The non-cancellation of the visit by either side despite other irritants like undermining New Delhi’s role in international institutions and China’s reluctance to support India’s entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group, has signalled the growing maturity of both the powerful leaders of Asia
The second informal summit at Mamallapuram between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Chinese President Xi Jinping, in the wake of the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu & Kashmir and China’s reaction towards it, had generated apprehension.
Most analysts were speculating the cancellation of this summit because of bilateral tensions due to Xi’s statements on the Kashmir issue and Beijing’s open tilt in favour of Pakistan even before the start of his visit, but the continuation of the “Chennai Connect” proved them wrong. This summit indicated a new form of diplomacy meant to break the impasse between India and China despite Beijing’s close ties with Pakistan, insistence on resolution of the Kashmir problem as per the UN resolution and hosting of Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan just before Xi’s India visit.
The non-cancellation of the visit by either side despite other irritants, like undermining New Delhi’s role in international institutions, China’s reluctance to support India’s entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group and trapping India’s neighbours through aid and connectivity, has signalled the growing maturity of both the powerful leaders of Asia. This also reflects that both have understood that dialogue is better than a deadlock as it will lead nowhere. Though the terse body language of Xi throughout the visit was also analysed but the agreement to host the next summit in China has made the “Chennai Connect” more interesting for assessing the impact and relevance of such summits in the emerging global scenario wherein China is trying to redefine a new global order with its money, infrastructure development, connectivity and expansion of trade.
This becomes more important when one sees it in connection with the US, which is aiming not only to change the Chinese-promoted global order through protectionism of trade but also such measures which have resulted in trade wars with China and India. This tit-for-tat approach of countries, in way of reciprocal tariffs, is a bad omen for not only the world economy but global harmony. The narrow approach of the US and China signals not only the geo-economical aspects of the US-China competition but also anti-multilateralism, which India views as necessary for spreading its power and influence, especially in the Indo-Pacific and Asia.
The US understands China’s tactics and its greedy geo-economic and geo-political initiatives, which are aimed at replacing and challenging America as a key security provider and stabiliser in the Indo-Pacific. However, its obsession with Iran, Turkey, North Korea, non-clarity on global issues and isolationist tendencies reflected through the “America First” policy have made China bold enough to expand its reach and influence in all continents, including Europe, Asia, Africa, Southeast and South Asia. This is something that India is dreading, as in New Delhi’s perception, an economically and geo-politically powerful China is an obstacle to its dream of becoming a leading power of Asia. China’s constant moral, economic, military and infrastructural support to its all-weather friend Pakistan, Xi’s visit to Nepal after India and cementing of many agreements, including a trans-Himalayan corridor between China and Nepal (CNEC), a railway line to connect Tibet and Kathmandu, Chinese engagement in Myanmar, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, expansion of naval power across the Indian Ocean Region, connectivity and infrastructure development through Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) confirm India’s apprehensions.
On the one hand it shows that India’s encirclement from all directions by China is complete, but on the other hand it also signals the desire of neighbouring countries to venture out of India’s ambit. In view of this, the expanding connectivity through BRI is becoming a very serious issue for India as some BRI-funded projects are in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) and in the absence of transparency, sustainability and rule of law, the neighbours are being trapped in a Chinese debt-trap. Although during the second Belt and Road Forum, in April, Xi had promised to take care of India’s concerns, nothing concrete is visible.
However, despite showing firmness not to support BRI and attempts to save the neighbours from a debt trap, the complex world order has forced India to play its role carefully and engage with China wisely. In Bangkok, during the Quad meeting, while supporting the idea of partnerships to promote a transparent, rule-based approach to trans-boundary challenges, India avoided any statements, which could offend China.
India is also collaborating with Vietnam, Japan and other regional powers, but without annoying China. The unresolved border dispute, frequent scuffles with Indian troops, trade imbalance, the growing power disparity between India and China and unpredictability of US support have also forced India to play its card with precision. Despite knowing about China eating into Indian territory in Ladakh and Pakistan’s aid to various terrorist outfits, a face-saving exit from Afghanistan has forced the US to ignore Islamabad’s activities and support it even at the cost of India’s national interests. The helplessness of New Delhi has made the challenge more serious for India. Therefore, while working closely with like-minded countries and exposing the Pakistan-China connection at all international forums, engaging with China through such summits is a good policy, though it may not bring the desired results. But as the choices are very limited, India’s move of not unnecessarily engaging in acrimonious matters is being seen as the gains of this meeting which has paved the way for the next summit.
Although it is not a game-changing move but if India plans it well and also tries to explore opportunities to hit China where it can, then in future, the maturity shown by both leaders and strength and weakness of one another will prove that dialogue is better than deadlock.
(The writer is professor of Political Science at HNB Garhwal University)