On Friday, 13th March 2020, CENERS – Kolkata
in association with Indian Chamber of Commerce conducted the
Calcutta Dialogue
on
India – PR China Relations
The Way Forward
at
The Lalit Great Eastern, Kolkata.
Plenary Session I
(11:45 hrs – 12:45 hrs)
People’s Republic of China, India and the World
The session was chaired by, Lt. General, J.R. Mukherjee, VP (Ops), Ceners-K.
The session started with Lt. Gen. J.R. Mukherjee’s speech, where he first greeted everyone, and thanked ICC for inviting him in the Calcutta Dialogue. He then invited and introduced the five panellists of the session and started with inviting Dr. Jigme Yeshi Lama, who was the first speaker for the session.
The first paper of the session was presented by, Dr. Jigme Yeshe Lama. Dr. Lama is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science at University of Calcutta. He spoke on People’s Republic of China and the World view from Eastern India.
Dr. Lama started his presentation by thanking the chair, and showed his deepest gratitude to the ICC and CENERS-K for inviting him, and giving him this opportunity. The paper he presented was a work in progress one – based on preliminary investigations. The paper focused on how we see China from the Eastern India perspective, and specifically from a pedagogic or epistemic viewpoint especially with regard to understanding China through a pedagogic manner where all aspects of China is to be studied, analysed, researched and also talked.
The policy of India is both centred i.e., from New Delhi but it is also stated. The pedagogical view of China is also much centred seen in case of most of the universities offering papers and courses that deal with China and larger East Asia and also emphasizes on teaching the language for instance we have Delhi University, JNU, Jamia and also private universities like Ashoka who seem to be designing departments and courses in line with the pedagogy of China and larger East Asia. With Delhi being the political capital, there is a vast network of think tanks and research institutions focussing on studying China whether it is the ICS, CCAS through which knowledgeable China is seen to be produced and also seen to be disseminated. The other think tanks is also seen to be having very strong China division. These institutions created perspectives that eventually get circulated to the larger population. But for him, these perspectives are somewhat lopsided as they are emanated from a single source or we say a more homogenous source, i.e., the centre New Delhi, which is also somewhat oblivious to numerous issues such as India’ s East and India’s North-East which has direct contact with China from longer period. These areas get affected both in a positive manner as well as in a negative manner with Chinese activities happening in a neighbourhood. Yet, the pedagogical approach in understanding China is also seen to be quite less with no specific departments or institutions focussing on China except for study of Chinese language and literature in places like Vishwa Bharati, Rabindra Bharati University and also still young Sikkim University.
What is truly needed is more departments focusing on studying language like Mandarin, and other East and other Asian languages along with an academic exploration of China from multiple perspectives. It will be of much help to know languages of these countries. As it becomes important as this particular region where we are situated right now is seen to be under the radar of Chinese foreign and domestic policies due to the Chinese claims over Tawang and India’s North East states of Arunanchal Pradesh, where much of the bloody 1962 conflict had taken place. Even the 2017 Doklam crisis had occurred between India, Bhutan and China which has a direct bearing on Eastern India. The Chinese have seen to be grassed up the military capabilities in the region in recent areas the reason for this is the fact that in the Chumbi Valley, where Doklam is located the Chinese were seen to be at great disadvantage because both Bhutanese and Indian troops were on the higher ground around the valley. One of the dominating modes of understanding Sino-Indian relationship has been through the lens of security, where both nations security and territoriality is seen to be given much importance. Furthermore, this narrative is created again from the Centre, and this narrative is seen to be affecting the peripheries as seen in the case of India as well as China. This narrative has led to the securitisation of the North-East as well as the East of India and is seen to be concentrated mostly over Tawang as mentioned earlier, and also Doklam and also over Siliguri corridor termed as the “Chicken’s -neck”, which is a narrow strip of band connecting the North-East to India. It is also an important economic hub and a transit hub for North -East, Sikkim as well as Nepal and Bhutan, and to some extent Bangladesh. The Chinese project in Doklam is seen to be linked with the Siliguri corridor as the building of key strategic infrastructure would allow Chinese troops to access this particular area. The Chinese troops use this area on the basis of strong security centric reason. Another reason of Chin’s attempt in Doklam can be traced to China’s attempt to hand Bhutan. Focus of the paper is mainly on Nepal and Bhutan. With regard to South Asia, most of the countries apart from Bhutan and India has not joined the Belt and Road Initiative on the other hand, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Nepal are seen to be important components of BRI. Significant point is India and Bhutan have immense bilateral relationship over the years, but much of this relationship is seen to be strained as there is a growing interest in Bhutan to start diplomatic relationship with China. This seen to be arsing basically from the private sector in Bhutan who wants to establish economic relations with China as there is a strong feeling that there is immense overdependence on India.
China is also seen to have funded the building of one of the largest Buddha statues in Bhutan “ The Buddha Dordenma” and is seen to be contributing much on the tourism sector. While Indian tourists are seen to be the largest in Bhutan, Chinese presence is also increasing. China is also interesting in Mahayan Buddhism which is also followed immensely in Bhutan. For Chinese much of these are preparations for post-Dalai Lama phase where power backing will happen in the arena of the Tibetan Buddhism. Intern it is important for the East and North East as it has a sizeable Tibetan population who follow Tibetan Buddhism. Hence much of the security experts have a particular view with regard to the Chinese shadow control over these regions through religious mechanisms which I see as much dubious and problematic. Much of these Sino-Bhutanese interactions need to be analysed and understood as it will have direct repercussions on Eastern India. The same can be stated of Nepal which has a strong socio-economic and religious at present, but seen to be tilting much towards its Northern neighbour China. For China, Nepal is important because it is an important gateway to South Asia, also important because of security reasons. Beijing has always given importance on maintaining its relations with the Himalayan state, with Kathmandu joining the Belt and Road initiative, Chinese development projects have increased in Nepal. Nepal has also been allowed to use 4 Chinese sea ports and 3 dry ports. This will reduce the dependence on Indian ports. Even though still for Nepal, India ports are more feasible and cost-effective.
One of the most important project under the Belt and Road with respect to Nepal is to enhance its connectivity through the Trans-Himalayan Railway which is a continuation of the Qinghai-Tibet railway which is fully operational up to Shigatse, second largest city in Tibet and which will soon reach the borders of Nepal, this is termed as boosting the trade and commercial linkages of Nepal with China. Even before trade, sizeable influence of Chinese presence is seen through larger number of Chinese restaurants flaunting their advertisements and boards specially in Mandarin. A number of financial institutions have set up their offices in Kathmandu and other cities in Nepal. China and Nepal has also increased their flights from 14 to 98 in less than 19 years making Chinese tourists number 2 in number after the Indians. China is also the second largest trading partner with Nepal. China has also initiated the expansion of the Araniko Highway which connects it to Nepal converting it into a four way lane.
China is also helping Nepal in building four economic corridors for which Eastern parts specially in West Bengal as well as in the North- East specifically for the Siliguri corridor and Sikkim , the most important would be the Kosi economic corridor in the eastern region of Nepal which will connect Tibet, Sikkim, Darjeeling and Duars. And this is important for us as it will surely impact Eastern India. But this building of corridors will also lead to much ecological degradation to an orderly environmentally fragile area. Also much of East India is seen to be flooded with cheap Chinese commodities like electronic, garments, plastic items and also other stuffs. With the accelerated growth of the Kosi Economic corridor which is mush expected to be, it will lead to negative fallout of the domestic production market. This aspect of China’s rise as an immediate neighbourhood of China is something that academic institutions specially in Eastern India should pursue as primarily it will affect sooner or later, and secondly academic institutions in our region have the human resources specially in the form of people who know the languages of Nepal and Bhutan an thus can carry out much holistic study. Thus, in conclusion, the paper looks at China from East India specially from an epistemic and a pedagogic perspective which entails basically studying and researching of China in regular academic as well as think tanks which has to be more focused in Eastern as well as North-Eastern India as the rise of China and Beijing’s policies towards Nepal, Bhutan and Tawang has a direct bearing on this particular region.
The second paper of the session was presented by, Dr. Avijit Banerjee. Dr. Banerjee is Associate Professor and Head of Department of Chinese Language and Culture (Cheena Bhavana) Vishwa Bharati University. He spoke on the ten pillars of cooperation for P2P and B2B linkages. He also spoke on the impact of Wuhan and Mallapuram informal summit.
The paper explored on the prospects and achievements of India-China people to people exchanges and also try to show something which has come up from the two informal summits. India and China have long historical and cultural traditions and enjoy great development potential. Non-governmental interaction is an important part of international relations and is perhaps more important in India-China relationship than in most other bilateral connections. India and China have set in motion several bilateral, cultural initiatives including a massive P2P connectivity exercise to get an age of cooperation in culture. Cultural flows between the two countries have also led the foundation for social interaction, culture including the language, food, art, literature, music, film and television is also a major element of a country soft power. Culture is an important content in India-China relations. The two are basically homogenous eastern multiculturalism such as cognition, experience and intuition focussing on long term and comprehensive emphasising ethical and moral spirit stressing self examination advocating harmony between nature and humanity and advocating peace and love. The high level exchanges between the two countries have been more frequent. Trade and economic cooperation enjoys rapid development, cooperation in the field of culture and education growing steadily.
Since, President Chinese President Xi’s visit to India in 2014, he launched a rich China-India cultural exchange programme with Prime Minister Modi covering tourism cooperation, youth exchanges, museum exchange, language teaching, classic and contemporary works etc. According to statistics presently there are 14 pairs of friendship city between India and China and more than 20,000 students are studying in China. There are 44 flights a week between the two countries. India has become an important potential market for Chinese literary and art groups. More and more people from both countries regard each other as destination for tourism. In China practicing yoga and enjoying Indian movies have become the new fashion for the young Chinese. These exchanges have undoubtedly brought the distance between the Chinese and Indian people closer and enhanced the understanding and mutual trust between the people of the two countries. In 2015, more than 115 Indian merchants in Keqiao in Shaoxing donated blood for a Chinese girl suffering from leukaemia which is testimony to the people to people exchange. After the informal summit between Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping in April, 2018, India- China relations have once again become the focus of people’s opinion. In theory the informal summit allows the two leaders to get know one another. PM Modi leader of the world’s largest democracy with the political mandate unseen in more than three decades and Chinese President Xi effectively China’s leader for life if he chooses stand to be significant figure when the history of Asian geo-politics of the first half of the 21st century is written.
The Wuhan meeting in April, 2018 opened a new mechanism for high level exchanges between India and China. This is the first and currently the only high level exchange, called in Chinese diplomacy as Informal Meeting. It reached a series of strategic consensus, pointed out the direction for the subsequent development of India-China relations and led the foundation momentum of positive stating an upward relation for more than a year which attracted the attention of the International community. Besides the other strategic things that has been signed here, the establishment of the high level mechanism on cultural and people to people exchange was an important outcome of the Wuhan Summit. The 1st meeting of the high level mechanism was held in December 21, 2018. It reflected the desire of the two countries to broad base the relationship through enhanced exchanges in areas such as cultural exchanges, film and television cooperation and joint production, museums, sports, youth, tourism ,state and city level exchanges, traditional medicine, yoga, education which are referred to as the “10 Pillars of Cooperation”.
The second meeting was held on August 12, 2019 in Beijing. Both the sides signed four MoUs to promote cultural exchanges to enhance cooperation in the field of traditional medicine, cooperation in museum management and promotion of exchanges between the National sports and associations and sports person. Both the sides also discussed some new proposals, ideas and agreed to organise 100 activities to further strengthen the cultural and P2P ties. To hold informal summit is an innovation in the India-China relations. A lot of goodwill is generated when the two leaders meet in informal settings to discuss complex issues without any prior agenda. Without going into the details of complex matters, the two leaders are able to summarise the relationship and provide guidance to the officials about future directions. Such Summit undoubtedly help in improving the relationship between the two countries. The 2nd India-China Informal Summit was held in Malappuram and the two sides agreed on the following points-
- To designate 2020 as the year of India-China cultural and people to people exchanges. The year 2020 also marks the 70th establishment of the India-China relations. It was decided to organise 70 activities including a ship voyage conference as part of the celebration.
- To set up a high level economic and trade dialogue mechanism to reduce trade deficit. China also agreed on taking action on reducing trade deficit which is of almost 53 billion US$.
- India and China decided to work together in reducing terrorism and strengthening the framework against terror financing, training and supporting the terrorist groups.
- Both the leaders also agreed on the importance of concluding negotiations for a mutually beneficial and balanced regional comprehensive economic partner.
Not withstanding the hard problems of India- China relations, people to people contacts are becoming an important factor in the bilateral relations. The bilateral relations between the two countries have entered a fast track of growth which has given a perfect realistic foundation for development of the people to people connectivity. With the simultaneous improvement of the overall national strength both the countries realised the common enormous soft power contained in their profound culture and once again start to rediscover each other and appreciate each other. At present the cultural exchanges between India and China have become the new trend and have become a new bright spot in the relation. Of course, compared with the huge potential population base of nearly 2.7 billion in the two countries, the scale of India- China P2P connectivity is far from matching and satisfactory. The main force of exchanges between the two countries is business and academic circle. P2P exchanges at more levels and more sectors need to be strengthened. Tourism and education cooperation have become the new focal point in India China relation in the future. The also sides is also seen to discuss how to exploit the enormous tourism potential. This will also yield a lot of economic benefit. To celebrate the civilizational benefits between the two nations, the two countries decided to form the sister state relationship between Tamil Nadu and Fujian province of China. There is also a proposal to set up an academy to study these links. In a nutshell, the 2nd Informal Summit between Prime Minister Modi and President Xi is an advance over Wuhan and established a bilateral network that suits the security and economic strategy of India. The Wuhan Spirit has provided India- China relations new momentum and trust. PM Modi has also been invited to visit China for the 3rd Informal Summit. In this new juncture the two need to pay attention on the following points to enhance the P2P connectivity to a higher level bigger scale and a broader face. To establish connectivity at higher level government to government, business to business and people to people. Regular visits by the Central and regional leadership and parliamentarians of both the countries. To sensitise people and establishment of Chinese cultural Centre in India and Indian Cultural Centre in China. To urge media to increase coverage of India-China relationship and facilitate the mutual visit of the media personnel of the two countries. To create Joint Council on social interaction. To establish Chair Professor in different Indian and Chinese Universities. To increase exchange of students and more importantly the exchanges of Young people. India-China should step up cooperation, view the differences in a sensible way and see maximum consensus.
The history of exchanges between India and China during the last decade shows the importance of mutual learning. The countries have lot of common language in exploring a development path that would be in line with the National conditions, improving domestic governance and meeting economic and social challenges. P2P contact is an indispensable aspect of India-China Bilateral relationship. Mutual understanding and friendship serve as the purpose itself of government to government relations. As a result both the countries need to take measures to further facilitate P2P connectivity which is a fundamental for deepening mutual understanding and promoting friendship between the two countries in future. Both India and China are developing nations and shared common goals and interests. The two countries need to develop the spirit of Mutual trust, Mutual respect, Openness and inclusiveness in the P2P connectivity. India and China have far more common points and differences. It is therefore important to have this mutual respect and equality. There is enough space for both the countries to work together for common development and at the same time more important is to take care of each others concern as a good neighbour and strategic partner. The people of both the countries are well aware that cooperation is both beneficial while fighting is going to hurt the two economies. India-China cooperation will not only benefit the two countries but also contribute to peace and development in Asia and the world. If the people of both the countries want to have a prosperous India and China friendship between India and China is indispensable.
The third paper of the session was presented by Dr. A.J. Majumdar. Dr. Majumdar is Professor in the Department of International Relations at Jadavpur University. He spoke on the dynamics of Regional platforms vis-a-vis India-China relations.
The paper explored on the regional platforms and not necessarily focusing on regional organizations like BRICS etc. It is essential on the traits that we face in international politics and therefore I should in the very beginning must say that when you rank some organizations as regional structure, we have to keep in mind that these regional structures in the contemporary period are essentially becoming trans regional. When you talk about regional structures the idea is of definite geographical region. But today we find on one hand, we have trans regional organizations coming up where states from different distant geographical regions coming in. On the other hand we have different phenomenon that is Sub-regional, when we try to leave out some of the states and try to formulate other kinds of organizations bringing in members from other regions and within the region we can also have many regional organizations. Now all depends on the interests, on the strategies of the member states on a given point of time. And here, we might also say that in any kind of structure there has to be a right compromise and correct balance between the sovereignty of the state and the jurisdiction of the particular organization. Therefore, forming an organization does not mean that states would start cooperating with one another. And it is the structure which is not very important, how the structure is used to become more important and we have all kinds of examples such as SAARC. Now in my presentation, in fact I have three sections, the 1st on perspectives, 2nd on patterns and 3rd on prospects. Perspective is important because the kind of perspective, the kind of attitude and the kind of theoretical angle we adopt actually influences our decisions. If we look perspective as dreams, hopes, aspirations obviously we are looking from a positive side. We will take up those positive points and will talk of great possibilities that we might have in developing and improving relationships between countries. On the other hand, we might have attitude which starts with distrust, strategic narrative on geopolitical narrative constructed in order promote your own ambitions, your own peace, protection of your own interest then obviously you will pick up on those aspects which pick up on lines that endorse conclusions that you already have in mind. But here when they talk about India and China obviously we know there are gaps. China is ahead of us, it has larger economic and military strength. It is difficult to catch up with China, but here in international politics find it some kind of debate. Whether this would be an American Century or Asian Century. And we talk about Asian Century, one has to take this into consideration that China alone cannot make it an Asian Century.
There are other emergent Asian powers as well. In fact the gravity of international politics if it is to shift from Europe or West to Asian part, then these countries will have to work together, and that is the general expectation. They have to cooperate on lines of military interests, coordinate actions on international platforms and compromise on their different perspectives. And there would be others who might not like this to happen, and so there will always be different geo political constructions, geo political narratives projecting new power equilibriums that would perpetually divide these two countries into opposite camps. So there would be all kind of projections and those projections once again, also depend on the kind of attitude one has, at a particular point of time. But these two countries realise that intense Bilateral competition was against their interests. That is in the sense that these two countries are not system challengers. They understand that if they destabilize the system that actually contributes to their emergence, if we think of Rising China, Emerging India.
These stories are possible only when the region and the system they are not destabilized. So in my sense, these two countries might have their aspirations to change the system, to modify the system and they might call themselves as System Modifier. So institutionalization of meaningful cooperation is a step towards these incremental changes in international system. And therefore all these regional structures or trans regional or sub regional structures become important. Now we know that Bilateral relations between India and China are always wrapped up in adverse geopolitical strategic narratives that leads them to occasional confrontations. We both want some kind of Asia Centric World Order but at the same time this Asia Centric World Order would not be comfortable for India if its is dominated by China. So, the idea is If China wants a Unipolar Asia and a bi-polar world then other countries will have to find some other kind of arrangements in order to reduce the impacts of such arrangement. When we talk about Wuhan or Wuhan Spirit and Chennai Connect, it gives birth to personality Centric Diplomacy – here the focus is more on Chinese Premier and also the Prime Minister and this personality Centric Diplomacy actually gives birth to unstructured Dialogue. So these are informal meetings, unstructured dialogues. But these dialogues are also important because there we find the patterns of regional dialogue.
Regional platforms provide avenues to talk to each other and at the same time such platforms also provide the prospect for talks among the key leaders on the sidelines of these conferences. So the basic idea is what we are getting out of these regional structures? For example if we say Shanghai Cooperation Organization and one benefit would be that is the general idea with regard to regional structures, regional organizations that is membership of a particular regional organization gives collective strength, collective influence and at the same time it would also have some kind of spill over affect. We got our membership into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in the 17. We are there with also having different perspectives and terms. But all states view these terms in similar fashion. Now Prime Minister Modi, when he tried to define the objective and came out with acronym “SECURE” and the letters in fact stand for Security, Economic Development, Connectivity, Unity, Respect for Sovereignty and Environmental Protection. So, here when they talk about Security, about measure against terrorism, in fact it is doubtful that any virtual policy would be there. China says SCO is not a platform to target one particular nation, they don’t use the name but we all know it. The other structure RATS i.e., Regional Anti-Terror Structure and under that structure it was possible for joint exercise between India and Pakistan taking part and it was viewed as an achievement. And not about India China cooperation but about India Pakistan Cooperation and it happened in 2018,and you know in 2019, Pulwama happened and then Balakot Surgical Strike. So, multilateralism only in terms of numbers, so the substance of multilateralism is present in the structure itself and thus becomes a platform for Counter-balancing. The BRICS is however a different story, and he won’t go into it but the general idea is a particular country trying to gain some kind of ascendancy by using this structure, once again we might find differences and from 2018 the relations are on the up swing, and environment is conducive for greater connections. So there should be continuous dialogues through structures and platforms that is beneficial and convergence of interests. And this is what we call Contingent Realism, where relations are based on not competition but policies are based on contingency of situations. And Cooperation at international levels between India China is needed.
The fourth paper of the session was presented by Dr. Harish C. Mehta. Dr. Mehta is the Editor-in-chief of The Calcutta Journal of Global Affairs. He spoke on Prospects of Conflict Resolution in India and People’s Republic of China relations.
Dr. Mehta began his remarks by stating at the outset, that, he took a very different approach in the last few days while he was thinking of what to prepare on.
He presented in this session, the Game theory without numbers, models of Chinese Border crises in South Asia, South east Asia and East Asia 2020-2050. He also discussed on Choosing War or Peace? Quash the QUAD by China and hegemony of China that is multi ocean etc. And let’s start with the First Model, which deals with China pressurised at multiple crisis points.
2020-2025- China will be pressurized internally because of its economic crisis and externally because of the great powers QUAD, ASEAN. Because of the existence of the two other crises in the South China Sea and East Asia. China cannot afford to have festering long term disputes on majority of its borders. Because , the enemy actors are the same US and Japan and varied (Philippines, Vietnam), and Regional Military Alliances against China. Because Chinese Economy will not survive protracted tensions.
The Second Model deals with China pressures India at key chokepoints as it has already done. 1962-2020- Chinese strategy to keep Indian military “Tied down” in the North Eastern Borders aims to
- Prevent the Indian military from a larger maritime role/Regional Policing Role
- Keep Indian economy under strain.
The Third model deals with Negotiations of China with triumph and Impact of India – China border agreement on China’s maritime dispute in South China Sea and East Sea. Assuming that India and China will conclude on some kind of an agreement. So, if India and China do a territorial swap, then it raises expectations for “SWAP” sharing resources in South China Sea. Sets precedent for Senkakus, which have high probability. If India-China Swap deal holds, China will be pressured to negotiate with ASEAN, which have medium probability. And if India – China Swap collapses, ASEAN will suspect Chinese motives. Tensions escalate,which have high probability.
The Fourth model deals with, Resolution of Chinese Maritime Disputes. If China reserves its Maritime Dispute (South China Sea or East Asia Sea) ahead of an India China border Agreement. China will be globally praised, be emboldened t act against India, lead to prolong Indian border Negotiations, Escalate Military Deployment on the Indian Border, Continue it’s policy of squeezing the Indian Economy.
The Fifth model deals with, negotiations breakdown which can lead to war. It deals with Impact of India – China Border war on China’s other maritime disputes. If India and China go to war which has a low probability, Tensions will be in South China Sea, Chinese Navy blockades the sea, which has a low probability again. Japan and China do not go to war over Senkaku Islands due to large trade relations. If China attacks Japanese ships, war can break out and the US will honour its treaty t defend Japan.
The Sixth model deals with, New Resolution of all three Chinese Border Crises. So, if India-China border talks fail, then there will be encirclement and containment of China Resumes. If there is no resolution to South China Sea dispute then Major NON-NATO ally (MNNA) and India will strengthen military Alliances with US/ASEAN/EAST ASIA. And if no resolution to East Sea Disputes take place then QUAD 2.0 will take place and will aim to encircle China and also a right wing American presidency aims to contain the Chinese Economy.
The Seventh model deals with China’s multi ocean, multi continental hegemony till 2050, where China will try to escalate all three crises simultaneously in the South China Sea and the obvious outcome is China can’t afford 3 simultaneous wars. But China can lead to emboldened because of its large military power but the QUAD would restrain China.
The Eighth model deals with, China’s “Quash the QUAD Diplomacy”, 2008-2050 (US, India, Japan, Australia). China will continue to lobby QUAD member state(Australia) to loosen or weaken the alliance. And China here will be challenged because the 3 other QUAD members are major NON-NATO allies of the U.S. QUAD will also react, that if China does not escalate: Quad will remain low key and if China escalates, QUAD will may formalize relationship or mobilize.
And there are 95 such models. Dr. Mehta concluded his remarks with the point that, a shooting war is unlikely but none the less academics and policy makers should give theories and attaching numerical numbers will help.
The Special Address of the session was delivered by Mr. Manish Gupta. He is Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha, Government of India. Mr. Gupta spoke on Sino-Indian ties and highlighted several key aspects of introspection of this pivotal relationship.
Mr. Gupta began his remarks by sharing an interesting anecdote, about the time when Sushma Swaraj, the then External Affairs Minister of India, said in response to the devastating earthquake in Nepal, that we in India are leaders in who give help to countries who are in distress. During Mr. Gupta’s correspondence with Ms. Swaraj, he had asked whether China has ever sent any relief mission to countries who require assistance during a natural disaster? China’s philosophy of engaging with countries in the South Asian region is actually on a much larger scale. China with BRI has invested heavily in countries like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan – to the tunes of billions of dollars. Mr. Gupta asks a pertinent question, that is, is China beginning to engage with our neighbours in such a manner that India seems to be losing its existing diplomatic initiatives in the region? India has incorporated a policy – Neighbourhood First. In light of our position, the speaker mentioned India’s relations vis-a-vis its neighbours has never been so strained since the making of this policy.
When we talk about the political initiatives, we need to keep firmly in mind this point that the economic strength of our country leverages our political initiatives when we negotiate with our neighbours. Our reputation also depends on what kind of steps we are taking in the present economic climate, and we can be rest assured China is cautiously keeping an eye on all subsequent developments.
India is finally out of the shelves from Non-alignment and presently, India is seen to be aligning, but it still remains unclear with whom we are aligning on multiple issues. India has also come out from the regime of 5 year economic planning. NITI Aayog has replaced it since 2015.
Economic planning is a set of measures taken to achieve predetermined targets in the shortest possible time. India also has to assess the economic impact of GST which has adversely impacted the Credit flow. This is an instance of an economic power being dictated by political policy. India needs to reprioritize its list of agenda to bring significant improvement in the growth front of our economy.
Thus, Mr. Gupta concluded his remarks by reiterating the point that for India, presently, Domestic Economic Development is the most important issue. Primarily because, if we do not galvanize our own economy we would not really be in a position to either cooperate with China or take advantage of their economic security, neither can we get the world community on our side on the transgressions we have observed on the Chinese side. He pointed out that India’s Neighborhood First Policy should be given fresh impetus with concrete actions – so that India can be well insulated from economic or political transgressions coming from China.
After the conclusion of the presentations, the Chair, Lt. General. J.R. Mukherjee, thanked the four presenters of the session for their insightful deliberations on People’s Republic of China, India and the World. In his closing remarks at the session, the Chair noted the following observations –
Chinese support to Pakistan continues to irk us (India) and will continue to do so because Pakistan is China’s pawn in the entire game. China also continues to veto on India’s entry into the United Nations Security Council. The trade deficit that Dr. Guruswamy talked about in his address regarding Chinese goods and Indian goods in the Northeastern region of India remains an outstanding issue. China’s support to the insurgency groups, even today, in the Northeastern region of India is still operational even though nobody seems to talk about it today. The String of Pearls that China has been proactively building around India. Induction of troops into Jammu and Kashmir, to protect its interests in BRI projects traversing through Pakistan. China is holding all the cards in the RCEP. Now, these are all points that India seems to be shooting, and as far as the Chinese are concerned, what are their grievances?
India shelters the Dalai Lama and a large Tibetan population. On the border dispute, because China has very strong claims particularly to the Tawang belt. India’s signing with the United States and a possible entry into the QUAD. India not joining the Belt and Road Initiative with China, thereby also posing a threat to the Belt and Road initiative. On aspects of the RCEP and India not agreeing to joining it. India joining Japan, Vietnam and other ASEAN countries and intruding into the South China Sea to pose a challenge to its adversary. The important point to remember here is Tibet remains one of China’s most vital interests – so anything in relation to Tibet, China would certainly not take matters lightly. So if India wishes to resolve certain issues with China then, it has to resolve outstanding issues with the Dalai Lama and the Tibetans first. Secondly, India from a military and economic point of view does not hold all the cards to its advantage and a you cannot hope to find a resolution from a position of weakness. Finally, as far as the world is concerned, the world is concerned about China and its aggressors which is increasing day by day. There is not a single country surrounding China with which it does not have a dispute with.
The session was concluded by a vote of thanks by the Chair, and was followed by the commencement of the Plenary Session II at 12:45 hrs.
Plenary Session II
(12:45 hrs – 14:00 hrs)
India and People’s Republic of China – Bilateral Relations
The session was chaired by Dr. Mohan Guruswamy, Head of Centre for Policy Alternatives.
The first paper of the session was presented by Dr. Jayanta Bandhopadhyaya. Mr. Bandhopadhyaya is a Visiting Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation. He spoke on Water Management, Environmental issues and Cooperation between India and China.
The paper explored the environmental challenges facing both China and India and how the dynamics of their bilateral relations are shaping the way on how they combat these common set of challenges. Mr. Bandhopadhyaya in his opening remarks highlighted the foundational links of two ancient civilisations that of India and China which are aiming for rapid economic growth in the present context and both these two civilisations were largely river based civilisations. These rivers later on became the source to feed the industries of the modern day – with Hueng He for China and Indus & Ganga for India. These riverine civilisations forms the basis of their global importance for ages to come.
China’s rapid economic growth largely attributes to the coal based economy which continues to power their industries. With the rapid industrialisation of the Chinese economy came the inevitable greenhouse emissions, which led to the subsequent pollution of air, river and groundwater contamination and sinking of coastal areas which begs criticism. He illustrated with data that the industrial belt in Eastern China today burns coal at the rate roughly over the amount which the entire world burns combined. This was certainly not the case even a few decades ago. The case pointed out by Mr. Bandhopadhyaya that today seeing the Sun shine in central Beijing is a luxury. Such has been the consequences of unmitigated industrial pollution.
However, China has itself started aggressively addressing the environmental problems it has created, with the help of collaboration with neighbouring countries for bringing about an ecological rehabilitation. China has also made significant headway in renewable energy production, for instance, by 2024, solar capacity of China will surpass that of the United States. There is a gradual shift taking place in the Chinese economy with a shift in the focus from a primarily coal based one to more renewable and sustainable use of energy.
The shared international river between China and India is – the Yarlung Tsangpo in Tibet continuing into the Brahmaputra in India is drying up fast due to recent developments such Hydropower projects and construction of dams by China in the region. The speaker highlighted the importance to bypass political concerns and resolve the issues on a scientific basis.
Mr. Bandhopadhyaya concluded his presentation by emphasizing on the importance of constructive steps for China and India to the exchange of knowledge on many fronts – on the environment, air pollution, water pollution, groundwater contamination. Exchange of knowledge on the changing water systems of the two countries and the important issue of climate change of the Himalayas is a space which requires intense collaboration. As, Climate Change is not just India’s or China’s problem. It’s a global issue which begs unprecedented collaboration.
The second paper of the session was presented by Mr. Ashok Dasgupta. Mr. Dasgupta is at Ceners-K. He is heading the research wing of IIMM as Chairman CRIMM, IIMM. He spoke on How Energy Cooperation will benefit both India and China. Energy forms a key avenue of debate for possible cooperation between the two countries. The paper explored whether there could a win-win situation on Energy cooperation between India and PRC.
The focus of this paper was on two sectors, namely, Electricity and Oil (Fuel). Mr. Dasgupta emphasized at the forefront, that the economic situation of a country can be largely determined by the per capita consumption of energy (electricity) calculated on a yearly basis. The per capita energy consumption in India for example is around 1200 kWh, way below the global average of 2700 kWh. China, on the other hand stands at above 3000 kWh per capita energy consumption. He illustrated with data on how China has accomplished four times greater installation capacity (1,300,000 MW) than India (350,000 MW) as it continues to surge ahead in Energy production levels. The speaker highlighted that both India and China today remain the two biggest consumers and fuel-tusslers in the world. He emphasized that instead of trying to out beat each other in the fuel sector, India and China should jointly devise a strategy for Transnational agreement on fuel which can help the two energy-demand countries to jointly negotiate with countries on imports and help in sustaining the oil prices in the global market.
Mr. Dasgupta concluded his presentation by emphasizing in the pursuit of cooperation between the two countries, Energy would be a significant space to find a silver lining for grounds of stellar cooperation. If the political leadership can mobilise efforts for transnational cooperation on the key energy sectors like electricity and fuel – by forming avenues of cooperation like, for instance, the India China Oil buyers club, then both countries can find common ground to cooperate and foster even deeper trade links, provided the geopolitical concerns should not come in the way.
The third paper of the session was presented by Dr. B.K. Mishra. Dr. Mishra is Director of Centre foo Studies in International Relations and Development (CSIRD) Kolkata. He spoke on the Educational, Scientific and Technological Cooperation between India and China.
The paper explored the possibilities and challenges of regional cooperation between India and China on the fields of Education, Science and Technology. Dr. Mishra initiated his arguments by bringing back the focus on the collective anxieties felt by the West on the emerging global order in lieu of an Asian resurgence spearheaded by China and India. He then addressed where does this anxiety come from? The nature of India-China relations will determine the course of the new emerging global order. So far, the only common ground for the two Asian giants, according to Dr. Mishra, has been on trade.
The speaker acknowledges the inevitable reality that being two ancient civilizations with similar aspirations of becoming world superpowers, India and China would be competitors in many aspects. But that does not rule out the possibility of spaces for cooperation. A model for constructive engagement was suggested by Dr. Mishra to realise the development of the entire region. The model he suggests is GRIC – Graduated Reciprocation Inducing Cooperation. The need for mutual cooperation via such a model, as explained by the speaker, is because when two major powers are in adversarial position, such as India and China who are competing, they are not as sensitive to the absolute gains as they are for relative gains. The strategic cut-out model as proposed by Dr. Mishra proposes that in initially, the countries have to first identify several key areas of engagement where there exists a ‘comfortable’ space for mutual cooperation. The speaker illustrated there are approximately 30 key sectors in the Eastern Indian zone and South-eastern China where lies a space for triggering a starting point for future mutual cooperation as Economic partners. The speaker emphasized that India should not be too wary of the negative spill over effects into further integration and instead seek for the absolute gains forthcoming from this opportunity.
Dr. Mishra concluded his presentation by emphasizing that India should overcome it’s apprehensions regarding the rise of China as a superpower in the region and the world. India should further seek to engage with the Chinese economy, with a view for absolute gains. The speaker highlighted the importance of the growing purchasing power of the two giant economies which presents itself with the option of further exploiting the opportunity that presents itself with new emerging spaces for mutual cooperation as Economic partners, not being overshadowed by the strategic interests alone.
After the conclusion of the presentations, the Chair, Dr. Mohan Guruswamy thanked the three presenters of the session for their insightful deliberations on India and China bilateral relations – from the physiographic dimensions to environmental concerns facing both the economies; to finding avenues of engagement on energy for bringing down prices and finally on the importance of a strategic rethinking on methods for tactfully engaging on trade with China. The session concluded with a 30 mins Networking lunch break.
Plenary Session III
(14:30 hrs – 16:00 hrs)
India and People’s Republic of China – Economic Relations
The session was chaired by Dr. S.K. Mukerjee, Director General at the Bhawanipur Educational Society College. In his opening remarks, the Chair highlighted the importance for a common currency for enhancing trade in the region. Dr. Mukherjee set the theme for the session’s discussion on trade concerning India and China by bringing into the context of the Dialogue, three key points – the continuously depreciating Indian rupee, the novel Coronavirus outbreak and it’s impact on the stock market and finally the growth rate, which creates productivity and consumption in India. In this economic scenario, the Chair posits what are the chances of China and India to get their act together? China and India have been historically, culturally and regionally so close and yet so far. Is it in our interest to remain far or is it in the interests of the powers that be to keep us tactfully apart? The chair emphasizes why we should ask the pertinent question on the importance of a common currency for Asia like that the European Union has set up to sustain its regional growth.
The first paper of the session was presented by Mr. Suvojit Bagchi. Mr. Bagchi is Chief of Bureau, The Hindu. He spoke on issues of Trade & Investment in India and China’s economic relations.
The paper explored the trade and investment developments between Eastern India and China, particularly West Bengal and China. The speaker highlighted that while investigating for data on the volume of trade between Eastern India and China, he found that the data available is negligible. Also, a key factor in trade and investment is the presence of close networks operating at individual levels where specific provinces in China prefers to conduct its business with those countries or regions who are close to them. For instance, the Chinese Ambassador to Bangladesh is the former Director General of Foreign Affairs in Yunan province who understands this region extremely well and wants to drive this area into a regional trade influence.
Mr. Bagchi emphasized that in Diplomacy perceptions and facts play a separate role. For instance, we may have the perception that Bangladesh and India enjoy very cordial relations but there are frequent instances of cross-border firings and on the other hand China and India may appear to be adversaries but in reality India hasn’t fired at China and vice-versa since the 1962 war. Despite the recent Doklam standoff in 2017, the border regions of these two countries have remained calm and composed relatively. He concluded the paper by stating that the security dilemma posed by China in the region should not constrain India’s efforts to engage in trade with China’s South-eastern trade network. Mr. Bagchi suggested that otherwise the rest of South Asia would continue reap the benefits of trade with China, as India looks to strategize within the contours of the security question.
The second paper of the session was presented by Prof. B.S. Mipun. Prof. Mipun is Professor at NEHU University, Meghalaya. He spoke on the Border Trade Potential in India and China’s economic relations.
The paper explored trade relations between India’s border states with China, particularly India’s northeastern states. The northeastern states have had extensive trade relations with China long before the formation of these two nation-states. The thriving cultural affinity, eating habits, lifestyle and trade routes links India’s northeast to China into an indomitable bond. These states today are heavily dependent on influx and supply of Chinese electronics goods and products.
Prof. Mipun emphasized that India should refocus on the border-sharing states (of the Northeast) with China. To enhance trade, the closed borders should be opened up for greater exchange and trade of goods. He suggested the prices of these goods, mainly coming from China are largely consumed in India, more in the Northeastern states than rest of India, could come down with open borders and proper regulatory measures in place. The benefits of integrated markets could very well be triggered by bringing forth a policy focus on the potential Border-trade between China and India’s Northeastern states.
The third paper of the session was presented by Dr. Rajen Laishram. Dr. Laishram is Professor in the Department of Political Science in Manipur Central University. He spoke on Poverty alleviation in China.
The paper explored the trajectory of China’s poverty alleviation strategy through it’s infrastructure programmes. Infrastructure has played an intrinsic role in alleviating mass poverty in China. Dr. Rajen highlighted that the rise of the middle class in China can largely be attributed to the growth of infrastructure initiatives which has accelerated the growth of the Chinese economy. He hailed China’s poverty alleviation regime as one the most successful in Asia.
Dr. Rajen linked poverty as a contributing factor for the rise in insurgency in India’s northeastern states. He argued that rapid infrastructure development in the conflict ridden areas can be a remedy to rising insurgency. He emphasizes that the reason why China’s infrastructure model can be replicated in India’s northeast is mainly due to the similar terrain and topography and thus China’s similar infrastructural model is suitable to be implemented in the region. The speaker reiterated that he does not wish Chinese labourers or contractors to impose a hegemony down the line with this proposed cooperation approach.
Dr. Rajen in his closing arguments ascertained that he is not advocating that India should cooperate with China on poverty alleviation, instead India can also learn from the relatively successful models to pursue a poverty alleviation push in India’s northeast, which will have the twin benefits of rooting out insurgency and enriching the overall livelihood capabilities for the people in the region.
The fourth paper was presented by Mr. Sanjib Kesh. Mr. Kesh is GM, at Dianrong, Shanghai. The paper explored the economic relations between India and China and how India can constructively engage with China culturally, emotionally and business wise – as setting the way forward for the two well integrated economies of the world.
Mr. Kesh shared two instances from his very own personal experiences on how China proactively engaged its working population to gear up for the 2008 Olympics in Beijing and the World Expo at Shanghai. The entire city of Shanghai was painted prior to hosting the World Expo and every individual had received a free ticket to visit the event. The monumental level of organisational skills to organise and execute an event requires a very skilled manpower and China, in the speakers view, has mastered its population to be the stellar taskforce.
As India, China is also a cultural melting pot. Chinese investors are looking for India primarily for two major reasons – (i) It is in their interest, the best country to export to with diverse set of demands, and, (ii) the high market size like that of India. The reason they are seeking to invest more in India is because such demand and market size is not available in countries like Vietnam, Laos or Myanmar. India must capitalize this opportunity. For such aspirations to be realised, Mr. Kesh suggested both countries should work upon the already existing high level of P2P and G2G interactions.
Bengal is extremely important to trigger the set of positive drivers for deeper levels of engagement. Bengal’s location presents a big opportunity for investors on both sides of the aisle. Kolkata is much more closer to China and accessible for its vicinity to the South-eastern provinces of China via Bay of Bengal. The speaker recollected that today Chinese syllabus has incorporated teachings of Bengal’s and India’s great treasure Rabindranath Tagore’s writings in their textbooks.
After the conclusion of the presentations, the Chair, Dr. S.K. Mukherjee thanked the four presenters of the session for their insightful deliberations on India and China’s economic relations. In his closing remarks at the session, the Chair noted the following observations –
The role of networking and international delegations and perceptions and facts play a separate role in the complex world of diplomacy. The importance of realising the potential of border trade with the two sizable economies sharing such a vast common land border. In light of this, what can be said for the way going forward for both India and China is that protectionism sows seeds of doubt and integrated markets can enhance the exchange of ideas and people. Poverty indeed acts as a contributing factor for the rise in insurgency in India’s northeastern states and how infrastructure development can reverse the trend of rise in insurgency by taking valuable lessons from the model of China’s rapid infrastructure development initiatives whereby China seems to have mastered the art of delivering infrastructure projects at godspeed. This was followed by a lively period of discussion and Q&A session between the panellists and members of the audience – truly imbibing the spirit of the Dialogue by topping off with an interactive session in the evening.
The Q & A session started with Ms. Shankari Bhattacharya’s question to Mr. Suvojit Bagchi, on whether there is lack of energy and political will in the Eastern Indian region to materialize firm trade relations with Southeastern China and the second question to Dr. Rajen S. Laishram, when it comes to India’s trade activities with Myanmar and ASEAN countries, did the speaker overlook the achievements of India’s Act East policy in this context?
Mr. Bagchi responded to the question by acknowledging that there is a lack of political will in the Eastern Indian region to establish firm trade relations with Southeastern China and the reasons are primarily twofold. One, there is a fundamental difference in the attitude of the two countries to approach towards trade negotiations. Two, there is a difference in the nature of Centre-State relationship. The Chinese Provinces have their own autonomous Foreign Offices which can make independent decisions on Foreign Policy and Trade Policy. Whereas India lacks such an administrative mechanism and as often is the case India surfers from inner political exigencies which tend to overshadow other interests. Mr. Bagchi acknowledged the role of the Union Government of India’s role in trying to set new agendas and initiatives in the region, and argued to proactively engage with China despite the set of differences. Mr. Bagchi emphasized the need of the hour is for the creation of bigger platforms of engagement which are followed through based on a set of mutual interests, much more engagement is required beyond the level of heads of states of the respective countries.
Dr. Rajen responded to the question that despite several praises for India’s Look East and now transformed into Act East Policy, there is no visible change in reality. The change he suggests only lies in theory. There has been no significant major infrastructure development in the Northeast even after the much talked about India’s Act Policy started to shape in the region. Dr. Rajen pointed out that the onus for development in the Northeastern states should not only lie with India alone, but China as well. The reason being China being a major trade player in the region has it’s own interests in the region. If we really want to initiate integrated market routes in the Northeastern region of India, then the onus of development of infrastructure should be shared with collaborative efforts from both China and India.
The next question of the evening was addressed to Dr. Mohan Guruswamy. How India should devise ways to increase its Foreign Exchange, especially in the context of the Government of India’s initiative of Assemble in India and what is the thinking behind this government’s strategy – is it to assemble in India to increase its foreign exchange or to assemble in India to increase employment generation and focus on domestic growth?
Dr. Guruswamy responded to the question by stating there is no one single route at play behind the vision of Assemble in India. There are multiple factors at play within the dynamics of global and domestic markets. Also, the concern is that India has become very unfriendly for investment recently. India in this light needs to devise better and innovative ways to improve the ease of setting up new businesses within India.
The next question from was addressed to Dr. Guruswamy from Mr. Ashok Dasgupta, that in light of the insightful discussion of the three sessions which way are India and People’s Republic of China heading towards – forwards, or backwards? What lies ahead in terms of trade for these two countries?
Dr. Guruswamy mentioned that the India should first of all deal more realistically with China on the outstanding issues at the border to enhance our bilateral trading capabilities. For the way forward, he proposed India should place its firm focus on internal reforms and it has much to learn from the rapid project delivery systems of China. In light of the deliberations of the aforementioned sessions, Dr. Guruswamy remarked that India has not truly utilised the Northeastern region to its benefit. He further opined the idea of turning several regions of India’s northeastern states to SEZs (Special Economic Zones) to gain the much desired autonomy to boost trade with China in the region.
The final question of the evening was addressed to Mr. Sanjib Kesh on how to address the problems of production spaces in light of integrating Chinese and Indian entrepreneurs in skill development units? The questioner shared her personal experience where she tried to set up a skill-development unit in Siliguri, West Bengal, India with the help of Chinese skill expertise, but she found out that the production spaces were absent for such a venture to materialize. Mr. Kesh addressed the issue of increasing the capacity of production spaces by stating that the technical aspects of scaling up business and production spaces can be facilitated by the several local manufacturing associations who are connected with Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou in China. With respect to the technical aspects of business these local manufacturing associations play a vital role in facilitating entrepreneurs who desire to set up and integrate skill development units with Chinese expertise and local labour units in India.
The lively question and answer session concluded with a vote of thanks by the Chair, Dr. S.K. Mukherjee. This was followed by the commencement of the Valedictory session from 16:00 hrs.