Zaheer Mustafa
Prakash Karat’s recent statement advocating for fostering better India-China relations without forming a formal alliance underscores a multifaceted issue embedded within the broader context of geopolitics, domestic political considerations, economic interdependence, and historical tensions. The statement comes amidst longstanding disputes between the two nations that have been punctuated by territorial disagreements, economic dependencies, and episodes of diplomatic engagements. It merits careful analysis to unravel its implications and the layers of meaning it might carry.
India and China share a deeply complex relationship characterized by unresolved border disputes, economic interdependence, and differing political systems. Among the most contentious issues is the territorial dispute over Arunachal Pradesh and the Aksai Chin region. These disagreements, dating back to the mid-20th century, resulted in the Sino-Indian War of 1962, an event that profoundly influenced bilateral relations. More recently, the skirmishes in Galwan Valley in 2020 further highlighted the volatility and fragility of the relationship. While India has sought to strengthen its territorial claims and bolster its defense posture, China has continued to assert its own claims, creating an environment of mistrust that complicates any efforts at reconciliation.
Economically, the relationship between the two countries is marked by significant asymmetry. While India has a burgeoning economy with a diverse industrial base, it remains heavily reliant on China for certain goods and sectors. For instance, in 2024, India’s trade deficit with China reached $85.1 billion, underlining the extent of economic interdependence. This reliance is particularly pronounced in sectors like electronics, pharmaceuticals, and machinery. While economic engagement offers potential benefits, it also presents risks, as it allows China to wield considerable economic leverage. Critics argue that this dynamic could be exploited by China to advance its geopolitical objectives, particularly in the absence of trust and mutual respect.
Karat’s call for improved relations must also be viewed through the lens of India’s foreign policy objectives and its position in a multipolar world. India has historically pursued a policy of strategic autonomy, seeking to balance its relationships with major global powers without aligning too closely with any one bloc. In this context, fostering better ties with China could be seen as a pragmatic move to enhance India’s position in the global order. By engaging with China, India could potentially strengthen its negotiating position on global issues and counterbalance the influence of other powers, such as the United States. However, such engagement must be carefully calibrated to ensure that it does not compromise India’s core interests or exacerbate existing vulnerabilities.
The timing of Karat’s statement also raises questions about its political motivations. The Communist Party of India (Marxist), or CPI(M), has experienced significant setbacks in recent years, particularly in its former strongholds of West Bengal and Tripura. These electoral defeats have left the party grappling with questions about its relevance and future direction. In this context, Karat’s remarks could be interpreted as an attempt to reposition the party and align its foreign policy stance with the broader national interest. By advocating for improved relations with China, the CPI(M) may be seeking to demonstrate its pragmatism and relevance in the current political landscape.
However, the CPI(M)’s historical alignment with China adds another layer of complexity to this narrative. The party has often been perceived as ideologically sympathetic to China’s communist regime, a perception that has fueled criticism from its political opponents. Karat’s emphasis on maintaining autonomy and avoiding formal alliances could be seen as an attempt to distance the party from its ideological ties and present a more balanced and pragmatic approach to foreign policy. Whether this shift will resonate with the broader electorate and enhance the party’s political fortunes remains to be seen.
The ongoing tariff discussions between India and China further underscore the strategic calculations at play. These negotiations, which aim to address trade imbalances and reduce economic dependency, have significant implications for both countries. For India, the discussions represent an opportunity to address its trade deficit and strengthen its economic position. For China, engaging in these talks could help mitigate the impact of its own economic challenges, including deflation and a housing market crisis. Karat’s advocacy for dialogue and engagement aligns with these broader economic imperatives, highlighting the potential benefits of a more collaborative approach.
At the same time, it is essential to consider the risks associated with closer engagement with China. The unresolved border disputes and instances of aggressive behavior, such as China’s construction of infrastructure in disputed areas, underscore the challenges of building trust and fostering genuine cooperation. Additionally, China’s track record of using economic leverage to advance its geopolitical objectives raises concerns about the potential consequences of deepening economic ties without addressing the underlying issues.
Karat’s statement also reflects broader debates about India’s role in the global order and its approach to navigating a multipolar world. As emerging powers like China and India seek to assert their influence on the global stage, the dynamics of their relationship will play a crucial role in shaping the contours of the international system. By advocating for improved relations without forming an alliance, Karat underscores the importance of strategic autonomy and the need for India to chart its own course in the face of complex global challenges.
In conclusion, Prakash Karat’s call for fostering better India-China relations offers a nuanced perspective on a multifaceted issue. While his proposal aligns with the principles of strategic autonomy and pragmatism, its feasibility and implications must be carefully examined. The unresolved territorial disputes, economic dependencies, and historical tensions between the two countries present significant challenges that must be addressed to build a foundation for genuine cooperation. At the same time, the potential benefits of improved economic and diplomatic engagement cannot be overlooked, particularly in the context of a rapidly evolving global order.
Ultimately, any shift in India’s approach to China must prioritize national interests and strategic autonomy. While dialogue and engagement offer a pathway to addressing shared challenges and advancing mutual interests, they must be accompanied by a clear-eyed assessment of the risks and a commitment to safeguarding India’s core interests. As India navigates the complexities of its relationship with China, the principles of pragmatism, resilience, and strategic autonomy will remain essential in shaping its foreign policy and securing its place in a multipolar world. Karat’s statement, while rooted in political and ideological considerations, serves as a reminder of the need for a balanced and forward-looking approach to one of India’s most complex and consequential relationships.
