In the wake of Hu’s visit

NOW that China’s President Hu Jintao has returned home after his state visit to Pakistan, it is time to examine this important event and analyse the current state of Pak-China relations. Leaders from both countries have spoken of their satisfaction with the results of the visit and this view finds corroboration in the large number of agreements and understandings signed. There is thus no reason to doubt official claims that Hu’s visit was a success.

To those of us fortunate to have worked in China and interacted closely with its people, we cannot but express admiration at the foresight and vision of the leaders of both countries, who very early on recognised the importance of forging close, mutually beneficial ties between their countries. This led to Pakistan-China relations being described in the most hyperbolic language, on occasion soaring to poetic levels, leaving many foreign analysts somewhat bewildered, when hearing Sino-Pak relations characterised as “higher than the Himalayas, deeper than the Indian Ocean and sweeter than honey”. This is all the more inexplicable, given the major differences between them, whether ideological, cultural, religious or political.

Nevertheless, a clear understanding of their common strategic interests is a strong and enduring basis for establishing what has proven to be a truly strategic relationship that has prospered notwithstanding the many changes in personalities and policy in both countries. In the case of Pakistan, it was the security imperative arising from the hostility of a bigger and stronger neighbour.

In the case of China, it was recognition of Pakistan’s importance as a link to the Muslim world and later to the US, and appreciation of the many bold initiatives taken by Pakistan to provide China a window on the world, while actively lobbying on its behalf in various forums, including the UN. The current leadership in both countries owes a debt of gratitude to their predecessors for not having permitted short-term, transient considerations to lose sight of long-term interests. This is all the more remarkable when it is recalled that for decades Pakistan was a member of two anti-communist western alliances.

It was, therefore, natural for expectations to be high when it was announced that China’s president would be coming to Pakistan, after a gap of 10 years. These hopes were met, to a large extent, by the many agreements and understandings signed during the course of Hu Jintao’s visit. They covered a host of subjects that included the landmark Free Trade Agreement that is expected to boost bilateral trade from $4.2 billion last year to $15 billion within the next five years. The two countries also agreed to an unprecedented five-year plan to enhance economic ties, while their defence cooperation will also be taken to new heights, with China agreeing to collaborate in the production of an AWACS system.

Commenting on these agreements, the Chinese president emphasised that they “served the fundamental interests of our two peoples, and are also conducive to the peace and development of our region”, adding, “we want to work with Pakistan to raise our strategic ties to a new level”. As evidence of this, he confirmed that China would continue to help Pakistan in the fields of nuclear power and provide assistance in the sectors of hydro electricity, coal and alternative sources of energy.

Since Hu Jintao had come to Pakistan from India, where his visit had gone off well, it was inevitable that comparisons would be drawn. In particular, two aspects of the India visit aroused some concern in Pakistan. The first was Hu’s comment that “China welcomes and supports improvement in relations between India and Pakistan”, and that Beijing stood ready to play a “constructive role for the promotion of peace and development in South Asia”.

Some eyebrows were raised in Pakistan at this offer, especially as China was perceived to be “in our corner”. In reality, it is India that should have been upset at this offer because any internationalisation of Indo-Pak differences, in particular, the Kashmir dispute, goes against India’s long-standing policy. Pakistan, on the other hand, has encouraged greater interest on the part of the international community in the peace process.

It was nevertheless reassuring to hear the Chinese president explain that his country supported the “peace process between India and Pakistan as it is conducive for South Asia and Asia as a whole”. In Pakistan, President Hu made it clear that China would continue to view its relations with Pakistan from “a strategic and long-term perspective”. This was an important statement as was his declaration that China was “ready to work with Pakistan to raise their strategic partnership to a new level”.

The other issue that aroused considerable speculation related to reports that President Hu had endorsed the US-India nuclear deal. These concerns were further reinforced when Hu’s visit to Pakistan did not yield an agreement on a new nuclear deal, as had been speculated in the media. It is, however, important to note that China did not endorse the Indo-US nuclear deal, though it did agree to promote civilian nuclear cooperation with India. In my view, this was an ingenious initiative, for it establishes China’s credentials as an internationally credible supplier of nuclear technology, while depriving the Indians of any excuse to object to a similar arrangement between China and Pakistan.

As to why the Islamabad visit did not yield an agreement on nuclear reactors, I view it as evidence of Chinese caution and prudence. Given continuing western concerns about Pakistan’s less than exemplary non-proliferation record, I think it was wise of the Chinese not to draw attention to this aspect of their cooperation with Pakistan, especially now that China is a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

I also gather from reliable sources that the Chinese had already given us strong assurance of continuing assistance in the construction of more nuclear reactors but that the agreements had to be predated to the time before China joined the Nuclear Suppliers Group so as not to create another irritant in its relations with the US and other members of the NSG. In my view, our requirement of nuclear reactors has been taken care of, which is what matters. President Hu confirmed this view when he categorically stated, with reference to Chashma I and II, that “in the future we will continue to carry out such cooperation”.

It is, nevertheless, important to note that China is no longer merely a regional power; it is now a global player, with worldwide interests. While Pakistan remains “a strategic friend” of China, Islamabad has to appreciate that it no longer has a sole claim on China’s affection. Moreover, China has to balance its ties with Pakistan in a manner that its interests elsewhere are not hurt or compromised.

In this context, it is important to appreciate that China has to take into account India’s emergence as a major economic and political entity — one that is being courted by the major powers and which the US is promoting as a counterweight to China. Instead of pursuing a hostile policy towards Delhi that would only push India closer to the US, Beijing has chosen to improve its own relations with India, especially in the trade and economic spheres, to discourage India from playing the American game.

Last week, the prestigious US Congressional Research Service pointed out in a report that China would soon become India’s largest trading partner, supplanting the US. It also commented that while the two are seen as rising 21st century powers, they are also “potential strategic rivals”. Around the same time, James Wolfensohn, the former World Bank president, observed that the “West must prepare for a future dominated by China and India, whose rapid economic rise will soon fundamentally alter the global balance of power.”

China knows this and is already preparing to take advantage of these changes. Unlike the former Soviet Union, it has no ideological preferences and unlike the US, it does not wish to divide the world into rival centres of power. Instead, it wishes to deal with other countries as “sovereign equals”, promoting mutually advantageous relations with them. Its primary concern is to ensure that China remains strong and economically prosperous, since that is the only guarantee of its independence and stability. It thus has no hesitation in investing massively in the US economy, while forging economic links with the countries of Africa and Latin America that see the US as a predator state.

In fact, the Chinese have always favoured a low-key, restrained approach to international relations, with primacy on economic ties, while refraining from interfering in the internal affairs of other states. I recall being told in Beijing, that the veteran Chinese leader, Deng Xiaoping, just before his death, had warned his comrades to ensure that China remained firmly wedded to economic reforms and refrained from any adventure lest its economic development was disrupted and the West given an excuse to harm Chinese interests. His successors have remained faithful to this wise counsel, as evident from the remarkable growth rate that has brought them both economic success and political clout.

As part of this policy, the Chinese have sought to settle their differences with their neighbours peacefully and through negotiations. Where a political resolution has not been easily achievable, they have chosen to freeze the issue, rather than permit it to sour relations. This is most evident in China’s relations with India.

As regards Pakistan’s relations with Beijing, there is no doubt that the Chinese leaders are appreciative of the basic contours of our foreign policy. They are also supportive of the “peace process” with India. But two issues nevertheless continue to worry the Chinese. One is the continuing ability of radical Islamists to “disturb the peace” in China’s Muslim areas. The other is the alarming scale of our cooperation and collaboration with Nato. As is their wont, they will not speak out publicly about their concerns, but they have raised these issues in their own quiet way. In particular, they appear not to understand our growing cooperation with Nato which has expanded its area of operation at the behest of the US. This is definitely causing some concern to the Chinese.

These developments and subtle changes do not mean that Pakistan will fade away from the Chinese radar screen. In fact, China wants Pakistan to play a greater role in regional and international affairs and promises to help in this endeavour. But it does mean that Pakistan will have to do much more to remain in the focus of Chinese leaders. The agreements are all wonderful, but we have to ensure that we are able to deliver on them. It may sound a cliche, but Pakistan’s relationship with China has been truly of a “strategic nature”. We, however, need to nurture it with sincerity and devotion and refrain from doing anything that would cause the Chinese to question our commitment to this relationship.

The writer is a former ambassador.

Whose country is it anyway?

I WAS in Kerala when its chief minister V.S. Achudanandan clashed with his Tamil Nadu counterpart M. Karunanidhi over the Mullaperiyar dam. Both were at their worst behaviour. I have watched my state, Punjab, fighting with neighbouring Haryana over the share of water from the Sutlej impounded at Bakhra. I have also followed the ever-running feud between UP and Delhi on a host of things, including bus routes. But nowhere have people taken to the streets as happened in Tamil Nadu.

They burnt Kerala state buses. The ruling DMK cadre blocked roads between Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Travel and transport were allowed only after New Delhi’s intervention. In their accusations, both chief ministers behaved like ones from different countries. Achunandan said that Tamil Nadu was acting as if it had forgotten that the dam was in Kerala. Karunanidhi retorted that the Kerala chief minister’s remark was “irresponsible and provocative” and could harm the spirit of “national integration.”

Strong words do not break bones but they break a sense of unity. I believe that things came to such a pass that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh deployed at Tamil Nadu’s request the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) to protect the dam which irrigated the state’s four districts. Two weeks earlier, I saw a similar drama enacted in Karnataka. This was on a territorial issue.

Maharashtra renewed its claim over Belgaum, a Marathi-speaking district which the States’ Reorganisation Commission had given to the Kannada-speaking Karnataka in 1955. Maharashtra has filed a petition in the supreme court to prove its case. Karnataka has gone to the extent of convening the assembly session in the dusty town of Belgaum which has no facilities worth the name. This is meant to convey that Belgaum is an integral part of the state.

New Delhi is on the side of Karnataka, primarily because it does not want to reopen the case of altering states’ boundaries. Maharashtra has contended that Govind Ballabh Pant, home minister at that time, had assured the transfer of Belgaum to Maharashtra. This is not true — I know because I was his press officer. He stated categorically more than once that Belgaum was part of Karnataka in view of the States’ Reorganisation Commission verdict. The Mehar Chand Commission which Pant appointed to consider Maharashtra’s claim held that Belgaum was justifiably integrated with Karnataka. Still, the quarrel between the two states continues to rage as furiously as before.

Whether it is a dispute about water or territory, it becomes a point of anxiety when it boils over to a situation which Kerala and Tamil Nadu have faced. The arrogance of chief ministers makes it all the more disturbing. That such acute differences should surface within 60 years of independence shows that India has yet to settle down as a nation-state. The old provinces which were the result of an accident and the circumstances attending the growth of the British power have furrowed deep into the people’s mind. Even the pluralistic ethos of India has not yet erased old loyalties.

Economic growth should have made the states transcend boundaries. Natural resources at one place are the grist of industrial units at another. There is inter-dependence. Entrepreneurs move all over the country, strengthening common ties through trade and business. Experts of one state are employed in another. This crisscrossing has apparently not demolished preferences and prejudices. Emotional integration is not keeping pace with contact among people in the last few decades.

In fact, the reorganised states on the basis of language have become islands of linguistic chauvinism and intolerance. Tamil Nadu is an ugly example of that trend. It has decided to introduce Tamil as the state high court’s official language. This will harm the all-India character of the bar and judiciary. A lawyer of one state appears in another and the centre has the policy of appointing the high court chief justice from outside. All this will be affected if states begin to have their mother tongue as the language in the high courts.

It is frightening when a dispute becomes a matter of prestige and the nationals of one state jump into the arena to threaten the other. Developments in some states are ominous. The States’ Reorganisation Commission was itself worried when the members found conflicting claims made before them taking the shape of frenzy. Therefore, they emphasised two basic facts in their report: one, the states whether organised or not would continue to be integral parts of the union, and, two, the constitution of India recognised only one citizenship — a common citizenship for the entire Indian people, with equal rights and opportunities throughout the country.

The behaviour of Kerala and Tamil Nadu on the one hand and Maharashtra and Karnataka on the other has shown that the commission’s points were only a pious hope. The states remain primarily parochial in their attitude. Probably, the redrawing of boundaries on the basis of language was a mistake. It has only increased the chances of confrontation.

It is apparent that political parties have tried to play with the people’s sentiments in the name of the mother tongue. Their purpose is selfish: electoral gains. Take the attitude of the BJP. When the nation was worried over the petulance of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, the BJP organised rallies in Delhi. It had no concern about the challenge to the nation’s coherence. The party’s purpose was to communalise the atmosphere — something in which it was adept.

Whether Mohammed Afzal, given the death sentence for having attacked the Indian parliament, is hanged or not — and when — would depend on how the president views his mercy petition. The country is governed by the law, not by the dictates of the BJP. I do not know whether by raising Afzal’s case the party would garner more votes in its favour in the UP elections in February. But the party is determined to play the religious card. I wish Atal Behari Vajpayee could assert himself and stop the BJP’s programme of dividing the country.

For a change, the Congress has not yielded to the BJP’s demand for a stricter law to fight the fissiparous tendencies in the country. Manmohan Singh has ruled out tougher laws. He has rightly said that the problem is not with the laws but with their inefficient enforcement. What is needed is perspective and balance. How can this be possible when there are deliberate efforts to whip up passions by an appeal to parochial and communal sentiments? A great deal of heat and controversy that states like Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra generate may be a passing phase. Nevertheless, it would be unwise not to take note of these disruptive trends.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.

Tradition of thanksgiving

JUST because Americans do something it does not follow that Britons must follow suit. In the case of Thanksgiving, however, it should be conceded that Americans (and Canadians) are on to something terrific.

Whatever its origins - and the British journalist Godfrey Hodgson has just published a book debunking the Mayflower-related myths — Thanksgiving is a family celebration these days. Family members travel home from all points to get together on the fourth Thursday of November around a meal of turkey, cranberry sauce, sweet potatoes and maybe succotash, with pumpkin pie to follow and a televised football game to sleep it all off to.

And that’s it — Thanksgiving is neither a religious festival nor a present-exchanging extravaganza. But Thanksgiving also fulfils an even more valuable function. It acts as a dam that keeps Christmas in its place.

—The Guardian, London