31 May 2020, NIICE Commentary 5156
Dr. Manas Mukul Bandyopadhyay & Dr. Gouri Sankar Nag
China has been contesting for border disputes for a long time, be it the South China Sea or its claim over Southern Tibet. But two points are crucial, one is its oft-repeated and now increasingly blunt tactics to pressure the next-door neighbor as it seems to be doing against India in Ladakh border, perhaps to tell the Indian side with a message to side with it on twin issues of COVID-19 and Taiwan dispute. It’s an immediate ball-game where it is very intriguing to bet how far it is ‘a bid to expand the territorial claim’ or a calculated move to safeguard its deeply-entrenched ‘economic interests in the region’, which has been surmised by Shyam Saran, former foreign secretary of India. Notably, on the other extreme of the same line lies China’s shrewd strategy to pursue the design to co-opt the opposition and devour it by loans and financial entrapments related to its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), hence nothing new in it except to watch how the current dynamics unfold to push the graph of escalation in a systematic way.
But history is never treacherous as it offers insight to clearly understand this trend when we look back a little. Suzerainty over two relatively large and several smaller separated pieces of territory has been a bone of contention between China and India. Aksai Chin is located in the Indian union territory of Ladakh albeit claims on the contrary. It is a virtually uninhabited high-altitude wasteland crossed by the Xinjiang-Tibet Highway. The other disputed territory lies south of the McMahon Line. It was formerly referred to as the North East Frontier Agency, and is now called Arunachal Pradesh. In 2014, India proposed China to acknowledge a “One India” policy to resolve the border dispute.
After Doklam standoff in 2017, the attitude of the old conflict kept on surfacing time and again. Its burning evidence was the current situation on the Sino-Indian border. Now three sectors were in turmoil with conflict raging in the western part of Ladakh on the Actual Line of Control. China was the first to object to the construction of the road between ‘Finger-3 and Finger-4’. At the same time, China objected to the construction of roads connecting the Galwan Valley. On the night of 5 May 2020, Chinese troops intercepted Indian Army surveillance forces near Pangong Lake in Eastern Ladakh. Since then, the armies of the two countries have been keeping an eye on each other in those two areas. Clashes between the two armies also escalated earlier this month in the Eastern part of North Sikkim. The parts of Uttrakhand and Himachal Pradesh in the Central Sector remained generally calm and quiet although sporadic incidents of warlike attitude on the part of China was clearly manifest.
It is true that this border dispute can only be resolved through amicable negotiation and it must be resolved at the high diplomatic level. But as long as that is not happening, the Indian army should not move from its position despite objections raised by China which centers on India’s infrastructural developmental work in the Daulat Beg Oldie sector. But the point worth-exploring is what exactly made the Chinese side to cry foul. The immediate context might be the COVID-19 scenario in which the Anglo-American center of post-Cold War hegemony is out to ostracize Beijing in the international realm. This is vituperative no doubt, but why be mute in the face of unilateral Chinese muscle flexing. That’s why, India is not sitting still either; rather we find “Modi’s ‘Doklam team’ back in action”. Ajit Doval, National security Advisor, General Bipin Rawat, Chief of Defense Staff and S Jaishankar, India’s foreign minister are the members of this team who are coordinating with the heads of the three services of Indian Armed Forces and having meeting with Harshavardhana Shringla, Foreign Secretary.
Meanwhile, the situation surrounding the Chinese President’s remark has become provocative as he exhorted the People’s Liberation Army to be prepared for war. According to some diplomatists’ version, he wanted to send a message to the military in the wake of the US allegations about the spreading of Coronavirus for which revenge had to be taken. Hence, the border conflict with India was taken up as the safest way to teach a lesson to the US because it considers India to be a plausible American proxy.
It is to be remembered here that India has been in conflict with China for a long time centering on the issue of ‘Entry of China into India’ violating the Sino-Indian Border Treaty, thus triggering recurrent tension. As on 9 May 2020, Indian troops clashed with the Chinese forces in the Na Kula Sector on the North-eastern border. But no sooner it was temporarily eased than the two countries started deploying troops in the Pangong and Galwan valleys in most recent days. Moreover, China has set up tents along the banks of the Galwan Lake and increased its troops from around 3 thousand to 5 thousand. No doubt, ‘the move had the sanction of Beijing and not limited to local military commanders’. It is interesting to note that Beijing is also trying to create a bunker in Galwan. Meanwhile, several satellite images from the Ladakh border area surfaced on May 26 and it was found that necessary construction work is underway to facilitate landing of helicopters and warplanes at Nari Gansa Airport which is located around 200 km away from Pangong in distant Tibet. Four warplanes were also seen in a picture on the tarmac of the airport. Noted analysts speculated that they could be Chinese J-11 and J-16 warplanes, equivalent of India’s Sukhoi-30 fighter jet.
However, in a very curious twist to the escalated tensions between the two sides at LOC, the temperature is dropping down sharply since May 27 as a result of China’s new statement. This is a very amazing response on the Chinese part. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said that ‘Overall, the situation in the Sino Indian Border areas is now stable and under control.’ He said, ‘Boundary mechanisms between the two countries are good enough. Communication channels through the military and diplomatic tactics are also effective. As a result, we will be able to solve the problem through discussion.’
It is like wondering why China changed tunes overnight. It is known from reliable source that attempts to reduce tensions on the diplomatic channel have been going on secretly through backchannel for almost a week, despite rumours circulating at the border. This has been endorsed by Ranen Sen, the former diplomatic official, who said on 28 May morning that ‘Track-2 discussion is going on. Although a situation of conflict was created between the two Asian giants, with the consequences in mind every step was taken in calculation’.
It is interesting to note that due to political compulsions it was not possible for India to bow down to China in the border region. That is why, India has increased in this occasion its army on the border. But why China took the situation to the ‘flash point’ is a question of great conjecture. The critics and the diplomats assume multiple reasons. There was pressure on India in the post COVID-19 world order that India should not lean towards America. In this context ex-Army Chief V. K. Singh said in a loud tune that ‘it is not 1962, it is 2020’. Besides, one of the perceived mentalities of the Chinese government is probably to send a strong message to India since the Declaration of Ladakh including Aksai Chin as a Union Territory Unit in 2019 by the Indian Government enraged China. This apart, so long, India was not at all at par with the Chinese infrastructure development. It was hitherto one of the greatest glitches for which Indian army could not reach quickly in the border areas at the time of necessity. But lately the situation has improved and also there is no question of India’s budging to China’s prolong insistence to take Tawang. Rather India is very serious to act upon a long term plan for the construction and repair of 272 roads along the Chinese border. These are China’s dislikes and is likely to turn them more aggressive in future.
