Sino-Indian Border Dispute: The Impossible Settlement, and Need of a New Framework – Part 4 of 4

Holistic Approach and ‘Enduring International Rivalry’

In the fourth and last part of this series, the paper argues for a ‘holistic approach’ to better understand the border dispute. The holisticapproach, as an alternative to the state-centred framework, centralizes on the international structure of the anarchic world. On theoretical grounds, this approach is underlined by Kenneth Waltz’s theory of ‘neo-realism’ that focuses on the international system to analyse inter-state conflicts.[i]The predominant assumption within this framework is that of prevailing anarchy, and the states are sovereign units acting to the best of their prudence.[ii] The prevailing anarchical structure, as explained by Hollis and Smith, ‘imposes on all states a security dilemma, whereby they have to ensure their own security without increasing the fears of other states.’[iii]

In the context of Sino-Indian border dispute, the framework aptly explains the mutual threat perceptions of China and India, from an international standpoint. The policies of India and China during and after the 1962 incident (till today) are stemmed in the systemic factors of power rivalry, presence/absence of alliances and balance of military power. For China, India (in the 1962 conflict) acted in cahoots with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the US to promote ‘treasonable activities’ by reactionary elements in the Tibetan society against China.[iv] China perceived this collusion between India and US as an imperial attempt to prevent its rise by meddling in the affairs of Tibet. Aptly summed up by Lu: ‘From the Chinese perspective, continued CIA-Nationalist activities in Tibet could be logically linked with India’s uncompromising stance and risky forward pushes beyond the line of actual control.’[v] Whilst in India’s perception, threat surfaced in the neighbourhood after the disruption of status-quo i.e. Tibetan autonomy, and rise of China as a powerful state. Tibet ‘had been a buffer zone’ for India since the colonial times, and ‘an abrupt removal of this buffer’ was bound to have security implications on India.[vi] Such concerns were raised by Indian politicians – Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Frank Anthony, Durga Bai, and Shyama Prasad Mookerjee – who urged the Indian government to protect the Tibetan autonomy.[vii]

Evidently, the policies pursued by both countries were in response to threats arising from the systemic factors rooted in the anarchic world. The two countries rivalled against each other to bring the balance of power in their favour. Even today, India’s growing relationship with the U.S. is seen by China as a western attempt to stall China’s global rise, and to counter any such attempts China has vigorously helped Pakistan in matters that are opposed to India (especially on the nuclear issue). On the other hand, India sees China’s collusion with Pakistan and other neighbouring countries as an attempt to limit India in regional affairs. Any military or infrastructural developments on either side of the border only gives rise to the already existing security dilemma between India and China.

But how can such an understanding help improve relations between India and China? For one, it shifts the focus from boundary dispute as a reason of ongoing conflict to the several systemic factors. The boundary dispute, based on legal and evidential analysis, is inconclusive to pronounce a verdict on who should acquire the ‘disputed’ areas. However, understanding the systemic factors would help explain why the dispute escalated to the levels of conflict, and why it continues to trouble the Sino-Indian relations. On a more specific note for policy recommendation, India and China could maintain status-quo in regard to border areas while strengthening relations in other fields of cooperation.

Egreteau explains theongoing Sino-Indian rivalry through the conceptual framework of ‘Enduring International Rivalry’.[viii] The concept has been borrowed from Diehl’s work on enduring rivalries that takes three factors into consideration – conflicting goals, longevity of the rivalry and spatial consistency.[ix] India and China, since the early 1950s, had their relations go south,[x] and the three components of ‘enduring rivalry’ perfectly fit their conflicted relationship. However, the approach distinguishes between rivalry and an escalated rivalry i.e. conflict. Though the Sino-Indian relations have been analysed through the concept of rivalry, this doesn’t mean that the relationship is bound to end up in conflict. A better understanding of the situation could de-escalate the rivalry between India and China into a healthy competitive relation.

The holistic approach and the concept of ‘Enduring International Rivalry’ provides an analytical framework to better understand the Sino-Indian dispute and hence could assuage the existing security dilemma between India and China, and could possibly de-escalate the conflicted relationship to normalcy.

Conclusion

Solutions to the problem depend on how well the problem is understood. In the context of Sino-Indian dispute, the 1962 war continues to mar the relationship between India and China. A better understanding of the conflict would presumably help to de-escalate tensions between the two countries. In this direction, the paper-series explores the academic writings on the topic, and their contribution towards the solution.

Majority of scholarly writings have taken an ‘individualist’ approach to analyse the causes of the Sino-Indian conflict. Working within this approach, scholars have limited their analyses to inter-state activities, and have concluded their research by attributing blame to either of the countries for the conflict. This four-part paper makes a thorough summary of the various writings and their analysis on the topic. Further, the paper problematizes this approach for being inconclusive and deepening the conflicted relationship between India and China.

This paper proceeds to suggest ‘holistic’ approach as an appropriate framework to better understand the conflict and the ongoing dispute, and examine the Sino-Indian dispute through the conceptual lenses of ‘enduring international rivalry’. Further researches on the topic of Sino-Indian border dispute, through the analytical framework of holistic approach, would help to understand the conflicted relationship between India and China in a better perspective.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are personal.

Richard Toppo, independent researcher, working on the issues of foreign policy and internal security, Master’s degree in Contemporary India, University of Oxford.
Maryam Aslany, PhD candidate at King’s College, London