NEW DELHI: The Nuclear Suppliers Group fiasco is not over. The scene has shifted to Beijing with China launching a frontal attack on India and the United States through its official Global Times. The wording and the substance of the editorial signifies a deep deterioration in relations between New Delhi and Beijing with the war of words being far more prolonged and serious between the two than in recent years.

The editorial notes: “Some Indians are too self-centered and self-righteous. On the contrary, the Indian government behaves decently and is willing to communicate. Throwing a tantrum won't be an option for New Delhi.India's nationalists should learn how to behave themselves. Now that they wish their country could be a major power, they should know how major powers play their games. “

While this sharp decline in bilateral relations with the big neighbour has struck a chord of dismay in sections of the foreign policy establishment, Prime Minister Narendra Modi clearly does not share this. In his view those opposing the government’s efforts to secure the NSG membership were actually responding to his very successful visit to Washington just before. In an interview with Times Now last evening PM Modi said, “it is true that my trip to the United States of America, my speech in their Congress and the respect shown towards India created a lot of hype. Had it not been hyped so much, there would not have been so much criticism on the NSG issue. Government is being criticized not for any mishandling of the NSG issue but because we were so successful over there (in the USA).”

The Global Times editorial in fact endorsed this from the opposite end of the argument. In that it referred to the western world “spoiling” India, stating, “recent years have seen the Western world giving too many thumbs up to India, but thumbs down to China. India is spoiled. Although the South Asian country's GDP accounts for only 20 percent of that of China, it is still a golden boy in the eyes of the West, having a competitive edge and more potential compared to China. The international "adulation" of India makes the country a bit smug in international affairs.”

It noted Washington’s support with, “US backing adds the biggest impetus to India's ambition.” It further linked the New Delhi-Washington relationship as being againt China with, “ By cozying up to India, Washington's India policy actually serves the purpose of containing China.” And then came the warning that experts who know Beijing well have noted with some alarm, “the US is not the whole world. Its endorsement does not mean India has won the backing of the world. This basic fact, however, has been ignored by India.”

PM Modi said in his interview that “the most important thing is that we can speak to China eye to eye.” He added, “we are a government that takes care of India’s interests. We don’t compromise on this. Three days ago I met the Chinese President. I told him clearly about India’s interests. They are a different country, we are a different country.” Almost as if reacting to the feedback from the Tashkent meeting, the editorial states, “Some Indians' accusations do not make any sense. China's action is based on international norms, but India's reaction seems to indicate that their national interests can override principles recognized by the world.”

The editorial points out that 10 NSG member nations had opposed the bid of non-NPT countries to enter the exclusive nuclear club. It noted that before the Seoul plenary the Indian media had hyped up India’s---”the most active applicant”---bid, with some even claiming “that among the 48 members of the NSG, 47 have given it a green light, except China.”

The editorial stated that it was not just China, but ten NSG countries that had opposed the bid of non-NPT countries to get membership. India, it said was the “most active” applicant. And it again pointed to the 1975 criteria when the NSG was set up for NPT signatories. It said this was the primary principle of the organisation. And added, “now India wants to be the first exception to join the NSG without signing the NPT. It is morally legitimate for China and other members to upset India's proposal in defense of principles.”

China is clearly miffed with section of the Indian media that the editorial stated has “vilified” it. It noted the rather high voltage reportage here with, “a few Indian media outlets started to vilify China's position, and some Indians even called for a boycott of Chinese-made products and a withdrawal from the BRICS group.”

China is also angry about India being given the membership of the Missile Technology Control Regime even though it sought to pooh-pooh it with, “On Monday, the Missile Technology Control Regime absorbed India as a new member, and denied China's access. The news didn't even make a ripple among the Chinese public. The Chinese have become more mature in dealing with these setbacks caused by international relations.” But it recognised this as a setback, and clearly another point in the growing Chinese list against India.

The text of the Global Times editorial:

The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) had a plenary meeting in Seoul last week, and all members participated in a special conference on Thursday evening about the accession of non-participants of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) into the NSG. At least 10 countries, including China, have opposed their bid.

India is not a signatory to the NPT, but is the most active applicant to join the NSG. Before the Seoul meeting, the Indian media played up the prospects of its bid. Some even claim that among the 48 members of the NSG, 47 have given it a green light, except China.

Since its foundation in 1975, all NSG members shall be NPT signatories. This has become the primary principle of the organization. Now India wants to be the first exception to join the NSG without signing the NPT. It is morally legitimate for China and other members to upset India's proposal in defense of principles.

However, Indian public opinion has reacted quite strongly. A few Indian media outlets started to vilify China's position, and some Indians even called for a boycott of Chinese-made products and a withdrawal from the BRICS group.

US backing adds the biggest impetus to India's ambition. By cozying up to India, Washington's India policy actually serves the purpose of containing China.

The US is not the whole world. Its endorsement does not mean India has won the backing of the world. This basic fact, however, has been ignored by India.

Some Indians' accusations do not make any sense. China's action is based on international norms, but India's reaction seems to indicate that their national interests can override principles recognized by the world.

Recent years have seen the Western world giving too many thumbs up to India, but thumbs down to China. India is spoiled. Although the South Asian country's GDP accounts for only 20 percent of that of China, it is still a golden boy in the eyes of the West, having a competitive edge and more potential compared to China. The international "adulation" of India makes the country a bit smug in international affairs.

On Monday, the Missile Technology Control Regime absorbed India as a new member, and denied China's access. The news didn't even make a ripple among the Chinese public. The Chinese have become more mature in dealing with these setbacks caused by international relations.

Some Indians are too self-centered and self-righteous. On the contrary, the Indian government behaves decently and is willing to communicate. Throwing a tantrum won't be an option for New Delhi.

India's nationalists should learn how to behave themselves. Now that they wish their country could be a major power, they should know how major powers play their games.

Latest News

THE CITIZEN BUREAU