The Prime Ministers of India and China, Dr Manmohan Singh and Mr Wen Jiabao, have met 10 times in the last six years, as the Chinese leader observed when the two met in Hanoi on the sidelines of the Asean summit on Friday. That is a high metric even for top leaders of neighbouring countries. On each occasion there has been a
degree of feel-good, considering that relations between Asia’s two biggest countries and fastest rising economies — which also leave a mark on the world stage — are not wrinkle-free. And yet, it is apparent to all that the frequency of contact hasn’t lent itself to the two countries moving to a stage of easy give-and-take in ties.
Indeed, on the eve of the Friday meeting, People’s Daily, the official organ of the Chinese Communist Party, sought to rake up a controversy about India seeking to “encircle” the People’s Republic by deepening its ties with Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam, a region that Beijing virtually considers its backyard. This was presumably in response to the widespread theory, accepted by many in India, that in a bid to expand its international strategic hegemony China is threading together a “string of pearls” — that is, acquiring military bases and other assets of long-term value, not least to hem India in. If that is the case, the People’s Daily article was unfortunately timed, and might be called plain silly. If it was intended to place the Indian Prime Minister in a position of unease on the eve of his conversation with Mr Wen, it failed in its intent. Dr Singh went ahead and raised all the troubling questions in the bilateral relationship that have surfaced of late — China’s adopting a forward position in respect of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), its questioning of India’s sovereignty in Kashmir suggested by stapling — not stamping, which is the international norm — of visas for J&K residents, Beijing’s offer of a stapled visa for a general who commands India’s Northern Army, (which had the effect of scuttling the military officer’s visit to China on a goodwill defence visit earlier this year), and the revival by Beijing of its claims over Arunachal Pradesh (after the Indian state had been officially shown as being part of India during the term of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee). If the People’s Daily was only trying to ratchet up nationalist sentiment within China, in a propagandist sway, at a time when relations with India — in spite of all the successes that have been registered on the trade front — are not exactly warm, that is so much the pity.
It is to be welcomed that the meeting between the Prime Ministers has produced the idea of a visit by Mr Wen to India in December. As Dr Singh put it so well in Tokyo only a few days ago, it is best to engage China transparently. The Chinese leader has himself suggested that a “consensus” should be reached “on some major aspects so as to lay a foundation for the visit”. Senior officials on both sides are to fine-tune this, and a member of the Chinese Communist Party politburo is to be in New Delhi shortly. These may be seen as positive developments. There is to be a leadership change in China in 2012 when the 18th Party Congress is due. Given the policy-related uncertainties that precede such a political turn-over in China, we can’t be sure yet if any “consensus” with India — that Mr Wen has alluded to — can be seriously attempted by the Chinese side, and the degree of significance it can have when new leaders are about to replace him and President Hu Jintao. But it is never too late to find out. India should also be ready for a game of shatranj if Chinese chequers is brought into the equation.