Mao Zedong or Xi Jinping: The tale of Tibet and the desire for Aksai Chin

No struggle in the world today deserves more of our time and attention than that which now grips the attention of all Asia. I am not referring to the unhappy tide of events in Tibet, where the world is being shown once again that man’s eternal desire to be free can never be suppressed. Nor am I referring to the intermittent hostilities that endanger the Formosan Strait, or the truce lines in Korea and Indochina. I am referring to another struggle equally fierce but less obvious – less in the headlines but far more significant in the long run.

And that is the struggle between India and China for the leadership of the East, for the respect of all Asia, for the opportunity to demonstrate whose way of life is the better.

[Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy,

Conference on India and the United States,

Washington, D.C., May 4, 1959]

---

Only in dreams can China imagine of a flying dragon, a desperate desire to attend a felicitation ceremony for becoming a superpower, by controlling the world economy and dreaming that the trade war with the USA is an abyss with no source of light. However, the reality is otherwise. Organizations like WHO will definitely rescue the black cloud surrounded over Beijing or at least pretend to shake hands. China is by far controlling the economic activity including the infrastructure demand of an African country, Ethiopia. To be precise Beijing took advantage of World Health Organization by allowing Covid-19 to spread beyond borders. The reach of the communist party is far beyond the South China Sea and the research and development of entire strategic planning are impeccable. To understand the gravity of collateral damage surgical identification of truth has to be done layer by layer and therefore, it is imperative to highlight some of the events that took place which has now become part of a historical disaster by creating friction between two Asian giants.

There are a few points, which require clarification pertaining to the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA). The direct border conflict with India whereby, many experts claim that PLA has no experience of war, as they never indulge in a direct confrontation with any of the country is a historical disaster to the reality of the Korean War. During the Korean War, it was the Chinese army who pulled back the USA and United Nations allies. It was Mao’s decision back then to enter into the Korean War and fight the United States and its allies to gain control over the Korean peninsula. It is well noted that the Indian Army now is an expert in mountain warfare having an additional advantage over PLA in the Ladakh region.

Secondly, it is the nature of the communist party to slowly and steadily acquire land by indulging in diplomatic and military level talks with another side. New Delhi should not and must not take Chinese aggression near the border area on a lighter note as they did during Nehru’s time. The Nehru’s, forward policy was without adequate infrastructure whereby, the Indian soldiers were equipped with Lee-Enfield rifles, which had first entered service in the army in 1895 while, the Chinese were equipped with modern automatic weapons, artillery, and other equipment’s. In fact, Nehru had never given sustained attention to the Indian military nor provided it with the modern weapons it needed. Certainly, this is not the case now.

Thirdly, in the year 1914, the British signed a treaty with Tibet and drew the boundary between India and Tibet. In the west of India, this boundary is known as the Johnson Line, dividing Kashmir from China; in the east, the border is known as the McMahon line dividing eastern India, Assam from China. It is important to note that when the communist won the Chinese civil war in 1949, they neither accepted the semi-independence of Tibet nor the boundary lines drawn by British imperialism between India and Tibet.

After the 1962 war, India and China have entered into many agreements and protocols on modalities for the implementation of confidence-building measures in the military field along the LAC. But, this new and aggressive incursion in May 2020 whereby, China moved two brigade-strength of People’s Liberation Army into four locations in eastern Ladakh — three in the Galwan Valley and one near Pangong Lake which manifests the true intention of the communist party, breaching the established border mechanism for consultation and coordination on India China border affairs. The situation is declining since the Galwan incident, which took place at an altitude of 14,000 feet. Though the Indian army discloses the number of causalities PLA has failed to do so for reasons best known to them. It is important to note that from 296 incursions or transgressions in 2016, they rose to 437 in 2017, 404 in 2018, and 663 in 2019.

Where China stands:

Many editorials and media houses suggested that this sudden and quick reaction was an outcome of the abrogation of Article 370 from the Indian constitution thereby creating Ladakh a separate Union territory and opening a front border issue with China. India is adamant about claiming its sovereignty over Aksai Chin which creates trouble within the communist party of China. To our observation and learning from the past, China has nothing to do with Pakistan or India, all they want is complete Tibet by claiming their sovereignty over Aksai Chin. There is no connection between the abrogation of Article 370 and the ongoing border dispute. China’s intention to grab more land or indulge in a border dispute is nothing new to India.

What might have triggered the communist party to react this way is the change in New Delhi’s position on developing a forward base and building up new infrastructure near border areas. To this end India is doing nothing wrong, considering the level of infrastructure developed by PLA only a fool will sit with folded hands and presume the intention of brotherhood like India did during Nehru’s era.

The major concern for PLA is road development by the Border Road Organization of India near LAC. BRO is constructing 61 strategic Indo-China Border Roads (ICBRs) measuring 3323.57 Km in length as per the directions of the China Study Group (CSG). A Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence in March informed that 75 percent of construction work on these 61 Indo-China Border Roads has been completed. Of these 12 roads, about 1,064 km are in the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, while three roads measuring about 62 km are in Sikkim.

The Vajpayee government in 1999 made a start by approving 13 new border roads, but the decisive break from a defensive mentality occurred in 2006 when the UPA reversed a longstanding policy of keeping border infrastructure underdeveloped so as to prevent advancing Chinese troops from using it. Restarting the infrastructure development near LAC gave a major blow to PLA and sent a strong message to Beijing. The 2017 Doklam standoff made it amply clear to the Chinese that they are dealing with a different India.

Where India stands:

It is acceptable without a doubt that political leadership shows the strength of any nation. India being a silent player has not achieved so much by following the ideology of Buddha when it comes to politics. Nehru’s principle of non-alignment gave India nothing but disappointment. The policy of brotherhood and blind support to the communist party over the permanent seat of the United Nations is one of the biggest blunders to the foreign policy of India.

Bruce Riedel in his book; JFK Forgotten Crisis described Nehru’s visit to the USA. He stated that during his visit the then-president John F. Kennedy tried to engage him in conversation, but Nehru responded in monosyllables or said nothing at all. As John Kennedy Galbraith (Ambassador to India under the Kennedy administration) wrote in his diary, “Nehru simply did not respond. Question after question he answered with monosyllables or a sentence or two. The president found it very discouraging, that meeting convinced him that Nehru would never be a strong reed on which to rely. Later on, Kennedy told Galbraith, it was the worst state visit of his presidency.

The situation in 2020 is remarkably clear that India is ready for any eventuality or mishap amid rising border disputes with China. Peace and tranquility could only be achieved by respecting LAC in accordance with agreements signed between both the countries. India is diplomatically strong and holds an upper position in foreign relations as compared to China. Since May 2020 when the first incursion was reported at LAC, the posture and number of troops deployed at the higher altitude with more than adequate artillery support gave a clear picture of the position of New Delhi.

The process of Disengagement and Border Mechanism:

The Working Mechanism for Consultation & Coordination (WMCC) meeting sets the stage for another round of Corps Commander talks – they have met four times since June 6 to resume the disengagement process, however, stalled due to Chinese reluctance to vacate areas in Pangong Tso and PP 17A, - two of four friction points on the Ladakh frontier. At PP 14 (Galwan Valley) and PP 15 (Hot Springs), disengagement has already taken place.

China claimed its sovereignty over the ‘Galwan Valley region’, asking India not to cross Galwan-Shyok estuary, even as talks were underway between foreign ministries of both countries to de-escalate the tension, this claim of sovereignty over Galwan valley was clearly discarded by New Delhi.

The disengagement process is almost completed in PP14 and PP15 but Pangong Lake is still a problem where China has intruded till finger point 5. India claims that the LAC is coterminous with Finger 8, but it physically controls area only up to Finger 4. Chinese border posts are at Finger 8, while it believes that the LAC passes through Finger 2. Around six years ago, the Chinese had attempted a permanent construction at Finger 4, which was demolished after India strongly objected to it.

The situation is not clear as to how much time it will take to complete the process of disengagement. Considering past experiences with China and the incident of Galwan valley has left with no option but to be prepared for any contingencies. During 1962 India was not at all prepared for war; Nehru’s policy of brotherhood and the famous slogan Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai got a tight slap in return. Around 3,250 Indian soldiers were killed. India lost about 43,000 square kilometers of land, captured by China in Aksai Chin. It is approximately the size of Switzerland.

In an article, RS Kalha, a former Indian ambassador to Iraq, writes that there are many documents to prove that the fighting began because China wanted to teach India a “lesson”. In his article for the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, he writes:

“The then Chinese President Liu Shaoqi told the Sri Lankan leader Felix Bandaranaike that the 1962 conflict was ‘to demolish India’s arrogance and illusions of grandeur. China had taught India a lesson and would do so again and again.’ Mao Zedung confirmed this line of thinking when he told a Nepalese delegation in 1964 that the ‘major problem between India and China was not the McMahon Line, but the Tibetan question’.

India in 2020, under the leadership of Mr. Modi, is holding a tight ground and ready to give a befitting reply to any of the Chinese aggression. Since 1950, there is no direct war of words between two nations, but Mr. Modi in his recent trip to Ladakh stated that the era of colonial expansion is over; this is the era of evolution. It is an opportunity for development and development is the basis for the future. In previous centuries, expansionism has done the greatest harm to humanity. The obsession with expansion has always posed a threat to world peace. History is witness that expansionist forces have either lost or were forced to turn back. Such a strong message from India shakes the four walls of Beijing and the communist party.

To summon up the entire chain of events, we observed that in the name of diplomatic or military level talk China is buying more time to prepare its forward base adequately before going into war with India. The reluctant nature of PLA to withdraw from different patrolling points and requesting more military talks on border issues is nothing but consuming the time for the preparation of bigger mishaps.