The India/Bhutan sector (Bhutan is in effect India’s satellite, treaty-bound to conduct its foreign relations under Indian guidance) of China’s extensive land borders is the only one which is undefined and disputed. Soon after the 1949 establishment of the PRC, Beijing recognising that almost all sectors of its land borders needed diplomatic processing to bring them to the agreed, jointly defined, linear status required by modern states, committed itself to resolving territorial differences through negotiation, waiving inherited irredentist claims and eschewing the use or threat of force. Pursuing that policy of compromising territorial claims to achieve agreement, over half a century China achieved cordial boundary settlements with Burma, Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Mongolia, North Korea, Vietnam, and Laos.
Both the USSR and India initially refused to negotiate conflicting territorial claims, but instead unilaterally defined the alignments of their China borders, proclaiming them to be already defined and therefore final and non-negotiable. That policy was inherently aggressive and inescapably escalatory. Local confrontations between border police were bound to occur: since the different claims could not be resolved diplomatically confrontation inevitably escalated to skirmish, to battle, to border war.
In the case of the USSR, after the battles on the ice of the Ussuri River in 1969 brought the two sides to the brink of nuclear war, Moscow backed down. After years of hostile stalemate, Moscow reversed its policy under Gorbachev in 1987, accepting the need to negotiate. In a diplomatic process lasting from 1987 to 2005 all Sino-Soviet/Russian boundary sectors were agreed and formalised.
In the case of India, the local confrontations began in 1958, escalated into clashes between armed police in 1959, into army skirmishes in 1961, and into border war in 1962. Defeat did not change New Delhi’s policy, that remained locked into refusal to negotiate and in 1987 Indian advances into disputed territory nearly renewed the war. In 1993 Prime Minister Narasimha Rao reversed policy. He negotiated a stand-still agreement which looked to mutual recognition of a zonal ‘line of actual control’ which, by averting clashes and obviating charges of ‘incursion’, would allow the borders to relax into ‘peace and tranquillity’. Such a condition, maintained for perhaps several decades, might have allowed public attitudes in India to mellow to the point at which a government could take up Beijing’s long-standing call for negotiations.
Since each side holds the territory that is strategically vital to it, a Sino-Indian boundary agreement should be attainable – given goodwill on both sides. But successor Indian governments did not follow up the 1993 treaty, there has been no agreement on a ‘line of actual control’, local confrontations have continued to occur, and it appears that for reasons that can only be inferred India may now be moving towards renewing the broad military challenge to China which it mounted in 1962 and again in 1987.
Neville Maxwell is a Visiting Fellow at the ANU’s Contemporary China Centre.
Listen to the audio of Neville’s joint presentation with Dibyesh Anand held on August 14 at ANU.
One has to do an objective analysis of problems.
The article in a very skillful manner picks facts selectively to support the argument of the author. It is argued that India has provoked China by reinforcing its army and air force. It is true that India has been reinforcing its armed forces. But, is India provocating China or merely responding to the provocations of China?. The border is not properly demarcated, hence forces of either countries might at times cross over. But, there is a great deal of difference between crossing inadvertantly and crossing with a purpose. If one would do proper research about the incursions by China, it would be quite evident that they are done with a purpose. China has developped massive infrastructure till the last border outpost along the border, which would enable it to move divisions of army at a lightening speed. China has been modernising its military, its space warfare and cyber warfare in a massive way, which would make any sensible nation doubt the intentions behind.
The author talks of 1987 skirmish and blames India for it. Here again facts are ignored. Int 1986, the Chinese have again started establishing the border outposts in the land(which is under Indian control and which is disputed by Chinese). This forced India to be prepared for possible conflict.
The author argues that except with India, China has resolved it border conflict with most of the countries. Currently, India and China are pursuing the talks through special representatives of the respective governaments. The talks are struck because of unreasonable Chinese position. The bileteral agreement between the two countries states that there would be no exchange of populated areas between the two countries. The Chinese have gone back on this and are claiming Tawang(which is populated) to be theirs.
The claim to Tawang is a recent one. There is suspicsion that China does not want the bordere dispute to be settled as it wants it to be used as a stick to put pressure on India in matters dealing with his holiness Dalai Lama.
I have to say that the language used is very objectionable. The author argues “Defeat did not change India’s policy, that remained locked into refusal to negotiate”. He remains silent on the way China attacked India, the way they shocked India with a war, the smart way in which they unilaterally decided to pull back, when their troops were streached and the American help came in for India.
Chinese groomed Pakistan to balance India. They indulged in nuclear and missile proliferation to Pakistan to contain India. They adopt the string of pearls strategy to encircle India. They set up their bases in the vicinity of India like in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Myanmar etc. Inspite of all this, if India decides to upgrade its military presense, it is termed as provocating China.
A good article. Ravi’s protestations are same old story of ‘right or wrong my country.’
Even right wing commentators on India China war do not dispute the fact that in 1962 it was India which started the war.
The very fact that the Chinese have solved their boundaries with all neighbours except India and India has boundary dispute with both major neighbours says something about our (India’s) foreign policy.
India -China border will be ultimately solved on give and take policy. By refusing to do so India has already inflicted enough damage. It is time we wake up to the facts.
China has not been able to solve boundary disputes with all the major nations, Japan, Russia and India. This does speak something of China’s foreign policy, doesn’t it? They have forced decisions on relatively small countries. And you can’t possibly assume that they can force their decisions on Japan and India. So Mr. Khahra, please do some comparative analysis before navigating to a conclusion. There is only one flaw in Ravi’s response. He falls short in criticizing China and their policies. The only reason China is wary of India now is due to increased reluctance shown by the latter, for India have realized their economical and political strength. The authors view and opinion are as biased as they are flawed. How articulately author has put all the blames of Asian regional tensions on India is commendable. But dear author, there was the time when such writing skills were even more effective than it is now, the Nazi era in Germany, and we are not oblivious to the extent of atrocities of that time. Hence, please reconquer the ethical ground that a writer of your caliber should never have left, and include all the facts and data from both sides before bestowing your support for an argument.
The real solution is an independent, democratic, pluralistic Tibet, which is closely tied to India economically, politically and culturally. India will stress the importance of people, freedom, democracy and culture, and India’s ancient influence on that culture, whereas China only thinks and cares about territory, empire, military presence, the politbureau, the Communist party, and of course the coldest and driest legality, itself highly questionable!
Only restoring Greater Tibet as an independent country (as per the map before the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1950) can solve the problem between India and China. Tibet was and needs to be the buffer between the 2 asian giants. The chinese imperialist empire has to stop growing citing old imaginary maps and dynasties. We live in the 21st century where borders are drwan not on conquests and placing flags, but by the people.
Very well said, Thong Lama. An independent, democratic, pluralistic Tibet is the finest solution by far.