AA Edit | Talk to China, ignore hot air
Despite ongoing tensions and historical antagonism, India's pragmatic stance prioritizes diplomatic and military dialogue
The defence minister, Rajnath Singh’s assertion that India will continue with diplomatic and military talks with China in seeking a peaceful solution four years after the skirmishes of Galwan Valley reflects a practical approach even if there has been little change in historical bilateral antagonism.
Disengagement may come about only if the talks go on, however intransigent China might seem in dealing with the possible resolution of the issues remaining after having cleverly agreed to pull back around the Galwan Valley and thus dispossessing India of the small advantage it may have derived from occupying some high ground.
Fundamental disagreements do remain on territorial claims, especially in Depsang Plains and Demchok, which India sees as friction points freshly created while China would like to believe they are legacy issues predating the June 2020 standoff that saw the basic adversarial India-China relations come to a boiling point again.
Amid the bluster of China making noises on Arunachal Pradesh and irritating India by renaming, for the fourth time, more places in the state, the position that talks must go on makes sense because de-escalation is not complete after the troops had engaged in hand-to-hand combat with casualties occurring on both sides.
The strategic forward placement of more than a lakh troops from each side has not changed along the nearly 3,500-km long Line of Actual Control. In fact, just a bit has changed with the strengthening of infrastructure on the Indian side with a key improvement as in the Sela Tunnel, offering all-weather connectivity to Tawang from Tezpur.
The renaming exercise of Arunachal places by a restless China that aims to keep Himalayan areas as a perennial bone of contention is essentially hot air. India can display its maturity by choosing to ignore such taunts that are more like games played in the minds rather than any serious intent at military action aimed at territorial conquests. How much difference would it make if, say, India were to rename all the places in Tibet?