It will be idle for anyone in this country to pretend that the formal inauguration of the 800-km all-weather Karakoram road along with the old silk route does not represent a new high in Sino-Pakistani friendship. It clearly does. However limited the use of the road for trade and military purposes, it links the two countries more closely than they have been so far. But it is not quite clear why the Pakistan Chief Martial Law Administrator, General Zia-ul-Haq, and the Chinese Vice-Premier, Mr. Keng Piao, should have used the occasion to make anti-India statements. In the case of the general, it is at least understandable to some extent. Since he is in a weak position vis-à-vis the Pakistani people, especially the intelligentsia, he perhaps believes that he needs to prove his “nationalist” credentials by talking about the Kashmir dispute and that this can benefit him in his bitter struggle against Mr. Bhutto. But why did Mr. Keng have to talk of the so-called right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir, a euphemism for endorsement of Pakistan’s claim to the state? This kind of talk might have made some sense from the Chinese point of view so long as they were not particularly keen to improve relations with this country but not now when they claim to be so interested and the Indian minister for external affairs is said to be scheduled to visit China in a few months’ time.
It is possible to argue that the Chinese are concerned over the recent pro-Moscow communist coup in Afghanistan and its possible impact on Pakistan and that they wish to demonstrate their support for Islamabad in as forthright a manner as possible. But this argument cannot stand scrutiny. For, if one takes a dim view of the strength of Afghan nationalism and assumes that the Soviet Union is going to command considerable influence in that country and use it to promote instability and conflict in the region, one must advocate complete reconciliation between India and Pakistan and not a raking of old issues. This is specially so when Peking and Islamabad are in fact in no position to reactivate the Kashmir problem. Mr. Keng’s statement should, therefore, make Indian policy makers take a pause and re-examine their assumption that Peking is, indeed, interested in a complete normalization of ties with this country which must include a firm and final settlement of the border dispute. It may be pertinent to make a few points in this regard. The Chinese have so far not stopped providing training facilities and arms to Mizo and Naga rebels. They accorded a fairly low-level welcome to the delegation of Indian journalists who have just returned home. Above all, it is quite possible that by disputing once again the fact of Jammu and Kashmir being an integral part of the Indian Union, they may not only be anticipating such protest as New Delhi might wish to make over the Karakoram road – it passes over territory which Pakistan has forcibly occupied since 1947 – but also questioning its right to lay claim to Aksai Chin in the border talks whenever they take place. Such signals are quite normal in international diplomacy.