India's 'soft power' - the power of ideas, spiritual values, literature, music, cinema, arts, in short, the power of culture and civilisation - has had a disruptive influence on the course and content of its relations with China Indeed, this is true about India's relations with all of Asia. To the religious-minded in China, India, which gave them Buddhism, is the "pure land of the West". In the words of Hu Shih, an eminent Chinese scholar-diplomat, "India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border."
Thoughtful Chinese, including communist party members, have profound respect for Mahatma Gandhi's audacious advocacy of truth and non-violence.
At a less fundamental level, Bollywood has been modern India's calling card in China. Anyone who has travelled in even the remotest parts of China will realise that Raj Kapoor's "
Aawara Hoon" after more than a half century, is still a fondly remembered song in that country.
At the height of the Doklam crisis last year, when our two armies stood eyeball-to-eyeball for over two months, Aamir Khan's "
Dangal" conquered the box office in China, and also the hearts and minds of an entire generation of young Chinese. It also endeared itself to many not-so-young Chinese, as was evident from the praise Xi Jinping himself heaped on the film after having watched it. If Indians were more exposed to the enormous riches of Chinese culture and civilisation, which sadly they are not, the anti-China rhetoric in India would certainly be far less vocal. Evidently, high-intensity 'soft power' engagement between our two countries can positively influence the broad masses of the people, who, in the final analysis, are the real makers and shapers of history.
Cynics in the so-called 'strategic affairs' community in India as well as in China, whose minds are hardwired by the illusory superiority of 'hard power', will of course contemptuously dismiss both the power of the people and what really appeals to their heart and soul - the constructive power of cultures and civilisations, which throughout human history has triumphed over the destructive potential of arms and armies. The defining feature of human nature is reconciliation through peaceful conflict-resolution. It is not to be in love with conflicts forever.
It is this fundamental urge of human beings, also of all civilised nations, which was overpoweringly evident in the historic summit between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping in the enchanting city of Wuhan on the banks of Yangtse river last week. Once again, it was Bollywood that made the most profound statement for Indian and Chinese leaders, politicians, diplomats, strategic experts, mediapersons and, of course, common citizens to mull over. A group of Chinese musicians welcomed Modi with the rendition of a 1982 Bollywood song: "
Tu, tu hai wahi dil ne jise apna kaha" (you are the one my heart holds as its own).
Cynics trained in the theory and practice of 'realpoliltik' will dismiss this song as inconsequential, and term the musicians as mere 'extras' deployed on the occasion for optics. Romantic sentimentalism, they will say, has no place in the politics of summitry. Sadly, we live in accursed times when the desires and dreams of '
dil' (heart) are being de-emphasised as non-strategic, and only military prowess and 'balance of (hard) power' are accepted as strategic. Perversely, heartlessness and cold-blooded pursuit of one's own 'national interest' have come to be regarded as desirable qualities in dealing with international relations. It is conveniently forgotten that nations too have a
dil, because nations are after all constituted by people, and what distinguishes human beings from other creatures is their irrepressible desire to connect, re-connect and reconcile after disputes. And reconciliation itself happens when one says to the 'other' that "You're mine", "I'm yours" and "We all are one".
This is not mushy idealism. It is the wisdom of civilisations. Ancient India expressed this dream as '
Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam' (the entire world is one family), whereas ancient China verbalised the same dream as '
Shijie Datong' (world in grand harmony).
Let us also not forget that, when Modi met Xi Jinping for the first time at the BRICS Summit in Brazil in 2014, he told the Chinese President something that most of his ultra-nationalist '
bhakts' would hotly contest - "India and China are two bodies with one soul." No less significantly, Xi Jinping recounted this when he visited India the following year. "These words of Prime Minister Modi reveal the connection between us."
Unfortunately, India-China relations slid downwards thereafter. For this, both sides are to blame. We should, however, commend the two leaders for their earnest effort to improve the ties in Wuhan.
Those who have studied the millennia-old history of India-China engagement know that mutual heart-to-heart acceptance has defined this relationship for the longest period of time, and disputes and conflicts are only of recent vintage. Undoubtedly, these conflicts - above all, the 1962 war, which itself was caused by the still-unresolved border dispute - have engendered a huge trust deficit. This trust deficit is further deepened by a rising China's inability and, perhaps, unwillingness to credibly convince India that what it is doing with our South Asian neighbors does not pose a security threat to India. Its hesitation to unambiguously condemn Pakistan's export of terror into India has also made many Indians think that China is unreliable. India too has contributed to the trust deficit by playing the 'Tibet Card' (why, for example, should India allow the Tibetan Government-in-Exile to operate from our soil?) and, more recently, the dangerous anti-China card of forming a 'Quadrilateral' in alliance with USA, Japan and Australia.
The unfortunate and easily avoidable Doklam stand-off happened because of this steadily growing trust deficit. When mistrust grows, the strategic establishment in both countries (sadly, low-intellect loud-mouths in the media have joined this establishment) seeks to muzzle the language of hearts. Therefore, the most reassuring news to come out of Wuhan is that Modi and Xi Jinping, both strong-willed leaders, had a heart-to-heart talk in seven different sessions, cumulatively lasting nine hours in less than two days. Such unconstrained and informal summit-level dialogue is certainly conducive to building strategic mutual trust. Here I use the word 'strategic' to connote the highest levels of political leadership, which, if it is enlightened, can change the course of India-China history. The two leaders, if they choose, can take effective steps to minimise differences and maximise cooperation. There is a well-proven correlation between cooperation and trust. Trust begets cooperation. Win-win cooperation, in turn, enhances trust.
We do not yet know how much of mutual trust the two leaders were able to develop in Wuhan. But, undoubtedly, the addition has been non-trivial. They have decided to give "strategic direction" to their respective armies to maintain peace and tranquility along the border. Which means, no more Doklams for sure. They have also, reportedly, determined to infuse new life into the framework of talks between their special representatives for an amicable resolution of the border dispute. This is good news, because one can hope for some "early harvest" agreements on this contentious issue.
Post-Wuhan, it is highly likely that India and China will partner in connectivity projects in South Asia and elsewhere without, initially at least, formally joining the latter's ambitious Belt and Road Initiative. India and China deciding to join hands in development projects in Afghanistan is an early indication that, eventually, this much-needed partnership in South Asia could also extend to Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Maldives.
We all are habituated to think of such partnership only, or mostly, in terms of their economic or business benefits. However, the most significant and visionary thought to emerge from Wuhan is what Xi Jinping said to Modi. He views India as a partner in collaboratively achieving the birth of a non-western world order and in making the 21st century a truly 'Asian Century'. An article in People's Daily - the authoritative voice of the Communist Party of China - has quoted him as saying that India and China should become partners in rebuilding the "Eastern Civilisation", whose signature tune is "the harmonious coexistence of different civilisations".
So the real test of whether the Wuhan Summit was a turning point in India-China relations is simply this. Will the two leaders and their establishments turn to the 'hard power' of their militaries, military strategies and zero-sum diplomatic confrontation, as they have often done in the past? Or will they turn to the 'soft power' of their immeasurably rich cultures and civilisations that have zealously preserved, against all odds, the ancient and still-living dream of the two peoples for a better future for humanity?
In short, will the two sides succumb to cynicism and national exclusivism, which have become the universal language of world politics today, or begin to speak the language of the universal human heart, best expressed by Rabindranath Tagore, a widely-respected poet in both India and China, in his lecture in Shanghai in 1924? "I hope," Gurudev said, "that some dreamer will spring from among you and preach a message of love and therewith, overcoming all differences, bridge the chasm of passions which has been widening for ages."
(The writer was an aide to India's former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.)Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.