[Raghavendra Sharma, Shongjog columnist]
The recent agreement between India and China to de-escalate their border dispute along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in October 2024 is a noteworthy development in the complex tapestry of Asian geopolitics. This cautious détente reflects both countries’ recognition of the urgent need to manage their longstanding tensions, particularly in light of past clashes that have resulted in casualties and heightened animosity.
However, while the agreement may offer a temporary reprieve, it does little to resolve the underlying strategic mistrust that has characterized the Sino-Indian relationship since the 1962 war.
Historically, the border between these two nuclear-armed neighbors has been fraught with conflict, exacerbated by colonial-era boundary decisions that have left lingering ambiguities. The tragic events of June 2020, when soldiers engaged in hand-to-hand combat in the Galwan Valley, marked a significant turning point, signaling the fragility of peace along this contentious frontier.
In response, both nations embarked on an arms buildup and enhanced military infrastructure, further entrenching a “new normal” characterized by an increased risk of confrontation.
The recent agreement, which allows for the resumption of pre-2020 patrols in strategic areas like Depsang and Demchok, suggests that both countries are motivated by pragmatic considerations.
For China, easing tensions may help mitigate the economic and diplomatic pressures stemming from a slowing domestic economy and challenges to its global trade relationships. India, for its part, seeks stability along its borders to redirect resources toward economic growth and development.
However, this economic interdependence—where China stands as India’s largest trading partner—complicates the narrative of rivalry. As Indian businesses push for greater engagement with Chinese capital, the government finds itself balancing economic pragmatism against national security concerns.
India’s strategic caution is underscored by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s remarks about the importance of scrutinizing foreign investments. This highlights a broader sentiment within New Delhi: a desire to engage with China selectively, especially in sectors that could bolster India’s manufacturing capabilities, without becoming overly reliant on Chinese technology or capital.
Such caution is critical, particularly as India navigates its relationship with the United States, which views New Delhi as a counterbalance to China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific.
India’s doctrine of strategic autonomy allows it to cultivate relationships with diverse partners, including both China and the U.S. This non-aligned approach, reminiscent of Cold War-era policies, reflects India’s intent to operate within a multipolar world.
As Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar has articulated, India seeks to be “non-West and not anti-West,” signaling its intention to maintain independent agency in its foreign relations. While the U.S. has increasingly engaged with India as a strategic ally, recognizing its potential as a counterweight to Chinese power, it must also respect New Delhi’s independent trajectory.
Despite diplomatic overtures, the deeper issues of military buildup and cyber tensions remain unresolved. Both countries are investing heavily in infrastructure along the LAC, reflecting a persistent readiness for conflict. Cyber operations further complicate this landscape, as India faces vulnerabilities from Chinese-linked cyber intrusions, particularly during periods of heightened tension. Such operations, while primarily focused on intelligence, underscore the potential for escalation and disruption in critical sectors.
While the October 2024 agreement marks a significant diplomatic step forward, it underscores a temporary calm amid enduring strategic competition. The oscillation between cooperation and rivalry is likely to continue, as both nations navigate their complex relationship against the backdrop of their divergent aspirations for regional leadership and global recognition. India’s strategic autonomy will enable it to engage with China pragmatically while reinforcing its partnerships with Western allies.
However, a true reconciliation remains unlikely, as the legacy of mistrust and competing visions for the future of Asia persist. The path forward will require careful diplomacy and a nuanced understanding of the delicate balance that defines India-China relations.
Shongjog 