Today, as the world commemorates the 37th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, the image of the lone man standing defiantly in front of a column of tanks—immortalized globally as the “Tank Man”—once again comes to mind. That image became far more than a photograph from Tiananmen Square; it evolved into a symbol of resistance against the humanitarian repression carried out under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Although that resistance was ultimately crushed with overwhelming force, its legacy continues to resonate across the world.
One would expect that India, being the world’s largest democracy, would extend its wholehearted support to the pro-democracy activists of China. However, under Rajiv Gandhi’s leadership, India maintained a stony silence over the massacre of over 10,000 student activists in Tiananmen Square. As a matter of fact, Rajiv Gandhi had reportedly asked the state broadcaster, Doordarshan, to ‘tone down its coverage’ of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
Rajiv Gandhi was awestruck by the hospitality he received from the Chinese side only six months ago, when he undertook the most significant state visit in a very long time to Beijing. The CCP too left no stone unturned to brainwash Gandhi and make him a fan-boy of the then governing regime in China. Therefore, at a time when the world community was going up in arms against China’s brutal and violent suppression of protesters, Rajiv Gandhi led India not only sealed its lips on the matter, but also directly prevented the state media from informing the Indian public about the crude realities of the massacre.
Whether Rajiv Gandhi decided to remain silent on the massacre as a gesture of goodwill or whether it was a call taken under pressure, the decision was blatantly wrong for the leader of the world’s largest and most vibrant democracy to take. It is understandable that Gandhi did not want to cause friction in relations between India and China, especially after they were on a fact-paced run towards recovery. However, are any relations above the lives of 10,000 students, who were merely dreaming to achieve a democratic China?
Rajiv Gandhi’s submission to China, however, was not new. For reasons best known to the Gandhi dynasty, they seem to share a rather warm relation (independently so) with China’s CCP. Whether it be Jawaharlal Nehru’s tryst with Mao Zedong, and the then coining of the term “Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai“, or Rajiv Gandhi’s attempts at being perceived as a blue-eyed boy by the CCP, all such moves have backfired. The 1962 Sino-India war stands as a glowing testimony of the same when the rug was pulled off Nehru’s feet, who for so long was considering China a brother, and who even went the extra mile in ensuring a permanent seat for the dragon in the UNSC.
In 1967, however, when China attempted the flare-up of border disputes into a larger conflict, the Indian Army gave it a whacking of a lifetime. The Nathu-La conflict of 1967 dramatically changed the equation and made China realize that even if the political leadership of India was spineless, the Indian security forces had with them an unparalleled strength to obliterate India’s enemies.
The bonhomie between the Congress and the CCP has not died down. During Rahul Gandhi’s journey to Kailash Mansarovar, Gandhi self-admittedly said that he had met Chinese ministers, who told him how job creation was not at all a problem in China. In 2017, Rahul Gandhi had led a Congress-party delegation to China for a week-long visit, upon “CCP’s invitation”. In 2019, a Chinese delegation also paid its visits to Sonia and Rahul Gandhi while it was on a visit to India. The CCP and INC are said to have close relations with each other.
It is therefore evident that the Gandhi dynasty seems to share a rather strong relationship with the Chinese Communist Party, historically so. At a time when the global community stood against China in 1989, as it is standing up once again in 2020, the Congress finds itself drawn between a clash of civilizations. Which civilization it will choose, considering past precedent, is an easy guess for anybody to take.
This article was first published on June 6, 2020, and is being republished today to commemorate the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre.
