ONE did not have to be an expert on China to anticipate that Prime Minister Wen Jiabao’s visit to India would be a flop and the one to Pakistan a success. The joint statements issued in the two countries say it all.

India refused to follow the ‘one China’ policy which meant that it did not recognise Beijing’s claimed sovereignty over Tibet and Taiwan. This was a departure from New Delhi’s stand in three earlier joint statements. PM Jiabao refused to mention in the joint statement that Kashmir was an integral part of India. He did not do so keeping in mind Pakistan’s sensitivities.

In sharp contrast, Pakistan not only enunciated the ‘one China’ policy but also condemned “any attempt to undermine China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity”. Obviously, the swing was directed at India and to reemphasise that China had in Pakistan a “trusted and reliable” friend.

The Chinese prime minister was, however, careful not to say anything on Kashmir in New Delhi as well as in Islamabad. Prime Minister Yousuf RazaGilani said in a speech at the banquet in honour of the Chinese premier that the solution of Kashmir would usher in a new era of peace and prosperity in South Asia. It was bait for the Chinese PM, who preferred to stay silent. Even otherwise, Beijing has maintained that it wants India and Pakistan to resolve the question of Kashmir between themselves.

However, China has from last year started issuing stapled visas to people from Jammu and Kashmir. This is a departure from Beijing’s earlier stand.

But it conveys to New Delhi that Beijing regards Kashmir as a disputed territory. The new Chinese approach also reveals that India’s problem could be much larger than the question of stapled visas. It may well be that Beijing has a question mark against India’s claim to sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir.

Yet, before the visit of the Chinese PM, the word from Beijing was that the stapled visa was an administrative matter, not a political issue. New Delhi did not bring it up until the end when PM Jiabao took the initiative of mentioning it. He did not pursue the subject, despite New Delhi’s desire to do so. After PM Jiabao’s return to Beijing, the Indian embassy said that the matter has been entrusted to officials to sort out.

The point on which the two sides differed strongly was terrorism. India was first keen on China mentioning the 26/11 attack on Mumbai in their joint statement. When PM Jiabao refused, India wanted a reference to the word ‘terrorism’. The Chinese PM did not agree, probably because he was to visit Pakistan a day later. However, he did praise Pakistan for its efforts towards terrorism, countering criticism from many quarters that it is not doing enough. The reference was obviously to India and the US.

India should have known Beijing’s stand when it made it clear on the eve of PM Jiabao’s departure that the Chinese government would play no role in pressuring Pakistan to crack down on terrorist groups operating on its soil. Beijing reiterated its position that cross-border terrorism and Kashmir were issues for India and Pakistan to resolve.

India’s real worry is the nibbling at “its territory” by China. The media has extensively followed a story reported in one of the leading English-language dailies in Delhi. The story said that China had shown the length of the border with India around 2,000km as against nearly 3,500km it used to mention earlier.

In an interview with the Indian ambassador to China, S. Jaishankar, the Global Times — the official organ of the Chinese Communist Party — asked about reported tensions on the border. In response Mr Jaishankar said: “The reality contradicts any alarmist depiction of the situation on the border, whether in India or in China. We have a long common border of 3,488km.” The editors added in parenthesis. “There is no settled length of the common border. The Chinese government often refers to the border length as being about 2,000 kms.”

Probably, China has deducted the border along Kashmir and Tibet from the length it had mentioned earlier. This has come when India is already smarting under the Chinese ‘occupation’ of nearly 5,000 square miles of Shakigam Valley in the ‘Azad Kashmir’ ceded by General Mohammed Ayub to Beijing. The general did this in March 1963, less than six months after the India-China war that occurred in the third week of October 1962.

New Delhi’s fear is that Beijing may push itself as a party in the Kashmir problem.

It is apparent that India and Pakistan have grown still more distant. One is going towards America and the other towards China. In fact, both New Delhi and Islamabad may be sucked into the ensuing cold war between the two. America has its own designs in the region as the WikiLeaks disclosures show and China has its own interests.

When will India and Pakistan realise that South Asia is neither for America nor China to boss over? It is for the South Asians who should develop it into a common market as Europe has done, with soft borders and free trade.

India, being a relatively developed country, should ensure that the playing field is made level. There should be more tariffs on Indian goods because they are products of a country which has better economy and faster growth rate. India’s technology should be available to the countries in the region.

Beijing can, however, play a role in persuading New Delhi and Islamabad to hold sustainable dialogues for the resolution of all outstanding issues, including Kashmir. China has done well in entering into deals with India and Pakistan. Strangely the trade between the two countries is only a fraction of their deals with China.

If these deals are to yield fruit in real sense, New Delhi and Islamabad have to develop confidence in each other. This may not be possible if both continue to arm themselves — the presence of weapons indicates the absence of peace.

The writer is a senior journalist based in Delhi.