It is a positive development that the Doklam military “stand-off” between India and China — which began on June 16 — has ended. Running hostility of this kind between nuclear powers that are influential world economies can seriously compromise regional stability, with consequences for the international system as well.
The denouement resulted from sustained diplomacy over two-and-a-half months, which New Delhi had gone out of its way to moot. This was in the face of bizarre, aggressive megaphone diplomacy conducted by Beijing through its state media outlets, backed with unseemly belligerent noises from the Chinese foreign office and the People’s Liberation Army, which is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party and is under the direct supervision of President Xi Jinping. But it should be appreciated that Beijing didn’t shut the door on traditional diplomacy.
In their own very different ways, the two governments made the announcement on Monday. Neither used the expression “mutual withdrawal”.
India issued two statements during the day, in which it underlined the value of bilateral diplomacy.
Initially it spoke of “expeditious withdrawal”, leaving room for doubt whether the Chinese too had withdrawn and ended the road-building. This was the case as Beijing officially spoke only of Indian withdrawal and continued to assert its sovereignty over Doklam.
This was clearly to assuage its public opinion, which was fed a strong dose of chauvinistic propaganda for weeks.
The second Indian statement underlined its “verification” of China having taken away its road-building equipment. In the interest of total transparency and credibility, New Delhi should arrange a media visit (not just the official media) to the affected area, with appropriate briefings.
The standoff location is disputed territory between Bhutan and China. India came to the forefront to honour its old treaty commitment and subsequent state-level understanding with Thimphu to come to its aid in the event of any shadow over its sovereignty by an aggressor. This commitment has been demonstrably kept.
Thimphu too admirably kept its nerve all through the Doklam crisis and played the part of a perfect ally in the face of blandishments and implied threats from Beijing. India should show signs of recognition of this in its bilateral relations with Bhutan.
The Chinese aggression in this particular disputed area also posed a strategic threat to India. In light of this, we should proactively seek to implement the 2012 recorded understanding with Beijing — which recognises the disputed nature of Doklam — with a view to the formal demarcation of the boundary in the area.
Beijing eventually withdrew probably due to the need to smoothly conduct the Brics summit in China next week and remove uncertainties over the Chinese Communist Party’s 19th congress in November. But with a tricky neighbour like China, India must be always prepared.
