclave not just for listening to the exhortations of President Xi, but hoping to take some advantage of these to further their national interests.   Against this backdrop, breaking free of legacy issues and perceptions borne out of past experience, India should make the best of aligning with the OBOR and IPEC initiatives, instead of avoiding them or  spurning one and embracing the other.

Competing and cooperating, managing the inherent contradictions and following the path of “principled realism”, China and India could peacefully coexist and lead the Asian Century.

The writer  was the Principal Secretary and Adviser to former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh