Essential dialogue
The 29th meeting of the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs (WMCC), held in Beijing, signifies a mutual recognition of the need for dialogue and peace along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the Western Sector of the India-China border areas. Over the last few years, two of the most powerful nations of Asia—the emerging epicentre of global geopolitics—have been at loggerheads with each other on the border issue. To the dismay of the region, dialogue through multiple platforms has not yielded significantly favourable outcomes. Furthermore, thanks to the evolving geopolitical configurations, the chasm between the two nations is only increasing with time—tainting the prospects of resolution of the border issue and other bilateral issues. Nevertheless, the relevance of the dialogue under the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs cannot be questioned altogether, particularly as India and China now engage less frequently in bilateral terms and at other fora. The WMCC, in a way, keeps the way for dialogue open.
However, as mentioned earlier, things are not quite rosy for Indo-Chinese relations and border disengagement. To put the 29th WMCC meeting in context, one may point out China’s recent reiteration of its “absurd” claim on Arunachal Pradesh—a land which it erroneously refers to as “Zangan, an inherent part of China’s territory.” Renaming of Indian lands and subsequent territorial claims by China are frivolous attempts to exert diplomatic pressure. Such endeavours are an onslaught to India’s sovereignty as well, and are intolerable. The lukewarm negation of claims by Indian authorities may not be sufficient. The situation demands condemnation and rebuke by the topmost officeholders in the government. As the notorious adage goes, “a lie, if spoken a thousand times, acquires the texture of truth”. China might be trying to create a perception of contention where there is none. India cannot afford to lag behind in this game of perception building. One may take the liberty to draw an exaggerated simile—comparing Russia’s appropriation of Ukrainian territories, first in perception and then in reality, with Chinese attempts. Seemingly innocuous, Chinese endeavours may hold considerable threat in future.
Ostensibly, the reason behind this very fresh reiteration by China can be seen in Chinese bitterness arising out of India’s intervention in the South China Sea. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar’s meeting with his Philippine counterpart in Manila has probably irked China. The minister there expressed “India’s support to the Philippines for upholding its national sovereignty.” The Global Times reported in no uncertain terms that “if New Delhi continues to misjudge the situation and underestimate China’s determination and will, it will only lead to more risks and losses for India in the future”.
In this complex scenario, the pursuit of dialogue and peace through forums like the WMCC is crucial. It provides a mechanism for both nations to articulate concerns, propose solutions, and build consensus on de-escalating tensions. The shared history, cultural ties, and economic interdependencies between India and China offer a foundation upon which diplomatic engagements can build. Recognising mutual interests and the costs of confrontation could facilitate a more conducive atmosphere for addressing and eventually resolving border disputes.
Needless to say, the road to peace and stability along the LAC is fraught with challenges. It requires not only the resolution of immediate military stand-offs but also addressing underlying political, historical, and strategic issues that fuel these tensions. The commitment to dialogue, as evidenced by the WMCC meetings, is a step in the right direction. Yet, the effectiveness of these dialogues in achieving lasting peace and disengagement will depend on the willingness of both nations to compromise and find mutually acceptable solutions.