US Tariff War
By Inder Jit
(Released on 20 December 1988)
The Prime Minister, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, now in Beijing, deserves a hand for his bold initiative in deciding to visit China. Nothing would gladden the hearts of all of us Indians and so also of all the Chinese more than to return to the balmy days of “Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai”. But how do we restore the old atmosphere? How do we as two great neighbours resolve our crucial border problem, which even led to an armed conflict in 1962. Various suggestions have been mooted – some by the Chinese and others by our own leaders. But a question which has crossed my mind again and again in this year of Nehru’s birth centenary is: How would Nehru have approached the problem today and tackled it in the light of two cardinal factors. First, Nehru’s grand dream of India and China working together and contributing to the cause of peace and development in Asia and the world. Second, Parliament’s resolution of November 14, 1962 which was moved by Nehru and, in his own words in the Lok Sabha, was passed by the House “in an unusual manner – by all the Members standing and pledging themselves to what it contained.”
Wisdom undoubtedly lies in seeing that we do not become prisoners of the past. At the same time, the past cannot be wished away, especially in a vigorous democracy and, what is more, in a pre-election year. In fact, we would do well to remember that Nehru decided to cultivate China after the revolution in 1949 even though Peking, as Beijing was then called, had branded his Government as a “running dog of US imperialism”. He did this not in any spirit of romanticism but because he was clear that India’s security demanded this. Peking, for its part, responded eagerly, as it wanted an influential friend who would provide a bridge to the non-Communist world. (Nehru introduced Chou-En-Lai on the Afro-Asian stage at Bandung.) Proof of this is an incident which, according to knowledgeable people, took place when the Nepalese Prime Minister, Tanka Prasad Acharya, visited Peking. At a reception in his honour, he raised the slogan of Nepal-China friendship. Mao, who was present, quickly corrected him, saying it was Nepal-China-India friendship. Nehru also foresaw that China and Russia would clash one day.
A ringside view of the times and development is available from Durga Das, author of “India from Curzon to Nehru and After”, described by the late President, Dr. Zakir Hussain, as “Indian history seen from the inside”. He writes: “India and China had drifted apart towards a point of no return by April 1960 when Chou came to Delhi for further talks on the border question. Nehru was anxious to get China to accept the McMahon Line as the northern boundary of NEFA and Chou was willing to do so. But in return, the Chinese Prime Minister asked for India’s acceptance of Chinese presence in Aksai Chin. Nehru was not interested in Aksai Chin… and at one stage was quite agreeable to strike a deal. But premature leakage in the press of what was going on between him and Chou and its description of the proposed announcement as a ‘sell-out’ on Aksai Chin blocked the agreement. The Opposition in Parliament pounced on the report and extracted from an embarrassed Nehru an undertaking that ‘not an inch of Indian territory’ would be ceded or bartered away without the approval of the House.”
In fact, Parliament’s record of “Discussion regarding Chinese Incursions” in the Lok Sabha on December 5, 1961 makes interesting reading and deserves to be recalled. Nehru was initially accused by the Opposition of “suppressing facts” in regard to developments in Aksai Chin. Nehru, I recall, stood his ground stoutly and said: “We must know the facts; and I do not understand how you arrive at the truth by minimizing the facts which are known to everybody else but we ourselves refuse to see them properly, ostrich-like. The importance of it (the area) is very great for a variety of reasons and more essentially for the reasons which I have just mentioned. (Himalayas are not only a part of our territory but they are part of our hearts and minds!) But, nevertheless, the fact remains that this area is a most extraordinary area in the world as far as terrain is concerned. No tree grows anywhere in this wide area — there may be some shrubs…” But his effort to carry the House with him came to naught as Mr. Mahavir Tyagi interrupted: “No hair grows on my head. Does it mean that the head has no value?”
China’s attack on India on October 22 greatly angered Nehru. He came forward with a resolution dealing with “this aggression and how China had betrayed the friendship and goodwill of India as well as the principles of Panchasheel which had been agreed between the countries.” The resolution, which said that “the flame of liberty and sacrifice has been kindled anew” concluded: “with hope and faith, this House affirms the firm resolve of the Indian people to drive out the aggressor from the sacred soil of India, however long and hard the struggle may be.” Nehru recalled the resolution in the Lok Sabha during a discussion on “the border situation resulting from the invasion of India by China” on December 10, 1962. He denounced China repeatedly of “imperialist aggression”, “betrayal” and much else, and asserted: “We will endeavour to the utmost of our ability to face the challenge and protect our motherland”. Importantly, however, he did not allow his anger to cloud his good sense and said: “But, we shall always seek peaceful methods to resolve the dispute. But conditions for a peaceful approach have to be created if this is to yield any fruit.”
We would do well to remember that Nehru decided to cultivate China after the revolution in 1949 even though Peking, as Beijing was then called, had branded his Government as a “running dog of US imperialism”. He did this not in any spirit of romanticism but because he was clear that India’s security demanded this. Peking, for its part, responded eagerly, as it wanted an influential friend who would provide a bridge to the non-Communist world.
Not a few, including some Opposition leaders, feel that Mr Gandhi’s current visit to China goes against the letter and spirit of the 1962 resolution. This, however, is a superficial view. Mr. Gandhi’s visit is essentially in keeping with Nehru’s own approach to the problem in the wake of the aggression. It seeks to pull the whole issue out of the rut into which it has fallen and create what Nehru earnestly desired, namely “conditions for a peaceful approach” — and “a peaceful solution”. I heard Nehru conclude his speech on December 10, 1962 in the Lok Sabha with the words: “This House has already expressed itself in the resolution which it passed on the 14th of November and clearly started what it is determined to do and taken the pledge. By that pledge we shall stand and I hope we shall honour it in full.” The pledge, too, is not being violated in any way. The resolution affirmed the “firm resolve of the Indian people to drive out the aggressor from the sacred soil of India, however long and hard the struggle.” The precise extent of the sacred soil has yet to be determined in view of China’s claims and the resultant controversy.
Mr. Gandhi’s visit is essentially in keeping with Nehru’s own approach to the problem in the wake of the aggression. It seeks to pull the whole issue out of the rut into which it has fallen and create what Nehru earnestly desired, namely “conditions for a peaceful approach” — and “a peaceful solution”.
No one in New Delhi is under any illusion about what can be achieved and what cannot be achieved during the present visit. There is talk of getting both the sides to agree to maintain peace and tranquility on the border pending a solution of the boundary dispute. But this is neither new nor adequate. An agreement to this effect was reached during the visit of Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee as the Janata Foreign Minister to Beijing in 1979. Yet, the understanding came to be violated when Beijing, according to New Delhi, made incursions into Arunachal Pradesh, the most serious of these being the one into Sumdorong Chu Valley. The important thing, therefore, is not merely to have a fresh accord on maintaining peace and tranquility. There is need to get both the countries to respect the line of actual control along the entire Sino-Indian border and, importantly, to get the armed forces of each side to withdraw 20 kilometers from this line and disengage. (On a visit to Nathu la three summers ago, I saw men of the two armed forces ranged against each other, almost eye ball to eye ball.) Happily, thoughts in both camps appear to be moving towards disengagement.
The important thing, therefore, is not merely to have a fresh accord on maintaining peace and tranquility. There is need to get both the countries to respect the line of actual control along the entire Sino-Indian border and, importantly, to get the armed forces of each side to withdraw 20 kilometers from this line and disengage.
But a pertinent question that arises is where precisely is the line of actual control? The Chinese should be asked to specify where exactly the line runs if we are to avoid repeating Sumdorong Chu. (Informed sources say that trouble erupted in Sumdorong Chu because of the Chinese decision to change the pattern of patrolling.) Simultaneously, efforts need to be made to draw up what authoritative circles describe as the “Objective criteria” for determining the Sino-Indian border. Over the decades, controversial borders are known to have been determined in accordance with certain acknowledged criteria such as watershed, highest mountain range, history and tradition. Alas, no agreement has been reached so far on these principles or criteria. The summit would have served a great purpose if it could set up a group to lay down a clear direction and format for negotiations. A lot of time has been wasted already.
India and China must resolve their border dispute if they are serious about restructuring and revitalizing their relations. They cannot afford to sit pretty when new and vital equations are being forged all round.
Much else will no doubt be attempted during Mr Gandhi’s stay in Beijing, especially during his meeting with Mr Deng Xioping. (The Chinese prefer not to disclose in advance the fact of such meetings at the highest level. President Nixon, for instance, was told of his meeting with Chairman Mao during his visit to Beijing barely half an hour earlier.) There is talk of setting up a Sino-Indian Joint Commission and of signing some agreements, including one on science and technology. (Among other things, India needs to learn the secret of China’s success in agriculture which has enabled it to produce some 270 million tonnes of foodgrains as against India’s total of 160 million tonnes with barely two-thirds of our arable area.) More than anything else, the visit should help better understanding among the two Asian giants at a time when a sea change is coming over international relations and one witnesses the incredible spectacle of Washington talking to Mr. Yasser Arafat’s PLO! India and China must resolve their border dispute if they are serious about restructuring and revitalizing their relations. They cannot afford to sit pretty when new and vital equations are being forged all round. — INFA