According to the Indian Express (November 21), the Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan had suggested that the India-China border dispute was a result of differing understanding of maps and “we cannot really say which is correct and which is wrong”. Responding to a question on the current situation along the LAC and how India’s map had been shrinking since 1947 with respect to China, he said, “On the question that since 1947, India finds its map shrinking and shrinking (with respect to China), if we were on the other side… if we were China in 1950 and had a look at their map they would also have found that their map is shrinking, partly because of us… they claim the state of Arunachal Pradesh. This dispute goes on, we can’t really say which is correct and which is wrong.”
This is not the first time that such views have come from the highest echelons of India’s armed forces. General Sunderji, then head of the army, made a similar observation in the 1990s. He even admitted that Indian troops were stationed north of the so-called McMahon line in 1962. Much before that, the British journalist Neville Maxwell had exposed that the 1962 war with China was an outcome of the ‘Forward policy’ pushed by the Nehru government. This led to Indian outposts being established further and further north. Sunderji was acknowledging this. Maxwell’s book, ‘Indis’s China War’ was banned in India and remains so. The Henderson Report, on which it was based, is yet to be made public.
The McMahon line was a creation of British imperialism. It was unilaterally declared as the Northern border of British India with China. But it was never acknowledged by China. After the victory of the Chinese revolution, the People’s Republic of China led by Mao Zedong tried to negotiate a mutually agreed border with India. Several talks were held with the Nehru government but they didn’t succeed. Backed by Western imperialist powers and the modern revisionist Krushchev regime of the Soviet Union, Nehru refused to accept a settlement. Egged on by the extreme chauvinism of the RSS, he insisted on making the McMahon line final. Even more, the Congress government aggravated the situation through its ‘Forward policy’.
Fed up with the Nehru government’s aggression, Socialist China launched an attack along the border. That was how the 1962 India-China war took place. It ended with China declaring a unilateral ceasefire and withdrawing its army.
Anil Chauhan’s statement that the war “was a result of differing understanding of maps and we cannot really say which is correct and which is wrong”, admits, in effect, that it was an outcome of the expansionist interests of the Indian ruling classes. That is what turned a border dispute, which could have been settled peacefully, into a war that took thousands of lives. But why is this being openly admitted by this person, evidently a chela of the Sanghis? He was brought in from retirement to head the three services. Moreover, he was being interviewed by none other than a former Defence secretary in an event chaired by a former Foreign Affairs secretary. In other words, a high level intervention. Something green-signaled by the Sanghi HQ itself. Why? Afterall, till recently, the Sanghis have been most vociferous in insisting that ‘every inch of land must be recovered from the Chinese’. So why are these self-proclaimed champions of ‘Bharathbhumi’ now admitting that no one knows its true boundaries?
This change in stance has been noticeable ever since the Galwan conflict took place. Local inhabitants and government authorities have repeatedly insisted that Chinese troops are now in possession of Ladakhi territory. Local herders have been prevented from entering there. Yet Modi has always declared that territory has not been lost in that conflict. A recent agreement between the two sides has restored patrolling rights. But some commentators have noted that it is quite hazy on details, including the traditional herding rights of the Ladakhis.
Whatever that may be, what is more of interest is the change in the stance of the Sanghis.
South Asia is considered by Indian expansionism as its exclusive backyard. Today, China is a social imperialist power. It has been steadily trying to erode Indian domination and establish its own hegemony in this region. Asserting its superior military capacities is part of this. The border clashes in Galwan, and earlier near the Bhutan border, emerged from this imperialist interest. The Indian ruling classes are trying to tackle this by building up their armed forces and cosying up to US imperialism. But they are well aware that their capabilities are nowhere near that of China. A war would be disastrous, even with US support. Hence they are swallowing their chauvinist pride and yielding to Chinese social imperialism. In view of their past jingoist postures this needs to be properly dressed up, for their own social base and for the public at large. That is what prompted the candid admission of none less than the chief of defence staff. Though the Congress is making noises about Modi’s surrender, that is all it will do. Accomodation and playing for time dominates in Indian ruling classes’ strategic thinking at present.
Six decades ago thousands of lives were sacrificed in a senseless war for Indian expansionist interests backed by imperialism. Now the livelihood of Ladakhi people is being jeopardised, seeking accommodation with another imperialist power. In either case, the narrow, self-serving class interests of the rulers determined policy. There was/is nothing patriotic about it. There couldn’t be. As Mao Zedong pointed out, true patriotism must be consistently anti-imperialist…an impossibility for compradors.
