The Hindu : Vajpayee's Himalayan bridge

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jun 19, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Vajpayee's Himalayan bridge

By C. Raja Mohan

Messrs Vajpayee and Hu should focus on problem-solving and expanding functional cooperation.

EVEN BEFORE he has landed in China, the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, appears to have been infected by a Severe Acute Rhetorical Syndrome (SARS)! This is a virus that tends to affect all Indian leaders as they head towards China. At his meeting with China's President, Hu Jintao, in St. Petersburg, Russia last month, Mr. Vajpayee was quoted as talking about an "Asian Century". This one single phrase captures all the old unproductive baggage in India's China policy. One assumption of Mr. Vajpayee's overworked phrase is that India must hanker after a pan-Asian ideology that is hardly credible in today's world. Another is that India and China can constitute a "rising East" against the "declining West". The Chinese Government and the Indian elite love to hear this kind of feel-good "anti-hegemonic" posturing that helps mask the lack of progress on resolving long-standing bilateral problems.

Stirring slogans against the West or the sole superpower are not going to impress anyone in the world. For, the reality is that India and China are two big neighbours with giant sized national egos and often clashing regional policies. The rising middle classes in both countries are more tuned into the United States and are virtually ignorant of each other. Neither of them is going to be terribly enthused by a rhetoric that reflects the old anti-colonial mindsets of their leaders. But they will be certainly happy to see Mr. Vajpayee and his Chinese interlocutors making some progress towards establishing "normal", let alone "good" neighbourly relations between the two nations.

It is not often that two big neighbouring states become allies against a third power; but they need not necessarily be adversaries. The stark reality today is that more than five decades after becoming modern states, India and China don't have simple things that neighbouring states should put in place — settled boundaries, good fences, border trade, tourism, and have frequent high level political contact. Covering up this pathetic situation on their borders by tilting at global windmills is a gigantic self-deception that New Delhi and Beijing have often engaged in.

Messrs Vajpayee and Hu should instead focus on problem-solving and expanding functional cooperation. If the two leaders are looking for one big idea that can encompass many small mutually beneficial steps towards cooperation it is building a bridge across the Himalayas. Mutual distrust and rivalry that have hobbled relations between India and China for the last so many decades is rooted in the Himalayan range. An unresolved boundary dispute, China's refusal to recognise Sikkim as part of India, and Beijing's fears about New Delhi playing the Tibet card have made the Himalayas an impenetrable barrier between the two nations.

The leaders in Beijing now say that in the millennia of civilisational interaction India and China have fought each other only a brief one per cent of the time in the latter part of the twentieth century. But that short confrontation has choked off historic trading routes, religious pilgrimage and cultural interaction between the people across the mountain range developed over thousands of years. Dismantling these barriers put up in the last few decades could electrify the Himalayan region and provide a better context for bilateral relations. And that is within the grasp of Mr. Vajpayee and his Chinese hosts. Here is a list the two sides could act upon during Mr. Vajpayee's visit to China next week and help transform the Himalayas into a bridge.

One, come up with a strong political commitment to resolve the boundary dispute in the immediate future, rather than leave it to the future generations. The boundary dispute is at the heart of mutual distrust and mobilising the political will to address it purposefully and expeditiously would constitute a great leap forward in Sino-Indian relations. It should not be impossible for the two sides to draft a set of agreed principles that could guide the resolution of the boundary dispute.

Two, as we move towards boundary settlement, accelerate the delineation and clarification of the Line of Actual Control on the long and contested border. Although the two sides had agreed a few years ago to go down that road, the process has stalled. That must be revived by a decision to quickly complete the exchange of maps on the Western and Eastern sectors of the boundary.

Three, reinforce the 1993 and 1996 agreements on confidence-building measures with additional steps to boost peace and tranquillity on the borders.

Four, complement "peace and tranquillity" in the Himalayas with "trade and prosperity" across them. The regional leaders in Tibet as well as those in Sikkim and Uttaranchal want more border trade and the opening up of the traditional commercial routes, as they seek an improved standard of living. But high state policies in Beijing and New Delhi have prevented what should be a normal way of life on the borders. Equally important for the two sides is an agreement to promote more intensive trade between the neighbouring provinces in India's North East and China's South West.

Five, end the dispute over Sikkim which has become a major obstacle to building mutual trust. Beijing should know that Mr. Vajpayee is not losing any sleep over the Chinese refusal to recognise India's sovereignty over Sikkim. For, the reality is Sikkim is integrated into India politically and it does not really need a Chinese certificate on its sovereignty. China's reluctance to move forward on an issue of India's territorial sovereignty deepens widespread suspicions in the country about Beijing's intentions. And China's attempts to extract quid pro quos from India on Tibet for recognising Sikkim as part of India adds to the distrust. It should not be impossible for the two sides to come up with a simple formulation that has an explicit Chinese recognition of Indian sovereignty over Sikkim and a reaffirmation of the Indian position that Tibet is a part of China.

Six, a resolution of the Sikkim dispute should not only open the historic trading routes but also tourism across the Himalayas. A bus service between Gangtok and Lhasa as well as opening multiple routes to Lake Manasarovar and Mount Kailash would be part of an effort to intensify people-to-people contact between the two nations. There is deep religious and cultural sentiment in India associated with these holy sites and better access to these sites would bring in large numbers f rich Indian pilgrims and enthusiasts.

Seven, India and China should step up cooperation in the environmental management of the Himalayas. Exchange of hydrological data on the Brahmaputra has already begun, and the two sides can move towards a more comprehensive engagement on preserving one of the world's richest natural legacies.

These seven elements could form the framework for transforming the nature of the Himalayas in Sino-Indian relations. New Delhi and Beijing cannot create an Asian century on the shifting sands of mutual distrust and lack of even minimal cooperation on their frontiers. There will be many other issues such as trade and mutual investment, China's support to Pakistan, and the prospects for cooperation on global issues in play during Mr. Vajpayee's visit to China. But nothing is more important at this stage in Sino-Indian relations than taking the first firm steps towards building a bridge across the Himalayas.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Something better than nothing

Transgenic crops and approval

Vajpayee's Himalayan bridge

Bhindranwale's martyrdom

Indian troops for Iraq?

Thapa for strong Indian ties