India’s cowardice in Ladakh is costing it enormously, the pattern would continue for quite some time. Having lost its credibility as a regional power, even small neighbours like Bhutan and Nepal are showing eyes to India. The US and its allies now know it, for sure, that India is of no use in their anti-China calculus. Iran has jettisoned India from all Chabahar port related projects. While making effort to encircle Pakistan, India now stands caged by China. Events triggered by India’s Doklam folly have landed it into an ever mushrooming catastrophe. In the name of fighting China, India has been grabbing munitions and strategic enablers from all over the World, but it never prepared for fighting a war with China. India’s entire war effort was Pakistan specific. So when the Chinese came, India military was caught with its pants down.
Indeed it’s a sorry moment for India. But there are no signs of self-reflection. Far right government in India thinks that it could get over it through sheer denial. This is not likely to happen.
Brahma Chellaney in a July 09 piece for The Hindustan Times, captioned “China may win, without fighting” wrote: “Instead of insisting on status quo ante, India has helped create a new status quo. Beijing is smiling.” “It has changed the South China Sea’s geopolitical map without firing a shot or incurring any international costs”. Very poor statecraft from Modi, Shah & Doval.
According to NewsX, China has issued yet another warning to India stating that “India should not misjudge the situation again like 1962.” Moreover, Eurasian Times has reported that amid heightening US-China tensions, “the US wants India to ‘match its weight by actions’ in the South China Sea”. Tensions between the US and China were augmented when the US sent-in two aircraft carriers in the South China Sea for patrolling to indicate that that “it doesn’t welcome China’s belligerence in the region”.
During a National Security Adviser level meeting India has agreed to a disengagement in Ladakh on Chinese terms, whereby accepting 1959 Chinese Claim Line as new Line of Actual Control (LAC). The new LAC would in fact be the Cease Fire Line. Retired Lieutenant General of Indian Army, H S Panag in his July 09 piece for The Print captioned “Modi, Xi are strong leaders, but for lasting peace at the LAC both need to make compromises” states that “if India and China don’t make compromises, then a limited war is inevitable, which neither side wants”. “Modi and Xi cannot afford to lose face. It has to be a win-win situation for both the countries, and their leaders”.
Though Prime Minster Narendra Modi while riding the state media, alongside select privately owned but government subsidised media, is trying to portray it as a grand victory, there are powerful fact narrating individuals and institutions which consider it as a total surrender. With the demise of 1993 LAC alongside 1993, 1996, 2005, 2012, and 2015 agreements meant for peace on that LAC have become null and void. China has decided to go beyond even its 1960 claim line in Ladakh. Hence, the PLA will not vacate the territories it has come to occupy in Galwan, Depsang, Hot Springs and Pangong Tso. Independent analysts are under tremendous pressure to give up their independent but factual conclusions. Modi hopes to overcome these complications by creating a perception in India that the LAC remains inviolable, and no Indian territory has been lost to the PLA. It’s another matter that no one bothered to ask which ‘line’ he was referring to — the 1993 LAC, China’s 1960 claim line or the one that is going beyond that.
Clouding of reality by India could lead to wrong choices with serious geopolitical and military implications, starting with narrowing down of India’s options. The Ladakh crisis has two narratives— Indian and Chinese. It will be a long drawn out battle of nerves at leadership level. Modi’s version emanated out of his two Victory speeches in which he unmistakably said that the battle of Galwan has been won. With the exception of the Congress and the Communists, other political parties appear least bothered about the imbroglio. The majority in the media is happy parroting the official line. Retired military officers, with few exceptions, are cheering the government from the side-lines. Those contesting the official line are being labelled ‘anti-national’.
However, two issues immediately propped up in the way of outright acceptance of Victory perception. First the fact that the Chinese had invaded, and India was unable to roll back the Chinese intrusions. Second Chinese refusal for an early dis-engagement of opposing forces standing eyeball to eyeball. Modi knows that another border skirmish will not be weapons’ free since the government of India has changed the rules of engagement. But if even one shot is fired, an escalation is assured, which will be controlled by the PLA, being militarily stronger. Eventually it could lead to war, bringing India face to face with reality.
At least domestically, India seems to have won the perception war against China. But what the prime minister cannot explain is that if indeed no Indian territory has been lost, what have the talks with China at various levels for the restoration of the status quo ante been all about? And if indeed no territory is lost, why has India broadened the ambit of the conflict from the Ladakh theatre to economics?
Also, regional and global perceptions of the end state of the conflict are at great variance from the domestic perception. South Asian, Central Asian and East Asian country are now clear that India is no match to China. It were the two US aircraft carrier that did show of force patrolling in the conflict zone and much touted Indian Navy whom the US has been projecting as provider of security net in Indian Ocean dared not move out of its harbours. In fact IN aircraft carriers were not yet equipped with its air component as its MIG-29 K aircraft are still being manufactured in the Russian factories.
The US has since 1950s been pampering India as a cheap deterrent against China as American proxy. India has since been taking tremendous advantage of this American miscalculation. India fooled the Americans by raising China bogie while amassing Pakistan specific munitions and raising Pakistan specific Command & Control and other war fighting structures. No wonders when the Chines came, Indian military was caught with its pants down, forcing their Prime Minster first asking Russia, US, Israel and France to fast-track war materiel for the troops inducted into the theatre to match PLA numbers on Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR). And then to accept a humiliating surrender. China would certainly take note of Israel’s interesting keenness by offering its own, operating, air defence system as an interim measure to fill in for the Russian S-400 air defence missile system. Even if S-400 is delivered to India in 2021, it would require at least a year to get operationalised and be ready for war.
For domestic tier, it would sooner than later come forth that Nehru was Nehru, and Modi is Modi. Notwithstanding, at personal level much like Nehru, Modi will also not be able to survive the psychological impact of humiliation that struck India under his watch. And to offset this effect Modi could plan a limited war with one of its smaller neighbours. As it has tasted the response of Pakistan in Balakot fiasco, Nepal could be the most likely military target if regime change efforts do not materialise. Notwithstanding, Pakistan should not lower its guard.
According to Pravin Sawhney, “In the current fit of nationalism, there is a clamor that all Chinese products should be banned in India. This populism overlooks two critical issues: One, so entrenched are Chinese products in global supply chains that banning them will hurt India more than China, whose overall trade with India is two per cent of its global trade. And two, in the event of cascading effects owing to prolonged stand-off, a total ban on imports from China would kill Indian Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, MSMEs, disrupt the pharmaceutical industry and ruin the local economy in the hinterland”.
Worst case scenario strategist are suggesting the Indian government to match the PLA assets along the LAC. Three Divisions of Indian Army are in the theatre with units still pouring in. There has also been cross theatre movement of troops. During the upcoming winters keeping these troops in Ladakh area without a habitat and provision through air lift would imply nightmarish logistical challenges. And still the PLA could amass troops at other pressure points along the LAC.
Senior diplomats, unaware of military power dynamics, are suggesting the strengthening of partnerships with the Quadrilateral nations (US, Japan and Australia), France, South Korea and Taiwan, as close identification with democratic powers. With India’s repeat poor performance these alliances and countries may no longer be keen enough to cosy up with India.
According to leading Indian strategist Pravin Sawheny
“Reality is grim for India. An accidental war, which neither side wants, would likely lead to a decisive victory for the PLA in quick time. For one, the PLA will not fight to the Indian Army’s strength of land warfare. It will fight in the domains of cyber, space and the electromagnetic spectrum by disrupting, disabling or destroying communications and command and control nodes at all levels — from the Prime Minister’s Office to the frontline troops. Communication/ information denial will severely affect India’s war waging capacity. The PLA has, since 2018, been doing realistic combat joint exercises comprising land, air, space, cyber, and rocket forces under its Western Theatre Command responsible for the LAC. These include live firings for re-calibration of its long-range weapons which are critical for accuracy in altitudes of 12,000 feet and above. In LUOYANG-2018, a significant training exercise, the PLA did a series of force-on-force exercises in which a Strategic Support Force (SSF) base challenged a PLA group army (8,000 troops) brigade’s communications with hostile jamming and interruptions to its operational electromagnetic environment. The PLA has good habitat for 200,000 troops, storage for war materiel and uninterrupted supply of war logistics including ammunition and spares”. “As I had said, disengagement started after Doval-Wang talks (when terms of disengagement were agreed). Be sure, (a) New LAC in Ladakh is PLA 1959 Claim line (b) PLA ground gains only meant to achieve its strategic goals. Doubt India will learn any lessons”.
The US began to weigh-in as the China-India conflict entered a pause. In his remarks on July 08, Pompeo said China took “incredibly aggressive action” that aligned with President Xi Jinping’s “behaviour throughout the region and, indeed, throughout the world.” Pompeo’s remarks come as Indian sources revealed to various media sources that China has begun pulling back troops from along its contested border with India, where a deadly skirmish took place on June 15.
Carrying forward the point, Fareed Zakaria pointed out in a Washington Post op-ed that “China is not rising in a vacuum but in a region with other major countries such as Japan and India and Australia. Every action Beijing takes should be considered in relation to the reaction it causes in those nations’ capitals. Thanks to its actions over the past few years under Xi, China today finds itself in the same strategic situation as the Soviet Union did during the Cold War—surrounded by countries that are growing increasingly hostile to it.”
While conventional wisdom suggests New Delhi will turn closer to Washington as it jostles with Beijing, Emily Tamkin wrote for Foreign Policy that “one shouldn’t rule out Moscow as another potential partner. “The world has changed, but India and Russia have found ways for their relationship to hold firm, standing steady for each other at times when the rest of the world wouldn’t,” she wrote. One may say Zakaria and Tamkin, alongside a herd of American and European analysist are out of sync with current strategic realities, at least a decade behind the current geopolitical mosaic!
