Nazia Nazar
In a statement released the other day, China’s defence ministry reiterated its calls for immediate withdrawal of Indian troops from the Doklam plateau, adding that Beijing will resolutely protect the country’s territorial sovereignty and security interests. Chinese defence ministry spokesperson Ren Guoqiang said that “no country should underestimate the Chinese forces’ confidence and capability to safeguard peace and their resolve and willpower to defend national sovereignty, security and development interests”. India had suggested that the matter should be resolved through talks, but China insists that first of all it should completely withdraw troops from the Chinese territory. A 15-page statement by the Foreign Ministry disclosed that 48 Indian soldiers are living illegally on Chinese side of the border, as it has withdrawn 352 soldiers out of 400. Whither the bravery of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi?
Chinese spokesman said that “China has shown utmost restraint for the sake of bilateral relations and the regional peace and stability.” The standoff, on a plateau that lies at the junction between China, India, and Bhutan, is one of the worst border disputes between the nuclear-armed rivals in more than 30 years. The plateau is currently disputed between China and Bhutan with India supporting Bhutan’s claim over it. “It has already been more than a month since the incident, and India is still not only illegally remaining on Chinese territory, it is also repairing roads in the rear, stocking up supplies, massing a large number of armed personnel,” China’s foreign ministry said in a statement. With this incident, India wanted to assure Bhutan that India will go all out to support former’s claim, but this move is fraught with extreme dangers.
Relations between China and India had somewhat improved since a brief border war in 1962, but deep suspicion over a longstanding territorial dispute has remained an obstacle to achieve full potential of economic ties between the two neighbors. Since independence of India and China in 1947 and 1948 respectively, both countries could not decide how far their borders went as the countries’ borders had changed at various times. China and India has two border issues – Aksai Chin (western front) and Arunachal Pradesh in North East India (Eastern Front), and China never compromises on its principled stand, be it Hong Kong or Taiwan. Neither the terrain nor its history bore any evidence of a connection of Arunachal Pradesh with India, but Nehru was too headstrong and he was emboldened by the fact that both super powers the US and the USSR were against China at that time.
Nehru thought that he could get away with his claim and China would not dare attack India, but his gamble failed and India had lost the war. China taught India a lesson while still sending a powerful message to the rest of the world. During Cold War era, India was in the Soviet camp, and Pakistan was intertwined in defence pacts with the West and the US. Since differences between Soviet Union and China emerged over nuances and interpretations of Marxism and other factors, India opposed China to benefit from both the super power Soviet Union and the US. In May 2013, Chinese and Indian forces stood eyeball to eyeball for three weeks. India had claimed that both sides had gone back to the original positions through diplomatic efforts, and tried to convey an impression to the people that China withdrew its troops unconditionally.
But reports suggested that it was only after India agreed to dismantle its positions in Chumar area in Ladakh that the Chinese side agreed to withdraw its troops from Depsang valley in Daulat Beg oldi sector. The origins of the stand-off in the Ladakh Himalayas could be traced in the construction of permanent structures by the Indian side at a (separate but) similarly sensitive forward observation point in the disputed western sector. China considered it a violation of long-standing border protocols. However Beijing decided to establish its own skeletal presence barely two-dozen miles removed from the strategic China-India-Pakistan border tri-junction area. India had stressed the need to develop infrastructure along international border in Ladakh. As Chinese withdrew from Depsang, Indian troops constructed fortifications in Chumar Sector. Chinese quick response resulted into Indo-China standoff in Ladakh. As India could not afford to prolong the standoff, it then requested for flag meeting to resolve the issue.
India faces separatist movements. The Maoists threat in India has been waxing while India deliberately downplayed the issue to prove that India had neither major law and order problem nor centrifugal tendencies. But the world has started understanding the realities on ground which India has been trying to hide. India has been blaming Pakistan for the freedom movement in occupied Kashmir, what it calls insurgency, but who is to blame for the Naxalite insurgency in Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Uttaranchal and other Indian States? It was widely felt that Naxalites was no more a law and order problem, but posed a threat to internal security. The Naxalite movement in fact is a movement against economic deprivation and brutality of the state or central government’s law enforcing agencies. The Naxalite ideology has great appeal for marginalised strata (particularly dalit and adivasis) of India’s caste-ridden society.
