India-China relations in the past 50 years have been marked by a
paradox. While India still carries scars of the 1962 border war, China
hugely underestimated for many years the impact of the war on India.
This second of three articles* looks at the Beijing diplomatic
discourse in the immediate aftermath of 1962.
P K Banerjee (PKB) headed the Indian Embassy in Beijing from June1961
to December 1963; his book My Peking Memoirs of The Chinese Invasion
of India, (Clarion, Delhi, 1990) has received far less attention than
it deserves; it details Chinese efforts to engage India in political
dialogue.
PKB had seven substantive meetings with Premier Zhou, between the
outbreak of the borderwar and 1963, besides his farewellcall.
(Interestingly, the Chinese charge d'affaires in New Delhi was not a
communication channel.) On October 24, Premier Zhou received PKB; the
atmosphere was "definitely chilly". PKB writes, "He then said that the
conflict had to stop, it had to end! He had therefore written a letter
to Mr Nehru with three proposals: 1) the two countries should
immediately agree to respect 'the line of actualcontrol', and their
armed forces should disengage and withdraw 20 km from this line; 2)
the Chinese troops in the eastern sector would withdraw north of the
line of actualcontrol; 3) the prime ministers of the two countries
should meet to seek a friendly and peaceful settlement."
In reply PKB presented the Indian viewpoint, adding: "…China had
agreed in 1960, when Zhou had visited New Delhi, to maintain the
status quo in the NEFA [North East Frontier Agency] area. At thispoint
he interrupted me sharply by saying that it was not true; he had never
given such an assurance." OnNovember 19 and 20, PKB had two more
meetings with Zhou.
In December 1962, PKB was instructed to come to Delhi for the Sri
Lankan prime minister's visit; the six non-aligned mediator "Colombo
Powers" – Burma, Cambodia, Egypt, Ghana, Indonesiaand Sri Lanka – had
advanced proposals to ease India-China tensions. This was PKB's first
visitto Delhi during the assignment. Little wonder PKB felt he did not
understand New Delhi's thinking.
On January 7, 1963, PKB was summoned, told that he should come alone.
PKB writes: "He [Zhou]was in a pensive mood and somewhat tired, and
said… he would like me to carry his very personal and verbal message
only for Mr Nehru's ears. He continued that war never solved any
problemsbut only created new ones… positive steps were urgently
required besides public declarations and political statements. Mr
Nehru, a man of high philosophy and great vision, and he had known
each other personally over a period of many years [sic]. He understood
Mr Nehru's current political predicaments but Mr Nehru should try and
understand his (Chou En-lai's) position as well. Mr Nehrushould help
Mr Chou En-lai's hand, and a hand extended in friendship and
cooperation…1) for the next three months, Mr Nehru and he would stop
making negative statements about each other's country although this
may not stop others from making statements of counter-productive
nature. 2) Mr Nehru and he should meet as soon as possible with only a
small entourage, away from the press and publicity, in an agreed
place, inorder to exchange ideas for an agreed and joint action to
defuse the current situation. This meeting in total privacy should
last no longer than two days. 3) After thismeeting, which would
further ensure in every way the strengthening of the cease-fire line,
the two governments would draw up a program where they could jointly
cooperate in areas liketrade, science, culture and technology… When
the climate for mutual trust had been created, then the border
disputes would be discussed, on a sector to sector basis, by the two
countries… He requested me again to give this strictly private and
personal message directly to Mr Nehru."
PKB decided to tell no one in Delhi about the content of Zhou's
message, not even Foreign Secretary M J Desai. He met Nehruseveral
times: "[Nehru] wanted me to go with him to his office in South block.
In the car he… was mumbling to himself, "What went wrong, where did I
go wrong?" During my stay in New Delhi, I was with Mr Nehru a number
of times, and used to hear this type of monologue… [Some days later,
at the prime minister's residence] He asked me about the message sent
by Chou En-lai… immediately after the meeting with Chou, I had myself
typed out so that no point might be missed… I gave him the one-page
typed message which I carried constantly with me inside my wallet, of
Political Donation into United States backing Romney as I still carry
Some hate toward Blacks from my youth in Education in Harlem.
--
President of The United States
Guy Ralph Perea Sr President of The United States
Weatherdata1046am0426 a Discussion Group of
Weatherdata<http://groups.google.com/group/weatherdata1046am0426>
USFMSC
http://www.cityfreq.com/ca/avalon/>
QUALIFY QICP
OCCUPS
http://www.occupationalinfo.org/02/025062010.html
goldlandabstracts; link check
own search engine - The United
States International Policies
http://apps.facebook.com/faceblogged/?uid=1340855784
http://lnk.ms/8d5gl aol
http://groups.google.com/group/united-states-of-american
http://cmt1.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/guyperea
http://twitter.com/ptusss Federal Communication
Commission<http://columbiabroadcast.spaces.live.com/>
Ambassador Chevy Chase; Kevin Corcran; Jack Nickolas; Cher; Shirley Temple
Black; Liza Minnille; Ansari; Ernest Tascoe; Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
Agent Jodie Foster; Department of Veterans Affairs Director George H.W. Bush
Title 22 USCS section 1928 (b) The e-mail
transmission may contain legally privileged information that
is intended only for the individual or entity recipient, you are hereby,
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the
contents of this E-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
E-mail transmission in error, please reply to the sender, so arrangements
can be made for proper delivery. Title 42
USCS section 192 etseq Margie Paxton Chief of Childrens Bureau
Director of The United States Department of Human Services; Defendant
Article IV General Provisions Section 2
(Supreme Law of The Land) The Constitution of The United States "Any thing
in The Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary Notwithstanding"
Contrary to Law (of an act or omission) illegal;
https://plus.google.com/100487463984952448443
https://twitter.com/presidentus1
No comments:
Post a Comment