Tread cautiously post Doklam

The Doklam de-escalation should be seen as a victory for diplomacy, howsoever perilous the path of diplomacy may have been. The real credit and compliments should go to the NSA Ajit Doval and FS Jaishankar who proved all the sceptics, cynics and warmongers wrong. It also proved that diplomacy remains the keystone of India’s statecraft — consistent with Indian ethos and culture.

The beauty of the current ‘disengagement agreement’ is that it allows all sides to interpret the closure as they feel — presumably to cater to their respective domestic constituencies.

Interestingly, the Indian press statement on ‘disengagement’ following ‘diplomatic communications’ was thoughtful and measured, devoid of any fierceness towards China. In comparison, the Chinese used the term ‘withdrawal’ and their relatively lengthy statements were abrasive, edifying and didactic, demanding specific Indian action or providing details of the terms of withdrawal.

Nonetheless, these statements from both sides (more rhetorical on China’s part) do not actually matter now as long as mutual understanding has been reached to remove the stand-off.

However, the Bhutanese statement coming on the heels of the closure of Doklam stand-off was rather intriguing. There is a subtle change in Bhutanese position from the statement they issued on June 29 that said China’s building of “a road inside Bhutanese territory” is a violation of the 1988 and 1998 written agreements between the two countries to maintain peace and tranquillity and the status quo pending a final settlement on the boundary question. The release then said the road building also affects the process of demarcating the boundary between the two countries.

However, the new statement on August 29 omits the building of a road “inside Bhutanese territory”, and refers only to the maintenance of peace and tranquillity and status quo along the borders of ‘Bhutan, China and India’ in keeping with the existing agreements between the respective countries.

The omission of China building motorable road ‘inside Bhutanese territory’ near the Zom Pelri camp is somewhat intriguing. Could it be deliberate or part of the deal not to refer to road construction at all — which is also apparently akin to the Chinese statement that does not talk about road construction. Could it be that Bhutan no longer considers Doklam part of its territory? Does it also mean Bhutan wants to wriggle itself out of the dispute?

However, peace and tranquillity and status quo along the borders of ‘Bhutan, China and India’ surely not only favours Indian position but acknowledged India’s right to intervene in the dispute. This means Doklam ‘area’, not ‘tri-junction’, remains the point of dispute in future — a shift of position away from bilateral to tri-lateral dispute.

The question is what lessons have India learnt from the incident this time. Surely, our defence along the borders will be stronger from now on. The subtle change in Bhutanese position is now glaring and it could go either way.

The achievement for India is, however, in its ability to assert concerns far more assertively this time — the point that will be noted very seriously by Beijing. Surely, for Beijing, it is not going to be business as usual with India anymore. India will be taken far more seriously by China.

The success for India is that it has been able to do all these without damaging the relationship too much or by causing offence to China. Prime Minister Modi’s visit to China proves that point. It may even prove to be a blessing in disguise — another lesson for making a point without making an enemy. Instead, it may lead to improved relationships and gaining of mutual respect — if channelised properly.

One positive implication of the closure is that both India and China very maturely saved the BRICS multilateral forum from crumbling, a scenario predicted by Western critics who are opposed to BRICS emerging as a non-Western or anti-Western order. The Western bad-mouthing of the BRICS is well known, and India and China have realised that. If Russian President Putin has also played some role in the de-escalation process, it should be seen as good for the BRICS or RIC solidarity.

The issue is also about how to move forward from here. Whether the two sides can pick up from where they left in 2012 on the issue of settling the tri-junction issue by involving the third-country (Bhutan) remains the immediate task. In fact, the question is why the matter was not brought to the table since 2012 when SR-level talks were held several times since then.

The biggest lesson for India is to think afresh about its China policy. Now is the time to get real with China instead of continuing with the current ad-hoc and blow-hot, blow-cold approach to China.

The author served as India’s Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the Republic of Kyrgyzstan until recently. Views expressed are personal.