The reason for the sudden outbreak of the India-China border conflict has been discussed for a long time. Because it was very curious why China took such a step in the midst of a serious pandemic. However, the rapid and well-coordinated attacks of the Chinese Army in the region in the later days of the crisis suggested that the conflict was probably months of preparation, which Brahma Chellaney said was “predictable”. On the other hand, many of the Chinese commanders who are running the current Ladakh conflict appear to be the men of the Communist Party of China (CPC) General Secretary Xi Jinping. All of these show that China’s aggressive attitude in the region is far from an ordinary effort to cut a good figure, contrary to popular belief. In order to grasp this, the developments in the crisis that has been going on for about 3.5 months will be evaluated.
What happened?
The images circulating on social media about the clash between Indian and Chinese soldiers on the night of May 5-6 at Pangong Tso suddenly reflected an “unexpected” picture. The Indian Army first denied that these images were unrealistic and that the usual situation was interventions by soldiers from both countries entering and leaving each other’s territory. However, the tension between the two great powers started to deepen day by day. The killing of 20 Indian soldiers in June turned the crisis into a conflict. India and China’s confrontation in Ladakh is the most serious military conflict between the two since the Doklam crisis in 2017. In line with the crisis, India and China increased the number of soldiers and military equipment in at least three areas east of Ladakh. In addition to Pangong Tso, China has also started to increase its troops in Galwan Valley, Demchok and Daulat Beg Oldie (China’s junction with Xinjiang province). Furthermore, due to the fact that the region is not limited to a small area and its geographical structure, tensions between the two countries spread to other fronts along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
Indicating that for years it has strictly adhered to the “common goal of maintaining peace and tranquility” in its border regions, India thinks China is to blame for the current lack of geographical clarity. Because of China, the work done on the occasion of the visit of Indian leader Atal Bihari Vajpayee to China for the settlement of the border dispute in 2003 was not successful, and China did not agree to exchange maps for the solution of the border problem. The only region where maps can be exchanged is the region to which Lipulekh, on which Nepal claims rights, is affiliated today. Although a series of agreements were signed between the two countries between 1993 and 2013 for peace-keeping and confidence building measures in the LAC, the current situation is interpreted as China’s desire to unilaterally change the status quo. On the other hand, China blames India on the grounds of border violations as the responsible of the current crisis, despite its firm denial. India is demanding a return to the April 2020 status quo to end the conflict. China wants India to stop road construction in Ladakh.
Although both sides continue their dialogue militarily (5 meetings have been held so far) to end the conflict that has been going on for about 3.5 months, China’s demands to end the conflict are unacceptable for India. Because China wants Indian troops to evacuate some areas (the Dhan Singh Thapa garrison, a critical place for India) in order to facilitate the withdrawal of its troops from the region. India, on the other hand, stated that as long as the commanders of both sides continue their dialogue in East Ladakh, it will not take a further step back in the region along Pangong Lake. In recent weeks, India plans to send 35,000 more troops to the region. In addition, some sources state that China has no intention of ending the conflict and still has almost 40,000 soldiers and heavy weapons in Ladakh. Moreover, China’s wishes show that China has yet to understand that India does not want to lose land. On the other hand, it is known that the Indian Army continues to prepare for the winter in Ladakh. Because even though it has decided to end the bilateral conflict, it is seen that India does not believe that a full termination will occur. Under the instructions of the Indian Ministry of Defense, air, land and naval forces are required to be ready for any “hidden” threat against both China and Pakistan. Again, Pakistan’s silence makes one think of India. The current situation shows that the tension between the two countries will continue.
What were the reasons that pushed China to take such a step?
Considering the developments within the framework of the Indian-Chinese border conflict that has been going on for months, it can be said that there are multiple reasons behind China’s current attitude. First of all, India’s road construction works in Ladakh and the rapid continuation of these works are the leading issues that China is uncomfortable with due to the statements made in the axis of the current crisis. For years, the Chinese have been building border infrastructure along the 4,206 km long border from Ladakh in the west to Arunachal Pradesh in the east. Looking at the military activities followed by China in the region, it is seen that it wants to establish more dominance over the Aksai Chin and to strengthen its bases in the region as much as possible. India’s attempt to balance the power that China has gained over the years by building roads to the LAC in Ladakh naturally disturbs China. In addition, in order to understand why China is so uncomfortable and giving such a reaction, it is necessary to mention the importance of the regions where India continues its road works. First of all, Daulat Begh Oldi, the old Silk Road town and connecting India to China’s Xinjiang province, is an Indian military base located just 8 km south of Karakoram Pass, which is built for Pakistan, one of China’s closest allies today. It is also the highest runway in the world and is on the former Leh-Tarim basin trade route, only 9 km northwest of Aksai Chin. India provides a major boost to the field activities of its military forces and equipment along the LAC, by expanding the limited range of action in Leh, through road constructions at Daulet Beg Oldie, Fukche and Nyoma. Again, India’s 255km Darbuk-Shayok-Daulat Beg Oldie (DSDBO) road building activity has strengthened the Indian connection along the LAC, adding more pressure to the Aksai Chin (the main port of Tibet and Xinjiang). India has been rapidly strengthening its aviation infrastructure in the region since 2008. In the same year, the aviation infrastructure in Daulat Beg Oldie and Fukche, a strategic point to reduce the commitment to Leh, the capital of the Ladakh region, and a year later in Nyoma were revived.
Additionally, India’s change of the status of Jammu and Kashmir on 5 August 2019 was an important message for China. In the Indian Parliament, Home Minister Amit Shah‘s handling of Kashmir as a whole, including other regions, and the words “PoK and Aksai Chin are parts of Jammu and Kashmir, will sacrifice our lives for it” were not an outrageous rhetoric. Although India declared that this change would not harm China’s interests (not affect the LAC), it was a warning for China. Because these words of Amit Shah pointed to the February 1994 Parliament resolution stating that Jammu and Kashmir are an integral part of India and that the lands under Pakistani occupation should be evacuated. And again, these words pointed to the Parliamentary resolution promising India to liberate Aksai Chin and other J&K areas annexed by China, adopted on November 14, 1962. As Aksai Chin, who is the main link between China’s Xinjiang and Tibet, is at the center of China’s territorial unity and “one China” principle, the ongoing Kashmir problem between India and Pakistan continues to affect the interests of China day by day. Therefore, India’s change in Kashmir’s status is one of the reasons that aggressive China. Therefore, China’s proposal to the UNSC to discuss the Kashmir issue behind closed doors on August 5, 2020, that is, on the first anniversary of the abolition of the 370th Constitutional Article by the Indian government, which gives Jammu and Kashmir autonomy status, should be evaluated in this perspective. For all these reasons, the current problem has led to the necessity of reading this step of India in terms of foreign policy. The current Indian government’s Kashmir step should not be perceived merely as a blueprint of the Hindutva ideology or the party election propaganda of the BJP. When China’s activities in the region are evaluated, this movement of India can be interpreted as a step to protect national security and country interests rather than domestic policy. Because the spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in response to India’s decision to annul Article 370 of the Constitution, by referring to the territories under its control in Ladakh, “China has always opposed India’s inclusion of Chinese territory in India’s administrative jurisdiction in the western part of the Sino-Indian border” explains the seriousness of the situation.
New Delhi has taken serious steps against Beijing on many fronts in recent months. India, which rapidly developed its relations with the US after the Cold War, was included in the institution with Trump’s attempt to expand the G-7 and its approach to this international organization that excluded China also disturbs China. In addition, the USA plans to sell high-tech and advanced weapons such as armed unmanned aerial vehicles to India, in an unprecedented manner, due to the India-China border conflict. Against India’s increasing proximity with the US, China has said to be careful in its relations with the US, not to be drawn to the US-China trade war and to prevent the deterioration of bilateral relations. India is trying to reshape the geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific by establishing strong partnerships with similar countries such as Australia, Japan, Indonesia, Vietnam, France and England as well as the USA. As well, there are other important issues that bother China such as India’s tightening of foreign direct investment laws, support for an independent investigation call on the origins of Covid-19, two Indian members of parliament virtually attending the inauguration ceremony of Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen (a staunch opponent of China’s attempts to ‘reunify’ the country), Taiwan’s participation in WHO as an observer and its support for its allies, opening the country doors to Japanese and Western companies fleeing China due to the pandemic. Also, Modi’s statement that the Indian government wanted to connect more with the Buddhist heritage sites in the country for pilgrims and tourists at an event designated as Dhamma Chakra Day in Rashtrapati Bhavan was a warning that he emphasized India’s cultural heritage superiority against Chinese influence in the region. Because while China strengthens its military presence in the Indian Ocean, it carries out important projects in countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Maldives, Djibouti, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and these projects pose a serious threat to India’s presence in the region.
Despite all this, during the India-China border crisis, Modi’s choice to remain silent for a long time, not to raise the tension and to take China’s aggression lying down, has received considerable criticism from within the country. Denial of the opposition’s statements that the country is losing territory and the failure to heed the warnings of local leaders in the Ladakh region also negatively affect the image of Modi and his government. The words of the local leaders in the Ladakh region that the Chinese threat has been ongoing for years and that border violations have been increasing in recent years have been reflected in the media. In addition, the people of Ladakh living in the border regions claim that due to the increasing presence of China in recent years, they have lost their grazing land. Regional officials say that the nomads dealing with animal husbandry in Ladakh are also affected by this situation and state that the nomads should be listened to and they have a great role in national security at the borders. Modi could not remain silent in the face of these criticisms and made a visit to the region in July 2020. However, it should be underlined that Modi did not mention China’s name both in his speech there and in his 74th Independence Day celebration speech on 15 August 2020. Therefore, in the current crisis, the Modi government and the army have lost their credibility and the war of perception, and they have approved China’s attitude due to its current attitude. Besides, Modi started a rhetorical war against China by feeding the public with hatred and revenge desire through the media in order to turn the unfavorable processes, such as the economic bottleneck in the country, in favor of her inability to manage the Covid-19 process well. The timing of the groundbreaking ceremony of the Ram Temple to be built in place of the destroyed Babri Masjid can also be read from this frame. It is also interesting that in the war of words against China, both sides try to harm the international reputation by abusing their mistreatments of the minority Muslims within the country against each other. On the other hand, India resulted in the increasing massive anti-Chinese resonance in public opinion regarding the removal of Chinese apps with the banning of 59 Chinese apps and decided to boycott Chinese products. This is a critical situation for Chinese telecom companies such as Huawei, Xiaomi and Oppo. Because for these companies, India is the second largest market in the world after China. Due to the rising anti-Chinese attitude in the Indian public, the 5G live online launch planned by the Oppo company in India has been canceled.
At this point, it is necessary to pick up on an important issue that is the approaching technological power war. With the Covid-19 process, it is now known that the importance of technology, which almost everyone experiences, will become an principal issue of international agenda and politics in the near future. Today, as a new global and geopolitical competition and challenge area, 5G technology is at the center of the world agenda. The strength of 5G technology comes not only from its speed but also from the extent of the areas it will penetrate. Because 5G governance will become a large network system that connects almost every activity conceivable such as business world, smart cities, education and health services. In this sense, 5G technology will become both a new dynamic of national power and a serious threat to national security. Especially for states that cannot produce domestic 5G technology and will import technology from foreign states, the danger will be even greater. In this sense, Gautam Chikermane, vice president of the Observer Research Foundation strategic research center, emphasized that India should not allow Chinese companies to enter its own telecommunications network and its own critical infrastructure. He reiterates the seriousness of the threat, saying that India’s allowing Huawei in 5G trials was acting not very differently, such as supporting China against itself as a UNSC member in 1950. For Chikermane, allowing Huawei or ZTE to become 5G equipment providers to Indian telecommunications companies would be like asking the CPC to hold India’s general elections. On the other hand, Chikermane states that the provisions of state-controlled firms, backed by a Chinese state that arms all its capital, have become a global concern, Australia and the USA have discovered this, Europe is in the process of discovering this, and smaller countries will wake up too late. Precisely for this reason, India’s banning of Chinese investments and applications due to the current crisis encouraged the USA and some countries in Europe to follow the same step. The US launched a global movement against Huawei, which is expected to launch commercial 5G technology by the end of this year, while the UK has stated that it wants to establish an alliance (D-10) of 10 democratic countries to produce an alternative 5G technology.
From this point of view, even the Chinese-based Huawei company delaying 5G trials in Indian soil can be seen as an important reason for this India-China conflict. China’s direct and indirect border clashes for 5G technology, which will constitute perhaps one of the most dominant powers of the near future, revealing its ambitions and desire for global domination in the near future with serious projects such as the BRI, the Digital Silk Road plan, Made in China 2025 and Chinese Standards 2035. It is highly likely that it will continue to act aggressively, with economic and business barriers, cyberattacks and possible sanctions against Indian Telecom companies. Just as anti-Chinese sentiments were rising and many called for 5G trials not to be allowed (in December 2019, Modi had allowed Huawei 5G trials despite US pressure) Huawei continued to push 5G technology in India and, with the opportunity created by Covid-19, showcased the use of 5G technology in healthcare in a new webinar organized by Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI).
On the other hand, China’s “unexpected” aggressiveness during the pandemic process also has a psychological dimension. After the Covid-19 accusations, the need for collecting a sense of nationalism for the public has risen in China. In order to understand this need, the famous Indian author Chetan Bhagat stated that it is necessary to understand two aspects of Chinese culture and stated that these concepts are miànzi (face) and guanxi (mutual dependence). Bhagat, who has lived in China for many years and worked with Chinese companies, claims that these two concepts drive the Chinese more than anything else in both human and business relations. While miànzi stands for respect, honor and social standing, he states that the Chinese will do anything to ‘protect their face’ and feel compelled to retaliate if ‘loses its face’. While the concept of guanxi is generally translated as social connections or relationships, it highlights mutual interests on the basis of all kinds of relationships. In this sense, Bhagat argues that India should not show hostility towards China and should give a “face”. Accordingly, China’s saying that it will adopt the role of enemy in exchange for the West seeing itself as an enemy confirms this understanding. In this sense, it is clear that when evaluating any event, phenomenon or crisis, the incident should be evaluated within the framework of the characters of the parties.