Indian Defence Review

The 21st round of India-China boundary talks between NSA Ajit Doval and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi are to be held in the near future. India and China have so far held 20 rounds of Special Representative-level talks to resolve the dispute over the 3,488-km long Line of Actual Control (LAC). The 20th round of negotiations between special representatives of India and China on the border issue was held last December; headed by National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and his Chinese counterpart Yang Jeichi, four months after the Doklam standoff. MEA had no elaborated the agenda for this albeit media speculated issues like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and China’s opposition to India’s membership to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) could be discussed. 

In November 2017, Chinese ambassador to India had publicly stated China will be willing to change the name of CPEC and create an alternate corridor through J&K, Nathu La Pass or Nepal to deal with Indian concerns. Prior to the 20th round of boundary talks, India had also raised the issue of the polluted waters of Siang River flowing into India during meeting of foreign ministers of both countries. What actually transpired during the 20th round of talks was not disclosed, nor the outcome. This has been standard practice in all the previous rounds of talks, the only announcements being that talks were ‘fruitful’ and ‘progress’ was made.      A major reason is because China’s keeps shifting its clams and have never handed over a marked map giving its ‘final’ claims. For example in 2005, the Chinese ambassador at New Delhi suddenly announced that entire Arunachal Pradesh, being ‘South Tibet’, was Chinese territory. Prior to 2005, Chinese claim in Arunachal Pradesh was restricted to the Tawang Plateau on religious ground; that Tibetans from China Occupied Tibet (COT) paid obeisance at the ancient Tawang Monastery.  

Ahead of the 21st round of India-China boundary talks, BJP General Secretary Ram Madhav during a visit to Beijing made a statement, as reported by Indian media, that dispute over a “large segment” of the border with China has been resolved, barring the Western sector, and that negotiations were moving in the positive direction. Madhav also stated, “Most of the time those who are engaged in talks don’t disclose day-to-day progress. They want to achieve certain milestone then only they will disclose.” He also sounded positive about achieving a political consensus with the opposition parties if an agreement is reached between two countries. In Beijing, Madhav also reportedly sought Chinese investments in our northeast albeit China ironically has been objecting to Japanese investments in that region of ours.

On face value  Madhav’s statement implies that the dispute over the border along Arunachal Pradesh and in the Central Sector like in the Barahoti plains has been largely resolved, and that only Ladakh remains the main bone of contention. How has this happened? Has China agreed to surrender its claims in Arunachal Pradesh in exchange to India surrendering Aksai Chin, or has India decided to surrender the Tawang Plateau? All this appears highly unlikely because the ground situation nowhere matches Madhav’s statement. China does not recognize Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh as part of India. Responding to a question on January 4, 2018, about media reports that Chinese soldiers with construction machines had entered inside Arunachal Pradesh, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang had said, “I need to point out that China’s position on the China-India boundary issue is consistent and clear, and we have never recognized the so-called Arunachal Pradesh.”

It may also be recalled that during the Doklam standoff, China continued to intrude (termed transgressions) into the Barahoti plains both on foot and by helicopters. We have also seen some 30 odd PLA transgressions during May 2018, followed by a four-hour plus standoff in Sikkim with 50 PLA troops intruding two kms inside Indian Territory, and in July PLA posing as civilians pitched five tents in area of Demchok in Eastern Ladakh. In light of all this, Madhav’s statement of dispute over large segment of India-China having been resolved is perhaps nothing beyond an election gimmick to impress voters. China is in no hurry to resolve the border dispute where its plans in all probability go even beyond its present claims. More significantly, negotiations are favorable from a position of strength, and this context it is China that holds the aces, not India because of our own shortsightedness. 

India also needs to take not that that ‘ecological’ forms one type military measures under China’s concept of ‘Unrestricted Warfare’, much that it may dismay some. It is an aspect which apparently has not in focus at all in India. Chinese activities of construction of multiple dams, mining close to the LAC including in areas south of the McMohan Line and diversion of rivers aside from the greed of minerals and sustain economy, could well be in a pattern fitting into China’s strategy for using economy as a weapon.  It may be recalled that when the waters of Siang had turned black last year, China brushed aside the query by saying this could have happened due to an earthquake, but the waters had turned black before the quake. The ongoing tragedy of Kerala Floods is not caused by rains alone. Aside from repeated mistakes of ignoring the environment, release of excessive waters from the Mullaperiyar dam added to the calamity. What China can do with the multiple dams in Tibet, needs to be taken into account.

There has also been a report about diversion of waters of River Brahmaputra to Xinjiang through a 1000 km tunnel, which China is silent about. Such issues are obviously discussed by our Ministry of Water Resources with their Chinese counterparts. However, considering that such issues are closely linked to the border, especially mining close to LAC in territory annexed by China in 1959, it would be better to bring such issues in the ambit of the Boundary Talks, for being addressed by Special Representatives of both countries. To this end, the 21st round of boundary talks could include framing of a new memorandum of understanding (MoU) listing out the expanded scope of boundary talks, rather than only delimiting a line on the map and its follow up. This would be akin to the new MoU  on defence cooperation and further expanding engagements between Indian and Chinese armed forces, agreed during recent visit of China’s Defence Minister Wei Fenghe to India. Additionally, we are still fumbling in defining a national security strategy, but the ecological impact of abovementioned Chinese activities close to the LAC must be examined concurrently.

While India has renamed Taiwan as Chinese Taipei officially to appease China, Official Chinese maps show Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. In April last year, China unilaterally renamed six places in Arunachal Pradesh, with China’s Foreign ministry saying this was a “legitimate” action done in line with Chinese law, and adding it supported Beijing’s territorial claim. The official names of the six places using the Roman alphabet were given as  Wo’gyainling, Mila Ri, Qoidêngarbo Ri, Mainquka, Bümo La and Namkapub Ri.” Though no details were provided by the Chinese government, Wo’gyainling is likely to be the new name for Ugyen Ling monastery, the birthplace of the sixth Dalai Lama in Tawang district. Similarly, Qoidêngarbo Ri is likely to be Choten Karpo Ri, Mainquka is likely to be Mechuka in West Siang district and Bümo La is likely to be Bumla, located a short distance from Tawang.

Aside from extensive border infrastructure development, China is making monumental efforts to establish that before the advent of Buddhism in Tibet, it was part of China.  In his recent article ‘China is opening a new front in Ngari’, Claude Aepi draws attention to: China’s ‘development front’ shifting from Nyngchi/Lhoka prefectures to Western Tibet (Ngari Prefecture) – Western Tibet sharing borders with Uttrakhand, Himachal Pradesh and J&K. Additionally, that Chinese archeologists have recently excavated more than 20 tombs thought to be some 2000 years old in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) to prove that Tibet was not always Buddhist. 

Reports have also emerged of compulsory military training to Tibetan children in all schools across TAR. The four-week training is being enforced upon children as young as nine years old.   The training is mandatory for any student graduating from primary school to middle school and failure to take part in the training is met with punitive measures. The training included military drills like march-past, handling firearms, swimming as well as hand-to-hand combat etc. As is going in for an increasingly militarized social structure in Tibet, it is possible that these children as grownups would be recruited into PLA and / or deployed in border areas.