China Called India’s Foreign Minister a ‘Problem’ as Part of Political Maneuvering Amid Border Tensions: Experts

India's Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar waits for Japan's Prime Minister Fumio Kishida as he makes a courtesy visit to Kishida at the prime minister's office in Tokyo, on Mar. 8, 2024. The Canadian Press/AP-Hiro Komae

NEW DELHI—China’s state media recently targeted India’s Foreign Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, calling him a “problem” in India–China relations, in response to Jaishankar’s recent comments about Beijing.

As India and China look to the BRICS summit in Kazan on Oct. 22, analysts say the criticism can be viewed from more than one perspective: as a defensive response to Jaishankar’s forthright public criticism of China, or as part of a “strategic narrative” aiming to further China’s interests overall.

Originally an association of Brazil, Russia, India, and China, BRICS expanded in 2010 to include South Africa and last year opened its doors to the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and has a long waiting list of countries. India’s tense relationship with China, as the two giant nations work to resolve ongoing border disputes, is sure to be a focus at the upcoming summit.

The sparring match between Beijing and the Indian foreign minister gives a glimpse into the related geopolitics as well as the nature of India–China ties. By taking the criticism to a personal level, one analyst says, China may hope to portray other high-level Indian officials as more open to dialogue between the two countries.

The ‘S. Jaishankar’ Problem

In the rebuke on Sept. 9, Chinese state media the Global Times called out Jaishankar by name in an op-ed entitled “India’s diplomacy has a ‘S. Jaishankar problem.'” The foreign affairs minister had repeatedly voiced his concerns about China’s adversarial relationship with India in the past weeks.

Indian media “The Print” dubbed the editorial a “hit and scoot” piece—as Global Times quickly removed the op-ed, which remained available on its Chinese edition website.

It wasn’t the first time the Global Times had called Jaishankar out.

The diplomat—who served as India’s ambassador to China from 2009 to 2013—became the country’s foreign minister once again after Prime Minister Narendra Modi was reelected to a third term in June.

On June 12, shortly after his second appointment, the Global Times published an op-ed entitled, “With Jaishankar’s reappointment, ‘no major change in India’s China policy anticipated.'” The editorial portrayed Jaishankar as a roadblock to the normalization of India–China ties.

A Strategic Narrative

Satyendra Pradhan, India’s former deputy national security adviser, told The Epoch Times that criticism of Jaishankar by Chinese state media is a “strategic narrative” aimed at meeting China’s agendas with regard to bilateral ties.

It could also aim to further China’s interests in various multilateral forums in which China sees India as a competitor, or needs India’s support for consensus on its policies.

“China’s economic difficulties drive it to maintain close economic ties with India,” said Pradhan. China is India’s third largest trading partner, with a bilateral trade of almost $114 billion in fiscal year 2023. The World Bank has projected an economic growth rate of 7 percent for India in 2024–25, while China’s growth forecast for 2024 is 4.7 percent.

Pradhan said that China is trying to find its footing amid complex regional dynamics and India’s growing significance in global affairs, while dealing with various economic woes of its own.

“The Global Times’ criticism of Jaishankar suggests a strategic narrative—shifting blame to him while positioning other officials as more amenable to dialogue,” Pradhan said, adding that the Chinese narrative is seeking to offset the assertiveness with which Jaishankar is voicing India’s concerns.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken (L) shakes hand with India's External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, ahead of meetings in New Delhi, India, on Nov. 10, 2023. Jonathan Ernst/Pool/AFP via Getty Images

Asserting India’s Border Concerns

Running like a thread through the situation is the strained relationship between India and China. The bloody Galwan conflict of 2020, in which India lost 20 troops and an undisclosed number of Chinese soldiers died, dealt a serious blow to a relationship that was already frayed.

In this context, Jaishankar has repeatedly stressed the conditionality of bilateral ties, experts say.

Speaking about the border dispute in a memorial lecture on Oct. 5, the foreign minster said, “There is a way forward.”

“And that is by reinstating peace and tranquility in the border areas, respecting the LAC [Line of Actual Control] and not seeking to change the status quo. Beyond that, the three mutuals—mutual respect, mutual sensitivity and mutual interests—offer a credible pathway. After all, the rise of Asia can only happen when India and China have a positive dynamic.”

Speaking at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy on Sept. 12, Jaishankar had said “75 percent of disengagement problems are sorted out” in eastern Ladakh, but added that the last 25 percent are the most “complex.”

In late August, at the ET World Leaders Forum, he said that India has a “special China problem,” over and above the world’s “general China problem.” The forum hosted by the Economic Times took place in New Delhi.

“Go to Europe, and ask them what is among their major economic or national security debates today. It is about China. Look at the United States. It is obsessed with China, and rightly so in many ways,” Jaishankar said.

The Global Times opinion piece on the “S. Jaishankar problem” was a direct response to the foreign minister’s remarks at the ET World Leaders Forum. Although quickly removed from the internet, its content was widely reported across Indian media.

“As minister of external affairs, Jaishankar’s priority seems not to be national interests ... The momentum in improving China-India relations might have also made Jaishankar afraid,“ the article said. ”On one hand, it suggests that the diplomatic strategy he has led over the past four years might have been flawed and is now being gradually adjusted. On the other hand, he is concerned about pleasing the U.S.”

Comparisons

The Global Times op-ed compared Jaishankar with Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, and Indira Gandhi, Nehru’s daughter and the country’s first female prime minister.

The article said that Jaishankar didn’t have the “moral sense” of Nehru, whose third tenure witnessed the Indo–China war of 1962. The war became a context for the border dispute between the two countries.

The op-ed also said Jaishankar lacked the “ethical sense” of Gandhi. Nehru and Gandhi’s party, the Indian National Congress, currently leads the opposition coalition in the new Indian Parliament, elected in June.

The Global Times article said: “It is always difficult to prove the authenticity or falsification of the high-profile statements made by Jaishankar on China. They are quite deceptive in the field of international public opinion.”

Grant Newsham, Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy and Japan Forum for Strategic Studies, told The Epoch Times that the Chinese are “offended whenever they are on the receiving end.” It’s an attitude that is typical of totalitarian dictatorships, he said.

“The facts are clear to anybody watching. India is not a threat to China. China is a threat to India. The alignment of political and military perspectives towards [the People’s Republic of China] on the Indian side is notable—and I hope India’s friends in the free world note this—and recognize that India is on the side of the ‘free, humane nations,’” Newsham said.

India's Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar (R) speaks with his Chinese counterpart Qin Gang, on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Council of Foreign Ministers' meeting, in Benaulim, India, on May 4, 2023. Indian Ministry of External Affairs/AFP via Getty Images

‘A Little Hostility’

Although he talked of a “way forward,” Jaishankar was openly critical of China as he delivered the Sardar Patel Memorial Lecture on Governance on Oct. 5.

Experts analyzed Jaishankar’s speech in light of the approaching BRICS summit in Kazan, while pointing out a perceived difference of opinion on India–China relations within the Indian government.

Pradhan said China’s criticism of Jaishankar is a calculated move ahead of the summit. Beijing is losing patience with the foreign minister, he said. It wants to project a rosy picture of improving ties with India, and Jaishankar’s critical remarks are interfering with that picture.

“The upcoming BRICS conference provides a platform for China to showcase stability and cooperation, particularly amidst its own geopolitical challenges,” Pradhan said.

Akhil Ramesh, head of the India Program at the Honolulu-based Pacific Forum, told The Epoch Times that various members of the Indian government have given different signals vis-a-vis China.

Some would like to avoid a hasty reset of the relationship without concrete actions at the border. Others have called for “increased economic engagement with China, e.g. the economic survey, which called for rolling out the red carpet for China FDI [foreign direct investment],” Ramesh said.

Europe-based sinologist Frank Lehberger compared the government of Sardar Patel—which faced the young communist Chinese regime after its annexation of Tibet and Xinjiang—with that of the current Indian government.

The governments of both Modi and Patel “seemed not to have fully grasped the real extent of the Chinese threat to India coming from TIBET,” Lehberger wrote in an email to The Epoch Times.

He said that the Indian government needs to have awareness that there is no Indo–China border, but an India–Tibet border. Before the annexation of Tibet, India and China had never shared a boundary.

During the memorial lecture, Jaishankar pointed to “Patel’s instincts” and his 1950’s correspondence with China.

“In Patel’s view, India had done everything to allay China’s apprehensions, but that country regarded us with suspicion and skepticism, perhaps mixed with a little hostility,” Jaishankar said.

To call the tension on India’s disputed border “a little hostility” is an understatement, Lehberger said. Instead, he termed China’s agenda toward India “deeply malign.”

“Awareness of this fundamental difference” is as crucial now as it was in 1950, Lehberger said. China aims to use Tibet “as a tool of dividing India internally and stealing more of its territories,” he added.

“Such deeply malign and long-term strategic aims can hardly be explained away as ‘a little bit of hostility.’”