China has said it abides by the Royal Line of Control (LAC) proposed by Prime Minister Zhou Enlai to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in a letter dated November 7, 1959, the first time in decades that it has clearly stated its position on the notional concept. The Sino-Indian border by reiterating a position that New Delhi has consistently rejected since it was first made 61 years ago.
Beijing’s position, in an exclusive statement to HT amid ongoing border friction in eastern Ladakh, is a reiteration of long-standing differences on the boundary issue and a sign that it is unlikely May the ongoing military confrontation be resolved soon.
Also read: Eye on China, India bets on Heron technology update, Guardian drones that fire missiles
In the statement in Mandarin, China’s Foreign Ministry, while blaming the Indian military for the ongoing tension since May and the June 15 clash in the Galwan Valley in eastern Ladakh, said the clash it was an “unfortunate” event.
“First of all, the border between China and India in LAC is very clear, that is LAC on November 7, 1959. China announced it in the 1950s, and the international community, including India, is also clear”, the ministry said on Friday.
“However, since this year, the Indian Army has continued to illegally arrive and cross the border, unilaterally expanding the scope of actual control. This is the source of tension on border issues. The key to the disconnect between the two armies is the withdrawal from India of all illegal cross-border personnel and equipment, ”he added.
It is the first time in recent years that Beijing has said in no uncertain terms that it is still governed by the LAC of 1959. However, it made a passing reference during the Doklam crisis of 2017, when the spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China Hua Chunying spoke of the “LAC of 1959” and blamed Indian troops for a fight with Chinese soldiers near Lake Pangong in Ladakh in August of that year.
Read also | Brahmos, Akash and Nirbhay: India launches its missiles to counter Chinese threat
India has repeatedly and consistently rejected China’s allegations that Indian troops crossed to the Chinese side of LAC in eastern Ladakh, stating that New Delhi has always taken a responsible approach towards border management and maintaining peace and tranquility. in border areas.
India’s Foreign Ministry did not respond to requests for comment on the new Chinese statement.
The November 7, 1959 date mentioned in the Beijing declaration referred to a letter written by Zhou to Nehru, the two leaders under whom the two countries experienced the best and worst of bilateral diplomatic relations. “In order to effectively maintain the status quo of the border between the two countries, ensure the tranquility of the border regions and create a favorable atmosphere for a friendly settlement of the border issue, the Chinese government proposes that the armed forces of China and India withdraw each 20 km at a time from the so-called McMahon Line in the east, and from the line up to which each side exercises actual control in the west, ”Zhou wrote.
Also read: How Chinese propaganda is using the 1962 war to shape public opinion
A year later, during his high-profile visit to New Delhi in 1960, Zhou had used the phrase “LAC” during a press conference. “There is a real line of control between the two counties up to which each side exercises administrative jurisdiction,” he said as part of a six-point proposal to keep the peace on the border.
Zhou went on to say that both sides should stay on the “… royal line of control and should not submit territorial claims as preconditions, but individual adjustments can be made.”
In 1962, when India and China fought a war between October and November, Nehru rejected the definition. “It makes no sense or significance in the Chinese offer to withdraw twenty kilometers from what they call the ‘royal control line,” he said. The Chinese prime minister responded to Nehru, defining LAC, again on November 7, 1959.
The LAC was “basically the actual line of control that existed between the Chinese and Indian sides on November 7, 1959: to put it specifically, in the eastern sector it coincides mainly with the so-called McMahon Line, and in the west. and the middle sectors coincide in the main with the traditional traditional line that has been constantly pointed out by China, ”Zhou said in response to Nehru.
The phrase LAC was used in the 1993 “Agreement on the maintenance of peace and tranquility along the LAC in the India-China border areas” between China and India. At New Delhi’s insistence, the expression was not qualified in terms of whether it was 1959.
Former Indian Ambassador to China, Gautam Bambawale said that “… the meaning (of the statement) is that they are telling India that LAC is the November 7, 1959 line, as Zhou Enlai explained to Nehru in his letter. That’s. They are guided by that. “Bambawale added:” We have never accepted it. There were several sources of disagreement and the largest number of sources (of disagreements) was in Ladakh. Obviously, we did not accept the offer. ” He added that New Delhi has conveyed this to Beijing in “no uncertain terms.”
Bambawale, a leader in China, had also served as ambassador to Bhutan, the only other country besides India with which Beijing has a territorial dispute.
Bambawale said that, following the Chinese understanding of LAC, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is trying to hold ground positions up to him according to the 1959 LAC.
It is clear that the current border aggression shown by the Chinese since May is to try to control territories up to where Beijing defines its FTA.
Officials from diplomatic circles, who asked not to be identified, told HT that India had pointed out its disagreements with the 1959 LAC even during meetings of the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination (WMCC) on India-China Border Issues established in 2012 as a mechanism to consult and coordinate the management of the border areas between India and China.
Little is known about the differences in perceptions of LAC in the western sector, the most problematic. Maps have only been changed for the middle sector so far.
One of the aforementioned officials told HT that the LAC clarification process for the western sector broke down “an hour after the meeting” in 2002. Since then, the entire process, which was then a Group of Experts headed by a MEA director general and a deputy director general of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China – has stalled. “The western section was drawn by Indian Surveyor (WH) Johnson, who privately allocated more than 30,000 square kilometers of land in the Aksai Chin region of China to British India. This is the historical origin of the territorial dispute between China and India in the western section, ”said Wang Dehua, an expert on South Asia at the Shanghai Municipal Center for International Studies.
“China expects India to grant more concessions in the western sector, while Beijing could grant more concessions (to India) in the eastern sector,” Wang added.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry statement blamed New Delhi for the tension, saying: “… the right and wrong of the Galwan Valley conflict is very clear. We didn’t want to see what happened. We hope that the media do not publicize this unfortunate event. ” The ministry did not respond to a question about the number of casualties the PLA suffered during the brutal hand-to-hand confrontation with Indian army soldiers on June 15.
The ministry statement referred to recent talks by foreign ministers and the military held between India and China.
“Since the bilateral meeting between the Chinese and Indian foreign ministers in Moscow on September 10, the two sides have actively engaged in dialogue and consultations based on the five-point statement,” he said.
Referring to the commander-level talks, he said that “constructive measures were taken to stabilize the border situation. We hope that the two sides will walk in the same direction and push the front-line troops to withdraw as soon as possible. When asked to comment on reports that Beijing is increasing tension with neighbors to divert attention from a badly affected economy, the ministry said that, although hit by the pandemic, the economy is reviving.
“Due to Covid-19, China’s economy has been affected but growth has recovered and has contributed to the recovery of the world economy, the statement added.
On relations with neighbors, the ministry said: “The relationship between China and its neighboring countries is generally good. China has always insisted on resolving differences between neighboring countries through friendly consultations. “
Sameer Patil, an international security studies fellow at Gateway House, said the statement indicated that China was clearly taking a maximalist position that ignored all developments that have taken place since 1959, including bilateral border talks, mechanisms and agreements on the peace and quiet. in the LAC.
“When the Special Representatives mechanism was established, this was not their position. Even if this matters [China’s stance on the LAC of 1959] it may have been known, it was not reiterated when important mechanisms and bilateral arrangements were established for the handling of the border dispute, ”he said.
“This reflects China’s stubborn attitude towards the border dispute. Reiterating this maximalist position in the middle of the five-month confrontation shows that China has no intention of seeking an early solution to the problem, ”added Patil.
(With input from Rezaul H Laskar)
.
