By J N DIXIT
The satisfaction over Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s visit to China stands diminished in Indian public perception by the confrontation between the Chinese and Indian border personnel when Vajpayee was still in China.
The incident took place at Asaphi La sector of the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Arunachal Pradesh, a sector about which there is difference of opinion between the two countries as to the location of the LAC.
Though the incident was more or less accidental, what is of concern is the manner in which the Chinese side handled the situation.
According to reports in the media, the Chinese were aggressive in their discussions. They detained the Indian personnel, disarmed and interrogated them and than sent them back to the Indian side of the LAC (according to Chinese perception) after which their arms were returned.
The controversy was further exacerbated by the assertion of the spokesperson of the foreign ministry that China does not recognise Arunachal Pradesh as a part of India.
This is not a new stance. China has been sticking to this claim on Arunachal Pradesh since the mid-fifties, when the Sino-Indian boundary and the validity and legitimacy of the MacMahon Line became an issue between the two countries.
Chinese did not ratify the Tripartite Anglo-Tibetan Chinese Convention of 1914 defining the border between Tibet and India. It was negotiated by then Indian foreign secretary Sir Henry MacMahon. But it is equally relevant to note that India did not consider China’s non-ratification a hurdle to exercising sovereign territorial jurisdiction in the areas now known as Arunachal Pradesh, and formerly as North Eastern Frontier Agency (NEFA).
That the Chinese side was not disinclined towards a practical compromise with India on Arunachal Pradesh if India agreed to cede territory in the western sector of the boundary with China (Aksai Chin) in exchange was inherent in the suggestions sent by the then Chinese prime minister, Zhou en-Lai, to Jawaharlal Nehru.
Whatever the circumstances for the provocation, the behaviour of the Chinese border guards at Asaphi La and the strident tone of the Chinese foreign office shows not only consistency in China’s basic approach to the issues related to the LAC and the boundary but also an approach where there is no inclination towards moderation and creating an atmosphere of reasonableness on these issues.
The Sino-Indian Joint Working Group on the Boundary Issue is to continue with discussions on the delineation of the LAC and move forward operationally on further confidence building measures (CBMs). The two special political representatives designated by the two prime ministers to discuss the substantive question of the boundary during Vajpayee’s visit are to commence their discussions on this basic issue.
The Indian side will do well to take note of China’s policy articulations on the Asaphi La incident and on Arunachal Pradesh in their future negotiations.
India’s official response to the border incident as it has come out in the media smacks of an anxiety not to offend the Chinese or diminish the positive publicity on the results of Vajpayee’s China visit.
The spokesperson of the external affairs ministry made the following points, which are factually valid to the extent that they go:
* The incident involving the Indian patrol and Chinese border guards in Arunachal Pradesh was not pre-meditated by the Chinese. The confrontation was accidental.
* Chinese and Indian patrols happen to run into each other often all along the 4,000-km-long LAC.
* The Chinese patrol’s action against the Indian patrolling party did constitute a breach of the November 29, 1996 agreement on CBMs in the military field.
* The matter has been taken up through diplomatic channels with the Chinese both in Delhi and Beijing.
* The incident will not come in the way of moving forward on various bilateral initiatives for improving relations as agreed upon during Vajpayee’s visit to Beijing.
* China’s assertive statement on Arunachal Pradesh was provoked by a question by an Indian journalist.
* Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of India.
External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha repeated more or less the same points in his statement in the Lok Sabha.
All the relevant points of a response have been made but what is of concern is the excessive and unnecessary conciliatory tone of the response. The Chinese side has been exonerated by New Delhi agreeing that the incident was accidental.
But the point is the way the Chinese patrol party behaved, which was in complete violation of the operational details of the CBMs of the 1996 agreement but of the policy level agreement signed by the two countries on maintaining peace and tranquility along the LAC, signed on September 7, 1993, in Beijing.
Article 1 of this treaty clearly said that neither side would use or threaten to use force against the other by any means. In case the personnel of one side cross the LAC, upon being cautioned by the other side, they shall immediately pull back to their own side.
When necessary the two sides shall jointly check and determine the segments of the LAC where they have different views as to its alignment.
Article 4 of the 1993 Treaty clearly states: “In case of contingencies or other problems arising in the areas along the LAC, the two sides will deal with them through meetings and friendly consultations between border personnel of the two countries.”
The Chinese patrol challenging the Indian patrol, disarming them, detaining them, interrogating them, is in clear violation of these two articles, leaving aside the general spirit and content of the Sino-Indian agreements on the LAC and CBMs of 1993 and 1996, respectively.
As far as the Chinese spokesman categorically asserting China’s claims on Arunachal Pradesh is concerned, it is not sufficient for India to say that the statement was provoked because of an Indian journalist’s question and that the Chinese have not said anything new. It is also not enough to state in passing that Arunachal Pradesh is a part of India.
Being measured and reasonable should not diminish clarity and firmness in the articulation of the country’s positions and policies. A formal statement categorically stating that the Chinese border patrol’s behaviour was in violation of the 1993 and 1996 agreements and that Arunachal Pradesh is an inalienable part of the territory of the Indian republic should have been made with adequate publicity.
The same points should be conveyed formally and firmly to the Chinese government underlining that in the interest of continuing the initiatives for peace and normalcy, Beijing should be more reasonable and tempered in its responses so that misunderstandings due to intemperate communications, which spoiled Sino-Indian relations between 1956 and 1961, are not repeated.
India would do well to keep in mind Winston Churchill’s advice on appeasement in inter-state relations: “Appeasement out of fear or just to avoid unpleasantness can be disastrous. Appeasement from a position of clear policies and strength might be the surest, and perhaps the only road to peace.”
(The writer is a former Indian foreign secretary)
