Tibet is one thing, but India and China tensions spell bigger disaster

India and China are booming and will shape the 21st century, but old tensions between the two could spell disaster for the region

Few of his contemporaries think of George Walker Bush as a visionary American president, unless they are using the term to imply a touch of madness. Yet early in his second term Bush launched a bold initiative to try to establish closer American ties with India, the world’s biggest democracy, in what may eventually be judged by historians as a move of great strategic importance and imagination.

It recognised the fact that while Al-Qaeda and its cohorts pose the biggest short-term and perhaps medium-term challenge to America, in the long term it is the expected shift in the world’s economic and political balance towards Asia that promises to have the greatest significance.

That is why this month’s events in Tibet, as well as the purchase by India’s Tata Motors of Land Rover and Jaguar from Ford, need to be seen in a wider context.

Bush, meanwhile, has managed to cast aside 40 years of hostility and suspicion between America and India – and even agreed to start collaborating over nuclear energy – in the hope of strengthening India and its economy. And all for a special reason: the rise of China.

Economists at Goldman Sachs reckon that if China carries on with pro-growth policies and manages its economy reasonably well, it could overtake the United States as the world’s biggest economy as soon as the late 2020s. By 2050 India might also have overtaken the United States if it pursues vigorous economic reforms in this decade and beyond. India, at present the world’s 11th-largest economy, has long been thought of as a laggard compared with China: good at information technology and outsourcing but incapable of the sort of manufacturing that has powered China’s economic emergence.

That is changing. These days India is beginning to follow the Chinese model with investment soaring as a share of GDP, with trade booming and with manufacturing expanding faster than services. Its biggest companies, of which the Tata Group is in the lead, are achieving global reach, capabilities and prominence far faster than their Chinese counterparts.

If a Chinese car maker had sought to buy Jaguar and Land Rover, it would almost certainly have encountered opposition in America’s Congress – but India, unlike China, is seen as an ally.

India, however, needs help in financing the construction of its roads, airports and power plants and it needs help with technology. In fact, it is already being helped by Japan – egged on by America – with its infrastructure financing. And Bush’s civil nuclear deal was aimed at providing the technology that India desperately needs.

So even if the dates and figures in forecasts such as Goldman’s are wrong, Asia is going to get richer and stronger, probably for a long time to come. The reason why Tibet and Tata come into the picture is that the rise of Asia is not just going to pit Asia against the West. It is going to pit Asians against Asians. This is the first time in history when there have been three powerful countries in Asia at the same time: China, India and Japan. That might not matter if they liked each other or were somehow naturally compatible. But they do not and are not. Far from it, in fact.

An array of disputes, historical bitternesses and regional flashpoints weigh down on all three countries. Conflict is not inevitable but nor is it inconceivable. If it were to occur – over Taiwan, say, or the Korean peninsula or Tibet or Pakistan – it would not simply be an intra-Asian affair. The outside world would be drawn in.

Such a conflict could break out suddenly. This month’s unrest in Tibet has shown just how volatile China can be – and how easily one of those flashpoints could cause international tension.

In 1962 China and India fought a border war that humiliated India and left an enduring legacy of bitterness and suspicion. Both countries are now increasing their military spending and trying to modernise their armed forces.

China claims an entire Indian state, Arunachal Pradesh, which borders southern Tibet and is roughly the size of Portugal. India claims that China is occupying 15,000 square miles of what is rightfully India – in Aksai Chin, an almost uninhabited plateau high in the Himalayas.

You can see these disputes as relics of colonialism. They involve two areas of limited strategic importance which, while large, are not heavily populated and do not as far as we know contain hugely valuable mineral resources. The other way to view these disputes is that they are not about specific border demarcations at all. In truth, they are about Tibet.

China invaded Tibet in October 1950 and annexed it to Mao Tse-tung’s newly declared people’s republic. The Chinese say that Tibet had historically been part of China since the 13th century. But in practice the reason why it is now an “autonomous region” within China – that is, run by the Chinese Communist party – is that it is on the eastern side of the Himalayas. Strategically, China feels safer with the world’s highest mountain range as its border.

In the early 1950s China encroached on Aksai Chin in order to build a strategic road connecting Tibet and its eastern province of Xinjiang. In 1958-9 it brutally suppressed a substantial uprising by armed Tibetans, some of whom had been supplied and trained by either the CIA or India. Afterwards China proposed a border settlement that would have involved India giving up Aksai Chin and all hope of regaining influence over Tibet. Naturally the proposal was rejected.

In 1960-2 India tried to push forward its military positions in the disputed areas. China responded with attacks that left 3,000 Indians dead. Beijing had taught Delhi a lesson: India should not mess with China and its control over Tibet. Only a fool would challenge China’s control over that region now and India formally recognised in 2003 that Tibet is part of China.

On the face of it the two sides have since made progress. A border crossing was opened to trade in 2006 for the first time since the war. That year, however, the Chinese ambassador to Delhi caused outrage by publicly emphasising that China claims the whole of Arunachal Pradesh.

Ten months ago a “confidence-building” visit to China by more than 100 Indian officials had to be cancelled after China acted in a typically provocative way: it refused to grant a visa to a member of the Indian delegation from Arunachal Pradesh on the grounds that he was Chinese and did not need one.

It is conventional to assume that the disputed areas are no longer flashpoints but just irritatingly unfinished business. Which is largely right – provided there is no substantial uprising by Tibetans against being ruled by the Chinese. But that, of course, is exactly what began to occur on March 14, when Tibetans celebrated the anniversary of their 1959 uprising by launching the most violent and destructive riots since that date. Not surprisingly, the Chinese authorities stamped out the protests efficiently and brutally.

It was an embarrassing event to have taken place in the year of the Beijing Olympics, that great celebration of China’s emergence as a modern nation. But it is also a harbinger of trouble to come.

Why? Because a further possible trigger for Tibetan unrest lies ahead: the death of the Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, or, rather, the choice of his successor. In Tibet the Buddhist monasteries are the closest things to an alternative organising force to the Communist party. The Dalai Lama has not only traditionally been the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism but in practice the political leader, too. He has lived in exile in Dharamsala in India since 1959, but remains the focus of Tibetan identity and memory.

He will be 73 this year and, inevitably, thoughts have been turning to what happens when he dies. In Tibetan Buddhism it is believed that the Dalai Lama is reincarnated – which means that after his death there will be a search for the child who will be his successor. It often takes several years before agreement is reached on who that successor should be.

Whenever the next succession takes place there will be three extra complications. The first is that in 2007 China announced new regulations to govern the reincarnation of all Tibetan clergy: it has said it will have the last word in determining whether someone has been reincarnated. In other words, atheist party officials will govern Tibetan spiritual decisions.

In response, the Dalai Lama said he was considering naming his chosen successor before he dies. But – and this is the second complication – he has also said he will not be reincarnated in land under Chinese control. So if his followers abide by that statement they will not accept any successor who has been found inside China.

The third complication is that traditionally the second ranking lama, the Panchen Lama, has played a central role in choosing the new Dalai Lama. But after the previous Panchen Lama died in China in 1989, two successors were chosen: one by the Dalai Lama’s selection committee; the other by a selection committee imposed by China. The Dalai Lama’s choice was arrested. His whereabouts is unknown but he is thought to be a political prisoner.

If – or when – the Tibetans are faced with a dispute over the successor to their spiritual leader, serious unrest could break out. The likelihood is that China would crack down hard on Tibet, as it always has in the past and as it did this month. But if the unrest were more widespread and substantial than before, and if it coincided with a period when the central Chinese government was weak – in the wake of an economic downturn, perhaps – then it may be hard to regain control.

At such a time, unrest might break out all around China, making it harder simply to crack down in Tibet alone.

Two risks could then arise. One, admittedly unlikely, is that in the face of Chinese repression, perhaps involving the wholesale slaughter of Tibetan militants, India might feel obliged to do something: to send aid, agitate for collective international intervention or even to try to create safe havens near Arunachal Pradesh.

The other risk is that either China or India might decide to send a military force into the disputed border areas. That might be a diversionary tactic; it might be opportunism, in India’s case; it might reflect China’s sense of insecurity about Tibet; or it might be a Chinese effort to seize Tawang, an area of Arunachal Pradesh directly associated with Tibet and with Tibetan Buddhism. If any of these events occurred, the stakes would be high.

Remember: this is part of a greater Asian drama that is going to be a permanent feature of world affairs and arguably the most important single determinant of whether or not those affairs proceed peacefully and prosperously.

There are two different images of how Asia might look in 2020: the first could be termed “plausible pessimism” and the second called “credible optimism”.

The plausibly pessimistic view begins with the risk that China will suffer a bruising recession and asset-price collapse, perhaps exacerbated by a recession in the United States. This will lead to public pressure for political reform, posing the biggest challenge to Communist party rule since Tiananmen in 1989. That pressure will again be violently rebuffed and the party will accentuate its nationalist credentials in order to retain its grip on power.

Such a nationalist move would produce increased tension with Japan, a reduction in cooperation with the United States over North Korea and a spate of mutual truculence between China and India.

In these awkward times the deaths of Kim Jong-il of North Korea and the Dalai Lama could both occur, prompting China to install a new military government in Pyongyang, to reject proposals for unification of the peninsula and to use brutal methods to suppress an uprising by Buddhist monks in Tibet.

What would Japan do? If it became even more worried about North Korea and China, it would revise its constitution to permit expanded military capabilities. Then there is Taiwan, which would be an ever-present worry over an imminent conflict between China, Japan and America. There could even be a short, exploratory exchange of fire over that very issue.

The warm glow of the 2008 Beijing Olympics would be remembered only through a thick smog of tension.

Now look on the brighter side. The credibly optimistic view is that by 2020 China’s economy could be at least three times larger than it is today; the same could well apply to India as it uses its rising tax revenues to build modern infrastructure and a proper system of primary and secondary education.

Japan, with more market-oriented reforms and a corporate sector galvanised by the prospect of Chinese competition, could experience a productivity surge similar to that enjoyed by the United States during the 1990s, enabling it to become more confident in international affairs.

In such a climate China, Japan and India would work together to build pan-Asian institutions within which to manage their disputes and differences. When the North Korean regime collapses and the Dalai Lama passes away, their first instinct would be to talk and exchange ideas rather than to act unilaterally.

The introduction of the election of Hong Kong’s chief executive by universal suffrage, a step made possible by this harmonious atmosphere, could increase interest in the use of democracy in China itself. The emerging Chinese middle class, irritated by its rising tax burden and lack of political rights, would put pressure on the Communist party through protests and through the media to follow Hong Kong’s example.

The party’s fifth and sixth generations of leaders might decide it was time to make concessions, reasoning that they could repeat the success of Japan’s Liberal Democratic party and maintain power even in a multi-party system. The first elections would be called late in the 21st century’s second decade or early in the third.

Clearly, whether the pessimistic or optimistic scenario prevails, what is happening in Tibet does not stand in isolation. The stakes in Asia are enormous – for all of us.

They’ve built a considerable war industry of their own.

Yes, very hard lessons were learnt after '62, by the Indian military.

BHARAT RAKSHAK MONITOR - Volume 3(3) November-December 2000

The Sumdorong Chu Incident

V. Natarajan

The Sino-Indian border has been a long and vexed issue and its role in the 1962 conflict needs no elaboration. Barring an armed clash at Nathu La in eastern Sikkim in 1967, the border between India and China (Tibet) – and specifically the ill-defined Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Ladakh/Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh - had remained free of any major incidents through the '70s and the early '80s. While relations between the countries remained frosty for the most part, official statements from Beijing and New Delhi professed a desire to solve the border tangle peacefully through mutual consultations. Beginning in 1981, officials from both countries held yearly talks on the border issue and these talks continued till 1989 [1]. The 7^th round of border talks held in July 1986 was overshadowed by reports in the Indian media of Chinese incursions into the Sumdorong Chu valley in Arunachal Pradesh. This was followed by reports of large-scale troop movements on both sides of the border in early 1987, and grave concerns about a possible military clash over the border. While this incident raised the temperature in Delhi and Beijing for a while, it soon faded from the headlines, overtaken by other events in both sides of the border - Operation Brasstacks, Rajiv Gandhi's visit to China in 1988, and the Tianamen Square incident in 1989 among others.

This article is an attempt to piece together the events that occurred, beginning in the summer of 1986 at the Sumdorong Chu valley. A description of the initial incident is followed by the subsequent escalation in tension in early 1987 and the diplomatic steps taken to cool those tensions. In the concluding section, some speculations concerning the motives behind the actions of the two countries are examined.

The Incident: June - October 1986

Sumdorong Chu (S-C) - referred to as Sangduoluo He in the Chinese media - is a rivulet flowing north-south in the Thag La triangle, bounded by Bhutan in the west and the Thag La ridge to the north. On June 26, 1986, the Government of India (GoI) lodged a formal protest with Beijing against intrusions in this region by Chinese troops, that had occurred beginning on June 16. Beijing denied any such intrusions and maintained that its troops were in a location north of the McMahon Line (ML), while the official Indian stance was that the Chinese troops had intruded south of the ML. (The actual region of the incursion has been described as the Thandrong pasture on the banks of the S-C, and also as the Wangdung region - which comes under the Zimithang circle of Tawang district [2]). This region has been located to the north of the ML by outside sources [3,4], as also by independent Indian observers [5,6].

This region falls along a traditional route from Lhasa to Tawang - and from there to the Brahmaputra valley - and the nearby Thag La ridge had witnessed serious clashes in the '62 conflict. The area had been considered a neutral area by both sides since 1962/63 [5,6] and had not been monitored by India between 1977 and 1980 [4]. However with the improvement of logistics on the Indian side, the Indian Army sought to reinforce and strengthen forward areas in Arunachal Pradesh in the early '80s. Patrols resumed in 1981 and by the summer of 1984 India had established an observation post on the bank of S-C [5,6] – which apparently afforded a view of Chinese positions on the other side of Thag La [3]. This post was manned by personnel of the Special Security Bureau (SSB) through the summer and vacated in the winter. In June of 1986, when a patrol from the 12^th Assam Regiment returned to the area, it found a sizable number of Chinese already present, engaged in constructing permanent structures [2,8].

Initial reports put the number of Chinese at 40 - some of them armed and in uniform - who were soon reinforced to a total strength of about 200 men. Statements by Indian ministers in the Parliament described the intrusion as being between 1-2 km deep as the crow flies, supplied by mules along a 7 km trail [2]. By August the Chinese had constructed a helipad and began supplying their troops by air. Regarding the Chinese presence as a fait accompli and to prevent further 'nibbling', the Indian Army began aggressive patrolling across Arunachal Pradesh at other vulnerable areas. In September ’86 – while under pressure from both the public and opposition MPs to adopt a strong posture - the GoI sought a way out of the crisis by suggesting that if the Chinese withdrew in the coming winter, India would not re-occupy the area in the following summer. This offer was rejected by China whose troops were by now prepared to stay through the winter. By September-October, an entire Indian Army brigade of the 5^th Mtn. Division was airlifted to Zimithang, a helipad very close to the S-C valley. Referred to as Operation Falcon [7,9], this involved the occupation of ridges overlooking the S-C valley, including Langrola and the Hathung La ridge across the Namka Chu rivulet. (These ridges are to the south of Thag La.)

Escalation: October '86 - May '87

In October, the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping warned N.Delhi that if it continued nibbling across the border, China would have to "teach India a lesson" [10]. This threat – identical to that made to Vietnam in 1979 - was conveyed by the US Defense Secretary during a stopover in N.Delhi from Beijing. The rise in tensions was not helped, when in December 1986, Arunachal Pradesh was made a full state of the Indian Union. This drew a chorus of protests from across the border and Indian reactions that any change in Arunachal Pradesh’s administrative status was an internal matter. The spring and summer of 1987 saw media reports of heavy troop movements on both sides of the border and the very real possibility of a serious military clash [11,12,13]. Deng Xiaoping's earlier warning was conveyed again on March - this time by the US Secretary of State. By spring '87, Indian and Chinese camps were right next to each other in the S-C valley [3,10].

China – which has always had a large military presence in Tibet since its occupation – was said to have moved in 20,000 troops from the "53^rd Army Corps in Chengdu and the 13^th Army in Lanzhou" [23] by early 1987 along with heavy artillery and helicopters. By early April, it had moved 8 divisions to eastern Tibet as a prelude to possible belligerent action [6].

Troop reinforcements on the Indian side – which had begun with Operation Falcon in late 1986 – continued through early ’87 under a massive air-land exercise. Titled Exercise Chequerboard, it involved 10 divisions of the Army and several squadrons of the IAF and redeployment of troops at several places in the North-East. The Indian Army moved 3 divisions to positions around Wangdung [14], where they were supplied and maintained solely by air. These troop reinforcements were over and above the 50,000 troops already present across Arunachal Pradesh [11].

Denouement: May '87 - present

Rising tensions were lowered after a visit to China by the Indian External Affairs Minister in May 1987, where both sides reaffirmed their desire to continue talks on the border issue and to cool things down on the border. In August '87, Indian and Chinese troops moved their respective posts slightly apart in the S-C valley, after a meeting of the field commanders. During the 8^th round of border talks on November '87, it was decided to upgrade the talks from the bureaucratic to the political level. Following Rajiv Gandhi's visit to China in 1988, a Joint Working Group (JWG) was set up to discuss, among other things, the alignment of the LAC [15]. In 1993, an agreement was inked between the foreign ministers of the two countries on the reduction of troops along the LAC. It was decided to pull back from respective forward check posts in the S-C valley from a situation of "close confrontation" and in 1994, the Indian MEA described the situation as one of "close proximity" where the respective posts were 50-100 yards apart [16]. Following the JWG meeting on April 1995, the two sides agreed to a simultaneous withdrawal of their troops from the four border posts - two Indian and two Chinese - in the S-C valley [3,15,17]. As of June 1999, the valley was unoccupied by either army, and their respective posts in the area were close to a kilometre apart [18].

Conclusions

The initial incident at S-C valley, viz. the establishment of a SSB post in the summer of 1985, can be considered to be a consequence of the uncertain and disputed nature of the LAC. The Indian side has been criticized by some [5] for being the first to intrude in a neutral area, and the subsequent events characterized as a Chinese reaction to India's 'forward policy' in the early '80s.

On the other hand, there is no unanimity as to the reason an isolated incident on the border should have led to such an increase in tension in early 1987. Prevailing international and domestic developments have been suggested as possible explanations. The troop reinforcements on the Indian side in the later months - during Operation Falcon, leading on to Exercise Chequerboard - have been thought by some to be an Indian reaction to growing Sino-Soviet rapprochement in 1986 [1,11]. The Indian reactions were apparently to test the extent of normalization in relations between China and the USSR and its effect on the Indo-Soviet relations. Reiterating his analysis of the 1962 conflict, Maxwell holds India solely responsible for the escalation [12], claiming the incident to be Rajiv Gandhi's method of provoking a confrontation with China in order to unite the nation and facilitate the imposition of an internal emergency. Regardless of the plausibility of some the explanations offered, many observers are agreed on the effect of the robust military moves on the Indian side. It is believed that the Indian Army used the events through 1986/87 both as an effective palliative for the bitter events of 1962, and to demonstrate the difference in the ground situation since that time, to the Chinese military [6,19,20,21].

On Chinese motivations behind the escalation, the consensus view seems to be that it was part of a strategy of indicating that the border issue in the Eastern sector was far from settled. While the early border talks had focussed mainly on the Aksai Chin region and not on the Eastern sector, the mid-'80s saw a change in Chinese attitude. The Chinese strategy changed to linking the border issues in the Eastern and Western sector, and demanding matching concessions in the Eastern sector for any Chinese withdrawals in Aksai Chin/Ladakh, in contrast to the Indian position that the two sectors be considered separately. In this view, a Chinese reluctance to react to a strong Indian military presence near or over the ML would weaken their negotiating position.

While an exchange of maps of the LAC would be an essential step towards the avoidance of such incidents, and eventually to a resolution of the boundary dispute, there has been a marked Chinese reluctance to comply with this, even after several years into the multi-level border talks [22]. There have been some reports following President Narayanan’s recent visit to China, of the increasing likelihood of such an exchange, particularly in the "middle sector" (Uttar Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh) [24,25]. It remains to be seen if such an event comes to pass.

Notes

[1] "Sino-Indian Border Talks 1981-1989: A View from New Delhi", Sumit Ganguly, Asian Survey, Vol.29, n.12, December 1989.

[2] China Report , compilation of news reports in Vol. 23, Nos. 1 & 3, 1987, published by The Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, N.Delhi.

[3] "Sino-Indian Border Dispute Reconsidered", Neville Maxwell, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. 34, No. 15, April 10-16, 1999. http://www.epw.org.in/34-15/sa2.htm

[4] The Economist, May 23, 1987. The S-C valley "seemed to lie to the north of the McMahon line; but is south of the highest ridge in the area, and the McMahon line is meant to follow the highest points". The highest ridge in the area is the Thag La (claimed by India to be on the border), which is actually to the north of the McMahon Line as drawn on a map.

[5] Gopal Ji Malaviya in "Indian and Chinese Foreign Policies in Perspective", edited by Surjit Man Singh, 1998, Radiant Publishers, N.Delhi.

[6] The Militarization of Mother India, Ravi Rikhye, 1990, Chanakya Pub. N.Delhi.

[7] "George in the China Shop", India Today, May 18, 1998 - http://www.india-today.com/itoday/18051998/cover.html

[8] "Midstream: George and the Dragon", Rakshat Puri, The Hindustan Times, April 22, 1998 http://www2.hindustantimes.com/ht/nonfram/220498/detopi02.htm

[9] "Warrior as Scholar", India Today, February 22, 1999 - http://www.india-today.com/itoday/22021999/obit.html

[10] "China and India: Moving beyond Confrontation", Surjit Mansingh and Steven Levine, Problems of Communism, Vol. 38, no. 2-3, Mar-June 1989.

[11] "Eye-witness in Tibet", Far Eastern Economic Review, June 4, 1987.

[12] "Towards India’s Second China War?", Neville Maxwell, South, May 1987.

[13] "The Dragon’s Teeth", India Today, August 15, 1987.

[14] "Disputed Legacy", India Today, May 15, 1988.

[15] "Sino-Indian CBMs: Problems and Prospects", Swaran Singh, Strategic Analysis, July 1997, Vol.20, n.4

[16] "Parliament and Foreign Policy - Reflections on India-China Relations", Naheed Murtaza, 1998, Cadplan Pub., N.Delhi.

[17] Reuters report on August 21, 1995 - http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/1995/8/21_1.html

[18] "A Border which is Quiet and Tension Free", Barun Das Gupta, The Hindu, June 7, 1999 http://www.indiaserver.com/thehindu/1999/06/07/stories/0207000g.htm

[19] "Getting Tough With China: Negotiating Equitable, Not "Equal" Security", Bharat Karnad, Strategic Analysis, January 1998, Vol. 21, n.10

[20] "China's Long March to World Power Status: Strategic Challenge for India", Gurmeet Kanwal, Strategic Analysis, February 1999, Vol. 22, n.11

[21] "The China Syndrome", The Hindustan Times, June 6, 1999 http://www2.hindustantimes.com/ht/nonfram/200699/detfea01.htm

[22] "Time to Draw the Line", Brahma Chellaney, The Hindustan Times, November 17, 1999 http://www2.hindustantimes.com/ht/nonfram/171199/detopi01.htm

[23] Quoted portion taken from [10]. However, most reports on the PLA assign the 13^th Group Army to the Chengdu Military Region, and there is no mention of a 53^rd Group Army (or Corps) in the PLA.

[24]"Sino-Indian JWG to meet often", The Hindu, July 23, 2000 http://www.indiaserver.com/thehindu/2000/07/23/stories/01230001.htm

[25] "Sino-Indian Border Talks Next Week", The Hindu, November 11, 2000 http://www.indiaserver.com/thehindu/2000/11/11/stories/01110009.htm

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.