#dnaEdit: Complicated quadrille

There is a growing belief in the world’s capitals that the old theory of the enemy’s enemy being a friend is an assumption of the past which does not hold good any more. The new credo is that countries benefit when everyone is trading with everyone. Going by the new rule, the trade stakes of India, China and the United States seem mutual, and there is no conflict of interest either. China is willing to invest in Indian infrastructure, and the US is interested only in exporting high-end technologies in the space and nuclear sectors to India. American investments are likely to be more in China than in India in the medium term. Japan, the arch rival of China in that part of Asia, invests heavily in China despite the regular spats between the two based on historical memories. 

The Pakistan factor in the India-US-China triangle remains interesting if not important. The US and Chinese military aid to Islamabad will remain constant, but it would not give Pakistan any edge over India. More importantly, the Chinese and American  business stakes in India will outweigh the two countries’ desire to maintain Pakistan as an irritant to India. So, at the end of the day, it is going to be a complicated quadrille. There will be times when each one of the players will step on the other’s toes, and the predictable short-lived squabbles will follow.

What Indian policymakers need to do is to desist from constructing scare scenarios based on American inputs about China emerging a dominant player in Asia and posing a threat to India. The official American position is that it does not want to contain or confront China. The Chinese are, however, not convinced and they are alert to American moves in the region. India should not play the American game and become part of any strategy that is directed against China. It should also stop believing that getting closer to Japan serves to snub China. It does not. 

Since 2001, India has tried and failed to use the US relationship to checkmate Pakistan. It did not work. New Delhi should not then believe that closer strategic ties with Washington will be useful in bargaining on the long-standing India-China border dispute. There is, of course, the simple question. Will China’s stand over the dispute depend on India’s military strength? There is no denying the fact that India’s military and economic strength will be a factor in the dialogue. But it has to be India’s own. It cannot be dependent on American supplies of arms and technology, nor on American investments. It has to be noted that the Americans have equal stakes in Chinese economy. Pakistan has made a similar mistake. It thought that American and Chinese military aid will enable it to stand up to India. Pakistan’s dependency on Beijing and Washington has only weakened Islamabad.

Americans still want to play the old game of balance of power by trying to play off one regional player against another. The American game plan is unravelling in the 21st century. China-Japan and India-Pakistan rivalries will remain and there is little that the US can do to influence the situation. The Americans want to retain their strategic advantages in east and Southeast Asia regions, and they would want India to join the American contingent. India has nothing to gain from joining the US. It would be useful to remember that Pakistan did not gain in any way by being a member of the Cold War military alliances.  It is not enough for Indian leaders to claim that the country follows an independent foreign policy. It is time to state the details of that independent stand so that misunderstandings and misinterpretations can be cleared.