India’s President Pratibha Patil (center) with China’s President Hu Jintao On May 27 (Pic:http://presidentofindia.nic.in)
It would have been amusing were it not gratuitous for Beijing to raise the Tibet issue with India’s visiting President Pratibha Patil. China has ingrained Tibet so much into its global diplomatic discourse that there is almost no escape for anyone of consequence from taking a position on the dispute, preferably to Beijing’s liking.
One way to rationalize senior Chinese leader Jia Quinglin seeking President Patil’s reassurance over Tibet is to say that the Chinese just cannot help it. But that rationalization lacks the finesses of global diplomacy. It is not as if a tactless host made some uncalled for references to an honored guest. It is a deliberate, almost anal, element of Chinese foreign policy to raise Tibet irrespective of with whom it is being done.
Beijing is astute enough to know that in the Indian system of governance the president is largely a figurehead who has no executive or policy role whatsoever. It is an office that becomes relevant only during the times of intractable political or constitutional crises. Otherwise it is mostly about pomp and pageantry. And yet the Chinese government chose to bring Tibet up with Patil. Why? One explanation is because it can and it must if only to remind its interlocutor that Beijing will not tolerate any view other than concurrence with its own worldview.
Having watched Chinese posturing on the subject for over a decade now I believe it is more reflexive than anything else. It is a virtually involuntary reflex of the Chinese policy machine. However, somewhere along the line it also betrays some deep-seated defensiveness about having annexed Tibet, even though it was done 60 years ago.
India’s Foreign Secretary Nirupama rao, who is the country’s top diplomat in terms of the foreign policy bureaucracy, had this to say about Jia raising Tibet.
"All issues were raised and spoken about. And they have sought greater understanding. Jia sought, in the course of conversation, India's position on the Tibet issue. He wanted India's reassurance that on India's soil no anti-Chinese activities are allowed to take place. They wanted our reiteration and assurance on this point," Rao said.
If it is Beijing’s unshakable conviction that Tibet was historically part of China, why is it that six decades after it incorporated the territory into the country it still feels compelled to seek India’s reassurance? And why seek it from someone who has next to no role to play in the matter? A plausible answer is that at best it still remains uncertain about Tibet’s cultural and emotional integration into China even though it has managed to complete its territorial integration.