“Our understanding of China is not adequate”
We must understand that Ladakh has a strategic value for the country considering it borders with Pakistan, Afghanistan and China.
Professor Phunchok Stobdan is a well-known strategic analyst and an expert on the Himalayan affairs. In this interview he spoke to Aasha Khosa on the current confrontation between India and China. Excerpts:
Will the Galwan Valley clash be a watershed event for India’s foreign policy?
If one goes through the popular discourse emerging after the clash in the Eastern Ladakh it should become a watershed moment for India’s foreign policy. It should make us completely align with the US and give up the notion of a multi-polar world. However, I don’t know about the thinking in the government but all indicators are that the government is decisive. Now, it can be said that China has pushed India into the US lobby. Going by opinion and information flowing in, I look back and realize that our 30-40 years of engagement with China hasn’t given us the desired results except for trade relations. Even in the trade nothing is in our favour. Overall, people think this engagement has not worked satisfactorily.
India has maintained a level of non- alignment even in the days of the bipolar world; would India be ready to give it up now?
The USA has been looking for an opportunity for this [India to align openly with it]. Our thinking is that we are left behind in the race for development and technological advances against China which is way ahead of us. We have a lot of catching up to do and [the] greater sense is that we are looking for every opportunity to catch up with China. By being aligned with the USA, a certain amount of balance can be achieved in this.
India’s engagement with the USA, I believe, is process-driven, that had begun in 2005 with Dr Manmohan Singh signing the agreement whereby the USA accepted India as a nuclear power without even signing the NPT (non-proliferation treaty). Every government signed more bilateral agreements on cooperation with the USA.
How did the border dispute with China evolve?
The flashpoint between India and China reached in the later 1950s when there was a revolt by the Tibetans against China’s rule. It is believed that the US had played a big role there. Mind you India’s border is not with China; it’s with Tibet. In 1949 the Chinese Communist Party took control of Tibet. We always had good relations with China. Even after gaining independence and Beijing taking control of Tibet, Prime Minister Nehru signed the Panchsheel Agreement with China in 1954 which, among other things, talked about resolving the boundary issue peacefully though it was an easy task.
Back then there was no geopolitics involved in the India – China relationship. It was only after the failed revolt in Lhasa, when the Dalai Lama and his followers came to India that the tension between India and China began to increase that led to war in 1962 and [made] the border issue much more difficult to resolve. Clearly, the answer to all the problems lies in resolving the Tibetan issue either by China internally or through a dialogue with others.
What do the Chinese want precisely?
The problem is that our narrative of border politics and border relations are based on a flawed sense of history.
In our discourse we do not factor the history of our Himalayan region including the history of Ladakh to define the limits of boundary with Tibet-China. Whereas, Chinese are making the basis of their territorial claims based on the Tibetan-Manchu history.
There is a confusion here. I believe we are being played into the Chinese hand.
We have to protect our Himalayan Buddhist region and prevent them [from] becoming another Tibet.
India has kept the Tibet issue hanging for long. Either we accept Tibet to be an independent country or give up the ambiguity. Otherwise, the borders will become more fuzzy and blurry.
Where is the disconnect between what China thinks and what we think?
Our understanding of China is not adequate. It should be based on a deeper understanding of Chinese history and cultural roots and not simply viewed through a mechanical way of understanding. This is the only way we can still win over China.
I think that the British strategic thinkers were better able to understand the India-China border landscape.
After Galwan is there any hope left in Sino-China relations?
I think after the Galwan attack we can never become friends with China again. Yet, both India and China have to sit together and start negotiating for a permanent solution even if it means through a grand bargaining.
Why is the worst yet to come?
Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru faced a dilemma on what should be the parameters of the boundary between India and China after Tibet’s takeover by the [Chinese] Communist Party in 1949. One option for him was to go by customary treaties like the Ladakh-Tibet treaty of 1684 and 1842. Ladakh was a kingdom back then or later ruled by the Maharaja of Kashmir. There was also a treaty between Tibet and Sikkim of 1890.
The other was to accept the line drawn by the British that was based on Himalayan watersheds principle. The Chinese have not accepted the British line. But in pursuing the old customary treaties, India was to lose more territory.
In fact, in the post-Independence period when India asked the Tibetan authority in Lhasa to define the Tibet-India boundary, they instead asked New Delhi to return all the Tibetan areas in the Himalayan hitherto ruled by the British to Tibet.
I think that the Chinese even after over seventy years, are trying to revisit the old customary treaties that Tibetan government under the Manchu rule signed with various Indian Himalayan kingdoms.
The problem is also compounded by overlapping of culture and beliefs. For example, the re-born theory is not bound by national boundaries.
You will never be able to understand the issue without going into the depths of these; we will never understand the asymmetric strategic game and the game of culture and civilization.
How does one change the approach to China?
As I mentioned, we haven’t been able to get a hard understanding of China, The Chinese on the other hand have been understanding Indian for 2,000 years.
I am not talking about understanding in the military sense or in contemporary political sense.
In the past, India dominated China for over 2,000 years; Chinese were our pupils, we ruled over them without using a gun.
Communism, capitalism may come and go but it doesn’t change civilizations. Isn’t it a fact that 600 million Chinese are potentially Buddhists who pay their spiritual allegiance to the land of Buddha? Because of some rogue elements in the PLA we do not have to annoy millions of Chinese who have a different outlook towards India.
How is Ladakh taking it?
The people of Ladakh always stood with the country against all odds and during the war India fought with China and Pakistan.
However, Ladakh has been neglected for 70 years and it was left at the mercy of Kashmiri leadership who have their own obsessions and interests. After August 5, there is some change. However, there are implications of strategic external policy dimensions on Ladakh. We must understand that Ladakh has a strategic value for the country considering it borders with Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. Even Central Asian states are not far away from Ladakh. Our posturing in Ladakh has been very defensive and methodology is not correct.
Ladakh is a solid geostrategic region of the country and not a municipality town to be handled by bureaucrats alone. The people there should be empowered. They are the best to handle borders.
It seems Russia is showing interest in helping us resolve our dispute with China. They have done it for themselves by ceding some land to China in return for settling the issue.
The Russians don’t have leverage with China. The dispute between India and China is not going to be resolved very soon since it’s complex. It requires India and China to talk seriously without external factors.
