Two recent gestures by People's Republic of China took the Indian Communists by surprise. First, it made an offer to India to help it crush the Maoist insurgency. The same day it pledged nearly $1 million worth of military assistance to Nepal in its fight against the Maoist rebels.

The Indian Communists have condoned the Maoist insurgency in India (except in West Bengal where the radicals have called for the overthrow of the Left Front Government) and championed its cause in Nepal. Do these come across as 'Chinese puzzles' from Beijing?

The Chinese Ambassador to India, Mr Sun Yuxi, recently dropped a bombshell by offering to help New Delhi in suppressing its nagging Maoist insurgency. Some might wonder what prompted the emissary of People's Republic of China founded by Mao Tse-Tung to disown those who scrupulously follow Mao's blueprint in India. Mao, during the Korean War (1950-53) that began within one year of the Chinese Revolution, had recklessly thrown two million soldiers against the US-led UN forces to fortify Communist North Korea. Nearly one million Chinese soldiers (including his only healthy son Mao Anying) had perished in that war. In 1950 itself China had helped arm North Vietnam's communist regime of Ho Chi Minh.

Paradoxically, China had invaded India when Nehru had made friendship with China an article of faith. In fact, had China not given that unexpected jolt to India, Nehru would have handed over this country to a Communist mafia. But today India is an economic and diplomatic rival to China. India is also a nuclear power and Beijing is within the striking range of Agni-III missile. What explains China's charitable view towards India? Should not China want to see India's resurgent power eroded from within due to Naxalite and jihadi violence? China would have achieved its objective without firing a shot. It would have left China free to consolidate its position in entire South-East Asia, from South China Sea to Asia Pacific.

Those who find in this a clever Chinese tactic to infiltrate its spies into India have a point. But they miss the wood for the trees. Post-Mao, China is propelled by larger self-interest in seeing the end of the Maoist menace. The Chinese envoy has conveyed Beijing's displeasure over these radical Communist terrorists calling themselves Maoists. They have no strings attached to Beijing. China, if Mr Sun Yuxi is to be believed, wonders at these insurgents who call themselves Maoists and admits it can do little about it.

First, take the instance of Nepal where Chinese actions are driven by strategic concerns. The Chinese are always more pragmatic than idealistic; that is how PRC has survived whereas the USSR didn't. Beijing and Nepalese monarchy, notwithstanding their ideological differences, enjoy cordial relations. China feels it has outlived periods of mass upheavals like the Japanese invasion, the Chinese Revolution, the Korean War, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution.

Deng Xiaoping gave China a new orientation when he said, "It's glorious to be rich," and, 'It matters not whether the cat is red or white, as long as it catches mice." China, under the aegis of Communist Party, adopted market economy. And, for a man who has amassed wealth after passing through many privations and ordeals of life, it's natural not to want a throw-back. Hence China is least interested in giving the Maoists of Nepal a fillip. It would only stir up discontent and destabilise the neighbourhood. China knows from its experience of the Cultural Revolution that revolutions degenerate into hooliganism.

China has consistently provided the Royal Nepalese Army, fiercely loyal to the monarchy, with military hardware. But like China's real defence budget, its precise details are rarely publicised. In June 2004 (seven months before King Gyanendra proclaimed Emergency in response to growing Maoist threat), Nepalese Chief of Army Staff General Pyar Jung Thapa undertook a weeklong tour of Beijing and met China's Defence Minister General Cao Gangchuan and General Liang Guanglie, chief of staff of the People's Liberation Army.

This time as well, General Thapa's visit to Beijing at the invitation of People's Liberation Army resulted in eight million yuan (nearly $1 million) of military assistance. China, to quote General Thapa, has promised similar military assistance in 2006 as well. General Thapa's visit to Beijing preceded by a visit of Nepalese Foreign Minister Ramesh Nath Pandey. It resulted in Chinese financial assistance of $12.43 million without strings attached.

Indian Foreign Minister K Natwar Singh, on the other hand, during his stopover at Kathmandu, quibbled with his Nepalese counterpart over the roadmap to restore multiparty democracy. He was not interested in learning how far the monarchy had succeeded in taming the Maoists. The Maoists of India and Nepal have a coordinated strategy that aims at overthrowing 'reactionary' regimes in both Kathmandu and New Delhi. Did this not merit a discussion in meeting between two foreign ministers?

While the Government of India is aiming for a multi-party democracy in Nepal, its ally, the CPI(M), makes no bones about supporting a Maoist revolution in Nepal. CPI(M)'s general secretary Prakash Karat had even met Nepal Maoist chief Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda) secretly in Nepal last May.

Beijing, in contrast to New Delhi's alarmist position, dismissed King Gyanendra's proclamation of Emergency on February 8 last as Nepal's internal matter. It seems plausible that an understanding had already been arrived at between the Nepal Government and PRC. Nepal, accordingly, had closed down the Dalai Lama's office. China responded by starting a direct Lhasa-Kathmandu bus service.

The reason why China wishes India and Nepal to get rid of the Maoists is more than merely strategic; it's psychological as well. Let's look at it this way. Mao is instinctively associated with China all over the world. Violence and anarchy anywhere in the world perpetrated in the name of Mao reflects negatively on the image of China. Investors in the West might shirk away from China fearing throwback to Maoism.

The brand equity of China suffers. Since Deng Xiaoping China has revised its economic policies without officially criticising Mao, who is the undisputed maker of PRC, still held in the highest esteem. But in reality China has left Mao behind. During Mao's rule, China had supported Left-wing radicals in India. But China has today distanced itself from every kind of Communism in India. It is least interested in the idealistic madness of putting the cart before the horse.

Second, the Chinese psyche is highly sensitive to historical association. Gordan Chang in The Coming Collapse of China (2002) relates a humorous anecdote. A Toshiba laptop (made in Japan) bought by a Chinese doesn't work; as a result, the showroom in Shanghai stops vending Japanese products. It is no longer a simple case of laptop but a matter of history; the Japanese committed numerous atrocities on Chinese during the invasion of Manchuria. History, for Chinese, lies beneath the skin.

Maoism gets immediately associated with Chairman Mao. It is present more, perhaps, in Chinese psychology than in the mind of West although that is also a matter of apprehension. The clash of Communism is not a new phenomenon. One remembers in 1978 how Pol Pot's rabidly Maoist dictatorship killed 1.2 million people in Cambodia, and was eventually put to an end only by invasion of another Communist regime, North Vietnam. Perhaps things may not go that far in Nepal. China wants stability in Nepal more than its love of Maoism. And it despises Maoism in India more than it could ever despise India.

(The writer, a Rajya Sabha MP and Convener of BJP's think-tank, can be contacted at bpunj@email.com)

Courtesy: The Pioneer, November 04, 2005