April.09 : It was never realistic to expect that the visit of external affairs minister S.M. Krishna to Beijing earlier this week would in any way change the existing dynamics between the two neighbours, characterised by a lack of warmth.

 On the whole, however, the two countries have managed their relations in a utilitarian way so far. Mr Krishna’s trip underscored this. Sometimes sensitive issues such as the boundary dispute, or the way India should treat the Dalai Lama (who is a red rag to the Chinese), have threatened to get out of hand, as we saw last year. In recent years, Beijing has also allowed irritation to surface when regarding the slightest degree of warmth in India’s relations with the United States. India has done what it can to bring ties back to an even keel when there has been the slightest flutter. New Delhi has been mindful that India and China are major countries, regionally and in the world. China, in addition, has acquired economic muscle that gives it super leverage on the international stage. For these reasons, any tension in India-China relations has the potential to unsettle many perspectives.

Seen in another way, there is genuine room for suitably enhanced cooperation between India and China in the economic and business field. There is also scope for them to collaborate in tackling some world issues, such as those to do with climate change. These should be explored and taken forward as much as possible. But it would be a mistake to brush matters of concern under the carpet, a tendency New Delhi has been prone to exhibit. That’s a sure way of keeping our public uninformed. In Beijing, for instance, Mr Krishna, in his public comments, made a big thing of formalising an agreement to set up a hotline between the Prime Ministers of the two countries while betraying no disappointment at Chinese stonewalling on key areas of Indian concern. A hotline is no more than a device for instantaneous high-level communication which can be put to good use to head off trouble. It is well to remember, however, that the existence of a hotline has done little to improve matters between India and Pakistan. So, in the end, it really does boil down to having good intentions and the requisite political will. At a crucial time in international negotiations when India’s civil nuclear agreement with the United States was in the works, the Chinese leadership had simply refused to take a phone call from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Mr Krishna discussed with his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao some key questions. These included soliciting Beijing’s endorsement for India’s candidature for permanent membership of the UN Security Council, and issues relating to Jammu and Kashmir — Beijing building development projects in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and granting stapled visas to residents of Kashmir (these amount to accepting Pakistan’s case on Kashmir). On neither issue were the Chinese Communists forthcoming, advising India patience on the subject of Security Council membership, which has become the mantra of Middle Kingdom manadarins when they wish to fudge and get by. On the eve of Mr Krishna’s departure for Beijing, Canadian and US computer security researchers sensationally showed how a Chinese computer espionage gang based in Sichuan province had singularly focused on hacking into Indian official computers worldwide and stolen documents relating to strategic defence, India’s relations with dozens of countries, and its security assessments for its own states. Mr Krishna made no reference to this issue, which is of grave concern. We hope his ministry is only awaiting corroboration before Beijing is officially broached. With China or with any other country, it never pays not to state one’s concern upfront.