Apologists for the Chinese have said the problem exists because the line of Actual Control has not been determined. What they fail to mention is that Beijing has refused to exchange maps that define the lAC
China has a long history of Imperial arrogance, regarding itself as the centre of the earth, being labelled ‘The Middle Kingdom’. According to ancient Chinese diplomatic practice, ‘barbarians’, including rulers and diplomats representing European powers and neighbours like Korea, had to ‘kowtow’ while appearing before the Emperor, acknowledging the Emperor as the ‘son of heaven’. The Chinese practice of ‘kowtow’ required others to kneel and bow so low as to have one’s head touching the ground! As China’s power declined, this practice ended. But China is rising now and has used, or threatened to use, force in asserting its ever-expanding claims on its maritime frontiers, with countries ranging from Japan, South Korea and Vietnam to the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei. As tensions between Japan and China grew over provocative Chinese naval manoeuvres in territorial waters surrounding the disputed Senkaku Islands, Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe recently issued a stark warning to China, asserting, “I have ordered the authorities to respond decisively to any attempt to enter territorial waters and land on the Islands”.
China had evidently calculated that with its leadership under siege while facing an economic downturn, India cannot respond in the robust manner that Japan has and that India would not be averse to kowtowing, when confronted by Chinese power. Union Minister for External Affairs Salman Khurshid had, after all, labelled the Chinese intrusion in Depsang, as “acne”. The Prime Minister had described the intrusion as a “localised problem”. Government spokespersons and sympathetic hacks have claimed that hundreds of such intrusions occur every year. They refuse to accept that, while routine intrusions involve troops moving in and out of contested areas, in the present case, the intruders had pitched tents and contested Indian sovereignty. Apologists for the Chinese assert the problem arises because the line of Actual Control arising from the 1962 conflict has not been determined. What they fail to mention is that it is the Chinese who have refused to exchange maps defining the lAC, in order to enable them to intrude at a time and place of their choosing.
Worse still, the Chinese are guilty of violating their commitment to resolve the border issue in terms the ‘Guiding Principles’ that former Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao and Mr Manmohan Singh agreed to in 2005. These principles stated that in resolving the border issue the boundary would be along “well-defined and easily identifiable natural geographical features” and that “interests of their settled populations” in the border areas should be safeguarded. This clearly indicates that there will be no change in the status of populated areas. Rather than abide by this agreement, the Chinese responded by declaring that the whole of Arunachal Pradesh is a part of “South Tibet”, thereby requiring that the entire “settled population” of Arunachal Pradesh should become Chinese citizens!
In the western sector in ladakh, going by India’s definition of the lAC, the areas China intruded in Depsang are clearly on the Indian side of the ladakh-Tibet border. The Macdonald-Macartney proposals, which China implicitly endorsed in 1899, were based on “well defined and easily identifiable geographical features”. India’s delineation of the lAC broadly conforms to the Macdonald-Macartney line, which was tacitly accepted by China. The ladakh-China border was then determined as lying along the Karakoram Mountains, up to the Indus River Watershed. Chinese official maps issued in 1853, 1917 and 1919 depicted the ladakh-Tibet border accordingly. China has thus to accept this Indian definition of the lAC, as it has agreed that the boundary should be along “well- defined and easily identifiable natural geographical features”. What has transpired is not merely “acne”, but a violation of India’s territorial integrity. New Delhi has been so pusillanimous that it deliberately chooses not to articulate how China has refused to agree to the exchange of maps for determining the lAC and how it has gone back on the framework for a border settlement that Prime Minister Wen Jiabao agreed to in 2005.
The last time that a similar intrusion across the lAC occurred was in Sumdorong Chu near the McMahon line in Arunachal Pradesh in 1986. Then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi did not describe the Chinese action as an “acne” or a “localised problem”. Indian forces were quietly mobilised and three Mountain Divisions were moved to the Sumdorong Chu area, occupying hilltops around the Chinese forces. In a message conveyed through then US Defence Secretary Caspar Weinberger, China’s Supreme leader Deng Xiaoping warned that China would have to “teach India a lesson” if it did not pull back. New Delhi refused to oblige. A beaming Deng Xiaoping received the Indian Prime Minister in Beijing in December 1988. The Joint Working Group set up after 1988 agreed in 1995 that there would be a simultaneous withdrawal of troops from two border posts, each by China and India, in the Sumdorong Chu valley.
The sudden decision on the latest infiltration, made public in the late hours of May 5 that both sides will withdraw from the positions assumed after the Chinese pitched tents in the Depsang area, raises more questions than it answers. As already explained, the area in question has been historically on India’s side of the ladakh-Tibet border. By agreeing to a mutual pull-back from existing positions, has India not conceded that the area in question is disputedIJ Have we not put ourselves in a position of being unable to re-establish our presence in an area which is indisputably oursIJ If this is indeed the case, what is the status of the Indian presence in nearby Daulat Beg Oldi itselfIJ Could the Chinese now not undertake a similar intrusion around Daulat Beg Oldi and demand our removal of the strategic airlift capabilities thereIJ Have we tacitly agreed to quietly pull back from strategic positions of concern to China in Chumar and other areasIJ
Significantly, this is happening when India’s defence modernisation has been adversely affected by its economic downturn. The Chinese have noted India’s defence build up in Arunachal Pradesh and ladakh over the past decade and evidently concluded that they need to act now on this build-up, before it is too late. This intrusion has come just after the Chinese have proposed freezing of troop levels on the border.
Now that we have agreed to pull back from the Depsang area, are we setting the stage for halting the build-up of our lines of Communications and forward deployments across ladakh, thus giving the Chinese military advantageIJ These are issues that we need to carefully monitor in the days ahead. There can be no compromise on the country’s territorial integrity.