Prime Minister Narendra Modi is receiving the visiting Chinese President Xi Jingping in Ahmedabad on the former’s birthday. If symbolism mirrored reality, then we should see the birth of new relations between India and China under the two leaders.

Relations between countries marred by conflict and distrust cannot, however, change abruptly unless new challenges emerge, surpassing bilateral differences, and a strategic shift becomes necessary to cope with them together.

In our case, the fundamentals of the relations have not changed. China still claims large parts of Indian territory, with new maps issued recently showing Arunachal Pradesh as Chinese territory. It has repeatedly said that the resolution of the border issue should be left to future generations. Xi has declared firmly that China will never compromise on territorial issues. China is confronting Japan and the US with its aggressive maritime claims and also intimidating its Southeast Asian neighbours as well. It seems confident that despite huge investment and trade ties with Japan and the United States and the vulnerability of its export-based economy in a conflict situation, it can assert its regional hegemony incrementally. Why should it be more accommodating with India when the cost of strong-arming us is much less?

China’s territorial provocations — even questioning our sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir — have occurred even as our Special Representatives (SRs) have been talking of solutions. China has hollowed out the original mandate of the SRs to ‘politically’ resolve the border issue by extending its scope to the entire gamut of relations. We should wind up the SR mechanism and revert to the exercise earlier agreed upon — unilaterally renounced by the Chinese — to define on the ground the Line of Actual Control so that repeated atmosphere-fouling ‘incidents’ on the border are avoided.

Ironically, our attachment to ‘strategic autonomy’ gives China a freer hand to calibrate the levels of friendliness and tensions with us as opportune because, behind us, they are not confronting any alliance arrangement. China’s interest is to encourage us to pursue an independent foreign policy. It is concerned about our growing strategic ties with the US and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s wooing of India. Its current smiling-face diplomacy towards us is to raise our awareness of the opportunity cost of discounting China in favour of Japan, besides encouraging us to distance ourselves from the US re-balancing towards Asia. Paradoxically, if there is concern that closer strategic ties with the US and Japan may leave us open to more Chinese pressure on the border, our independent posture actually relieves China of any pressure to resolve the border issue.

China will not dilute its strategic ties with Pakistan in order to build bridges with us. If we could not persuade even the US to cease bolstering Pakistan, how can we expect China to heed our sensitivities? Pakistan and Pak-occupied Kashmir play a key part in China’s ‘connectivity’ strategy to our west. Through nuclear cooperation with Pakistan, China balances strategically the India-US nuclear deal. China’s intrusions into our broader neighbourhood will remain a challenge for us.

All this does not preclude India and China working together in areas of common interests, whether on climate change and WTO issues, in BRICS and the Russia-India-China format, at the G20 and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Both countries have interests in reforming the international financial institutions. But then, the biggest beneficiary of a shift of power to Asia is China. Our dilemma is whether an increasingly strong China sitting atop us is better for us than the erosion of the West’s long domination of global affairs necessary for a more equitable international system.

China’s strongest card in international relations, as the world’s largest exporter with humungous reserves of $3.8 trillion, is the economic one. It has built enormous capacities in infrastructure and India, with its poor infrastructure and in desperate need of upgrading, is a huge market. India-China economic relations are unbalanced, with China enjoying a huge trade surplus and restricting the entry of our internationally competitive products into the Chinese market, while capturing key areas of power and telecommunications in India. China’s investments in India remain minuscule.

Modi’s development agenda and his pragmatic approach to China create opportunities for Xi to play the economic card with India more vigorously. It is unclear, however, whether China has definitively concluded that it has earned enough Indian trust to invest heavily in India, and that tensions on the border can be isolated from burgeoning economic ties. Talk of China investing $100 billion in the next five years is unreal, as China’s total investment abroad so far is about $80 billion. Bagging projects in India, supplying equipment and financing Indian companies is not investment. Will China spend its own money to build industrial parks in India? We should be open to benefiting from China’s ability to undertake projects and supply equipment very competitively, but we should not start believing that if China makes more money in India, it is doing us a favour. Concepts such as the Silk Road, the Maritime Silk Route and the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Economic Corridor are intended to promote China’s commercial interests and divert attention away from its disruptive territorial and maritime claims by propagating the notion that China is merely proposing cooperative moves to enhance prosperity for all.

While testing whether China’s moves towards us are strategic or tactical, we should seriously build synergies with it in areas where both sides benefit. Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai proved illusory; Hindi-Chini Bye Bye is not feasible, given the reality of our neighbour’s powerful international role today; Hindi-Chini Buy Buy is a reasonable objective for the Modi-Xi tandem to work for. But we should not be sweet-talked again into believing a Hindi-Chini Lie Lie.

Ikram Sehgal is an EWI board member, chairman of the Pathfinder Group and served for many years in Pakistan's army. Writing for The Express Tribune, Mr. Sehgal disucsses the nuances of Pakistani politics and the division of territory within the country.

Read the full article here.

---

Waging guerilla warfare against the Mughals in the 18th century, the Khalsa Sikhs would cross the canals in the Punjab over temporary wooden bridges to launch surprise attacks, while retreating they would quickly dismantle these bridges by uprooting (Chak De) the wooden planks (Phatte) to prevent being chased. The phrase "Chak De Phatte" is commonly used now to describe "Bring the house down!" The Sikhs ruled Punjab using Lahore as their capital for about 50 years till 1849, coincidentally a little over 150 years later the Sharif family rules Pakistan in all but name from their family base in Lahore.

Outraged at the perceived disloyalty of his former friend and appointee, the Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett, a bitter King Henry II supposedly cried, “who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?” Four of his knights obliged, hacking Beckett to death on Dec 29, 1170 in the cathedral in Canterbury. While certainly no Thomas Beckett, Maulana Tahirul Qadri was once close to the Sharifs, being sponsored by them. They (alongwith quite a few others) now view the Pakistan Awami Tehrik leader as quite “mad” rather than “meddlesome”. There is remarkable similarity with Henry’s knights and the more-loyal-than-the-king Punjab police opening fire at point blank range in Model Town, Lahore on Jan 17, 2014, killing 8 of Qadri’s followers outright (3 died later) including two women, one of them pregnant.  

Shahbaz Sharif claims “out of the loop” innocence about the murder and mayhem let loose by his autocratic governance structure notwithstanding, the cover-up for the Chief Minister Punjab will take some doing. Known PML (N) activist Gullu Butt was seen live on TV running amok smashing dozens of cars while the police looked on smilingly, even embracing him publicly like the favourite son he is. Not exactly Jallianwala Bagh as some claim but remember the Tunisian cart vendor Mohammad Bouazizi sparking the “Arab Spring” with his death on Jan 4, 2011. Model Town and Gullu Butt will not disappear, those wanting to “Chak De Phatte” Sharif Inc will exploit this to the hilt.

Some Punjab PPP leaders are inclined to disobey Zardari and take the Sharifs on.  His “selection and maintenance of aim” (Clausewitz’ first principle of war) fixated on making money, Zardari does not want any “Chak De” sorts to rock the boat. Because of expired leases and doubtful ownership, a massive land grab is ongoing in Karachi. Any guesses why Malik Riaz has suddenly discovered this metropolitan port city? Which may not be a bad thing by itself, what Malik Riaz builds he builds well.   Sindh’s Revenue Dept could not satisfy the Supreme Court (SC) about recovering only 2864 acres out of the 59703 “officially counted” as illegally grabbed. Deaf, dumb and blind to all this, one wonders why the Federal Govt sees no evil and hears no evil about Sindh and Zardari?  

Intent upon bringing the “House of Pakistan” down, the mixed bag of our ill-wishers want to defang us of our nuclear assets. Offsetting the overwhelming numerical advantage of conventional threats this is vital for us.  Those wanting to Balkan-ize Pakistan (short of war) first target emasculating ISI’s effectiveness, that being our first line of defence.  Some in politics and the media within Pakistan are ganging up with our foreign detractors out of crass motivated interest.

Less said about PML (N)’s tacit support for the obnoxious media tirade and innuendos against the Army and the ISI the better. Read between the lines the Army Chief’s confidence about being “prepared to fight the entire spectrum of threats pertaining to national security” conveying marked frustration among the rank and file with the politicians’ attempting to humble their former chief with the ongoing treason case (and its consequent adverse media coverage).  The widely held public perception, the real Sharif agenda is to cut the Army down to size. Things could get worse, Musharraf’s counsel opened a Pandora’s Box by resorting to chess’ “Sicilian Defence”, combative in nature it shuns equality for advantage.  Qadri may be their creation, politically the Sharifs are a creation of the khakis. Skeletons will be dragged out of the cupboard!

The Sharifs have a lot going for them. China is pouring in money in multiple projects, Russia is seeing us for the first time through Chinese eyes and there could be possible lessening of tensions with India.  While still in the doldrums, the economy is picking up. With creditable book-building by a first class privatization team led by Zubair Omer, foreign money buying Pakistani public assets at a good price is a major success. Pick an honest man with capability and he will give you results, very much like Capt Shujaat Azeem has started to deliver for PIA. It would be nice if similarly others not related to the Sharif family are trusted in potent governance positions.

With the vacuum created by US troops pulling out of Afghanistan, we will remain under pressure. Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc are in a mess, the much vaunted Gen Petraeus-trained Iraqi army crumbling before the Islamic State of Iraq and Al Sham (ISIS) militia changes the geo-political equation. One guess what will happen to the Afghan security forces post-2014? Despite our problems and US reservations, the Pakistan Army remains the best bet in the region.

Islamabad’s D Chowk may not be Tahrir Square but any incident similar to the Model Town excess and all bets are off in this summer’s heat.  If the Sharifs remain hell-bent creating problems for themselves politically, matters may well spill out of control in the streets. Public perceptions notwithstanding, the Army will not use that as an excuse to throw the Sharifs out.  When (and if) the people decide enough is enough, the Army may simply stand by and not bail them out.

Letting Musharraf fly off into oblivion and restraining Pervez Rashid from taking them down the road to perdition, the Sharifs must control their recurring suicidal urge for “Chak De Patte”, bringing their own house down. 

Excerpts from her commentary:

On the possibility of evolving defense ties between Japan and the Philippines following the Abe-Aquino meeting:

"I do think there will be closer defense ties; Prime Minister Abe has already advocated a more active security role for Japan in the region. As he mentioned in his speech at (the) Shangri-La (Dialogue), Japan has actually committed to providing the Philippines with a number of modern patrol crafts, and will be giving, or selling, a number of communications systems as well as providing training for the Philippines coast guard, presumably to help with maritime enforcement that would include dealing with China in contested waters."

On Japan's claim to deliver "utmost support" to Southeast Asian nations locked in territorial disputes with China:

"In his speech at Shangri-La, Prime Minister Abe said that maritime disputes should be resolved through international law, and he mentioned the rule of law of the sea and airspace and all of that, so I think in that regard he will be supporting Southeast Asian nations’ efforts to bring about a code of conduct in the South China Sea. As we’ve seen in the case of the Philippines, Japan will also support individual ASEAN countries bringing their case to international tribunals against China."

On whether the Philippines is concerned that Japan is looking to ramp up its security capabilities:

"I think there will always be lingering concerns in the region about Japan’s past some 70-odd years ago. It is up to Japan at this point, I believe, to state its case, explain clearly why it is re-interpreting Article 9 of its constitution, and to explain why that move will be a good thing for Asia’s security, rather than a bad thing."

On possible fears in Beijing that its recent actions may prompt regional nations to rally against it:

"Several other countries, including countries that themselves have territorial disputes between them, are coming together and meeting and trying to coordinate approaches—whether it’s to avoid incidents at sea and in the air, or to exchange information on how to manage a more assertive China. This might increase the pressure on China and make it feel more and more encircled. It may actually feel that it needs to take more assertive actions to respond to what it views as unreasonable behavior on the part of its neighbors, and that is not good in terms of reducing conflict in the South China Sea." 

India’s important position in international relations mandates the need for ‘hard choices’ that give the nation a defined set of foreign policy relationships and initiatives. EWI’s Amb. Kanwal Sibal emphasizes the need for "strategic autonomy," which requires India to acknowledge the conflicting interests it faces with regards to its major partners, pushing the nation into a delicate balancing act.

Read the full story at MailOnlineIndia.

Newly-elected Prime Minister Modi has made important moves in Indian foreign policy, garnering positive responses for reaching out to neighboring countries like Bangladesh and Nepal, while challenging the status quo by extending the same courtesy to countries like Pakistan. EWI board member Amb. Kanwal Sibal writes for Indiatoday regarding Modi’s unique approach to foreign policy, and its implications for how India will engage with Pakistan, as well as how India will re-evaluate its policy priorities, moving away from an economic development focus.

Read the full story here at Indiatoday.

Foreign Ties will Blossom Under the New Modi Government 

The BJP's massive electoral victory brings us foreign policy gains. The prospect of a strong and stable government in India makes our external image more positive.

Other countries could conclude that the new government will have a more self-confident foreign policy, and will defend the country's interests with greater vigour. Since the BJP is widely characterised at home and abroad as a Hindu nationalist party, it will be assumed that the Modi-led government will be more "nationalistic" in its thinking and actions, and will pursue national goals more sturdily. 

Decisive

Notwithstanding their rhetoric about India's global role, big powers have for long seen us as a country too preoccupied by internal problems to be able to act on the international stage sufficiently energetically. 

Issues of poverty and managing our complex diversities apart, coalition politics in India has been seen by our external interlocutors as contributing to governmental delays in decision making and failures in implementation even in the foreign policy domain. Modi's personality gives us cards to play externally with advantage. He is seen as a strong and decisive leader, committed to making India vibrant economically, and more secure. 

For those eyeing more economic engagement with India, Modi's development agenda offers greater investment opportunities. For those seeking more engagement on security issues, Modi's India will appear as a more confident partner. For adversaries, habituated to passive and defensive responses to deliberate provocations, the likelihood of a less tolerant Indian response under a Modi-led government might induce rethinking on their part about the price they may have to pay for aggressive or assertive policies. 

These real and psychological advantages that India obtains under Modi's leadership should not be frittered away needlessly. Prudence and "responsible" conduct are often used as a cloak to cover diffidence and timidity. There will be those who would advise that having won such a massive mandate, with all the political strength that comes with it, a Modi-led government, burdened by a negative ideological image that worries sections at home and abroad, should send re-assuring signals to all. 

There should be no requirement for this, as it is India that has been long sinned against. Sections of our political class, intellectuals and media personalities have done great disservice to the country by their incessant vilification and demonisation of Modi, making untenable historical parallels with the rise of fascism in Europe and making egregious references to Hitler and abusively using words like "genocide" to castigate him.

Initiatives

That otherwise sensible people should have for so long lost all sense of proportion remains a puzzle. Maybe they felt their self-esteem rise in proportion to their revilement of Modi. This calumny of Modi has naturally coloured outsiders' views of him, which explains the negative commentaries on him in the liberal western press. 

Modi's exceptional mandate, however, is derived from the masses of India, and they have chosen him for what he is and stands for, unbothered by the obloquy of his detractors. 

Questions are being asked as to what "initiatives" Modi could take on the foreign policy front now that he has got a strong mandate. This suggests it has become somehow incumbent on the new government to prove its credentials in some way to the international community. It also carries the nuance that India could not meet the expectations of select countries because his party hobbled the choices of the previous Prime Minister. 

A feeling also exists that the previous government missed opportunities and was too passive in its foreign policy, a situation that the new government should redress. The sub-text of most such criticism is that India failed to live up to US expectations and allowed the relationship to slip into a lower gear, besides not being able to push the then prime minister's vision of peace with Pakistan. 

Assertiveness

Not having engaged in any provocative act against either China or Pakistan, India would be right to wait for China and Pakistan to signal a change of thinking towards it. In reality, repeated provocations have come from their side, which the previous government preferred, in China's case, either to downplay or not counter, or, in Pakistan's case, avoid retaliation in order not to have to admit the failure of the policy of engagement despite terrorism and Pakistan's enduring hostility towards us. 

China's assertiveness on the border will have to be watched, especially because its conduct in the South China and East China Seas flashes red signals to us that at a time of its choosing its posture towards us can suddenly harden.

The recent signals from Pakistan have been uniformly negative, whether on Kashmir, curbing anti-Indian religious extremists, trade and water, and these have been capped by the expulsion of two Indian journalists despite the much touted media role in improving relations as signified, for example, by the "Aman ki Asha" initiative. Nawaz Sharif's congratulatory message to Modi should be taken as a routine diplomatic exercise, with the invitation to visit Pakistan as a way of making himself look good and win an easy diplomatic point.

Our relationship with the US remains very important, but to reinvigorate it the US should not let short-term transactional considerations take precedence over the logic of the strategic relationship. Modi being the sole victim of the US legislation on religious freedom, the White House should be issuing an Executive Order to annul the State Department's decision to blacklist Modi in the first place. 

While Obama's gesture of telephoning Modi and alluding to a Washington visit by him can be appreciated, the fact that as Prime Minister he can now obtain an "A" category US visa does not erase the original insult.

Photo Credit: Al Jazeera English via Flickr.