A Diplomatic Victory

It  was a big diplomatic breakthrough  for India on Monday. China agreed to the pre-April 2020 patrolling points along the Line of Actual Control ( LAC) in eastern Ladakh  brining in sight  end to over four years military standoff. This indeed is a diplomatic victory  for India  as  it was almost given that China would never agree to what India had been asking from day one of the standoff:  China to  retreat to the position that was in accordance with the agreements underpinning peace and tranquility on borders.

This was an extraordinary challenge to the Indian sovereignty and integrity. India had faced such challenges in piecemeal before the April 2020  move by the Chinese troops to the LAC  in clear violation of the agreements that defined the patrolling areas. This violation on the borders created a typical situation, where India had to show that it can face any situation  on the borders no matter who was on the other side, as it was taunted that it could  show strong posturing to Pakistan only. Within the country, there were political voices, at times including that of the retired military personnel that India had lost a large chunk of its territory to China  after April 2020, suggesting that Chinese troops had advanced and captured the Indian territory, and India was in a helpless situation.

Many  questions were raised over the Indian approach vis-à-vis China: what is that India is scared of, why it isn’t taking fight into the Chinese side, or why China’s actions were not being decried as these should have been. The Indian military commanders and diplomats carried on with their task, while Foreign Minister S Jaishankar took upon himself to silence the critics. He snubbed them in his cryptic and curt replies, reminding them of what had happened in 1962 - India had lost over 30,000 sq. kms of territory to China in war that year, and at the same time he kept on reminding Beijing that it cannot hope to have normal ties with Delhi unless it rolls back its troops to the pre-standoff 2020 position.

There was a fair conclusion that  China had pushed its troops toward  LAC in a menacing manner  closer to the Indian positions leaving little or no buffer zone in between despite the natural distances of the Himalayan heights  as part of its expansionist designs. This move was read  in the context of the expansionist tendencies in South  China sea and its contest with regard to Japanese islands. At one stage, rather quite often, the  United States of America had offered  help to India to counter China. That was in terms of military assistance and surveillance devices and technology. But India stood its ground and said no, for it believed in its own military and strategic capabilities, and underlined messaging was that India was not going to act as a proxy to America to counter China. Besides exhibiting its consistent standing that India doesn’t require third party mediation in any of its bilateral issues, be that with China or Pakistan.

In the past over four-and half-years, eastern Ladakh  situation put India to testing times within home and at the international level. Things became really very difficult after the Galwan Valley clashes in which 20 Indian soldiers, including a Commanding Officer, were killed, while China admitted to its loss of four soldiers. These savage, stone-age  type clashes at the dizzying Himalayan heights on June15-16, 2020, when the Chinese troops used stones, nail-studded poles in the clashes, added new, and a very dangerous dimension to the conflict on borders as it threatened to escalate the situation.

During all these provocations, India maintained its faith in diplomacy and dialogue in resolving the issue. It also kept its military preparedness at the highest level as Chief of Army Staff Gen. Upendra Dwivedi  often described the situation on the borders with China as “stable but unpredictable.”  An estimated 60,000 to 80,000 troops were mobilised to borders in eastern Ladakh  almost matching the numbers that China had deployed. The war-machinery was also kept in the state of readiness.

The situation in eastern Ladakh had its deep impact on Kashmir. Militarily, troops had to be moved from several areas in  Jammu and Kashmir, particularly from the hilly areas of Jammu region which were seen as peaceful and where the militants could not revive themselves, to  eastern Ladakh. Politically, it gave fodder to the political voices which believed that China had become a party, according to their thesis, to “Kashmir dispute.” There were many who read a connection between the August 2019 actions of the government of India – abrogation of Article 370 and bifurcation of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir into the two union territories of Ladakh and J&K – and China’s moves on borders in eastern Ladakh. Pakistanis were happy over India’s uncomfortable situation with China on borders. The February 2021 renewal of the ceasefire agreement on Line of Control  and International Border in Jammu and Kashmir was seen as a result of Chinese pressure on the borders.

Dr. S Jaishankar  during his  visit to Pakistan, where he attended Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit on October 16, was very clear on these issues. Knowing that there exists China-Pakistan  friendship which had resulted in the execution of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) - the pilot project of China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, he  pointed to the violation that the project was committing as it passed through the Indian territory of Gilgit-Baltistan  under the illegal occupation of Pakistan. He underlined this issue when he stated: “We  all realise that the world is moving towards multi-polarity. Globalisation and rebalancing are realities that cannot be  denied. Cumulatively, they have created  many new opportunities in terms of trade, investment, connectivity, energy flows and other forms of collaboration. There is no question that our region would benefit immensely if we take this forward. Not just that, others too would draw their own inspiration and lessons from such efforts, “and he added: “to do that, cooperation must be based on mutual respect and sovereign equality. It should recognize territorial integrity and sovereignty. It must be built on genuine partnerships, not unilateral agendas. It cannot progress if we cherry pick global practices, especially of trade and transit.”

The crux of this outcome with regard to dramatic change in the situation is that India prevails and it knows how to do so.