BY INDER MALHOTRA
TWO facts stand out in the wake of China’s offensive refusal of a visa to one of India’s top generals bound for Beijing to lead the Indian delegation in a high-level exchange with the northern neighbour and the calibrated Indian reaction of “suspending” but not snapping military exchanges between the two countries.

The first is that both sides are trying to play down the friction generated by the ugly episode though China is doing so vigorously and this country in a low key. The Chinese defence ministry has gone to the extent of announcing that China has “not suspended military exchanges with India, and has received no word that India has stopped military exchanges between the two countries”.
Secondly, it is not the first time that China has acted in this contradictory manner that bespeaks of double-dealing and doublespeak, nor is it going to be the last. Such a combination of aggressiveness and friendly noises seems to have become second nature of the fast-rising and traditionally arrogant country that has already become the world’s second largest economy by overtaking Japan. This approach may be particularly pronounced in the case of India but is in no way confined to it. Beijing treats most countries, including the United States, in a similar though not identical manner. It would be no surprise if China’s effrontery towards India at this juncture is partly addressed also to US President Barack Obama in the run up to his visit to this country in early November.
It is also possible that there are divisions within the Chinese leadership because the issue of succession to President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, scheduled to retire in 2012, is still unsettled. Some China watchers believe the leadership of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is more assertive and aggressive than the political leadership and even tends to act on its own. Be that as it may, the fact is that this time around the Chinese military is treating the incident as a mere visa-related “misunderstanding” that should not affect the “wider bilateral relationship” on which both India and China should “focus”.
Kashmir Imbroglio
None of this sophistry can be allowed, however, to divert attention from what is the core of the current Chinese challenge: the questioning of the Indian position in Kashmir. Beijing’s impertinent reasoning for denying the visa to Lieutenant-General R S Jaswal, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of Northern Command, is that his command includes Kashmir “which is a disputed territory”. The whole world treats Kashmir on the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC) as a de facto though not de jure part of India, and the “Azad Kashmir” and the Northern Areas on the other side as de facto but not de jure part of Pakistan.
Until just over a year ago China too had broadly held the same view. Last year, however, it changed and began by issuing stapled visas, no longer normal ones, to Indian citizens belonging to Jammu and Kashmir carrying Indian passports. Despite New Delhi’s protests Beijing persists in this pernicious practice. With the refusal of a visa to General Jaswal, the Chinese are clearly raising the ante. Obviously because by twisting the Kashmir issue in Pakistan’s favour, they hope to kill two birds with one stone: to corner India as much as possible, and to give succour and support to Pakistan it desperately needs.
Pakistan’s need for Chinese backing in furthering its nefarious anti-Indian deigns is now much greater than ever before because the humongous floods have crippled it. Nobody knows how long it would take to cope with this gargantuan catastrophe. America’s great hope in Pakistan, General Pervez Ashfaq Kayani has already notified the Pentagon that in the existing circumstances the Pakistani Army cannot do much for the US in Afghanistan. For China, Pakistan is the one instrument to keep India confined to South Asia rather than be China’s competitor in the whole of Asian continent and indeed globally. Given India’s rise this is a vain hope.
India on Guard
While appealing to India to ignore the visa episode, official and party-controlled Chinese media has also discussed–on the pretext of analysing an article in the American magazine ‘Forbes’–the possibility of a “limited war” with India. This is also a device to shore Pakistani morale, especially now that more and more Americans are saying that their troubles in Afghanistan are really rooted in Pakistan. There is growing opposition, therefore, to the colossal military and financial aid to this duplicitous ally. US Under Secretary of Defence, Ms Michele Flournoy, declared not long ago that America’s relations with India and China cannot be a “zero sum game” and that both the Asian giants must have equal stake in the Asian security order.
In any case, India cannot take lightly China’s bellicose talk. It would be foolish to let an avoidable conflict with China take place. The new Army Chief, General V K Singh, has done well to discard his predecessor’s concept of a limited war or a two-front war. But we cannot lower our guard, and should be in a position to give an appropriate response should China launch a military adventure. Of course, the Chinese must know that 2010 is not 1962. We have got to ensure that our armed forces have all the equipment, ammunition and communications they need. Our infrastructure along the India-China border has to match the Chinese state-of-the-art infrastructure. Mr A K Antony and others have made several announcements to that end since last year. But are these being matched by action?
Diplomatic Assaults
It is no mere coincidence that China’s provocation over General Jaswal’s visa, and its impudent suggestion that some other military leader be sent to Beijing in his place, have been accompanied by the presence of anything between 7,000 and 11,000 PLA troops in the Gilgit-Baltistan region of Kashmir’s Northern Areas under Pakistani occupation. Isn’t it a disputed territory?
China’s diplomatic assaults have also to be answered in kind. The moment the visa affair broke, New Delhi conveyed to Beijing that Kashmir was as “sensitive” to India as Tibet was to China. It follows therefore that we stop reaffirming in season and out of season that Tibet is an integral part of the People’s Republic of China until China accepts that Kashmir is an integral part of India. Chinese nationals and officials from the Tibetan region should henceforth get only stapled visas. The US administration in its latest report on Tibet has regretted that the talks between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese have so far been futile. Washington has asked for “unconditional” talks between the Tibetan spiritual leader and the Chinese government. We should endorse this, and the matter should be reviewed during US President, Mr Obama’s visit to Delhi.