Chinese and Indian troops confronted each other along their remote, disputed border in the Himalayas. No bullet was shot but stones were throne and scuffle broke out. Rounds of clashes accumulated later on and in one clash numerous soldiers were injured and 20 Indian soldiers died. On the other handchina denied any causality. Both states fought a war over this disputed land in 1962 in which India faced a humiliating defeat and the current crisis is the deadliest since 1967. The issues at the western sector of the disputed border, between Indian Control Ladakh and Chinese control Aksai Chin caused the clash. Deaths, tension, and deployment of more troops escalated the danger of war and further escalation. But both states show the interest for de-escalation and dialogues. This incident gained the attention of the world as it is a threat to peace and security. A new chapter in the history of security and strategic stability has started.
This crisis raised a number of questions regarding both the states. First it draws our attention towards Chinese strategic calculation and tactical objectives. China is involved in four fronts, e.g. South China Sea, Hong Kong, Mack Mohan line, and Line of Actual Control in Ladakh. China rejected India action of 5 august of 2019 deliberately. Chinese had a plan and they waited for a suitable time. When India relaxed its patrols at the bank of Pangong china took the advantage and took control of 40 to 60 square kilometer of area which Indian claim as its territory.
Indo-china clash not only enlarged the attention of the world as it has implications for regional stability and geopolitical ties between the United States, China, and India. In this scenario, Pakistan is another stakeholder as it has close ties with China and on the contrary, it has a rivalry with India over a number of issues and border disputes are one of them. So it has implications for Pakistan as well.
India and the United States are strategic and close allies. But the response of the United States surely disappointed India as they condemned the crisis and offered the role of mediator
India’s china clash is a watershed moment in the history of both states. It has geopolitical impacts on the security of the region. There can be many reasons which played a significant role in triggering Chinese action. First, India revoked the status of Jammu and Kashmir. It changed the status of Ladakh as it came under the direct rule of Delhi. Construction activities played their part. China kept a large number of logistics in that area. On the other hand from the past few years, India started construction activities along with Line of Control. China perceived it as a threat to the status quo and a challenge for its forces which are present in their area of Line of Control. There are political reasons behind this crisis. As India revoked section 370, China declared it as a unilateral action. Strategic relation between India and US can be another significant reason which provided justification to China for certain actions. Alignment of CPEC and security of trade route is another reason. If we look at the Chinese perspective they claim the area and argued that India cannot impose its will on others. They claim that India provoke other countries to take certain action. Both China and India made an agreement that they will not escalate further at the local level but India violated that agreement.
Chinese action shows its assertiveness for its own national interests and no compromise over sovereignty. Now China is taking bold actions against its rival for its own national objectives. India china standoff increased threat for Gilgit Baltistan and CPEC route. India can use this incident to get more military support from the United States. As far as the US involvement regarding this crisis is concerned they can look to their partnership with India as their prime purpose was to contain china but India seems failed to do so.
Both states are powerful and nuclear states of the region. As this crisis has political, economic, and military implications for both states but China has an upper hand. If we see it in military term Chinese military is well organized and trained. We have seen the attitude and lack of planning of the Indian military when they confronted with Chinese troops on 15 of June. Secondly, it has psychological implications, Indian troops were embarrassed twice in this crisis. Now it would be difficult for India to retreat from this embracement with regard to China. But they can save their face if they plan some sort of attack against Pakistan. According to some scholars, India will launch some sort of attack against Pakistan in near future to divert the attention from its standoff with China. India can do it for face saving purposes and to gain public support.
As far as economic implications are concerned both states have a history of cooperation with each other. But if India went for trade suspensions it will affect both the states especially India. Approximately 10 to 20 billion dollar losses are expected to India in the condition of trade expansion. Another dimension of the crisis is the role of the United States. India and the United States are strategic and close allies. But the response of the United States surely disappointed India as they condemned the crisis and offered the role of mediator.
Now it is important to address the question that how much this crisis will impact Pakistan. There are a few dimensions that are linked with Pakistan as well. As China had a concern about the repeal of article 370, Pakistan has its own concern regarding this. Second Pakistan’s concern is about Indian construction activities e.g. construction of road network, military base, and deployment of troops close to Karakorum High way. This crisis carries some benefits to Pakistan as well. As it brought back the attention towards the Indian decision of 5th August regarding the status of Kashmir. DaulatBaig military base is another issue for Pakistan as India can use the base to attack Gilgit Baltistan. Lastly, the Indian face-saving formula could be attacking Pakistan. It will create more tensions in the region and the strategic stability of the region would be at stake.
The writer is M.phil Scholar, Nuclear and Strategic Studies