Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee has struck the right note regarding his proposed visit to China. The trip would be in the nature of a probing mission and “it will not be realistic to expect too much from a single visit which will take place after so many years and after all that has happened between India and China,” he has said. He has also emphasized that this country is seeking normalization of relations with China on a bilateral basis, which is only an indirect way of saying that New Delhi does not wish to get entangled in Peking’s conflicts with the Soviet Union and Vietnam. This is an important point which Mr. Vajpayee will be well advised to adhere to strictly, especially in the present fluid situation in the Persian Gulf region when it is vital for this country to do nothing which can justify any suspicions in Moscow regarding its policy of non-alignment as interpreted, it is necessary to emphasize, by New Delhi and not the Kremlin.
But all this is easier said than done. The Chinese just do not think of relations with any country in a bilateral framework. Their ideology compels them to think in broad worldwide terms, select the main enemy and shape their policy accordingly. That enemy number one is the Soviet Union. Thus the difficulty that Mr. Vajpayee is likely to run into is well illustrated by this fact that the Chinese held up the conclusion of the peace treaty with Japan for years because Tokyo was reluctant to include in it the so-called anti-hegemony clause clearly aimed at the Soviet Union. They have signed it only recently after they had successfully worn down its resistance in this regard. But if Mr. Vajpayee can, unlike Mr. Nehru in 1954, resist the temptation of making it out for the of a temporary and doubtful gain in popularity at home that he has won Peking’s friendship, it should not be impossible for him to stick to the commendable approach which he has so clearly enunciated.
Mr. Vajpayee is being realistic in not expecting a border settlement with China as a result of his visit. But does he propose to raise this issue at all. And if he does, has he made sure in advance through the diplomatic channels that the Chinese would not at least complicate it further by calling into question Sikkim’s accession to the Indian Union? Only the topmost echelons of the government of India can be in a position to answer this question and they are unlikely to do so publicly for understandable reasons. We can only hope that Mr. Vajpayee and his advisers are fully alive to this problem. Going by what Mr. Subramaniam Swamy has said, the minister should also be prepared to face some tough questions from his hosts regarding his government’s interpretation of the Indo-Soviet treaty and its obligations to Moscow under it in the hypothetical event of a Sino-Soviet war. The Chinese know as well as anyone else that a Sino-Soviet war is not on the cards, that the Soviet Union will not need bases in India in the utterly unlikely event of a war with their country, that New Delhi will never cede bases to Russia even if the latter asks for them and that there is no other way India can make a contribution to the Soviet war effort even if it is so inclined, which it is not. But they can embarrass him by asking him to spell out the technical position. For the treaty does commit the two countries to engage in consultations immediately there is a threat to the security of either.