the big story

The mystery of India’s border with China

The TLDR: The Prime Minister sparked a political furore when he declared that no one crossed our border or has taken our land. Was he fudging the facts or is he technically correct? Multiple and muddled clarifications were issued after his speech, but here’s what is clear: There has never been a well-defined border between India and China in Ladakh.

What did the PM say?

While addressing an all-party meeting to discuss the China situation, he said precisely this: 

“Neither have they intruded into our border, nor has any post been taken over by them (China). Twenty of our brave soldiers made the supreme sacrifice for the nation in Ladakh but also taught a lesson to those who had dared to look towards our motherland. The country today has such a capability that no one can even dare look towards an inch of our land.”

The remarks immediately sparked a furore on social media and among the Opposition. 

Why was that?

The PM’s statement raised several big questions: If the Chinese had never crossed our border—or set up a post on our side—why was there a clash in the first place? Why did those soldiers sacrifice their lives? Worse, it appeared to endorse the Chinese argument that Indian soldiers crossed into their side to pick a fight. 

Not helping matters: a clumsy attempt to rewrite the PM’s words:

“On Friday night, a Press Information Bureau release had omitted the first part of Modi’s statement, where he said ‘neither has anyone intruded,’ and quoting him as saying: ‘Neither is anyone inside our territory nor is any of our post captured.’”

How does that change anything?

It opened the door for a “clarification” issued by the Prime Minister’s Office:

“Prime Minister’s observations that there was no Chinese presence on our side of the LAC pertained to the situation as a consequence of the bravery of our armed forces. The sacrifices of the soldiers of the 16 Bihar Regiment foiled the attempt of the Chinese side to erect structures and also cleared the attempted transgression at this point of the LAC on that day.”

Aap chronology samjhiye: At the time that the PM addressed the all-party meeting, he was speaking in the present tense: “neither is anyone inside our territory, nor is any of our post captured.” 

And newly leaked versions paint a vastly different picture of the clash—which is no longer a one-sided massacre. 

• One such “source” offered a second-hand account of how Indian soldiers “went with full aggression” and “hit them [the Chinese] back hard.”
• Deccan Herald published an unsourced story with lurid details claiming that our soldiers "unleashed a reign of terror, unheard in modern military history.” (The story has since disappeared, but it was quoted by others). 
• Times of India quoted more “sources” who said: “even though outnumbered, the soldiers managed to remove the Chinese post which was existing there.” 

Achha, what are the Chinese saying?

In a series of tweets, the Foreign Ministry spokesman laid out the first official account of the conflict. 

• The first tweet unambiguously starts like this: “The Galwan Valley is located on the Chinese side of the Line of Actual Control in the west section of the China-India boundary.” 
• It then rewrites the encounter, accusing Indian troops of crossing the LAC, and trespassing into Chinese territory. 
• Most importantly, later tweets state that India has agreed to cede its claims: “In response to the strong demand of the Chinese side, India agreed to withdraw the personnel who crossed the LAC and demolish the facilities [on the border], and so they did…. India promised it would not cross the estuary of Galwan river to patrol & build facilities.”

Our Ministry of External Affairs then issued a point-by-point rebuttal… saying exactly the opposite. 

Ok, who’s telling the truth?

Restating facts to suit one side’s convenience is a standard part of international diplomacy. And ‘truth’ is usually the first casualty of conflict. But let’s break the claims into two parts. 

One: Who intruded into whose territory? The answer: it appears to have occurred right on the LAC (See The Hindu’s map here). Now, on to the broader question: Who has a historical claim on that bit of Ladakh? That requires a bit of history:

• At the time of independence, there was no clear border. As the New York Times notes: "British colonial authorities bequeathed India a border with China that was neither delineated on a map nor demarcated on the ground.”
• In 1956, Premier Zhou Enlai officially approved a map that showed Galwan valley as Indian territory. And this CIA map of “Chinese claim lines” confirms the same.
• India ceded the Aksai Chin region in the 1962 war—which in turn gave us what we now call the Line of Actual Control.
• Now, the Chinese are trying to redraw this line again—by reviving its 1960 claim.

Two: Who scored a win? China, and our own version of events suggests this is true. 

After the Ladakh clash, Foreign Minister S Jaishankar—in a phone conversation with his counterpart Wang Yi—clearly stated that the confrontation was triggered when "the Chinese side sought to erect a structure in Galwan valley on our side of the LAC (Line of Actual Control.” In other words, they did indeed “intrude” into our border. 

But there is no evidence that their troops have abandoned that ‘structure’—since Jaishankar also said this: “The need of the hour was for the Chinese side to reassess its actions and take corrective steps.” 

Also note: a number of our soldiers were taken prisoner, and later released. None of which suggests that we were able to push China back.

So what now?

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has approved a new protocol for Indian troops on the border—wherein they have been “given the freedom to deal suitably with any aggression by China along the LAC.” But the unnamed source did not specify whether this includes the right to use firearms if provoked. 

Since tempers are frayed, the chance of another conflict remains high. As one former general told Indian Express: “If de-escalation does not take place fast, the chances of more such clashes taking place will increase. When you have troops eyeball-to-eyeball, there is a lot of tension, anger, and any small incident can flare up.”

But the likely location of conflict will not be Galwan but Lake Pangong (see APSI map below)—where there has been the greatest Chinese buildup.

Reading list

• New York Times offers the best overview of the border conflict.
• Free Press Kashmir has a nice piece on the history of Galwan and its name.
• Foreign policy blog War On The Rocks explains why China has little incentive to settle any border dispute with India. This is a must-read.
• Also a valuable read: The Hindu’s explainer on the LAC along Galwan Valley.
• There are plenty of angry op-eds criticising Modi, but here two different takes on his options. One: This Print op-ed by Shekhar Gupta that outlines his dilemma—which is neither new nor easily resolved. Two: This chart from Takshashila Institution that shows that imitating the Chinese—i.e. nibbling at their borders—may be the most effective strategy.
• Mihir Sharma in Bloomberg News explains why it is foolish for China to bait India.
• Nitin Pai tweeted out this handy set of links to declassified CIA files that offer more information on the history of the border conflict.
• The China boycott carries on in its schizophrenic fashion. Oppo battled protesters on one hand (clip here), while the new Oneplus phone sold out in minutes.
• Also ignoring the boycott: the Adani group which just took $300 million in investment from a Chinese company.
• Last but not least: This Economist cartoon that brings together Yoga Day and Chinese aggression is just plain brilliant.