INDO-CHINA BORDER DISPUTE- INTERNATIONAL

News: Border issue should be kept in proper place', says China

 

More in news:

       Visiting Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang, in talks with External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, called on India to look at relations "in the context of once-in-a-century changes in the world" and to put the border issue "in the proper place".

       Mr. Jaishankar had flagged the "abnormal" state of ties and reiterated India's position that restoration of peace on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) was required for a return to normalcy.

 

Background of Border Disputes:

  1. India and China share a total boundary of approximately 3,488 kilometers (second largest after Bangladesh).
  2. The Sino-Indian border is generally divided into three sectors: the western, middle, and eastern sectors.
  3. Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, and Arunachal Pradesh all share a border with China.

 

Western Sector

       India and China share a 2152-kilometre-long border in the western sector. It is located between the India’s of Jammu and Kashmir and the Chinese province of Xinjiang.

       There is a territorial dispute in this sector over Aksai Chin. In 1962, both countries went to war over the disputed territory of Aksai Chin. It is claimed by India to be part of Kashmir, while China claims it to be part of Xinjiang.

       The dispute over Aksai Chin can be traced back to the British Empire's failure to establish a clear legal border between China and its Indian colony. During British rule in India, two proposed borders between India and China were Johnson's Line and McDonald Line.

       The Johnson Line (proposed in 1865) places Aksai Chin in Jammu and Kashmir, under Indian control, whereas the McDonald Line (proposed in 1893) places it under Chinese control.

       India considers the Johnson Line to be the correct, rightful national border with China, whereas China considers the McDonald Line to be the correct border with India.

       At the moment, the Line of Actual Control (LAC) separates Indian areas of Jammu and Kashmir from Aksai Chin. It runs parallel to the Chinese Aksai Chin claim line.

 

Middle Sector

       In this sector, India and China share a 625-kilometre-long border that runs from Ladakh to Nepal.

       In this sector, the states of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand touch the border with Tibet (China). In this area, there is little disagreement between the two sides.

 

Eastern Sector

       India and China share a 1,140-kilometer-long border in this sector. It stretches from Bhutan's eastern border to a point near the Talu Pass, which connects Tibet, India, and Myanmar. This boundary line is known as the McMahon Line.

       Except where the Kemang, Subansiri, Dihang, and Lohit rivers break through the Himalayan crest of the northern Brahmaputra watershed, the boundary was established along the Himalayan crest of that watershed.

       The British-India government convened a tripartite conference in 1913, at which the boundary between India and Tibet was formalized following a discussion between Indians and Tibetans.

       The Indo-Tibetan boundary was delineated as a result of the adoption of a Convention.

       China considers the McMahon Line to be illegal and unacceptable, claiming that Tibetan representatives who signed the 1914 Shimla Convention, which delineated the McMahon Line on the map, lacked the legal authority to do so.

 

Johnson Line Vs McDonald Line:

Even on the Johnson and McDonald lines, which separate the two countries' territories, the two countries have maintained their respective positions.

 

  1. The Johnson Line - India's accepted demarcation: designates Aksai Chin as Indian territory.
  2. The McDonald Line - China's position: designates Aksai Chin as Chinese territory.

 

Steps taken to resolve the disputes:

       Shimla agreement of 1914: To demarcate the boundary between Tibet and North East India, a convention was held at Shimla in 1914, representatives of all three i.e. Tibet, China and British India. After the discussion, the agreement was signed by British India and Tibet but not by the Chinese officials. Presently India recognizes the Mcmahon line, as agreed by the Shimla convention, as the legal boundary between India and China. However, China rejects the Shimla agreement and the Mcmahon line, contending that Tibet was not a sovereign state and therefore did not have the power to conclude treaties.

       Panchsheel Agreement of 1954: The Panchsheel doctrine clearly indicated the willingness to ‘Respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity’. Although we have come a long way since, from 1962 war to the cold peace era of 1962-1989, to the revived tensions of the present, the intent of the doctrine was well directed. It must have acted as a safeguard against any such disputes arising in the first place.

       In 1989, India-China formed a Joint Working Group for Confidence building measures (CBMs) and agreed to mutually settle all border disputes.

       India-China Agreements regarding the Line of Actual Control (LAC): The LAC is the effective military border which separates Indian controlled areas of Jammu and Kashmir from Aksai Chin. It is to be noted that this border is not a legally recognized international boundary, but rather it is the practical boundary. Conventionally, India considers the Johnson line of 1865, marked by a civil servant W.H. Johnson, which put Aksai Chin in Jammu and Kashmir. On the other hand, China recognizes the Macartney-Macdonald Line as the actual boundary which puts Aksai Chin in Xinjiang region of China. In 1993, when the then Prime Minister Narasimha Rao visited China, ‘The Agreement for Maintenance of Peace and Tranquility along the LAC, was signed between India and China. In 1996 an agreement took place on Confidence Building Measures in the military field along the LAC.

       In 2003 India and China signed a Declaration on Principles for Relations and Comprehensive Cooperation and also mutually decided to appoint Special Representatives to explore the framework of a boundary settlement from the political perspective. The India-China relations received a major boost in 2003. China recognized India’s sovereignty over Sikkim. This was also followed by a framework of Guiding principles and political parameters to improve bilateral ties. It proposed a three-step resolution to the border disputes:

       a. A bilateral agreement on the laid down principles.

       b. This was to be followed by an exchange of maps between the two countries.

       c. Once satisfied with the markings, the final demarcation of borders was to take place.

       In 2005 a protocol was agreed on Modalities for the implementation of Confidence Building Measures in the Military field along the LAC.

       In 2012 India and China agreed on the establishment of a working mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India China borders.

 

WAY FORWARD:

From the recent incidents, although the possibility of an India-China armed conflict cannot be ruled out, any kind of military conflict is not in the interest of any country. The need of the hour is realizing that our ‘strategic partnership’ could serve us both and help see Asia emerge as the core of the world economy. This dream of ‘India-China Millennium of Exceptional Synergies’ that our Prime Minister envisions, however, needs magnanimity and willingness on part of both the nations.