16 October 2022, NIICE Commentary 8352
Neeraj Singh Manhas & Shalini Singh
In September 2022, India-China relations achieved a major breakthrough. Both sides announced the disengagement of forces from Patrolling Point 15 (PP) in the Gogra-Hot springs of Eastern Ladakh. This is another successful attempt at disentanglements in the Galwan Valley in 2020 and Pangong Tso in 2021; and towards restoring the status quo after April-May 2020, considered the lowest phase of bilateral relations of both countries since 1962. This can be counted as a significant development for the countries that have been dodging, blaming, targeting, and negotiating for the past two years after the 2020 incident. However, as stated by the Chinese envoy, this can’t be taken as the new beginning or normalisation of ties between both the countries. India is not ready to normalise the ties and let go of the turbulences and lost lives of soldiers in the 2020 conflict, as reflected by the MEA spokesperson Arindam Bagchi’s statement – “Some steps are necessary for full normalcy, and we have certainly not reached that stage. We want there to be a sequence–disengagement and then de-escalation. Then, there should be normalcy on the border so that there can be some regularity or normalcy in the overall relationship.”
India and China have maintained distance at numerous public diplomacy forums, skipping the opportunities that the two countries could have broken the ice. However, there are various reasons. Firstly, India always prefers bilateral talks and negotiations over any conflict or dispute with any other country. Discussing bilateral issues at public diplomacy forums will invite the opinion of states that are unrelated to the issue and will form blocs in favour or against the issue.
Secondly, China opines that merely solving the matters at hand, like disengagement at PP15, will normalise its relations with India. However, India does not believe in resolving new issues. Instead, it considers that border disputes should be resolved completely, normalising ties between the countries in all sectors.
Third, the difference in their political ideology and their allies is also the reason that these two countries stand opposite each other. These also impact the public discussion and debate of bilateral border disputes at public forums.
Short-Term and Long-Term Resolution
Short-term resolution can include defence and ministerial-level dialogues to pursue disengagement and maintain de-escalation in bilateral relations. It can also include the removal of troops and their bases from the disputed area, aiming to bring the status quo of March 2020. This will also involve agreeing and negotiating terms and conditions put up by both parties, being sensitive to the interests of the others without pressurising or sticking to their words. Mutual trust building is highly essential for the crisis to get averted in the long term.
Resolving the India-China dispute is a complex dilemma. It involves many issues, theatres, geopolitical and geospatial conflicts, historical complexities, and extensive misperceptions of the other side, contributing to a lack of trust and constant struggle. Moreover, with new geopolitical spaces emerging in the region, it has become difficult for both countries to find a common area for cooperation. Most importantly, the conflict resolution between both countries can’t be a zero-sum thing. Both countries have significance in the region; undermining any of them will only invite more conflicts in the future.
The Way Forward
China and India have diverse views on their respective international as well as regional status, growth stratagems, and different approaches towards bilateral relations with regional actors. This difference is the reason for the both countries to view each other as distinct. Mutually acceptable, discussed, and negotiated resolution of Galwan and other incidence will help reset the relations to some extent. Leaders of both countries enjoy considerable appreciation among world leaders. However, instead of dragging every border dispute in the UN or any other public forum will only lead to the erosion of trust and negotiation space between both the countries. A healthier understanding of each other’s regional initiatives and efforts through open dialogue, discussion, and negotiation is essential for building trust and a sense of understanding. Instead of searching for the reason for conflict, new geographical areas such as Indo-pacific, which has been repeatedly called the new theatre of conflict between India and China, must be utilised to search for new avenues of cooperation, coordination, and diplomacy to prevent the rise of tension. Also, instead of focusing on allies, both the countries should focus on policy changes and how they serve the interests of each other. Moreover, for India, decoupling, and de-hyphenation from China’s manufacturing industry, diversifying investment and supply chain portfolio will help in the long-term interests.
Neeraj Singh Manhas is a Director of Research, in the Indo-Pacific Consortium, at Raisina House, New Delhi and Shalini Singh holds her Masters in International Relations from Amity Institute of International Studies, India.
