Line of Actual Control
Context:
- With the Doklam and Galwan crises, the situation along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) has been very tense for the past few years, stopping just short of a war.
LAC: Line of Actual Control:
- In the context of the Sino-Indian border dispute, the Line of Actual Control (LAC) is a hypothetical line that divides territory under Indian control from area under Chinese control.
- The borders that each nation claims in the Sino-Indian boundary dispute are distinct from the LAC. The entire Aksai Chin region is covered by the Indian claims, whereas Zangnan (South Tibet) and Arunachal Pradesh are covered by the Chinese claims. The term “actual control” does not apply to these assertions.
- Generally speaking, the LAC is separated into three sectors:
- the western sector between the Indian state of Ladakh and the Tibetan and Xinjiang autonomous regions; the middle sector between the Indian states of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh and the Tibetan autonomous region; and the eastern sector between the Indian states of Zangnan (South Tibet) and Arunachal Pradesh and the Tibetan autonomous region. The McMahon Line is typically followed in this industry.
Agreements and shortcomings:
- Following the visit by the then-Indian Prime Minister to China in December 1988, the relationship between the two countries gained momentum.
- Since then, four agreements (in 1993, 1996, 2005, and 2013) have been signed between the two nations to maintain peace along the LAC, laying the groundwork for handling the border issue and encompassing the full spectrum of engagement from top-level government meetings to border personnel gatherings in the field.
- These arrangements have been effective for more than 20 years. The LAC’s increased tension, though, raises the possibility that the agreements aren’t adequate.
- The Indian security establishment currently believes that it is necessary to stop China’s “salami slicing tactics” and that it should be “unyielding” with China.
- While toughness is necessary, it’s also important to pinpoint the causes of the LAC’s escalating conflicts and concentrate on finding solutions.
- According to some experts, the rise in LAC occurrences is not solely attributable to hostility because advances in surveillance technologies have made it possible to see the movement of hostile forces in previously inaccessible places.
- This improves the reaction capability, which raises the likelihood of encounters and confrontations when combined with higher unit densities, greater infrastructure, enhanced logistics, and the availability of aviation assets.
Suggestions:
- without affecting border claims, converting the LAC into a Line of Control (LC) and outlining it on a map and in real life. This will lessen the advanced troops’ desire to advance slowly. Although it can seem challenging, this can be done if both parties show maturity and use technology.
- Additionally, it needs to develop a strong infrastructure in its challenging border regions to ensure the effective transit of personnel and other logistical supplies.
- Border guards should carry on their conversation, promptly disengage, keep a safe distance, and defuse tensions.
- The two parties should refrain from taking any actions that could worsen the situation and adhere to all existing agreements and conventions on China-India boundary concerns.
- The LAC’s contested sections can be treated as no-entry zones, or both sides should be permitted to patrol them at mutually agreed-upon intervals.
- In order to maintain the status quo and boost confidence, joint patrolling of the contested areas needs to be investigated.
- So that local concerns may be resolved swiftly, it is necessary to strengthen the engagement channels and confidence-building measures already in place.
Conclusion:
- A long-term solution to the India-China border issue cannot be found right away due to its complexity. Therefore, it is preferable that both parties think about adopting quick, practical efforts to stabilise the LAC and lessen the likelihood of a confrontation.
