Did a junior Chinese diplomat wave Beijing’s ‘olive branch’ at EAM Jaishankar?

It is not always that a diplomat from one country shoots a question to a veteran from a purportedly ‘adversarial nation’. It is even more rare if the question is fired at the foreign minister of that adversarial nation, that too, a person with long years as a career diplomat, including a stint in the country of the junior diplomat — and at a public function, to boot. The fact is that Chinese diplomats do not say or do things without express instructions from HQ.

Such a rarity occurred at a media event organised by a leading Indian newspaper in capital New Delhi the other day. The questioner was Zhou Yongsheng, political counsellor at the Chinese embassy in New Delhi. The respondent happened to be Dr Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, India’s External Affairs Minister (EAM), who has been increasingly acknowledged as a key international interlocutor, of course representing his government and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The question was on how China and India, as ‘important neighbours’, could find common interests and be partners instead of being rivals, Pat came the reply: ‘I think it’s in our common interest that we should not have that many forces on the LAC, it’s in our common interest that we should observe agreements that we have. And today, it’s not just in common interest. I believe it’s in China’s interest as well.’

The EAM did not stop there. He referred to the strong troop presence on either side of the LAC for four years now, and had this to say: ‘The tension has not served either of us well. So the sooner we resolve it, I genuinely believe it’s good for both of us. And I’m still very much committed to finding a fair, reasonable outcome. But one which is respectful of agreements, which recognises the LAC, and doesn’t seek to change the status quo.’

Jaishankar made an even more pointed observation on domestic politics and border disputes. When asked if the Modi leadership would get more empowered to talk on the issue with more seats in the current Lok Sabha elections, He was reported to have said: ‘To me, the territory of India and the fairness of a boundary solution has nothing to do with how many seats. Either it’s a good deal or not a good deal. The issue today is not whether you have a political majority or not. It is whether you have a fair deal on the table, that is the issue.’

With this in a succinct way, the minister underscored how the border dispute with China was a ‘national concern’ for India, independent of whoever ruled and whichever party had whatever majority in Parliament. At the event in which envoys of Australia, Bhutan, Germany, Indonesia and Nepal, among diplomatic representatives from many other countries participated, he disclosed how he has remained in touch with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, whom he has known for many years, on many of these issues. ‘We have been constantly in touch. Even on the morning after the Galwan incident, he was the person I spoke to,’ Jaishankar said, reiterating the present situation at the LAC was ‘very tense and dangerous’.

Assertive counter

Ironically, China purportedly waved the proverbial olive branch or at least an olive leave, if that was it, days after raising objections to Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh, the whole of which is in India’s possession but which Beijing claims as its own. In an assertive retort, Randhir Jaiswal, the official spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) dismissed the Chinese objections — and by extension, their claims over Arunachal — and said that the state ‘was, is and will’ always be an integral part of India.

It was an assertive counter as always — that in any future border talks, if and when revived, Arunachal Pradesh was non-negotiable and should be kept out of the agenda for future talks. Otherwise, India does acknowledge the need for reviving talks, but beginning with the restoration of normalcy and status quo ante at Galwan and elsewhere, where the Chinese military violated the ground situation in 2020.

As coincidence would have it, two days before EAM Jaishankar’s response to the Chinese diplomat in Delhi, the US Director-General of Intelligence (DNI), in a report, raised concerned over a potential armed conflict between India and China, as the two sides are known to have amassed 50,000 troops each since the Galwan episode. As is known, China has been relocating ‘civilian population’ in the new villages created on the other side of the Galwan post and elsewhere, thus adding to the prevailing tension.

Citing sporadic encounters between their militaries as a risk for miscalculation and escalation, the report said, ‘While the two sides have not engaged in significant cross-border clashes since 2020, they are maintaining large troop deployments, and sporadic encounters between opposing forces risk miscalculation and escalation into armed conflict.’ In this context, the US report also pointed to China’s ambitions to establish overseas military bases, particularly in Sri Lanka and Pakistan. This move is seen as part of China’s broader strategy to project power and safeguard its interests beyond its borders.

Terrorism, first

Incidentally, EAM Jaishankar’s two-hour media discussion with the hosts in New Delhi had also covered very many issues and ideas, including India’s equally adversarial western neighbour, Pakistan. On bilateral relations with Islamabad, Jaishankar stressed that ‘terrorism’ has to be brought to the table, first. ‘We have never closed our doors to talk with Pakistan…The question is, what is it you talk about? If they have that many terrorist camps dedicated to training people who come over with the sole intention of making your life difficult, surely that should be the central part of the conversation… I am not going to duck the issue of terrorism for the sake of talking to them.’

In a significant observation that is acknowledged the world over but seldom publicly spoken out by any Indian official in the past, Jaishankar said, ‘Governments talk to governments — and the military is also part of the Pakistani government.’ However, unlike some of India’s western friends and allies, starting with the US, he brushed aside suggestive questions if India would be willing to talk to the Pakistani military.

‘It doesn’t work like that,’ he said, clearly indicating an absence of enthusiasm on India’s part to side-step the civilian elected governments in Islamabad, the political capital, and open a line of communication with the twin-city, Rawalpindi, the military headquarters. Referring to the India-Pakistan issues, the US intelligence assessment said while calm persists following a cease-fire along the LoC since 2021, any provocations from Islamabad could lead to armed conflict between the two neighbours.

It is evident that India is playing its cards well on the twin China-Pakistan front, which has the potential to become one large theatre if the other two strategised together in case of any eventuality. What matters here is EAM Jaishankar readily conceding the reality of the need to ease tensions along the China border but without yielding any ground. Nor did he refer one way or other to the recent parliamentary elections in Pakistan throwing up the impossibility of a coalition government between traditional adversaries, namely, the PML(N) and the PPP, against common enemy PTI of jailed former cricketer Imran Khan.

Clearly, India may not be too eager to commence normalisation talks with Pakistan until the fate of the current government is known over the medium, if not the long term. As precedents would have it, if the government stabilises despite the inherent differences and distortions, the military is not going to like it. If it does not stabilise, it does not matter for India to commence talks — independent of the fate and future of the ongoing elections in the country. Yet, by declaring that New Delhi does not intend talking to the Pakistani military, Jaishankar has drawn the line. It is also the fine-line that no government in New Delhi has crossed in a long, long time, indicating that it is also a part of the national policy on dealing with the north-western neighbour.

The writer is a Chennai-based Policy Analyst & Political Commentator. The views expressed in his column are personal, and do not reflect those of Firstpost.