Trade interests behind China’s outreach to India

Abhijit Bhattacharyya
Commentator and Author

SUN Weidong, the Chinese Ambassador to India, has said that India and China should seek common development as partners rather than as opponents or adversaries. However, a segment of the Ambassador’s statement overshadows the so-called ‘partnership’: “The right and wrong of what recently happened in the Galwan valley is very clear. China will firmly safeguard sovereignty and territorial integrity, and ensure peace and tranquillity in the border areas.” Whose ‘sovereignty and territorial integrity’ is China referring to? Obviously, not India’s. China is categorically stating that it will ‘firmly safeguard’ the Galwan valley.

Hence, without an iota of remorse or regret, it’s the implied justification for killing 20 soldiers and injuring more than 175 men and officers. The unequivocal and irreversible threatening tone and tenor of the Communist Party of China (CPC) are both visible and audible. The epithet, ‘diplomat wolf warriors’ of China, at its transparent best again.

The objective of the CPC is loud and clear: ‘Sovereignty and territorial integrity’ is a one-way, non-negotiable street for China, not for India. The CPC’s unilateral perception, nay conviction, is unaltered and unalterable. Remote, hallucinatory claim of ‘ownership’ doesn’t turn it into a bona fide and legal physical ‘possession’ or ‘occupation’, the prerequisite for any property, especially immovable, like land, in international relations also.

The area which China claims to reclaim through threat, blackmail and force, from all historical and legal points of view, belongs to and is in actual possession of India, and not that of China as the Ambassador would like us to believe — colloquially referred to as ‘psychological (psy) war’.

Just have a relook at Maharaja Hari Singh’s ‘accession to India’ document of October 26, 1947. The language is clear, the picture vivid. Especially this paragraph: “Now, therefore, I, Shriman Indar Mahandar Rajrajeshwar Maharajadhiraj Shri Hari Singhji Jammu Kashmir Naresh atha Tibbet adi Deshadhipathi, Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir State, in the exercise of my sovereignty in and over my said State do hereby execute this my Instrument of Accession...”

As per the document, at least a part of Tibbet (Tibet) did fall in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Hence, once J&K acceded to India, the whole thereof became an indivisible and inalienable part of the territory of sovereign India in 1947 itself. Much before the CPC’s forced occupation in 1950!

Which portion of Tibet was that? North of Bhutan, north-west of Burma, land proximate to the Mount Everest, or the area adjacent to Ladakh? Obviously, the latter, where the CPC is repeatedly trying to lay its hands on, through its army.

That was the territorial part, now referred to as ‘divergence’, which the Chinese aren’t keen to resolve. Rather, sweep it under the carpet.

This insoluble territorial problem helps the other factor called ‘convergence’ in the form of trade which helped China reach where it is today. At the expense of all, including India, which plays a minuscule, subservient role with a humongous trade deficit, thereby handing over its market, industry, banking and core sectors to China on a platter. Hence, the Dragon’s keenness, bordering on desperation, to have India on board, once again, as ‘partner and not rival’. Business as usual, implies Beijing’s profitability, as usual. Because, the strategic aim and purpose of showing an ‘inferior’ India has been achieved — by inflicting serious injuries on 200-plus soldiers, included 20 fatalities.

The CPC had the last laugh in May-June. A small price to pay in the international arena because it is , after all, a victory for China without war. Now, therefore, it extends the olive branch to show how ‘well-intentioned’ the Dragon is towards India.

So, now comes trade back in the guise of ‘partnership’, a partnership which has already inflicted irreparable financial loss on New Delhi and brought incredible gains to the Dragon since 1999. It’s understandable. In 1999-2000, India had a trade deficit of $743.85 million with China. In 2001-02, India’s loss mounted to $1.084 billion. By 2005-06, it was minus $4.108 billion. The 2006-07 gap shot up to $9.153 billion.

By 2013-14, India’s deficit stood at $36.21 billion; in 2017-18, it touched an unprecedented $63.047 billion. For 2019-20, India’s exports to China were to the tune of $16.6 billion, while the imports were at $65.3 billion. Where, then, is the gain for India in the lofty growth ‘partnership’ with China?

Indeed, the Dragon’s keen intention to have New Delhi as a ‘development partner’ has today compelled the latter to incur a whopping Rs 39,000-crore (around $5.2 billion) expenditure on the import of Russian Sukhoi-30 and MiG-29 combat aircraft at a time when the Chinese virus is ravaging the Indian economy.

And, finally, the Chinese eagerness to have India as a partner factors in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor which (CPEC) has blatantly violated India’s territorial integrity and constitutional sovereignty for years.

Therefore, the Chinese envoy’s plea is fine from the CPC’s point of view. It’s undeniably picture-perfect for the dedicated, devoted band of aspiring Communist princelings out to prove themselves ‘more loyal than the king’, to help conquer, and attain the numero uno status in the world, with the right political noise on Twitter and other platforms of electronic media. But does this address India’s concerns? Or does it repeat the CPC’s view of world affairs through its own prism? A make-believe portrait of the Middle Kingdom with peripheral princes attending to the ‘Dragon Durbar’ of the Forbidden City, for favour preceded by the classical/traditional kowtow?

One hopes before re-accessing India’s market, and the continuous, uninterrupted pie in her industry, banking, trade, commerce, finance, telecommunication and transport, the CPC stops killing and injuring Indian soldiers, and ceases trampling upon India’s core national and sovereign interests. If it is ‘Wo men shi hao peng you’ (we are good friends), then the Dragon should also remember that ‘Wo bing buxiang shanghai ni de ganqing’ (I do not want to hurt you). That’s a two-way process, it simply cannot be compulsory for India and optional for China.