Five-Point Consensus: Engage to disengage?

Responding to questions on his book, “The India Way: Strategies for an Uncertain World”, Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar reiterated, “I am totally convinced that the solution to the situation (on the LAC) has to be found in the domain of diplomacy. And I say that with responsibility”.  He added, “We have agreements and understandings with China… and the agreements and understandings must be scrupulously observed by both parties, neither party should attempt to change the statusquo unilaterally. And the reality is what happens on the border, will impact the relationship, you cannot separate it”¹. Shortly after this message, Chinese foreign Minister Wei Fenghe sought a meeting with India defence minister Rajnath Singh at SCO’s Defence meeting in Moscow owing to shift in strategic advantage in favour of India at the LAC.

From Aug 29^th/30^th, ratcheting up tensions, China has not only fortified its camps along the border but stepped up deployment of troops. Like the Military commanders talks which failed to end the stalemate even the Defence Ministers talks hit a deadlock ². India insisted on the pull back of troops to Pre-May positions and China demanded that India meet it half way. Differences persisted. But India firmly refused to give in. With reports of Chinese air force on second-level alert and activation of surface to air missile batteries the propensity for a localised conflict gained strength. On Sep 6^th gun shots were fired into air at LAC, (firing at LAC last occurred in 1975) signalling a new phase in the latest escalations. Western Theatre Command issued a statement accusing India of the grave provocation, in reply Indian Army not only called the bluff of the PLA but issued a stern warning, “The Indian Army is committed to maintaining peace and tranquillity, however is also determined to protect national integrity and sovereignty at all costs”³. Given China’s record of habitual violations and subterfuge, a flurry of official denouncements and provocative posturing from the PLA and Chinese media has only validated its perfidy.

With troops of India and China now hardly 300mt away at some locations along the LAC, at China’s behest foreign ministers of both countries held in-person talks at Moscow. For the first time in the four months of LAC stand-off, countries issued a five-point consensus statement. Both countries alluded to the understanding at the two informal summits, Wuhan and Mamallapuram and agreed not to allow- “differences to become disputes”; “to continue dialogue, quickly disengage, maintain proper distance and ease tensions”; “abide by existing protocols.. maintain peace and tranquillity… and avoid escalate matters”; “communication through Special Representatives and negotiations Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on Indo-China Border affairs (WMCC)”; “expedite work to conclude Confidence Building Measures” ⁴. The chartered course of action suggested by foreign ministers didn’t have anything new. Both countries have agreed on all aforementioned issues even at the highest levels. Real problem has been China’s lack of compliance.

At the root of China’s long drawn aggressive posturing at LAC has been President Xi’s attempts to consolidate his position. COVID tremors has irrevocably tarnished Beijing’s reputations. Hurried face-savers like “mask diplomacy” and “wolf-warrior diplomacy” has compounded the damage. China’s loss of face, growing global Sino-scepticism and internal threat from the Communist Youth League (CYL) to which premier Li Keqiang and Vice-Premier Hu Chunhua belong unsettled Xi. Inimitable economic recession, food shortages, floods, protests by minority Mongols have stymied Xi’s attempts to consolidate his position. To evade scrutiny, Xi launched Yunnan Style Recitification purge in July and in August Xi’s right-hand man Wang Xiaohong warned of action against, “two-faced people” ⁵. Also, Xi, reinvigorated “great rejuvenation” or “the Chinese Dream” and invested heavily in Ladakh issue.

India’s growing assertions of reclaiming its stature as rising Civilisational state, revocation of special status to Jammu &Kashmir and growing strategic synergism with the US posed threats to China’s aspirational drive. To stave off the attention of domestic audience from the internal issues, Xi adopted an obdurate approach towards India.

Incidentally, the meticulous pre-emptive action on Aug 29^th/30^th by the Special Frontier Force (SFF) comprising majorly of Tibetan exiles which provided a tactical advantage to India also fuelled China’s fury. SFF’s action besides reigniting the latent Tibetan nationalism challenged the One-China Policy. A Tibetan resurgence is the last thing Beijing wants at a time when Taiwan is also making huge noise about repeated Chinese airspace violation. While China made no secret of its intent to clamp down all voices of freedom or autonomy with an iron-hand in Tibet, SFF’s acts of courage and bravery catapulted Tibetan autonomy to the forefront. China is now seething with anger.

Caught on the backfoot, China is making overtures for negotiations, launched psych-ops and an information war. Through repeated violations Chinese has irredeemably established its credentials as ‘the Aggressor’. China’s claims are untenable, contradicting the consensus hours after talks, China espoused its mala fide agenda.  The charade is exposed. Though India has signalled its intent with the formal induction of Rafale fighter jets, it is drawing flak from some quarters for the missing mention of India’s demand of “return to statusquo”, in the 5-point consensus. India have learnt lessons, the hard way to fritter away the strategic gains.

The Game is on!!!

@ Copyrights reserved.