Regardless of competing perceptions on the Indo-US nuclear agreement and the Nuclear Suppliers Group waiver, there seems to be a measure of intense satisfaction that the government of India finally had the guts to tell China where exactly to get off.

The government was right to harbour a grudge. It had apparently received a firm political commitment from the proverbial "highest" quarter that Beijing wouldn't do anything to disrupt the passage of the nuclear deal. To that end, India violated all democratic norms to guarantee the safe passage to the Olympics torch and looked the other way as China played politics by inviting Sonia Gandhi and her clan but not the Prime Minister to the spectacular opening ceremony in Beijing. China reciprocated by exposing its true colours in Vienna.

It is important to comprehend the meaning of China's last-minute petulance at the NSG meeting.Within India the fierce opposition to the nuclear agreement was centred on the curbs on sovereignty and the hidden pre-conditions to uninterrupted fuel supply. Most domestic opponents of the nuclear deal believe that this agreement with the US will stymie the evolution of India as a Big Power capable of engaging the P-5 on equal terms.

The global opposition to the deal was, however, premised on the belief that the return of India to the nuclear mainstream was the first step in the creation of another Big Power. They wanted to tie India down to a stringent non-proliferation regime from which there was no escape route. By joining the global peaceniks in an unprincipled combination, China exposed an important pillar of its foreign policy: the containment of India.

On this occasion the attempt failed. Perhaps, China received some private assurances from the US that Big Brother was mindful of its concerns and would do the needful. Whatever the reasons, there is absolutely no reason to believe Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi's surprise at news reports that China's attitude in Vienna was unfriendly. Equally, there is no reason to be critical of the Government's diplomatic show of displeasure. If a tit-for-tat demarche delivered at 3 am (recall how the Indian Ambassador was summoned at 2.30 am in Beijing), a denial of an appointment to view Mother India and some hostile media questioning serves to inform China of India's displeasure, a small point would have been made. India's foreign policy establishment has in the past gone out of its way to emulate Neville Chamberlain's policy towards Hitler. It is a matter of some relief that on this occasion our government didn't turn the other cheek. Despite the "all is forgiven" announcement by Pranab Mukherjee after three days of frostiness, a snub was at least delivered.

It would, however, be a colossal mistake to assume that China's apparent show of contriteness constitutes the last word on the subject. Blessed with an inordinately long memory, China may have made a tactical retreat but there is nothing to suggest that the fundamentals of its India policy has changed.

The ruling dispensation in Beijing has always had nothing but contempt for India's pious proclamations - dating back to the Bandung conference and the Panchshila agreement - that it regards China as a co-partner in Asia's resurgence. For many in China, India is an upstart that must be constantly reminded of its place. The Communist stereotype of India as the loathsome neighbour which sent soldiers to crush the Boxer rebellion, provided turbaned policemen for the pre-1949 international settlement in Shanghai and, finally, showered the Dalai Lama and Tibetan "splitists" with hospitality, has persisted. Weighed against this historical baggage, the proforma invocations of "civilisational" convergence is hogwash. A few Buddhist scholars and a Cantonese diaspora apart, the Himalayas have been the great wall separating two very distinct civilisations. India has had vibrant contacts with Tibet. Unfortunately, that Tibetan civilisation is on the verge of extinction within the People's Republic. The responsibility for keeping it somewhat alive has fallen on India's shoulders.

The political class in India cannot escape the responsibility for evolving a long-term policy towards China that proceeds from the assumption of Chinese hostility. Yet, a gung-ho approach cannot work. In the past decade, China has complemented its awesome military might with some purposeful economic diplomacy. Global capitalism has become so utterly dependant on China that its ability to act independently is suspect. China has used its staggering $1.8 trillion trade surplus to devastating effect. Australia, to take one example, which was hitherto regarded as a part of the Anglosphere, has become a captive to China's economic expansion. Europe too has become a fruit ripe for Chinese picking. Last week, The Sunday Telegraph (London) revealed that in addition to publicly declared investments, the Chinese government and associated bodies have surreptitiously spent billions acquiring stakes in at least half of the companies in London's FTSE-100 index.

Compared to China's economic muscle, India is still a country with "potential."

Second, China has never been squeamish of using the internal politics of a country as foreign policy leverage. The charge against a section of the Communists being surrogates of China seems difficult to repudiate in the light of the Left conduct over the nuclear deal and in Nepal. More important, Chinese diplomacy has corrupted a section of the Indian establishment with junkets and blandishments. Feigning to be transnational, some Indian companies too have been caught in China's grip.

The war against China's encroachment into the global space cannot be undertaken by any one power. It has to be waged in conjunction with all those threatened by Beijing's hegemonism, including those within China who look to a post-totalitarian future. After the Beijing Olympics, China's self-confidence is at its peak but so is its nationalist arrogance. It is time the free world lowered its threshold of tolerance.

Courtesy: www.expressbuzz.com, September 14, 2008