The Chinese Foreign Ministry released a position paper on Wednesday laying out the “facts” in relation to the six week-old standoff with India in the Sikkim border region.
In a nutshell, the document – supported by maps and photographs – recounts that, on June 18, 270 Indian troops, driving two bulldozers, crossed the international border with China at the Doka La mountain pass to obstruct road-building on the Chinese side.
They pitched tents there and refused to withdraw despite repeated Chinese demands at various levels. The document alleges that:
- Indian forces illegally crossed into Chinese territory in an area where there is a “clear and delimited boundary,” in an attempt to “change the status quo of the boundary.” This undermines the peace and tranquility of the border area and runs counter to international law and the relevant UN guidelines on the inadmissibility of “invasion or attack” on the territory of another country.
- Indian border troops have been obstructing Chinese border patrols in recent years and have attempted to build border installations across the boundary “time and again” with a view to changing “the status quo of the China-India boundary” in the Sikkim sector, thus posing a “grave security threat” to China.
What could be the motivation in bringing out such a document? First and foremost, China hopes to influence international opinion – and embarrass India.
Secondly, China reiterates that on the question of territorial sovereignty there can be no compromise and Indian forces must unconditionally withdraw. The document takes note that the Indian forces have thinned out from a peak strength of 400 troops to 40 as of end-July. Has India withdrawn its troops or is it only a partial drawdown? There has been no word from the Indian side.
In fact, China is poking New Delhi to say something – anything. So far it has been evasive.
New Delhi faces a quandary. If an Indian withdrawal has taken place or a drawdown is under way, the government’s core constituency of ultra-nationalists who have been seeking revenge for defeat in the 1962 war will feel let down. They were demanding a “short, intense war” in which the Indian Army gave the PLA a bloody nose.
On the other hand, the Chinese document signals that something has to give way soon and Beijing will not compromise on its demand for an unconditional, immediate Indian troop withdrawal. New Delhi cannot ignore the implicit warning.
The document suggests that it will be in the “fundamental interests” of the two countries that the Indian government orders a thorough investigation into the entire episode – hinting that some interest groups within the Indian establishment might have deliberately precipitated the crisis.
Clearly, Beijing has drawn some firm conclusions. A recent visit by India’s National Security Advisor, Ajit Doval, apparently cut no ice.
However, the bottom line is about the China-Bhutan-India triangle. The document states that China and Bhutan have conducted joint surveys in the border area and have reached a “basic consensus on the actual state of the border area and the alignment of their boundary.” All that remains is the formal delimitation of the border.
In a sharply-worded passage, the Chinese document states: “The China-Bhutan boundary issue is one between China and Bhutan. It has nothing to do with India. As a third party, India has no right to interfere in or impede the boundary talks between China and Bhutan, still less the right to make territorial claims on Bhutan’s behalf. India’s intrusion into the Chinese territory under the pretext of Bhutan has not only violated China’s territorial sovereignty but also challenged Bhutan’s sovereignty and independence… China will continue to work with Bhutan to resolve the boundary issue between the two countries through negotiations and consultations in the absence of external interference.”
Arguably, the overall tone is chastising of India for its lack of maturity or foresight. Make no mistake, however, that the gauntlet has been thrown at India over its ties with Bhutan
The above passage exudes an extraordinary degree of confidence that there is a mutual desire in Beijing and Thimpu to develop bilateral relations. Of course, Beijing rejects any notion of Bhutan being an Indian protectorate.
Interestingly, Bhutan’s ambassador to India, Vetsop Namgyel, attended an event at the Chinese embassy in New Delhi on Tuesday to mark the 90th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Liberation Army – although Bhutan does not have diplomatic ties with China and it is rare for an ambassador to attend an armed forces day in a foreign embassy. A subtle signal of Bhutanese goodwill to China was unmistakable.
Bhutan has not said a word so far to the effect that it ever sought an Indian military intervention at Doklam or had prior knowledge of the Indian troops appearing on the Bhutan-China border. Thimpu perhaps decided that actions speak louder than words, as the Bhutanese ambassador’s presence at the Chinese embassy reception testifies.
All in all, the good part is that the dogs of war are still on leash. The Chinese document shows no trace of real belligerence. The intention seems to be to ensure that India draws down its remaining 40 troops at Doklam. Arguably, the overall tone is chastising of India for its lack of maturity or foresight. Make no mistake, however, that the gauntlet has been thrown at India over its ties with Bhutan. New Delhi has been left guessing about the state of play of China-Bhutan dialogue. And that could be the single most far-reaching outcome of the standoff at Sikkim.
1. The document claims that India crossed clearly delimited Sikkim boundary into Chinese teritorry, violating status quo. Understandable. Then it is India-China issue, why the Chinese are pulling in Bhutan here? The author himself mentions that there is no official request from Bhutan to China to speak for them.
2. Why China has a "border issue" with Bhutan? The article says clearly says that apart from "basic consensus", "formal demarkation" of China-Bhutan boundary near the disputed India (Sikkim)-China boundary is yet to be done. So, technically the area is still disputed. Even if we leave outr India here, why China is building roads in disputed area? Since when countries started working with only "basic consensus"?
3. PoK is also a disputed area between India and Pakistan. Why China is building a road in other’s disputed territory?
4. The author is speculating wildly.
a) It is the Chinese document that claims India has thinned out troops from 400 to 40. It is their version. Author indicates that it is not varified or confirmed by anybody.
b) "…..The above passage exudes an extraordinary degree of confidence that there is a mutual desire in Beijing and Thimpu to develop bilateral relations……" . or so says China (or the author). Seriously? Where is Bhutan’s declaration?
c) Bhutanese ambessador went to Chinese feast! So author concludes that Bhutan shows goodwill to China. Of course, Bhutan is the most peacefull country in the world, and, follows Buddha’s saying, extending message of peace and goodwill to all. So they want to "defect"! By the way Rahul Gandhi also visited the Chinese ambessador and apart of teasing him about it, no Indian took it seriously, because they know that he is a fellow Indian and they know that like every other Indian he is also a patriot without doubt. See the similarity?
And don’t let me get started with history or Chinese track record of friendlyness with its other neighbors.
the bjp is either a reincarnation of colonialism..or the unwanted child of white civilisation..
Let china start a war
India will finish it with a rain of Agnis on Beijing, sangay and Guangzhou
China will be left a nuclear wasteland
Xi jiping will go down in history who left china a nuclear waste
Perry Kamath I think eating them is better than considering them devine and worthy of worship – and submitting to them. No rational person can consider an explainable phenomenon or thing to be devine.
1890 Sikkim-China Treaty and current China Bhutan rapprochment with the blessing of Nepal could overcome standof between India China on tiny boarder outpost which could be a bridge between two contenders for development of Infrastructures!
The author has proved that he is on the Chinese PLA payroll. How sad for such a good author to miss out the truths and facts on the ground (Sikkim – Chine 1890 Agreement)
Indeed M K Bhadrakumar has served a very knowledgeable article, indicating the chauvinist attitudes of the ultranationalist Indian government and its brainwashed Hindubadi people in encroaching fruitlessly into Doklam !!!
Now Modi’s India appears in the midst of "devil and the deep sea"
Chiranjib Chakrabarti British India and Qing dynasty China are directly responsible for current border situation, the treaty concerning Bhutan is every bit as relevant to modern world as the Treaty of Sugauli signed between British India and Nepal. If you think British has no right, Republic of India should return the land ceded by Nepal under that treaty.
林台生 China occupied Tibet, and on occupied land it is making claims. Time to liberate Tibet.
Mibom Yuyisumenuda Perme Kepang Chinese are known to make absurd claims over foreign lands. Soon they will claim whole Asia as ancient Chinese land.
Dan Goushing You are reading too much of Chinese state controlled, concoction propoganda material.
The presence of China in Tibet is against international peace
Doklam standoff between India and China has done some good things for Bhutan"s sovereignity because of China Bhutan diplomatic dialogue! Mr Putin may have played some part to calmdown Mr Modi!However it conclusively proved that India violated chinese territory!
Let India fires the first shot and see whether 1,2,3 & 4 takes place. The Dragon needs only to wait patiently for the prey to act foolishly.
Since the two countries should not be at war, to maintain peace why not India simply withdraw from the area under effective Chinese control. Donglang is disputed as per Bhutan’s claim ( or is it instigated by the Indian ?) but is under effective Chinese control. There is no military class road as can be viewed in Google Earth but tracks.
British records of the north-east shows that the British Raj never controlled the area between the foothills and the McMahon Line, and the Tawang region is clearly Tibetan, laying north of the McMahon Line. The British has admitted that the McMahon Line is invalid.Now these areas are under effective Indian control. Would India stop constructing military roads in these disputed areas? The nitty gritty of the Sino-India border dispute is best left to the experts with access to records.
Suffice to state that to diffuse the present situation India should withdraw from the Sino-Bhutan disputed area. The Bhutanese has so far never invited India to intervene. From Bhutanese silence and actions it should be clear what is on their minds.
Papolu Srinivas Rao how about reading your embassador P. Stobdan’s take on Bhutan-India relationship https://thewire.in/157293/india-china-doklam-real-problem-bhutan/#disqus_thread
Yv Onne Koh , China had first claimed Doklam as its own in 1950s, years before its war with India in 1962. Since 1988, PLA troops have been cutting past Bhutan’s claim line Sinche La ridge via a network of dirt tracks leading to Chele La post, Bhutan’s permanent position on the Zompelri ridge, which leads towards India’s Doka La post in the west. Historically, China is picking carefully – and unilaterally – which treaties it considers relevant. Actually, the 1890 treaty is by no means clear. While the treaty says that the line between Sikkim and Tibet commences at Mount Gipmochi on the Bhutan frontier,’ it also says that the boundary ‘shall be the crest of the mountain range separating the waters’ that flow southward into Sikkim and northward into Tibet. Unfortunately for China, Mount Gipmochi is not at ‘the crest of the mountain range separating the waters.’ That location, it turns out, is Batang La. So, if Gimpochi is the starting point, Dokalam is in China, but if Batang La is the real starting point, then Dokalam is in Bhutan and China has no right to build a road there. And yes, you can see it on google– the Chinese encroachment. The 1890 treaty between Great Britain and China reveals that Sikkim was a British protectorate and India was a British colony.
Today, Sikkim is part of an independent India and to add Tibet is no longer an independent country. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge and China pins its claim on this relatively ancient and ambigous treaty of 1890.
The Korea Times says – "What is more interesting is the fact of China referring to the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong as being a historical document that no longer has any realistic meaning, but a treaty signed in 1890 in which India had no role is relevant "! This Joint Declaration spelled out policies regarding Hong Kong for 50 years beyond 1997. The most significant part is that, "The Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the People’s Republic of China agree to implement the preceding declarations and the Annexes to this Joint Declaration." Strange!
The Korea Times further says that it is ironical that , "On (the) one hand, a treaty that is meant to run at least until 2047 is already irrelevant, while (the) one signed in 1890, when the world was very different, is still binding (according to China)."
India and China had reached an agreement in 2012 that "the tri-junction boundary points between India, China and third countries will be finalized in consultation with the concerned countries."
China is silent today on this agreement, proving again how selective it is to ensure its claims over what is essentially a territory under dispute.
India maintains that a Royal Bhutan Army patrol attempted to dissuade the Chinese from undertaking this unilateral activity, and when the latter refused to back down, the intervention of Indian troops was necessitated, and this triggered off a stand-off between Chinese and Indian troops.
Incidentally, as per the 1890 treaty, the border begins at Aount Gimpochi, roughly three kilometers south of the Chinese road and the western point of the Jampheri Ridge, and also that the boundary will follow the watershed.Mount Gimpochi is not the start of the watershed, and the convention did not explain how to square this circle. In such things, the solutions are never unilateral.
Yv Onne Koh How about you reading the bhutan’s stand point on this issue. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/bhutan-rejects-beijings-claim-that-doklam-belongs-to-china/articleshow/60001311.cms.
Bhutan clearly states and condemns the aggression of china into their land. More over they don’t keep any diplomatic ties with china. This itself is an indication of your nature towards bhutan…
https://twitter.com/sunyongke17/status/898530496962899969