Whatever may be said in criticism of Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee’s decision to visit China and its timing, it cannot be denied that he has been appropriately modest in his claims regarding the results. Some of the relevant points in his statement in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday deserve to be noted. Contrary to the general Indian practice of claiming identity or at least near identity of views with almost every government on a host of subjects, in this case Mr. Vajpayee has said: “Both sides agreed on a few issues, such as the importance of supporting the struggle for liberation in Southern Africa and the need for a comprehensive settlement in West Asia.” As if this was not enough to indicate that the area of agreement between the two governments is pitifully small, Mr. Vajpayee has been careful enough to add: “both sides clearly recognised that we had differing assessments on the inevitability of war, the logic of disarmament and the prospects of detente”. The minister for external affairs has also been at pains to emphasise, even though indirectly, that India’s relations with the Soviet Union have not figured in the discussions in Peking and that the talks there have been conducted more or less strictly in the framework of bilateral relations.
As it happens, Mr. Vajpayee has not had much to report on India-China bilateral relations either. For he has told Parliament only what he said to his Chinese hosts on the inter-related subjects of China-Pakistan, India-Pakistan and India-China relations. “Even while we do not object to normal bilateral relations between Pakistan and China, the prospect of improvement of India-China relations would be impeded if their relations adversely affect our legitimate interests,” he has said, without indicating whether the Chinese leaders agreed and whether they propose to respect Indian susceptibilities and interests in this regard. Similarly, while he has said that China’s stand on the Kashmir issue in the last 15 years “had been an additional and unnecessary complication to the prospects of Sino-Indian relations” and that “in this connection I also reiterated our concern at the construction of the Karakoram highway across territory which formed part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir,” he has been discretion itself in respect of the Chinese response. Only on the question of Chinese support to Naga and Mizo rebels has the external affairs minister been in a position to say something positive. The Chinese leaders look upon that support “as a thing of the past,” he has said. He has, of course, also claimed that the border issue has been unfrozen as a result of his visit. But he has not cited any evidence in his support. The statement is open to question on several counts. But the exercise is hardly necessary when Mr. Vajpayee himself is almost apologetic.
The Times of India, 23 February 1979