The case of Himalayan handshake and indispensable partnership

India engaged with the world’s second and third largest economies over the past two weeks. The Chinese premier Li Keqiang made his first stop in India on his four nation itinerary. The visit happened weeks after Chinese military pitched tents 19 km inside Indian territory in early April. The incident attracted international attention and set rolling diplomatic manoeuvres between India and China. The standoff was resolved just in time to salvage the state visit of External Affairs minister Salman Khurshid to China and recently concluded visit of Mr Li to India.

China’s relationship with India has not been smooth in the past decades. Much like China’s strained relationship with its other neighbours in South China Sea, its relationship with India is soured over a border dispute (both countries fought a brief war in 1962, which India lost). Despite the border issues and lack of mutual trust both countries do significant amount of trade between them. China is India’s largest trade partner with total trade in 2012 at USD 66 billion (a decline of 12% over 2011). While trade is a good sign of cooperation and stability between the two countries, the fundamentals of a lasting peaceful coexistence are missing. Both countries accuse each other of encircling eachother with strategic assets in its immediate neighbourhood. The long standing border dispute, one of the main reasons for lack of trust is not heading towards a solution. China and India are rapidly building up their military and naval powers much to the dislike of each other.

The hand across the Himalaya

Given the strained relationship of India and China the visit of premier Li should have been used to start a process of easing the tensions. Sadly the visit ended with lot of politically correct statements and eight uninspiring documents signed by the two sides. Of these eight documents only two were of any real value. The first is the work programmes of three working groups for services and trade promotion, economic and trade planning and trade statistical analysis. The second is sharing of information on Brahmaputra (a river in north eastern India, which originates in Tibet) during flood seasons. The other six documents deal with Kailash Mansarovar yatra (a Hindu pilgrimage in Himalayas now under Chinese control), meat quarantine, sewage treatment, irrigation, translation and publication of classical work and identifying sister cities. Mr Li however reiterated that the handshake across the Himalaya is now stronger than before. When two fastest growing emerging economies sign agreements on sewage treatment and meat quarantine it can hardly be seen as a handshake. It was more of a nodding from a distance than a real handshake.

The more interesting visit is however that of India’s prime minister Mr Manmohan Singh to Japan. Japan, like many other countries in the region shares an uneasy relationship with China which goes back to the days of imperialist Japan. On top of that both countries have seen loud sabre rattling over a group of uninhabited islands (Senkaku to Japanese and Diaoyu to Chinese) recently. In fact the situation there is much more volatile than that between India and China. The rise of Mr Shinzo Abe, a nationalist as the prime minister of Japan has made matters worse for China. He has taken an aggressive stand against the long stagnation of the economy and is projecting himself as a man who wants to restore the lost glory of Japan.

Lets do it together

At the end of the visit India and Japan agreed on various issues ranging from civil nuclear energy cooperation, possible technology transfer of an amphibious aircraft the US-2, funding for urban infrastructure, funding of Chennai – Bangalore industrial corridor, a high speed train between Mumbai and Ahmedabad, educational grants and so on. This kind of cooperation will have a long lasting impact on the bilateral relationship and will create opportunities for both countries in the near future. India with its growing economy and younger population is a large market for Japanese investments. 

At present Japan is the second largest foreign investor in China with a total investment of USD 70 billion. A survey by Japan export trading organisation last year showed that India is emerging as the most preferred alternative site for Japanese investment. Japanese companies are facing problems in China due to the political relations of the two countries. Industry experts say that even if a small fraction of the Japanese investment in China moves to India it will create many jobs and boost industrial production.

The difference between the two visits is stark. The Chinese visit can at best be considered as a step towards an attempt to forge good relationship. The Japanese visit on the other hand is graduation of a long relationship into that of a natural indispensible partnership.  

Elections next door

On Saturday the 11^th of May 2013, Pakistan for the first time in its history will vote to transfer power from one civilian government to the other. In the past six decades the country has never had a civilian government, which completed its term. Much of the time was spent by the army to introduce martial law and rule by decree. The army ceased to be looked as defenders of the frontiers; it was now saviour of the Pakistani people. The last popular army dictator was General Parvez Musharraf (he later resigned from the army and assumed the role of a civilian president). Democracy never really got a chance to take roots in Pakistan.

For the first time since Pakistan’s independence, things are looking bright and understandably so. The Pakistani media celebrated the successful completion of the full term of the parliament and hoped that it will now be a regular feature. In fact if this indeed becomes a regular feature, it will be beneficial for both Pakistan and its neighbours. A civilian government has different priorities and is more accommodating to public sentiments. The long rule of Generals has created an environment where Pakistan is projected as a victim of international conspiracy and constantly under existential threat (largely from India). Riding high on such imagined threat, the army managed to take control of almost one fifth (18%) of the total budget expenditure.

A civilian government is accountable to the people who voted it in (unlike a general who usually rules without any accountability and retires in a posh London or Dubai neighbourhood). The civilian government will also try to bring economic prosperity and sense of security to its people. Both are severely lacking in present day Pakistan, having said that it will be a tall order for any party which manages to form the government. Over the past decade or so, since the war on terror arrived in Pakistan, the country has been consumed in violence. Daily terror attacks, sectarian violence and political rivalry (called target killings) are no longer seen as something extraordinary. Billions of dollars of aid money (given by America in return of cooperation in the war on terror) has been siphoned off to secrete bank accounts or put to use in arming the forces. Little has reached the common man.

Over the years during its rule the army has managed to build a massive business empire of its own (The unending battle). The National Logistics Cell (NLC), the army owned trucking company is today the largest of its kind in Pakistan and has crushed private competition. Being a monopoly and a state enterprise the generals controlling the company have made sure that Pakistani railways is turned into an inefficient liability, making NLC more reliable. The various army business interests now work in absolute monopoly. For any civilian government to reverse the trend might mean risking another coup. But there are lessons to learn from. Turkey had a similar problem when the Generals there were powerful and controlled huge businesses. Today they are cut to size. The economic interest of the army is still high but is lower since its peak in pre Erdogan era. Pakistan can borrow a page from Turkey to tackle its own army.

Another challenge facing Pakistan is its political infighting and party rivalries. Target killings have become a routine in Karachi. Political parties formed on ethnic and linguistic basis fight turf wars and have turned pocket of Karachi into “no go” areas. The situation in Baluchistan is no better. A long running separatist insurgency has turned the gas rich province into a backward quarter of Pakistan. People are regularly kidnapped never to be seen again. Headless bodies later appear and identification becomes impossible. The central government seems indifferent to the situation there, though the Awami National Party from Baluchistan is an ally of the ruling Pakistan People’s Party. Amid such challenging environment the various strains of Taliban only add to the grief. The home grown terror organisations carry out suicide attacks on a regular basis, targeting political rallies, army garrisons, minority processions and their places of worship.

Changing all this and providing its people a better Pakistan to live will be a long drawn battle for the civilian government. The mess created in the last six decades cannot be sorted out in the next five years. Things that might accelerate the process of bringing back the country on track may include the following

• Tackling the terrorists in tribal areas before final pull out of NATO forces from Afghanistan
• Making peace with Afghanistan and helping it fight the terrorists on both sides of the Durand line
• Tackling the terrorist modules working against India in the Kashmir region
• Making peace with the Baluch insurgents and share the gas revenue with them

Majority of Pakistan’s problems will get sorted out if it manages to eliminate the terrorists on its soil. The next step will be to claim its share in the regional economy. With two giant economies in its neighbourhood, it will be foolish not to ride on their success. This will not happen overnight. But the election is a right step in that direction. 

Chinese tents in Ladakh - Back to the sixties?

On this day, fifty one years ago in the events leading up to the India – China war, the directorate of military operations proposed the use of air force to counter increasing Chinese presence along the McMahon line. The situation half a century hence is not as alarming but looks strikingly similar. Back then the Chinese disputed the border treaty and advanced into Ladakh. The five tents that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has pitched in the last two weeks is a reminder of the events of 1961. But much snow has melted since then on the Ladakh glaciers. The socio political situations in both India and China have changed. China is no longer the communist state it was in the 60s with a failed “Great Leap Forward”. India is no longer incapable of fighting a high altitude war. India and China trade goods worth USD 66 billion between them.

We don't crack jokes all the time

India’s external affairs minister Salman Khurshid is scheduled to visit Beijing on 9^th May 2013 and China’s Prime Minister Li Keqiang will visit India later this month. What is a bit difficult to understand is the fact that why China is engaging in aggressive military tactics at a time when high level political visits are on cards? This leaves us with another question, whether these actions are sanctioned by China’s high office in Beijing? Is PLA acting on its own interest by provoking tension (much like the Pakistani army does at times)? We might not get answers to any of these questions yet. Little information is flowing into public domain. Indian media has been reporting the events based on information obtained from unofficial sources (leaks from army establishments) and the government has been playing them down. Words like “localized”, “routine” and “acne” have been used to explain the latest events. On the other side of McMahon, there is hardly any information on the incident. The official news agency “Xinhua” does not give any information on the present situation. Few days ago it was reported that China has accepted the offer made by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to resolve the border issue peacefully. In the meanwhile Indian media too has reduced its coverage on the subject.

Given the changing socio economic situations in both India and China and growing military strength, it is unlikely that any of the country would engage in a war. However, China has displayed expansionist behaviour in the past with many of its neighbours. The Senkaku/Diaoyu island standoffs are the latest in a long series. International pressure and domestic obligations will also play a role in avoiding any escalations. Having said that, it is now time for India to take concrete steps towards resolving its border disputes. After six decades of independence India has resolved only one of its border disputes (with Bangladesh). The Chinese leadership on the other hand is more interested in leaving the dispute to be resolved by a later generation, which will have wisdom.

Resolving its border dispute with its largest neighbour should not be left for a wiser generation. India needs to take on the issue seriously with China and set a long term timeline for the matter to be resolved. Let’s not forget that China has territorial disputes with almost all its neighbours (the most sensitive ones being in the South China Sea). It will be in the interest of both the countries to strike off the item off the list as soon as possible. As the saying goes, “good fences make good neighbours”. Its time India takes the first step.