SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE – THE DECEPTION OF PANCHSHEEL AGREEMENT:
Sixty years ago, India and Peoples’ Republic of China had signed the Panchsheel Agreement without coming to a proper understanding about the status of Tibet. At that time, both India and Tibet had earnestly believed that China would not oppress Tibet with its military conquest. India and Tibet were hoping that China would respect the traditional governance of Tibet by the Institution called The Dalai Lama or the Ganden Phodrang Government which ruled over Tibet for four centuries since 1642.
While India’s Prime Minister Nehru and Tibet’s ruler, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama had hoped for a peaceful relationship with China, many Indians were not optimistic and had suspected that China had annexed Tibet with its military invasion of 1950. This Panchsheel Agreement, in the words of Acharya Kripalani, is “Born in Sin.” I had expressed a similar view while commenting on the US-China trade relations that were initiated by President Richard Nixon and Dr. Henry Kissinger and described it as an act of “Original Sin” or “Whole Sin.”
In my opinion, any agreement between China and India would have no validity if it involves the Land of Tibet. The Panchsheel Agreement is void as Tibet has not signed this agreement. India and China do not share a common border and the concern about peaceful coexistence must include the concern for the true aspirations of Tibetan people and their natural rights to their territory and to their right to Freedom from military occupation.
Rudra N Rebbapragada
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-4162, USA
SPECIALFRONTIERFORCE.ESTABLISHMENT22
MOVING BEYOND THE PANCHSHEEL DECEPTION
Ram Madhav | INDIAN EXPRESS, Saturday, June 28, 2014 12:51 am
India and China can cooperate with each other on the principles of
sovereign equality and mutual sensitivity.
Summary
India and China must develop a new framework for bilateral relations,
unshackled by empty rituals and symbols.
Ram Madhav
The biggest problem in Sino-Indian relations is the utter lack of ingenuity and innovativeness.
Six decades after the formal engagement through Panchsheel and five decades after the bloody
disengagement due to the 1962 War, leaders of both the countries struggle to come up with new
and out-of-the-box answers to the problems plaguing their relationship.
When there are no new ideas, one resorts to symbolism and rituals. These are projected as the great
new ideas to kickstart a new relationship. However, there is nothing great or new about them.
They are the very same worn out and tried-tested-and-failed actions of the last several decades.
The Panchsheel itself is one ritual that successive Indian governments have unfailingly performed.
Vice President Hamid Ansari will be visiting Beijing today to uphold India’s commitment to the ritual.
The occasion is the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Panchsheel Agreement.
It was exactly six decades ago, on June 28, 1954, roughly two months after the formal signing of
the Panchsheel, that Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai visited India. He and then-prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru
had issued a historic statement, reaffirming their commitment to the five principles enshrined in the
Panchsheel to “lessen the tensions that exist in the world today and help in creating a climate of peace”.
Contrary to public perception or propaganda, Panchsheel was actually an agreement between
the “Tibetan region of China and India” on “trade and intercourse”. It did include five principles, like
mutual respect, mutual non-aggression, mutual benefit, peaceful coexistence, etc, but the very title
of the agreement was a defeat for India.
The British had, at least from the Simla Accord of 1912 until they left India, not conceded that Tibet was
a part of China. Unfortunately, one of the first foreign policy deviations of the Nehru government was the
signing of the Panchsheel, wherein India had formally called the Tibetan region as “of China”. Thus the
Panchsheel was signed as a treaty of peaceful coexistence over the obituary of Tibetan independence.
That was why parliamentarian Acharya Kripalani called the agreement as “born in sin”.
The Panchsheel met its end just three months after its signing, when the Chinese were found violating Indian
borders in Ladakh in late-1954. A formal death note was written by Mao Zedong a few months before
the 1962 war, when he told Zhou that what India and China should practice is not “peaceful coexistence”
but “armed coexistence”. The war followed and ended in humiliation and loss of territory for India. It left
behind a massive border dispute that continues to haunt both the countries.
However, this didn’t seem to deter the Indian and, to some extent, the Chinese leadership in continuing with
the deception of the Panchsheel. The history of Sino-Indian relations in the last five decades is replete with
instances of violations of sovereignty, mutual animosity, attempts to upstage each other and general ill-will.
Mostly the Chinese have been on the wrong side of the so-called Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence.
Yet, the ritual continued through the decades and changing governments in India. Nehru to P.V. Narasimha Rao to
Atal Bihari Vajpayee continued paying lip service to the Panchsheel during bilateral visits.
“Only with coexistence can there be any existence,” declared Indira Gandhi in 1983. The next prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi, expressed confidence in 1988 that “the five principles of peaceful coexistence provide the best way to handle relations between nations”. Rao as prime minister declared in 1993 that “these principles remain as valid today as they were when they were drafted”. While Vajpayee too was forced to continue this ritual, he made a significant departure by refusing to falsely credit China for following the Panchsheel. He put extra emphasis on “mutual sensitivity to the concerns of each other” and “respect for equality”.
At a time when Beijing is celebrating six decades of the Panchsheel, it is important to look at a new framework for
Sino-Indian relations beyond Panchsheel. Vajpayee laid the foundation for a renewed outlook by emphasising on sensitivity and equality. That can form the basis for the new framework.
The Chinese have a clever way of promoting their superiority and exclusivism. Sinologists describe it as the Middle Kingdom syndrome. While Nehru wanted to take credit for the Panchsheel, Zhou told Richard Nixon in 1973 that “actually, the five principles were put forward by us, and Nehru agreed. But later on he didn’t implement them”.
The Chinese also entered into a similar agreement with Myanmar (then Burma) in 1954, thus ensuring that the Panchsheel wasn’t exclusive to their relationship with India.
For the Beijing event, the Chinese government has invited the president of India as well as the president of
Myanmar, General Thein Sein, who will be present. Ansari will lead the Indian delegation. Without any malice
towards Ansari, one would notice the downgrading of India’s participation in the Beijing event. Beijing was keen
on having the president or prime minister at the event. But for once, the South Block mandarins seem to have
done their homework, advising the Indian government against sending either of them. Foreign Minister
Sushma Swaraj too decided to skip the event and chose to visit Dhaka around the same time, sending a rather
strong signal.
If Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping, who is expected to visit India in September,
decide to depart from the Panchsheel framework and embark on a new relationship, both countries will benefit.
Both leaders have that ability. Both enjoy the trust and confidence of their countries. Most importantly, both are
seen to be out-of-the-box leaders.
India and China can cooperate with each other on the principles of sovereign equality and mutual sensitivity.
China has emerged as an economic superpower, but is exposed to serious internal and external threats. It is
facing problems with almost all of its 13 neighbours. The fact that China spends more money on internal security
than on external security speaks volumes about its internal vulnerability. So, while India is not as big economically
as China, its security apparatus is better-placed.
Modi and Xi can chart a new course in Sino-Indian relations if they are prepared to unshackle themselves from
ritualism and symbolism. Both have the ability and the support to do it.
Madhav is a member of the Central Executive, RSS, and
the author of ‘Uneasy Neighbours: India and China after Fifty Years of the War’
Related Articles:
The Rudi-Grant Connection 
Leave a comment