India, China discuss differences amicably

By K. K. Katyal

NEW DELHI, MAY 1. The inside accounts of the recent meeting here of the India-China Joint Working Group confirm the stability of the bilateral relationship which enabled the two sides to focus on points of agreement and - more important - to discuss differences without causing rancour. The Group, primarily meant to find ways to resolve the boundary problem has, since its inception 12 years ago, considered matters of mutual interest, apart from the respective concerns. While the decision to resume contacts at the senior military level was a positive development, India would have liked progress on some of the issues of concern to it - terrorism, Sikkim and clarification of the Line of Actual Control, that separates the troops of the two sides in the border areas.

During the two-day meeting, that concluded last week- end, the JWG discussed at some length the proposed visit of the President, Mr. K. R. Narayanan, to China at the end of this month. Going by the statements from Beijing, the Chinese side showed far greater interest in the coming trip than what had been evident here. However, there is little doubt India regards the visit as the culmination of the confidence restoration process, meant to remove the strains created by Pokhran II.

Even on the three issues, on which progress was slow, discussions, though animated, remained cordial. India wanted China to join it in denunciation of terrorist violence and would have liked a pointed reference in a joint statement at the end of the meeting. As explained by the Indian side, China had taken a firm position against terrorist activities of religious fundamentalists in various fora, especially during the meeting of the Shanghai Five - China, Russia and three Central Asian republics - in Kazakhstan in March and, at the bilateral level, with Turkey - during the President, Mr. Jiang Zemin's visit there, some ten days ago. China, too, was at the receiving end of the terrorist violence in the sensitive Sinkiang province, bordering Central Asia. Because of this, India thought Beijing would have no problem with a condemnatory joint reference to terrorism. However, China appeared unwilling to say in New Delhi what it had been saying in other capitals and at other fora. This was, obviously, because of its feeling that a terrorism-related formulation, emanating from New Delhi, would certainly be construed as directed against Pakistan. China was not prepared to do anything that could, even remotely jeopardise its special relationship with a ``friend of all weathers''.

An insistent plea for a clear statement on Sikkim's status as part of India evoked a non-committal response - that China's stand was flexible, that its position was evolving. India was keen on a categorical declaration because of the confusion that might be created because of Sikkim's description as an independent entity on a Chinese website - it appeared there before Singapore in a list in the alphabetical order.

As regards the LAC, India made known its keenness on clarity so as to remove any chance of a mishap. Luckily the border has been quiet and the confidence-building measures, finalised in the early 1990s during the visit to Beijing of the then Prime Minister, Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao, worked smoothly. Even during the period when bilateral ties were strained after May 1998, there was no adverse reaction in the border areas. However, China did not show matching keenness to specify the LAC on the ground. All that the JWG could agree upon was that officials from both sides would meet as often as required to discuss boundary-related issues, including the clarification of the LAC.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Front Page
Previous : PM indicates considering rollback of prices
Next     : MPs immunity issue for Constitutional Bench