Context: Recently, the India-China border has been witnessing tensions over the past month, with incidents reported in at least four different locations along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
Background

• Border skirmishes have been reported in at least four different locations along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
• Pangong lake in Ladakh, Naku La in Sikkim, the Galwan valley in Ladakh and in Demchok.

Causes of the stand-off
Regarding Non-delineated borders

• The Line of Actual Control (LAC) has never been demarcated.
• Differing perceptions of the border, particularly acute in certain spots across the Western (Ladakh), Middle (Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand), and Eastern (Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh) sectors of the India-China border lead to face-off and stand-off situations.
• Though the boundary in the Sikkim sector is broadly agreed upon, that too has not been delineated.

Regarding India’s moves to strengthen infrastructure

• China, along the LAC, has enjoyed an advantage in infrastructure as well as terrain that is more favourable to mobilisation of troops and resources.
• The broader context for the tensions appears to be a changing dynamic along the LAC, wherein India seems to be catching up with China by improving its border infrastructure.

Regarding Increasing assertiveness of China

• The latest skirmishes at the Galwan Valley and Sikkim are somewhat unexpected as the contours of the LAC are broadly agreed to in these sectors.
• The Galwan Valley incident was triggered by China moving in troops and equipment to stop construction activity by India. India is claiming that the construction activity was well within India’s side of the LAC.

Regarding Boundary negotiations

• A three-stage boundary negotiation was proposed between India and China.
• Agreement on political parameters and guiding principles
• Evolving a framework to resolve the dispute

Delineating and demarcating of the boundary

• In 2005, the agreement on political parameters and guiding principles was completed. The current and most difficult stage involves agreeing to a framework to resolve the dispute in all sectors.
• The 22nd round of talks between the Special Representatives was held in Delhi in December 2019.
• Both sides noted that an early settlement of the boundary question serves the fundamental interests of both countries and resolved to intensify their efforts to achieve a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution.

Concerns
Failed negotiations

• India has long proposed an exercise to clarify differing perceptions of the LAC to prevent border stand-offs. India has argued that such an exercise could help both countries understand the claims of the other, paving the way to regulate activities in contested areas until a final settlement of the boundary dispute is arrived at.
• Maps were exchanged in the Middle Sector, but the exercise fell through in the Western Sector where divergence is the greatest. China has since rejected this exercise, viewing it as adding another complication to the on-going boundary negotiations.

Prospects of a settlement

• The prospects of a settlement appear bleak given the fact that there are major differences in the Western and Eastern sectors.
• India claims around 38,000 sq km in Aksai Chin. While in the east, China claims as much as 90,000 sq km, extending all across Arunachal Pradesh. One particular sticking point is China’s claims to Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh.
• Neither side will be willing to part with territory already held by them.

Strategic move by China

• The broader issue appears to be a fundamental difference in how the two countries view the boundary question.
• China appears to view an unsettled border as holding some leverage with India, one of the many pressure points it could use to keep India off-guard. The unrealistic claims of China to Tawang indicate this tendency.
• Given this strategic calculus of using border disputes by China, the stalemate over boundary delineation will likely endure.

Road Ahead

• Protocols agreed to in 2005 and 2013, detailing the rules of engagement to prevent border incidents, must be adhered to.
• There is a need to follow the principles agreed to in the previous agreements between the two countries which call for “mutual and equal security” in border negotiations.