China appeared more exuberant, in comparison to a restrained and sober India, in its response to the meeting between their special representatives on the taxing border issue in Beijing on December 18.
The 23rd Meeting of the Special Representatives (SRs) of India and China was held between Ajit Doval, National Security Advisor of India, and Wang Yi, Member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Chinese ambassador Xu Feihong said the two sides reached a 6-point consensus that included resumption of Kailash Mansarovar pilgrimage in Xizang (Tibet), cross-border river cooperation and trade at the Nathu La Pass.
The Chinese said went to the extent of describing the talks as “hard-won” and constructive. Wang also said the meeting was an important and timely step towards the implementation of the consensus reached by PM Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping in Kazan in October.
In what is an indication of the Chinese appearing to take the meeting quite seriously, Chinese Vice-President Han Zheng also met Doval.
Coming out, Zheng said: “Both sides should implement the important consensus reached by the leaders of the two countries; maintain the momentum of high-level exchanges; cultivate political mutual trust; gradually restore institutional dialogue and enhance exchanges and cooperation in areas such as economy, trade, and culture, so as to promote the return of bilateral relations to a stable development track.”
In contrast, Doval said after the meeting that India is willing to maintain fruitful communication with China in pragmatic manner and continuously accumulate conditions for the final resolution of the border issue.
The Indian external affairs ministry issued a statement on the meeting’s outcome but it did not use the word “consensus”. It did not also deny the Chinese version saying there was a consensus. The ministry’s unilateral statement was construed to mean that the Chinese statement was unilateral too.
It goes to show that New Delhi is taking things step by step. It understands the thaw has only just begun and there is a long way to go before both sides reach a situation from where it is possible to resume the relationship before it deteriorated in 2020.
At the same time, New Delhi is doing everything it can to ensure that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s assurances of ending the dispute through talks with China come to fruition at the earliest.
The Indian statement reveals a well-briefed Doval went to Beijing with defined parameters for the talks.
There were two cornerstones that constitute the Indian policy as outlined after the Kazan meeting between Modi and President Xi Jinping. Both are outlined in the statement. One is to “oversee the management of peace and tranquillity in border areas”. The other is to “explore a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution to the boundary question”.
From the statement it is understood that the meeting sought “a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable framework for settlement of the boundary question, and resolved to inject more vitality into this process”.
And this is the crux of the Beijing meeting according to the Indian statement. “They emphasised the need to ensure peaceful conditions on the ground so that issues on the border do not hold back the normal development of bilateral relations.”
Everything else, that is, the measures discussed and mechanisms explored at the meeting, is geared to this end: to maintain peace and tranquillity on the border and advance effective border management.
The talks ended with some measures taken to build confidence and trust. These measures include resumption of the Kailash Manasarovar Yatra, data sharing on trans-border rivers and border trade.
Interestingly, the Chinese referred to the “2005 agreement” in their evaluation of the meeting. The Indian statement did not refer to it at all.
The Chinese are quoted as saying, “Both sides reaffirmed their commitment to continuing to seek a fair, reasonable, and mutually acceptable package solution to the border issue in accordance with the political guiding principles agreed upon by the two countries’ special representatives in 2005.”
There is no clarity on what the 2005 agreement is.
It probably is the 2005 India-China agreement, also known as the Agreement on the Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the India-China Boundary Question, was signed on April 11, 2005. The agreement outlined several principles for resolving the boundary dispute between the two countries, including peaceful resolution of disputes, improve bilateral relations, define the boundary defined by natural geographical features easily identifiable and mutually agreed upon, improve military, security, and law enforcement.
The agreement also stated that differences over the boundary should not affect the overall development of the bilateral relationship.
As things stand, the reality is that China and India have never agreed on the demarcation of their shared border. Since the 1962 war over the disputed border, the two nations have been divided by a 3,200-km Line of Actual Control (LAC), but they have not even been able to agree on precisely where that lies.
The Ajit Doval Wang Yi meeting is certainly encouraging, but it is unlikely to lead to a final resolution of the border dispute in the near future. That, perhaps, underlines India’s sober reaction. New Delhi is aware of the long route ahead and is willing to take every step positively so long as China reciprocates the same sentiment.
The string of meetings since the de-escalation agreement are bound to culminate in tangible developments. As a tentative step, apart from free and unrestricted border patrolling by India, it is reasonable to expect resumption of basic economic ties between India and China.
New Delhi sees these bilateral developments also in a larger Asian context. India is already playing a prominent role within the Indo-Pacific region. The West sees India as a strategic partner to tackle issues in the region. The United States, in particular, feels India is the ideal counterweight to China.
Solving bilateral challenges and frictions in this scenario is a challenge. Notwithstanding the rounds of bilateral meetings, a Pentagon report released in mid-December claimed that the Chinese military “has not drawn down its positions or troop numbers since the 2020 clash”.
Similarly, despite bilateral corps commander talks, the report claims that China has built “infrastructure and support facilities” to maintain multiple brigade deployments along the disputed border.
However, the accepted reality is the Indian government stating in parliament before the Doval-Wang meeting that disengagement of troops has been achieved in “full” in eastern Ladakh through a step-by-step process and India now expects the commencement of talks on remaining issues that it had placed on the agenda.
