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.
David Bowman after more than a month the Chinese are still in Doklam, and in greater number too. They are still patrolling Doklam, and are still in effective control. The road building works is still proceeding. What can India do now? Go and read Prof. Taylor Fravel’s analysis.
Finally Bhadrakumar has been proven wrong. Such people dont deserve to be treated as experts.
Koh Jek Siew You seem to be quite comprehension challenged. The remark about it being Chinese territory is from YOUR perception. Obviously neither the Indians nor the Bhutanese agree. That is why they intervened. That is why you agreed to stop the road. However, why did you agree, if it’s YOUR territory? Is the mighty PLA afraid of the Indian army? Why did you scream day and night from your pathetic state-owned mouthpiece instead of throwing the Indians out? You see, that is what is at issue. The Indians militarily stopped you from building the road. That is a defeat for you, plain and simple.
The fact that they didn’t get a binding agreement is a strawman argument. Even Germany’s abject defeat in World War I didn’t stop them from starting World War II. Your army knows very well now that if they start this again, they will face the same result, except that the Indians will be more emboldened given that they forced you to back off the first time. They still command the high ground. Your Chumbi valley is still a death trap for you. None of those facts on the ground change regardless of whether the Chinese were forced to sign an agreement or not. The very fact that you bring up your not being forced to sign an agreement indicates that you lost this confrontation. Don’t worry, in the next confrontation, you will get your wish and there will be an agreement signed!
Your cries of illegality are hilarious. I mean you have a communist government with the worst human rights record in history. Worse than the Nazis. And despite that you are anxious to appeal to a higher authority to get the Indians to back off! You might as well disband your army and hire more writers to write even more gibberish in your communist mouthpiece. And maybe take out a protest march outside the UN headquarters!
David Bowman this show of bravo by the Indians is misplaced. It is an illegal act, like criminals or robbers storming a bank with the inevitable gun fights with law enforcement officers. Brave indeed they are like the John Herbert Dillinger gang. The final results weren’t encouraging.
And you really hit the mark by descriping the Indians as pathetic and uncivilzed. So the Chinese won’t stooped so low to agree or have any understanding with the Indian ruffians. The Chinese just demanded their unilateral withdrawal. This was exactly as reported by the press.
David Bowman so now you agreed that the insolent Indians were trespassing Chinese territory!!! You are admitting the illegality of the Indian action. Now you praise the misplaced Indian bravo. Now you are taunting the Chinese for not hitting the Indians. All the while I thought the Chinese were vile and revengeful. You really confirmed them to be gracious, magnanimous and peaceful, until pushed to the end of their patient like in 1962. Any dispute as to the results of the 1962 lesson?
Any dispute that the trepassers speedily retreated back to their border as announced by no other than the Indian MEA without securing any agreement or understanding from the Chinese not to restart the road works ever? Now who is in effective control in Doklam? Who was scurrying around trying to de-escalate? Is the opinion expressed by MK Brahdakumar out of place and biased? He merely stated the facts and drew the conclusions, and this drew manic and vitriolic reactions from Indian trolls. David please be patient. Wait for the next episode.
Koh Jek Siew Ha ha, your abject impotent rage at your perception of Indian shortcomings is hilarious. You are somehow even infuriated by it "fooling the west". Why? Why do you suck up to the white man so much? The Indians stood their ground, and even openly shit in your territory I assume. That’s all they do, right? Why didn’t your great army do something about it?
I mean, imagine the insult! Someone coming into YOUR territory, and SHITTING IN YOUR TERRITORY! RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR ARMY!! Shouldn’t you have taught them a lesson? Why were you so scared of people openly shitting in your country? I mean, I agree that you may be powerless to stop them shitting opnely in their own country, given how pathetic and uncivilized they are. But they came and did it in YOUR TERRITORY, right? What good is your army if it can’t even prevent something like that? A pathetic impotent army is what it is!
Koh Jek Siew I am afraid your attempt at sarcasm is only making you look even more foolish. If you really think that Modi attending the G20 summit in Germany had something to do with the Doklam standoff, you are even more retarded than I previously gave you credit for.
The fact is that your road construction activity has come to an end. The Indians hold the high points, and the road you were attempting to build has stopped. That is what India wanted, intervened to achive, and achieved. In territory claimed by you with Bhutan. Your attempt to unilaterally attempt to claim Bhutanese territory has also stopped. If you try to do it again, the Indian army will intervene again and dig up whatever you are doing, as they did just now. Make all your silly threats. Then say that Modi went to Iceland, or Doval went to Kerala. You are a riot.
Here is what one of your PLA generals, Qiao Liang, says in your Gobar times:
"He explains that it is not the appropriate time for China to continue constructing the road it was building in the Doklam plateau. "Many people would say that the road construction in China’s territory was none of India’s business. Is this belief right? It is reasonable to some extent because road construction in this area is not a matter of right and wrong, but we need to understand that it is not always right to do something right at any time. Only doing the right thing at the right time is correct. "
The fact is that the Chinese blustered long and hard and their bluff was called. They dare not fire a single bullet at Indian troops that had come into territory that EVEN INDIA DOES NOT CLAIM. In disputed territory, Indian soldiers intervened! You could do nothing! Impotence personified!
Now go eat some bear bile or monkey brain to cure your impotence!