The Roots and Implications of the India-China Border Dispute in Ladakh

The security dilemma, a well-established construct in international relations theory, is pivotal for understanding the intricacies of the Sino-Indian relationship. In a world without a central governing authority, states often find themselves in a paradox where attempts to increase their own security can inadvertently lead to greater insecurity. The security dilemma is particularly relevant for countries like India and China, which not only share a contentious border but are also deeply intertwined economically.

The India-China relationship today is weighed down by a tense and protracted border standoff in the Ladakh region. The roots of this dispute go back decades, shaped by history and unresolved border disagreements [1]. With tensions flaring in 2020 leading to the first deadly clash in 45 years, the crisis merits deeper analysis - particularly on the strategic stakes involved, why diplomatic talks have hit a roadblock, and whether de-escalation is possible.

Background of the Boundary Dispute

India and China share a long and contested frontier spanning nearly 3500 km across the Himalayas, with large segments remaining disputed [2]. The origins of this territorial dispute date back to colonial-era contestations around the Tibet-India border between British Indian officials and the Qing Empire. After India's independence in 1947, Nehru's government inherited these colonial boundary claims [3]. The 1962 Sino-Indian war represented a flashpoint, with Chinese forces making decisive territorial gains especially in the Aksai Chin region [4]. The 1993-96 India-China agreement on Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) helped maintain relative calm along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) over the last few decades [5]. However, the dispute remained unsettled, with border patrols and infrastructure development by both sides continuing periodically leading to tense flareups like the 2013 Depsang incident [6]. The ambiguity around demarcating the LAC has further complicated border management and resolving perceived transgressions.

The Escalation Of Ladakh Crisis

The current crisis erupted in May 2020 with Chinese and Indian soldiers clashing at multiple points in Ladakh, such as the Pangong Tso and the Galwan Valley [7]. Unlike previous localized flareups, this standoff was significantly larger in scale and led to the first combat deaths along the LAC since 1975 with several Indian and an undisclosed number of Chinese soldiers killed in Galwan [8]. Despite extensive military-diplomatic talks over 18 months, complete disengagement has not yet occurred. As of late 2022, both armies still have frontline deployments estimated at over 50,000 troops and advanced capabilities like artillery and armor [9].

Strategic Drivers behind China's Assertiveness and India's Response

What explains the intensity and intractability of the current Ladakh crisis? Several geostrategic factors provide context on Chinese motivations and India's response:

• Consolidating territorial claims: China continues claiming around 90,000 sq km of disputed lands in Ladakh, including Aksai Chin and parts of Shaksgam Valley ceded by Pakistan [10]. Continued hardening of control over these frontiers remains an prime objective of the Chinese.

• Countering India's rise: As India builds economic and strategic ties with the US, Japan and others, China perceives a policy of containment. Assertiveness in Ladakh is meant to deter India's regional influence [3]

• Balancing India's infrastructure growth: China perceives India's ramping up of connectivity infrastructure near the LAC as an attempt to unilaterally change the status quo [11]. The crisis allows Beijing to signal its resolve against further Indian road/airfield construction.

• Signaling deterrence: With India developing capabilities like Rafale fighters and consolidating its hold over territories like Siachen, China seeks to convey coercive messages through shows of strength across the LAC [12].

• Leverage amidst rising tensions: Wider strategic tensions driven by factors like the Quad alliance, India's banning of Chinese apps after the Galwan clash, and differences over the Ukraine war have also influenced the Ladakh impasse [13]. The continued border crisis provides Beijing some diplomatic leverage.

• Xi Jinping's centralized control: Xi has consolidated paramount authority and emphasized rejuvenating China as a great power. Standing firm on territorial disputes is important for his hyper-nationalist domestic agenda.

The combination of these motivations has driven China's aggressive probing efforts across the LAC which also reflects President Xi Jinping's emphasis on reasserting control over disputed peripheries [14]. Furthermore, China stakes claims and pursues control over contested territories like Arunachal Pradesh, Ladakh and Aksai Chin for symbolic nation-building purposes and to secure buffers from Indian forces. Its steady construction of outposts, roads and bases across disputed areas demonstrates intent to consolidate control. Regionally, China's desire to be the predominant power drives military expansion into the Indian Ocean and diplomatic efforts to isolate India from neighbors. This reflects ideological ambitions more than reactions to India's expenditure on infrastructure and military's modernization.

What took China by surprise was India's sophisticated response to Chinese incursions in Ladakh. China's miscalculation in 2020 was met by a firm and sophisticated Indian response across military, economic, and diplomatic domains. India matched the PLA's troop buildup in Ladakh and mobilized additional forces to signal deterrent intent while adopting a defensive posture to prevent any further Chinese ingression. At the negotiation table, New Delhi repeatedly advocated dialogue but refused Chinese preconditions that linked border de-escalation to wider bilateral ties. India also leveraged its special mountain forces to secure tactical heights on the Kailash Range overlooking Chinese positions. This provided invaluable leverage. Recognizing the risks of strategic over-reliance on China, India raised trade barriers, banned Chinese apps and excluded Huawei from 5G trials – imposing economic costs for China's aggression. In effect, India successfully refused to cede ground despite the PLA's coercive pressure tactics.

Diplomatic Dilemmas

With both sides amassing troops and hardware in close proximity across Eastern Ladakh, the risks of accidental escalation remain high. Yet talks between diplomats and military commanders have hit a wall, for several reasons:

• Differing perceptions on LAC alignment: The absence of mutually accepted reference points makes reaching consensus on disengagement areas contentious [15].

• Clashing principles on resolving the dispute: India favors defining the LAC first before discussing wider boundary settlement, while China adopts a reverse sequencing focusing on an overall settlement [16].

• Linkage with wider bilateral tensions: Beijing has highlighted resolving the Ladakh situation as a precondition for normalizing broader ties, which New Delhi opposes [17].

• Domestic nationalistic constraints: Jingoistic pressures in both countries also constrain the concessions negotiators can offer, limiting progress.

With neither side appearing willing to unilaterally pull back forces across friction points like Demchok and Depsang, a prolonged military stalemate persists. Talks have produced some limited disengagement around Pangong Tso, but de-escalation remains incomplete [18]. Domestic political transitions in China ahead of the 20th Party Congress may also inhibit near-term progress.

The Complex Web of Economic Inter-Dependency and The Security Dilemma in Economic Actions

Sino-Indian economic relations are a labyrinthine mix of interdependency and competition. While trade between the two nations stood at around $81.87 billion in 2019, the nature of this trade presents challenges for disentanglement.

Economists like those from the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT) argue for a measured approach to reducing economic reliance on China. India imports about 45% of its bulk drug materials and 50% of its consumer electronics from China. A rapid severance of these supply chains could lead to economic disruption and societal upheaval. For instance, the pharmaceutical industry would need between 5-10 years to build domestic production capabilities to the scale currently imported from China.

Contrastingly, some experts advocate for immediate economic disengagement. Economist Swaminathan Gurumurthy argues that abrupt import substitution can benefit India, much like when trade ties were cut with the UK in the 1950s. According to Gateway House analysts, India already has the manufacturing capabilities in 450 specific product categories, suggesting that swift imposition of tariffs could stimulate domestic production.

In the context of the security dilemma, economic actions can also have security implications. India's initiatives like import substitution and domestic defense manufacturing could be perceived as strategic encirclement by China, potentially inviting economic or military retaliation. For instance, tariffs on Chinese goods may lead to increased Chinese maritime or border patrols. This reinforces the spiral of the security dilemma, where defensive economic policies could escalate into military confrontations.

Prospects for Resolution?

Can diplomacy deliver more substantive de-escalation, or will the Ladakh crisis become a permanent frontier flashpoint? A cautious optimism prevails in India around resolving the standoff without further bloodshed [19]. But this will require addressing complex challenges:

• Pursuing interim dialogue on crisis management protocols without diluting respective territorial positions.

• Agreeing on buffer zones and limited pullbacks could facilitate de-induction.

• Aligning the LAC through joint surveying and mapping to build mutual understanding on disputed segments. This can aid managing perceived transgressions.

• Decoupling border talks from wider bilateral tensions. Keeping other irritants like trade disputes and technology rivalry insulated could enable constructive negotiations.

• Opting for an incremental approach focused on attaining interim confidence-building targets, rather than an elusive comprehensive settlement.

While a durable LAC settlement may not be imminent, New Delhi and Beijing have mechanisms like special representative talks and agreements like the 1993 peace and tranquility accord to implement interim de-escalatory steps [20]. But this will require political will and base-level public trust currently eroded by bellicose media narratives in both nations.

The presence of India and China together within the BRICS forum provides a venue to strengthen economic ties and political coordination between the rising powers beyond bilateral forums alone. BRICS represents over 40% of world population and 25% of global GDP, offering substantial opportunity for co-led development initiatives, trade partnerships, and integration of technology standards (BRICS 2022). As BRICS members, India and China share leadership in shaping the group's agenda around issues like public health, digital economy, and sustainable industry. This incentivizes cooperation despite geopolitical tensions. BRICS also provides a multilateral arena for sustained diplomatic engagement. The annual leadership summits and regular working-group meetings facilitate continued high-level dialogue and confidence building aside from bilateral diplomacy surrounding border disputes. Using BRICS to deepen non-security ties may help temper zero-sum rivalry dynamics and build habits of partnership, creating more space for composing larger disputes.

In sum, the India-China relationship is a complex interplay of security dilemma dynamics and deliberate strategic objectives. While both countries are caught in reactive spirals, China's actions also reflect long-term strategic aims that are independent of India's posture. Thus, diplomatic efforts alone may not suffice unless they address China's broader, asymmetric ambitions. Understanding this nuanced relationship requires a comprehensive approach that considers military, economic, and multilateral dimensions. With balanced diplomacy and pragmatism, further flareups along the Ladakh border can be mitigated, strengthening prospects for negotiated peace.

References:

[1] Madan, Tanvi. "The Unsettled Boundary: Understanding the roots of the India–China border flare-up." Brookings India Impact Series (2020)

[2] Zeitler, Franz-Stefan. "The tortuous path of India-China boundary settlement and the China-India boundary question." Journal of Contemporary China 28, no. 117 (2019): 464-479.

[3] Maxwell, Neville. "Sino-Indian border dispute revisited." Economic and Political Weekly (1999): 1705-1717.

[4] Calvin, James Barnard. "The China-India border war." Marine Corps Command and Staff College (1984).

[5] Singh, Swaran. "India–China border management: A view from New Delhi." Journal of Contemporary China 28, no. 117 (2019): 612-627.

[6] Pubby, Manu. "Increased patrolling in focusing Points in eastern Ladakh." The Economic Times (2013).

[7] Shukla, Ajai. "Ladakh standoff: The anatomy of a crisis, and opportunities." India Strategic 2 (2020).

[8] Peri, Dinakar. "Galwan clash leads to India and China reinforcing troops, tanks and artillery in Ladakh." The Hindu (2020).

[9] Mohan, C. Raja. "The Long Haul Ahead for China–India Disengagement." ORF Occasional Paper No. 301 (2022)

[10] Gupta, Sourabh. "China’s Crafty and Calibrated Game in Ladakh." Indian Defense Review 35, no. 3 (2020).

[11] Garver, John W. "China's Kashmir Policies." India Review 4, no. 1 (2005): 1-24.

[12] Mohan, C. Raja. "India gets ready to counter China in the Himalayas." East Asia Forum 12 (2020).

[13] Swaminathan, SR. "China–India relations: Convergence and divergence." Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs 7, no. 2 (2020): 158-175.

[14] Ramachandran, Sudha. "Xi Jinping’s Overreach in Ladakh may backfire." The Diplomat 18 (2020).

[15] Raghavan, V. R. "LAC standoff | India and China: How wide is the perception gap?" The Hindu (2020).

[16] Jaishankar, S. "India-China Relations: The Way Forward after the Pandemic." DS544 .S54 E53 2020

[17] Singh, Abhijnan Rej."After quad, India should consistently counter China’s bullying tactics." Hindustan Times (2022).

[18] "India, China agree to hold 12th round of talks at an early date to achieve complete disengagement in eastern Ladakh: Joint statement." The Times of India (2021).

[19] Madan, Tanvi. "The unsettled boundary: Understanding the roots of the India-China Border flare-up." ORF Occasional Paper No. 289 (2021).

[20] Parthasarathy, G. "India and China: Conflict or Cooperation? A perspective from New Delhi." RSIS Commentaries, No. 092. 2020.