India and China need to work together in the spirit of mutual trust
Brig. B.L. Poonia (retd)
The statement by chief of army staff Gen. Upendra Dwivedi on 22 October 2024 that the Indian Army and the PLA were exploring ways to restore trust along the LAC is unfortunately being misinterpreted to mean that the Indian Army does not consider the PLA or China, trustworthy. This is a classic example of misinterpretation of the statement to feed the general perception that China needs to be condemned for every possible thing. Afterall, having fought a war in 1962, and having had so many border skirmishes since then, it is but natural for both sides to restore trust. Hence, there is nothing wrong in the Indian army chief’s statement. However, this doesn’t mean that China is not trustworthy. If Indians perceive absence of trust, Chinese people have stronger reasons to do so too.
The point to emphasise here is that we must stop painting China as the villain all the time. Were we honest about our history, we would realise that it was India who was at fault in the lead up to the 1962 debacle. The sooner we accept this bitter truth, the better it would be for our bilateral relations. In this context, Capt. Basil Liddell Hart’s quote comes to mind. He once said, ‘The only thing harder than getting a new idea into the military mind is to get an old one out.’ Many military leaders would agree that the military organisations are highly resistant to change of perceptions, because of their size, complexity and culture.
But this is equally applicable to the civil population too, since every citizen loves her country to a degree that she finds it near impossible to accept her own country being anywhere, other than on the moral high ground. I am sure every Chinese citizen believes so, and so does every Pakistani citizen, when it comes to the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. And the best part is that the citizens of all three countries are ready to die for their beliefs.
But does belief become the truth, just because one is ready to die for it?
It is the historical truth alone that remains supreme, not the beliefs, which are based on the political narrative in their respective nations. India is no exception. And here lies the real problem. When beliefs take precedence over the facts, one is blinded to not only the reality, but future opportunities too.
Many articles have come up since the announcement by foreign secretary Vikram Misri that India and China have agreed to disengage from Demchok and Depsang. Yet not one article has tried to touch upon the facts of this case. The entire narrative is built upon painting China as the villain, since it gives immense psychological satisfaction. But that is not the way to settle a longstanding border issue. And more than not knowing the truth, the problem lies with the psychological inability to digest the unpalatable truth. We must appreciate that this is a historic opportunity to restore peace on Indo-China borders, which has eluded us since 1962. Now we should not miss this opportunity, the way we had done in April 1960, when the Chinese delegation led by Chou-En-Lai had visited Delhi in an attempt to settle the boundary issue in a peaceful manner through diplomacy, immediately after having resolved the same with Burma.
The Boundary Claims
The only way to overcome our distrust of China is by examining the larger issue of the border dispute pertaining to Aksai Chin and the erstwhile North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA). No one can deny that the basis of laying claim on any piece of territory has to be either conquest or consent. With that clarity, let’s look at Aksai Chin.
Aksai Chin never belonged to India. India’s claim on Aksai Chin is based on Johnson Line, which was a unilaterally drawn line by the British India and included Aksai Chin as part of Kashmir. The legal status of this was shown as ‘Boundary Undefined’. The purpose was to offer it as a boundary proposal to China, which did not happen. Those who believe otherwise, should answer the following questions:
- In which battle did India or the British India conquer Aksai Chin?
- Vide which treaty was Aksai Chin given to India?
- Why was Aksai Chin shown as part of Tibet on the maps, even during the 1914 Simla tripartite conference?
- Was India or the British India ever in physical possession of Aksai Chin? If not, why?
- Why did Britain never lay any claim on Aksai Chin, except for making a boundary proposal through Macartney-MacDonald Line in 1899, where only a portion of Aksai Chin was suggested to be included in the British territory? China never replied to this proposal. And if the British had any legal claim, what prevented them from physically occupying Aksai Chin?
- When the British left India in 1947, the entire Aksai Chin was with China. ln case it was ever in possession of British India, in which year and in which battle/ war did China recapture Aksai Chin?
- If Aksai Chin belonged to India, how come India did not know about the construction of Aksai Chin Highway by China that began in March 1956 until the news appeared in the Chinese media in 1959?
- When the British printed Johnson Line on the maps, they did so by depicting its legal status as ‘Boundary Undefined’. Even the 1948 and 1950 edition of India’s official maps continued showing the same legal status. Then on what basis did Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru ‘unilaterally’ convert Johnson Line into an international boundary by removing its legal status in the 1954 edition of Indian maps?
- When the British left India, Chushul was India’s forward most post in Ladakh? Then how did our claim get extended to Aksai Chin?
The Indian Army continued to have the British era, 1948 or 1950 edition maps, even during the 1962 war, where the legal status of Johnson Line continued to be shown as ‘Boundary Undefined’. This is because Nehru failed to issue the unilaterally altered maps to the Indian Army.
Claim on McMahon Line
The McMahon Line was based on a ‘secret illegal’ treaty between British India and Tibet, signed in March 1914. However, those who believe it to be a legal international border, need to consider the following questions:
- Why was China invited for the ‘tripartite conference’ at Simla in October 1913 by the British India to discuss the proposal of McMahon Line if it had nothing to do with it? Did India invite Pakistan to discuss abrogation of Article 370?
- When China refused to accept the McMahon Line proposal in October 1913, why did the British India convene a ‘secret’ bilateral meet with Tibet in Delhi in February-March 1914, without inviting China, and bilaterally decided upon the alignment of McMahon Line on 24 March 1914?
- Was this treaty not a breach of Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906 and Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 which prohibited negotiations with Tibet except through intermediary of Chinese government?
- Did China not announce that it would not accept any secret treaty with Tibet, since Tibet was under the suzerainty of China and did not enjoy independent treaty making powers? Did Tibet ever counter China’s statement?
- If McMahon Line was based on a legal treaty, why did the British not publish the same in 1914 only, instead of doing so 23 years later in 1937, showing its legal status as ‘Boundary Undemarcated’? And what prevented the British India to demarcate the McMahon Line on the ground before their final departure in 1947?
- Moreover, if it was a legal treaty, what prevented the British to occupy NEFA in 1914 only, and what made India to wait for 37 years to occupy NEFA in 1951?
When the British left India in 1947, the legal status of the above-mentioned boundary lines shown on the maps was as follows:
Johnson Line: The line showing Aksai Chin as part of Kashmir, was marked as ‘Boundary Undefined.’ This meant a boundary that was to be proposed to China, which the British never did. India’s claim on Aksai Chin is based on Johnson Line, which was a unilaterally drawn line by the British and has no legal sanctity.
McMahon Line: This was shown as ‘Boundary Undemarcated’ since 1937, based on the secret bilateral treaty between Tibet and British India in 1914. However, the boundary was never demarcated on ground since it was based on an illegal treaty.
You must be logged in to view this content.