Chairperson: Ambassador C Dasgupta
Discussants: Professor Sujit Dutta and Dr. Srinath Raghavan

The presenter identified the more aggressive stance taken recently by China in staking territorial claims over the North Eastern parts of India as the key motivation for undertaking her study. She also expressed her desire to reach out to the people of the region through her paper. The differences in perceptions between India and China over the line of demarcation of the Sino-Indian border, with the McMahon line denounced in China as an imperialist imposition, was identified as a continuing problem. She then went on to examine the Chinese position on the boundary question from realist, constructivist and neo-liberal perspectives.

Describing China’s approach as “two-track”, Dr. Goswami underscored China’s enhanced economic and diplomatic engagement with India alongside persistent territorial claims over Arunachal Pradesh. Within the framework of realism, the paper argued that China was following a “balance of power” framework vis-a-vis the India-US strategic partnership by upping the ante in Arunachal Pradesh to ensure that India remains tied down by its territorial disputes with China, and is wary of its physical presence in the eastern border. The paper also extensively reviewed the ideational factors underlying such claims as well as their expression both in rhetoric and on the ground. Chinese perceptions of India’s strategic perspectives including its position on issues relating to Tibet – were examined. Viewed from one theoretical lens, Chinese claims were attributed to the neo-liberal school regarding exploitation of local mineral resources including hydro-electric power potential. Infrastructure development sponsored by China and India’s neglect of the same were seen to foster a sense of alienation among communities in the North East.

Possible alternative scenarios, based on local narratives as well as on China’s evolving perception of itself as a player in the international system, were outlined. A policy of aggressive deterrence on India’s part, coupled with robust diplomatic action, was advocated. “Act Local, Think Global” was the message.

External Discussant: Dr. Srinath Raghavan

Dr. Raghavan drew attention to the intricacies of boundary demarcation processes and their implications for the case under discussion. He questioned the validity of the realist hypothesis that Chinese claims on Arunachal Pradesh were informed by an intent to “balance” India or the United States or both. On the theoretical front, he also did not find any merit in the neo-liberal model as yielding an enhanced understanding of the situation .

In his analysis, China’s approach has been consistently marked by a preference for inter-sectoral bargaining and as such, its stance on Arunachal Pradesh may not be construed as overly aggressive. He ended by projecting a scenario where the boundary dispute between India and China might at some stage be resolved despite all its apparent intractability.

External Discussant: Prof. Sujit Dutta

Prof. Dutta took the view that the contribution to enhancing the very limited understanding of local perceptions and spectrum of opinion on various key questions in the North East – was the most significant potential contribution of the paper. He cautioned against direct deployment of International Relations theories in deconstruction of Foreign Policy. Instead he favoured “Group-thinking Theory”, “Rational Choice Theory” and such other cognitive theories that account for domestic motivations and decision-making for delivering richer analytical output.

In his opinion, the balance of power paradigm fell short of explaining Chinese behaviour as India’s partnership with the US is nowhere near as developed as to pose a threat to and elicit fearful reactions from China. On the practical side he explained the futility of attempting a bargain revolving around the settled population principle. On the question of Tibet he lamented the near-absence of diplomatic engagement by China, characterizing its approach as self-serving.

Internal Discussants

The first internal discussant suggested that China’s stance vis-à-vis the North East and perceptions within the North East on critical issues could more usefully form the subjects of two separate papers. He contended that different theoretical perspectives were instrumental in decoding varied and separate aspects of the problem, pointing to corresponding policy implications.

China’s internal nationalist discourse and its staunchly anti-imperialist tenor were singled out by the second internal discussant as factors laden with implications for policy analysis and diplomatic engagement.

Open-floor Discussion

One participant described the significance of shared tribal affinities across borders in the region, asking why there have been no Chinese overtures to populations south of the McMahon line. For purposes of the study, he recommended closer examination of the chronology and record of India’s policy pronouncements and actions in the North East over past decades. For a more balanced picture, one participant suggested incorporation of Chinese writing on the subject.
According to one intervention, regional affinities in the North East have tended to vary across time and tribal divisions. The role of elites in the North East in playing up the Chinese threat to attract attention from the Indian centre was also mentioned. Water security and the related significance of the Bramhaputra were posited as considerations gaining in importance in China’s strategic calculus over coming decades. Threats posed to indigenous culture in the North-East by recent developments and interactions with surrounding regions were argued to be serious concerns. Addressing developmental concerns in the North East was argued as central to any sustainable resolution of on-going disputes. The gaping need for an in-depth ethnographic study of local conditions and aspirations was repeatedly raised in the house.

Chairs Summary

The Chair advised sharper definition of the research question, as the explanations for China’s original claims and its resurgent pursuit of these claims are likely to be different. He argued for paying closer attention to the growth-rate differential north and south of the McMahon line to discern implications for the future. He concluded by thanking the gathering for a fruitful discussion.

Report prepared by Kalyani Unkule, Research Assistant, IDSA