The world is embroiled in seemingly intractable conflicts: the civil war in Myanmar in its third year; the Ukraine War close to entering its third year; and the Israeli operations in Gaza, ongoing for three months. If there is one thread that is common to all, it is that there seems to be no end in sight.
India has always preferred to resolve disputes through dialogue and discussion. Sometimes this is taken as a weakness, but in recent years, India has firmly demonstrated its resolve to respond appropriately to various provocations. When to negotiate and when to fight will always remain the subject of debate. Negotiations are generally considered a better approach than fighting. However, there are situations where fighting may be necessary—especially when one is in immediate danger and there is no other way to protect oneself or others. Fighting could also be necessary when the other party is not willing to negotiate or is acting in bad faith, and one has no other way to achieve one’s goals. However, it is important to remember that fighting should always be the last resort and used only when all other options have been exhausted.
During the inter-war years, faced with a rising Germany and Italy in Europe and Japan in the Pacific, the European powers and the US made several concessions on different fronts, including turning a blind eye to treaty violations, to appease the three Axis powers in a bid to avert war. However, this policy of appeasement only emboldened these countries, drawing the world inexorably into World War 2. This only underscores the point that negotiations must be carried out from a position of strength, with a clear vision of the desired outcomes.
Negotiating from a position of strength means that one has an advantage over the other party. To build that advantage, one must prepare thoroughly, by in-depth research into the other party’s interests, goals, and priorities, and identify one’s own strengths and weaknesses. Equally important is to establish trust and rapport with the other party by listening actively, not being ego-driven and showing empathy. To be successful, one must focus on interests, not positions, and identify the underlying interests of both parties and look for ways to create value for both sides. In doing so, one also needs to be creative by exploring different options and alternatives and be willing to think outside the box.
Last but not least, one must be willing to walk away if the other party is not negotiating in good faith or if the terms being offered are not favourable. Negotiation is a process, and it requires patience, persistence, and flexibility. Negotiating from a position of strength does not mean that one has to be aggressive or confrontational. Instead, it means that one is well-prepared, confident, and focused on achieving a mutually beneficial outcome. For any settlement to succeed, it must be a win-win solution for all stakeholders.
Also Read: Attrition, annihilation, or exhaustion? India has to pick the right strategy to win a war
Solving border disputes
Of all the threats that India faces, the settlement of the boundary dispute with China over the Tibet–India border is the most pressing. The terms boundary and border are often used interchangeably, but they have distinct meanings. A boundary is a conceptual line that outlines the extent or limits of a specific area, like a border. Boundaries can refer to the lines that define the extent of a property, a legal jurisdiction, or a designated area. Additionally, boundaries can be intangible, representing limits in social, psychological, or ethical contexts, and establish the parameters within which something operates or exists.
On the other hand, a border typically refers to a geopolitical line, demarcating the limits of a country or state. It is usually recognised by international law and agreements, and violation of recognised international borders is generally not acceptable in a rules-based order. Essentially, a border demarcates the division between two distinct entities. Therefore, with the Tibet region of China, India has a boundary issue and not a border issue.
Negotiation is a common method for settling international disputes, including border disputes. Article 33 of the UN Charter explicitly lists negotiation as one of the mechanisms available to states for the peaceful resolution of their international disputes. It is a dynamic, flexible mechanism that allows disputing states to exchange information, present the merits of their case to each other, and attempt to settle the dispute before resorting to formal legal means such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In the case of border disputes, negotiation can be a particularly effective approach. For example, in 2015, India and Bangladesh successfully resolved a long-standing border dispute through negotiation. The two countries exchanged enclaves and territories, and the agreement was hailed internationally as a model for resolving border disputes.
The scenario on the India-Tibet boundary though is quite different due to the absence of a ratified border. Being a disputed line, there are claims and counter-claims based on historical assertions, religious affinity, cultural linkages and even intangibles like a sense of belonging (or not belonging). This last factor is an emotive one, which could override all other considerations, as was evident when the UK voted in favour of Brexit.
Coming back to the Ukraine conflict, Russian President Vladimir Putin has indicated that he is not averse to a ceasefire, and the US too has suggested that Ukraine may consider ceding some territories in the larger interest of bringing a halt to the hostilities. Weary of battle and running out of ammunition, both sides now seem to be veering toward the negotiating table, realising the futility of fighting further. This only reinforces India’s stand that disputes should be resolved through dialogue and discussion.
India and China are now facing off in Eastern Ladakh for the fourth successive winter. With both sides having amassed considerable forces all along the boundary, it is evident that a military solution to enforce claims is not viable. Moreover, India has firmly demonstrated that it will oppose any unilateral attempts to change the status quo through the use of force. The time is ripe, therefore, for negotiations to recommence, not just for the remaining friction points but for resolving the overall boundary question.
General Manoj Mukund Naravane PVSM AVSM SM VSM is a retired Indian Army General who served as the 28th Chief of the Army Staff. Views are personal.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)