It is time we stood up against China as being in a state of denial is only going to bolster its larger designs of dominating South Asia

We now know that American democracy owes much to then-Vice President Mike Pence for its survival. His courage was unparalleled as, despite the immense pressure put on him by Donald Trump, he remained true to his oath and did his duty by the Constitution. Despite knowing that Trump had instigated his supporters to catch and hang him, he inexplicably refused to either publicly criticise Trump or provide testimony for his alleged criminal behaviour. Possibly, Trump’s bullying traumatised him so greatly that it was just enough for his subsequent inaction.

In much the same way, it appears we are in a state of perpetual denial of Chinese bullying ever since the 1950s. Adding to their sense of superiority and entitlement has been the tentative manner in which our leadership at the highest levels, both political and military, continues to act; scared of escalating the situation, fearful of retribution, and unwilling to stand up to their unilateral salami- slicing.

There were the odd exceptions, of course, thanks to the resoluteness of local commanders rather than policy. The Nathu La episode in 1967, the quid pro quo actions following the Sumdurong Chu incursion, and the Dhoklam face-off in 2017. But as the subsequent capitulation at Wuhan, the confrontation in Eastern Ladakh and the more recent episode in Arunachal Pradesh indicate, we continue to remain fearful of escalation and hesitate to publicly hold them accountable.

Our actions have often been explained as being strategically defensive, but tactically robust. In plain English, it suggests a defensive mindset willing to sacrifice lives and trade space for time in a desperate attempt to maintain the status quo. Nothing could be more bizarre than our acquiescence to engage with medieval weapons despite a deliberate assault against our sovereign territory. Only be acceptable, if those sacrifices allowed us time to strengthen our military and bide our time to respond appropriately.

But that is not the case here, given that the defence budget remains a low 1.6% of the GDP, and there is a renewed emphasis on only procuring indigenous equipment that will take years to materialise, if ever. Also, despite the tenuous security situation and tensions on the LAC, the military has been bullied into accepting a new untested recruitment and manpower policy by which the government hopes to cut costs.

All of this only adds to our deficiencies in manpower, aircraft, weapon systems, and other war-like stores. However, what is worse, is the unwillingness of the government to publicly articulate the grave dangers confronting us and the fact the political establishment is deeply divided and unwilling to work together against a common threat.

Our passivity has also been justified by pointing to the asymmetry between our forces and to the vast difference in rankings about “comprehensive national power” (CNP). Incidentally, a term first concocted by the Chinese in the 1980s that utilises quantitative and qualitative indices to arrive at the “totality of a country's economic, military and political power in a given period”. Coincidentally, it ranks them as the second most powerful military in the world, behind the United States with Russia coming in third. We are down the table with the Chinese CNP being about 1.8 times ours, as per some assessments.

While such rankings deserve serious consideration, we should also be cognizant of the fact that the Ukrainians, though ranked well below the Russians, have in the ongoing conflict given them a bloody nose. The plain fact is that like all other rankings, there is a great deal of subjectivity involved. They can never accurately factor in the impact of motivation, morale, and willingness to resist against all odds which play a crucial role in achieving success and separating the victor from the vanquished.

In our context, it is important to take into account that geography is on our side. The Tibetan theatre of operations is over 2000 Km from mainland China along the most treacherous lines of communication and through two restive provinces. Given that the high-altitude Tibetan Plateau is a desert, headquarters elements, administrative echelons, and supply and ammunition dumps are easy to locate and vulnerable to interdiction. We have seen how the damage inflicted by Ukrainian action against such positions has degraded the Russian military’s combat capabilities. Most importantly, altitude and climate play havoc with the performance of weapons and manpower and greatly restrict the numbers that can be deployed.

Finally, Chinese combat units are manned by conscripts, with little training or inclination to serve. Why would they be motivated to fight in some distant region of little consequence to either assuage Xi’s ego or divert attention from serious problems afflicting their country? Especially in the face of an opposition that is battle-hardened and fighting to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity. If we are serious in our intent, why would the results here be any different than the manner in which the war has gone in Ukraine? A bully only stops when confronted. More than strength, that requires courage of conviction, resolve, and strong leadership, a test of our mettle.

(The writer, a military veteran, is a Visiting Fellow with the Observer Research Foundation and Senior Visiting Fellow with The Peninsula Foundation)