The recent agreement between India and China on managing the Line of Actual Control (LAC) has sparked cautious optimism, but also deep skepticism within India's strategic circles. Reached after multiple rounds of talks, the agreement aims to establish protocols for troop disengagement along the Ladakh border and to prevent clashes similar to the 2020 Galwan Valley incident. However, historical precedents and a pattern of overlooking past agreements by China have made India wary of this development, realizing that peace with Beijing could be short-lived.
A Troubled History of Agreements
India and China have a long history of border disputes, rooted in territorial claims over regions like Aksai Chin, Ladakh, and Arunachal Pradesh. Over the decades, both nations have signed various agreements aimed at de-escalation and border management, including the 1993 "Agreement on the Maintenance of Peace and Tranquility," the 1996 "Agreement on Confidence-Building Measures in the Military Field," and the 2005 "Agreement on Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the India-China Boundary Question."
Yet, despite these accords, China's repeated violations have undermined trust. The most recent, the Galwan clash in 2020, resulted in the first fatalities at the border in decades. This, despite existing protocols that explicitly called for de-escalation. The situation echoed earlier episodes of Chinese deception, most notably the 1962 war, where China, after giving guarantees of peaceful intentions, suddenly and without any provocation, invaded.
China’s Trust Deficit: A Pattern of Deception
China's track record in dealing with India, and globally, demonstrates its opportunism and disregard for agreements when they no longer suit its strategic goals. For instance, despite the 1993 and 1996 agreements aimed at maintaining peace along the LAC, China has continued aggressive border patrols, infrastructure build-up, and unilateral declarations of "new" territories. Even as China signed peace agreements with India, it has built extensive military infrastructure along the border, a tactic that became evident during the Doklam standoff in 2017, where China attempted to alter the status quo at the Bhutan-India-China tri-junction.
Globally, too, China has shown a tendency to break international norms and treaties. Its militarization of the South China Sea, in violation of international maritime law, and its failure to uphold trade agreements with nations like Australia and the U.S., are clear examples of its transactional approach to diplomacy. These actions highlight the global trust deficit that surrounds China’s foreign policy, making it clear that India must tread carefully with any agreement involving Beijing.
Exploiting Geopolitical Shifts: China’s Tactical Maneuvers
China's renewed engagement with India, through this border agreement, is not a coincidence but a calculated move. China is seeking to exploit the growing geopolitical tensions that India faces, particularly with the United States. The rift between India and the West has widened over several issues, including the recent diplomatic row with Canada over Khalistani terrorism, the perceived backing of secessionist elements by the U.S., and the West's pressure on Bangladesh to align with American strategic interests.
The U.S. has historically harbored interests in the Khalistani movement as a tool to weaken India’s internal cohesion, much like the backing of separatist movements in other countries to fulfill its broader strategic agenda. The recent statements by Mizoram’s Chief Minister in the U.S., hinting at the possibility of creating a separate entity in India's North-East, add weight to the theory that Western powers may continue to encourage divisive forces within India. As India watches the increasing U.S. involvement in Bangladesh, including attempts to secure a military base near India’s northeastern borders, New Delhi is understandably concerned about external pressure on its territorial integrity.
China, well aware of this mistrust between India and the West, is positioning itself as a more cooperative neighbor to capitalize on India's potential diplomatic estrangement. This shift in Chinese tactics reflects Beijing’s larger strategic goal of keeping the western border with India relatively peaceful, allowing it to concentrate its resources on an impending confrontation with Taiwan and the U.S. in the Pacific. The Taiwan issue remains a core Chinese objective, and Beijing’s leadership likely views peace with India as a necessary tactical pause, rather than a permanent solution.
The Threat of Renewed Aggression in the North
However, the danger of China turning its attention back to India after securing its position in Taiwan cannot be ignored. China’s long-term ambitions in Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh align with its "Five Fingers of Tibet" strategy, which views Tibet as the "palm" and nearby regions—including Arunachal, Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, and Bhutan—as strategic “fingers.” By asserting claims over these areas, China aims to solidify control over Tibet and extend its regional influence. Therefore, while the current peace agreement may provide short-term stability, India cannot afford to lower its guard.
The situation along the LAC remains tense, with India’s Army Chief openly stating that the ground realities are far from "normal." The peace agreement might help defuse the immediate crisis, but trust remains the biggest casualty of China's persistent unpredictability.
Russia’s Role and the BRICS Dynamic
Amid this complex geopolitical chessboard, Russia plays a critical role as both an ally of China and a partner to India. The Russia-Ukraine war has diminished Moscow's influence on the global stage, leading to its increased reliance on China. However, as a member of BRICS, Russia also seeks stability among its key partners, India and China. Russian President Vladimir Putin could emerge as a mediator in keeping the India-China conflict in check, at least for the short term.
BRICS has emerged as a platform for strategic collaboration, but its future success hinges on the ability of its members to maintain internal stability. While Russia may push for a cooling of tensions between India and China, the peace achieved under such circumstances is unlikely to last. Once China's focus shifts back to its unresolved territorial ambitions in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh, the fragile peace could quickly unravel.
Conclusion: Caution Amid Temporary Peace
India must approach the recent agreement with China on the LAC with extreme caution. While the immediate goal of preventing border skirmishes may be achieved, the broader geopolitical context suggests that China’s strategic ambitions have not changed. Its pattern of disregarding agreements, both with India and globally, reinforces the need for vigilance. Moreover, as tensions between India and the West continue to simmer, China may seek to exploit this situation to its advantage.
With the specter of a Taiwan conflict looming large and China's long-term interest in India’s northern territories, the current peace may be nothing more than a strategic pause for Beijing. India, therefore, must strengthen its defenses, build regional alliances, and remain prepared for future challenges from both China and the broader geopolitical landscape.
Comentários