Dr. Bhashyam Kasturi
Associate Editor
Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund
New Delhi

The Centre organised a round table discussion on Sino-Indian Border Dispute on 24 December 2003. Dr. Kasturi Bhashyam, Fellow at the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, attended initiated the discussion. In his address, he stressed on the importance of understanding certain aspects in analysing the boundary question between India and China. They are:

- To understand the Chinese position, it is imperative to understand the role that the Chinese ideology, military and intelligence play in the boundary question.

- The understanding of the boundary question has to be based on a better perception of the changing historical positions of both the sides.

- The problem could not be solved by an overall political settlement. The real hitch is in the details of the boundary question.

- The Tibetan factor has to be taken into account.

He further said that in order to effectively face the Chinese in resolving the boundary question, India has to take certain measures:

- India has to shore up its military and economic strength against China. It should be strong enough to measure its own confidence: the confidence in its own system to deal with China.

- Transparency, to some extent, is essential in resolving the dispute. Secrecy has its own value, but the end game for the Indian political establishment is to convince its own people that some sort of compromise is necessary; and that would eventually require some transparency.

- India has to send across the message that it is serious about the boundary question and keen to know how serious the Chinese are on the issue.

Mr. M.K. Narayanan, Vice President of the Centre, in his comment elaborated about the difficulties in understanding the Chinese position. The Chinese never said and would never say where they think the boundary lies. The maps are a source of confusion as the McMohan line covers a vast area on the ground. The role that the Chinese and Indian intelligence played in pushing the boundary stones has only added to the confusion. This apart, Mr. Narayanan, drawing from his own experience, said that the Chinese are inscrutable. The decline of the Sinologists, both in the government and outside it, has made the task of understanding the Chinese mind that much more difficult. Despite these problems, Mr. Narayanan, was of the opinion that this is the best moment to resolve the dispute. The reasons, according to him, could be seen in the Chinese ambitions of becoming an economic super power. It is in the interest of China to resolve the dispute and certainly not allow it to escalate it into a war, for its economy would be set back by a decade or two. Further, this is the moment in history, when India and China do not look at the dispute from the point of view of a geographical space, but as to how it would impact on their economy. He also said that there would not be any opposition to a settlement, for India has accepted the fact that Aksai Chin is lost forever. Thus, according to him, the dispute could be settled by a general agreement rather than on the basis of specifics.

Mr. Lawrence Prabhakar, Associate Professor, Madras Christian College, and Founder Member of the Centre, drew attention to the slow encirclement of India by China. In Tibet, the Qinghay-Lhasa railway would be completed by 2007 giving a tremendous boost to the Chinese logistical ability to reinforce its troops in Tibet. There was also a rapid influx of Chinese navy into the Indian Ocean. Further, China was cultivating its two anchors - Pakistan and Myanmar. This, according to Mr. Prabhakar, implies that India is basically in the midst of a pincer movement where the Chinese are rapidly moving into the maritime space in the south and into the continental space in the north.

Brigadier K. Srinivasan (Retd), Director of the Centre, was of the opinion that there was no pressing need to resolve the border question immediately. He said that there was a lack of political will to resolve the question. Resolving the dispute would involve certain amount of give and take. The giving part of it would go against earlier Parliamentary resolutions and political statements of the erstwhile leaders. Therefore, the public in India need to be convinced of the need to give and take and this way we would be able to settle the dispute with China.

The discussion concentrated on the understanding of the Chinese ideology. Dr. Bhashyam clarified that what was meant by ideology in the discussion was not Chinese communism, but the Chinese mind: what influences the Chinese thinking on the border question? How they perceive the border issue? What is the importance they attach to issue? and so on. It was generally agreed that an understanding of the Chinese mind is essential to make any progress in the border question. However, most of the available sources are western, tailored for certain purposes. Dr. Bhashyam argued that while information from such sources could contain bogeys, India should be prepared for any eventuality, in case the bogeys turned out to be true.

Compiled by R. Venkataramanujam