Round The World

New Delhi, 11 December 2012

Sino-India Border Talks

CAN GOOD FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBOURS?

By Shreya Upadhyay

Research Scholar, School of International Studies, JNU

While the recently concluded India-China two-day talks on the border dispute failed to yield any substantive results, it did pave way for the spirit of “continuity” to find a lasting solution to the issue and remove one of the major irritants in bilateral ties.

Importantly, the talks were held against the historic backdrop of the once-in-a-decade transfer of power in Beijing. In fact, National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon’s first visit to China since the transfer of power was primarily aimed to ensure continuity following the retirement of his counterpart Dai Bingguo in March 2013.

Pertinently, after 15 rounds of talks between the two Special Representatives, the neighbours are presently in the second of the agreed three-stage process whereby the next step will involve actual demarcation of the boundary. In fact, the recent 16^th meeting was reclassified as “informal talk” because the Chinese leadership is in transition.

Nonetheless, the talk resulted in both sides agreeing on a “common understanding report” reviewing the progress made so far on the framework for border delineation. Notwithstanding, both sides gushing about progress in boundary talks, they underscored work was still to be done and there was need to not let differences stand in the way of taking the relationship forward.

In fact, over the years there has been looming scepticism across the border over boundary talks being deadlocked wherein the near future too does not offer any favourable concrete outcome. Recall, boundary negotiations had begun during former Prime Minister Vajpayee reign when he visited China in 2003, which led to the appointment of Special Representatives on both sides to impart momentum to border negotiations.

Significantly, India acknowledged China’s sovereignty over Tibet and pledged not to allow “anti-China” political activities on its soil. China on its part, gave de-facto acceptance of Sikkim being part of India, agreed to open a trading post along the border with the former Himalayan kingdom and published a map showing Sikkim as India’s territory. Yet, the border dispute continues due to Beijing’s claim over a small tract of territory called the ‘Finger Area’ in the State’s North.

Pertinently, since 2005, when New Delhi and Beijing completed the first of their three-stage negotiations by signing the ‘breakthrough’ Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for Settlement of the India-China Boundary Question Agreement, perceptions are that the second stage of framework talks has hit an impasse. Today, both have serious differences in interpreting the Agreement making it virtually impossible for them to reach a final settlement.

Undeniably, the border question is bedevilled by difference in perception over the length and ambit of the border. While India’s position is that the border is 4,117 km long starting from the India-China-Myanmar junction in the Eastern sector to the North-Western end of Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK). China asserts the border is around 2000-km long and does not accept Arunachal, PoK and Jammu and Kashmir as sovereign Indian Territory. It claims the entire Arunachal as its territory and the entire Kashmir as territory disputed between India and Pakistan.

Worse, China has re-asserted its old claims along the border with India and has combined it with aggressive patrolling, which New Delhi views as a violation of the 1993 Line of Actual Control (LAC) Agreement. More. Even as India considers the Sikkim border issue settled, repeated Chinese incursions in northern Sikkim in the past few years have irked New Delhi. The reason behind India’s recent decision to raise a new 1,000-man force in Sikkim to guard the 225-km Sino-Indian border.

Worse, PLA forces are regularly intruding into Bhutanese territory at the junction where the three countries meet and destroying Indian Army posts. These incursions are strategically directed at the Siliguri Corridor which connects India with its North-East States. Also, there has been rapid Chinese expansion and modernization of transport infrastructure across the Himalayas and railway link between Beijing and Lhasa has further tightened China’s grip on Tibet.

Undoubtedly, China’s long term plan is to extend this rail line to Yatung, just a few miles from Sikkim’s Nathu La, and subsequently to Arunachal North, at its tri-border junction with Myanmar. Beijing also lays claim on over 60,000 sq km of territory in Arunachal which shares a border with Tibet. New Delhi alleges that Beijing is also illegally occupying huge tracts of its territory in Jammu and Kashmir.

Thus, strategically speaking New Delhi’s stand is vastly different from that of 2005 when the first series of talks was completed. True, allegations of talks making little or no progress have been denied by both sides as “pure speculation” and “factually untrue. Yet, the reality points to the contrary.  

Notably, even as India and China opened their two-day boundary negotiations, Navy Chief Admiral DK Joshi remarked that New Delhi was prepared to deploy ships to South China Sea’s disputed waters should its oil exploration interests come under threat. The statement was issued in the wake of Vietnam accusing two Chinese fishing boats of cutting cables of a Vietnamese vessel doing seismic oil exploration there recently.

Besides, public sector giant Oil and Natural Gas Corp’s (ONGC) which has a joint oil exploration venture with Vietnam has been criticised in Chinese media for their cooperation being motivated more by politics than economic interest. Stated China’s Global Times: “India’s move was to pin down China in the area so it could gain dominance in affairs across the region.”

Clearly, the recent negotiations are further clouded by tensions between India and China over Beijing issuing new passports which included a map showing Arunachal as a disputed territory with India. In response, the Indian embassy in Beijing printed its own visas showing the territory as falling within India. However, the issue was not taken up during the talks.

There is no gainsaying, that with India becoming US’s pivot to Asia, its Look East policy finally taking shape and its increasing ties with ASEAN nations and Japan along-with New Delhi’s increasing investment in military modernization and improving infrastructure is certain to play on China’s fears of strategic encirclement. ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)