New Delhi: Former Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale who dealt with China has claimed that there is a fundamental mismatch between the two countries which impacted on the negotiations. “The first was the mismatch of approach and the second was the mismatch on perceptions.”

“…Chinese approach is very different and they don’t believe in negotiation. Therefore there is a mismatch in approach between two countries.”

This was centrepiece of discussion on this subject by Gokhale organized by public body Ananta Centre.

“This is a book how China adopts means and ways in negotiating with India. Three basic objectives of writing this book- Write from an Indian perspective because all the books on negotiating with China are written by US or by the West; To see and identify patterns of Chinese behaviour; To see any lesson have been learned by India,” Gokhale explained. “That is why I adopted six case studies in this book, spanning the entire period of relationship from 1949 to 2019.”

The first two chapters dealt with the early part of the relationship of the 1950s. The subsequent four chapters dealt with the events post 1995. With regard to the first two chapters, how India recognized China, how India reached an agreement on the issue of Tibet and Trade, Gokhale pointed out referring to his book ‘The Long Game: How the Chinese negotiate with India’.

The former foreign secretary who has dealt with China for decades claimed that there is a fundamental mismatch between the two countries which impacted on the negotiations. “The first was the mismatch of approach and the second was the mismatch on perceptions.”

“India’s approach is Ahimsa and negotiation. Ahimsa was a critical platform for the Indian freedom struggle. The principle of Nonviolence and the use of negotiation was the whole approach to Indian Independence. The Chinese approach was rather different. Force was the primary element to secure objectives. And negotiation was not a way for securing objectives in the Chinese case,” Gokhale said.

In regard to perceptions, there is a separation of political party and State in the Indian case, he further explained. “The interest of the Indian State and interest of political parties are different. But in the case of China, there is a fusion of political party and the State. And therefore, party survival became the foreign policy of the State. In the case of India, the survival of the Congress party did not become the foreign policy of the Indian State. This resulted in the fundamental mismatch of perceptions between the countries.”

“India believed that both countries had shared the colonial experiences or experiences of colonialism. Then, both believed the Asian civilization and both could have shaped the post-world war order. This was not the perception for China. The Chinese saw India as a subordinate civilization, they believed that India was in the imperialist camp or British camp. This mismatch in approach and perceptions led to misreading of China’s intentions. Therefore, India surrendered important cards without playing them. As for instance, recognizing China without demanding anything in return, giving up the issue of whether India should recognize Taiwan as an independent country or second China,” Gokhale said, adding, “India was unable to read the Chinese Communist party. Therefore, India was unable to leverage its relationship with the US and USSR. This led to the debacle of 1962.”

“…Chinese approach is very different and they don’t believe in negotiation. Therefore there is a mismatch in approach between two countries. But the Chinese style of negotiation is complex as they carefully study the strengths and weaknesses of those they negotiate with and weigh their own strengths in comparison. Their preparation is meticulous and deception is common.”

“India needs to understand Chinese negotiators. Chinese diplomats are the creatures of the Party while India diplomats are not. Chinese diplomats are ideologically driven while Indian diplomats are not. China’s two deadly sins — Their favourite phrase is “not possible”; they take silence as acquiescence, which can prove to be very harmful for India,” pointed out Gokhale who served as India’s envoy to Beijing.

The session was moderated by India’s former permanent envoy to the UN Syed Akbaruddin. The session was pertinent in the backdrop of India-China negotiations to address the stalemate along the Line of Actual Control.