To Counter Chinese Aggressive Designs
On 11 Setember 2020, India-China agreed on a 5-point plan, to disengage and focus on dialogue to move towards confidence building measures (CBM). S Jaishankar, Indian foreign minister emphasized adherence to the 1993 and 1996 agreements. Jaishankar met his counterpart, Wang Yi, in the backdrop of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) meeting held in Russia.
Recently, Wang Li was on a five-nation Europe trip (Norway, Italy, France, Germany and the Netherlands) and emphasized multilateralism, to replace unilateralism and bullying acts. This proved to be an opportune time to make China come to an understanding, after four months of the standoff. However, soon thereafter, Hu Xi, editor-in-chief of Global Times tweeted, “China hopes the five-point consensus reached between the two foreign ministers can be implemented, but is ready to strike a heavy blow to Indian troops if they refuse to implement it.”
This raises some questions. Was the agreement on the 5 point plan a facade as Wang Li was concluding a Europe trip advocating multilateralism? Or, does it represent a discrepancy in the approach of the foreign minister Li and the Chinese state-led media? Nonetheless, there is discrepancy in China’s statements at the international forum and ground realities in the Asian region. This emphasizes the point that India needs a multidimensional strategy to move forward, as China has the tendency to back out or redefine its commitments.
ALSO READ: INDIA-CHINA: The Bloody Clash at Galwan
Under the Narendra Modi government, India has undertaken several measures to fix languishing issues that were leading to infiltration and lack of governance in the border regions. This included abrogation of the Article 370 in Jammu & Kashmir and infrastructure development in the border areas. In August 2019, India scrapped the special status of Jammu & Kashmir accorded by Article 370. Concomitantly, Ladakh was separated and set up as a union territory, thereby, bringing the latter directly under the authority of the central government. This was an entirely domestic matter, yet, China opposed this development as it lays claim to a certain section of territory in Ladakh.
Salami Slicing
The India-China border demarcations in Ladakh and North Sikkim are laid out in ‘salami slicing’ pattern through various bilateral agreements. In 1993, an agreement defined a 3,500 km Line of Actual Control (LAC), a de facto Sino-India border. It was followed by several agreements (in 1996, 2005, 2012, and 2013) to establish bilateral confidence-building and communication modes to resolve the issues regarding the LAC. In 2017, Doklam standoff lasted for 73 days, India was forced to mobilize its troops to counter China’s growing presence along the Bhutan border. It was resolved through intense diplomacy and an unwavering approach by India.
In May 2020, China objected to the road being built by India in the Finger area of the Pangong Tso Lake. This led to the stationing of the troops by the two sides in Ladakh’s Gulwan valley. On 6 June, China seemed to respond to India’s diplomatic overtures and there was a de-escalation in process. But this proved to be a deceptive disengagement as, within 10 days, an unwarranted attack on Indian soldiers occurred. Complying with the 1996 agreement, the Indian soldiers were not carrying any arms or explosives in this area, yet the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) ambushed unarmed soldiers in a covert, yet, planned manner. On the steep terrain, at a height of about 4,300 metres (14,000 ft) PLA initially blocked the mountain streams and then, when the Indian soldiers approached, it unblocked it when the Indian soldiers approached. This caught the Indian soldiers by surprise. The PLA did not stop at this and rushed to attack Indian soldiers with sticks encrusted with nails, thus, causing the brutal death of 20 Indian soldiers and injuring 76 others. Without firing a shot, the Indian soldiers gave a bloody nose to the Chinese inflicting greater numbers of casualties. This is a grim reminder of the 1961 stab-in-the-back that China can sideline any agreements. This necessitates a comprehensive analysis and necessitates India to decipher a proactive multi-pronged strategy to counter as well as deter China. Why India has not taken this up at any international forum?
ALSO READ: INDIA-CHINA: Chinese Intrusion in Eastern Ladakh
Not a fight in the backyard
The Gulwan incident projected as an impromptu singular incident. Yet, it is improbable that the PLA soldiers could have acted without the command of their higher authorities. This was not a fight in the neighborhood where some men got enraged and it ‘just so happened.’ The Chinese government evaded declaration of the casualties and deaths of their soldiers, leaving the kith and kin to conduct guesswork and look for clues; then, can the soldiers dare to carry out the deadly attack without the knowledge of the higher authorities.
To prevent such incidents in the future, India should declare that in case of similar attacks on its soldiers in the ‘no arms zone,’ the soldiers will be authorized to use arms for self-defence.
Chinese Game-plan: Encircle India
Following the Gulwan incident, intense diplomatic negotiations have been underway between the China and India. Nonetheless, the Sino-India flare-up in the Ladakh region necessitates a geopolitical analysis of the Chinese game plan in the region. China considers India as a challenger to its geopolitical design, both regionally as well as globally and has been engaged in encircling India for the past several decades. Thus, it would be naïve and erroneous to view the recent stationing and (re)positioning of PLA merely in a bilateral framework.
China has been following a strategy of countering India’s predominance in the subcontinent by instigating its neighbors and fueling border tensions. China has successfully capitalized the insecurities and the ambitions of Pakistan’s political leadership vis-à-vis India. Since the 1960s, China engaged in illicit proliferation of nuclear materials and technology and propped up Pakistan as a de facto nuclear weapons state. This was in contravention of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), yet, China evaded the sanctions from the international community, including the US. In recent decades, the Chinese involvement in the Gwadar port—an integral part of its “String of Pearls” strategy—alongside, the Belt and Road initiative (BRI) is evidence of its territorial aggrandizement. Now, China is building a strategic partnership with Iran, creating way for a security partnership involving investments in Iran’s major sectors such as telecom, ports, railways, subways, inter alia. It also calls for joint research training in defence, weapons development and intelligence to fight “the lopsided battle with terrorism, drug and human trafficking and cross-border crimes.”
For Iran it is a valuable opportunity in view of the decades-old isolationist strategy pursued by the US and international community in favor of its regional rivals. Probably, under the Chinese influence, Iran has backed out from the India-Iran Chabahar rail project, citing delays in funding.
ALSO READ: India rejects China’s 1959 claim line
The China-India border flare up comes at a critical juncture when, not only but India, the whole world has been grappling with the virus that emerged mysteriously in Wuhan, China. President Trump went to the extent to call it the “Chinese Virus.” Rather than adopting a cooperative approach with the world authorities to conduct investigation of the mysterious origin of the Coronavirus that has infected 30 million people worldwide, China adopted an aggressive strategy in the Indian subcontinent. A pertinent question that has evaded any investigation is: How the Coronavirus originated in the Wuhan lab in China? In the country of origin, it infected only 85,000 people, but it spread across the world to inflict 30 million. Relatedly, has China adopted this aggressive posture to engage India and concomitantly, deflect the scanner for the Covid virus?
India’s Multipronged Counter Strategy
Despite swings in de-escalation, India can ill-afford to be lax in its strategy towards China. This would be temporary with the possibility of arising in some other form or border area. In fact, India should also be open to the possibility of China-Pakistan opening border fronts together simultaneously. India’s “go it alone” strategy or “economic partnership” overtures will not suffice. Under the current government, India is vigorously building infrastructure in the hitherto neglected border areas to consolidate its territory.
Simply a defensive strategy would be ineffective, India needs to adopt a soft multi-pronged counter-offensive strategy. That is, a comprehensive strategy to counterbalance China’s geopolitical overtures both regionally as well as globally.
“Make in India”
Make in India is an effort to encourage entrepreneurship in India as well as to draw international investment. India is emerging as a challenge to China in the trading sector as well and this can be a strategy to contain China’s overtures to fund proxies in the subcontinent to create border issues or conflict with India.
In the 2019 ranking of “Ease of Doing Business” India jumped from 77 points to 63rd position. Similarly, India’s ranking has increased in the Global Retail Development Index that ranks the top 30 developing countries for retail investment. Since 2016, India has been at the second place, thus, emerging as a tough competitor to China at the first position.
Digital Strike
In July, India banned 50 Chinese apps including Tik Tok and Alibaba, the online retail option for Chinese, relating it to the threat to its national sovereignty. Ravi Shankar Prasad, the minister for Electronics and Information Technology called it a “digital strike.” The populace has supported the government’s initiative as they realize that it gives a chance for the Indian techies to shine. Subsequently, the Indian union minister banned Chinese companies from investing in highway projects, including joint ventures.
US largest trading partner
In the last couple of years, the US has replaced China as the largest trading partner of India. This is a significant shift as India had trade deficit with China but enjoys a trade surplus with the US.
The call to ban Chinese imports will have a considerable impact on the Chinese economy, as its exports account for 11.8% of India’s total imports. Compared to this, India’s exports to China were mere 3 per cent, so the trade deficit can turn to India’s advantage.
India needs to further boost its economic ties with the US. During Trump’s visit to India, there were speculations on a minor free trade agreement was on the agenda. Probably, the 2020 round of talks were not successful, but it should be on our agenda.
South Asia: SAARC
To counter China’s diplomatic and economic inroads in the Indian subcontinent, India needs to strengthen the SAARC platform. In early March, India’s prime minister held a virtual meeting with the SAARC leaders to develop a plan to meet the Covid-19 challenge in the region. Pakistan opted out of the virtual meeting. The easy movement policies of people and goods can be carriers of the virus, so it was important to develop guidelines with the neighbors. This platform can be crucial in building inter-state cooperation. India’s leadership is important in laying down the framework for intra-region cooperation to curtail external interference.
Engaging the US under Trump Administration: Risky Option
On May 27, US President Donald Trump expressed willingness to mediate between India and China. This was declined by both India and China, though for varying reasons. For China, it’s been a tough call to deal with the Trump administration and the bilateral relationship has wavered on the verge of confrontation. Moreover, Beijing is aware that the close bonding of Trump with Modi would lean the balance towards India. To avoid such a situation, China conceded that the countries have proper mechanisms and communication channels to resolve the issue. The question arises, if that was so, why, in the first place, did China step up the military at the border?
India has always strongly refuted the role of any external power in its bilateral matters. Moreover, under the current US Presidency, to involve the US in any manner, would be a risky option. The current administration is functioning as a one-man Presidency. Trump is impulsive and his approach is business minded: What’s the gain? Direct and visible?
Indo-Pacific: Quad
India cannot rely on the US alone but should engage with the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, a strategic dialogue between the US, Japan, Australia and India. It is not a formal alliance such as NATO but can serve to counter China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific region.
Now, the term Indo-Pacific is being used to emphasize India’s role. Ever since the Bush administration, the US has been keen that India should play an important role in the region. The long due recognition of India’s role in the Indian Ocean and the surrounding region, the transformation of Asia-Pacific to Indo-Pacific points in this direction.
In the Indo-Pacific, India should proactively engage with Japan and Australia, as they would share India’s concerns about an aggressive China. India must also maintain its self-reliance in defence and not depend on the alliance system. The counterbalancing of China would serve as an initial strategy, like a show of strength. For defense capabilities, though, India would have to rely on itself. As Lord Palmerstone said, “There are no permanent friends, there are no permanent enemies. Only our interests are permanent.”
India’s Rightful Claim at International Level
India should stake its rightful claim for permanent seat at the UN Security Council. New Delhi should take this opportunity to build momentum for the expansion of the Security Council. China can ill-afford a rising India—gathering momentum at the global level and getting heard in the world bodies. It will enhance India’s ability to balance China’s game plan and Pakistan’s promotion of the terrorist activities in the region.
Prime minister Modi has repeatedly called for the reform of the UN. India has been advocating the restructuring of the powerful Security Council so that it reflects the current global realities and not that of 1945 when the UN was formed. India must harness its economic and political power at the global level to counterbalance China and pull it away from propping proxies in the region.
