ambassador bhadrakumar: Tibet issue and the Indian reaction

mar 24th, 2008

i am disappointed that an ex-ambassador should be embracing china's POV so strongly.

has anyone read ex-ambassador gajendra singh? he sends me some of his articles. does anybody have any opinion on them?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bhadrakumar

 

The Hindu, March 24, 2008

Tibet issue and the Indian reaction

M.K. Bhadrakumar

 

The Indian statement on the Lhasa developments is vacuous, self-righteous, needlessly polemical. Are we really imagining that we hold a 'Tibetan card'? Or are we playing to the gallery in Washington?

The eruption of violence and the vandalism in Lhasa, capital of China's Tibet Autonomous Region, and the Indian reaction to it raise some profound questions. Any casual visitor to Dharamsala on the Indo-Tibetan border, seat of the so-called Tibetan 'government-in-exile,' can make out that the recent violence in Lhasa was anticipated well beforehand by the Tibetan activists based in that Himalayan hamlet.

The 'bazaar' in Dharamsala is full of gossip. The Tibetan activists acknowledge that they knew that after a gap of over two decades, bloody incidents of arson and killing were about to be staged in Lhasa. They are in constant touch with the Tibetan dissidents inside China. But when I asked them what they did with those information nuggets about impending violence — whether they parted with their information to anybody in the Indian government or who their collaborators were — they wouldn't tell. They parried. They chuckled. Their wrinkled faces broke into enigmatic smiles.

Dharamsala is a beehive of intelligence operatives. Graham Greene would have relished the black comedy in such a spectacular setting where time stands still. The first question that occurred to me when I wandered through the narrow lanes and by-lanes of Dharamsala was whether the Indian intelligence sleuths knew beforehand about the imminent outbreak of violence in Lhasa. Do not be surprised if they did not know. We have a history of intelligence failures. But Dharamsala is on Indian soil. We have traditionally kept a close watch on the goings-on there, which have deep implications for India-China relations. Many brilliant careers in our intelligence community began promisingly in the Indo-Tibetan border regions.

But indeed if we knew, when did we know? More important, if we knew, what did we do with what we knew? Did we know when the Foreign Secretary visited Dharamsala three weeks ago? Was the Foreign Secretary's visit occasioned by what we knew? Highly intriguing questions.

The outfit of the 'government-in-exile' was obviously in top gear for undertaking sophisticated propaganda work within hours of the outbreak of violence in Lhasa. Chinese national flags were neatly spread on the streets. Tibetan activists began dancing on them. The posse of Indian policemen passively watched. Western photographers eagerly caught the excited Tibetan youth on camera — handsome young men with flowing hair and headbands who would look exotic like the wild Afghan mujahideen did at one time on the television screens in the drawing rooms in Europe and America.

A shed was erected in front of the Dalai Lama's compound where a 'relay fast' went on. Big names from the Western media were already gathering. The 'government-in-exile' still kept postponing the Dalai Lama's press conference so that the media sharks with real bite could reach the remote place. Finally, the press conference was held on a Sunday afternoon at 2.15 pm.

But even before the Dalai Lama spoke, Delhi had spoken. By Saturday, the Indian External Affairs Ministry already issued a rather substantive statement. It said the UPA government felt "distressed." It referred to the "unsettled situation and violence in Lhasa." It spoke of the "deaths of innocent people." It expressed the hope that "all those involved" — meaning, perpetrators of arson and killing as well as authorities — would "work to improve the situation." Most important, it called on Beijing to "remove the causes of such trouble in Tibet" through dialogue and non-violent means.

One does not have to be a practitioner of diplomacy to comprehend that the UPA government was advising China one or two things about how to set its house in order in Tibet. Evidently, our government is highly experienced in tackling political violence that regularly rocks our country and the Chinese government could learn a few useful things from the UPA. After all, in something like 150 districts in India, the writ of the Indian state no longer runs. Yet Beijing could see, our leadership calls the problem a mere "virus."

It boggles the mind on what ground India can be so very self-righteous in rendering unsolicited advice to another country. Do we countenance such advice when it is proffered by any world capital on the unseemly happenings in our country? There was a time when Pakistan used to take note of communal violence in India. We used to fret and fume then. Of course, on the basis of reciprocity, the two South Asian neighbours have made it a point nowadays to avoid making statements about their internal affairs. They saw that polemics didn't serve any useful purpose but vitiated Indo-Pakistan relations, and civilised inter-state behaviour can do without them.

The Indian statement on the Lhasa developments is vacuous. It is needlessly polemical. That raises a few questions. Are we really imagining that we hold a 'Tibetan card?' Or are we being merely opportunistic intentionally playing to the gallery in Washington that the UPA government comprises natural allies gutsy enough to stand up to China?

Double standards

The problem is that such vacuity and double standards can easily boomerang. Curiously, just as South Block was pontificating on how China should govern Tibet, a cable was landing in our foreign policy establishment informing it that the 60-member Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) at its summit meeting in Dakar, Senegal, adopted a devastatingly critical resolution on Jammu & Kashmir. Of course, this is not the first time that the OIC has done this. But the latest condemnation calling for the right of self-determination for the Kashmiri people has been unusually strong. Among others, Foreign Ministers of friendly countries such as Turkey, Tajikistan, and Saudi Arabia expressed their anguish over the "plight" of Kashmiris in "Indian-occupied Kashmir."

Very obviously, the UPA government's West Asia policy has begun to affect India's standing in the Islamic world. A perception is growing that India is edging away from an independent foreign policy and cosying up to U.S. regional policies; that India is harmonising its stance with the U.S. strategy in West Asia on issues such as the Iran nuclear file and the Palestinian problem. The chattering class in Delhi may disparagingly speak of the OIC as an organisation of no consequence. But the fact remains that Russia has taken it so seriously that it sought and obtained an observer status with it. U.S. President George W. Bush has appointed a Karachi-born Pakistani American as his special envoy to the OIC for the first time, openly acknowledging that the Islamic body impacts on the U.S. foreign policy and must be taken seriously.

Unsurprisingly, the UPA government's reaction to the OIC summit's statement regarding J&K has been swift and sharp. It said the government "regrets" the development — plainly speaking, shorn of diplomatese, it made its protest known. But curiously, it adds: "The OIC has no locus standi in matters concerning India's internal affairs including Jammu and Kashmir, which is an integral part of India. We strongly reject all such comments."

So we have behaved like a porcupine apprehending a mere threat of pain — almost reflexively. South Block hastened to underscore a fundamental principle in inter-state relations, which, ironically, India crafted a long time ago — Panchsheel. No doubt, it does not pay to cast stones while living in a glasshouse, least of all in our region where problems are galore. We should know that it is the tragic history of our region that the western powers fish in troubled waters. And at this point in contemporary history, Asia is on the West's radar screen as a potential locomotive of growth of the world economy.

Thus, the visit of the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, to India should have been kept as a bilateral exchange. Did the UPA government lack the courage to counsel the visiting dignitary on diplomatic decorum as she happens to be an influential American politician? She made provocative statements against China from Indian soil. China has taken exception to Ms Pelosi's interference in its internal affairs. Indeed, we would be appalled if any of our neighbouring countries became party to a similar theatre of the absurd berating India.

The Indian statement on Tibet may have pleased the Bush administration, which is straining to put pressure on China and embarrass its leadership in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics. But if a balance sheet is drawn for India's long-term interests, where is it that our advantage lies? Suffice it to say, there have been helpful nuances in China's position on Kashmir in recent years.

In a manner of speaking, it is possible to estimate that Chinese spokesmen have articulated on the Kashmir issue in a "Shimla spirit." The India-China relationship is like a half-full glass. Creative, forward-looking diplomacy lies in expanding on the content within, rather than adding to the emptiness. When the UPA came to power in 2004, a trajectory of mutual understanding in the India-China relationship was promised. Indeed, the then National Security Advisor, J. N. Dixit, earnestly set about the task, employing his formidable intellectual capability as a scholar-diplomat. At a minimum, UPA should not end up travelling back in time.

(The writer is a former ambassador belonging to the Indian Foreign Service.)