Archives
diplomacy
At the same time, announcement of the massive developmental aid was a welcome step for the frontier state lying in a state of underdevelopment and impoverishment since long. In spite of the strategic importance of this state, India has failed to invest in it the way the Chinese have chosen to develop their territory across Arunachal. The fact, however, remains that mere announcement of developmental packages has done little to better the state of affairs in most of the northeastern states. Most of the states of the region are simply incapable of absorbing the huge developmental funds a substantial part of which either remains unspent or goes back to the Indian mainland through the politician-bureaucrat-contractor nexus. It is, however, important, at the same time that New Delhi is seen to be responding to the need of development of such states including Arunachal Pradesh. Prime Minister’s aid package thus, is a crucial step in that direction.
Given the high profile visit to Arunachal Pradesh, it would have been a surprise if the Chinese had decided to keep mum. The Chinese have never been ambivalent about their position over the territories they claim their own. The Chinese officials reportedly protested against the Prime Minister’s visit, although neither India’s Ministry of External Affairs nor the Chinese embassy in New Delhi confirmed the report. External Affairs minister Pranab Mukherji, however, said that Arunachal was an integral part of India with members in Parliament representing the state. On February 14, however, a spokesman of the Chinese Foreign Ministry confirmed that Beijing has lodged a strong protest with the Indian Embassy over Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit. Spokesman Liu Jianchao told “Regarding Mr. Singh’s visit to that area (Arunachal Pradesh), we have expressed our concern. Our position (on the issue) is clear. We hope that China and India will continue with consultations and negotiations which is good for peace and stability of the region. I believe both China and India are aware of this.” She said that China had particular objection to Dr. Singh asserting that Arunachal Pradesh is “our land of rising sun.”
In fact, diplomatic niceties have never been the virtue of Chinese foreign policy, even though such remarks would have been seen as made immediately after or prior to supposedly important visits. For example, just a week ahead of Chinese President Hu Jintao’s state visit to India on November 20, 2006, Beijing’s envoy in New Delhi Sun Yuxi said, “In our position, the whole of the state of Arunachal Pradesh is Chinese territory. And Tawang is only one of the places in it. We are claiming all of that. That is our position.”
In 1962, China had captured Tawang and yet it withdrew from it and the rest of Arunachal Pradesh largely to what is the MacMahon line, thereby de facto accepting its validity. In the western sector, it did not go back to the pre-1962 line and retained the fruits of its aggression. Analysts argue that if they needed to hold Tawang for religious or security reasons or felt that their legal claim was rock solid, they would not have withdrawn.
China believes that such a public claim made by the Indian prime minister must not go unchallenged. Though China does not have a democratic government, which needs to pay heed to the popular mood, the authorities cannot ignore the hardliners within the Chinese establishment. There are sections within the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) who want Beijing to take a tough line on India.
India’s official position is that China continues to claim approximately 90,000 square kilometres of Indian territory in the eastern sector of the India-China boundary in Arunachal Pradesh. Apart from this, China also continues to be in illegal occupation of 38,000 sq. km of Jammu and Kashmir. This is in addition to the 5,180 sq. km of Indian territory in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir ceded to China by India under the “Sino-Pakistan Boundary Agreement of 1963”.
The fact, however, remains that successive regimes in India have pursued a passive policy over Arunachal Pradesh. Where as there is no mincing of words about the status of the state by the political parties, little has been done to forcefully counter China’s claims over a state, which India considers as being it’s integral part. Whereas the opposition BJP now wants the UPA government to be assertive about Arunachal, it is also a case that former Prime Minister A B Vajpayee did not bother to visit Arunachal Pradesh even once during his tenure.
Boundary settlement has remained an unsolved issue in spite of the understandings between both nations. China’s disinclination to settle the issue and India’s non-existing capacity to force it to do so in its own interest, has left it no choice but to try to stabilise the situation on the border through the Agreements on Maintaining Peace and Tranquillity and on Confidence Building Measures in the 1990’s. These have contained the border problem, but have also frozen it to India’s disadvantage. The status quo always favours the side not anxious for change. India wants peace on the border but also wants a border settlement. It suits China also to have peace as it defuses the border issue politically and militarily and gives it a free hand to settle Tibet internally.
During the Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s visit to China both countries signed the “Declaration of Principles for Relations and Comprehensive Cooperation” on June 23, 2003, according to which both countries appointed Special Representatives to explore the framework of a boundary settlement, from the political perspective of the overall bilateral relationship.
The process of resolving the boundary dispute has been furthered through the “Agreement on Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the India-China Boundary Question” concluded in April 2005. The Agreement noted, “The differences on the boundary question should not be allowed to affect the overall development of bilateral relations. The two sides will resolve the boundary question through peaceful and friendly consultations. Neither side shall use or threaten to use force against the other by any means. The final solution of the boundary question will significantly promote good neighbourly and friendly relations between India and China.” It further noted, “Pending an ultimate settlement of the boundary question, the two sides should strictly respect and observe the line of actual control and work together to maintain peace and tranquillity in the border areas. The India-China Joint Working Group and the India-China Diplomatic and Military Expert Group shall continue their work under the Agreements of 7 September 1993 and 29 November 1996, including the clarification of the line of actual control and the implementation of confidence building measures.”
The “Shared Vision document for the 21st Century” unveiled during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s January 2008 visit to Beijing echoed the sentiments. It said, “The two sides remain firmly committed to resolving outstanding differences, including the boundary question, through peaceful negotiations, while ensuring that such differences are not allowed to affect the positive development of bilateral relations. The two sides reiterate their determination to seek a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution to the boundary question and to build a boundary of peace and friendship on the basis of the Agreement on Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the India-China Boundary Question concluded in April 2005. The Special Representatives shall complete at an early date the task of arriving at an agreed framework of settlement on the basis of this Agreement.”
The boundary talks, however, have slowed down in the last one year ever over the question of exchange of populated areas. India insists that these areas cannot be exchanged, while China, with its eye on the Tawang monastery, is not willing to concede this point.
The informal Chinese protest, however, is unlikely to affect the overall improvement in ties between the two Asian giants. Trade as well as political ties between India and China continue to improve over the years. The phenomenal growth of India-China trade is a welcome development as it contributes to increasing mutual prosperity. It is important to note that on the Indian side the decision to boost economic exchanges is a political one based on the logic that the border issue should not stand in the way of normalisation of relations in other fields.
India is scheduled to host the second joint military exercises with China this year. The first-ever military manoeuvres between the two countries were held in China in December 2007, when about 200 Indian and Chinese troops carried out anti-terrorism exercises. Both the countries had pledged to strengthen inter-military links during Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Beijing in January.
The warming up of relations between the two countries was further evident from the address of the President to the budget session of the Parliament on February 25, 2008. Pratibha Patil said, “India attaches high importance to its bilateral relations with the People’s Republic of China, with which we have a Strategic and Cooperative Partnership for Peace and Prosperity. This partnership has been further enhanced and given a global dimension with the signing of a Shared Vision for the 21st Century during the visit of the Prime Minister to China last month (January). Peace and tranquility have been maintained on our border with China and both countries are determined that this should continue.”
In today’s global order it is almost impossible for any country to seek recourse to military action to resolve border disputes. Thus, for all practical purposes, we can safely discount the fact that China will ever consider forcibly occupying Arunachal Pradesh. However, at the same time, the issue would continue to be an irritant between both countries, harming the trust factor crucial to the full blossoming of bilateral ties.
