news details |
|
|
| India not opposed to have cadid talks with Pak and China | | | Political observers and diplomatic circles believe, that too rightly, that any attempt by China to change the status quo along the Indian border may lead to another Doklam-like stand-off. For the last one year the Doklam stand- off is promoting regional conflict and robs India's bid to promote cordial ties with China. Though the Defence Minister of India has assured the nation that the Army, the Air force and the Navy are prepared to meet any challenge posed by the growing extra-territorial ambitions of China, political observers believe that the best way to prevent such incidents is through candid and frank talks. Well India has been in favour of free and cadid talks with China but Beijing believes in the old idiom that might is right. India feels that the un-demarcated border between India and China is "the most serious problem between the two countries" and they "need to redefine the boundary soon." New Delhi will oppose the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) but won't let the difference over Belt and Road become a dispute with Beijing. Diplomatic circles also downplayed the reports of India joining the bloc of the US, Japan and Australia to counter China.
The two militaries were locked in a 73-day stand-off at Doklam in the eastern sector of their border last year. The issue was resolved in August, only after souring the bilateral ties. In order to maintain the peace and tranquillity (along India-China border), there are certain areas, certain sectors which are very sensitive, where we must not change the status quo. If anyone changes the status quo, it will lead to a situation like what happened in Doklam. India has accused Chinese military of changing the status quo in the Doklam area and therefore India reacted to it. Ours was a reaction to the change in the status quo by the Chinese military. When incidents like Doklam happened last year, it meant that neither the Chinese or the Indians were not frank and candid enough with each other. So the two sides need to increase the level of frankness. In the sense that if the Chinese military are going to build a road, they must tell India 'we are going to build a road'. If India does not agree to it then India can reply that, 'look, you're changing the status quo. Please don't do it. This is a very very sensitive area', On India's concerns about China's Belt and Road project, diplomatic circles said if the initiative meets the norms of an international programme then New Delhi has no problem.
"One of the norms is that the project should not violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a country. Unfortunately, there is this thing called the CPEC which violates India's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Therefore, India cannot but oppose it.
Both China and Pakistan have one border problem with India. Between India and Pakistan there is Line Of Control in Kashmir and between China and India there is the problem of Line of Actual control. Again China wants to apply the rule might is right as far as LAC concerned. Despite the fact that the border in Kashmir is well demarcated still Islamabad wants to have a piece from Kashmir to satiate it lust for more from Kashmir. Similarly if there are pockets or sectors of undemarcated border areas between India and China the two sides could sit together and sort out the issue. There are fears that since India has not, so far, reopened the channels of dialogue with Pakistan Islamabad may be trying to motivate China to involve India in the border dispute so that New Delhi is forced to start the process of dialogue with Islamabad and Beijing. Simultaneously. There are latest indications that the BJP led NDA Government has indicated that it was prepared to resolve outstanding issue through the process of dialogue and in the same way China demands that India reopens talks with China to settle border disputes. Well safe diplomacy is that since India cannot fight on two fronts it will be better for New Delhi to hold talks with China and Pakistan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
