ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

A+| A| A-

Why Is the PM Going to China

Why Is the PM Going to China? GPD It is a pity that the prime minister is going to China without a China policy. THERE. is a little incident in Maha bharuta. When Krishna was negotiating a settlement between the Kauravas and the Pandavas, he pleaded with Duryodhana that five towns should he ceded to the Pandavas. That would rule out war. If he were talking a modern language, he would have almost said give those five towns along the Yamuna river and the two of us could sign a treaty of peace and friend- ship. Duryodhana, however, rejected the offer. He thundered: let alone live towns, not even the speck of dust on a needlepoint would be conceded to the Pandavas. Duryodhana's thunder and 'patriotic outburst did not do him any good. Perhaps to launch B B Chopra'a Ma ha bharuta Rajiv Gandhi has made a statement very similar to the one by Duryodhana. He seems unaware of what harm ill-advised arrogance can do. He is asking for trouble. Announcing his decision to visit Beijing in December he asserted that no territory will be ceded to the Chinese. Brave indeed! When Duryodhana made that famous reply he was actually in possession of those five towns. For him it was a question of giving them away. With Rajiv Gandhi the problem is that the territory in question is already.in China's possession. He is trying to be brave about something which by his own reckoning is lost 10 him. What then is the meaning of his statement that he will not cede any territory to China? Presumably he means that there will be no further cession of territory. Maybe he means that there will be no agreement with the Chinese which will legitimise what they have claimed to be their territory. Does he mean that Chinese possession of Aksai Chin is not acceptable to him? Does he further mean that if the Chinese were to raise the question of Arunachal Pradesh he will not make any concession? Further still, does he mean that he will not entertain the Chinese questioning of Sikkim being made a part of the Indian Republic? Or does he simply mean that a brave and patriotic statement might go down well with the Indian masses and so his script-writers have been permitted this liberty? Duryodhana was clear, Rajiv Gandhi is not, or so it would seem.

Dear Reader,

To continue reading, become a subscriber.

Explore our attractive subscription offers.

Click here

Back to Top