During the 15th BRICS Summit, held recently, the Indian Prime Minister and the Chinese President engaged in discussions aimed at ramping up efforts to achieve swift disengagement and de-escalation along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in eastern Ladakh. This renewed commitment has directed attention towards the operational strategies being devised by military commanders on the ground for the withdrawal of troops. The LAC serves as the dividing line between areas controlled by India and those under Chinese control. It spans three sectors: the eastern sector encompassing Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim, the middle sector covering Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, and the western sector situated in Ladakh.
Differing Perspectives on the LAC: India’s Claim vs. China’s Claim
India and China differ in their assessments of the LAC’s length and positioning. India asserts that the LAC stretches 3,488 km, whereas China maintains a view of it spanning around 2,000 km. Crucially, India’s perspective encompasses both Aksai Chin and Gilgit-Baltistan, as indicated in official boundary maps issued by the Survey of India. China’s approach aligns the LAC with its territorial claims, except in the eastern sector where it lays claim to the entirety of Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet.
LAC vs. Line of Control (LoC)
Distinguishing the LAC from the Line of Control (LoC) between India and Pakistan is essential. The LoC emerged from the 1948 ceasefire line established through UN-mediated negotiations following the Kashmir War. Subsequently, the Shimla Agreement of 1972 formalized it as the LoC. This delineated line holds the weight of a legal agreement and is represented on a map endorsed by the Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMOs) from both nations. In contrast, the LAC is a conceptual demarcation without mutual consensus or specific demarcation on maps or the ground.
Historical Context and Disputes over the LAC
Significant disputes over the LAC’s location stem from the western sector, traced back to letters exchanged between China’s PM Zhou Enlai and Indian PM Jawaharlal Nehru in 1959. China’s contention in these letters established a framework for the LAC’s emergence. After the 1962 Sino-Indian War, China asserted a withdrawal to a position 20 km behind the 1959 LAC, aligning with the McMahon Line in the eastern sector.
India’s Response
India rejected China’s LAC concept in 1959 and 1962, dismissing it as an arbitrary creation by China. The vagueness of China’s definition facilitated incremental territorial alterations through military actions. The lack of specificity in China’s delineation allowed for the manipulation of ground realities. Even during the 2017 Doklam crisis, China invoked the “1959 LAC” in its statements.
Controversies in Ladakh and Current Efforts for Resolution
In Ladakh, the region of Aksai Chin, while part of the British Empire, was not included in British India. This led to discrepancies in boundary definitions. In 1993, India formally embraced the concept of the LAC during the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Beijing, resulting in the Agreement to Maintain Peace and Tranquility at the LAC. However, ambiguities remained regarding which version of the LAC was being referenced.
Towards De-escalation in Eastern Ladakh: Plans and Legacy Issues
Efforts for disengagement along the LAC in eastern Ladakh are ongoing, with specifics of the pullback still unfolding. Various phases of limited disengagement have been proposed, with discussions initiated by Corps Commanders of both nations since 2020. Some progress has been made, such as the removal of troops and temporary structures from the Galwan Valley. However, legacy disputes like the Depsang Plains and Demchok continue to persist. The Depsang Plains dispute, arising in 2013, saw a Chinese incursion that wasn’t fully resolved. Similarly, the Demchok region’s tensions stem from disagreements at the Charding-Ninglung Nullah junction, where the PLA interfered with Indian graziers well within India’s perception of the LAC.
UPSC Mains Questions
- How might the differing perspectives on the LAC impact broader geopolitical dynamics between India and China in the region?
- How does the vague definition of the LAC create opportunities for territorial disputes and incremental changes on the ground?
- Explore the historical context of the Depsang Plains and Demchok disputes. How might their resolution influence the broader India-China relationship?
