China pushed, India pushed back, now we are talking

Starting early May, a few border incidents have occurred, heightening the tension in these areas and casting a shadow on relations with China. The first incident, at Pangong Lake, resulted in Indian and Chinese troops engaging in a scuffle in which both sides suffered injuries. The northern bank of the lake has been a bone of contention between India and China and continues to be so. The second incident happened in Sikkim on May 10 in Naku La area when Chinese and Indian troops came into a face-off which resulted in injuries on both sides. Naku La was not a point of disagreement a few years ago. It seems to have become one lately. These two incidents were followed by the incident in Galwan Valley, where again a face off occurred. The Darbuk–Shyok– Daulat Beg Oldie (DS-DBO) Road and other infrastructure development in the Galwan Valley area and patrolling by the Indian military seem to have provoked the Chinese army.

Some questions come to mind when looking at these incidents. Earlier, they used to be stand-alone incidents. This time, they have occurred in multiple places along the LAC around the same time. So, these cannot be termed as local incidents. Some commander higher than the local commander must have coordinated these.

Secondly, the numbers of PLA troops involved are higher than in earlier incidents. That this is the exercise season and troops were available in the vicinity seems to have helped the PLA to muster these numbers.

Thirdly, the aggression levels seen are higher than during previous occurrences. It may be recalled that during the Doklam incident in 2017, Pangong Tso saw another scuffle wherein for the first time stone pelting took place between the troops on either side. As per media reports, tensions have continued in the areas where these incidents occurred. However, after the first incidents at each of these places, there have been no further violent interactions. The commanders at the local level have been meeting almost on a daily basis. Three military commander-level meetings have taken place on 22-23 May and on June 2. Lt. Gen. level talks took place on Saturday, as this piece went to press.

Unlike during Doklam, the Chinese media seems to have been quieter this time. Even the social media in China has been relatively quiet. Knowing the way the media functions in China, this is noteworthy. The response of the spokespersons of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of National Defence of China has been that the border area is stable and controllable. They also said that “through dialogue and consultation we can properly resolve the issues”. They went further to say that India and China have good border-related mechanisms and communication channels to resolve issues of this nature. The Chinese Ambassador in Delhi also made a statement to that effect.

Also Read: Galwan Valley today, Shyok tomorrow

From the Indian side, the spokesperson mentioned that, “the Chinese side has recently undertaken activity hindering India’s normal patrolling patterns…At the same time, we are deeply committed to ensuring India’s sovereignty and security…Indian side remains firmly committed to work for the common objective of maintenance of peace and tranquility in border areas.”

It appears that both governments are handling the incidents in a matured and balanced manner. The ground level situation and the reaction of the governments indicate that further escalation is unlikely and talks are taking place at multiple levels to resolve these incidents peacefully. The Indian side hopes to return to status quo ante before May 1.

Also Read: Has China pushed India into US arms?

This year marks the 70th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between India and China. At the Mamallapuram Summit, it was decided that 70 events would be held to commemorate the 70th anniversary. These were delayed due to the onset of Covid-19. If the border incidents get resolved peacefully, one can expect that these events will be celebrated in both India and China.

(The writer is a Member of the National Security Advisory Board)