Dyslexic Media: My rebuttal to The Economist rebuttal

Last night I wrote post about New Delhi lacking a China Policy and an appeal to get one. As it turns out, (pointed out by Achal K) The Economist had anticipated my post and published a rebuttal to my argument almost a month ago. I tell you, these Economist reporters have nothing better to do than to keep guessing what bloggers would write in the future and trying to bring them down.

Anyways, their article about “how Indian attitude towards its bigger neighbor is hardening” was a usual cut-and-paste job. Five examples of Indian assertiveness against China in 2010 had been shabbily slapped together to prove the case. After reading the article, only two questions came to my mind: What are they smoking down at The Economist office and can I get some of that? (I know I used that joke once already this month.) The examples put together paint picture of India as a sheep not a tiger. As always, the magazine was terribly wrong about India. You may not believe me, but they do this all the time.

The five examples were:

Manmohan Singh’s statement. In September 2010, Indian PM Manmohan Singh stated that “China would like to have a foothold in South Asia…There is a new assertiveness among the Chinese.” The article used this statement as a smoking gun to prove that India was toughening up against China. But in the same speech, Singh also said that he believed the world was large enough for India and China to “cooperate and compete”. It’s like King Leonidas saying, “Spartans! Ready your breakfast and eat hearty... For tonight, we dine in hell! Unless, we are able to finalize the Free Trade Agreement with the Persians and successfully negotiate that Maritime Treaty.” Hardly a declaration of hardened attitude on Indian part.

India suspends bilateral defense exchanges. Are you kidding me? India didn’t suspend the exchanges! China did, only not in so many words. New Delhi suspended the exchanges after Beijing refused visa to an Indian Military General, who was supposed to go for the exchange (remember that one?). The reason cited by the Chinese was his command of Jammu and Kashmir, which is according to China, a disputed region. How is that India being assertive?

Trade Deal with Japan. In October India and Japan signed a trade deal which provoked absolutely no reaction from China. It is the biggest trade partner to both the countries and a trade deal between India & Japan does not change that dynamics substantially for some years to come. Sure, India’s promise to provide rare-earth minerals to Japan created a little ripple since China currently monopolizes that market but both New Delhi and Beijing know that India can hardly fulfill that promise for another 4-5 years since the country has no investment in rare-earth minerals as of now.

Refusal to boycott Nobel Prize. China tried to get the world including India to boycott the Nobel Prize ceremony after they awarded a Nobel Prize to Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese political dissident. And India refused. But that’s not a big deal. I don’t think Beijing was holding its breath on Indian decision anyways. It went ahead with its propaganda as usual. What would have really ruffled its feathers was if India would have called out China on its political oppression like Barack Obama did. But New Delhi had nothing to offer on the issue except a shrug and a silence.  

Tibetan refugee protests in New Delhi. The Economist writes, “In Delhi a few hundred Tibetans were left to demonstrate against Mr Wen Jiabo, the Chinese Premier, as he arrived”. Sure some Tibetan were allowed, but in a typical non-committal move by New Delhi, many Tibetan refugees were also locked up. So, the Indian Government let the Tibetans protest, but refused to take a stand behind them.

In conclusion, India hardly displayed any assertiveness against its bigger neighbor in 2010. On the other hand, China kept poking and prodding India with stapled visas, support to Pakistan, troop movement on Indian border and inside Pakistan, new weapons, promise of Nuclear Deal to Pakistan, refusal to budge on trade issues, moves in Bangladesh and Nepal, raising Kashmir issue time and again and so on and so forth. The list just keeps on going,