More of the same

Since 1980, when the late Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, took an initiative and decided not to disturb the line of control until there was an agreement on borders, New Delhi has accepted the position where the forces of the two countries stood at the end of hostilities. There have been intrusions by both sides, but the status quo has been maintained scrupulously.China8217;s interpretation of the line of control is not where its troops stand presently. Its line of control runs along the territory it claims. This embraces Arunachal Pradesh and some other parts of the Northeast. In other words, Beijing has stuck to the position it held before the 1962 war. To underline the point, a few years ago, the Arunachal Assembly Speaker was not allowed to attend a meeting in Beijing because he belonged to an area which China considers its own, not India8217;s. Thank God, though, that it has stopped laying claim to Sikkim.

I concede there is no alternative to talks. But it must be an exercise in patience for the Indian team if it had nothing to do except to dot the i8217;s and cross the t8217;s in the last ten meetings. I believe that it tried its best this time to explain what the line of control meant to India. Specifically, the actual line of control, not the territory Beijing claimed. But the Chinese did not budge an inch from their position.

In a way, it is a familiar situation. When the Colombo proposals were put forth by Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Egypt and three other countries in 1962 after the ceasefire, China did not accept the interpretation. It did not withdraw its forces 20 kilometres from their positions in Ladakh when peace was declared. India, on the other hand, scrupulously withdrew 20 kilometres behind as the proposals had suggested.

A ray of hope, however, lies in the implementation of confidence-building measures. Military officers are visiting defence establishments in each other8217;s countries. Field commanders have a hotline between them and they keep in constant touch in an effort to avoid any untoward incident. There is also an exchange of information on certain military matters. The best part is the trade between India and China, which may touch a figure of two billion US dollars this year.

India has initiated the same kind of process with Pakistan. Military commanders are in touch and the two Prime Ministers have a hotline between them. They seem to have realised during the Golden Jubilee of Independence that jaw-jaw offers significant advantages over war-war. In the field of trade, the two countries are inching towards meaningful co-operation. India has sold 70,000 tons of sugar to Pakistan. Islamabad, in turn, has offered 3,000 kilowatt of power for our northern grid.

As China would have noticed, India is going more than halfway to strike a better equation. Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral nominated his Minister of State, Kamla Sinha, to represent New Delhi on the occasion of Hong Kong8217;s transfer to China. Despite pressures, India has not resiled from its stand that China has suzerainty over Tibet. Nor has the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala been allowed to make India a base for his anti-China activities or propaganda.

Despite that, Beijing has not reciprocated New Delhi8217;s gestures. There is an estrangement which New Delhi detects in dealings with third countries. China invariably takes a position which may not be hostile to India, but is not friendly either. It never tries to give or get India its due.

China8217;s advice to Pakistan to sort out differences with India across the table is a step in the right direction. The Chinese team informed the meet of how Islamabad has been told in clear terms to diligently pursue talks with India. But China8217;s supply of missiles to Pakistan undoes what its advice may have sought to do. When the Indian team inquired about the missiles, the Chinese team said the supply was not as much as had been publicised. This is hardly a reply.

Pakistan continues to rely on China which, like the US, wants to string Islamabad along. Air Marshal retd Asghar Khan has suggested a mutual defence pact with China to create an atmosphere of security and peace for Pakistan. A peculiar feature of his proposal is that Pakistan should not seek quot;a defence arrangement for gaining an advantage to strengthen its military position in Kashmirquot;. This is obviously because of the Air Marshal8217;s fear that China would not like to get involved in the Kashmir problem. I do not think that China should allow itself to be drawn into the subcontinent8217;s quarrels. Once it effects defence arrangements with Pakistan, it is bound to be sucked into a situation of conflict. That will hardly help India-China relations.

If China wants to stay out, I fail to understand why it conveys an impression of indifference towards India. In the face of Washington8217;s or for that matter the West8217;s hamhanded policy towards New Delhi, the alignment of countries in the East is a natural process. Ultimately, Asia will have to assert its identity, but it is Beijing which has to make up its mind. It gives the impression that it does not want equals. It behaves like a superior nation.

Not long ago, it believed in war and violence and bringing about political and social change by revolutionary means. The way it has opened its markets shows it has forsaken its old methods. It appears to have developed a faith in the principle of peaceful co-existence. If this is so, New Delhi is a key to the better expression of such endeavour. Yet China, at times, acts in a manner which conveys the feeling that she does not want India to progress and develop, lest it should pose a challenge to her one day.

The settlement of the border problem with New Delhi will be evidence of China8217;s desire to be accommodating. By continuing its occupation of Indian territory, it behaves like a nation which wants to keep up the charade of peace, without quite meaning it. What China has to realise is that it cannot have its cake and eat it too.