TWO DECADES OF DISCORD AND DIALOGUE: A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF INDIA-CHINA BORDER NEGOTIATIONS (2000–2020)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v5.i1.2024.4218Keywords:
Doklam Stalemate, Galwan Valley Conflict, Institutional Procedures, Strategic Mistrust, Himalayan Geopolitics, India-China Border NegotiationsAbstract [English]
In the twenty-first century, the India-China border issue has veered between hostility and diplomacy due to unresolved territorial claims that date back to the 1962 war. With an emphasis on the interplay of conflict and communication in handling their Himalayan border dispute, this study offers a thorough examination of the diplomatic and military exchanges between China and India between 2000 and 2020. The study looks at the structural and immediate causes of tensions as well as institutional de-escalation mechanisms using a mixed-methods approach that combines historical analysis of bilateral agreements, crisis events (such as the 2013 Depsang standoff, 2017 Doklam crisis, and 2020 Galwan Valley clash), and official statements.
The study finds a cyclical pattern: recurrent border standoffs frequently followed times of economic cooperation and multilateral participation (e.g., BRICS, SCO), highlighting the duality in bilateral relations. Territorial disputes continued in spite of frameworks such as the Special Representatives discussion and the 2003 Declaration on Principles, which were made worse by the militarization of infrastructure (such as China's Belt and Road Initiative and India's border road projects). The worst conflict in forty-five years, the 2020 Galwan Valley fight, was a low point that exposed the weakness of confidence-building measures (CBMs) and the emergence of nationalist rhetoric in both countries. While both states stressed strategic patience to prevent full-scale conflict, the report contends that shifting alliances and opposing geopolitical aspirations (such as India's developing U.S. relations) led to a deepening of mutual mistrust. Diplomatic flexibility was further limited by media-driven nationalism and domestic political narratives. The study concludes that a lasting resolution is still difficult unless fundamental territorial claims are addressed, military deployments are made more transparent, and economic links are shielded from security crises by placing these dynamics inside larger theoretical discussions on diplomacy and deterrence. In addition to providing policy insights for maintaining Indo-Pacific stability, this work advances the field of study on asymmetric wars.
References
Bharti, M. S. (2024). China –India border disputes: an analytical analysis of Doklam standoff to Tawang clash. Asian Journal of Political Science, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185377.2024.2429084 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02185377.2024.2429084
Verma, R. (2024). India–China rivalry, border dispute, border standoffs, and crises. India Review, 23(5), 397–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/14736489.2024.2423996
Pant, H. V., & Mishra, V. (2024). China’s 2020 Line of Actual Control (LAC) incursion: A function of India-US ties? India Review, 23(5), 482–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/14736489.2024.2423552 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14736489.2024.2423552
Verma, R. (2024). India–China rivalry, border dispute, border standoffs, and crises. India Review, 23(5), 397–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/14736489.2024.2423996 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14736489.2024.2423996
Manjeet S. Pardesi, “The Initiation of the Sino-Indian Rivalry,” Asian Security 15, no. 3 (2019): 253–284
Verma, India – China Standoff in Ladakh.
Andrea Ghiselli, “An Opportunistic Russia in the Middle East, a View from China,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 37, no. 2 (2023): 63–181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2023.2207814
Deepa Ollapally, and Raj Verma, “Separately together: Indian and American Approaches to China during the Trump era,” India Review 22, no. 2 (2023): 161–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14736489.2023.2180913
Raj Verma, “India – China rivalry, China – Pakistan Quasi-Alliance, Terrorism, and Asymmetric Balancing,” India Review 23, no. 4 (2024): 370–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14736489.2024.2382602
Raj Verma, “India’s Economic Decoupling from China: A Critical Analysis,” Asia Policy 18, no. 1 (2023): 143–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.0011
For a detailed analysis see William R. Thompson, Kentaro Sakuwa, Prashant Hosur Suhas, Analyzing Strategic Rivalries in World Politics: Types of Rivalry, Regional Variation, and Escalation/De-escalation (Singapore: Springer 2022).
Ganguly et al., The Sino-Indian rivalry.
Manjeet S. Pardesi, “The Initiation of the Sino-Indian Rivalry,” Asian Security 15, no. 3 (2019): 253–284 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14799855.2018.1471060
Pardesi, The Initiation of the Sino-Indian Rivalry.
Raj Verma, “China’s New Security Concept: India, Terrorism, China’s Geostrategic Inter-ests and Domestic Stability in Pakistan,” The Pacific Review 33, no. 6: 991–1021; Li Li, “The U.S. Factor and the Evolution of China-India Relations,” The China Review 23, no. 1: 107–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2019.1663902
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Santosh Mallappa Ganiger
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
With the licence CC-BY, authors retain the copyright, allowing anyone to download, reuse, re-print, modify, distribute, and/or copy their contribution. The work must be properly attributed to its author.
It is not necessary to ask for further permission from the author or journal board.
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
