Unfortunately, as per current indicators, China does not see the settlement of the border as a priority. This will ensure that the next generation does not have an insolvable problem to deal with. The boundary issue is fundamental to the interests of both nations and it is imperative that steps be initiated to intensify bilateral talks to reach a mutually acceptable understanding. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that disputes need to be settled through dialogue, there have been twenty-two rounds of Special Representative Level talks with China since 2003, with no outcome. When asked for the reason for three, he replied that at the end of the meeting, each one sits down and compares what they have understood from their perspective and surprisingly they rarely agree completely on what they have heard and also the impression they have of the meeting thereafter he absorbs all of this and finalizes the feedback. Henry Kissinger, while discussing Graham Allison’s book ‘Destined For War’ stated that when the Chinese Ambassador came to meet him, he was accompanied by three note-takers. We are embroiled in a dialogue which is part of a historical process. While some people feel that the impasse at the borders has resulted in a stalemate, and the Chinese are not getting back to restoring status quo ante, it needs to be borne in mind that the Chinese have a different mindset and that negotiations with them will take time. Thus, keeping the LAC ambiguous maybe part of a larger plan. The end goal is never lost sight of by them. The Chinese believe in identifying the end result which they wish to achieve and thereafter taking the necessary steps to achieve that result irrespective of the time it may take, and they carry out adjustments based on the circumstances. The Chinese Foreign Ministry was only established in 1901, Imperial China based its policies on a set of hierarchical relationships and the standing of each country with China and not an adjustment of differences amongst equals. Sun Tzu, in his masterpiece ‘Art of War’, had stated that you need to know your adversary.
Zhou Enlai stated while referring to the conversation with Khrushchev, “If the side with the most casualties is to be considered the victim of aggression, what logic would that be? For example at the end of the Second World War, all Hitler’s troops were all casualties or taken prisoners, and that means that Hitler was the victim of aggression” Surprisingly, the issue raised by Khrushchev was touched upon while discussing the Indo- China War of 1962, during the meeting between President Nixon accompanied by Henry Kissinger and Zhou Enlai, in February 1972. Maybe we should work on it not being so mysterious to each other” On hearing this, Zhou Enlai immediately said “what is so mysterious about China? There are 900 million of us and it’s not mysterious to us. Kissinger’s opening speech contained a line about China being a ‘land which is a mystery ‘. It was primarily to discuss issues that had divided them with the aim of bringing about a rapprochement in ties. The first meeting between Henry Kissinger and Zhou Enlai, which was incidentally facilitated by President Yahya Khan of Pakistan took place in July 1971. After that visit Sino –Soviet relations appeared to deteriorate.
Premier Zhou Enlai replied, “What are we supposed to do, we cannot fire in the air”. Khrushchev stated “although the Hindus attacked first, nobody was killed amongst the Chinese and only the Hindus”.
Further, into the meeting, Khrushchev blamed the Chinese for killing Indian soldiers to which, Mao replied, “They attacked us first, crossed the border and continued firing for twelve hours “.