Talk of war between India and China could turn out to be disastrous for both countries

Peking was my first posting. I lived there from 1956 to 1958. I arrived in the Chinese capital in early July. I was put up in the Hsin Chai hotel. It was not glamorous like hotels in Hong Kong. It was in this hotel that I met Han Suyin, author of the world bestseller, A Many-Splendoured Thing.

In those days only 23 embassies existed in Peking. Even junior officials like me were invited to banquets by Mao Tse Tung and Chou-En-Lai. These were legendary heroes of the Long March in the mid-1930’s.

Peking left a mark on me. I was not a Marxist, but the austere way of life of the Chinese suited me. I dislike luxury or hedonistic living. I took a short trip to China in 1984, leading India’s delegation to the Sino-Indian official talks. Nothing of significance happened.  

In October 1986, Rajiv Gandhi appointed me Minister of State for External Affairs. Soon after taking up my job, I had an extended discussion with the Prime Minister. I put it candidly to him. “What is your foreign policy vision?” “What is yours, Natwar?” I replied that I had one paramount priority — to improve our relations with China. I told him, “You have 413 MPs in the Lok Sabha. You are Jawaharlal Nehru’s grandson, Indira Gandhi’s son. No one can ever accuse you of any foreign policy sell-out. A Prime Ministerial visit to China was overdue. Your grandfather was in China in 1954.” He said, “I have no 1962 hang up. You start thinking about a possible trip.” 

Elders in the Ministry of External Affairs were critical of my initiative, including PV Narasimha Rao. The PM ignored them. Their thinking was out of date by several decades.

The Prime Minister’s visit was a resounding success. The climax was his meeting with Teng Hsiao Ping, the leader of the People’s Republic of China from 1978 to 1989 (His name is now spelt as Deng Xiaoping). This broke new ground. From 1988 to the present day, the Sino-Indian border has been tranquil, though, of course, there have been minor skirmishes. These have been contained. Even the serious crisis in Sumdorong Chu in the late 1980’s was peacefully resolved.

Now to Doklam. Is it a crisis or something more? The rhetoric from Beijing gets shriller by the day. China dragging in Bhutan is an unnecessary provocation. The border is purely a bilateral issue. The Chinese claim that Indian troops crossed the border by few yards cannot be taken too seriously. Nor can it be ignored. The other day an official of the Chinese Embassy said, “Even one Indian soldier violating Chinese sovereignty is too many. We cannot bear that for an hour.” What about Taiwan? China has lived with Taiwan for nearly seventy years.

President Xi Jinping made a not-so-original statement recently. “Military option is the fundamental guarantor of sovereignty”. But it is the last resort. Surely the President knows. Why this sabre-rattling?

China runs a mature and unhurried foreign policy. It does not get into a flap. At the same time, like us, it cannot be pushed around. Our media, both electronic and print, must realise that what goes on behind the diplomatic curtain, not even 20 per cent of it gets out, that too with government “approval”. Even in the age of the TV and smartphones, diplomacy is not carried out in public. Yet, in democracies, governments are answerable to Parliament.

We must never forget that the entry of China into the active international arena has modified the bipolar landscape. 

Had the Doklam issue taken a really serious turn, President Xi would not have received Ajit Doval, our National Security Advisor. He did not return with much from Beijing, neither did he come empty handed. Even modest progress is to be welcomed.

India’s restraint is praise worthy. We have always believed that diplomacy offers hope, not salvation. The talk of war is irresponsible. It would be disastrous for both countries. 

I personally much appreciate India’s restraint. War is not the answer at the moment.

Pakistan is not even a minor factor in Doklam. It does not have a worthwhile foreign policy, only attitudes. Nevertheless, it does have a nuisance value, which China exploits. Fishing in troubled waters comes to it with fatal ease.

The Ministry of External Affairs has a large number of Mandarin speaking IFS officers. They have all served in China. Their expertise should be constantly used. I do not know if that is so at the moment.

External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj on Friday spelt out Government’s Doklam policy. She was rightly cautious but not subtle enough. I was wrong when a couple of weeks ago I wrote that the Doklam standoff would not last.

It is not likely to fade away soon.

The writer is a former Union minister. Views expressed are personal.