The Hindu : A quantum leap?

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jun 26, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

A quantum leap?

By Inder Malhotra

Evidently, sound warnings against hype about the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee's China visit have gone unheeded. As has happened all too often in the past and is almost certain to be repeated in future, the media contingent accompanying him went into a tizzy of exaggeration and hyperbole.

To be sure, some exuberance was perhaps inevitable because of the undoubted importance of the joint declaration on "comprehensive cooperation" between the world's two most populous countries, the first ever to be signed by heads of Government, Mr. Vajpayee and his Chinese opposite number, Wen Jiabao. The memorandum on the expansion of border trade also merited an accolade, if only because the reopening of the Nathu La route for this purpose was interpreted by the Indian side at least as China's belated, if indirect, recognition of Sikkim as a part of this country. Moreover, Mr. Wen's remark — "we have accomplished a major feat" — provided the Indian media with a stimulus to do with even greater vigour what it would have done anyhow.

Even so, to describe the "inking" of these agreements as a "quantum leap" in the hitherto stagnant India-China relations or the opening of a "fast track" to settle the border issue is to overdo things. To say this is not to belittle in any manner the appointment of high-level Special Representatives to view the boundary question from a "political perspective of the overall bilateral relationship". The appointment of Brajesh Mishra, the Prime Minister's Principal Secretary and National Security Adviser, and Dai Bingguo, the most senior Vice-Minister in the Chinese Foreign office, for this task is also significant.

However, a similar "elevation" of the level of boundary talks has aroused great expectations also in the past. As, for example, during Rajiv Gandhi's 1988 visit to China that still retains some resonance. At that time, the leadership of the Joint Working Group on the subject was entrusted to the Foreign Secretary. More recently, Jaswant Singh, as Minister for External Affairs, had persuaded China to accelerate the exchange of maps of the two sides' versions of the Line of Actual Control but to no avail.

As it happened, the euphoria on the first evening of the talks, when the texts of the two main documents was not available and conclusions were being drawn on the basis leaks, was partially punctured rather quickly the next morning. The Chinese Foreign Office spokespersons acted fast to dispel the impression about Beijing's recognition of Sikkim's membership of the Indian family. Negotiations on this "problem left behind by history", they said tersely, were "still on".

For their part, senior officials accompanying the Prime Minister were simultaneously busy clarifying that India's recognition of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) being "part of the territory of the People's Republic of China" was only a formal affirmation of what India's policy on Tibet has always been.

On this point the Indian side is entirely right which makes China's jubilation over this country having "for the first time" accepted TAR to be an "inalienable part of the territory of China" rather odd. Especially because the word "inalienable" has not been used in the joint statement.

One has only to look at the 1954 agreement between this country and China to know that the same thing was said half a century ago. Its very title, "Agreement between the Republic of India and the People's Republic of China on Trade and Intercourse between Tibet Region of China and India", says it all. In the 11 articles of the agreement the expression "Tibet Region of China" occurs more than a dozen times; the word "autonomous" is not mentioned even once. The use of the words "territory of the People's Republic of China" makes no difference to the established state of affairs. In any case, how does a region become part of a country without being a part of its territory?

On the other hand, our continuing crowing about China having "accepted" Sikkim as a part of India is pointless if the Chinese go on insisting that this problem "cannot be solved overnight". Implied de facto recognition is not the same thing as a de jure one.

Much has doubtless been gained during the Prime Minister's visit to China. Both sides perceive mutual advantage in deepening and widening their relationship. Frank conversations with China's new leaders have impressed on each side the concerns of the other. But there is no warrant for fancy notions about a "strategic change in China's thinking" or about the likelihood of India "taking in the Chinese scheme of things" the place now occupied by Pakistan.

It is in the all-important economic sphere, however, that the visit has been most productive and can add to the relationship's momentum. The burgeoning trade between the two Asian giants is to be doubled in two years. A joint study group will explore complementarities to boost economic cooperation, and China wants to invest in India. Altogether, it is perhaps inadvisable to proclaim, as one newspaper has done that Hindis and Chini are Bhai-Bhai again. Another daily's slogan, "Hindi-Chini Buy-Buy" seems more to the point.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

The politics of travel

A major tragedy on the rails

Where is the strong defence?

U.S. role in Indo-Pak. ties

A quantum leap?

Under the ground, behind the curtain

Civil services reform