L’affaire Yangtse: Why there is a need for recalibration of border issues between India and China

It is not immediately known whether Carl von Clausewitz (Born: 1780), the Prussian General and author of the redoubtable treatise On War was influenced by Sun Tzu, the 544 BC Chinese general and philosopher, but a close reading of both their works would seem to entail that despite the apparent differences in their philosophies pertaining to warfare, there exists certain inherent convergences. The one-time director of the Prussian War College (Allgemeine Kreigschule) and military strategist has written that “(war) has certainly a grammar of its own, but its logic is not peculiar to itself”. He also states that “war is only a part of political intercourse, therefore by no means an independent thing in itself”. Such assertions resonate in Sun Tzu as well, especially when he affirms that “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting”. In other words, victory is better achieved by diplomacy—an important plinth in “political intercourse”—than by taking recourse to war. The history of Indo-China relations is fraught with a surfeit of mistakes. Indeed, despite attempts by both the countries to bury the past and make a new beginning, indications are that misunderstandings continue to simmer over some fundamental issues. The recent incident in Yangtse in the Kameng Sector of Arunachal Pradesh has been the newest. This aspect gains in importance when the fact about the Chinese wanting to alter the Line of Actual Control is factored in. Indeed, this was not the first of such attempts by the Chinese in the area, and Yangtse has been heir to similar, albeit almost such annual occurrences. In some ways, the Yangtse incident can be compared to the Galwan incident. The only difference—and a very important one that the nation should take note of—is that while the Chinese were able to occupy ground in eastern Ladakh when they intruded in 2020, they were very resolutely beaten back by the Indian army in Yangtse. But the incident was clearly an attempt by the Chinese to occupy ground which is not theirs. Most people have been confused by the recent incident. Indeed, Yangtse itself is not a very familiar household name and has been, therefore created considerable confusion and curiosity. This author has traversed almost the entire eastern sector that constitutes the 3,488-kilometre- long India-China boundary that runs from Ladakh to Arunachal Pradesh. But he has not been to Yangtse in the Kameng Sector. It necessitated consultation with both people who have been to Yangtse as well as geography by way of searches on the internet to comprehend the terrain of the area. Yangtse sits on a spur, a somewhat stretched, very gradually sloping “tongue” of land that runs down from a knoll to a lesser ground. If the terrain has to be invoked then it would seem like a “U” or a “V” pointing away from the high ground. In other words, a spur is a narrow ridge branching off a summit or a main ridge. Quite simply it is a short ridge with the ground sloping downwards in three directions and upwards in one direction. On a map, the contour lines depicting a spur are (as aforesaid) “U” shaped pointing away from a higher ground. In most cases, a spur will have draws to the left or right, or it is possible that a spur is situated between two draws. A draw itself is a small valley and has essentially no level ground and little or no room for manoeuvre. Therefore, if one is standing on a draw, the ground slopes upward in three directions and downward in the other direction. A draw could be considered to be the initial formation of a valley. A valley will usually have many draws feeding into the valley with streams or intermittent streams feeding into the body of water flowing through the valley. The Indian Army occupies the high ground in Yangtse and the Chinese are in the ground below. The fact that the Indian Army occupies an elevated position has been an eyesore for the Chinese and they have been—almost regularly—attempting to correct what they consider an anomaly. Therefore, getting atop the spur and occupying the heights would have been a militarily advantageous position. Indeed, this has been the Chinese stratagem and one which has been a regular venture for them. However, the attempt that was made in the wee hours of 9 December 2022 became news because of the force with which the Chinese sought to occupy the spur. It has been variously reported that over 200-400 Chinese soldiers armed with clubs with nails and wires wound around them sought to climb up to the position that is being held by the Indian Army. It has also been reported that the Chinese felt that they could overwhelm the Indian Army post as it was at the time being thought to be held only by 40 odd personnel. In any event, the bravehearts of the Indian Army formed a human chain and held the ground and with reinforcements from the second tier of the Indian Army made the Chinese withdraw. There was, it has been reported, a goodly scuffle between the two sides and there have been injuries on both sides with reports stating that the Chinese had the worst of it. Indeed, some of the injured Chinese soldiers were even helped by the Indian jawans. Gratefully the situation has been brought under control and there was a flag meeting in Bum La to diffuse the situation. Indeed, it is to the credit of the higher leadership of the Indian Army in the eastern theatre that must be lauded not only for correctly arraying itself against such Chinese intrusion but by strengthening the infrastructure in the entire eastern sector. The positive takeaway from the Yangtse incident is that such Chinese adventurism would not be brooked and now possibly such incidents would become far and few between. The resolve of the Indian Army and its leadership has become a resounding statement for both the Chinese and the Indian nation with the latter taking great pride in the manner the situation was brought under control by its bravehearts. The loud and clear message for the Chinese is that 2022 and henceforth is not going to be a pushover for the warmongering people on the other side of what is clearly India’s. But the fact remains that Yangtse is just one of the areas that can be characterised as “disputed”. Indeed, it was reportedly occupied by the Indian army in 1987 during the Sumdorong Chu crisis when the Chinese constructed a helipad in a seasonal Intelligence Bureau post. It has been a matter of great discomfort for the Chinese since then. Incidentally, Yangtse falls well within the Indian claim line and there is no dispute about the matter. But the non-delineation of the Line of Actual Control will continue to witness such flare-ups unless there is a clear cut policy that is put in place by the highest leadership in India. Indeed, dissonance has been erupting all along the long boundary on a variety of occasions, and only a few of them—such as the Yangtse incident—reaches the Indian public gaze. It must also be mulled over whether the policy of resolving the entire 3,488-kilometre boundary in one fell swoop (which seems to be the preferred option of both New Delhi and Beijing) is just too much to hope for. The periodic intrusion-driven skirmishes and stand-offs have ascertained that. The accent, therefore, must be on concentrating on standalone sectors or even sub-sectors, the resolution of which would provide not only new-found confidence in both countries but considerably lessen the rhetoric which normally governs such confrontation. The sectors that should be chosen should be the ones that have a history of the least amount of disagreement and ones that seem to satisfy both countries by way of the manner in which they are dug in. Indeed, one of the aspects that seem to be gaining ground in India among many India-China experts is that the as-is-where-is basis could be a possible way towards resolving the boundary issue. But to be able to even execute such an entente cordiale a modicum of normalcy that is presently absent would have to be engineered. Indeed, it is high time diplomacy took over from where the brave Indian Army proved to be more than equal to the task and provided the nation with an opportunity that could be correctly exploited. As Sun Tzu stated in his The Art of War “in the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity” and “opportunities multiply as they are seized”. The writer is a celebrated conflict theorist and best-selling author. Views expressed are personal. Read all the Latest News , Trending News , Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.