An occasional skirmish between patrol teams of India and China on their un-demarcated 3,440-kilometre-long border should ordinarily cause no alarm. But there are circumstances which require the two sides to act with circumspection. A few years ago, the Indian and Chinese armies, in an attempt to limit casualties in border clashes, decided that soldiers on patrol duty should not carry firearms. Unfortunately this welcome step led to a barbaric practice. Soldiers started attacking each other with spiked sticks and clubs.

A large number of fatalities occurred when patrol parties fought with such primitive weapons in Ladakh’s Galvan Valley in 2020. A similar encounter took place in the Tawang area of Arunachal Pradesh recently. Mercifully, no serious injuries, let alone deaths, were reported this time. All recent skirmishes appear to be the result of attempts by one side or the other to shift the line of actual control to its advantage.

On the Himalayan border, China has the advantage of height. In conditions of hostilities, this advantage will be short-lived. As soldiers move downhill, they face the disadvantage of a lengthening supply line. This was what prompted the Chinese to withdraw unilaterally in 1962 after pushing the Indian soldiers down. The most recent assessment of the relative positions of the two sides on the Himalayan border was that China, which was the first to take up infrastructure development in the region, is better placed than India. Some observers have suggested that recent Chinese moves in the border region are aimed at hindering Indian attempts to match its infrastructure. Reports that India was able to raise its troop strength in Tawang ahead of the planned Chinese action and force the men of the People’s Liberation Army to return to their posts indicate that it has been able to improve its position.  

The world is already in the third decade of what was prophesied by experts to be the Asian Century. The Indian and Chinese leadership must seriously consider if it is wise to fritter away their energies at this time in squabbles to the detriment of their own larger, long-term interests. The Arunachal clash led to an unseemly political controversy in India.  It was only after the Congress, the main opposition party, had made unsuccessful attempts to raise the issue in the two houses of Parliament, through adjournment motions, that Defence Minister Rajnath Singh came forward to make a statement on the incident in the two houses.

After his statement, the opposition sought discussion on the subject in both the houses. The request was refused. The opposition accused the government of running away from debate. In the absence of detailed information, an outside observer cannot form an opinion on whether or not the government was right in refusing a debate. But it is difficult to ignore the ruling Bharatya Janata Party’s disconcerting habit of assuming monopoly over patriotism and accusing the opposition of not being appreciative of the heroic role of the Indian army.

Such exclusivist approach should have no place in a democratic system in which the army remains above political strife. To ensure healthy working of the system, it is necessary to evolve procedures  conducive to the development of a national consensus on sensitive issues like the border dispute.

In democratic countries with an established two-party system, it is customary for the Prime Minister to brief the Leader of the Opposition on sensitive issues. In a multi-party system like India’s needs a broader consultative mechanism. The present situation carries with it the risk of the border face-off issue getting caught in domestic political rivalry.

While Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge spoke responsibly on the Tawang incident, some BJP and Congress leaders could not resist the temptation to cast aspersions and make insinuations against each other. The rival campaigns reached the height of absurdity when each side accused the other of being pro-China. The Prime Minister and the Congress President must step in and check such irresponsible conduct by their followers.  If the government considers the border situation too sensitive to be discussed openly in Parliament, it should use an existing forum like the Consultative Committee of Parliament for the relevant ministry or create a new forum for a broad-based discussion. Democracy does not thrive on silence.