Our Political Bureau in New Delhi
Although Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha, in an interview to BBC called the joint communiqué between India and China a “win-win” situation for both, the pact does not represent any dramatic move forward, say China experts.
In his interview today, Sinha said the border agreement had “recognised” the Nathu La pass in Sikkim as a “border pass” between the two countries. “We have signed a border agreement in which Nathu La pass has been recognised as a border pass between China and India through which trade will be facilitated,” he said.
Asked if this meant a tacit admission by China over India’s claims on Sikkim, Sinha said, “you can read the language for yourself. I do not know why there should be any doubt about anything”.
However, experts draw attention to the official Chinese reaction. The spokes-man for the Chinese external affairs ministry, in a biweekly briefing yesterday said the expansion of trade did not mean recognition of India’s “annexation” of Sikkim. He also said Sikkim was an inheritance of history and history could not be changed so easily.
Similarly, on the Tibet “breakthrough”, Sujit Dutta, scholar at the Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis (IDSA), pointed out that as far back as the visit of Chinese Premier Li Peng’s visit to India in 1991, the joint communiqué issued then referred to Chinese concern about the continued activities of some Tibetans in India against their motherland.
China reiterated that Tibet was an inalienable part of its territory and that it was opposed to bring action that brought about “the independence of Tibet”.
India reaffirmed its “long-standing and consistent position” that Tibet was an autonomous region of China and that it did not allow Tibetans to engage in anti-China political activity.
Today, to a question if there was any confusion on the Indian position on Tibet, the minister said: “If you look at the language which India has consistently used over the last 50 years, you will find that we have consistently taken a position.”
The Chinese would like India to recognise Tibet as it exists today “in a more explicit way”. India has consistently differentiated between its recognition of Tibet as an autonomous region and the Dalai Lama’s definition of the “Tibetan region” that includes those areas that have been hived off from Tibet and merged with other states in China.
So the “explicit recognition” that China had sought did not come during this trip. Therefore, hopes of a breakthrough were belied on that score as well, experts feel.
In his interview, Sinha said: “I would say there is no change in India’s position and it continues to be consistent with the past positions we have taken.”
On whether there was any change vis-a-vis India’s stand regarding the Dalai Lama, Sinha said, “I don’t think there is any change there.” Although Sinha said the meeting was the “beginning of a new era”, the evidence suggests that relations only inched forward.
On “body language” between the Indian and Chinese leadership, Sinha said there was “great deal of warmth, cordiality and candour. You couldn’t have asked for better atmospherics. There was no attempt on the part of either country to avoid any issue or evade or sweep an issue under the carpet.”
Issues were discussed frankly and freely.” On whether more high-level visits between India and China were planned, the minister said many more visits would take place before the year was out.
