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).