Avoid hysteria, act cautiously
The situation on the India-China border is very tense as the Galwan valley seems to have penetrated deep into India’s collective national consciousness. The clashes leading up to the Galwan tragedy have shattered the myth of ‘personal chemistry’ between the top leaders as the Chinese are rightly viewed as the aggressors. Most of the Indians have become very emotional, and this is perfectly understandable. It is not easy to keep emotions in check when the Chinese brutality has become clearly manifested in disfigurement of the bodies of Indian soldiers who fought without guns.
Although the hyper-nationalist element active on social media wants the government to retaliate the tragic death of 20 Indian soldiers, it is sobering that the government is keen to avoid the building up of unnecessary hysteria. Once aroused, the hysteria becomes uncontrollable and the only path left is armed conflict. This would be far more tragic than the unforgivable death of 20 Indians. Nationalism is a positive force, but heightened nationalism is often dangerous.
But there is a difference in the government’s response to aggression against Indian soldiers. Had Pakistan been responsible for this dastardly act – we remember the circumstances that led to India’s ‘surgical strikes’ in 2016 and ‘airstrikes’ in 2019 at Balakot – the government would have certainly acted differently. The rhetoric surrounding the retaliation would also have been quite different. But the government reaction vis-à-vis China is different simply because the power differential between Delhi and Beijing is very wide. China is a stronger adversary than Pakistan is.
There are experts reminding the government of our tactical triumph in 1967 against the Chinese. But we need to remember that the balance of forces on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) has decisively shifted since in favour of China. India remains far behind China when it comes to defence modernization, military capacity, infrastructural development along the disputed border and overall industrial ecosystems. Confident of its military superiority, China does not want India to consolidate its border infrastructure in Ladakh. India’s road construction activities around the Pangong Tso and the Galwan Valley region seem to be the immediate trigger of Chinese aggression. In addition to that, China wants all Indian neighbours to believe that India is a hostile country who is not interested in resolving its border disputes peacefully.
Constitutional changes alone cannot change the facts on the ground in Jammu and Kashmir. India needs the hard power to counter China whose identity, ideology and foreign policy preferences have been changing under the leadership of Xi Jinping. We should be aware that the rural industry in China is capable of producing goods and commodities for all sorts of global markets. Where does India stand? The least said the better about India’s rural industries. Does India really have an indigenous defence industry that can sustain the prolonged armed conflict with China without external military support? We all know the difficult answer. In simple words, India cannot challenge China without unlearning many things Indians have long become accustomed to.
Every Indian is angry against China, and she or he is justified in being angry. The dominant feeling is that China has to be stopped before it succeeds in changing the status-quo on the India-China boundary. No doubt about that. But an unprovoked border clash with China at this moment of multiple vulnerabilities on economic, political and security fronts must be avoided.
Although the possibility of finding a permanent solution to the boundary issue with China through peaceful dialogue seems wishful thinking, efforts need to be expedited to resolve the problem at the diplomatic level. And in the meantime, the government must quickly learn from its past mistakes and change the direction of India’s China policy. In hard times, only hard power can deter adversaries like China.
Leave a Reply