REWIND
New Delhi, 22 December 2022
SINO-INDIAN TALKS
FIRST STEP TOWARDS SETTLEMENT
By Inder Jit
All those interested in seeing India
and China resolve their border dispute and revive friendly relations between
the two countries are keeping their fingers crossed. India’s delegation to the
forthcoming Sino-Indian talks is expected to begin preliminary consultations in
Beijing this morning. Substantive talks will start tomorrow or on Thursday. All
manner of speculative stories have been carried by the media on the possible
outcome of the talks. Some of these have been overly optimistic and some unduly
pessimistic. New Delhi is approaching the talks positively, cautiously and
realistically. Beijing, for its part, appears to be adopting an identical
approach according to available indications. Happily, both sides seem keen to
ensure that the parleys do not run into rough weather or, bluntly put, fail
even if they do not turn out to be successful. One thing alone is certain.
Nothing dramatic is likely to happen one way or the other. True, miracles can
never be ruled out. But in this case there seems to be little scope for any.
Some commentators have read a lot
more than is justified in the fact that the Beijing talks are being held later
than anticipated. Following the visit of the Chinese Foreign Minister, Mr Huang
Hua, to New Delhi in June last, the parleys were expected in September. The “delay”
of over two months has been attributed by some to “fresh hurdles and
misunderstandings.” This is not so. There is no particular reason for what has
come to pass. The delay has occurred mainly due to what may be described as the
time-table problem of finding mutually convenient dates for meetings in a world
beset by increasing bilateral, group and global consultations. (September was
largely taken up by the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Melbourne
and October by the Cancun meet.) There is no gainsaying the fact that India’s
decision to include the Speaker of Arunachal Pradesh in its Parliamentary
delegation to the Asian Conference on Population and Development inadvertently
caused a breeze. But good sense on both sides eventually helped to resolve the
issue smoothly.
In fact, it needs to be remembered
that the Foreign Ministers of India and China took every care at their meeting
in New Delhi to ensure that their decision to hold a “purposeful discussion to
arrive at a settlement” of the border issue should proceed smoothly.
Accordingly, Mr P.V. Narasimha Rao and Mr Huang Hua decided not to identify the
level at which the first meeting should be held. Instead, they agreed that
these “should be undertaken at the appropriate levels” which left both sides
free to make proposals in the best mutual interest. New Delhi and Beijing have
now decided through common consent to hold initial talks at the intermediate
level, namely, that of the Secretaries. This has its advantages. A Secretary is
in a position to develop policy as things go along, which is not possible at a
lower level or that of Ambassadors, who have their own constraints. Between
1958 and 1962, the level of Sino-Indian talks fluctuated from the level of the
Prime Ministers to that of Directors in the Ministry which, in retrospect, was
perhaps not the best way of handling a sensitive matter.
Both China have also happily decided
to use the talks to improve the overall climate between the two countries.
Consequently, the talks will not be limited to the border question but will
also explore ways and means of enlarging the areas of cooperation in various
fields including cultural affairs, trade, agriculture and industry. (A cultural
accord was expected to be signed during Mr Huang Hua's visit. But this could
not materialise owing to lack of time). India's delegation has been constituted
accordingly and New Delhi has conveyed to Beijing its interest in certain
specific things, namely, biogas units, mini hydel plants, small-scale cement
factories and water and soil conservancy. Beijing has communicated broadly its
own areas of interest. These include certain sectors of India's textile
industry, open pit mining, shellac industry and diamond cutting. India and
China have already exchanged delegations in regard to the manufacture of
machine tools. More such delegations in other fields may well follow.
Essentially, the idea is to generate
enough goodwill as will help resolve the long-standing and complex India-China
boundary question, complicated by a succession of unfortunate events since the
issue first erupted in 1959. The Chinese Vice-Premier, Mr Deng Xioping, “offered
a package deal in this regard in June last year and repeated it in his talk in
Beijing early this year with Dr Subramaniam Swamy, the Janata leader, and India’s
Ambassador, Mr Shankar Bajpai”. Specifically, he proposed a settlement on the
basis of Chinese acceptance of the McMahon Line in exchange for Indian
acceptance of the Chinese claim to Aksai Chin. The offer contains little that
is new. It repeats in essence China’s old offer made by Mr Chou En-lai in his
six-point proposal when he visited New Delhi in April 1960 for talks with India’s
Prime Minister, Mr Nehru. The difference, if any, lies only in one thing. Mr
Deng has formulated the original offer more explicitly. He has stated that “while
we can recognise the present line of actual control in the eastern sector,
India should recognise the status quo in the western sector.”
Beijing has been seeking for some
time now New Delhi’s views on Mr Deng’s package proposal. Only recently,
China's Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Han Nianlong, said “We are waiting
for India’s response”. But in doing so, Beijing ignores the fact that time has
not stood still since April 1960. Much has happened in the past two decades and
more that has roused national feelings and complicated the question. In the
Aksai Chin area, China today occupies some 2,000 to 2,500 sq miles more than
the 12,000 sq miles it did in April 1960. What is more, this additional area
was taken by the force of arms during the Sino-Indian conflict of 1962 a change
that not only left behind bitter memories but also caused both Houses of
Parliament to adopt a unanimous resolution on the subject. This resolution,
moved by Mr Nehru and adopted by members of Parliament while standing in an
emotion-charged atmosphere, stated that India would not rest until every inch
of aggression was vacated from its sacred soil.
Both India would have been justified
in responding to Mr Deng’s offer as an invitation to repeat its own earlier
stand on Mr Chou En-lai’s six-point proposal of April 1960. But New Delhi has
deliberately desisted from doing so in the interest of genuinely seeking a
settlement which is at once fair and honourable to both sides. Nothing
illustrates this better than the statement by Mr Narasimha Rao in the Lok Sabha
on July 2, 1980, in response to a calling attention notice regarding Mr Deng's
reported offer on the border question. Mr Rao, it may be recalled, stated: “After
a considerable lapse of time, our two governments have only just begun to come
to grips with it once more. This itself is a positive step. It may be that ways
other than the package solution suggested by the Chinese Government could prove
more effective. In any event, I am sure the House will agree that we should
proceed forward meaningfully while also keeping our best interests in mind.”
This basic approach still holds.
Some China experts have of late come
out with new archival material and fresh evidence in regard to “the truth”
about India’s border with China both in the western and eastern sectors. One
expert, who has been supported by the Dr. Kotnis Memorial Committee, has gone
to the astonishing length of even suggesting that Sir Olaf Caroe had in the
late thirties tried to give McMahon Line an ex post facto legal basis by
getting some of his officials to fake the 1928 edition of Aitchison’s Treaties,
which contained the original version of the plenipotentiaries. New Delhi has
its own view on this. It has gone through all evidence --- new and old --- and
continues to do so. In fact, the Foreign Office reaffirms the stand taken by
Mr. Narasimha Rao in reply to a discussion on the subject in the Lok Sabha on
July 31 last. Mr. Rao then stated that “the Government who keep abreast of all
important research on the subject are fully convinced that the alignment shown
in our maps conforms to the true international border.”
All in all, India and China will
have to adopt a political approach and not get bogged in the legalistic
minefield of evidence and counter evidence. There is imperative need for the
two to recapture the atmosphere of the early fifties and revive their
friendship, uninfluenced by third countries. Both New Delhi and Beijing have
together a role to play in a world which once again finds itself on the
threshold of a cold war. Moscow is expectedly taking keen interest in the
Beijing parleys. One of its top China experts, Mr Kapista, visited New Delhi
recently to share his analysis of China today - and presumably offer his
"informal advice" in dealing with Beijing. Again, Mr Kuznetsov,
Soviet Deputy Premier, who deals with South-East Asia, is due in the Union
Capital tomorrow, causing not a few eyebrows to raise in the diplomatic world.
New Delhi and Beijing have to move warily in a situation where it would be unwise
and impractical to expect results overnight. The Beijing talks will have more
than served their purpose if they constitute the first meaningful step towards
an overdue settlement. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature
Alliance)
|