2020 marked an extremely tumultuous phase in India-China relations. In addition to a pandemic which originated in China and led to an economic collapse and public health crisis in India and elsewhere, China, also unleashed aggression at borders with India. Nine months later and after nine round of talks between senior military leaders of two sides, India and China decided to disengage at Pangong Tso- one of the theatres of the conflict. The decision, which was first announced by China met with a mixture of jubilation and skepticism. The jubilant parties expressed hopes that complete disengagement will take place in the other segments as well, while skeptics have chosen to adopt a wait and watch approach given that China through its actions has undone years of trust gained from the Indian side.
Weighing the unfolding events at the border and within China on an objective scale leads to a better understanding of why China chose to disengage, after nine long months. In addition to this disengagement what China has also did is that it finally gave out the names of four of its fallen soldiers. While India chose to disclose and honour India’s martyrs in June last year itself, it took China about a year to do so.
Nevertheless, this is a rare occasion when China has given out some of the names of its fallen soldiers. What China also did is that it arrested six people for “insulting” Chinese martyrs of the Galwan clash and was reportedly targeting a teenager living overseas. Contrary to the charge of the insult, what Qiu Ziming- one of those arrested had done was to question the Chinese official, “account of the clash.” The announcement of the honours for the fallen soldiers was widely covered by Chinese state media and led to an outpouring of sentiment, with the topic being among the most widely discussed one on social media during the week in which the announcement was made. What also happened subsequently because of the frenzy that the announcement had stirred up was that anti-India sentiments surged in China along with racism against Indians. Chinese state media shared an image from a recent Galwan clip along with annotations. The only issue was that the image was not of the Line of Actual Control. Very carefully China’s official media is rewriting the narrative on the border crisis.
In addition to the announced disengagement from Pangong Tso, announcement of four fallen Chinese soldiers, arresting of people questioning the Chinese state’s version of the clash, creating jingoistic frenzies among its public, releasing doctored images and videos, rewriting the narrative, what China has done is that it has consolidated the Rutog base near Pangong Tso to house disengaged People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops. The garrison at Rutog was being developed since 2019 and is expected to act as a feeder station for future PLA activity in the Pangong Tso area. Also, after the announcement of the disengagement at Pangong Tso, it was hoped that the tenth round of talks between senior military commanders will be able to make a breakthrough on addressing other friction points at Gogra, Hot Springs and Depsang Plains. However, the meeting held on February 20 did not lead to any further disengagement.
This takes one to the question, Then why did China disengage at Pangong Tso at all? If it does not want a de-escalation in the overall military conflict with India, since issues at Gogra, Hot Springs and Depsang still remain, and Chinese state media is actively creating an anti-India sentiment in China, then why disengage at Pangong Tso at all?
One of the answers to this lies in ancient Chinese wisdom that advises against opening too many fronts at the same time. Given Joe Biden’s strong remarks on China, Beijing might be wanting to close one front before another one gets opened with the U.S. Secondly, the winters have been harsh for both the armies, and the Lunar year celebrations only bring back longing amongst Chinese people far away from their homes. This is true for the PLA as well. Therefore from at least one segment, a few soldiers could be given temporary relief, so that the morale stays high. The garrison at the Rutog base clearly suggests that the disengagement is only temporary. Once reinvigorated the released soldiers can become feeders for the next round of PLA activity near Pangong Tso. Thirdly, in order to portray itself as a responsible player of the international system, China announced the names of the four fallen soldiers- something it has never done so soon in any of its previous military conflicts since 1949. This serves a dual purpose as well- keeps Nationalism high among the Chinese population, showcasing how under the able leadership of the Communist Party, China is teaching aggressors like India a lesson while doing the humane thing of honouring the fallen. But of course, any questioning of this narrative will be punishable because it has the possibility of derailing the Chinese official narrative of always portraying itself as a hapless victim which nevertheless stands its ground and fights for the right. In any case, these events only signal that the disengagement is part of a larger play and that India should be prepared at all fronts for more military aggression from China.
Dr. Sriparna Pathak is an Associate Professor and Assistant Academic Dean at the School of International Affairs of O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana. She can be reached at sriparnapathak@gmail.com