27 July 2021, NIICE Commentary 7204
Archana Pathak
The project for constructing India China border roads (ICBRs) was approved in 1999 by the Government of India’s Cabinet Committee on Security on the recommendations of a China Study group. ICBRs are present in Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Sikkim. Arunachal Pradesh has the most proposed ICBRs numbering 27. These roads were envisaged to counter China’s aggressive infrastructure building in the regions bordering India. The goal was to complete construction of these roads by 2006. Several organizations like Border Roads Organization (BRO), National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), Ministry of Development of North East Region (MoDoNER), Central Public Works Department (CPWD) were assigned the work. However, majority of the work was given to the BRO, which has been involved in the construction of 94 ICBRs. The deadline of the construction could not be adhered to and till date about 75 percent of the work has been completed. From the Chinese side, however, significant infrastructure upgrade has happened in the Tibetan Autonomous Region which runs parallel to the Indian Himalayan states of Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh and Union Territories of Ladakh and J&K with five airbases, an extensive rail network and more than 58,000 km of roads. The phase 2 of ICBRs have been approved by the government recently which has increased the total no. of ICBRs to 177 from 73. Since its inception, ICBRs have remained in conflict due to the location in which they are being built. The Himalayan borderlands which provide the backdrop for ICBRs have witnessed several episodes of violence between India and China and any attempt to indulge in any activity in this region is bound to raise eyebrows.
Borderlands are peculiar regions. They are ecotonic in nature, forming a transition zone between two distinct territories. The people who live in close proximity to the borderlands however have several common characteristics. They are also the ones who are the most affected whenever any activity is planned in these regions by the respective governments. In the Himalayan borderlands especially where the terrain and climate are both difficult, infrastructure creation is a mammoth task. It is one of the several reasons behind the extended deadlines of ICBRs. Have the ICBRs contributed towards the improvement of relationship between the two neighbours? Not really. The more aggressive efforts at road building have led to increased skirmishes around Line of Actual Control (LAC). Daulat Beg Oldi, Kalapani and Doka La incidents are a case in the point. Many scholars have advocated that existence of two major powers at any point of time is a good balancer in the global politics, a view which was heavily subscribed during the Cold war. However, in case of India and China, this view doesn’t completely hold true. Though their aspirations are more or less the same, the methods that both these countries adopt and the resources they have at their disposal are very different. According to a report by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), China is way ahead of India in terms of defence budget and military expenditure. China’s economy is 4 times bigger than India and is well-entwined with global supply chain, unlike India. This brings India to the point that whether creation of infrastructure in the borderlands are necessary for India despite being outnumbered on several fronts and the existence of pressing problems within its own territory. The answer would be in affirmative from a security point of view, however what is also required at the same time is resorting to an approach of infrastructure creation where ordinary people who inhabit this region are taken into account.
ICBRs have received much interest from spectators across the world. The conflict between India and China has been one of the defining characteristic of the dawn of the Asian century. The region is being sincerely watched by USA, Europe, Russia and several other major powers. China’s aggressive nationalism and its blatant violation of existing boundaries with its Southern neighbours and creation of infrastructure around the world through road, rail and water under OBOR has many of them concerned, especially India. Hitherto, India has resisted the temptations offered by the Chinese, however it’s difficult to do so for long until India comes out with its own plan. The joining of QUAD and increasing cooperation between India and Japan for infrastructure creation in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and several other African countries are some of the initiatives where India is attempting to create a parallel front vis-a-vis the Chinese.
In the 22 years since ICBRs were envisaged, both India and China have been involved in several border skirmishes. The construction of border roads are a struggle for power, in this case between India and China. China’s aggressive efforts to increase infrastructure investment in the Himalayan region has created conflicts with India. The security-oriented approach in this case overshadows the idea of increasing regional connectivity pointing towards states consolidating power. In this top-down approach of creating infrastructure in the Himalayan borderlands, the lived realities of those inhabiting the region is often overlooked. The profound impact it has on their cultures, traditions, lifestyles, language, food habits is not taken into account. The story of ICBRs is a story of how the infrastructure creation has been affected by political histories and geographical compulsions. As such, these road dynamics have significant socio-cultural and political-economic implications for populations in both India and Tibet Autonomous Region (China). Himalayas have always been an active place for locomotion of goods, people, culture and traditions right from the time of Silk route. This interaction has also affected social, political and economic dynamics. The construction of roads open up a plethora of opportunities for hitherto remote communities who inhabit this region. At the same time, these same opportunities can overshadow the existing traditions and cultures. A bottom-up approach in understanding the impact of infrastructure creation in the Himalayan borderlands needs to be adopted.
