The Lieutenant General-level talks between India and China to resolve the border impasse in Ladakh is very likely to provide the much needed de-escalation and truce between the two armies. The area of ongoing conflict is reportedly spread over two locations, Pangong Tso and Galwan River valley. As is usual, military deployment in such times is always reciprocal, with both armies armed to teeth.
There can be no two opinions on the need to de-escalate the ongoing tension on the border. At a time when we are faced with the worst crisis due to the Covid-19, a war-like situation at the Line of Actual Control (LAC) is the last thing New Delhi would want.
As preparations for the high-level military talks are made, the question one has to consider is whether New Delhi should settle geography and create history or wait for history to unfold and determine new geography.
While the Army is tight-lipped, and rightly so, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has invoked the Wuhan spirit and “strategic guidance” to both armies, saying “India is committed to the objective of maintaining peace and tranquility in the border areas with China and our Armed forces scrupulously follow the consensus reached by our leaders and the guidance provided. At the same time, we remain firm in our resolve to ensuring India’s sovereignty and national security.”
This resonates with what Chinese Ambassador Sun Weidong said recently: “China and India should never let their differences shadow the overall bilateral ties and must enhance mutual trust. Both sides should resolve their differences through communication and adhere to the basic premise that they pose no threat to each other.”
Also read: ‘Unprecedented’ — India, China deploy Lt Gen-rank army officers to solve border row
Agreements on paper, no line drawn on ground
After the 1962 War, both countries established strong mechanisms that have withstood the test of time and many such incursions and counter-incursions from either side. To ensure peace and tranquillity, India and China have signed five bilateral agreements and protocols (i) 1993 Agreement on Maintenance of Peace and Tranquillity along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the India-China border areas; (ii) 1996 Agreement on Confidence Building Measures in the Military Field along the LAC; (iii) 2005 Protocol on Modalities for the implementation of the Confidence Building Measures in the Military Field along the LAC; (iv) 2012 Agreement on the establishment of a working mechanism for consultation and coordination on India-China Border Affairs; and (v) 2013 Border Defence Cooperation Agreement. It is significant that the emphasis is on confidence building measures in the military field along the LAC.
As a result of 1962, China could claim its control over Indian territories, particularly in Ladakh. The 1993 bilateral agreement introduced the concept of LAC, even though no actual ground positions were determined. Significantly, every incident along the LAC added to the conflicting claims and counterclaims, making it difficult to determine the LAC in order to settle the ‘border’ dispute. Both countries disagree on the outcome of a final map, which would demarcate the LAC and subsequently help determine a permanent border. But, in the meantime, all along the LAC, tense situations and standoffs have occurred — in Sumdorong Chu in 1987, Depsang in 2013, Chumar in 2014, Doklam in 2017, and now in Galwan River valley.
Maps and markings, agreements and protocols, covenants and conventions agreed upon in drawing rooms have meaning only when they conform to the ground realities. China changed the geography in 1959 by claiming Tibet as its territory and occupying it by force, thus creating a new neighbour for India. This changed India’s borders on the ground, which is now being sought to be incorporated in the map to be drawn on the negotiating table.
Also read: India’s Fingers have come under Chinese boots. Denial won’t help us
In Tibet, lies the answer
The moral aspect of the question about the political, cultural and human rights of millions of Tibetans remains unanswered. How many more generations of displaced Tibetans should remain stateless refugees in far-off frontiers living at the mercy of their hosts? Can India and China settle the border issue with total disregard to the legitimate claims of the people of Tibet?
The President of the Tibetan Administration (euphemism for Tibetan Government) in Exile Dr Lobsang Sangay has said in a recent interview that the resolution of the issue of Tibet will automatically solve the India-China border issue because India shares its border with erstwhile Tibet. Elaborating on this, he said, “The Indo-Tibet border has been in existence for thousands of years of recorded history. Since it has become the India-China border, all these tensions have come up. Hence, the core issue is Tibet. When Tibet was independent, the Indian Army did not require a defence budget of $60 billion, it was not necessary at all. So, once Tibet is demilitarised and declared a zone of peace, two largest populated countries in the world, India and China, will have permanent peace.”
Thirty-one years after the tragic Tiananmen Square incident (4 June 1989), and after erasing the memories of the incident and exiling all those responsible for the pro-democracy protests, the authorities in Beijing still cannot guarantee that another Hu Yaobang will not appear, sooner or later. China’s vulnerabilities could increase further as a global anti-China coalition emerges over the increasing desire to ascertain the origin of the coronavirus pandemic.
Beijing has always operated from behind an opaque ‘bamboo’ curtain, which belies its leadership’s claim of peaceful rise of China for a win-win situation for all. But its belligerent attitude and hegemonic actions on the ground in Asia, especially with its neighbours, seldom matches its words. It would be naïve on the part of Beijing, to put it mildly, to think that it can force India to settle the border issue to China’s advantage. India should not hasten to settle the border issue; if need be, hasten slowly.
The author is a member of the National Executive Committee of the BJP and former editor of Organiser. Views are personal.