Background
Doklam, a strategically important plateau located in the disputed region between Bhutan and China, also intertwines with Indian interests as it lies near the tri-junction of all three countries. Although India does not lay claim to the area, it has historically supported Bhutan’s claims, marking a significant aspect of India-Bhutan relations. The sovereignty over Doklam has become a flashpoint, particularly due to China’s assertive military presence in the region.
China's claim to the Doklam area is based on the 1890 Convention of Calcutta, an agreement between British India and China that outlined the boundaries between Sikkim and Tibet. Specifically, Article I of the convention details how the boundary should be defined, starting from Mount Gipmochi on the Bhutan frontier. This provision has become pivotal for China as it asserts that the tri-junction delineation stems from this historical document. However, the controversy lies in the fact that Bhutan was not a signatory to this convention, raising questions about the validity of China’s claims without Bhutanese consent.
Bhutan's diplomatic history with India is crucial to understanding the ongoing tensions. In 1949, Bhutan entered into a treaty with India that allowed India to influence its defense and foreign policy. This was later revised in 2007 with a new Friendship Treaty that, while granting Bhutan greater autonomy, still obligated both nations to cooperate on matters of national interest. Article 2 of this treaty reinforces the necessity for close collaboration, which India sees as vital for maintaining stability in the region against Chinese encroachment.
Beginning in the late 1950s, China's claims over Bhutanese territories became increasingly assertive, as evidenced by Chinese maps that began to depict large areas of Bhutan as part of China. Diplomatic efforts to draw clear boundaries and resolve conflicts over the Doklam plateau commenced in the 1980s, with 24 rounds of talks held between Bhutan and China. Despite significant discussions in 1988 and 1998—where both parties agreed against the use of force and pledged to resolve matters peacefully—progress has remained slow and often contentious.
The situation escalated dramatically in the early 2000s when China constructed a road leading to the Doka La pass, close to an Indian border post in Sikkim. This road construction, running through disputed territory and extending nearly to Indian-held area, has been operational since at least 2005 and became a pivotal trigger for the 2017 standoff. The road's southward extension was perceived as an assertive move by China into contested areas, prompting India to intervene militarily to prevent further encroachment. This incident marked a significant escalation in diplomatic and military tensions between the countries involved, highlighting the fragile security dynamics in the region.
Background of the Standoff
The 2017 China-India border standoff emerged due to escalating tensions over the Doklam plateau, a strategically significant area located near the tri-junction between Bhutan, India, and China. On June 16, 2017, Chinese military forces equipped with road-building machinery began extending an existing road southward on the plateau. This construction prompted concerns from India, as it was perceived to threaten the security of the strategically vital Siliguri Corridor, which connects India’s northeastern states with the rest of the country.
India’s Response
By June 18, a contingent of approximately 270 Indian troops entered the region with the intent to halt further Chinese construction. This troop deployment included weapons and two bulldozers, reinforcing India’s commitment to what it saw as a defense of not only its sovereignty but also of Bhutan's territorial integrity. Bhutan officially protested the Chinese actions on June 29, contending the construction infringed upon its territory and heightened the level of military alert along its border.
Claims and Counterclaims
In a series of statements emerging from both governments, the narrative further complicated. China disputed Bhutan's claims by releasing a map depicting Doklam as part of Chinese territory and referencing historical agreements like the 1890 Convention of Calcutta. Chinese spokespersons argued that the area had historically been recognized as part of China, claiming that before the 1960s, Bhutanese livestock herders had to pay a "grass tax" to access the land.
Simultaneously, India emphasized its historical ties with Bhutan, asserting that its troops were acting in coordination with the Bhutanese government to uphold their mutual interests. On June 30, India stated that China's actions violated prior agreements to finalize the tri-junction boundary points. Through diplomatic channels, India contended that the presence of its troops was a necessary measure to maintain the status quo, which had reportedly been agreed upon by both nations through a 2012 understanding.
Escalation of Tensions
As tensions escalated, China accused India of violating its sovereignty by maintaining its troops in the Doklam region. By mid-July, Chinese officials were firmly reiterating their stance that India should withdraw its forces. These statements grew more confrontational, with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi suggesting that India's actions confirmed its admission of an incursion into Chinese territory. Meanwhile, India was quick to refute these claims by highlighting that its presence was based on its commitment to Bhutan's territorial claims.
In early August, the situation intensified as both nations made contradictory claims regarding Bhutan's stance in the dispute, leading to further confusion. Bhutan clarified its position, refuting claims made by China that it had consented to Chinese territorial assertions. This indicative backpedaling by China highlighted the complex diplomatic web surrounding the situation.
Incidents of Conflict
On August 15, 2017, the standoff transitioned from diplomatic provocation to physical confrontation, as armed altercations broke out between Indian and Chinese soldiers in the Ladakh region, where Chinese forces allegedly encroached into Indian territory. This episode illustrated the potential for miscalculations to spark broader military confrontations, a concern that loomed large over the ongoing diplomatic discussions.
Media Dynamics and Shift in Public Sentiment
During this period, media portrayals also emerged as a notable aspect of the standoff, with Chinese state-run outlets like Xinhua releasing racially charged content that demeaned India, further inflaming tensions. Such portrayals received substantial backlash both within India and internationally, showcasing how media narratives can influence public sentiment and escalate diplomatic disputes.
Conclusion
By October 2017, the situation remained tenuous, with China expressing a willingness to maintain peace along the borders after the visit of Indian Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman to Nathu La. The 2017 standoff is illustrative of the fraught and often volatile nature of China-India relations, particularly given historical grievances and strategic interests in the region. This conflict not only highlights the importance of diplomatic communication but also the hazards of military buildup in contested regions. The resolution—or lack thereof—of such standoffs continues to have significant implications for regional stability in South Asia.
Disengagement
On August 28, 2017, both India and China made a significant announcement regarding the escalating tensions at the Doklam plateau. It was disclosed that an agreement had been reached to withdraw their respective troops from the confrontation site, and reports confirmed that this withdrawal was completed by the end of that day. This disengagement was a pivotal moment in the ongoing border disputes between the two nations, particularly over the sensitive Bhutanese territory that has strategic implications for both countries.
Following the disengagement, Indian troops retreated to their original positions, situated at Doka La, which holds a commanding position less than 500 meters from the confrontation point. The Times of India highlighted the strategic advantage gained by Indian forces, emphasizing their ability to respond swiftly to any future attempts by the People's Liberation Army (PLA) to alter the existing territorial dynamics, particularly in the context of road construction near the Sikkim-Bhutan-Tibet tri-junction. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) of India reaffirmed that the disengagement occurred as a result of sustained diplomatic dialogues that allowed India to articulate its concerns and interests regarding the border tensions.
In tandem with India's statements, officials from China's foreign ministry confirmed the withdrawal of Indian troops, indicating a potential reduction in Chinese troop presence as well. While they emphasized ongoing patrolling and claimed sovereignty over the area, they did not provide specific details regarding the construction of roads in that vicinity. Such remarks were seen by analysts, as noted in reports by The Diplomat, as a means for China to navigate the diplomatic impasse while maintaining its territorial claims. However, apprehensions lingered, with experts cautioning against unwarranted optimism, fearing that fresh confrontations could arise in the future.
The international media scrutinized the disengagement process, with outlets like The Washington Post questioning whether any concessions were extended by China in exchange for India's troop withdrawal. There was a sense that both nations had crafted an arrangement that allowed them to maintain credibility on the global stage. Despite the positive notes in the disengagement, reports indicated that China might not relinquish its historical claims over the contested territory. Scholar Taylor Fravel articulated that China possessed multiple alternative strategies for securing its interests in the region, beyond merely constructing roads.
On August 29, the government of Bhutan welcomed the developments, expressing hope that this would pave the way for sustained peace and stability along its borders. The significance of this diplomatic resolution resonated beyond the immediate parties involved, underlining Bhutan's role as a buffer state in the ongoing India-China rivalry. A week later, on September 5, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping engaged in crucial discussions during the BRICS summit, taking a step towards a more cooperative approach. They pledged to work on a "forward-looking" strategy to ensure that incidents like the Doklam standoff would not be repeated, emphasizing the necessity of maintaining tranquility in border regions to foster bilateral relations.
However, reports from September 7 suggested that despite the announcements of troop withdrawals, the troops from both sides continued to patrol the area, though they had reportedly moved back about 150 meters from their previous positions. This intriguing development indicated that while formal disengagement occurred, the underlying tensions and complexities of the India-China border matters remained unresolved. The standoff cast a long shadow over the diplomatic attempts to forge a stable peace between two of Asia's largest powers.
Bhutanese Reaction to the China-India Border Standoff
In the wake of the China-India border standoff that began in mid-2017, Bhutan's response was characterized by a cautious and measured stance. Following a press statement issued on June 29, the government, alongside local media outlets, adopted a strategy of silence. This approach was rooted in Bhutan’s assertion that the territory where China was constructing a road was unequivocally "Bhutanese territory" and was part of the ongoing border negotiations between Bhutan and China. The Bhutanese government articulated a desire to de-escalate tensions, emphasizing its position of neutrality in a volatile situation. This position highlights Bhutan's long-standing diplomatic philosophy of maintaining peace in its region, as it navigates the complexities of its relationships with both India and China.
Despite the official silence, a study by ENODO Global, a risk management firm, uncovered significant apprehension among the Bhutanese populace regarding the escalating tensions. The firm recommended that the government engage more actively with its citizens to prevent a disconnect between leaders and the public. Findings indicated that many Bhutanese express concerns about the potential for war between India and China, as well as fears of territorial encroachment akin to China's annexation of Tibet in 1951. Notably, this anxiety has not diminished Bhutanese resolve; rather, it has fostered a heightened sense of national identity and an insistence on sovereignty, with citizens firm in their resolve not to be marginalized.
Additionally, reporting from The New York Times reflects a shift in public sentiment regarding the source of tension. Many Bhutanese voiced more anxiety about India's actions than those of China, highlighting emerging concerns about sovereignty and the implications of a prolonged border conflict on trade and diplomatic relations with China. Furthermore, scholar Rudra Chaudhuri observed during his tour of Bhutan that the importance of the Doklam issue has waned compared to a decade earlier. Instead, many Bhutanese now prioritize achieving a border settlement with China as an urgent diplomatic goal. This shift illustrates Bhutan's complex geopolitical environment, where the delicate balance of maintaining good relations with both neighbors remains paramount.
The terms "pro-Chinese" or "anti-Indian" frequently emerge in discussions surrounding Bhutan's diplomatic posture, but Chaudhuri emphasizes that these labels do not encapsulate the nuanced perspectives of the people. Many Bhutanese view interactions with both China and India through the lens of pragmatic nationalism; their interests often lie in enhanced sovereignty and stability rather than blind allegiance to one side or the other. This evolving discourse within Bhutan reflects a broader trend of assertive nationalism, with citizens keen on ensuring that their national identity and territorial claims are respected on the regional stage.
India's Reliance on River Data
The Brahmaputra River, a major waterway flowing through India and Tibet, plays a crucial role in the livelihoods and ecosystems of the regions it traverses. In recent years, India has sought to enhance its understanding of cross-border water flows, leading to a formal arrangement where India pays China for hydrological data related to the river. This cooperation is vital, especially during the monsoon months when the river often experiences variability in flow and increased flooding risks.
Impact of the Standoff on Data Sharing
During the 2017 China-India border standoff, which was marked by heightened tensions over territorial disputes in the Doklam Plateau, the issue of data sharing took on a new dimension. Coinciding with the peak flood season, the standoff exacerbated concerns in India regarding potential flooding. However, China stated that it could not provide the requested hydrological data because the measuring stations that monitor the river's flow had been washed away due to the extreme weather conditions. This refusal stirred apprehensions in India about the management of water resources and the potential impacts of upstream activities by China on downstream regions.
Broader Implications for Bilateral Relations
The incident highlighted the complex interplay between water management and diplomatic ties between the two countries. While both nations have engaged in dialogue over various issues, including trade and military confrontations, the handling of shared water resources remains a contentious point. As climate change accelerates, the need for robust mechanisms for data sharing and cooperation on transboundary rivers becomes increasingly urgent. The Brahmaputra dispute underlines the necessity of building trust and enhancing communication to mitigate conflicts that could arise from shared water resources in the future.
In light of these events, the importance of establishing formal hydrological agreements cannot be overstated. Such accords would not only facilitate timely data sharing but also foster collaborative approaches to disaster management, ensuring that both countries can effectively address the challenges posed by fluctuating river flows.