[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
NEWS FORM INDIA
============================================================
CHINA'S CHALLENGE: INDIA SHOULD NOT IGNORE IT
============================================================
M D Nalapat cautions against the romanticism that led to the
disaster of' 62
India was among the first countries to recognize the Mao
Zedong regime in Beijing, and demand that it occupy the
Chin a seat at the UN Security Council. There was not even
a ritual expression of concern on our part when units of
the Peoples Liberation Army moved into Tibet and began
Han-culturising the province. And Nehru became a
cheerleader for Communist China, in the process further
alienating the West.
Jawaharlal Nehru hypothesized that China would never
attack India. That Beijing would accept Nehru's choleric
utterances about "Throwing out the Chinese" for what they
were: rhetoric. However, the new heirs of the Middle
Kingdom wanted to show India its place, and this they did
by the 1962 attack. The toy generals to whom a sentimental
Nehru had given charge of the front collapsed, and very
soon London and Washington were on New Delhi's back,
demanding the ceding of Kashmir to their client, Pakistan.
A tune that has not changed in these two capitals over four
decades.
These days there is once again a new romanticism about
China. The problem in this is that, as during the 1950s, it
confuses the Chinese government with the Chinese people.
While the latter are one of the great nations of the world,
with a civilization virtually unmatched in human history,
the former is a group of political bureaucrats whose chief
goal is their perpetuation on office. This they expect to
achieve in two ways.
The first is to give freedom to the Chinese people to
better their lives economically. While Christopher Patten
may daydream about a swelling "democracy movement" , the
fact is that the emerging classes in China are likely to
focus on economic betterment (rather than political
freedoms) for perhaps another two decades. So long as the
Chinese Communist Party gives the people it rules freedom
to trade and produce wealth, they are unlikely for quite
some time to oblige the Pattens.
The second prong of the Chinese Communist Party's strategy
is to cover itself with a nationalist sheen. The so-called
"Nationalists" led by Chiang Kai-shek disgraced themselves
by their subservience to outside powers, thus enabling the
Communists to grab the nationalist mantle even during the
1930s. With China's emergence as a superpower during the
next decade, this protective armour will become even
stronger. The carefully orchestrated Hong Kong festivities
were designed to burnish the Beijing regime's credentials
as the protectors of China's Middle Kingdom" status.
While the objective of the "nationalist" chant may simply
be to preserve popular backing for the Communist regime,
one secondary fallout may be the level of vehemence with
which Beijing defends its perceived interests in Siberia
and South-east Asia. For at least a decade, the regime is
likely to focus primarily on growth. However, as the
Chinese people get more prosperous, the propensity to
demand political freedoms will rise. This will have to be
met with grater dosage of "mercantile nationalism", in
which Beijing follows Washington's example of using
superpower clout to generate advantages for its
manufacturers. The Beijing regime will have to
demonstratively show its efficacy in protecting Chinese
interests in order to retain public acquiescence.
In the coming decade China may enter into friction with
India over Myanmara. In particular, there may be an effort
to get leased a Chinese naval base on Myanmar territory, a
development against India's security interests. In the next
decade, as China overtakes the US economically, it may
attempt to get trade advantages within ASEAN, to the
disadvantage of enterprises from other countries. This
again will not be in New Delhi's interests: what we need is
an ASEAN free of any hegemonistic influence.
CHINA HAS CRAFTED A MAJOR SECURITY RISK FOR INDIA BY
GIFTING PAKISTAN ITS M-9 MISSILES, NOW RENAMED THE HATF-3.
THE LACK OF ANY SUBSTANTIVE US ACTION AGAINST THIS BREACH
OF THE MTCR INDICATES THAT THE MISSILE SUPPLIES WERE IN
FURTHERANCE OF A COMMON CHINA-US STRATEGY TO 'EQUALIZE'
PAKISTAN'S STRIKEPOWER WITH INDIA'S.
However, not just in the next two decades but right now
China has crafted a major security risk for India by
gifting Pakistan its M-9 missiles, now renamed the Hatf-3.
The lack of any substantive US action against this breach
of the Missile Technology Control Regime indicates that the
missile supplies were in furtherance of a common China-US
strategy to "equalize" Pakistan's strike power with
India's. As the Brown amendment made clear, Washington
will continue to supply Islamabad with lethal technologies
even while it tries through its Indian agents to choke off
funding for our own nuclear and rocket programmes. Indeed,
along with a probe into Bofors, a future JPC should examine
how a small group of- officials have tried to scuttle
India's rocket and nuclear programme, on the grounds that
the nation can not "afford" it.
It is not only that missiles and their warheads make a
reliable deterrent against aggression, the fact is that
should India make commercial use of the technologies it has
developed, an adequate nuclear and rocket programme can be
financed from such commercial inflows. Hopefully Yogendra
Alagh will make good on his promise to open up at least the
nuclear power programme to the private sector. Billions of
dollars can be earned of New Delhi were to sell hardware
and provide repair and fabrication facilities to the armed
forces of friendly powers. However, at present key
installations such as the Mazagaon Docks are being
deliberately under-utilized.
Washington is downplaying the Chinese supply of M-9s to
Pakistan. However, New Delhi can not this time afford to
face this threat with its weapon of choice, hot air. The
Indian missile and warhead programmes need to be
accelerated, even while New Delhi strives through diplomacy
for a word that is weapons-free. That China has so
crucially harmed India, even while New Delhi ensures (for
example) that no element within the Tibetan community here
is allowed to undergo arms training, nor are arms supplies
allowed through Indian soil, is a repeat of history.
Beijing accepts Delhi's tribute without any matching
gesture on its part. Indeed, apart from the ISI, some of
the other Myanmar- Bangkok based sources of funding for the
North-east militants indicate the reverse. Sadly, just as
the Indian Foreign Secretary did not deem
Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in India to be worthy of
mention at the recent Islamabad parleys, New Delhi is
unlikely to ruffle China's conscience by launching an
international crusade against the latest hostile act
against India the so-called "Pakistani" M-9 missile. It is
another matter that a future regime in Islamabad may direct
these missiles at China, the way the ISI is today active in
Xinjiang.
What is needed is the development of a "security crescent"
from Korea and Japan in the north to India in the south.
This will ensure that the ASEAN region remains free of
hegemonistic threats. Neither Japan nor ASEAN appears to
have yet realized the need for India as a factor
safeguarding their own well- being. However, seeing that
even New Delhi has not articulated such a concept, neither
ASEAN nor Japan can be blamed,> After all, who
takes hot air seriously, except other gasbags?
The Time of India, Monday, July 14, 1997.
News and Informations Bureau, All Burma Students League
************************( End )****************************
+=====================================+
| A B S L |
+-------------------------------------+
| All Burma Students League |
| 3, Krishna Menon Marg |
| New Delhi - 110011 |
| Ph : 91-11-3017172/3016035 |
| Fx : 91-11-3793397 |
| Email : shar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
+=====================================+