The events on the India-China border in the first half of June have brought back memories of nearly 60 years of Chinese betrayal, aggression, deception and blackmail against India. 

The Chinese behaviour revolved around the border between the two countries, which has remained undelineated and undemarcated because of China’s stubborn rejection of the historical border. The Chinese aggression of 1962 took place at a time when the two sides were discussing the realignment of a border on the basis of historic treaties and evidence. 

The war resulted in China occupying the Aksai Chin area in the west and the Chinese claim over the whole of Arunachal Pradesh in the east. India remained steadfast in its demand for the occupied areas to be vacated, even while working bilaterally and multilaterally to find areas for cooperation as neighboring developing countries.

India-China relations over the last 58 years were marked by efforts at settlement of the border, normalisation of relations, signing of various agreements to develop economic relations, occasional clashes on the border, summit-level meetings and clashes in international bodies on account of China’s solidarity with Pakistan. 

China grew rapidly after it established relations with the United States and became Asia’s largest and the world’s second largest economy. China also became India’s largest trading partner, next only to the United States. China’s exports to India far exceeded its imports from India, leaving a huge deficit in trade. The leaders of the two countries met at different places and kept a semblance of dialogue and understanding. But the border dispute remained acute and no formula emerged to solve it.

Dispute over the McMahon Line

The conflict goes back to at least 1914, when representatives from Britain, the Republic of China and Tibet gathered in Shimla to negotiate a treaty that would determine the status of Tibet and effectively settle the borders between China and British India. The Chinese did not like the proposed terms that would have allowed Tibet to be autonomous and remain under Chinese control and refused to sign the deal. But Britain and Tibet signed a treaty establishing what would be called the McMahon Line, named after a British colonial official, Henry McMahon, who proposed the border.

India maintains that the McMahon Line, a 550-mile frontier that extends through the Himalayas, is the official legal border between China and India. But China has never accepted it on the ground that it was a colonial legacy.

When India became independent and China became the People’s Republic within two years of each other, they found themselves at odds over the border. Tensions rose throughout the 1950s. The Chinese insisted that Tibet was never independent and could not have signed a treaty creating an international border. There were several failed attempts at peaceful negotiations. China sought to control critical roadways near its western frontier in Xinjiang, while India saw attempts at Chinese incursion as part of a wider plot to export Maoist-style Communism across the region. China took control of Tibet and the ruler, the Dalai Lama, sought asylum in India, which provoked China.

In 1962, Chinese troops crossed the McMahon Line and took up positions deep in Indian territory, capturing mountain passes and towns. The war lasted one month and resulted in more than 1,000 Indian deaths and over 3,000 Indians taken as prisoners. The Chinese military suffered fewer than 800 deaths. By November, Premier Zhou Enlai of China declared a ceasefire, unofficially redrawing the border near where Chinese troops had conquered territory and the so-called Line of Actual Control (LAC) was established and the two countries confronted each other across an ill-defined border that ran through the bleak and inaccessible Himalayan peaks.

Tensions came to a head again in 1967 along two mountain passes, Nathu La and Cho La, that connected Sikkim — then a kingdom and a protectorate of India — and China’s Tibet Autonomous Region. A scuffle broke out when Indian troops began laying barbed wire along what they recognised as the border. The scuffles soon escalated when a Chinese military unit began firing artillery shells at the Indian troops. In the ensuing conflict, more than 150 Indian soldiers and 340 Chinese were killed.

The clashes in September and October 1967 in those passes was later considered the second all-out war between China and India. India prevailed, destroying Chinese fortifications in Nathu La and pushing them farther back into their territory near Cho La. The change in positions, however, meant that China and India each had different and conflicting ideas about the location of the Line of Actual Control. In 1987, an Indian military exercise on the border provoked clashes on the LAC. 

The term ‘LAC’ gained legal recognition in the Sino-Indian agreements signed in 1993 and 1996. The 1996 agreement states, “No activities of either side shall overstep the line of actual control.” However, clause number 6 of the 1993 Agreement on the Maintenance of Peace and Tranquility along the Line of Actual Control in the India-China Border Areas mentions, “The two sides agree that references to the line of actual control in this Agreement do not prejudice their respective positions on the boundary question”.

The Chinese troops continue to illegally enter the area several times every year. In 2013, there was a three-week standoff  between Indian and Chinese troops 30 km southeast of Daulat Beg Oldi. It was resolved and both Chinese and Indian troops withdrew in exchange for a Chinese agreement to destroy some military structures over 250 km to the south near Chumar that India perceived as threatening. In October 2013, India and China signed a border defence cooperation agreement to ensure that patrolling along the LAC does not escalate into armed conflict.

In June 2017, the Chinese began building a road in the Doklam Plateau, an area of the Himalayas controlled by Bhutan. The plateau lies on the border of Bhutan and China, but India sees it as a buffer zone that is close to other disputed areas with China. Indian troops carrying weapons and operating bulldozers confronted the Chinese with the intention of destroying the road. A standoff ensued, soldiers threw rocks at each other, and troops from both sides suffered injuries. In August, the countries agreed to withdraw from the area, and China stopped construction on the road. But it is suspected that the Chinese are stationed in the area, waiting for an opportunity to construct the road.

The border dispute was raised to a higher level, when the Chinese made incursions at several points near the Galwan river, which was never disputed by China before. Indian resistance led quickly to an agreement to disengage after military and diplomatic parleys, but in the process of disengagement, a clash took place and twenty Indian soldiers died. The Chinese also suffered casualties, but China has not revealed their losses. A quick disengagement took place as neither side had expected that, after 45 years, loss of lives would occur.

Although the death of the soldiers gave rise to protests and agitations demanding revenge and boycott of China, PM Narendra Modi claimed that China had not succeeded in taking Indian territory and that India would remain alert against any incursion in the future.

The sudden and unexpected confrontation in the Galwan area at the time of a pandemic has raised suspicion that the Chinese action went beyond the border question. China, while on the defensive against the charge that the coronavirus was created by it, has become assertive in different parts of the world. China flexed its muscles, not only against India, but also Hong Kong, Taiwan and in the South China Sea. China has ambitions to step into the perceived vacuum created by the health and economic disaster in the United States and it may have decided to “teach a lesson” to India again as a rival in Asia. China has deliberately moved away from the “Wuhan Spirit” and the “Chennai Connect” to ensure that India does not gain any advantages in the forthcoming changes in the global order in the post-COVID-19 era.

The only answer to the India-China border dispute is an intensification of the dialogue on the border to delineate and demarcate the border in a time bound manner. The present situation of a notional LAC leaves the possibility open for minor and major clashes. The Indian Army has orders to retaliate and the present convention of not using fire arms could be violated any time. But there is no indication that China will agree to a border settlement in the near future. The Chinese ambition for world domination will be a continuing challenge for India in the months and years to come.

(T.P. Sreenivasan is a former Indian diplomat. The views expressed here are personal.)

Manorama Yearbook app is now available on Google Play Store and iOS App Store