DOCSLIB.ORG

Causes of the 1962 Sino-Indian War: a Systems Level Approach

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Causes of the 1962 Sino-Indian War: a Systems Level Approach University of Denver Digital Commons @ DU Josef Korbel Journal of Advanced International Studies Josef Korbel School of International Studies Summer 2009 Causes of the 1962 Sino-Indian War: A Systems Level Approach Aldo D. Abitol University of Denver Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/advancedintlstudies Part of the International and Area Studies Commons Recommended Citation Aldo D. Abitbol, “Causes of the 1962 Sino-Indian War: A systems Level Approach,” Josef Korbel Journal of Advanced International Studies 1 (Summer 2009): 74-88. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Josef Korbel Journal of Advanced International Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],dig- [email protected]. Causes of the 1962 Sino-Indian War: A Systems Level Approach This article is available at Digital Commons @ DU: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/advancedintlstudies/23 Causes of the 1962 Sino-Indian War A SYSTEMS LEVEL APPRAOCH ALDO D. ABITBOL University of Denver M.A. Candidate, International Security ______________________________________________________________________________ The emergence of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) nations as regional powers and future challengers to U.S. hegemony has been predicted by many, and is a topic of much debate among the IR community today. Interestingly, three of these nations have warred against each other in the past and, coincidentally or not, it was the nations that shared borders: India and China and China and Russia. This paper attempts an in-depth case study of the 1962 Sino-Indian conflict from an angle that differs from previous studies. Past explorations of this conflict have focused on domestic or the psychological motivations of political leaders for this abrupt war, but I will depart from these studies in assessing the conflict’s origin and exploring the reasons for its short duration. Employing a neorealist systems-level approach, I will attempt to explain how the structure of the international system both instigated the Sino-Indian confrontation and also limited the extent of the engagement. ______________________________________________________________________________ Sun Zi once said, “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win” (Zi 1988, 20). This declaration applies to the Sino-Indian Border War of 1962 fittingly because of the unprepared manner in which Jawaharlal Nehru entered into armed conflict with the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). Prime Minister Nehru, in a seemingly intractable diplomatic position authorized the use of force against PRC assets in Ladakh, south of the McMahon Line, in order to defend his conception of Indian territorial integrity on October 9, 1962 (Eekelen 1967, 114). The resulting response from the PRC was a devastating counterattack on October 20, 1962 crushing the Indian military. A second Chinese offensive began on November 16, 1962, completely defeating Indian forces in the region (Vertzberger 1984, 66). On November 21, 1962 the PRC declared a unilateral ceasefire, and withdrew 20 km behind the line of actual control represented in Figure 1. Afterwards, no further military engagements ensued. In the aftermath of this limited war the PRC suffered 1,400 casualties in comparison with the Indian military’s 3,120 dead, 3,100 captured, and 1,000 wounded (Feng, Cheng, and Wortzel 2003, 188). However, it is not the purpose of this paper to recount the battles or outcomes of the 1962 Sino-Indian War. What is to be analyzed here is the question: why did the war erupt? Why was an ephemeral armed conflict necessary between China and India despite the peaceful settlement of border issues with other nations bordering China? This question is perplexing considering both the previously warm and amicable state of Sino-Indian relations, in addition to Zhou Enlai’s insistence that “[China] shall only use peaceful means and shall not permit any other kinds of methods” in resolving border issues (Maxwell 1995, 905). Additionally, a review of this conflict Causes of the 1962 Sino-Indian War - 75 is relevant today since both India and China are emerging regional and aspiring hegemonic powers. Thus, it is important to understand what brought these nations to war in the past in order to anticipate the possibility of a reoccurrence, which would have greater implications due to their growing power. Using Kenneth Waltz’s systems level of analysis method, it will be argued that a neorealist systemic level analysis best explains the factors that pushed both nations to war in 1962, while accounting for the constraints that limited the conflict in scope and scale. Sino-Indian Relations 1950-1959 The Sino-Indian relationship from 1950 to 1959 was particularly warm, and several reasons for these cordial relations existed. Arguably the most important was the hasty diplomatic recognition of the PRC in December 1949 by India, making them the second nation in the world after Burma to do so (Vertzberger 1984, 63). This conferment of legitimacy was helpful in establishing a cooperative environment with China, as many nations chose instead to recognize the Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan. Furthermore, India’s existence as a socialist and not a capitalist state, allowed for greater cooperation with the PRC since they did not come into direct conflict with Maoist ideology like the U.S. This basis of diplomatic and ideological congruency led Prime Minister Nehru to attempt to revolutionize international affairs by producing the Panchsheel Agreement between China and India in 1954. The Panchsheel Agreement stressed five points; (1) mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty; (2) mutual non-aggression; (3) non-interference in each other’s domestic affairs; (4) equality and mutual benefit, and finally; (5) peaceful coexistence (Eekelen 1967, 38). This agreement originates from Nehru’s optimism that post-colonial nations could invalidate the precepts of a bipolar world, and that the regional powers of Asia can contradict the validity of traditional balance of power politics. The diplomatic and ideological reasons for Sino-Indian cooperation are bolstered by shared historical experiences. Both China and India share a long and uninterrupted cultural and historical tradition. Both nations at one time were great powers. Most importantly though, both nations were invaded by Western imperialists and consummately humiliated and exploited. This occupation and exploitation by the West caused the growth of significant nationalist forces within India and China, and the desire to gain independence. The ROC received its independence in 1912, and the later consolidation of the PRC in 1949 ushered in a new era of Chinese sovereignty and independence from imperialism. Likewise, India achieved its independence from Britain in 1947. Due to their history of Western occupation, China and India had additionally failed to develop independent industries. Their occupations meant that the Chinese and Indian economies were still largely agrarian, and dependent on the import of finished goods. This led the Indian government to implement a form of democratic socialism, while the PRC engaged in agrarian based communism, or Maoism. Regardless of their system’s differences, both nations abhorred capitalism creating an ideological common ground. Their common historical experience produced a familiar perspective upon which Indian and Chinese policymakers could relate to one another. This environment of common history and diplomatic cooperation producing positive relations would be challenged by the Chinese policy of taking back historical possessions. The 1950 invasion and takeover of Tibet by the PRC would begin to show strains in the relationship. Trepidation over Tibet’s seizure by the PRC was based in the idea of a historical Indian-Tibetan Josef Korbel Journal of Advanced International Studies - 76 relationship, but the Seventeen Points Agreement of May 1951 ironed out their differences with India recognizing China’s historical sovereignty over Tibet while still preserving Indian economic and social interests in Tibet. The agreement appeared to settle a possible dispute over Tibet between the two powers, but right-wing elements in the Indian parliament expressed this viewpoint of the PRC invasion, “the final action of the Chinese, in my judgment, is a little short of perfidy” (Vertzberger 1984, 64). This underlying opinion of the Tibet invasion by the PRC would bring forward another issue heightening tension in the relationship. This issue was the definition of China’s border with India in the Northeast and Northwest. Maxwell argues that one of China’s diplomatic priorities was defining diplomatically agreed boundaries, as “boundaries are one of the first expressions of a modern state” and the PRC sought this validation of modernity (Maxwell 1995, 905). However, to not endanger Sino-Indian relations over the border question, Nehru and Zhou Enlai agreed to leave the border issue between mid-level bureaucrats to be mediated at a later date paving the way for the 1954 Panchsheel Agreement (Hoffmann 1990, 32). Thus, this issue remained on the back-burner of Indian foreign policy until the PRC began to make moves towards its historical conception of Sino-Indian boundaries south of the McMahon Line in 1957. Two years later Tibet rose up in a massive revolt against Chinese authority. China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) moved in to put down the rebellion by breaking popular will in the capital of Lhasa. March 31, 1959 the Dalai Lama fled from Tibet into India where he was granted political asylum. This course of events angered the Indian public as they saw it as a renunciation of Indian trade and cultural access to Tibet guaranteed in the Seventeen Points Agreement (Vertzberger 1984, 65). PRC officials chaffed at India’s meddling in their domestic affairs by granting asylum to the Dalai Lama and thereby violating the 1954 Panchsheel agreement (Hoffmann 1990, 64).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute: Sub-National Units As Ice-Breakers
    The Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute: Sub-National Units as Ice-Breakers Jabin T. Jacob* Introduction The Sino-Indian boundary dispute is one of the oldest remaining disputes of its kind in the world and given the “rising” of the two powers in the international system, also potentially one of the most problematic. While the dispute has its origins in the British colonial era under geopolitical considerations of “the Great Game,” where Tibet was employed as a buffer between British India and the Russians with little or no thought to Chinese views on the matter. The dispute has two major sections – in India’s northeast and in India’s northwest. The Simla Convention of 1914 involved the British, Chinese and the Tibetans but the eventual agreement between Britain and Tibet in which the alignment of the Tibet-Assam boundary was agreed upon in the form of the McMahon Line was not recognized by China. And today, this disagreement continues in the Chinese claim over some 90,000 km2 of territory in Indian control covering the province of Arunachal Pradesh. Arunachal, which the Chinese call “Southern Tibet,” includes the monastery town of Tawang, birthplace of the Sixth Dalai Lama, and a major source of contention today between the two sides. Meanwhile, in the Indian northwest – originally the most significant part of the dispute – the Chinese managed to assert control over some 38,000 km2 of territory in the 1962 conflict. This area called Aksai Chin by the Indians and considered part of the Indian province of Jammu and Kashmir, was the original casus belli between the newly independent India and the newly communist China, when the Indians discovered in the late 1950s that the Chinese had constructed a road through it connecting Kashgar with Lhasa.
    [Show full text]
  • Pierce – the American College of Greece Model United Nations | 2021
    Pierce – The American College of Greece Model United Nations | 2021 Committee: Security Council Issue: The Sino-Indian Border Dispute Student Officer: Alexandros Ballis Position: President PERSONAL INTRODUCTION Dear Delegates, My name is Alexandros Ballis and I am a 11th grader at the German School of Thessaloniki and I’ll be serving as the President in this year’s Security Council. First of all, I would like to congratulate all of you on both your decision to get involved in the challenging, but at the same time, exciting world of Model United Na- tions, as well as for choosing to participate in such a great conference. I can assure you that MUN is an incredible experience, since you get the chance to involve your- selves in current affairs and issues that will define our generation, improve your pub- lic speaking and negotiating skills, ameliorate your use of the English language and last, but certainly not least, make new friends! The topics of this year’s agenda are of utmost importance. However, this study guide will focus on the third topic of the agenda, namely “The Sino-Indian Bor- der Dispute”. The dispute between China and India concerning their borders and the territorial status of several areas between those two countries is an ongoing dispute that has caused instability in the area. Seeing that there is a risk of escalation be- tween the world’s two most populous countries, also having established themselves as nuclear powers, the possibility of a war is not far away. Therefore, efficient measures that will solve the crisis as soon as possible are needed.
    [Show full text]
  • China's Tawang Conundrum
    China’s Tawang Conundrum The Statesman 12 April 2017 Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh has caused a flutter in the Beijing roost. Wary of the fall-out from Dalai Lama’s visit to the picturesque 17th-Century Twang Monastery, which to Tibetans is next in importance after the Potala Palace in Lhasa, the erstwhile abode of the Dalai Lama, China has severely warned India that Dalai Lama’s visit “to the contested area will inflict severe damage on the China-India relationship”. In a reversal of its earlier timidity and nervousness while dealing with China, India has of late also become more assertive, sensing correctly that in order to make its big neighbor more sensitive towards its own concerns like United Nations Security Council, NSG or Masood Azhar, it has to aggressively confront China on issues like Tibet and One-China Policy, which for China are non-negotiable. In fact, the Dalai Lama’s visit may just provide some extra ammunitions to India, which it may leverage to its advantage both at the political and diplomatic levels. Since the 1962 war, not a single shot has been fired along the nearly 3500 km. long disputed border with China, but the Chinese positions on the border has remained unyielding. China claims the entire Arunachal Pradesh as its own territory, being ‘Southern Tibet’. But the Dalai Lama's visit to Tawang undermines Chinese claims and instead strengthens Indian position by imparting legitimacy, which riles China. The origin of the dispute goes back to early 20th century. The 885 km long northern boundary of Arunachal Pradesh today known as the McMahon Line – a bone of contention between India and China, takes its name from Sir Arthur Henry McMahon, Secretary to the Government of India (1911 – 1914).
    [Show full text]
  • समाचार पत्र से चियत अंश Newspapers Clippings
    July 2020 समाचार पत्र से चियत अंश Newspapers Clippings A Daily service to keep DRDO Fraternity abreast with DRDO Technologies, Defence Technologies, Defence Policies, International Relations and Science & Technology Volume: 45 Issue: 1 July 2020 64 15 रक्षा िवज्ञान पुतकालय Defenceरक्षा िवज्ञान Science पुतकालय Library रक्षाDefence वैज्ञािनक सScienceूचना एवं प्रल Libraryेखन क द्र Defence Scientific Information & Documentation Centre रक्षा वैज्ञािनक सूचना एव ं प्रलेखन क द्र Defence Scientificमेटकॉफ Informationहाउस, िदली -& 110 Documentation 054 Centre Metcalfe House, Delhi - 110 054 मेटकॉफ हाउस, िदली - 110 054 Metcalfe House, Delhi- 110 054 CONTENT S. No. TITLE Page No. DRDO News 1-6 COVID-19: DRDO’s Contribution 1-2 1. DRDO develops software tool for tracking Covid patients in quarantine 1 2. DRDO develops software tool for enforcement of quarantine during Covid-19 2 3. Beds to spare at Covid-19 centres as cases decline in Delhi 3 DRDO Technology News 4-6 4. 15 HAL LCH deal by year end….? 4 5. Indian forces to acquire Heron drones, Spike anti-tank guided missiles from Israel 5 6. Army to place repeat order for Spike missiles from Israel 6 Defence News 7-25 Defence Strategic National/International 7-25 7. New ballistic helmets for the Army 7 8. Here's why India's Rafale fighter jet is a better choice for dogfight than Pakistan's 8 US-made F-16 9. Know the Indian Army | Army Air Defence: The 'Sentinel of the Sky' protect air 10 space from low flying enemy aerial attacks 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Siachen: the Non-Issue, by Prakash Katoch
    Siachen: The Non-Issue PC Katoch General Kayani’s call to demilitarise Siachen was no different from a thief in your balcony asking you to vacate your apartment on the promise that he would jump down. The point to note is that both the apartment and balcony are yours and the thief has no business to dictate terms. Musharraf orchestrated the Kargil intrusions as Vajpayee took the bus journey to Lahore, but Kayani’s cunning makes Musharraf look a saint. Abu Jundal alias Syed Zabiuddin an Indian holding an Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) provisioned Pakistani passport has spilled the beans on the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack: its complete planning, training, execution and minute-to-minute directions by the Pakistani military-ISI-LeT (Lashkar-e-Tayyeba) combine. More revealing is the continuing training for similar attacks under the marines in Karachi and elsewhere. The US says Pakistan breeds snakes in its backyard but Pakistan actually beds vipers and enjoys spawning more. If Osama lived in Musharraf’s backyard, isn’t Kayani dining the Hafiz Saeeds and Zaki-Ur- Rehmans, with the Hamid Guls in attendance? His demilitarisation remark post the Gyari avalanche came because maintenance to the Pakistanis on the western slopes of Saltoro was cut off. Yet, the Indians spoke of ‘military hawks’ not accepting the olive branch, recommending that a ‘resurgent’ India can afford to take chances in Siachen. How has Pakistan earned such trust? If we, indeed, had hawks, the cut off Pakistani forces would have been wiped out, following the avalanche. Kashmir Facing the marauding Pakistani hordes in 1947, when Maharaja Hari Singh acceded his state to India, Kashmir encompassed today’s regions of Kashmir Valley, Jammu, Ladakh (all with India), the Northern Areas, Gilgit-Baltistan, Lieutenant General PC Katoch (Retd) is former Director General, Information Systems, Army HQ and a Delhi-based strategic analyst.
    [Show full text]
  • China and Kashmir* Buildup Along the Indo-Pak Border in 2002 (Called Operation Parakram in India)
    China and Kashmir* buildup along the Indo-Pak border in 2002 (called Operation Parakram in India). Even if the case may by JABIN T. Jacob be made that such support to Pakistan has strength- ened Pakistan’s hands on the Kashmir dispute, it is difficult to draw a direct link between the twists and turns in the Kashmir situation and Chinese arms supplies to Pakistan. Further, China has for over two Perceptions about the People’s Republic of China’s decades consistently called for a peaceful resolution position on Kashmir have long been associated with of the Kashmir dispute, terming it a dispute “left over its “all-weather” friendship with Pakistan. However, from history.” Both during Kargil and Operation the PRC’s positions on Kashmir have never been Parakram, China refused to endorse the Pakistani consistently pro-Pakistan, instead changing from positions or to raise the issue at the United Nations. disinterest in the 1950s to open support for the Paki- Coupled with rising trade and the continuing border stani position in the subsequent decades to greater dialogue between India and China, this has given rise neutrality in the 1980s and since. While China has to hopes in India that the Kashmir dispute will no China’s positions on continued military support to Pakistan even during longer be a card the Chinese will use against it. Kashmir have never been military conflicts and near-conflicts between India and Pakistan, its stance on Kashmir has shifted consistently pro-Pakistan, gradually in response to the prevailing domestic, China and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir instead changing from dis- regional, and international situations.
    [Show full text]
  • CHINA and INDIA: a RIVALRY TAKES SHAPE by Harsh V
    Foreign Policy Research Institute E-Notes A Catalyst for Ideas Distributed via Email and Posted at www.fpri.org June 2011 CHINA AND INDIA: A RIVALRY TAKES SHAPE By Harsh V. Pant Harsh V. Pant is Reader in International Relations at King’s College London in the Department of Defence Studies. He is also an associate with the King’s Centre for Science and Security Studies and an affiliate with the King’s India Institute. His current research is focused on Asia-Pacific security and defense issues. His latest book is The US-India Nuclear Pact: Policy, Process, and Great Power Politics (Oxford University Press, 2011). With the world riveted by Chinese aggressiveness against Japan and Southeast Asian states in recent months, one country has not been surprised: India. After all, New Delhi has been grappling with the challenge of China’s rapid rise for some time now. Bilateral ties between China and India nosedived so dramatically in 2009 that Indian strategists were even predicting “the year of the Chinese attack on India”; it was suggested that China would attack India by 2012 primarily to divert attention from its growing domestic troubles. This suggestion received widespread coverage in the Indian media, which was more interested in sensationalizing the issue than interrogating the claims. Meanwhile, the official Chinese media picked up the story and gave it another spin. It argued that while a Chinese attack on India is highly unlikely, a conflict between the two neighbors could occur in one scenario: an aggressive Indian policy toward China about their border dispute, forcing China to take military action.
    [Show full text]
  • China's Influence on Conflict Dynamics in South Asia
    USIP SENIOR STUDY GROUP FINAL REPORT China’s Influence on Conflict Dynamics in South Asia DECEMBER 2020 | NO. 4 USIP Senior Study Group Report This report is the fourth in USIP’s Senior Study Group (SSG) series on China’s influence on conflicts around the world. It examines how Beijing’s growing presence is affecting political, economic, and security trends in South Asia and the Indian Ocean region. The bipartisan group was comprised of senior experts, former policymakers, and retired diplomats. They met six times by videoconference over the course of 2020 to examine how an array of issues—from military affairs to border disputes, trade and development, and cultural issues—come together to shape and be shaped by Chinese involvement. The group members drew from their deep individual experiences working in and advising the US government to generate a set of top-level findings and actionable policy recommen- dations. Unless otherwise sourced, all observations and conclusions are those of the SSG members. Cover illustration by Alex Zaitsev/Shutterstock The views expressed in this report are those of the members of the Senior Study Group alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Institute of Peace. An online edition of this and related reports can be found on our website (www.usip.org), together with additional information on the subject. © 2020 by the United States Institute of Peace United States Institute of Peace 2301 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20037 Phone: 202.457.1700 Fax: 202.429.6063 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.usip.org First published December 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • The Crisis After the Crisis: How Ladakh Will Shape India's Competition with China
    ANALYSIS The Crisis after the Crisis: How Ladakh will Shape India’s Competition with China ARZAN TARAPORE MAY 2021 THE CRISIS AFTER THE CRISIS: HOW LADAKH WILL SHAPE INDIA’S COMPETITION WITH CHINA The Lowy Institute is an independent policy think tank. Its mandate ranges across all the dimensions of international policy debate in Australia — economic, political and strategic — and it is not limited to a particular geographic region. Its two core tasks are to: • produce distinctive research and fresh policy options for Australia’s international policy and to contribute to the wider international debate • promote discussion of Australia’s role in the world by providing an accessible and high-quality forum for discussion of Australian international relations through debates, seminars, lectures, dialogues and conferences. Lowy Institute Analyses are short papers analysing recent international trends and events and their policy implications. The views expressed in this paper are entirely the authors’ own and not those of the Lowy Institute. ANALYSIS THE CRISIS AFTER THE CRISIS: HOW LADAKH WILL SHAPE INDIA’S COMPETITION WITH CHINA KEY FINDINGS • The still-unresolved Ladakh crisis has created a new strategic reality for India, marked by renewed political hostility with China, and an increased militarization of the Line of Actual Control. • This new strategic reality imposes unequal costs on India and China. India is likely to defer much-needed military modernization and maritime expansion into the Indian Ocean – which would impair its ability to compete strategically with China. • In contrast, China incurred only marginal material costs; it was probably more concerned with the prospect of continued deterioration in its relationship with India.
    [Show full text]
  • SINO-INDIAN BORDER DISPUTE at AKSAI CHIN a MIDDLE PATH for RESOLUTION Colonel ®Virendra Sahai Verma
    http://chinaindiaborderdispute.wordpress.com - Virendra Verma [email protected] SINO-INDIAN BORDER DISPUTE AT AKSAI CHIN A MIDDLE PATH FOR RESOLUTION Colonel ®Virendra Sahai Verma Paper provided by the author for the online archive at http:// chinaindiaborderdispute.wordpress.com in May 2010. Author’s email [email protected] “I look forward to the day when a free India and a free China will co-operate together in friendship and brotherhood for their own good and for the good of Asia and the World.” Mahatma Gandhi to Chiang Kai Shek 1 Issues of Contention 1.India: China illegally occupying:- North East Ladakh: sq km 38,000 Central Sector: sq km 2100 (Kaurik, Shipkila, Pulam, Sumdo,Jadhang,Barahoti) Ceded by Pak to China: sq km 5180 Total 45,280 2.China India ‘illegally’ occupying in Arunachal Pradesh: sq km 90,000 2 3. Tibet: India had in the past underlined China’s ‘suzerainty’ ( as opposed to sovereignty) over Tibet. During June 2003 visit of Prime Minister Vajpayee’s India recognized ‘Tibet Autonomous Region’ as part of territory of Republic of China. It was done to accelerate the process of border settlement and resolve Sikkim issue. Progress in the Border Talks The setting up of Joint Working Groups in 1988 as a result of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s visit was the first serious step to negotiate the border issue. Earlier both sides seem to be happy in expanding relationship without focusing on difficult boundary dispute. The JWG was to determine the ‘Line of Actual Control’ ( LAC) in western and central sectors. In eastern sector the troops are deployed generally on either side of Mc Mahon line .It was an important beginning as both sides did not have a mutually acceptable understanding where their troops hold ground on the border.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating India-China Tactical Military Standoff Through Strategic Lens
    1 EVALUATING INDIA-CHINA TACTICAL MILITARY STANDOFF THROUGH STRATEGIC LENS * Dr. Ahmed Saeed Minhas, Dr. Farhat Konain Shujahi and Dr. Raja Qaiser Ahmed Abstract India and China are two big neighbours by all respects, may it be geography, military might, natural resources, leading international engagements, armed forces in terms of quality, aspirations for global dominance, vibrant economy, plausible market and above all nuclear weapons states. India since its inception has not been under normal strategic relations with China. The international border between India and China has yet to be formalized and thus still termed as Line of Actual Control (LAC). In May 2020, the two sides had a face-off in Ladakh area having potential of spiralling up to uncontrollable limits, if not immediately, in future for sure. India under its hardliner nationalist political leadership is looking for regional hegemony with due American political, military and diplomatic support. India by strengthening its military infrastructure at Ladakh in Western Indian Held Kashmir (IHK) is suspected to build a jump-off point to check China-Pakistan Economic Corridor moving through Pakistani Gilgit Baltistan (GB) area. The tactical level Indo-China stand-off in Ladakh has strategic implications for South Asian peace and stability. Keywords: Kashmir, Line of Actual Control (LAC), India-China Rivalry, China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), and Strategic Stability. Introduction ndo-China bilateral relations have come to a standstill which over a period of time I had remained veiled with limited face valued engagements at different levels. Although, in the past India and China had summit level meetings having main agenda of addressing territorial disputes.
    [Show full text]
  • SINO‐INDIAN BORDER DISPUTES R R I T O R I a L D I S Analysis
    Analysis No. 181, June 2013 SINO‐INDIAN BORDER DISPUTES Hongzhou Zhang and Mingjiang Li Sino‐Indian relations have been marred by their territorial disputes in the past decades. Tensions and disputes in the border region are likely to continue to occur from time to time in the foreseeable future, but the two countries have demonstrated strong political will and incentives not to allow the disputes to hijack their bilateral ties. Hongzhou Zhang and Mingjiang Li are senior research analyst and associate professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University respectively ©ISPI2013 1 The opinions expressed herein are strictly personal and do not necessarily reflect the position of ISPI. The ISPI online papers are also published with the support of Cariplo Introduction In April 2013, tensions erupted between India and China over their Himalayan border. India accused Chinese troops of having crossed the Line of Actual Control (LAC) by setting up camp in Indian-claimed territory. In response, Indian forces set up their own camp 300 meters opposite the Chinese facility. Initially, China attempted to play down the tensions by denying the allegations. Beijing claimed that Chinese troops had observed the agreement between the two countries since they did not cross the LAC. Facing strong pressure from the opposition political parties and media, India’s ruling government insisted on settling the incident peacefully through diplomatic means. Eventually, the dispute was peacefully resolved when both sides withdrew their troops. The incident once again highlighted the volatility of Sino-Indian relations. Understanding its volatile nature requires an exploration of the interplay of various factors: geopolitical realities in Asia, the historical legacies in bilateral ties, trade and other economic interests, domestic politics in both countries, the pursuit of common global concerns, and of course, the border disputes.
    [Show full text]