China's mischievous stapled visas: Cartographic aggression and athletes as scapegoats of geopolitics

In a fresh controversy, a wushu (martial arts) contingent of India bound for the World University Games in Chengdu, China, was called off hours before boarding at the Indira Gandhi International Airport. Three athletes of the contingent were issued stapled visas, unlike the stamped visas of the other athletes. Each of these three athletes hailed from India’s Arunachal Pradesh - which Beijing claims as being part of Tibet that it occupied in 1950-51. In a gesture perceived as an aggression against India’s territorial sovereignty, this incident warrants a deeper analysis - not only in terms of its history and evolution but also the impact it leaves on domestic Indian situations. It forms one aspect of a larger Chinese political offensive of engaging in ‘cartographic aggression’. Stapled visas and more Cartographic aggression is an act of challenging existing geographical realities or establishing newer ones against the territorial sovereignty of the adversary states. This has been a practice since the very existence of nation-states, however, in recent times has been most prominently used by Beijing as a primary tool of its aggressive foreign policy. Unlike conventional means of territorial aggression, this tool operates in the cognitive domain - influencing domestic and international perceptions in favour of the country. These actions often either justify preceding military offensives (as legitimizing the Chinese offensive in the South China Sea based on the ‘nine-dash line’ theory) or as justification for a potential military offensive in the future (as the Chinese maps depicting Aksai Chin as Chinese territory released in 1959 that were followed by the 1962 offensive). The stapling of visas forms only one aspect of this larger influence operation, specifically called cartographic aggression. The history of such Chinese offensives has been ongoing since the establishment of Communist China in October 1949. Issues of incorrect maps were first raised by prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru in as early as 1954, and again in 1956, with his counterpart. Dismissed as “old Kuomintang maps,” this was followed by a formal claim over 40,000 square km of then North Eastern Frontier Territories (1959) as well as Aksai Chin in 1959. Instances of such aggressive operations in the form of distorted maps, stapled visas, and diplomatic statements have continued since. In 2006, Chinese Ambassador Sun Yuxi claimed all of Arunachal Pradesh for the first time - expanding from the previous Chinese position of claiming the Tawang tract. Claiming the Indian state as part of its South Tibet has since begun. Following this, in 2007, an Indian official hailing from Arunachal Pradesh was denied a normal visa. This was extended to Indian visitors from Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) 2008 onwards. While the practice was reversed for residents of J&K following former PM Manmohan Singh’s BRICS visit in 2011, the practice for citizens hailing from Arunachal has largely remained unchanged. Publication of maps claiming parts of Indian territory have been regularly released by official platforms, media houses and map agencies of China - even coinciding with state visits by Indian Prime Ministers as in 2015. In the most recent incident in April 2023, places in Arunachal Pradesh were assigned “invented” names by China, as part of the claimed South Tibet. The continuous offensive in varied forms generates perceptions favoring Chinese foreign policy interests, at the cost of India’s territorial integrity. Incorrect maps depicting Chinese claims are often used by international organisations, media houses, and even friendly countries, sometimes without realisation. In an event I attended some two years back, a Japanese scholar discussing the Indo-Pacific happened to use a similar, incorrect map. On raising the issue with him, he informed me how he happened to use the map without realising the cartographic misrepresentation of Indian boundaries. Similar issues have been raised by me on several occasions - most of which, at least by friendly countries and some Indian nationals - can be avoided with greater awareness, at conferences, college lectures, and academic/journalistic publications. Having said that, the geopolitical tussle comes with another major issue that has not been given the attention it deserves - the interests of young athletes and civilians from Arunachal Pradesh. This incident is not the first time a contingent ready to board for an event has been called off at the eleventh hour. The same issue has been faced by a contingent of Karate players, two young archers as well as a weightlifting official and athlete from the same state in 2011. With some relaxation post-2013, in 2016, an Arunachali badminton coach bound for the Youth World Championship faced a similar treatment. As opposed to events organized under the Olympic Council of Asia where officials and athletes receive their accreditation in India before their departure (serving as their visas), most other events require the involvement of the Chinese Embassy. Given the fact that such a Chinese stance is not unprecedented, prior action on the same shall save the demoralisation of an Indian contingent being called off at the eleventh hour. It must be recognised that these young athletes train for years, often dealing with ill-equipped facilities, to represent the country on international platforms. Abrupt actions like these often fulfill an auxiliary motive of such influence operations by adversary states - generating grievances among the domestic population. In conclusion, it must be acknowledged that the Indian response to Chinese cartographic aggression, in the cognitive domain, has certainly become more visible, distancing itself from the erstwhile ‘conciliatory’ approach. We have moved from the ‘receptive’ to the ‘reactive’ stage. We now need to transcend to the ‘pro-active’ stage in our relationship with China. The author is an independent security analyst with her areas of interest focussed on Influence Operations and India’s Internal Security. She has previously served as Research Assistant at Centre for Land Warfare Studies (New Delhi), a think tank of the Indian Army. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views. Read all the Latest News , Trending News , Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.