After years of neglect, a more assertive policy by India in Arunachal Pradesh is welcome but needs to be backed by a crash programme for strengthening the road and other infrastructure in the state, as well as in Sikkim.
While Chinese officials have given no inkling of any willingness on their part todilute this demand, non-governmental Chinese experts have been hinting for over a year nowthat China might be inclined to dilute this demand if India agreed to transfer thepopulated area of Tawang to China in return for China giving up its claim to the rest ofArunachal Pradesh.
When Prime Minister Wen Jiabo visited New Delhi in April, 2005, the two Prime Ministershad agreed that any border settlement should not affect populated areas. Indian hopes thatthis probably presaged a Chinese willingness to give up their claim to the Tawang Tracthave since been belied. The Chinese have gone back on this agreement and have beeninsisting on the transfer of Tawang to China despite its being a populated area.
India has also been concerned over the perceived Chinese reluctance to make a de jurerenunciation of their past position challenging Indian sovereignty over Sikkim. When ShriAtal Behari Vajpayee was the Prime Minister, the Chinese had stated that Sikkim was nolonger an issue affecting Sino-Indian relations. Indian assessment that this probablypresaged a de jure recognition by China that Sikkim is an integral part of India has beenbelied so far. Reported protests by China last year over Indian troop deployments in thearea and over the alleged construction of some structures by the Indian Army in Indianterritory in Sikkim have given rise to legitimate concerns that just as they went back ontheir commitment relating to non-transfer of populated areas, they are preparing theground for going back on their acceptance of the status quo in Sikkim. They are apparentlywanting to link Sikkim to Arunachal Pradesh, that is, making their acceptance of thestatus quo in Sikkim conditional on India agreeing to transfer the Tawang Tract to China.
India's premature gesture to China in the past in formally accepting Tibet as an integralpart of China without insisting on a quid pro quo by China in the form of accepting thestatus quo in Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh has left India without any cards in itsnegotiations with China. In its over-anxiety to maintain good relations with China, Indiahas been making one gesture after another to China without any of these gestures beingreciprocated by Beijing.
India's unilateral recognition of Tibet as an integral part of China has come in the wayof India's expressing concerns or protesting over Chinese activities in Tibet such asstrengthening the infrastructure not only in interior Tibet, but also in areas adjacent tothe border and extending its well-developed rail and road links to the border areas. Thereis also a talk of extending them into Nepal at the request of the Nepalese authorities.How can India protest over Chinese activities of military significance in Tibet when Indiaitself has recognised it as Chinese territory?
China, on the other hand, by not recognising Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh as Indianterritory, has reserved to itself the right to protest over Indian activities in theseareas such as construction of defensive structures in Indian territory in Sikkim, thevisit of Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, to Arunachal Pradesh on January 31 andFebruary 1,2008, etc -- the first visit by an Indian Prime Minister to this area in twodecades after the last visit by the late Rajiv Gandhi. India had even refrained fromstrengthening the road and other infrastructure in the Arunachal Pradesh area to match theChinese infrastructure in Tibet, partly due to concerns that this could create tensions inthe bilateral relations at a time when the economic relations between the two countrieswere improving and when the Special Representatives of the two Prime Ministers werediscussing the border issue and partly due to misgivings that the road links constructedby India might be used by the Chinese Army in the event of another military confrontationbetween the two countries as had happened in 1962.
Concerned over the persistent Chinese claim to Arunachal Pradesh, its going-back on thepast agreement between the two countries to find a solution to the border problem whichwould not involve any transfer of populated areas and the more activist policy of theChinese Army across the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and across the Sino-Bhutanese border,India has belatedly realised that it cannot bank on China's good intentions whileformulating its border management policies in this region. Though belated, there is now awelcome realisation that the time has come for India to be more active and assertive inthis region and to undertake a crash programme for strengthening the road and otherinfrastructure in Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh. During his visit to Sikkim in Decemberlast year, Shri A.K.Antony, the Defence Minister, had announced a crash programme forstrengthening the infrastructure in the Sikkim region. A similar programme for ArunachalPradesh has now been announced by the Prime Minister.
"The two countries will continue with the border negotiations with the help ofspecial representatives. Both sides must maintain calm and not arouse nationalistsentiments in order to create proper environment for the settlement of the problem.Arunachal Pradesh is a disputed area. This is why we have negotiations. If there was nodispute, we would not have had negotiations. Manmohan Singh is viewed in China as anhonest man who could be relied upon for settling the border dispute and taking theSino-Indian relationship to greater heights. I do not think Prime Minister Singh wastrying to connect his visit to China (in mid-January,2008) to his trip to ArunachalPradesh. I am sure he sees them differently. Domestic politics should not come in the wayof settling the border dispute. But sometimes politicians and the media may try to relatedomestic politics with international relationships. Yes, this issue about populated areasis one of the clauses of the 2005 agreement. But that [my comment: China's agreeing in2005 to the clause about non-transfer of populated areas] does not mean China haschanged its stand on Arunachal Pradesh."
What he apparently meant to convey was that the earlier Chinese agreement not to insiston the transfer of populated areas did not apply to Arunachal Pradesh, which was a standalone case not affected by the 2005 agreement.
Subsequently, a week after the Prime Minister's visit, an unidentified middle-levelofficial of the Chinese Foreign Office was reported to have told an interlocutor in theIndian Embassy in Beijing that the Prime Minister's visit to Arunachal Pradesh and hisstatements there were inappropriate at a time when the Special Representatives of the twoPrime Ministers were trying to find a solution to the problem. Though some sections of theIndian media projected it as an official Chinese protest, it was not. It was a verbal,somewhat low-key expression of unhappiness without letting it create an unnecessary cloudin the bilateral relations and spoil the feel good feeling after the recent visit of thePrime Minister to China.
It would appear that the Chinese themselves did not make an official disclosure of thisverbal communication of their unhappiness. One got the impression that this was leaked outat New Delhi. Shri Pranab Mukherjee, India's Minister for External Affairs, came out withforthright remarks in response to queries from the media about the reported Chineseunhappiness. He was quoted by the media as saying as follows:
"Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of our country. We are having regularrepresentation in our Parliament elected by people of Arunachal. Therefore, it is obviousthat the Prime Minister will visit any part of the country."
China has not yet reacted officially to a report carried by the India Today(February 11,2008) about India agreeing to let a team from the US search for the remainsof some US Air Force personnel, who went missing in action in the Arunachal Pradesh areaduring the Second World War. According to the journal, the Intelligence Bureau hadobjected to it on the ground that under the existing policy, foreigners are not allowed tovisit Arunachal Pradesh, but its objection was over-ruled and a special exception was madeto facilitate the American search. It is intriguing that this issue should have come upafter so many years at this time when the future of this area has become a matter ofincreasing concern to India. The Chinese are likely to see an ominous significance tothis.
B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, NewDelhi,and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is alsoassociated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies