Fifty-Fifty: So How Much Chinese Is Chinese?
It is always prudent, especially when in doubt, to get basic definitions clearly understood, to avoid confusion or misinterpretation. My first question to myself, when starting to write this fortnightly Fifty-Fifty column was, “Who is an enemy?”.
The word “enemy” comes from the 9th century Latin word inimi, derived from inimicus … ‘in’ meaning ‘not’ + ‘amicus’ meaning ‘friend’. Hence, “not friend”. Also, it is very close to the old French word enemi which means ‘opponent’ or ‘opposed to’.“Enemy” is a strong word, and “emotions associated with the enemy include anger, hatred, frustration, envy, jealousy, fear, distrust, and possibly sometimes even grudging respect”. At a conceptual level, any threat from an enemy, perceived or real, is likely to be met with hate, anger, violence, battle, war and bloodshed.
Ever since the clashes between Indian and Chinese troops at the Galwan Valley in Ladakh along the LAC (Line of Actual Control) on the night of 15 June 2020, China has overtaken Pakistan as India’s enemy No.1. The rules of engagement near the LAC bar the use of live ammunition — but not brutal, medieval combat. Fighting along the narrow ridgeline of a Himalayan mountain, 20 Indian soldiers were killed. Some were beaten to death with metal rods and spiked clubs. Others literally fell, or were pushed, to their death. The reaction in media was one of extreme horror and revulsion. “Boycott China” and #teachlessontochina was the inevitable nationalistic response: boycott, don’t buy anything Chinese – be patriotic, a-simple-to-understand-simple-to-do action designed to hurt and show disgust and anger against the enemy.
The Indian Institute of Human Brands (IIHB) conducted a ‘gun-shot’ telephonic survey over June 17 & 18, just two days after the horrific Galwan Valley killings to gauge consumer sentiment on celebrities endorsing Chinese brands. The results were quite revealing:
I. 84% of respondents said they don’t want the celebs to support or sell Chinese brands because - It is unpatriotic
- Our soldiers are dying at the hands of the Chinese
- China is responsible for coronavirus
- We should support Indian brands
II. Should a Chinese brand, Vivo, be the title sponsor of IPL?
- 72 % said No
- 12 % said Yes
- 12 % said Maybe
- Rest were non-committal
III. Was it good that Byju’s replaced Chinese brand Oppo as a sponsor of the Indian team?
- 85 % said Yes
- 14 % said No
- 1% said Maybe
IV. Would you still say that if we told you that Byju’s too has substantial Chinese ownership?
- 76 % said No
- 5 % said Yes
- 14 % said Maybe
- Rest were non-committal
In the simmering anti-China hostilities, the Government of India banned 59 Chinese mobile applications in end July, including top social media platforms such as TikTok, WeChat, and Helo, and the likes of UC Browser to counter the threat posed by these applications to the country’s “sovereignty and security”. Earlier in April this year, Press Note 3 was issued by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) stating that an entity of a country that shares a land border with India can invest only after receiving government approval, to prevent “opportunistic take-over” of Indian companies. China was the obvious target. Again in July, the government announced that Chinese companies will no longer be allowed to participate in Indian highway projects, including through the joint venture route; China will not be allowed to invest in India’s micro, small and medium enterprises (MSME) sector; and imports from China will be discouraged. India has even mandated that bidders from bordering countries eyeing government contracts would need prior registration and security clearances. So, in no uncertain terms, China is now persona non grata and a pariah.
It wasn’t really surprising, therefore, that bowing to public sentiment, and the general hawa in the country, the BCCI ‘paused’ its highly lucrative title sponsorship deal of Rs. 440 crore-a-year with Chinese mobile-maker Vivo for the current edition of the IPL. But amongst the front-runners to replace Vivo are two other companies – Dream 11 and Byju’s – both of whom have Chinese investors.
But if Vivo is not acceptable as a sponsor, how come Dream 11 and Byju’s can be allowed to take the title? There have been voices in media saying they are “Indian-owned”, hence should be exempt from the Chinese ‘stigma’. But is that really tenable, and true? The companies in India which have major Chinese investments include Big Basket, Byju’s, Delhivery, Dream 11, Flipkart, Hike, MakeMyTrip, Ola, Oyo, Paytm, Paytm Mall, PolicyBazaar, Quikr, Rivigo, Snapdeal, Swiggy, Udaan and Zomato. Just because the original promoters were Indian in all of them, can we exempt them from the Chinese tag? Paytm maybe 40% Chinese owned, and Dream 11 and Byju’s may have single digit percentage of Chinese ownership, but should we start now pegging our Chinese enmity in gradations based on percentage of ownership by those that we hold in serious animosity? So, by that logic, Vivo is 100% enemy, Paytm is only 40% enemy, and Dream 11 and Byju’s are barely 10% enemy? Therefore, can we accord “frenemy” – friendly enemy – status to all those who have less than 50% Chinese investment?! Methinks that would be a willful simplification, and an utter falsification, where commercial greed and the narrow interests of chosen corporates would be allowed to prevail over nationalism.
As it is no one is really sure whether Vivo bowed out of the IPL deal on their own, or were asked by the BCCI to exit. Perhaps, fifty-fifty. It would do the BCCI a lot of good to show some spine, some character, and put the nation, put India, ahead of cricket and ahead of the IPL. And publicly, and pro-actively, state that Chinese monies are not welcome at the IPL this year when our men in uniform are fighting a difficult, and sometimes unequal, battle against Sino aggression.
The current BCCI position simply is: We have no permanent friend. We have no permanent enemies. We just have permanent interests. What the BCCI forgets, blinded by the lure of lucre, is the old saying, “If you wou'd be reveng'd of your enemy, govern your self.”
Indian cricket will surely survive for one year without Chinese patronage. For national pride, if nothing else, BCCI should distance itself from any company that has any Chinese stake. Yes, any stake. The distancing may be only symbolic, but the message will be resounding. It will be a salute to the tiranga, and to those who are staking their lives to protect it. I rest my case.
