In his farewell address and call-on with External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar in October 2022, Chinese Ambassador Sun Weidong stated that, while there were bound to be differences between India and China, they must be resolved through dialogue and discussion. Jaishankar, in turn, emphasised that peace and tranquillity in border areas were not only essential but also a pre-requisite for the normalisation of relations. These statements, of course, were in the context of the Eastern Ladakh face-off, which began in 2020 and is itself part of the larger boundary dispute between the two countries. Therefore, for relations between China and India to really move forward, the boundary question needs to be resolved at the earliest and in its entirety.
Delimitation, delineation, demarcation
The resolution of any boundary dispute essentially involves three steps – delimitation, delineation, and demarcation. These terms are often used interchangeably, but each has a distinct meaning and purpose. Delimitation refers to the process of defining the boundaries or limits of a particular area or concept. Delineation refers to the act of drawing lines to represent features on a map or diagram. Demarcation, on the other hand, emphasises the physical or clear indication of those very boundaries, making them visible or understood.
To elaborate, delimitation is the conceptualisation of where something begins and ends, delineation is the act of drawing lines connecting prominent features on a high-resolution map that are easily identifiable both on the map as well as on the ground, and demarcation is the physical marking of those boundaries through the construction of boundary pillars at periodic intervals along identifiable points on the delineated line.
Negotiators are generally familiar with the use of the terms delimitation, delineation (or definition) and demarcation. However, the use of these terms was not always so clear and there can be confusion between the three stages even today.
At the end of the 19th century, these terms were used indiscriminately to describe the stages in boundary making, together with other words such as fixation, delineation, and definition. The first attempt to separate these stages was made by Captain AH (later Sir Henry) McMahon at a meeting of the Royal Artillery Institution in 1896. Sir Henry McMahon is also credited with proposing the watershed principle to adjudicate on the boundaries of two countries, and the McMahon line, which forms the basis of the boundary between Tibet and India, is named after him.
Delimitation is thus more conceptual in nature, involving a political decision, some give and take of territory, and deft diplomacy to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution. Delineation would follow, through a formal treaty or agreement, including the exchange of marked maps.
Also read: India must use dialogue to solve border conflict with China. Military solution not viable
The difficulty of demarcation
After these two steps, arguably the more difficult ones, have been completed, the physical process of demarcation is followed by the construction of serially numbered border pillars, the straight line between successive pillars being the accepted border. Chronologically, these stages may overlap, may follow sequentially, or may be separated by gaps of many years. Often, there might be a general understanding of the division of territory long before boundaries are delimited. Furthermore, there are boundaries formally delimited years ago that have not yet been demarcated. Some boundaries have remained notional for many years, while others have been under de facto administration even before they were delimited, as is the case of the Aksai Chin region of Tibet, administered by China.
While delimitation is no doubt the most onerous task fraught with political consequences, demarcation is an equally demanding task, calling for a generous dose of common sense. The best of negotiators cannot really visualise the on-ground situation. No treaty or agreement can define the line as exactly as surveyors can plot it at the site. In their reasonable decisions, the surveyors should consider aspects like ease of administration, local sentiment, and geographical continuity.
The best of treaties may lead to hostility arising out of differences in perception if the delineation of the boundary does not correspond to geographical realities. On the India–Myanmar border, for example, the International Border, based on the watershed principle, runs right through the house of the ‘Angh’ (headman) of Lungwa village in the Mon District of Nagaland. The bedroom of the house is in India, while the living room is in Myanmar. It is evident that those drawing the lines in conference halls were unaware of the ground realities, namely that in Nagaland, for tactical reasons, villages are situated on hilltops rather than river plains.
To resolve the ambiguous nature of the Tibet boundary, it emerges clearly that serious efforts must be made to negotiate and settle the boundary dispute. In fact, this unsettled frontier hurts China more than it does India, as it casts them in the light of the ‘neighbourhood bully’, having land or maritime boundary disputes with most of its neighbours. The mechanism of talks between the special representatives of China and India must be revived. It is through this mechanism that an agreement had been reached in April 2005, during the India visit of then-Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. It was called ‘The Agreement on the Political Parameters and Guiding Principles (PPGP) for the Settlement of the India-China Boundary Question’.
The point to note is that it was called ‘boundary question’ and not ‘border dispute’. This agreement had raised high expectations of an early resolution of the boundary dispute. In the attainment of the solution, the two sides were to consider “historical evidence, national sentiments, practical difficulties and reasonable concerns and sensitivities of both sides and the actual state of border areas; the boundary should be along ‘well-defined geographical features’; interests of ‘settled populations in the border areas’ to be considered; and ‘delineation of the boundary’ to be done through modern and joint means.” In a departure from the past, China agreed to a package solution rather than a sectoral approach.
The PPGP in effect can be the conceptual basis for the delimitation process to commence. Given that such an agreement already exists, it is a matter for negotiators to take forward these provisions and apply them to each of the disputed sectors. The clause that the boundary should run “along well-defined geographical features” is an indirect acceptance of the watershed principle, as long as the term McMahon line is not used, as China does not recognise the treaty signed between Tibet and India in 1911.
The fact that the watershed principle has been used to demarcate the boundary between China and Myanmar, shows that China is not averse to this principle. The settlement of this boundary question, the longest unsettled one in history, will be a boon not only to China and India but to the entire world.
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 Zoya Bhatti)