As India-China standoff continues, absence of full-time Defence minister is glaring

India-China standoff: To the exclusion of its territorial disputes with India and Bhutan, China has settled all its other land boundary disputes. In contrast, it has resolved none of its maritime border disputes, with the honorable exception of the Gulf of Tonkin dispute with Vietnam.

Written by Manish Tewari | Updated: July 10, 2017 8:17 am
Narendra Modi, Xi Jinping, India-China standoff, Doklam, India-china relations, G-20 summit India-China standoff: To the exclusion of its territorial disputes with India and Bhutan, China has settled all its other land boundary disputes. (File photo)

Chinese president Xi Jinping refused to meet prime minister Narendra Modi in a structured bilateral meeting on the margins of the G-20 Summit in Hamburg over the weekend, though reports suggest that they had a “pull aside” interaction. The Chinese had categorically ruled out a “one-on-one” meeting, citing the stand-off in the Doklam area near the Bhutan tri-junction for past 19 days. (Doka La is the Indian name for the region that Bhutan knows as Doklam, while China asserts that it is a portion of its Donglang region.) Given the fact that less than 34 months ago, in September 2014, Modi was personally serenading Xi on the banks of the Sabarmati River in Ahmedabad, it calls for a deep dive to discern why the Sino- Indian relationship has reached such a pass.

Is the deterioration in the relationship sudden or was it sliding steadily and surreptitiously hidden from the public gaze ?

Here’s an incident that is believed to have taken place when Modi visited Xian, Xi’s hometown, in May 2015. Apparently, the prime minister raised the matter of the unsettled border issue, expressing concern over the slow pace of the Special Representative process between the two countries. The response from the Chinese side was illuminating. They, evidently, told him that there are three segments of the border – Northern (Chinese Western) where India needs to sort out issues with Pakistan and only then would the Chinese talk about that sector; the Central (Middle), where the border is relatively settled; and the Eastern (Chinese Eastern), which India calls Arunachal Pradesh and the Chinese refer to as South Tibet, where substantive outstanding issues needed to be dealt with. In other words India should relinquish its claim on Arunachal Pradesh.

Why this piece of minutiae is important is because the current impasse is almost at the end of the Central (Middle) sector and the beginning of the Eastern sector where, even according to the Chinese, there were no major irritants even 26 months ago. This stretches from Himachal Pradesh to the Eastern end of the state of Sikkim. Even though the current stand off is in Bhutanese territory, the Chinese are not blind to the “special” relationship between India and Bhutan.

During a 2012 interaction with leaders of political parties from across Asia in Beijing, a Chinese Communist party apparatchik on the cusp of a major leadership elevation outlined China’s three objectives over the next decade as follows : to transform China from a low income to a middle-income country, to move manufacturing facilities further into the hinterland from the coastal regions and to consolidate individual grassroots democracy across the country. China, he said, needed another three decades of peace to properly fulfill this vision. Moreover, he emphasized, the rise of China in Asia would be peaceful.

Although, China’s conduct with regard to Japan qua the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea or generally with other littoral states of the South China Sea has been acerbic and belligerent, there is another dimension of Chinese behavior that should not be ignored.

To the exclusion of its territorial disputes with India and Bhutan, China has settled all its other land boundary disputes. In contrast, it has resolved none of its maritime border disputes, with the honorable exception of the Gulf of Tonkin dispute with Vietnam, that was partially resolved after protracted negotiations spanning three rounds i.e. in 1974, 1978-1979, and 1992-2000, spread over six decades.

China-watchers are bemused and a tad intrigued at the territorial concessions that China has repeatedly given to resolve its myriad conflicts. Of its 23 ongoing territorial disputes from 1949, China proposed generous concessions in as many as 17, often agreeing to receive less than half the land it initially claimed. A classical example is the Sino-Tajik border dispute that was settled by an agreement between the two countries in January 2011. The agreement that resolved a 130-year-old territorial dispute, required Tajikistan to cede around 1,000 square kilometers of land in the Pamir Mountains to China. It mandates that China will receive only 3.5 per cent of the 28,000 sq kms of land it had asked for by declaring it as historical Chinese lands. While, under its boundary settlements with Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, China settled for just 22 and 32 per cent respectively of the land it had disputed, respectively.

This situation then begs the obvious question : Why have the Sino–Indian border talks not made progress. In the April of 2016, after a meeting of the Special Representatives, the Chinese foreign ministry came out with an interestingly quixotic formulation. The statement put out by the Chinese stated “Starting from the big picture of long-term development of bilateral relations, both sides will, with the positive attitude of mutual respect and understanding and on the basis of existing results from negotiations, stay on the track of political settlement, stick to peaceful negotiations to resolve the boundary question, meet each other halfway and continue to promote the process of framework negotiation so as to strive for a fair and reasonable solution that both sides accept”.

Significantly this offer to meet halfway came one year after the PM’s apparent dissatisfaction on the matter in Xian.

Settlement of territorial questions involves land swaps which requires political will. Given the fact that the 1962 wound is regularly dredged out and given an airing which has not allowed this injury to the “collective Indian psyche” to heal, notwithstanding the 1967 border clashes in Nathu La when the Indian Army gave the Chinese a bloody nose, as well as in Sumdorong Chu in 1986 when the Indians checkmated the Chinese…But we tend to forget all this and are obsessed with a sense of victimhood.

The Chinese have sensed this lack of political will in the current Indian leadership, despite all the grandstanding and bluster, and possibly feel that India being a traditional status quo power would not want to change the de jure for that would involve changing the facts on the ground. That is why they have decided to probe prime minister Modi even in an area that has for long been tranquil.

India’s refusal to participate in Xi Jinping’s OBOR (One Belt One Road) fantasy and the fact that only little Bhutan stood with India on boycotting that conference has underscored New Delhi’s isolation to the Chinese even in the neighborhood while singling out Bhutan for Chinese fire.

Coupled with that is the larger Asian canvas. The Asian power dynamic consists of the interplay between the US that considers itself to be an Asian power, Russia, China, Japan and India. It is a dynamic that has to be finessed very subtly. Unfortunately the current government has tripped badly. While it has not got anything substantive out of the US-Japan-India strategic trilateral despite the soon-to-commence Operation Malabar in the Bay of Bengal on July 10, 2017, featuring three aircraft carriers from all these three countries, it has lost both Russia and China. The Russians, despite their protestations, have supped with the Pakistanis and the dragon is breathing fire on the trijunction of Bhutan–China and India.

India does not have the luxury of being separated by two oceans from China. It also has had a positive relationship with it notwithstanding the boundary question over the past three decades after prime minister Rajiv Gandhi’s momentous visit in 1988.

Prime Minister Modi would be well advised not to let TV anchors and their panelists masquerade as Indian public opinion. The equilibrium in the relationship with China needs to be restored through quiet old-world diplomacy, while continuing to work with the US and Russia to build our military capacity and capabilities that have woefully been neglected by the current government.

Nothing underlines it more than the fact that India does not have a full time Defence Minister. As for the “political will to settle outstanding territorial issues”, the less said the better.

Manish Tewari is a lawyer and a former minister in the UPA government. He currently serves as a Distinguished Senior Fellow with the Atlantic Council based in Washington DC. He tweets @manishtewari  

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App

  1. A
    Abhishek Ghosh
    Jul 11, 2017 at 9:10 pm
    What was Tiwari doing when he was in power ? Polishing Madam's boots ?
    Reply
    1. R
      Ravinokumar
      Jul 11, 2017 at 1:20 pm
      China and India are still good friends. Why not India and China merge together and become a more big country "The United States of Chinindia". That would be the most powerful country on the earth. Why not?
      Reply
      1. B
        Birendra
        Jul 11, 2017 at 5:35 am
        as feku is very busy with his almost everyday foreign trips he forget to appoint defence ministry,and the current DM is busy with his finances,no worries thou as gaurakshaks,bajrangis and chaddi gang is ready to rape chinese women in lieu of beef meat
        Reply
        1. G
          Good tidings
          Jul 11, 2017 at 5:07 am
          Good article… though the slant is that UPA did better job than current dispensation.. Expected better insight from Mr.Tiwari. probably he has more deeper understanding, maybe his association prevents him from articulating a more objective assessment. To cite China's land boundary settlement with other country is very naive and simplistic, maybe they are a good marketing folks, BOGO principle (see Santy's comment below) .. we all know how that works!! It is no coincidence that every time there is a bilateral, or any major global meet ins chinese indulge in incursions and other such actions. Perhaps the chinese have appreciation of the changing, unsettled geopolitical situation, there appears to be a certain degree of urgency in their action, they firmly believe that now it is their day under the sun and want to create a new world order. I wonder which power in recent past believed the same, Your guess is as good as mine!
          Reply
          1. A
            Adrian Akau
            Jul 11, 2017 at 4:43 am
            PM Modi is multi-minister so that a defense minister for India is not necessary. When the time comes and that may be months from now, PM will speak out on the Chinese issue in Doklam. Until then, nothing will happen because Modi has not spoken. General Rawat will be in charge should any problems occur.
            Reply
            1. R
              Ramesh Nittoor
              Jul 11, 2017 at 4:17 am
              In other words India should relinquish its claim on Arunachal Pradesh.---- The island created in S China sea has been described as a sitting duck, which it is if a real war breaks out with US, but China shall keep it calibrated. Its road building activity to open up Eastern sector, along with its inroads into POK seem to have different strategies. China calls it Tibet foray as liberation of territories, their approach may have parallel with Napoleonic approach to motivating the fighters, coupled with Chinese nationalism. To hold fort against China, the only realistic option is secular unity which also secured Security Architecture. Congress has done a splendid job to put this architecture in place, and BJP is doing well to deepen it. China miscalculated that India has turned towards Hindu nationalism and hence getting weak. Adhunik Bharat is a future oriented and constantly innovating political framework, it shall find ways to foil Chinese designs.
              Reply
              1. Y
                Yu
                Jul 11, 2017 at 4:02 am
                The border dispute would have solved before 1962 war. Swaping Aksai Chin with Arunachal Pradesh. India refused it. Why? Decades past, there are still two main disputes. Wasting resources and adding hate to our next generations. Arab down fall is because of fighting between Sunnis and Shia lasting thousands of years.
                Reply
                1. R
                  Ramesh Nittoor
                  Jul 11, 2017 at 4:35 am
                  Before 1949, history books record it as a Far Eastern nation, and that is what it legitimately can be. The Soviet Union kind of expansion of China into Tibet, Sinkiang shall get beaten back, if the Chinese government fails to deliver on economic front with its overstretched debts and contineud exodus of substantial private savings by Chinese rich to foreign lands. Chinese growth is slowing down, and without a friendly India, it will slow down further. India in the other hand can deploy this new contention to strengthen its economic linkages with developed nations and offer alternative manufacturing options to both developed and developing nations. While China will find it is running out of capability to invest further to complete its just started ventures. West and India are patient, hoping China will see reason, if not shall strategically strike with sanctions and other measures when it hurts China most.
                  Reply
                2. R
                  Rohit Chandavarker
                  Jul 11, 2017 at 1:21 am
                  Smart barbs sarcasm notwithstanding, one tends to agree with Tiwari on the need to have a full time Defence Minister. However, one is sceptical of the quality of the choice given the paucity of talent. A more fundamental lacuna that exists transcending political affiliations is a credible security doctrine that encapsulates the entire gamut of India's national interests. We are prone to react, often in knee jerk fashion, to events, rather than have a pro active policy based on sound strong foundation. China's propensity to pin prick India on a regular basis is well known so is its assertive behaviour towards any country,by disregarding diplomatic niceties core concerns. Hence, India needs to develop a cogent, coherent, long term policy doctrine backed by ins utional competence a vision.
                  Reply
                  1. Load More Comments