Foreign minister Salman Khurshid’s proposed visit to China, scheduled for May 9, is in serious jeopardy.
Though Khurshid had been repeating in public for some days now that he would go to China, it was only yesterday that Beijing announced the date of his visit after dragging its feet for over a week in confirming the visit. But now the Indians are having second thoughts about whether the foreign minister should indeed go ahead with his proposed Chinese visit.
The change in South Block’s position on the issue has direct links with the prolonged stand-off between Indian and Chinese soldiers in the western sector of Ladakh. The soldiers of the two sides have been sitting in make-shift camps, facing each other since April 15.
Initially, the Indian leadership tried to play it down by describing it as a “local” issue. Though the opposition in India had been vocal in criticizing the government’s stand, urging it to take a tougher stand vis-à-vis China, Delhi had been insisting that it was in no mood to precipitate the situation further. But the mood in the Indian foreign policy establishment seems to be changing.
The Congress-led UPA government is already in a bind over the foreign minister’s visit. If he doesn’t go ahead with the visit, the stand-off in Ladakh will be seen much bigger than a “local” issue. On the other hand, if Khurshid goes ahead with his visit, he will be seen condoning the Chinese stand in Ladakh.
But the prolonged stand-off now seems to be tilting the argument in favour of postponing the foreign minister’s visit to China. Sources in South Block say that if Khurshid goes ahead with the visit and returns empty handed—which means if the Chinese soldiers refuse to withdraw from their position from where they are camping in Ladakh—it will be a much bigger crisis. “Not only will it then be a loss of face for the foreign minister, with a possible demand for his resignation from the opposition, but will also be a big blow to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s China policy,” a senior foreign ministry official said.
The sources argue that on the other hand if he calls off his visit or says he is postponing it for the time being, then it will at least leave some room for further negotiations. “The ball is now squarely in China’s court. If it wants the Khurshid visit to take place, it should ask its soldiers to withdraw to their original position and avert a bigger crisis,” the sources add.
South Block makes it clear that if there is any chance of resolving it, then China will have to act in a hurry. It is being argued that if the ground situation in Ladakh does not change then India will have no option but to call off Khurshid’s visit to Beijing.
However, if that happens, then India is thinking of sending at least senior officials from the foreign ministry to keep its engagement with China. “It may not then be a foreign minister’s visit but surely some official or a delegation from Delhi will go to Beijing,” says an Indian diplomat.
But the problem with this stand is that it may not be limited then to the foreign minister’s visit. It could well affect the proposed visit of the Chinese Premier Li Keqiang to India, scheduled for May 20. Delhi feels that if fresh strains appear on the bilateral ties, then Beijing may in turn be forced to call off its Premier’s maiden visit to India.
The Chinese stand is being seen by most policy planners in India as extremely foolish since it unnecessarily is preparing the ground for a much bigger crisis than showing a keenness to resolve the stand-off at Ladakh. Like in China, India too has its fair share of hardliners who are inclined to take a tough stand on China the moment a serious disagreement between the two sides come to the surface. But Beijing’s current indifference in resolving the stand-off at the border is also leaving little elbow room for the doves or those sections in the Indian establishment that favours strong ties with China. These are the people who insist on resolving differences between the two sides through negotiations. But under mounting pressure from the opposition and the hardliners, they see very little space left for avoiding a bigger crisis.
A direct fallout of this is likely to be that those who had been arguing in favour of stronger ties with Japan, Vietnam and the United States, are going to get the upper hand. This may not be directed against China. But its implications are not likely to be lost in Beijing, Delhi or the other capitals in Asia and elsewhere.
China’s stand on South China Sea has already raised hackles among its immediate neighbours—many of whom are contesting its position over the islands there, and also raised concerns in other Asian countries. The Indian leadership had been trying to maintain an equidistant policy between China and the other contenders on the South China issue. But the stand-off between the soldiers of the two sides in Ladakh, will now force many more people in the foreign policy establishment in Delhi to move closer to the China’s rivals in Asia then maintaining this equidistant policy.
The Japanese deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso who was in Delhi stressed on strong strategic ties and close cooperation between the navies of the two countries to ensure freedom of movement in the important seal lanes during a public lecture on Saturday. The relevance and importance of his remarks are not lost among the strategic affairs community in the country under the present context of the Ladakh stand-off between Indiana and Chinese soldiers.
