Why the standoff between India and China, near the Sikkim border, began at all, and how it ended, after 71 long and anxious days, on August 28, will likely never be fully known. The Indian foreign ministry maintains cryptically that “following diplomatic communications, expeditious disengagement of border personnel of India and China at the face-off site at Doklam,” took place last week.
New Delhi falls far short of making any claims about an agreement or understanding with Beijing regarding mutual withdrawal – leave alone about China stopping its road-building activities, which led to the standoff in the first instance.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry has been more forthcoming. It put on record that:As a result of diplomatic representations and “effective countermeasures” at the military level, the Indian side “withdrew” all its personnel and equipment.
• As a result of diplomatic representations and “effective countermeasures” at the military level, the Indian side “withdrew” all its personnel and equipment.
• The Chinese personnel “onsite have verified” the fact of Indian withdrawal.
• The Chinese troops “continue with their patrolling and stationing” in the Doklam area.
• China will “adjust and deploy its military resources” in the area to meet the needs of guarding the border.
• China has long been undertaking road-building in the area and will in future “make proper building plans in light of the actual situation,” taking into account weather conditions.
New Delhi hasn’t disagreed with China’s contentions. Instead, a series of unattributed, self-serving media leaks have appeared, portraying Indian officials as strong-willed men who stared the Chinese down. This is rather tragi-comic, given the geopolitical reality that the standoff is sure to be a watershed event in India-China relations and regional politics. The Chinese Defense Ministry warned New Delhi to learn its “lesson” from the standoff.
On balance, it appears that India won’t admit its unilateral withdrawal from Doklam, while the Chinese side is disinterested in triumphalism.
Clearly, with the brief summer season about to end in the region’s tangled mountains, India has managed to stall any road-building activity by China during this calendar year.
But the nagging question remains: What prompted India to unilaterally withdraw? To quote a prominent China expert in New Delhi, “In the face of mounting Chinese psychological pressure on asymmetries, combined with coercive diplomacy and deployment of lethal equipment, the Indian announcement of ‘disengagement’ at Doklam comes as no surprise.”
There had been reports – backed by video and photographic evidence –of China moving trainloads of advanced HQ-16 and HQ-17 missiles and other military equipment to Tibet. China was reinforcing its layered air defense systems to counter Indian air power, hinting at serious preparations for a military offensive.
Equally, two other critical factors would have influenced Indian thinking. One, India’s economic growth slowed to around 5.7% between April and June, the slowest quarterly rate in the three years of the present government. A war with China would cripple the economy. Secondly, no country voiced support for India, let alone criticized China. The North Korean issue preoccupied both Washington and Tokyo.
In retrospect, China showed that on issues of territorial sovereignty, there is no question of a compromise. But something may also have changed fundamentally in its attitude toward India. Harsh things have been said, betraying displeasure and anger, and a breakdown in trust and confidence.
A bumpy road lies ahead. Simply put, India is unable to come to terms with China’s rise, and the latter senses that it must now be on guard. Conceivably, Chinese diplomacy in the South Asian region may shift to adversarial mode. With tacit Chinese support, countries such as Nepal, Sri Lanka or the Maldives may be in a better position to withstand India’s overbearing presence.
India’s future relations with Bhutan, the friend on whose behalf it stuck out its neck but which kept a Delphian silence, are almost certain to become more delicate. Prof. Taylor Fravel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who is regarded as an authority on China’s borders, wrote last week that China might well revisit its road-building plans in the disputed territory with Bhutan. To quote Fravel,
“Before the standoff in June, China’s permanent presence in the area had been quite limited. China had maintained a road in the area for several decades, but did not garrison any forces. In contrast, India has maintained and developed a forward post at Doka La adjacent to Doklam… China may well seek to rectify this tactical imbalance of forces. In fact, the Chinese spokesperson suggested a move in this direction… If China does this, it would likely build facilities farther away from India’s position at Doka La, making it more challenging for India to intervene and block China next time… India may be faced with the uncomfortable choice of deciding whether to risk much more to deny China a greater presence farther inside Doklam or to accept it.”
The real lesson, therefore, that India should learn from the Doklam standoff is that it shouldn’t draw wrong conclusions. The BRICS Summit in Xiamen is not to be mistaken as a “kiss-and-make-up” moment.
Deep down, India has a choice to make and China is watching closely. Should the Modi government go further down the road of trespassing into China’s core interests in the South China Sea, raking up Tibet-related issues and identifying with the United States’ containment strategy against China?
Such a journey risks military confrontation with China. How far is India prepared to take that risk? The Modi government’s accent could have been on diplomacy in the crucial three-week period after the Chinese notified New Delhi, in late May, of their intention to commence road-building work at Doklam. But instead of activating its diplomatic levers, India resorted to force, confident in the knowledge that in that particular sector of the border it is strongly placed.
The dismal picture that has emerged over the past week is of the Indian officials responsible for that fateful decision counting trees and trying to convince domestic opinion that India “won” and China “lost”. The great danger is that their core constituency of ultra-nationalists will – to take the sports analogy further – now expect them to raise the bar.
Koh Jek Siew
We stick with our friends -the USA and Japan and South Korea – and you stick with yours: North Korea and Pakistan. Blackmail and the export of terrorism is the business of your friends and China and you will be very happy. Don’t worry about us.
Shinzo Abe is in India this week and will make some good deals with India.
It is up to India to have defence treaties with anyone she likes, but to try to band up and bully the Chinese will invite reprisal.
Ram Nath the Chinese trying to befriend India is no more meaningful than trying to talk to a deaf and dumb person.
David Bowman as human being a bit of decency is necessary.
David Bowman the Chinese stuffs are all flimsy contraptions which would come apart in no time. They copied everything and built fake fighter planes, fake tanks, fake missiles, fake destroyers, fake aircraft carriers, fake high speed trains, fake supercomputers and fake so many things, so unlike the Indians whose trains can easily lug anything which clings to the sides and roof without any discernible effects.
The Indians have even perfected the art of turd disposal which is so bio-degradable and user friendly except for a little discomfort to the nose. Any parts or organ of the human body can easily be sourced in India as the spare parts are widely available by the roadside. Need any fertilisation by male ? Widely available in India at no charge.
The art of propaganda was invented in the west and used by the Germans to great effects. However the Indians updated and perfected it so much that the west can only see illusions of Indians democracy without knowing that 25% are criminals, votes are bought in bulk in broad daylight, Hindutva lynching of beef-eaters, Indian expansionist tendency which netted her several victims ranging from Assam, Mizoram, Tripura, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Sikkim etc., criminal prison system which victimizes and murders inmates with impunity and all parties covering up for each other.
David Bowman yes it was true that the Chinese were issuing repeated threats and warnings for more than two months, and the Indians were simply amused and laughed them off. It was so childish of the Chinese to make the Indian rushed to the G20 summit in Germany and then the BRICS meeting in Hangzhou in order to beg the Indian to de-escalate.
The nasty Chinkies were even so rude to make the Indian special envoy rushed to Beijing for a fruitless session for mutual withdrawal discussion. The dumb-witted Chinkies could neither make any agreement nor understanding.
They simply keep repeating warnings and threats, and even cowardly moved their toy missiles and toy guns to Tibet for use by their paper army.
Luckily the Indians were magnanimous in covering for the sissy Chinkies by announcing a speedy mutual disengagement by rushing back to their side of the border, before the cold weather set in and trap the Chinkies.
The Indian could have easily administer a bloody nose or an unforgetable lesson to the Chinese as in 1962. Nehru was being kind in not attacking the Chinese then when they hastily withdrew back to the LAC when India was ready for a counter offensive.
Koh Jek Siew As far as all that "Chinese are better" stuff, must be like the coward military issuing BS threats and running away at the LAC. Commies are of-course the original propagandists who taught the Nazis how to do it. Most of your so-called "achievements" will also be shown to be fraudulenty, like your military impotence on the LAC.
Arguing with China is no more meaningful than trying to convert a wolf to vegetarianism. India should formalise defence treaties with the USA and Japan and that is the way to ensure that China can no longer bully India. The rest is just stupid name calling and waiting for China to attack.
Ram Nath telling the truth always hurts. There is no angelic India. Peaceful India is only found in fantasy land or when there is no more India.
India’s victory rhetoric is a joke. In actual scenario, Indian troop has to crawl back to the Indian side of the border unilaterally under the self-appeasing word of "disengagement". China strengtens its patrol in Donglang and maintains its troops there. It is a major blunder by India in disregarding 1890 Treaty.
Ram,
We don’t have a choice of our neighbors, but we need to live with them. If you live next door to a 200 lbs boxer, and you are not one, you don’t walk over to his backyard with a baseball bat and try to pick a fight when he is working on his own backyard. To the credit of the Chinese, they treated their neighbors with respect and never try to bully them. If you look at all the countries that have land border with China, all but India and Bhutan have settled their borders with China. In all cases, much smaller and weaker neighbors got equal or better deals vs their Chinese counterpart. In the case of Bhutan, the Chinese have offered to return the much bigger northern territories to Bhutan (which the Chinese already occupied) in exchange for recognition by Bhutan of the territories that the Chinese also already occupied in the tri-junction. The Chinese recognize that better relations with their neighbors is worth more then the small patch of land in contention. Unfortunately for India, they could never bring themselves to negotiate on the border. This is because the final outcome would be very similar to the line of actual control. A poitician can never say to the public that he "gave away" Aksai Chin, even though this is good for both countries in the long run.
BTW, India have not joined part of the American allience all this time, and for good reasons. The alliance was there to serve American interest, not Indian interest. It means when Trump has an argument with China, India must growl on command. The question is, when India needs the U.S., would the U.S. be able to ride to the rescue? The Saudis, who are allies with America, could not get the U.S. to send troops to a much weaker Syria. The Phillippino also learned the hard way that when they needed the U.S., all they got was some "freedom of navigation" excercises, which does not do them a bit of good. We need to recognize that while the U.S. is still number one militarily, In the Chinese backyard, the U.S. simply do not have an option to fight the Chinese with military power. Even with Taiwan, which is backed by the U. S. and not bordering China by land, the day is near that the Chinese can do a military takeover of Taiwan while the U.S. can only call for sanctions.
Pakistan is allied with China, and also with the U.S. In fact, the U.S. supplied them with most of their arms. This is how the world works. We make alliances based on our selfish natiobnal interests.
The Chinese are open to work with the Indians, but only if India has a realistic assessment of its own strengths and China’s strengths. When you negotiate, what you get depends on what chips you hold. You cannot say that all this area is my core interest and you cannot touch and that is final. The problem with India is that Indian aspirations is much bigger than actual Indian ability. If India decides to fight the Chinese, war could breakout. If this happens, India may break up into many squabbling nations. No U.S. power will be able to prevent this from happening.
Or gets Chinese money.
I hope so.
Did not China collude with Pakistan all these decades, helping it to get nuclear weapons and to terrorise India? Why should India not defend herself? Has she no rights ?
Of course India is now inevitably going to become a full US military ally, like Japan or South Korea. India has not other choice. The alternative is destruction and subjugation by China. No other Indian I know will accept anything except steadfast resistance to Chinese imperialist bullying.
Most of the moaist and Communist journos and channels like NDTV hate Modi and India. Stupidity.
India was always on the defensive and had strategic positives on Indian side being on the high plateau incase a offensive is raised by China. The question here is Did anyone win the standoff? Although there is no clear winner, the reason Indian media is celebrating as a win is for few reasons
1. India was never on offensive rather was waiting PLA to proceed to make their words true whatever propaganda they made to raise war through tgeir state run news.
2. China is no doubt more powerful than India, but to look straight into the eyes and standingoff without getting provoked is sign of a mature country. India has shown that again and again.
3. Chinese wanted to test the Indian resolve to defend Bhutan, its territory and also test U.S. ties that are deepening with India.
The nature of both countries is different. China is trying to bully India, but failed to understand that India has grown up too. Hope China has learned it’s lessons.
Koh Jek Siew You are right on ! Under Narendar Modi and his extremist Hindu party, BJP, the inherent Hindu traits of hate, racism, caste consciousness etc. etc. have come to the surface, and are visible everywhere in the media and blogs where both educated and uneducated Hindus comment.
Koh Jek Siew Of course the Chinese will re-start road building at an appropriate time dictated by weather and of their own choosing. Indians have nothing to gripe about. It is none of their business.
Great analysis.
Yes David, the Chinese issued repeated warnings and threats to the Indian to withdraw, and by late August backed up their threats by mobilzing troops and weapons. Upon realizing the threats are real, the Indian decided not to risk a war. Hence the hasty withdrawal without securing any agreement or understanding from the Chinese. No Chinese commitment not to restart the road building. The Chinese road building was stopped by the impending bad weather, not by Indian interference. Let’s see the drama restart when the weather permits the Chinese to start the roadworks.