Editorial 1: A good beginning but China negotiations must continue

Context

While the External Affairs Minister’s remarks offer some clarity, politically, there needs to be an attempt to arrive at a broad consensus on India’s China problem.

 

Introduction

The statement made by Union External Affairs Minister, S. Jaishankar on December 3, 2024 was his first substantive statement in Parliament on developments in India-China relations since the Chinese intrusions in Eastern Ladakh in the summer of 2020. His remarks offer clarity on some issues, but many questions remain unanswered.

 

The Minister’s statement

There are several takeaways from the Minister’s statement.

Minister's remarks on border disengagement: First, the Minister recalled the amassing of troops by China, India’s forceful counter deployment, and protracted negotiations, resulting in a disengagement of forces.

• However, the statement is economical in giving details of the arrangements for disengagement from “friction points” (a recent and inapt coinage in India-China border negotiations to describe areas of Chinese transgressions across the Line of Actual Control, or LAC).
• Without using the term “buffer zones”, the Minister alluded to the construct when he remarked that in a few places where “friction” occurred in 2020, “steps of a temporary and limited nature were worked out, based on local conditions, to obviate the possibility of further friction”.
• He said, “This … applies to both sides and can be revisited as the situation demands.”
• He flagged disengagement of troops as “an immediate priority”, but no such urgency has been attached to the termination of “steps of a temporary and limited nature”.
• Continued focus on border Management: Second, even while stating that the immediate priority of disengagement has been achieved, he made it clear that more work remains to be done on “de-escalation as well as effective management of our activities in the border areas”.
  • He reiterated India’s consistent position that “the maintenance of peace and tranquility in border areas is a pre-requisite for the development of our ties, a critical linkage China has sought to disavow in recent years.
  • Mr. Jaishankar did not suggest that the border areas have returned to a state of normalcy. That cannot be the case when there is continued large-scale deployment of troops of both countries for the fifth consecutive winter seasonin forbidding terrain.

Cautious Approach toward bilateral relations: Third, he did not suggest a major forward movement in overall relations, indicating instead that recent developments have set our ties in the direction of “some improvement” and adding that the conclusion of the disengagement phase “allows us to consider other aspects of our bilateral engagement in a calibrated manner, keeping our national security interests first and foremost”.

• The Minister has done well to pour cold water on the suggestion from certain quarters about a “reset” in India-China relations.
• It is naive to think of any major improvement in bilateral ties as long as the borders remain abnormal and a host of structural challenges in the relationship persist.
• It is intriguing that even some senior government functionaries are proposing integration with Chinese supply chains, disregarding the imperative of economic security vis-à-vis a country with a track-record of weaponising economic dependencies, which unfortunately abound in India’s engagement with China.

 

Key questions

The statement in Parliament leaves several core questions unanswered.

Uncertainty surrounding disengagement terms

• First, while disengagement is pronounced as completed, India does not have any definitive information on the terms of this exercise.
• The statement mentions that the “resumption of patrolling to the traditional areas is underway” in Depsang and Demchok.
• Will this involve Indian troops getting unhindered access to five traditional patrolling points beyond Y-Junction in Depsang Plains?
• In Demchok, will they be able to resume patrolling to Charding La and Charding Nala – Nilung Nala (CNN) junction which they were visiting earlier?
• How deep on the Indian side of the LAC will the Chinese patrols be allowed to come?
• There is talk of “coordinated patrolling”, a new and undefined concept in India-China border management.
• Will there be restrictions on the size and frequency of India’s patrols?
• What are “steps of a temporary and limited nature” agreed to elsewhere, in the Galwan Valley, Hot Spring, Gogra and the Pangong Lake area?
• How many of India’s traditional patrolling points are no longer accessible to its troops (and grazing grounds to Indian graziers) because of these “temporary steps”?
• These are legitimate questions awaiting answer.

 

Status quo along the border

• Second, the Minister has underlined that the Indian side “would not countenance any attempts to change the status quo unilaterally”.
• However, has not the status quo along the borders been changed by China since April 2020?
• In the absence of facts being shared in the public domain, we can only speculate.
• Discussions with retired senior military officials suggest that there is denial of access to several traditional patrolling points under new arrangements.
• The statement referred to earlier governments having agreed to several steps to defuse situations, including offers to create demilitarised zones (DMZ), limited non-patrolling zones, and so on.
• The point to note is that the way India and China look at the LAC has changed.
• Under President Xi Jinping, China considers the LAC within the construct of sovereignty and the mindset of not losing an inch of territory, though the concept of the LAC was agreed to without prejudice to the respective positions of India and China on the boundary question.
• This alteration of the LAC by China or through “temporary steps” has territorial implications for India.
• We will, therefore, be well-advised to terminate the so-called “buffer zones” at the earliest and keep insisting on the restoration of status quo ante in patrolling and grazing activities as a matter of high priority.
• There was no understanding on establishing a DMZ either in Barahoti or in Sumdorong Chu Valley as suggested elsewhere.
• This writer was the Indian lead in the Diplomatic and Military Experts Group which negotiated the disengagement in Sumdorong Chu Valley in 1995. We did not agree to any DMZ or restrictions on Indian patrolling.
• Earlier, on Barahoti, the two sides could not agree on the extent of the area where a DMZ was proposed by Chinain 1956.

 

Reports on Chinese troops patrolling yangtse in arunachal pradesh

• Third, there are reports in credible media outlets (including The Hindu) about Chinese troops being allowed to patrol Yangtse in Arunachal Pradesh.
• Earlier reports had cited “government sources” as saying that the Chinese demands for patrolling Yangtse were “unreasonable” and “devoid of logic”.
• Chinese troops have repeatedly attempted to access the Yangtse area but their efforts have been foiled by Indian forces, the last reported instance being in December 2022.
• If there is no quid pro quo in the Eastern Sector, it must be denied authoritatively.

 

Chief of army staff's statement on status quo

• Fourth, the Chief of Army Staff has reiterated even after the announcement of the understanding on disengagement in Depsang and Demchok on October 21 that “we want to go back to status quo of April 2020”.
• However, the Ministry of External Affairs no longer refers to the restoration of the status quo ante.
• If we acquiesce in facts on the ground changed to the advantage of China, this will be another example of a successful deployment of the Chinese playbook of grey zone operations which involves making incremental gains while staying under the threshold of an outright military conflict.

 

Way Forward: Bridge the political divide

Greater transparency on the part of the government on the one hand and the need for the Opposition resisting the temptation to score points on a sensitive issue affecting our core interests on the other will leave us in a better place in India’s border negotiations with China.

 

Conclusion

This writer recalls that after India had completed negotiations on the Agreement on Confidence Building Measures in the Military Field (November 1996) and the Agreement on the Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the India-China Boundary Question (April 2005), he was instructed to brief key Opposition leaders in confidence. Not only was the confidence thus reposed not breached by those leaders, but they also appreciated the government’s gesture, understood the rationale of those sensitive agreements and supported them after they were signed. We must make we make an honest attempt to pivot towards a broad consensus on India’s China challenge, even while leaving room for articulation of differences.

---

Editorial 2: The issue of India’s economic growth versus emissions

 

Context

A look at the claim made in the Economic Survey (2023-24), of India having decoupled its economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Introduction

The Indian economy has consistently showcased its robust growth over the past few decades. But higher economic growth is believed to have come with increasing environmental pressure, notably through higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, India’s Economic Survey (2023-24) claims that India has decoupled its economic growth from GHG emissions, as between 2005 and 2019, India’s GDP grew at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7%, while emissions rose at a CAGR of just 4%. This raises a crucial question: has India really decoupled its economic growth from GHG emissions? And, what does this mean for sustainable development?

 

What does it mean

• Decoupling refers to breaking the link between economic growth and environmental degradation.
• Historically, economic growth is found to be positively related with environmental degradation, as this growth is believed to be a driver of GHG emissions.
• However, with the growing climate crisis, the imperative to reduce emissions while ensuring continued economic growth has gained global traction.

 

Types of Decoupling

• Absolute Decoupling: It  occurs when the economy grows, while emissions decrease.
  • This is the ideal form of decoupling, where countries grow economically without increasing environmental harm.
• Relative Decoupling: It happens when both GDP and emissions grow, but the rate of GDP growth surpasses the rate of emissions growth.
  • While this signifies progress, at the same time, it acknowledges that emissions continue to rise.

 

Importance of Decoupling Economic Growth and GHG Emissions

• Decoupling of economic growth and GHG emissions is important. On one hand, it offers a path to sustainable growth and development, a way for nations to grow and improve living standards without exacerbating climate change.
  • On the other, it comes as a response to rising demand for degrowth and sparks the ongoing debate between green growth and degrowth.
• Green Growth: Proponents of green growth argue that it is possible to maintain or even increase economic growth while reducing environmental harm.
• Degrowth: Degrowth advocates suggest that economic growth itself is the primary driver of ecological degradationand should be curbed in favour of reducing resource consumption.
• Counterargument to Degrowth: But proponents of degrowth overlook the fact that countries, in addition to tackling rising GHG emissionsand the climate change, are also required to tackle low standards of living, energy poverty and ensure a decent life, which could be taken care of through economic growth.

 

The claim

• Decoupling Claim in India’s Economic Survey: The claim of India’s decoupling made in the Economic Survey comes from comparing GDP and emissions growth rates between 2005 and 2019.
  • The Survey does not specify whether this represents absolute or relative decoupling.
• Examination of Decoupling indicators: Using various decoupling indicators discussed in OECD (2002), we examine the status of the economy-wide and sector-wise decoupling status for India.
  • Since the 1990s, with significant trade liberalisation, India has been experiencing steady and stable economic growth.
  • Hence, we are examining how GDP and emission generation are growing in India with respect to the levels of 1990.
• Economy-Wide Decoupling status: While there has been no absolute decoupling in India, since 1990, GDP in India has grown at a much higher pace than the GHG emissions in the country, indicating economy-wide relative decoupling
• Sector-Wise secoupling Status: Since the agriculture and manufacturing sectors are among the major contributors of emission generation in India, it is also important to understand whether these sectors have also achieved decoupling or not.
  • This has been assessed by comparing the rate of growth of GVA of the respective sector with the rate of growth of GHGs emitted by the sector.
• Growth Data from 1990 Onwards: From 1990, India’s GDP has grown six-fold, while GHG emissions have only tripled.

 

Efforts must continue

• Relative Decoupling in India: From the data, it seems that India may have achieved relative decoupling, where emissions are still rising but at a slower pace than the economy.
  • This achievement, while commendable, falls short of the ultimate goal of absolute decoupling, where economic growth can continue even as emissions fall.
• Comparison with other countries: While most countries fall short of achieving absolute decoupling and still experience rising emissions as GDPincreases, many countries have at least managed to achieve a declining rate of growth of emissions.
• Emissions growth in a ceveloping Country: Given that India is a developing country which has not even peaked its emissions yet, emissions are expected to increase with economic growth.
  • Hence, achieving absolute decoupling is not going to happen anytime soon.

 

Conclusion

While India’s relative decoupling is a step in the right direction, the path to absolute decoupling is still a long and complex journey. Efforts must still be taken and it will be a significant challenge. This remains a necessary target if India is to meet its long-term climate commitments. Policies and measures that support renewable energy, emission mitigation, and sustainable development will be crucial in ensuring that economic growth and environmental preservation can coexist, ensuring a prosperous and sustainable future for India.

---