Sir, you are correct....... But
Just saw excerpts of FM Jaishankar’s interview with Arnab.
I like the FM a lot but think his approach to China is a little flawed. This is because:
- he appears to advocate resolving the dispute via dialogue with reference to status quo and the two countries’ 1993 agreement to deploy minimum troops around the border.
- Essentially He says in his business things are resolved by talks.
- Yes he is correct about dialogue and one acknowledges statecraft is a complex and unique craft BUT I don’t think he is not correct in this regard with respect to China.
- his apparent mindset is flawed because China is not a rules based country as it has demonstrated to the world time and time again.
- hence as China has breached the 1993 agreement and all other agreements, India’s starting position should be, these agreements are void. Clean slate. Lets negotiate (see below).
- Jaishankar is a career diplomat who started in the 1970s and cut his teeth in the 80s and 90s - China And the world then was a different beast.
- I think Jaishankar should shift his approach vis a vie China (if that is possible seeing that he is somewhat long in the tooth career wise) to that of some of the more hawkish US diplomats who, especially a few decades ago, used some pretty effective coercive diplomacy to achieve their goals.
- the then US approach appeared to proceed on the basis that diplomacy was NOT an alternative to military force. Rather, the US diplomacy was part of it and rolled into hard US power projections as spearheaded by its military.
- I think the US approach WILL NOT be broadly applicable to India these days BUT I believe it is certainly applicable regarding China because China is unique In the way it is organised internally and hence in the way it conducts its statecraft.
- Essentially, China only understands the language of strength which only the Indian armed forces can project.
- therefore Indian diplomacy for China must evolve into a more coercive form and be rolled into a coercive Indian military force.
What he is telling you is not whispering in your ear, but out loud to the world. He can only say what should sound like a principled stance.
He has spent many years in China. He speaks mandarin well and has a Japanese wife. I doubt anybody else understands China better than him, in GOI.
What he accepts in public and what we might do, can be entirely different things.
An interview is meant, not only for public consumption but also enemy's consumption, so its like propaganda.
Equally, while we may not like it, there would be limits to what may be achievable.
Conclusion: ignore the content of the interview. Just appreciate his speaking skills and wordcraft