If one flips through the pages of history, one would realize that India and China have struggled to reach a consensus on resolving border disputes. Time and again, issues have arisen that hinder progress, resulting in fatal encounters that have further strained relations between the two countries. The relationship between India and China has often oscillated between conflict, competition, and diplomatic standoffs.
Numerous instances of military encounters have occurred, and the Galwan Valley clash of 2020 dealt a significant blow to the ties between New Delhi and Beijing. Political trust and diplomacy between the two nations were in disarray, with troops from both sides deployed along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). The Indian government responded with measures such as banning Chinese apps and tightening visa processing. From that point onwards, the Indo-China relationship appeared bleak, with the potential for further military confrontations looming.
However, things took a different turn when efforts were made by both Delhi and Beijing to address these issues and bring peace and tranquility to the borders. These efforts resulted in several rounds of diplomatic engagements and high-level talks between military leaders, culminating in a disengagement agreement between the two nations. India’s External Affairs Minister, Dr. S. Jaishankar, stated, “The maintenance of peace and tranquility in border areas is a prerequisite for the development of our ties.” In October 2024, India and China reached a strategic border agreement to de-escalate tensions along the LAC by pulling back troops and resuming pre-2020 patrols in contested areas such as Depsang and Demchok in eastern Ladakh.
Following the announcement of the border accord, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping met on the sidelines of the BRICS Summit in Russia, marking their first bilateral meeting in five years. Adding to the spirit of improved ties, President Xi stated, “It’s important for both sides to shoulder our international responsibilities, set an example for boosting the strength and unity of developing countries, and contribute to promoting multi-polarization and democracy in international relations.” These statements from representatives of both nations highlighted a mutual desire to improve relations while focusing on effectively handling disputes.
Furthermore, India’s External Affairs Minister, Dr. Jaishankar, met his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, in Rio de Janeiro on the sidelines of the G20 Summit. This meeting further bolstered hopes for an improved India-China relationship. Both ministers emphasized the need to build mutual trust to restore normalcy and move forward with the process of de-escalation and enhanced diplomacy.
The Rio de Janeiro meeting also touched on other significant points. Among them was the resumption of the Kailash Mansarovar pilgrimage for Indian pilgrims, which had been suspended due to the COVID-19 crisis and border tensions. The resumption of this pilgrimage could play a vital role in improving bilateral relations. Kailash Mansarovar is a sacred site for Hindus, and the use of religious diplomacy could be a game-changer in fostering better ties. However, only time will tell if this materializes.
Another key discussion point was the potential establishment of a direct flight connection between India and China, which would facilitate smoother communication and travel. The top diplomats also deliberated on exchanging views on regional and global issues to work together on broader international challenges. Additionally, the sharing of data on trans-border rivers was highlighted as an important aspect of cooperation.
The disengagement agreement and the Rio de Janeiro meeting have undeniably provided a glimmer of hope for an improved Indo-China relationship. Yet, one must ask: Is everything as straightforward as it seems?
The border disengagement agreement, though promising, raises some critical questions. While the agreement focuses on creating demilitarized zones and limited non-patrolling areas, it does not adequately address the concept of a “buffer zone.” This omission has led to doubts about whether the agreement is a substantive move toward resolving border tensions or merely a tactical pause to de-escalate the situation temporarily.
Moreover, a closer analysis of the agreement, which took almost five years to materialize, underscores the role of domestic and international pressures in shaping foreign policies. It is widely acknowledged that the economies of India and China are deeply interdependent. At the same time, China’s unpredictable approach to international relations adds a layer of uncertainty. The sustainability of this improved relationship remains an open question, one that only time will answer.
It will also be interesting to observe China’s stance in the coming years regarding the disengagement agreement. Will China view India’s actions as an effort to build a pragmatic relationship or as a sign of weakness?
In conclusion, the recent developments in Indo-China relations certainly appear promising. If these two nations succeed in building a harmonious relationship, it will have far-reaching implications not only for Asia but for the entire globe.
Leave a Reply