India-US Ties: Need to Take a Realistic View

Kanwal Sibal, 

Dean, Centre for International Relations and Diplomacy, VIF

India-US relations need to be put back on track. The relationship has lost steam in recent months with many contentious issues surfacing that remain unaddressed. We have now to see whether with the change of government in Delhi a new start can be made. The 5th India-US strategic dialogue on July 31 will provide an occasion to review the state of our bilateral ties. The composition of the US delegation indicates the subjects the US side intends emphasizing. Apart from the US Commerce Secretary, the Deputy Secretary of Energy, the Under Secretary for Homeland Security and the US Envoy for Climate Change will be accompanying Secretary of State John Kerry, who will be visiting Bengaluru, which has cast somewhat as a villain in the US for causing job losses there. It should be useful for Kerry to expose himself to the concerns of the Indian IT industry about immigration reform legislation under consideration in the US, H1B and L1 visas, the totalisation agreement etc.

The challenges ahead will not be easy to overcome. The irritants marking the relationship arose when a “pro-US” Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, was in power, with an economic team with a similar reputation. His government was grappling with development and growth issues and sought US participation in building a strong and modern Indian economy. Indeed, the strategic dialogue, with its five pillars- strategic cooperation, energy and climate change, education and development, economy, trade and agriculture, science and technology, health and innovation- was instituted in 2009, under his watch. Nevertheless, despite the intensification of India-US engagement and the large scope of the bilateral agenda, the feeling grew that the relationship had not lived up to its promise. If despite four previous rounds the relationship became somewhat morose, no breakthroughs can realistically be expected from the fifth one.

To begin with, the US must make an extra effort to establish a relationship of confidence with the new Prime Minister, whom the Americans have treated very shabbily with an obstinacy that makes little political sense. President Obama seemingly established a good personal chemistry with Manmohan Singh; it is unlikely that this will be easily repeated with Narendra Modi, although the US President has reached out to him immediately after his election and welcomed him to Washington, as did Secretary Kerry. Deputy Secretary Burns visited India very recently to personally deliver Obama’s invitation to the Prime Minister. Modi himself has been remarkably large-hearted towards the US, conveying through his decision to quickly visit Washington that he intends to overlook the visa denial insult and move forward to establish a mutually productive relationship in India’s national interest. It is indisputable that a perception of some malaise developing in the India-US relationship complicates some of our external relationships and the management of an overall balance in our foreign policy.

To the extent that these diplomatic signals are watched when a new government takes over in a country headed by a Prime Minister who has the reputation of being focused and decisive and capable of producing results, but whose thinking on foreign policy issues is not known, it would have been noted that the first foreign visit by Modi announced by the government was not to the US. As against this, Modi has reached out exceptionally towards China by allowing the Chinese to stage a diplomatic coup of sorts, especially vis a vis Japan, in having their foreign minister received as the first foreign envoy by him, holding an unusually long conversation over the telephone with his Chinese counterpart and following it with a “very fruitful” meeting with the Chinese President in Brazil who was invited to visit India in September, programming the Indian army chief’s visit to China and that of the Vice-President to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Panchsheel Agreement along with the Myanmarese President, which boosts China’s “peaceful” credentials, enables it to present itself as a benign neighbour to offset its image as a threatening power in the east, and also indirectly signals reduced concern about China’s thrust into Myanmar.

This has implications for our “strategic cooperation” with the US. The Modi government, by intensively engaging China and inviting it to invest in India, has emphatically distanced itself from the US “re-balance” towards Asia. While the trilateral US-Japan-India naval exercises in the Pacific have just been completed and the Indian Navy will no doubt continue to exercise frequently with the US navy in the Indian Ocean, the new government is clearly being responsive to a calculated Chinese charm offensive that, not surprisingly, excludes any softer nuance on its territorial claims on Indian territory. The strategic independence of our China policy is being affirmed.

The upcoming strategic dialogue will hardly bring about any greater congruence between our positions on developments in the troubled Islamic region to our west. The US continues to mishandle Pakistan at our cost. It US has brought about regime changes in various countries through military interventions; it has resorted to suffocating sanctions against Iran, for instance; it is threatening to isolate even a powerful nuclear armed country like Russia by targeting its vulnerabilities. Yet, it is accommodating towards Pakistan, although the latter has been responsible for indirectly inflicting the greatest number of casualties on the US by a friendly country- indeed, a non-NATO ally- because of the safe havens it has provided to the Taliban. The ambiguous way the US deals with Islamic movements, including its outreach to the Taliban and its unwillingness to scotch the dangerous idea of the Islamic Caliphate, is not consonant with our strategic interests. Its current geopolitical compression of Russia is reviving cold war type tensions in Europe that could spread elsewhere if the confrontation with Russia is pursued in a bid to divide Russia from Europe so that US hegemony over Europe through NATO is not diluted. This puts India at odds with the US strategically over Russia with which we have a “special and privileged strategic partnership”.

On the nuclear issue, the BJP, responsible for inserting those provisions in our Nuclear Liability Act that the Americans adamantly object to, will find it that much more difficult to find a legal solution. On defence sales, the new government wants to give priority to local manufacturing and technology transfer. On the latter, the US has the record of being the most restrictive. We cannot also move too much in the US direction as we have defence ties with other “strategic partners” too.

The several irritants on the economic side have contributed most to the perceived loss of élan in the bilateral relationship. Select US corporations have led a campaign, including in the US Congress, against India’s investment, trade and IPR policies, leading, inter alia, to a year-long investigation by the US International Trade Commission and India’s classification as a Priority Watch Country under Section 301 for IPR violations. On our pressing need to obtain massive foreign investments to upgrade our physical infrastructure, not much can be expected from the US. Another limitation is the unwillingness of US companies to work with the public sector. The US uses the strategic dialogue for policy changes in India that would create a business environment tailored to the need of their companies looking for opportunities in the financial, energy, agriculture and environment sectors, for instance. While being demanding on this score, the US is unwilling to address long standing Indian concerns on a number of trade and services issues. On top of this, detracting from their “strategic cooperation” on global issues, India and the US have serious differences within the framework of WTO and Climate Change negotiations, a situation unlikely to change soon given the entrenched US positions and India’s resolve to protect its legitimate interests.

An upset Kerry has already cautioned India that “it has a decision to make about where it fits in the trading system”, and that India’s willingness to support a rules based trading order and fulfill its obligations would help it to get US and global investments. He has called upon India to give greater space to private initiative, to be more open to capital flows, to limit subsidies that stifle competition and provide strong IPR protection for attracting more US companies to India. He has a vision of expanding India-US trade to US $ 500 billion a year.

Unrelated to the strategic dialogue but relevant to political atmosphere of our ties, the sanctimonious State Department has issued its 2013 report criticizing India’s “restrictive” religious laws. It is time the US ceased being the moral policeman of the world and showed restraint in criticizing countries like India who have a civilizational record of religious tolerance that the US itself lacks.

All in all, we have to take a realistic view of the scope of our “strategic partnership” with the US and not be beguiled by rhetoric, much as we must seek to build strong bridges with that country in pursuit of our larger national interest.

---

Published Date: 29^th July 2014, Image source: http://www.indiawrites.org

(Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Vivekananda International Foundation)

India - China Cultural Interface: An Agenda for Future

Brig (retd) Vinod Anand 

(Senior Fellow, VIF) 

Dr. Anirban Ganguly 

(Associate Fellow, VIF) 

Linked Through Civilisation & Culture

Both India and have China have fascinated each other - culturally, religiously and civilisationally – over the past two millennia. Across the centuries the two great civilisations have continually communicated with each other and until recent times had seen a peaceful co-existence ‘for over two thousand years.’ As Indian historian of world civilisations, D.P.Singhal observes, ‘this amicable relationship may have been nurtured by the close historical and religious ties of Buddhism introduced to China by Indian monks at a very early stage of their respective histories.’ (India and World Civilisation, vol.1 London, 1969). Chinese scholars in search of wisdom and deeply motivated by the quest of knowledge undertook some of the most arduous continental journeys to India. Indian scholars and teachers similarly travelled to China, taught there, were revered, feted and established themselves as knowledge-lighthouses. The civilisational exchange and interface thus began and was enhanced by centuries of interaction. In fact India and China formed a formidable civilisational and cultural coalition long before the rise of the West. One of India’s veteran diplomat and sometime foreign secretary, K.P.S.Menon (1898-1982) once put the relation in perspective when he said that, ‘The hall mark of intercourse of Sino-Indian relations is cultural intercourse and affinity. The two great peoples, wedded to civilized living in the ways of peace, naturally find in the exchange of culture the truest expression of their being. Not for them the covetous eyes of neither rapacious plunder nor territorial aggrandizement.’ (‘My Tribute to Tan-Yun-Shan’ in Tan Chung ed., In the Footsteps of Xuanzang: Tan Yun-Shan and India, New Delhi, 1999).

Economic and cultural exchanges between the two civilisations have been traced back at least to the Qin (221-206BC) and Han (202BC-220AD) dynasties. The celebrated epics of India, Ramayana and Mahabharata, contain numerous references to China. The Mahabharata in fact ‘refers to China several times’ and mentions, for example, the presents brought by the Chinese for the Rajasuya Yagna (coronation) of the Pandavas. The famous Arthasastra, Manusmriti too mentions China. Legendary historian of Asian civilisations René Grousset (1885-1952) argued that the name China came ‘from an ancient Sanskrit name for the regions to the east, and not, as often supposed, from the name of the state of Ch’in.’ It would be interesting to look at some of these suggestions made on the origins of the name from the civilisational contact dimension. The Sanskrit name Cina, it has been proposed, may have been inspired from the small state of that name Chan-si (Shan-si) in the northwest of China, which thrived in the fourth century B.C. Pointing at another cue, other scholars have argued that the Greek word for China ‘Tzinista’, may have been derived from the Sanskrit Chinasthana. (Singhal, op.cit) ‘I see no reason to doubt," commented sinologist Arthur Waley (1889-1966) in his book, The Way and its Power, "that the 'holy mountain-men' (sheng-hsien) described by Lieh Tzu are Indian rishi; and when we read in Chuang Tzu of certain Taoists who practiced movements very similar to the asanas of Hindu yoga, it is at least a possibility that some knowledge of the yoga technique which these rishi used had also drifted into China.’ (Cited in Singhal, op.cit) 

Over ten centuries ago, Chinese monks Xuan Zang (Hsuan Tsang) and Fa Xian (Fa Hsien) journeyed to India for Buddhist scriptures and knowledge while renowned Indian monks Kumarajiva and Bodhidharma spread Buddhist teachings in China. In modern times Professor Tan Yun-Shan (1898-1983), the indefatigable director of the Cheena Bhavan at Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan symbolised the continuance of this ancient civilisational-cultural quest through his life and mission. In what can perhaps be termed as one of the most significant description and tribute to these common cultural and civilisational ties between the two countries, Tan Yun-Shan while addressing scholars and students at Santiniketan in the presence of Rabindranath Tagore observed:

India and China are naturally a pair of sister countries. Their similarities and their associations are great, numerous, and intimate. Looking over the geography and history of all the nations in the world, we find there are not any other two nations that can be compared to our two countries. This is true from every respect and from every standard of observation and judgment. Our two countries, both situated in the bright and glorious continent of Asia. India to the south-west and China to the north-east, spread out lordly in different directions but yet are linked up at the main line, just like the two wheels of a carriage or the two wings of a bird, and, even better to say, like the two hands and feet or the two ears and eyes of a person. And the Himalayas, gigantic and majestic, brilliant and magnificent, exactly resemble the common backbone, or the shoulders, or the neck, and also the nerve system of theirs. Though their boundaries are marked off, yet the physical shape is similar. (‘Cultural Interchanges between India and China’ in Tan-Chung, op.cit.) 

Renewing the Link

For historical and geopolitical reasons there was a hiatus in this civilisational interaction while both India and China suffered the effects of colonialism and Western imperialism. It brought about an interruption, a break and an eventual cessation in this interaction. Both were preoccupied in dealing with and then resisting colonial and imperialist forces. But even here the link had not completely ceased. China and India extended each other mutual support in the fight against colonial rule and the struggle for national independence and liberation. In 1937, the Indian National Congress issued a statement condemning the Japanese invasion of China. Doctor Dwarkanath Kotnis travelled all the way to China as a member of an Indian medical aid team and devoted his life to the cause of the liberation of the Chinese people. As a leading light of the University of Calcutta, Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, later to become Industries Minister in free India’s first cabinet, facilitated academic and cultural exchange between the two countries by inviting scholars from China to come and stay in Calcutta and study Indian culture and languages. After liberation, a period saw some progress at trying to renew this link. 

In the 1950s, China-India relations developed smoothly and the two countries co-initiated the famous Panchsheel, the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence, which are still recognised as the basic principles of international relations. But other political and historical issues intervened and interrupted for long decades this phase of cultural re-forging.

But eventually a process of recovery started. Thanks to their joint efforts, China and India diplomatic, trade and people-to-people exchanges were revived in the mid-1970s. The Indian Prime Minister’s visit to China in 1988 made a breakthrough in bilateral relations. In the 1990s, high-level visits between the two countries increased, and cooperation in various fields made steady progress. Two agreements were signed for the maintenance of peace and tranquillity and confidence-building measures in their border areas. In May 1998 came the Agreement on Cultural Cooperation which provided for the implementation of an executive Cultural Exchange Programme (CEP). Thereafter CEPs have been signed which provides for cooperation in a gamut of cultural areas including exchanges of visits of artists, officials, writers, archivists and archaeologists, organising cultural festivals, exchanges in the field of mass media, youth affairs and sports. In June 2003, a MoU was signed on reciprocal basis for setting up of Cultural Centres in the two capitals. 

In a symbolic continuation of this gradual progress in further reactivating cultural ties in 2007, the restored Xuanzang Memorial Hall was inaugurated at Nalanda, in Bihar. The then Chinese foreign minister who led a 110 member delegation to the ceremony had then underlined the need for the two countries to work together, ‘Let us begin from this beautiful example’ he had then said. The 'Year of China-India Tourism Friendship' in 2007 was also launched. In May 2010 an Indian-style Buddhist Temple in the International Garden on the west side of the White Horse Temple in Luoyang, which was built by India over a period of five years, was dedicated to the people of China. Combining ancient principles of design and modern technology, the Rs.18 crore edifice was a unique gift from India and represented a bridge to the 2000 years old civilisational ties between the two people. While inaugurating the temple the then President of India had observed that, ‘"Luoyang is widely considered to be a cradle of the Chinese civilisation.... Historically it (the White Horse temple) has the unique distinction of symbolising an intermingling of Indian and Chinese cultures…I am confident that the Indian-styled temple will also be perceived by generations to come as a testimony of our friendship.’ 

A Centre for Indian Studies was also inaugurated in Peking University and Shenzhen University in consideration of an annual Visiting Chair in the Humanities and Social Sciences on 18 June 2008. The first visiting Indian professor has taken over the assignment in Shenzhen University. A bilateral Education Exchange Programme (EEP) also exists for exchange of scholars, mutual recognition of academic degrees, cooperation in the field of teachers training, exchanges between higher education institutions, and exchanges of Hindi and Chinese language teachers. Some Chinese universities and educational institutions have also entered into MoUs for information, faculty and student exchanges with Indian counterparts. An increasing number of Chinese students are also going to India for undergraduate studies. The two governments also annually offer 25 scholarships each under the CEP, though meagre and in need for urgent numerical revision, this was also a step forward in cementing academic collaboration. 

Some travelling exhibitions by both sides have been organised in each other’s cities to promote cultural awareness. The Governments of India and China have also organised the ‘Festival of India’ in China and the ‘Festival of China’ in India. Perhaps the time has now come for both India and China, aspiring to re-emerge as great powers on the world stage, to actively renew and reinvent those past cultural and historic links. Both have in them huge cultural reservoirs that could considerably enhance their emergence. A few pointers to possible measures in this direction can perhaps further facilitate the exploration for cultural cooperation and interface.

Future Pathways

The following are recommendations which, if implemented, would strengthen India-China cultural relationship so that geo-cultural paradigm becomes the dominating theme rather that the geo-political paradigm between the two great civilisations.

1. A Joint Cultural-Cooperation-Committee (JCCC) could be officially set up to look into developing a framework of extensive and intensive cultural cooperation with a long term objective in mind. Without a joint framework cultural cooperation initiatives will lack a defined objective and systematic progress. The respective Ministries of Culture should be tasked to take this forward. In India an officer at the level of Joint Secretary can be made responsible for coordinating and monitoring the entire effort. Eminent personalities from the field of culture, academia and media will be members of this Committee. Various joint sub-committees can be formed to take forward the work in the areas enumerate below. These sub-committees will periodically report to the nodal central JCCC the progress of projects undertaken. 
2. A systematic programme for collaboration between leading Cultural organisations on either side needs to be drawn up. Mere travelling exhibitions will not suffice. The formation of a Cultural Exhibition Expert Committee with members from both countries to look into the conceptualizing, planning and coordinating of these exhibitions can be an interesting step forward in this. Leading curators and art historians from either side could be involved in the work. 
3. Increased Museum to Museum contacts, diversification of exhibitions to areas such as: handicrafts, textiles, music, artifacts, artisanal exchanges, exhibitions of cultural products from rural India and some other areas. India is rich in such diverse products and the experience for the Chinese can be really enriching. A Joint-Museum Committee can be formed to oversee this aspect. 
4. Festivals of China in India and vice versa can be planned more frequently with increased scope. The Indian Council of Cultural Relations (ICCR) is doing something in this regard but this needs to be further enhanced and diversified. Popularisation of Chinese culture in India and Indian culture in China should be the principal objective of this exercise. 
5. Joint effort in preserving tangible heritage can be undertaken. India and China can take initiative in providing expertise in preservation heritage monuments that symbolise India-China cultural and civilisational link. Sites such as these can be identified all over India and China and a joint collaborative group can be set up to study the status of these and the possibilities of cooperation in their preservation. 
6. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) and leading Indian institutions such as the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) can develop a series of collaborative efforts in various areas of research on Chinese and Indian societal evolution and issues. The Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), the apex body for historical research in India, can also draw up a series of collaborative projects with leading Chinese institutions of historical research. Exchange of scholars, collaborative projects on preservations and dissemination of manuscripts that highlight past cultural exchanges, forming a joint databank bank of these can be undertaken and then further diversified. It may be an interesting area where an increased cultural cooperation can make an impact. India’s flagship effort in this direction, the National Mission for Manuscripts (NMM) is already doing work in the area of preserving and discovering historical manuscripts and epigraphical material. Collaboration with the NMM will enrich the epigraphical reserves of both the countries. The Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (IGNCA) in New Delhi has also been working in this area especially in highlighting and studying the India-China cultural link. The IGNCA has been collecting material on past Chinese scholars who were fascinated by India and contributed to the understanding of the two people and civilisations. It has for instance, extensively chronicled and documented the works of Professor Tan Yuan Shan, a true cultural Ambassador of China in India. Efforts could be made to further document and commemorate such past initiatives. Universities in both countries that have cultural studies centres need to collaborate and create a consortium of such centres. 
7. China has been taking great initiative in supporting India’s efforts at creating the new Nalanda International University. The aim was to revive the ancient seat of Buddhist learning in the present day Bihar, as a modern centre of knowledge. A similar sister project could be conceived in China in some ancient Buddhist or Confucian seat of learning, or any other historical area closely identified with the growth of China as a great civilisation. India could be asked to take initiative in setting up such a university in collaboration with the Chinese ministry of education. Gradually neighbouring countries can also be invited to be part of the cultural-educational initiative. Such a project may not necessarily be a university but can be conceived of as a centre of cultural research and education that will impart special courses on Indian and Chinese culture, language and civilisation and may also confer recognised degrees. In short, it may become a centre for training and developing cultural ambassadors for both countries. 
8. Media Study Centres can be set up in leading Universities in either country. Collaborative efforts at documentary production, educational film making and even mainstream film industries in both countries can be explored. 
9. A lot can be learnt from China’s model of sports and physical education. The Beijing Olympics has demonstrated that much could be learnt from the Chinese model and retailored to Indian conditions and objectives. A close and dynamic cooperation framework between the two sports ministries could be worked out in this respect. The Sports Authority of India (SAI) can take a leading initiative in this matter. Since India has a struggling programme of general physical education, the Chinese model can be studied for its adaptability to India. Systematic exchange programmes of physical education experts, coaches and leading sports personalities can take place with a defined schedule to be followed. In the early 1950s India had implemented such an exchange programme with the then USSR and it had a remarkable effect in increasing the interest in sports in the country. 

The above are but broad pointers which, if given adequate and sustained thought and planning, could launch and further strengthen efforts at civilisational bridge-building. The India-China cultural interface’s agenda for the future offers a varied scope for collaboration and exchange. A dynamic outreach and initiative must come from both sides in order to take the collaboration to the next stage. Such a step would certainly be for a larger purpose and benefit. Professor Tan Yun-Shan perhaps foresaw the future when he said, pointing to this need: 

We Indians and Chinese must wake up at once, and restore our old national relationship. By the interchange of our cultures we shall achieve our cultural renaissance; by cultural renaissance we shall create a new world civilization; and by the new civilization we shall relieve all mankind. Our two countries having made a glorious world in the past, can't we make again a glorious world in the future? 

 ٭ The above text is an updated and modified version of the presentation made at Shenzen University, PRC during the conference “The Fourth China-South Asia Cultural Forum” organized by Chinese People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries from November, 14-17, 2012 at Centre for Indian Studies, Shenzen University.