Interview of Dr Jabin Jacob.

Dr Jabin Jacob is a Research Fellow at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (www.ipcs.org), in Delhi. Last month, he was kind enough to answer a few of my questions on the border issue, India's handling of the Tibet issue before the Olympics, as well as on India's growing influence in Central Asia.

After the 13th round of talks held earlier this month, the border talks don't seem to be getting any closer to a final resolution. Do you think that this means that for the time being both sides favour the status quo?

China has had border disputes with nearly all of its neighbours over the years (Nepal, Myanmar, Pakistan, the Soviet Union). Its attitude towards solving these disputes has varied a great deal from country to country. In some cases, border tensions have led to armed conflict, such as against India in 1962, Vietnam in 1979, or with the Soviet Union in 1969.
China only really shows a flexible attitude towards resolving border disputes when it feels that it is in a position of strength and can get the better half of the deal. For example, the PRC took advantage of the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the 1990s to resolve a lot of its territorial disputes in Central Asia .
China has solved its territorial dispute with Vietnam and more or less so with Myanmar.
When it comes to China's attitude in its dealings with India, it has changed over the years. Whereas the PRC used to want to solve the issue immediately, there has now been a change in position, Chinese officials saying that the issue is complicated and will be solved by the next generation.

Is it the mindset that prevails on the Indian side as well?

I believe so, yes. Talks and confidence building measures have a primary objective: to avoid border tensions flaring up and dragging both countries into a an armed conflict. In reality, the Indian government is content to leave this issue on the backburner while it concentrates on less contentious aspects of the Sino-Indian relationship such as trade. Both sides have been enhancing the military infrastructure along the border, although China definitely has the upper hand in this domain via its extensive militarization of Tibet.
All in all, there is no great hurry to settle the deal. If the Chinese can wait, the Indians think, so can we. It'll take a lot of time to settle, and in my view, will only be possible with a new generation that isn't marked by the trauma of 1962.

Tibet has always been a very delicate issue. Do you think that India handled it well in the run-up to the Olympics or was its attitude too submissive?

It's true that when the torch bearers came to India, the security was absolutely crazy. Flights were delayed, thousands of policemen were deployed, and the Chinese embassy had been surrounded by barbed wire for several months. You must understand, the Chinese were very angry over the recent demonstrations in London, Paris and San Francisco, and India wanted to make sure that everything ran smoothly, in a gesture of good will. Beijing was very grateful that no incidents took place.

Yes but weren't some of the security measures excessive?

They were draconian yes, but India couldn't allow Tibetan demonstrators to scale the walls of the Chinese embassy. All the Tibetan demonstrators that were arrested were subsequently released by the police. What's more, and this was not much reported, but India didn't clamp down on all Tibetan protests, far from it. There was a 'Tibet Olympics March' in New Delhi, in which more than 6000 people participated.
There is still a great deal of sympathy for the Tibetan cause in India, the government realises however what a sensitive issue it is for the Chinese, and does not want it to become a source of tension in the bilateral relationship.

Several reports indicate that there is a new generation of Tibetan activists in India, that are much more radical than their older predecessors and that believe that violence may be a just means of action. Doesn't the Indian government worry that this fringe of the Tibetan community might cause them a great deal of problems in their future dealings with China, especially when the Dalai Lama passes away?

Yes, I have also heard of this new fringe movement. But for the time being, that's what it is: just a fringe movement. As long as they don't start using Indian territory to stage attacks on Chinese soil they shouldn't really cause a major shift in the relationship.


The other day I was reading an article on India's growing presence in Central Asia, either via its rising cultural influence (Bollywood is very popular in the region) or through its expanding ties with countries such as Tajikistan, where it has built an air base not far from the capital, Dushanbe, and stationed helicopters. India, however is still only an observer in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, whereas China is one of the founding members. How far is India behind China when it comes to exerting influence in the region?

Central Asia is one of the most strategically salient regions in today's world. India, China,Pakistan, Iran Russia and the United States are all vying for influence in the area. Unfortunately India is still very far behind China. As you mentioned, India is not part of the SCO and only really has close ties with Tadjikistan, one of the smallest and poorest countries in the region, whereas Beijing shares a great proximity with Ouzbekistan, the richest and most populous state.

Why do you think India has particularly close ties with Tadjikistan? Is it, perhaps, due to its traditionally close ties to the Tadjik ethnic minority in Afghanistan?

Yes, I think that that is definitely a factor. India discreetly supported Colonel Massoud, leader of the Northern Alliance, and almost a mythical figure amongst Tadjiks in the region, whether it be in Tadjikistan or Afghanistan. Both Delhi and Dushanbe backed his struggle against the Taliban, who were assisted in their endeavours by ISI, Pakistan's notorious intelligence agency. This is all part of a complex regional security environment.
India's growing ties with Tadjikistan are a good thing, but India needs to fish in deeper water s and develop a proper 'Look West' policy in the region.

My thanks to Jabin for granting me this interview. Next week, I will be moving onto a new topic, discussing the Indian Navy's expansion with one of its Commanders.