top of page
Search

A War of Blood and Words — China-India Border Skirmishes Explained

Disclaimer: This article is intended to be an un-opinionated, unbiased factual piece. Words and phrases that might invoke political sensitivity have all been framed in a way so as not to be deemed offensive by audiences from either side (China and India) in this bloody clash.

Recently, China has unveiled that four of its soldiers were killed and another injured during a border skirmish with Indian troops in June last year. This information was unheard of prior to an official statement released by the PLA. A mass propaganda campaign soon followed which honoured the merits in a posthumous to soldiers that have engaged in the conflict.


What happened?


On 15 and 16 July 2020, Chinese and Indian troops were engaged in a bloody clash with sticks, clubs and iron rods. The skirmish took place in the precipitous terrain of Galwan Valley, leaving 20 Indian soldiers (as per Indian claim) and 4 Chinese (as per Chinese claim) dead. This confrontation was the first fatal one between the two nuclear powers since 1975. Both sides acknowledged that no shots were fired. But later in September of the same year, there were reports on warning shots from both sides of the border, again the first time since 45 years ago.


Why did that happen?


Tensions along the Sino-Indian border have been escalating throughout the past few years, with both sides increasing the number of garrison troops along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). A long-term cause for the conflict could be the erection of infrastructure within disputed areas by both parties. India recently constructed the DSDBO road along the ill-defined border of Kashmir, which connects Ladakh’s capital, Leh, to the Daulat Beg Oldi post. (Galwan valley, where the conflict took place was only a few kilometres from the road.) This is believed to be what has infuriated Beijing and was cited by the PLA as a reason why India should be blamed for the escalation of the conflict.


But China has also been busy building roads along the border in an effort to increase tactical superiority. Roads and bridges allow both sides to move men and materiel quickly into areas of conflict and to provide critical logistic support, enabling them to station a larger and higher-quality army in the region. In fact, the Doklam standoff in 2017 was over the Chinese extension of a road, into an area under Bhutanese claim.


The immediate cause for the fatal skirmish was disputed. Both countries asserted that the opposing side had violated the LAC and crossed the border first. Beijing has released, in addition to its claim and alongside the disclosure of casualties, a two-minute-long video of Indian troops crossing a river en masse and assaulting a small division of Chinese troops. India denied this and said that China first launched an ambush.


A Bit of Context...


China and India have long had an ill-defined border along the Himalayas that stretches across 3,400 kilometres. The Indian claim was generally based on the borders drawn by the British colonial regime; most consequential of which was the McMahon Line (signed between Britain and the Tibetan government), which justified the India control of the 84,000 km2-large regions of Arunachal Pradesh (South Tibet in Chinese) about the same size as Austria. The Chinese, on the other hand, dismissed it as a legacy of imperialist rule and thought it was unfair. For example, it challenged the legal status of the McMahon line on the ground that Tibet was always a part of China and had not the power to make treaties.


China also has several territorial disagreements with Japan (over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands), Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines and other countries around the South China Sea. It’s not just the PRC but also the ROC (the Republic of China, the Taiwan regime) that had gross territorial claims. While mainland China has indeed made some serious concessions to some of its neighbours (most significant of which was the recognition of Burmese control of Kachin), the ROC claimed an even greater boundary, even retaining its claim to Mongolia, a landlocked country between China and Russia.


ROC territorial claims


India contests over part of Kashmir and Jammu with Pakistan, due to ramifications of British colonial rule. Under the Indian Independence Act, Kashmir was free to accede to either India or Pakistan. Despite its Muslim majority, the Hindu maharaja favoured joining India. A war soon broke out before the ceasefire in 1949 would take place. Then the second and third followed in 1965 and 1999, respectively. Kashmir is currently divided between the administrations of Delhi and Islamabad.


Consequences and Effects: What then?


Both China and India claimed to have “disengaged” and “de-escalated” following the clash, while nationalistic and patriotic narratives remained dominant within both countries. India has honoured its 20 perished soldiers with public rituals of mourning, while China posthumously awarded the injured and killed men with titles of “National Hero.” In short, both countries wanted to look strong and victorious to their populations, while not rashly escalating the situation into a full-blown conflict.


Against the backdrop of the Covid-19 pandemic, both countries have more important things to deal with. With a daily case count of more than ten thousand, numerous domestic protests and ethnic and religious dissent, Modi would need to show strength as a Hindu patriot while carefully navigating around political oppositions. The Chinese President Xi Jinping, too, has been identified by critics as a nationalist leader. With Covid under total control and a rapidly recovering economy, there would still be numerous challenges along the way of “Chinese national rejuvenation” — which consists of growing U.S. hostility, international accusation on right abuses, and an ageing population.


Note: Map Biases


During my research on this topic, I have encountered several reports and articles from various sources, above all the BBC News and Brittanica. Aksai Chin, the Chinese-controlled but Indian-claimed part of Kashmir was consistently dashed in grey and dubbed with “Chinese administered” on many of the maps. Quite contrary, the Indian-administered region of Arunachal Pradesh which was also claimed by China rarely received any differentiation and was painted in the same colour as the rest of India.


It is probably more reasonable to specify territorial claims from both parties, or just not label any of them.


That’s all for today. Thanks for reading and have a nice day!

Bibliography

Comentários

bottom of page