China’s interest about
India in general and in the north east India is nothing new. Immediately after
independence of both the countries by 1954-55, Chinese authorities raked up the
‘old map’ controversy and claimed significant parts of north east India. In
subsequent years, betraying an alleged ‘expansionist designs’, by 1960, they
came up with an idea of formation of a ‘Himalayan Federation’ comprising Nepal,
Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh (erstwhile NEFA).
1962 is too well
known. Thus even in circa 2015 when there is buzz about support from China to
various insurgent agencies in the north east India, there is little to dispute
on the same.
The Naga rebels led by
Thuingaleng Muivah and Isak Chishi Swu had visited China in early 1960s and
armed guerrillas got training too.
 |
| Muivah and Swu: Original China nexus |
Strategically the
‘unity’ of the Eastern Naga Revolutionary Council, the Burmese Naga
organisation led by Shangu Shangwan Khaplang and the NNC was emphasized. Later
on the Chinese support extended to help smooth coordination between Nagas, Meiteis
(Manipuris), Mizos, Chins and Kachins and later on Assamese (ULFA) to give a
lasting impact on militancy history.
However, creditably
for both the countries, India and China have not exactly been at daggers drawn
after 1962, but neither have they been the best of friends. The history has not
been wished away but both the countries have struggled to improve ties
especially on economic and trade.
The present Narendra
Modi regime has tried to befriend China and the reciprocation from Beijing has
not been discouraging. But the ‘fundamental contradictions’ do define
Sino-Indian relations. India and China are competitors for the same turf. Both
are growing economic powers, with India lately trying to unleash its
potentials. Both are important Asian players, both key BRICS members and both
want to be recognized as “the most important power” in the region vis-à-vis the
declining influence of the western powers.
Having said these, the
first support to north east militancy from China came for Naga rebel leader
Thuingaleng Muivah when in 1967 the crafty NNC leader (who later floated potent
National Socialist Council of Nagaland- NSCN along with S S Khaplang, a
Myanmarese Naga and Isak Chishi Swu) went to Yunan province
of China along with 300 odd Naga youth for the armed training. Initially, they
were termed as Naga National Volunteers and were reportedly accommodated in
military camps in Eu-Kung near Chengtung. Even Isak Chishi Swu, chairman of
NSCN and the then Foreign Secretary under A Z Phizo in 1960s had visited China.
“I have great respect
for Chinese leaders and the Chinese people. I see in them greatness and so I
have admiration for them. They tried to understand our point of view,” Muivah
had said in a television interview many years later in 2004.
In fact, this Chinese
support, say Indian security specialists “redefined” the course and history of
the Naga movement for all time to come.
The Nagas were
followed by Mizos, Meiteis and also Assamese.
The 2015 buzz about
‘support’ to other insurgent groups like PLA of Manipur is only a continued
episode of that phenomenon.
Honestly speaking
military and diplomatic officials in both countries seem to appreciate the
gravity of the problem between two countries.
“…the difference in
view on this (issues like Sikkim as integral part of India) lies in historical
background. But for mutual interest and friendship we have adopted some
flexibility and made adjustments in our policy,” remarked the then Chinese
ambassador to India Zhou Gang on March 16, 2000. Similar ‘flexibility’ if not
more is displayed by Indian authorities too. The ruling BJP leaders of PM Modi
says, the big and bold step by Indian government to grant e-Visas to Chinese
tourists was a crucial step that have stunned Chinese authorities but ‘endeared
Modi’ to the Chinese people.
Many if and buts
associated with such episodes can be appreciated only in due course as many
answers lie only in the womb of time.
Coming back to China’s
interest in the north east region and its sponsorship to the militancy it would
not be wrong to state that insurgent groups from the northeast have always
looked towards China for support. Several groups even formally incorporated
elements of Chinese ideology as part of their manifesto. The NSCN, for
instance, continues to emphasise on the term “socialist” while advocating the
slogan of “Nagaland for Christ”.
“There is no denying
the fact that the insurgency in north east India would have assumed an ominous
contour as it has without foreign support, both covert and overt especially
from powerful neighbours like China,” says a former army corps commander and
GOC Nagaland.
 |
| Blogger's dad N C Deb served in erstwhile NEFA |
But China has its
issues too. Beijing has more than once gone on record about its stand on
Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim. Notwithstanding certain hype created over
improvement in relations in last decade or so, there is no gainsay to point out
that the hidden controversies – like Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim – cannot
really guarantee a total stable relation. Beijing continues its stand in not
accepting Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh – the two geo-politically significant
states – as integral parts of India even as it recognized the Nathula Pas
border trade along Sikkim.
It is worth recall
that delivering a talk on ‘China in the present day context’ in New Delhi to
mark the 50 years of its independence, Chinese Ambassador to India Zhou Gang
said on March 16, 2000 “Although the boundary issue between China and India is
very complicated one …… a reasonable solution will be found as long both sides
are sincere”. Later responding to queries from reporters at the Press Club of
India in New Delhi, Zhou said the “biggest” border dispute between two
countries is in Arunachal Pradesh. “China’s view is that it is part of Chinese
territory, but it is not under our control,” he had said.
India’s policy on
Tibet too has displeased Beijing.
So the crux of the
real issue is – there are pending problems. But equally vital question is, Can
Beijing now revive such ‘subversive’ tactics at a time when global thinking on
nationhood has changed and people clamour for peace and development.
One good thing about
Modi’s hyped interactions with Chinese leadership is both governments are
opening up.
(ends)
No comments:
Post a Comment