| The casual references were unfortunately followed (independently or otherwise) by not so casual actions. Chinese companies""note that they are not all foreign companies""were denied entry into the ports sector. Investment proposals from Chinese companies such as ZTE Telecom (trading arm) and Huawei (manufacturing) have been rejected, on "security" considerations, which are not altogether very clear. |
| Putting aside the sectoral sensitivities, broadly, the polity is divided into two camps: Hawks, who see China as a permanent threat, and others who see it as an economic ally, or better, an example to emulate. It's a somewhat unusual extreme. Yet the positions are clear. What is not so clear to me, a younger Indian, is why China is perceived as a specific threat. And what defines this threat today? |
| Yes, there have been legitimate concerns""for instance, the nuclear arming of Pakistan in the 1980s and the "encouraging" of separatist movements in the north east in the 60s and 70s. But, these events are more than two decades behind. |
| So, is China a threat because of a burden of memory on those who were at the receiving end of a distant event (the 1962 border war) in history? Then all the more reason to debate or address some of the issues raised above. Because in not doing so, we are perpetrating a slow brainwash of this generation as well. |
| How? By possibly extrapolating Mao Zedong's aggressive world view on to his clearly pragmatic successors three decades later. It was Mao who said: "[T]he time had come to teach that representative (Nehru) of the reactionary national bourgeoisie a lesson." And dispatched some 30,000 troops to do the job. * |
| There is more to Mao. While India has stewed for decades over the 1962 debacle, little is known about what transpired on the Chinese side, about the war itself and the people behind it. And insights into the real Mao, devoid of propaganda, have only begun emerging in recent years. Like how for Mao, the India war was but one move on the geopolitical chessboard""China expert Mira Sinha Bhattacharjea refers to Mao's India war as based not on territorial concerns but strategic considerations. |
| Interestingly, Nehru's own role in that period has been debated: From his botching of the Sino-India border issue to being seen as competing with Mao (who thus struck back) for the position of Asian leader, leading to the 1962 war. But Nehru comes out largely fine. Not so with Mao. Critics today refer to him as a tyrant and dictator worse than Hitler, charging him with the death of tens of millions of Chinese. |
| Moreover, some of his policies have been publicly repudiated by successive Chinese governments. As far back as 1981, a Communist Party Central Committee resolution said Mao's Cultural Revolution was carried out "under the mistaken leadership of Mao Zedong". However, Mao has not been completely discredited, surely not to the extent many China watchers would like him to be. |
| There is of course the eternal question of who drew first blood. From what I read, including ministry of defence history accounts of 1962, India's own actions are under a question mark. John Garver, a China specialist, has written that the Chinese reacted because it feared a concerted Indian attempt to undermine its position in Tibet, not to mention Mao's machinations. |
| Which brings us back to the subject at hand. Why should we express such evident distrust of a country with which we do $11 billion of trade? The Chinese, for sure, don't view Indian investment with any suspicion. If I were to go with one point of view, 1962 happened precisely because we miscalculated or didn't fully understand the Chinese intentions. By the looks of it, we are doing it again, albeit with no military implications. Or so I hope. |
| While much political progress has been made in recent years (Atal Bihari Vajpayee's visit, Nathu La pass opening), we still hold on to some inexplicable hardline. As has been argued in the past (Jairam Ramesh: Making Sense of Chindia), Indian investments in China are far smoother than the other way around. I can and have got a Chinese visa in Hong Kong in hours. Chinese businessmen, on the other hand, complain of onerous procedures to visit India. |
| Indeed, having invested there, firms like Mahindra & Mahindra are now planning expansions in capacity. Software majors TCS, Infosys and Satyam will soon employ in China as many engineers as they did in India just a few years ago. Of course, the Chinese have more restrictions on foreign investments than India does. But they apply uniformly, not selectively. |
| And finally, most Indians living in China would admit to you that this is amongst the few, relatively developed nations where they are treated so well. We also seem to overlook that most of the Chinese leadership is technically trained. This makes them focus more on practical delivery. Remember Deng Xiaoping's statement about it not mattering what colour the cat was, as long as it caught mice. * Philip Short: Mao, A Life |
Top Section
Explore Business Standard