|
Round The World
New Delhi, 19
August 2009
A
Balkanized India?
CHINA TESTING WATERS
By Prof.
Chintamani Mahapatra
(School of International Studies, JNU)
The
British came, ruled India
for about two centuries, divided it into two independent countries and left.
The crafty British never ever conceived the idea of thirty or so independent
nation-states in the sub-continent.
It is
interesting but also noteworthy that a Chinese scholar from the Chinese International
Institute of Studies has come up with a devious suggestion to engineer
Balkanization of India with the help of smaller South Asian neighbours.
Posted on
the web page of the CIIS, the write-up provides a roadmap to the Chinese
Government to rope in countries, such as Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan
and organizations, such as the United Liberation Front of Assam and
secessionist-minded Tamil and Naga nationalist groups to break up India into
pieces and establish a host of independent entities.
Is it a wild
conjecture of a lackadaisical think-tank specialist? Is it representative of
Chinese thinking on India?
Does it reflect the views of the Chinese think-tank? Does it have tacit backing
of the Chinese PLA? Has the Chinese Government allowed uploading of such an
article as a trial balloon to figure out Indian reaction?
One thing
is certain that the author of such an article is neither a wacky specialist nor
an innocent analyst. This is a highly-motivated article, apparently with the tacit
approval of a section of the Chinese Government. In an authoritarian
country ruled by the Communist Party, a PLA backed think-tank cannot just allow
any rubbish to be written and disseminated.
The quick
response of the Union Government and the reaction of the Communist Party of
India, among others, also clearly indicate that a responsible section of the Indian
political leadership has taken serious note of this article.
Clearly,
the timing of the uploading of the article in the web page of the Chinese
think-tank is critical. Pakistan,
China’s
one of the most-trusted strategic ally, is a rapidly failing State. Discussion
over the possible implosion of the Pakistani
State was recently held in various
parts of the globe, including in the United States. It is quite likely
that a pro-Pakistan strategic analyst thought it appropriate to float the idea
of a divided India
to ring a bell that it is also equally vulnerable to fissiparous tendencies.
Was it an indirect way of telling Pakistan
that China was on its side
and that if Pakistan
at all implodes, Indian hands could be suspected. China
then would work towards turning India
into a big bunch of independent republics.
Interestingly,
this article is also the product of a time when China
itself has been facing revolts in the periphery against heavy-handed approach
of the central government to suppress cultural freedom and expression in
places, such as Tibet
and Urunqi.
Another
coincidence of timing is the growing Chinese apprehension about rising defence,
security and technological collaboration between India
and the United States.
While New Delhi continues to buy Russian-made
weapons and so does China,
the US
appears to be more open to the Indian requests for arms and weapons rather than
the Chinese. In fact, US-China relations
are robust mostly in areas of trade, investment and some political matters and
Washington does not yet have a strong weapons and arms cooperation relationship
with Beijing. Some in Beijing fears that India may be co-opted by the US in a scheme of encircling or containing China.
Whatever
may be the real motivation behind penning such a web page article, the author’s
knowledge about India,
its history and current state of socio-economic realities appears to be
half-baked and superficial. The article claims that India, as a nation, never really
existed in history. Did China
in its current form ever exist in history? Did Germany,
Italy, Britain, Pakistan exist in their current
forms in history? How did China
look like during the 19th Century when several European powers had
established their spheres of influence in the country? In fact, there was no
country called Pakistan—China’s current
strategic ally—before 1947.
The author
discusses issues of social justice in India. Does the Chinese Government
allow people to have free access to internet and information about the outside
world? Are the fifty-plus ethnic minorities groups in China treated
with equal dignity? Are they allowed to practice their culture, tradition and
customs freely? Do the Muslim and Christian religious minorities in China exercise
their religious freedom?
What
explains the revolt in Tibet
in 2008 and Xinjiang in 2009 and the heavy handed suppression of Tibetans and
Uighurs? Why have more than 1,00,000 Tibetan exiles in India been reluctant to return to a China that is
more prosperous and more powerful than about three decades ago?
The
Chinese scholar first needs to address problems at home before advocating
engineered disintegration of India.
He should realize that Assamese and others in India
are well aware of Chinese approach to people in Xinjiang, Tibet
and elsewhere. And that none of the Indian groups have migrated to China, unlike Tibetans in India, asking
for political asylum and support.
The Chinese
scholar should also remind himself that given an opportunity, Tibet, Xinjiang, Macao, Hong Kong, Inner Mongolia and Taiwan would
love to have their independent existence.
It is
surprising that the Chinese Government which used tanks and killed several
pro-democracy demonstrators is yet to take action against a scholar who
advocates breaking up another nation. Is Beijing
now promoting freedom of expression? In any case, this is not freedom, it is
license.
If the
Chinese Government does not appropriately respond to it, an attentive public in
India would begin to
remember the anti-India propaganda and activities promoted by Beijing
in South Asia not so long ago. Clearly, such writings in China would undoubtedly adversely affect a
relationship between two Asian giants, which is critical to maintain a peaceful
environment in Asia. Is it not the Chinese
Government’s stated objective to work towards a peaceful environment which
alone can promote domestic growth and development? ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News and Feature Alliance)
|
Archives 
