What is the stand of India and China over the Doklam issue?

by

The Doklam Standoff: Divergent Perspectives of India and China

Introduction:

The Doklam Plateau, a strategically significant tri-junction area where Bhutan, India, and China meet, became the focal point of a significant military standoff between India and China in 2017. This dispute, lasting over two months, highlighted the complex and often tense relationship between the two Asian giants. Understanding their respective positions requires analyzing their geopolitical interests, historical claims, and interpretations of international law. The issue revolves around the construction of a road by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in the Doklam area, which both Bhutan and India viewed as a violation of Bhutanese sovereignty and a potential threat to India’s security.

Body:

1. India’s Stand:

India’s position on the Doklam issue stemmed from its strategic partnership with Bhutan and its concerns about Chinese encroachment. India views Bhutan’s sovereignty as paramount and considers the construction of the road a violation of the 1988 India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty, which mandates India’s assistance in matters of Bhutan’s security. India’s intervention was justified on the grounds of preventing China from altering the status quo in a strategically sensitive area that overlooks the Siliguri Corridor, a vital link between India’s mainland and its northeastern states. India argued that the road construction threatened its security interests and violated Bhutan’s territorial integrity. The Indian government’s official statements consistently emphasized its commitment to resolving the issue through diplomatic channels while firmly asserting its opposition to unilateral actions that change the status quo.

2. China’s Stand:

China, on the other hand, claimed that the Doklam Plateau is historically part of its territory, citing historical maps and documents. China argued that the road construction was within its own territory and was aimed at improving infrastructure in the region. They accused India of trespassing and interfering in its internal affairs, violating its sovereignty. China’s official statements consistently portrayed India’s actions as a provocative act of aggression, aimed at undermining China’s legitimate territorial claims. They emphasized their right to develop infrastructure within their own territory and rejected India’s claims of violating Bhutanese sovereignty. China’s position was further strengthened by its assertion of a historical claim to the area, a claim disputed by both Bhutan and India.

3. Differing Interpretations of International Law and Historical Claims:

Both India and China presented differing interpretations of international law and historical claims to justify their positions. India relied on the 1988 India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty and the principle of respecting the sovereignty of smaller nations. China, on the other hand, emphasized its historical claims and the principle of non-interference in internal affairs. The lack of a clearly defined boundary in the tri-junction area further complicated the issue, leading to conflicting interpretations of maps and historical documents. Neither side presented irrefutable evidence to definitively establish its claim, leading to a stalemate.

Conclusion:

The Doklam standoff highlighted the deep-seated mistrust and competing geopolitical interests between India and China. While both countries emphasized their commitment to resolving the issue peacefully, their fundamentally different interpretations of historical claims and international law created a significant obstacle to a swift resolution. The standoff underscored the need for clear demarcation of boundaries in the region and the importance of establishing robust communication channels to prevent future escalations. A way forward involves strengthening diplomatic engagement, promoting confidence-building measures, and exploring mechanisms for peaceful boundary resolution, possibly through established international arbitration or mediation. Ultimately, a lasting solution requires a commitment from both sides to respect each other’s sovereignty, adhere to international law, and prioritize peaceful coexistence, fostering a stable and secure environment in the region, consistent with the principles of peaceful development and regional stability.

[/lockercat]HPPCS Notes brings Prelims and Mains programs for HPPCS Prelims and HPPCS Mains Exam preparation. Various Programs initiated by HPPCS Notes are as follows:- For any doubt, Just leave us a Chat or Fill us a querry––