India’s diplomacy has a ‘S. Jaishankar problem’ | Deleted Article by GlobalTimes

Deleted Article by GlobalTimes (Auspices of the Chinese Communist Party’) : https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202409/1319479.shtml

Recently, there have been some positive signs in the relationship between China and India. High-level diplomatic dialogues and interactions between the two sides have increased. On July 4 and July 25, Member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar in Astana and Vientiane, respectively. In recent years, it is rare for the foreign ministers of the two countries to meet twice within a month. Meanwhile, the pace of consultations and resolutions regarding border issues between China and India is also accelerating. The 30th and 31st meetings of the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on China-India Border Affairs were held in New Delhi and Beijing on July 31 and August 29, respectively. Both sides “further narrowed differences and expanded consensus,” aiming to “reach a mutually acceptable solution at an early date.”

India has also begun to signal adjustments in its relationship with China. Indian media reports indicate that the Indian government may have started moving on approving investments from Chinese companies in India and is likely to expedite the processing of visas for Chinese technicians. Against this backdrop, public opinion in India is also gradually shifting in favor of improving China-India relations. In particular, there appears to be a certain level of consensus among various parties in India regarding the necessity of restoring economic contacts with China.

However, against this backdrop, Jaishankar made some rather shocking remarks. On August 31, during the World Leaders Forum hosted by the Economic Times of India, he stated: “There is a general China problem. We are not the only country in the world which is having a debate about China,” noting that the issue is also prominent in Europe and the US. However, he clarified that India’s situation is distinct, given its direct border issues with China. “India has a China problem… a special China problem that is over and above the world’s general China problem.”

Jaishankar’s remarks, on the surface, seem to defend India’s China policy in recent years. Their internal logic is as follows: Because China is “bad guy,” it has created a “China problem” for all countries, and India’s China problem is no exception. Consequently, India has adopted a series of anti-China policies, such as “decoupling,” in recent years, which are precautionary measures and certainly wise ones. In essence, Jaishankar’s statement had ulterior motives. By deliberately discrediting China and highlighting the existence of an international “anti-China coalition,” he implied that India’s past anti-China policies merely followed the trend. However, inadvertently, he revealed his complex feelings of “envy, jealousy and hate” toward China. His various descriptions of the “unique” nature of China’s political and economic systems further suggest that he is trying to portray China as an “alien” in the international community and to foster an “anti-China alliance” by advocating the “China threat theory.”

The timing of Jaishankar’s remarks is quite puzzling. On August 29, 31st Meeting of Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on China-India Border Affairs made positive progress, with both sides giving favorable reviews of the results. The reason behind Jaishankar’s comments might be his fear of the gradual improvement in China-India relations. As Indian analyst Pravin Sawhney pointed out, “one powerful section of the Modi government opines that ties with China should be normalized. Another powerful section led by Jaishankar believes that normalization of relations with China would jeopardize India’s ties with the US, which is unacceptable. The Prime Minister is undecided since he wants to have his cake and eat it too.”

The momentum in improving China-India relations might have also made Jaishankar afraid. On one hand, it suggests that the diplomatic strategy he has led over the past four years might have been flawed and is now being gradually adjusted. On the other hand, he is concerned about pleasing the US, aware that the current US strategic focus is on China, and that improving China-India relations could displease Washington. Previously, to offset the impact of Modi’s visit to Moscow on US-India relations, he hastened to promote a visit to Kiev by Modi. This, however, resulted in dissatisfaction from both Moscow and Kiev, only mildly comforting Washington.

In India, there are many “China experts,” like Jaishankar, who are considered authoritative on issues related to China in India simply because their past work involved some connection to China or East Asia. In reality, they often lack a true understanding of China and may not even grasp India’s fundamental national conditions and interests. For instance, Jaishankar claims there is a “China problem” and that China works in a very different way. In fact, many countries believe that the “India problem” is the real problem, with India being the one that operates in a very different way, making it difficult to deal with. Jaishankar argues that banning Chinese telecom technology is necessary for security reasons, but is American technology truly secure? So far, we haven’t heard of any “Huawei scandal,” but we are all aware of the PRISM scandal revealed by Edward Snowden.

It is always difficult to prove the authenticity or falsification of the high-profile statements made by Jaishankar on China. They are quite deceptive in the field of international public opinion. For example, he said the Global South countries placed their trust in India and China skipped two meetings convened by India last year to listen to their concerns. Then, on another occasion, he admitted that China was not among the invitees of such summits. If China was not invited to the Global South conference hosted by India, and then India accused China of not participating in it, how did India come to the conclusion that China does not pay attention to the countries of the Global South? The logic behind this is probably something only Jaishankar can understand.

Jaishankar’s diplomatic wrangling has won him some “fans.” However, the diplomatic strategies and tactics he led were full of tricks – they had neither the moral sense of Jawaharlal Nehru’s diplomacy nor the ethic sense of Indira Gandhi’s diplomacy. India’s diplomacy under the guidance of Jaishankar has set tricks on all countries, and what it has ultimately gained is other countries’ tricks on India.

As minister of external affairs, Jaishankar’s priority seems not to be national interests. Although he now seems to be very active in “decoupling” with the Chinese economy and not willing to see the strengthening of China-India economic cooperation, he would change his position if necessary. When he retired and got an appointment in the Tata Group, because Tata needed to develop business with China, he worked hard to promote cooperation between Tata and China. Many politicians in India just use the country as a tool for personal gain. They do not take the long-term interests of the country seriously. In fact, this is the “real problem” of India’s diplomacy now, and it can be called the “S. Jaishankar problem.”

Regarding China-India relations, China’s policy has always been clear and consistent. China’s attitude toward improving China-India relations is positive and forward-looking. When Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with Jaishankar, he proposed the “five mutuals” (mutual respect, mutual understanding, mutual trust, mutual accommodation and mutual accomplishment) for the two neighboring countries to correctly get along with each other. Compared with the “three mutuals” (mutual respect, mutual sensitivity and mutual interest) proposed by Jaishankar to maintain the development of bilateral relations, Wang’s proposals not only have similarities in essence, but also transcend and position higher and farther-reaching. As the two most populous countries in the world, it is not enough for China-India relations to just stay at the “three mutuals.” Only by understanding the “five mutuals” can we truly promote the improvement and development of China-India relations.