P
By Shyam Khosla
China’s protest over the Dalai Lama’s meetings with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi is yet another reminder that our northern neighbour is a cool customer that needs to be handled with extreme care, prudence and sophistication. New Delhi has no option but to reject the protest as no foreign power has a right to tell Indian leaders whom to meet or not to meet. The Dalai is no terrorist. He is committed to non-violence and the ‘middle path’. A world-renowned religious leader, head of the Tibetan government-in-exile and the top spiritual leader of Tibet deserves the courtesy to be received by the government and political leaders. He is our honoured guest, who took political asylum in India about half a century ago and has been routinely meeting Prime Ministers and others. Why this fuss over his courtesy calls on the new Prime Minister and the Congress president? Why is China putting pressure on the eve of crucial talks between the two countries?
Even as Beijing is systematically destroying Tibet’s identity by countless methods, including settling millions of mainland Chinese into this ‘autonomous region’, the Dalai has publicly abandoned the demand for Tibet’s freedom. He has struck to his middle path— ‘genuine autonomy’ for Tibet so that Tibetans can preserve their age-old culture, customs and traditions—in the face of stiff resistance and criticism from younger elements that want to continue their freedom struggle with all the means available to them. He is a practical man who knows that the super power and Tibet’s neighbours have abandoned his country and that it would be futile to hope for freedom from Chinese clutches.
Let no one forget that China has not, repeat not, supported India’s candidature in an expanded and truly representative Security Council, even while it wants to be associated with SAARC.
The Prime Minister of the Tibetan government-in-exile Samdhong Rimpoche recently asked Beijing to stop being suspicious and afraid of the Dalai’s popularity and assured it that the Dalai wanted to return to his homeland not as the temporal head of all Tibetan, but as their spiritual guide. He also reassured the Tibetans living there that Tibetan refugees wouldn’t usurp their jobs if they were allowed to return to their homeland. However, the Chinese are, as usual, adamant and have put conditions to ‘substantive talks’ with Tibetan representatives for the Dalai’s possible return to the roof of the world. These conditions are: He must recognise both Tibet and Taiwan as an ‘inalienable part’ of China and stop his ‘splitist’ activities. Beijing has categorically rejected any special deal for Tibet on the lines of ‘one country, two systems’ as was the case with Hong Kong and Macau on the premise that unlike Tibet, the two other regions were British and Portuguese colonies. In the face of historical evidence to the contrary, Beijing insists that Tibet has been an ‘integral part’ of China for the past 700 years.
Sino-Indian talks on the border dispute have reached a critical stage. The third round of talks between National Security Adviser J.N. Dixit and China’s special representative Dai Bingguo is round the corner. The first two rounds were preliminary, which, in official jargon, laid down the ‘guiding principles’. Beijing has indicated that the principle of ‘give-and-take’ would have to be debated in the third round so that a ‘framework for a compromise’ solution on the border dispute can be put into place. Dixit is an experienced and astute negotiator and one hopes that he wouldn’t allow to go waste India’s concession on Tibet during Vajpayee’s visit to China when New Delhi conceded that Tibetan Autonomous Region was an integral part of the People’s Republic of China.
The Chinese are tough negotiators and give too little, too late, as was the case with the amends they made on Sikkim. Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister, Shen Guo Fang, recently said at Beijing that settling the Sino-Indian borders was not likely to be smooth. Is it an indication that Beijing’s stand on the border dispute is hardening? New Delhi’s desire for peace with China will have to be tempered with the situation on the ground and Beijing’s intentions. Let no one forget that China has not, repeat not, supported India’s candidature in an expanded and truly representative Security Council, even while it wants to be associated with SAARC.
Media hype about improvement in Sino-Indian relations notwithstanding, the fact remains that it was China that insisted on an extremely discriminatory Resolution 1172 that condemned India for its nuclear tests in 1998. Chinese response to Foreign Minister Natwar Singh’s proposal that India, Pakistan and China need to evolve a common nuclear doctrine is equally disturbing. Fang said last month that the international community should stick to the principles of NPT as well as the Security Council Resolution 1172 that asked India to stop its nuclear weapons programme and refrain from weaponisation. He didn’t care to hide Beijing’s unfriendly attitude towards India by proclaiming that UN must have a role in addressing Indo-Pak disputes, including the ‘core’ issue of Kashmir. Renowned diplomat G. Parthasarathy is not wrong when he says that China wants to reduce India to the status of a vassal state of the Middle Kingdom. Let’s keep talking to China, but let us beware of Chinese designs and keep in mind the unanimous resolution adopted by Parliament way back in 1960s through which we took a pledge to protect every inch of our sacred land.
