But it has become increasingly apparent that this policy, of side-stepping contentious issues and encouraging bilateral economic relations, has played into Chinese hands. The PLA has used the seemingly benign situation to repeatedly undertake "minor" military incursions, inflict small-scale military setbacks on India, take a few square kilometres of territory along the LAC for local tactical purposes, and then declare peace. Mutual disengagements are duly announced, both sides claim the crisis is over, but China establishes and fortifies its new deployment. (They have achieved what they wanted in Doklam, for instance, by using a different route.) These mini-crises always end with the Chinese in a better position on the ground than before. Each incident establishes a new "normal" on the LAC.
Two years after Galwan, relations remain tense, and arguably are worse than they have ever been since 1962. As India and China settle in for a prolonged standoff on their tense Himalayan border, it is time to take the longer view. Should India reconcile itself to the idea of China as an adversary, to be wary of and defended against? Or should we see it as a neighbour we have no choice but to live and trade with, and little to gain from warring with? If it is the former, then common sense dictates we shore up our position by closer relations with other countries that have concerns about China, notably the United States – but that risks entangling us on one side of an emerging global conflict. If it is the latter, it means accepting a subservient position, something that sticks uneasily with our self-respect. |
|
India has tried to avoid choosing between the two; that is what our obsessive "strategic autonomy" reflected. "Non-alignment" was easier to pursue between two powers both geographically far removed from us, like the US and the Soviet Union. But when one of the two global antagonists is breathing dragon-fire on us across our borders, can we afford to remain non-aligned? These are questions our government needs to address now. The answers are vital to the people of our nation. |
|
Applauding Geetanjali Shree
In London recently for a literary festival, I was delighted to get to know Geetanjali Shree, whose Hindi novel "Ret Samadhi", translated in English as "Tomb of Sand", became the first Indian book to win the prestigious International Man Booker Prize. But watching the excited celebrations of her triumph, one could not help but wonder where all the celebrants were when she was toiling away, relatively unknown and for little reward, as a Hindi novelist in India. Why was she not better known in literary circles in India beyond the world of Hindi letters? Are our minds still so colonised that we need foreign recognition for an Indian writer before we can applaud one of our own as a national treasure? |
|
|