PSIR 4 IAS

There is a general consensus in Delhi that the Galwan encounter has produced a discontinuity in India’s China policy. Sceptics might say such generalisations made in the aftermath of a bloody encounter tend to overstate the prospects of change. They would add that structural constraints would limit dramatic changes in policy once the heat of the moment dissipates. This emphasis on inertia must be set against reality that the Galwan clash comes amidst the deepening crisis in bilateral relations over the last decade. Stalled boundary talks, a widening trade deficit, the clash of national interests in the region, and Chinese opposition to India’s global aspirations have together strained Sino-Indian relations. Galwan is the last straw, the argument goes, that broke the camel’s back. Although both propositions are rooted in reality, the potential direction of the Sino-Indian relationship is likely to depend on how the current military confrontation in Ladakh is resolved. If it ends with a

As Russia tries to strike a delicate balance between India and China on the Galwan Valley face-off, questions are being raised on the relevance of the Russia-India-China (RIC) trilateral. How should Rajnath Singh’s Moscow visit, where his Chinese counterpart was also present, be seen in light of recent tensions with China. Can Russia, with its heavy trade dependence on China and strong diplomatic ties with India, take a clear position on the matter? Key takeaways - Russia is getting close to China Majority of India's defence need comes from Russia Russia's changed foreign policy is seen through the prism of engagement with the west Russia is antagonistic to Indo-Pacific narrative RIC is product of 1990s to challenge US unipolarity Fragmentation of the multilateral norms is to happen → issue based coalitions is the need non convergence of India and China will endanger not only RIC but also BRICS and the global order Given the China's economic heft and aggression is n

In the backdrop of troublesome territorial assertions, the ‘entity’ needs to be rethought of as a region of regions Even during this period of social distancing and public lockdown, claims and counterclaims over territories in and around the Kalapani region (located at the tri-junction between northern India, western Nepal and southern China/Tibet) have resurfaced to become an issue that has embroiled India and Nepal in a political debate; it is now gravitating towards a confrontational trend of popular politics. Therefore, it is pertinent to look at our South Asian mentalities as to how such disputes are “handled” rather than “addressed” within the given dispensation of South Asian statecraft. State as sole arbiter One of the major problems of South Asian politics is that it has to flow from within a state-centric paradigm. State-centrism, within the assumption of a South Asia, has given the state structure the propriety to be the sole arbiter of disputes, if any, among communities an

The motive behind China’s incursion in Ladakh is to push India to settle the boundary issue and cede Aksai Chin to China. Experts phrase China’s border policies differently, but the overriding assessment is that they are essentially an outward projection of internal security concerns. The key, in essence, is to ward off the threat at the periphery to achieve internal stability. A pattern is being noticed after China’s last experiment of settling borders with Russia and three Central Asian states in the 1990s. Fearing its sensitive Xinjiang region becoming an object of external power play after the Soviet collapse, Beijing had displayed urgency in settling the border with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The Chinese border negotiation tactics with these countries blended “incentives with coercion”. Beijing settled for a third of territories it claimed from Kazakhstan. Yet, the Kazakhs had to admit they had gained. In addition to what it had lost, Kazakhstan had to denounce Uyghur

On June 16, reports trickled in from the remote mountainous region of Ladakh that Indian soldiers had died in violence the previous night along the disputed border with China. Many details are still uncertain, with the Indian and Chinese governments trading blame for the incident, but what is clear is that a fight broke out between Indian and Chinese troops in the isolated Galwan River Valley. It resulted in 20 Indian Army deaths, including that of a senior officer, along with dozens of injuries, some inflicted using sticks covered in nails or barbed wire. China’s People’s Liberation Army also suffered casualties, although the Chinese government has not released the number and names of those killed. The victims represent the first violent deaths on the India-China border since 1975 and the most fatalities at that location since 1967. The Galwan River clash also marks a significant turn in relations between India and China — and that, in turn, will have long-lasting implications for the

FIGHTING TWO BATTLES simultaneously — one against Chinese aggression in Ladakh and another against the China-originating coronavirus — India finds itself at a critical juncture in its post-Independence history. How India emerges from the dual crises will not only decide Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s political future but, more importantly, have an important bearing on the country’s future trajectory and international standing. The bare fact is that China’s stealth aggression in the second half of April caught India napping, with the armed forces discovering the intrusions in early May. In a swift operation that must have been planned months ahead, China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) forcibly changed the status quo by encroaching into disputed and undisputed border areas of Ladakh. This came at a time when a distracted India was wrestling with the coronavirus outbreak by enforcing the world’s strictest lockdown. Since the 1980s, China has been eating away — bite by bite — at India’s

Understandably, due to its evolving ties with China and rivalry with India, Pakistan has been viewing the Ladakh standoff through a Chinese lens. The episode has gained substantial space in mainstream Pakistani media. As expected, there are India-bashing commentaries, analysis, and coverage on TV channels, along with official backing. The reason is obvious: Pakistan, like China, has its own long-standing territorial dispute with India. That has led to wars between the two countries, as well as frequent clashes along the Line of Control, dividing the disputed Kashmir between India and Pakistan. Civilians have lost their lives on both sides of de facto border. During a violent face-off in Ladakh on the night of June 15 to 16, the Indian Army claimed to have lost 20 of its soldiers in the biggest clash between India and China in nearly 50 years. China’s Defense Ministry confirmed there had been casualties, without giving a number. There has not been independent reporting from either side.