The contemporary narrative of India-China relations, defined by border disputes and diplomatic tensions, remains a crucial topic, particularly in relation to the preparations for Preliminary and Main Exams. A recent development signifies China’s objection to the war games between India and the United States near the disputed Sino-India border, citing it as an interference in the bilateral boundary issue. Although unconfirmed officially, it is expected that these two countries will engage in the 18th edition of the “Yudh Abhyas” at Auli, Uttarakhand this October, situated approximately 100km from the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
Why Does China Oppose the Military Drill near LAC?
China asserts that both countries have agreed not to conduct any military drill near LAC, the de facto border between India and China. They have referred to two agreements signed in 1993 and 1996, claiming that this exercise breaches their terms. Both the agreements dictate that the two sides need to maintain minimal forces along the LAC regions. However, the determination of ‘minimum level’ is undefined in these agreements. In addition, until a final solution to the boundary question is reached, both sides are required to respect the LAC strictly. Firearm use on the LAC is also stringently regulated under these agreements.
The Significance of Yudh Abhyas
Yudh Abhyas is a significant bi-lateral endeavor; it represents the most extensive ongoing joint military training and defence cooperation effort between India and the US — initiated in 2004 under the US Army Pacific Partnership Program. The mission intends to improve understanding, cooperation, and interoperability between the armies of two countries, further enabling them to execute joint operations efficiently. Battalion-level operations within challenging mountainous terrains under cold climatic conditions are the primary focus here carried out under the ambit of the United Nations.
Identifying Points of Contention
The primary disagreements lie in the western sector. Following the 1962 War, the Chinese claimed to have withdrawn 20 km behind the LAC in November 1959. The border in the eastern sector mainly coincides with the McMahon Line, while the boundary in the western and middle sectors aligns with the traditional customary line outlined by China. However, during the Doklam crisis in 2017, India rejected China’s proposition to abide by the “1959 LAC”, expressing concerns about the vague definition of Chinese lines and potential implications due to China’s attempts to alter facts on the ground using military force.
Recent Issues and Developments between India and China
In recent years, tensions escalated between India and China. In May 2020, a clash occurred between Chinese and Indian forces at Nathu La, Sikkim. June of the same year saw a standoff in Pangong Tso, Galwan Valley, Demchok, and Daulat Beg Oldie in Eastern Ladakh. In response, India banned 59 apps originating from China that June and then blocked 43 more mostly Chinese mobile apps that November under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. On the development front, India and China reached a disengagement agreement at Pangong Lake in February 2021, marking a significant step towards ending the standoff ongoing since May 2020.
Understanding the Line of Actual Control
The Line of Actual Control (LAC) demarcates Indian-controlled territory from Chinese-controlled territory. While India acknowledges the LAC to be 3,488 km long, China asserts it to be approximately 2,000 km. The LAC is divided into three sectors, encompassing areas within Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Ladakh. This demarcation should not be confused with the Line of Control (LoC) with Pakistan, which unlike LAC, holds international sanctity as a legal agreement.
Way Forward
As two burgeoning economies, India and China need to maintain peaceful co-development, promoting mutual progress over erecting barriers against each other. Advancing boundary talks, building up mutual trust, and achieving tranquility in border areas are crucial for forward movement in their relationship. As these nations navigate this delicate balance, their actions will have significant implications, shaping the geopolitical and economic landscape of Asia in the coming years.
