Deterioration of Relations
Unfortunately from 2006 onwards, just prior to President Hu Jintao’s visit to India when China reactivated its claim to Arunachal Pradesh – something which had been more or less accepted as settled – coupled with increased intrusions, relations between both countries deteriorated, with China becoming more belligerent and assertive towards India, and consequent strong reiteration of its entire claim. Visas to Arunachalis were also denied on the grounds that Arunachal Pradesh was claimed to be a part of China. Accusations were also levelled in relation to Kashmir and PLA troops inducted into Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. This state of affairs continued with it almost reaching sabre rattling dimensions by both sides during the Lhasa rebellion of 2008, and incidents thereafter.
Both countries reportedly reinforced deployment on the borders with China speeding up its emphasis on building warlike infrastructure in Tibet towards the Indian Border, and India commencing to raise two additional divisions of troops besides reinforcing Air Force deployments in the North East. It is only during a meeting at Hun Hua, when Manmohan Singh and Wen Jiabao met on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Conference that the two premiers reached an understanding. The two countries would have a strategic partnership for regional peace and stability and narrow differences on the border issue through dialogue based on political principles already agreed upon. Both Premiers agreed to ensure peace and stability in border areas and to improve cooperation on bilateral issues. Consequently, relations between India and China and trade improved.
Unfortunately, incidents in Tibet reoccurred in 2010-2011 and relations again deteriorated. Relations have now plummeted to an extreme low from 2014 onwards after the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) Government came to power in India.
Reasons for Non-Resolution
The question is: Why is this occurring? It is important to find out the reasons for the same as herein lay the path to problem resolution of the dispute. In the author’s opinion, the roots of the problem remain largely unchanged since 1962 – the same reasons for which China attacked India.
As it was then and also now, the issue remains primarily Tibet and the Chinese failure to quell the Tibetan rebellion and assimilate the Tibetans into their mainstream civilisation and politics, which had primarily occurred due to Mao Tse Tung totally mishandling Tibet through continuous repression. In the pre-1962 war period, support to the rebellion in the form of training and provision of arms to the rebels from the Indian soil, was considered by China to be an act of war. Consequently, current Indian support to the Tibetans and relations with the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan refugees is looked upon with great suspicion by China.
It must not be forgotten that in 1909, the then Dalai Lama fled to India when the Manchus invaded Tibet and he returned to Tibet after three years to push the Chinese out of Tibet and declare Tibet independent. This is an issue that China has never forgotten till date particularly since India has given the Dalai Lama and more than a lakh Tibetans asylum. India has allowed the Tibetans to set up a Government in Exile at Dharamsala. India had also upgraded the level of dealing with the Tibetans from Under Secretary to that of a Joint Secretary and arranged meetings between the Dalai Lama and the Indian Foreign Secretary.
As far as China was concerned, this amounted to recognition to the Tibetan Government in Exile – a blatantly anti-Chinese act. India also allowed Tibetan leaders to have a conclave at Dharmsala, where the Chinese claim the rebellion was plotted. According to Chinese claims, it is from here that the pro-independence movement and rebellion in Tibet is being plotted. The rebellion is being claimed to have been coordinated over mobile phones and the internet. All this led to direct anti-India rhetoric, particularly when the Indian Prime Minister was to visit Arunachal Pradesh and reversed China’s previous agreement with India for the resolution of the dispute without disturbing settled populations – an extremely retrograde step. Even the Tibetan rebellion in Sichuan and demonstrations in Delhi over the meeting between the two countries’ Special Representatives for the border talks were reported adversely by China. China has now declared Tibet a ‘core interest’ for its full assimilation into the Middle Kingdom.
It must also be understood that the Dalai Lama has demanded autonomy for not only Tibet but also all old Tibetan areas of greater Tibet surrounding it and includes a major part of Yunnan and adjacent regions – almost a quarter of China. The terms of autonomy demanded almost amount to independence – a status similar to what Bhutan enjoyed with India in the past. With all the international attention Tibet is now getting, China is frantic and is prepared to go to any lengths to prevent Tibet breaking away. This includes going to war if need so arises.
China’s support to Pakistan (including in the nuclear field), setting Pakistan up as a proxy to deal with India and its recent induction of a large number of PLA members into the Northern Areas, thereby posing a further threat to the western claimed area of Aksai Chin and Jammu & Kashmir, the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC – part of China’s One Belt One Road strategy) and its reiteration of claims to Arunachal Pradesh, are now major irritants. China’s continued support to Pakistan against India’s allegations of the former’s strategy of state-sponsored terrorism against the latter; as well as China’s act of blocking India’s entry into the UN Security Council and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) has not helped matters. These have been further compounded by a perception that India is joining hands with the US, Japan, Australia, Vietnam and other Southeast Asian countries in a perceived strategic alliance against China – this perception started with the Indo-US Nuclear Deal and strategic partnership. India’s Act East policy, now being part of the ‘Quad’ to police the South China Sea and becoming a trade and scarce natural resources competitor, disputes over Chinese damming and proposed diversion of waters of River Brahmaputra in Tibet, have also complicated relations in spite of the surge in Sino-Indian trade. There is also the fact that it is only recently being perceived that Arunachal Pradesh has tremendous natural resources that China is now eyeing. All these issues have only added fuel to the fire in the relations between India and China.
Chinese realisation of their growing confidence, internationally enhanced position, economic and military strength and that the balance of power is shifting from the West to the East is also a recent phenomenon, which has rendered the Chinese more belligerent and assertive.
Conclusion
In reality the reasons for China’s recent assertiveness over Arunachal Pradesh and other issues therefore lie primarily within the scope of China’s and India’s foreign and economic policies. It is these policies that need to be harmonised to the extent feasible so as to avoid belligerence and to facilitate resolution of the dispute. In case India wishes a resolution of the border dispute, the author is strongly of the view that there is a need to rein in the activities of the Tibetans in this country and for that matter the Dalai Lama. India needs to be prepared to follow a policy of give-and-take in reference to the actual dispute whilst bearing in mind the sentiments of the Indians, particularly those of Arunachal Pradesh. Notwithstanding these foreign policy measures, India must be able to negotiate with China from a position of strength, i.e. military strength, adequate border infrastructure to support countermeasures against China, and most importantly by developing Arunachal Pradesh adequately.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of Manipal Advanced Research Group.
Bibliography
1. Author’s personal knowledge of the subject, actual terrain and the people.
2. Joshua Kurlantzick, “After Deng: On China's Transformation”, September 27, 2011, see https://www.thenation.com/article/after-deng-chinas-transformation/.
3. Prem Shankar Jha, “A Shadow Over the Himalayas, India’s Tibet Problem”, May 2010, Asie Visions 28, see https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/av28psjha.pdf.
4. Sunanda K. Datta-Ray, “Arab Spring in Tibet?”, November 29, 2011.
5. B. N. Mullik, My Years with Nehru: The Chinese Betrayal (Allied Publishers: Bombay/Mumbai, 1971), p. 221.
6. “Correspondence between Nehru and Patel over Tibet” in, R. K. Jain, China and South Asian Relations, 1947-1980 (Harvester Press: New Delhi and Brighton, 1981), Vol. I, p. 41-47.
7. B. Raman, “Curfew in Western Sichuan: 11 Tibetans Die in Police Firing”, 25 January 2012, see http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/curfew-in-western-sichuan/.
8. B. Raman, “China: Tibetan-Consciousness Movement Spreads”, 25 October 2011, see http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2011/10/china-tibetan-consciousness-movement.html.
9. B. Raman, “China’s Guantanamo Bay”, 4 October 2011, see https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/chinas-guantanamo-bay/278538.
10. D. S. Rajan, “China: The Unfolding Asia-Pacific Strategy”, October 2011; presentation at an international seminar on “India in the Asian Century: Expectations and Implications”, organised by the Centre for Southeast Asian & Pacific Studies, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, India, on 7 September 2011.
11. “White Paper 1992: Tibet – Its Ownership And Human Rights Situation”, also known as the ‘China White Paper’, issued by the Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China in September 1992, provides the definitive Chinese Government line on Tibet to date.
12. Xi Jinping, “China’s Search for a Grand Strategy: Look No Further”, April 7, 2011; a piece in Foreign Affairs by Wang Jisi, Dean of the School of International Studies at Peking University and a key adviser to President Hu Jintao: “China's Search for a Grand Strategy”, see http://thomaspmbarnett.com/globlogization/2011/4/7/chinas-search-for-a-grand-strategy-look-no-further.html.
13. Claude Arpi, “China’s Water War with India”, June 25, 2011, see https://tibetnewsonline.blogspot.in/2012/10/chinas-water-war-with-india.html. The writer is an India-based French expert on Tibetan and Chinese affairs.
14. Michael D. Swaine, “China’s Assertive Behavior: Part One on ‘Core Interests’”, February 2011, see http://carnegieendowment.org/files/CLM34MS_FINAL.pdf.
15. Dean Cheng and Lisa Curtis, “China’s Indian Provocations Part of Broader Trend”, September 2010, see https://www.heritage.org/asia/report/chinas-indian-provocations-part-broader-trend.
16. Minxin Pei, “Dangerous Misperceptions: Chinese Views of India’s Rise”, May 23, 2011, see https://casi.sas.upenn.edu/iit/pei.
17. “Extra troops along China border will raise tensions, harm India’s interests: Chinese daily”, November 15, 2011, see https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/Extra-troops-along-China-border-will-raise-tensions-harm-Indias-interests-Chinese-daily/articleshow/10741826.cms. Terming India’s decision to beef up the security along the border with China by deploying one lakh additional troops as a “sensitive move”, an official daily here said it would result in raising tensions harming New Delhi’s interests.
18. Bhashyam Kasturi, “Facts about Chinese Presence in POK” January 29, 2012, see http://www.indiandefencereview.com/interviews/facts-about-chinese-presence-in-pok/.
19. P. B. Sinha, A. A. Athale and S. N. Prasad, History of the Conflict with China, 1962, 1992, see http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/lory1.ethz.ch/collections/coll_india/documents/WarWithChina_1962_000.pdf.
20. Subhash Kapila, “India: The Strategic Importance of Arunachal Pradesh”, September 7, 2009, see https://www.c3sindia.org/archives/india-the-strategic-importance-of-arunachal-pradesh/.
21. Srikanth Kondapalli, “India-China: Protracted Talks, Contested Sovereignties”, January 19, 2012, see http://www.rediff.com/news/column/india-china-protracted-talks-contested-sovereignties/20120119.htm.
22. Shiv Shankar Menon, “India, China Can Ill Afford to Remain Adversaries”, February 2012.
23. John Garver, Protracted Contest, Sino-Indian Rivalry in the Twentieth Century (University of Washington Press: Seattle, 2001), p. 79-86.
24. Sujit Dutta, “Managing and Engaging Rising China: India’s Evolving Posture”, The Washington Qaurterly, Spring 2011, v. 34, n. 2, pp. 127-144, see http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0163660X.2011.564555.
25. Neville Maxwell, India’s China War, Garden City (Anchor Books: Anchor Books, 1972).
26. Proceedings of a Seminar on “India-China Border Dispute: Way Ahead” held at Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS) on 11 August 2010. The panellists consisted of Dr Mohan Guruswamy, Prof Srikanth Kondapalli, Lt Gen BS Malik, PVSM, AVSM (Retd) and Maj Gen Sheru Thapliyal.
27. Monika Chansoria, “No End to Himalayan Rivalry”, January 1, 2012, see http://www.dailypioneer.com/sunday-edition/sundayagenda/cover-story-agenda/31873-no-end-to-himalayan-rivalry.html.
28. Maj Gen Sheru Thapliyal (Retd), “Sino Indian Border Dispute”, 2010, CLAWS Seminar.
29. Steven A. Hoffman, India and the China Crisis (University of California Press: Berkeley, 1990), p. 38.
30. David A. Anderson and Isabel Geiger, “Sino-Indian Trade Relations and the Ongoing Border Dispute”, China & Eurasia Forum Quarterly, 2010, v. 8, n. 4, pp. 125-141.
31. Julia Famularo and Kelley Currie, “Spinning the Wheel: Policy Implications of the Dalai Lama’s Reincarnation”, January 30, 2012, see https://project2049.net/documents/spinning_the_wheel_famularo.pdf.
32. Ramachandra Guha, “The Dalai Lama’s War”, The National Interest, September/October 2011, n. 115, pp. 46-58, see http://www.jstor.org/stable/42896403.
33. A Adityanjee, “Tales from the Dragon Kingdom”, February 7, 2012, see http://www.claws.in/778/tales-from-the-dragon-kingdom-a-adityanjee.html.
34. Transcript of audio tapes of seminar and speech by Dr Wang Yiwei, Associate Professor at Fudan University Shanghai, when he spoke to Indian experts on China on the invitation of the Observer Research Foundation on India-China relations in 2007 at Delhi.
35. Tsering Shakya, The Dragon in the Land of Snows, A History of Modern Tibet Since 1947 (Pimlico: London, 1999), p. 13-26.
36. Robert Barnett, “Tibet’s Spiritual Leader Says He’s Giving Up Political Power — But It’s Not That Simple”, March 21, 2011.
37. Dmitri Trenin, “True Partners? How Russia and China See Each Other”, February 2012, see http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Trenin_CER_Eng.pdf.
38. Brahma Chellaney, “The Lasting Lesson of 1962”, January 14, 2012, see https://chellaney.net/2012/01/14/the-lasting-lesson-of-1962/.
39. Hari Bansh Jha, “Tibetan Waters: A Source of Cooperation or Conflict?”, September 30, 2011, see https://idsa.in/idsacomments/TibetanWatersASourceofCooperationorConflict_hbjha_300911.
40. Reuters, “Tibet in ‘Lockdown’”, New Delhi, February 16, 2012, see https://www.telegraphindia.com/1120217/jsp/foreign/story_15145934.jsp.
41. D. S. Rajan, “Solving the Sino-Indian Boundary Problem: China-Russia Border Agreement Could be a Model, Feel Chinese Scholars”, June 11, 2009, see https://www.c3sindia.org/archives/to-solve-the-boundary-problemchina-russia-border-agreement-can-be-a-modelfeel-chinese-scholars/.
42. Zorawar Daulet Singh, “The Himalayan Stalemate: Retracing the India-China dispute” November 27, 2011, see http://www.claws.in/images/publication_pdf/1299513429MP_27.pdf.
43. Tufail Ahmad, “Urdu Daily: Chinese Military Taking Over Gilgit Baltistan, Pakistan Considering Proposal to Lease the Disputed Region to China for 50 Years”, Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 4487, February 12, 2012, see https://www.memri.org/reports/urdu-daily-chinese-military-taking-over-gilgit-baltistan-pa"kistan-considering-proposal-lease.
44. B. Raman, “Vietnam Oil/Gas Cooperation Sparks Jingoistic Anger in Chinese Media”, October 17, 2011, see http://www.eurasiareview.com/17102011-india-vietnam-oilgas-cooperation-sparks-jingoistic-anger-in-chinese-media-analysis/.
45. P. K. Vasudeva, “Waters of Tibet, China and Its Damaging Dams”, November 27, 2011.
46. Wang Hongwei, “Zhong Yin Bianjiewenti de Lishibeijingyu 1962 Nianzhong Yin Bianjiezhanzheng (Historical Background of the Sino-Indian Border Problem and the 1962 Sino-Indian Border War”, Ya tai ziliao (Asia Pacific Materials), March 18, 1989, n. 1, pp. 1-13.
47. Xu Yan, Zhong Yin Bianjezhi Zhan Lishi Zhenxiang (“The True History of the Sino-Indian Border War”) (Cosmos Books: Hong Kong: 1993), pp. 28-53. This is the most important Chinese work thus far on the 1962 war.
48. Zhong Yin Bianjiangziweifanjizuozhanshi (History of the Sino-India Border Self Defensive War), Junshikexuechubanshe: Beijing, 1994), pp. 37-40. This is the official PLA history of the 1962 war.
49. Zhao Weiwen, “Yin Zhong Guanxi Fengyunlu (1949-1999)” (Record of the Vicissitudes of India-China Relations (1949-1999), Beijing.
Zhou Enlai, Waijiaowenxuan (Diplomatic documents of Zhou Enlai) (Zhongyangwenxianchubanshe: Beijing, 1990), pp. 268-276.
Lt Gen J R Mukherjee, PVSM, AVSM, VSM (Retd), Graduate from Staff College Camberley, United Kingdom; alumnus of the National Defence Academy, the Indian Military Academy and the National Defence College; commanded 15 Corps from late 1999 to 2001; retired in 2005 as Chief of Staff, Eastern Command, Indian Army.
