How Kibithoo, India’s first village, shows a shift in geostrategic perception of border space

Act East Policy (AEP), a significant shift in policy formulation under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and customised for India’s North East, has shifted the border perception from a restrictive space to a participatory one.

The participatory space combines developmental, geopolitical, and geostrategic resetting. This redefining process conceptualises border space as not the nondescript last mile of the country’s geography but, most importantly, its effective beginning.

Hence, terming Kibithoo in Arunachal Pradesh ‘not as India’s last village’ but as ‘India’s first village’ demonstrates the altered perception of the border as a space of activity, unity, and interconnection. The convention of binary formation—centre and margin—has become irrelevant in the new Bharat we see today. The response to China’s acts of territorial intervention at Doklam, Galwan Valley, and Tawang and its designs of shifting cartography has been equally swift and definitive. The scale of retaliation has been specific enough not to indulge in provocative acts along the border. This retaliation has been possible because of the robust infrastructural developments that have gone into making the border space stronger, resilient, and effective. This indicates that every inch of Bharat’s land is essential, and the negative metaphor of ‘not a blade of grass grows’ holds no merit any more.

Kibithoo, ‘India’s first village’ is located in the Anjaw district of Arunachal Pradesh at a height of 1,305 metres above sea level. The Lohit River finds its winding course through the district. It is the first circle headquarters, situated at the border of India and the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR). The unceasing trade and cultural communication the people of Anjaw district had with their Tibetan counterparts was disturbed in the event of Chinese aggression in Tibet and its subsequent annexation in the 1950s. The disturbed geopolitics of the region under Chinese brinkmanship made every scope of possible reconnection remote.

The event of annexation followed by the India-China War in 1962 complicated the geopolitics in the region to an irreparable extent. The Chinese territorial desire and the streak of expansionism have not seen any possible reduction since then. It takes every potential scope for conflict intensification and expects to get some dividend out of it. This has been the standard practice that Beijing has followed with great meticulousness. This cunning of China has finally reached a fitting reply in the form of solid responses from India whenever such territorial and diplomatic excesses have been made since 2014. The rising Bharat is competitive enough to derail China’s scope of global significance in manufacturing, supply chain, science and technology, and diplomacy. Under AEP, the areas that have received the most attention are infrastructure and capacity building.

This capacity building has not been confined to any specific location. This has been quite comprehensive, and the northeast has taken massive infrastructure attention because it has not gotten the required depth for a long time.

Arunachal Pradesh, in particular, has become the centre of geopolitical gravity as China continues its conventional practice of salami slicing. Apart from building airports and roads to enhance the communication and transport infrastructures, the 1,700 km long frontier highway along the McMahon Line connecting the bordering districts of Tawang, East Kameng, Upper Subansiri, West Siang, Tuting, Mechuka, Upper Siang, Dibang Valley, Desali, Chaglagam, Kibithoo, Dong, Hawai, and Vijaynagar from Bhutan to Myanmar is a geostrategic milestone. The work in this direction has already begun, and it might take just a few years, considering the climatic conditions and geographic impediments. With the scale with which China has enhanced the infrastructural depth on the other side of the border, competitive infrastructural developments have become a geostrategic imperative.

Apart from playing a significant role in augmenting India’s strategic and defence readiness, it will also act as a catalyst for inducing development and economic well-being.

India’s competitiveness in response to China’s infrastructural power along the McMahon Line has unsettled the latter and its expansionist proclivities. The required deterrence from the Indian side keeps China on uncertain ground. The territorial integrity of India is its priority.

This has been made evident through the response given to China as and when it indulges in artificial claims and irrational acts of interference. This shift in attitude suggests the emergence of a new India where every inch of its land is indispensable because it constitutes territorial integrity.

The reversal of the conceptual understanding of border space from peripherality to activity indicates the renewal of the territorial imagination. The binary between the border and the hinterland has collapsed. There is only one territory, and quality assessment as a defining criterion for allocating importance is suspended.

The subjective claims of quality should not be underlined to exercise determination of territoriality and grading processes. Therefore, the call for visiting the first village, Kibithoo, by Union Home Minister Amit Shah explains the efforts of the connectedness of India’s eastern border space.

Historically, Kibithoo has seen trading activity between Tibet and the British-formulated North East Frontier Tract. Under the barter framework, the border trade between the Mishmis of the Upper Lohit region and Tibetans from the Zayul district was consistent for centuries.

The trading process involved the exchange of merchandise on both sides. Economics apart, the cultural logic for socio-cultural intimacy was equally vital in the region. The transfer of ideas of medicine, art, aesthetics, social attitudes, politics, Buddhism, ethics, etc., acquired prominence.

The pattern formations of these interactions led to intense political and social bonhomie. The idea of the border as a productive space was disturbed to the extent of non-repair because of the Sino-Indian War in 1962 and the subsequent geopolitical gravity in the region orchestrated by China.

This historical imperative imposed by China has affected the trading instincts of the border communities and their dialogic competence in sharing knowledge and merchandise. This organic relationship that involved interdependence for goods and ideas through trade lost its continuity and recurrence in the game of geopolitics that Beijing plays in the region. Therefore, India has taken up the proper mantle in responding to China in the manner that it understands the best.

Jajati K Pattnaik is an Associate Professor at the Centre for West Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Chandan K Panda is an Assistant Professor at Rajiv Gandhi University, Itanagar. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost_’s views._