Here we go again

Here we go again

Has George Fernandes done it again? In appreciating BBC journalist Humphrey Hawksley's book òf40óDragon Fireòf39ò, a realistic work of fiction depicting nuclear war in 2007 between India and China on the one hand and India and Pakistan on the other, Fernandes has appealed for reason to assert itself on China "before time runs out". According to a statement by Hawksley's UK publishers, Macmillan, Fernandes has expressed the hope that nobody dismisses the book "as one more work of fiction," adding that "the political and historical backdrop against which he writes is real". Now, there may be a good deal of logical merit in a line of reasoning which maintains that India and China can never be friends. It can even be likened to the arguments of US Republicans that China can never be America's strategic partner, only a strategic competitor. But in either case, the need to engage China is acknowledged. The emphasis varies in stressing that Washington has to be ever watchful with China. The same goes forIndia.

The bottom line is that even more than Washington and Beijing, New Delhi and Beijing have to coexist as best they can as neighbours. Fernandes has done quite enough in the past to ensure that they do not do so peacefully. There really is no reason at all why he should be airing his views on the relationship with China -- valid or not -- even in a private letter to a publisher. What will it take to convince Fernandes that he is òf40ónot a private citizen and cannot go about pretending that he is one? His statements have a fallout for a much troubled bilateral relationship, as was only too evident in the wake of his immoderate remarks two years ago. In this particular instance, the publisher might well be the culprit in putting out what for the minister was a private communication. But Fernandes can hardly be naive enough to believe that a publisher would not make capital for a newly released book by this ringing endorsement from the defence minister of the country in the centre of the conflict that thebook depicts.

Given the havoc Fernandes' statement of two years ago about China being the real reason India had to go nuclear caused, is it too much to ask him to exercise some restraint in airing his views publicly? Taciturnity never did anyone harm. Fernandes undid over a decade's patient diplomacy with Beijing that had started under Rajiv Gandhi. It has taken two years of work to mollify China. And let this be stressed, none of this has to mean that New Delhi lives in the illusion that it can be friends with Beijing. China indeed may be the reason why the country had to go nuclear, and this is acknowledged by the establishment, but does the inherently problematic relationship have to be tom-tommed from the rooftops? Fernandes could have used the Hawksley book within government circles to stress his viewpoint, in case anybody still wants convincing. Hawksley does have excellent credentials after all and has produced a meticulously researched book. But Fernandes's letter could again contribute to jeopardising arelationship which had just begun to recover. Beijing could loftily decide not to take umbrage. But if it does decide to, India could again find itself grovelling to compensate for a thoughtless act so soon after the relationship got back on track.