SOFT WORDS ON HARD ISSUES
By
M.L. Sondhi & Ashok Kapur
Times of India, June 11, 2003
The Indian
Prime Minister in his recent China visit compounded
Jawaharlal Nehru’s mistake by conceding on Tibet without
reciprocity from China. India further agreed to open the
trade route through Sikkim without Chinese agreement on the
border. It is a fact that China has refused to negotiate on
Sikkim, given that a boundary settlement is neither required
nor expected. So the situation on the ground remains the
same. The armed forces will have to keep an eye on the
borders, Sikkim will continue to be talked about and there
is no breakthrough in sight. The visit confirms that
China’s strategy is to play a waiting game till the Dalai
Lama passes away and the time is ripe to deal with
“unequal treaties”. Evidently, China has not given up its
territorial ambitions in India’s Northeast and now
Bangladesh will become its proxy in India’s east, as
Pakistan is its proxy in the west.
The view
expressed in the joint statement that there is no China
threat to India is deceptive. Take China’s territorial
claims in Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh and Kashmir, its nuclear
and missile supply to Pakistan, China’s arms aid to
insurgents in the Northeast and military build up in
Mandalay, Coco Islands and Gwador, the demand that India
relinquish its nuclear and missile programme, and the
opposition to India's bid for a permanent seat in the
Security Council. There does not appear to be any
substantial change in China’s attitude to India.
Chance for diplomacy
There is no doubt that
discussions with China have to be on a fast track.
Diplomacy has to be given a chance, but it has to be made
time-bound. India should not leave it to China to decide
when the time is ripe for settlement.
The
prospect of Sino-Indian economic cooperation is appealing
but there is still no indication about its potential. Who
in India is pining for the Chinese market? Tangible
evidence must be presented by the Indian government and by
non-governmental Indian economic groups about trade
possibilities. There should be a paper that shows the
economic realities, not pious rhetoric.
Moreover,
the core issue is strategic, not economic, and the
differences in the strategic arena are fundamental to
India’s future. The joint statement elevates the
territorial issue to the political level by announcing the
appointment of two special envoys. With Brajesh Mishra as
the Indian special envoy, the issue will now be dealt by the
prime minister’s office. But then China has been talking
the border issue with India for about 22 years.
Ambitions remain
There has been no significant
progress on the border issue except the acceptance of peace
on the line of actual control. So far evidence shows that
China has no desire to settle the boundary issue quickly or
at all, because China is not willing to renounce its
territorial ambitions in India. Its policy is to drive a
wedge between Bangladesh and India through the promotion of
insurgency and mass migration into the Northeast, and to
drive a further wedge between Southeast Asia and the Indian
subcontinent through Myanmar. In this case, the “dialogue”
between the two special envoys is the testing ground for a
package deal between China and India across the entire
border. Without such a deal the dialogue is just a
smokescreen.
Note that
there are clear time limits to the economic dialogue but
none for the border issue. Why not? China will try to
stall the border settlement because its thought process has
not gone beyond the Nehru days and it is not ready to give
up its territorial ambition in India. That is why China has
difficulty in producing the maps to back up its claims about
the border. So even though its territorial case is not
convincing, time is on China’s side if the Indian political
leadership proves to be weak and confused. If the American
embassy in India is tied to the China lobby, the China lobby
in India is strong, the lure of the China market continues
to entice Indians, the core strategic issues can be
sidelined by soft words.
|
