Reason behind China being so belligerent against India
Over the past 10 days, Beijing has released daily statements, either through its foreign ministry or state media, slamming India’s “trespass” over the on-going stand-off at the India-China-Bhutan trijunction near Sikkim.
In Beijing, it is unusual to see India dominating the daily foreign office press briefings. Usually, the first questions, often given to state broadcaster China Central Television (CCTV) or the official Xinhua news agency, are on the United States relationship or the latest tensions with Japan.
Yet every day the past week, the pressure from China has been relentless, aiming strong statements at India not seen since perhaps the last major stand-off in the 1980s. China has even released photographs and maps. Why is China upping the ante?
There are several factors at play. The official explanation, from Chinese foreign ministry’s spokesperson Geng Shuang, is that “the trespass of Indian border troops took place at the defined Sikkim section of the China-India boundary, which is different in nature from the previous frictions and stand-offs between the two sides at the undefined sections of the China-India boundary.”
“Thus,” he said, “this incident is quite serious in nature.” While China is correct in saying the border here is largely defined unlike the western sector, Beijing’s larger anger is at India “interfering” with what it says is a China-Bhutan issue.
Beijing has all but whitewashed Bhutan’s concerns which, in fact, sparked the stand-off on June 16 when the Royal Bhutan Army patrol confronted the PLA about a road it was building into an area disputed with Bhutan. China, however, sees it as Chinese territory. The Indian Army intervened two days later only when the PLA ignored Bhutan’s protests.
What explains the timing of the flare-up? Explanations have ranged from the Modi-Trump meeting on June 23 to India’s boycott of the May 14 One Belt, One Road forum. In my view, it’s a fool’s errand to come up with a conclusive answer.
China’s motivations in sparking the 2013 stand-off in Depsang in the western sector are still being debated. It’s perhaps more instructive to look at China’s capabilities. It was only two years ago that Beijing opened an impressive newly-laid road network all the way to Yadong county, on the Chinese side of Nathu La.
I drove down the 700km distance from Lhasa in just around eight hours, to cover the arrival of the first batch of Kailash Mansarovar pilgrims on the then newly opened route. As China’s road networks and capabilities expanded towards Sikkim and the trijunction, it was perhaps a matter of time before Beijing began to eye the Doklam plateau that extends to the trijunction.
The hope now is for a de-escalation and return to the pre-June 16 status quo. China’s public posturing, hopefully, hasn’t narrowed the space for a face-saving exit for all parties. What’s also interesting in this instance is how China has invoked history, some would say very selectively, to justify its stand.
Beijing has repeatedly cited an 1890 Sikkim-Tibet treaty that fixes the trijunction at Mount Gipmochi, in line with Beijing’s claims, and far south of where India and Bhutan do, at Batang La.
On July 3, Beijing even cited a March 22, 1959, letter from Jawaharlal Nehru to Zhou Enlai, where he acknowledged that “the boundary of Sikkim, a protectorate of India, with the Tibet Region of China was defined in the Anglo-Chinese Convention 1890 and jointly demarcated on ground in 1895.”
Yet, not only in the same letter but in the very same paragraph, Nehru also writes that “a treaty of 1842 between Kashmir on the one hand and the Emperor of China and Lama Guru of Lhasa on the other, mentions the India-China boundary in the Ladakh region” and that “in 1847 the Chinese government admitted that this boundary was sufficiently and distinctly fixed.”
Nehru tells Zhou that “as you are aware, the so-called McMahon Line runs eastwards from the eastern borders of Bhutan and defines the boundary of China on the one hand and on the India and Burma on the other”.
“Contrary to what has been reported to you,” Nehru writes, “this line was, in fact, drawn at a Tripartite Conference held at Simla in 1913-14 between the Plenipotentiaries of the governments of China, Tibet and India.
At the time of acceptance of the delineation of this frontier, Lonchen Shatra, the Tibetan Plenipotentiary, in letters exchanged, stated explicitly that he had received orders from Lhasa to agree to the boundary as marked on the map appended to the Convention.” China doesn’t recognise those two treaties.
(Courtesy of Mail Today.)