India-China ties: The case for a thaw in the Himalayan stand-off
Easing the border tensions will lessen the impact of the new Cold War on Asia
 
Published by Straits Times on 18 May 2022 
  
Disengagement
 and de-escalation of the military stand-off in the high Himalayas could
 also reopen possibilities for international cooperation between the two
 Asian giants amid the great churn in major power relations following 
the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
It
 is a little over two years since China surprised India by a massive 
military mobilisation in Ladakh and unilaterally changed the territorial
 disposition along the disputed frontier. That China's action came in 
the middle of India's struggle to cope with the massive breakout of the 
Covid-19 pandemic, shocked the government and triggered a massive 
anti-China backlash in the political and chattering classes.
As
 three decades of military confidence-building all along the so-called 
Line of Actual Control broke down in April 2020, India responded by a 
counter mobilisation of its army. The military face-off in the Western 
Himalayas produced a clash between the two armed forces in mid-June 2020
 that saw significant loss of life for the first time on this disputed 
border in nearly four decades.
Military
 tensions on the Sino-Indian border in Ladakh produced a number of 
strategic consequences - intended or unintended. For instance, there has
 been a notable decline in high-level political engagement between Delhi
 and Beijing, even accounting for the pandemic. Although bilateral trade
 continues to grow, India is consciously reducing its long-term economic
 exposure to China.
The
 conflict has also pushed the foreign policies of the two Asian giants 
on divergent paths. India has elevated its strategic cooperation with 
the United States, both bilaterally and in mini-lateral formats, such as
 the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue that brings together Australia, 
India, Japan and the US. Meanwhile, China has drawn closer to Russia and
 is locked in a deepening confrontation with the US.
The
 Sino-Indian conflict in the Himalayas is increasingly intertwined with 
the profound shift in great power relations marked by President Vladimir
 Putin's war in Ukraine that has united the Western alliance against 
Russia.
The
 new focus on European security has not diluted the US and Western 
strategic commitment to the Indo-Pacific strategy. The Quad has been 
elevated to the summit level, with new mechanisms like the Aukus - a 
military technological collaboration between Australia, the United 
Kingdom and the US.
The
 Himalayan border dynamic has had a great impact on India's great power 
relations and the conflict among great powers, in turn, continues to 
influence Sino-Indian relations. Put simply, a reasonable relationship 
between Delhi and Beijing is critical for reducing the impact of the new
 Cold War in Asia and its waters.
On
 the face of it, the prospects for a reconciliation between India and 
China appear bleak; but a careful assessment of the ground situation 
suggests there is a narrow path for India and China to move forward.
To be sure, the current approaches between the two sides are indeed very different.
China
 argues that the border issues should be set aside and the two sides 
should focus on normalising bilateral relations and jointly develop an 
Asian approach to stabilising the global political and economic system 
shaken to the core by the war in Ukraine. That was the burden of Chinese
 Foreign Minister Wang Yi's argument when he visited Delhi last month.
 
The
 Indian response, articulated by the External Affairs Minister 
Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, was that the easing of the military tensions 
was critical for the normalisation of bilateral relations.
India, which has taken an independent approach to the war in Ukraine, has
 not closed the door for global cooperation with China. But Delhi 
insists that any political partnership with China cannot be constructed 
amid the muscular military coercion by the PLA on the disputed border.
 
Contrary
 to widespread misperception, India's primary concern currently is not 
settling the border dispute that dates back to the 1950s. Rather its 
immediate priority is to defuse border tensions, and that is to be done 
in two phases - disengagement of the troops from face-to-face 
confrontation and de-escalation by moving the troops away from the 
points of military friction.
On
 the positive side, 15 rounds of talks between military commanders of 
China and India have led to disengagement at some of the friction points
 on the border. Disengagement and de-escalation will open up enormous 
space for bilateral diplomacy.
This
 is by no means impossible. There are sensible imperatives on both sides
 to end the military tensions on the border. Continuing the military 
confrontation and moving towards permanent deployment of troops at 
heights uninhabitable to human beings is of no military value to India 
or China.
For
 China, the limited territorial gains it might have won from its 
manoeuvre in April 2020 are far outweighed by the political costs in the
 relationship with India.
For
 India, the military conflict with China has been a needless distraction
 from the threats it faces on its western frontiers from the growing 
instability in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, China's challenges 
on its eastern borders are only growing.
Rebuilding
 military confidence on the border will also allow Beijing and Delhi to 
pursue their more natural foreign policy orientation. Chinese military 
pressure on the border has seen India move steadily closer to the US. In
 fact, the progress in the US-Indian strategic partnership can be 
directly correlated to the military conflicts between China and India at
 the Doklam plateau in Bhutan in 2017 and in Ladakh in 2020.
China,
 which has strongly denounced the Quad as "Asian Nato", can easily 
reduce the Indian incentives to support the forum by getting the PLA to 
restore the status quo on the border that prevailed in 2020. Peace on 
the border with China will encourage India to return to its basic 
instincts that emphasise Asian solidarity, strategic autonomy, and the 
pursuit of a multipolar world.
C.
 Raja Mohan is a visiting research professor at the Institute of South 
Asian Studies, National University of Singapore, and a senior fellow at 
the Asia Society Policy Institute, Delhi. This article was first 
published on the website of the Asian Peace Programme (APP), an 
initiative to promote peace in Asia housed in the Asia Research 
Institute, NUS.