The regular incursions, stare ins, bombast and heightened activity along the unsettled boundary serve no purpose other than instability, creating doubts about each others' activities and pulling the relations back to square one. Both India and China at the moment suffer from a grave 'trust deficit' which can easily lead to unintended consequences. Given the capabilities of both, 'War' is not an option for either and would end only in a stalemate with major loss to both the conutries and putting their economies back by 'years'. The sooner they settle the border the better for both atleast
in as much as incursions, skirmishes, hot border etc. while the bigger geopolitical, strategic play will go on as they did between USA and USSR.
One would recall atleast in the not so distant past, the ex Chinese SR Dai Binguo and others have spoken of a package settlement meaning India has to make concessions in the West while they make in the East. It is another matter that they have recently introduced new elements like South Tibet, naming the towns of Arunachal etc. as a bargaining tool probabaly
to get the concessions in the West which is strategiaclly of more value for them vis a vis the highway connecting the Xinjiang province to Tibet apart from being a gateway to Eurasia. While one doesn't know the contours of the package some (hint?) may have come or can be deciphered? From -
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 536941.ece
China on Monday urged India to abide by the Line of Actual Control (LAC) position of 1959, following last week’s scuffle between troops of the two countries along the Pangong lake in Ladakh.
To a question, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying accused Indian troops of undertaking “violent actions” and injuring Chinese personnel.
The Ministry urged India to abide by the “1959 LAC” — an apparent reference to the alignment espoused by former Chinese Premier Zhou en Lai in a letter to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. In his 2016 book, Choices: Inside the Making of India’s Foreign Policy , former National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon points out that in the proposal of November 1959, the Chinese describe the LAC “only in general terms on maps not to scale”. India rejected the proposal in 1959 and 1962.[/b]
[u]Zhou en Lai then wrote to Nehru that in the eastern sector, the line “coincides in the main with the so-called McMahon Line, and in the western and middle sectors, it coincides in the main with the traditional customary line which has consistently been pointed out by China”.
Ms. Hua said the incident at Pangong lake had “violated the consensus” on border issues. She said China had expressed “grave dissatisfaction” and lodged its serious concern with India.
In the light of the above what realistically should or would be ok for India? My own opinion wrt the 'package' is -Eastern Part
McMahon line was accepted by China in the past. So no change here. Infact China has accepted the same line wrt Myanmar to settle the border. Western part Subject
to the following map and others points below - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_Actual_Control
The green line was accepted by China which I presume
to be the line the the spokeswoman was referring to in the Hindu report above which means India would have to forego about 25000sqkm territory from their maximal claim of the 'whole' of Aksai Chin as depicted in Indian maps. If that is true India, IMO, should accept a package deal. For the Indian concession/giveaway on territory in Aksai Chin, China must make the following 'non negotiable' concessions -
1. The areas they took away in Ladakh region namely in Demchok and Chushul area will have to be returned to India.
2. The Chumbi valley should be given to India.
3. China gives up the claim in the Barahoti area.
Is that a fair one?
Disclaimer : This is just an academic thought with no expertise whatsoever wrt the issue at hand. Just to trigger a good forum debate of a matter of interest. I am no expert and I don't have any counter/wherewithal to any vollies of people like SS, Shiv, Suraj, Y I Patel and the yak herder and many others. It is just simpleton view after gleaning over the pages of debate on this thread.