[Answered] Critically examine the statement “Despite a diplomatic thaw, the historical territorial-cum-border dispute remains at the core of India-China relations. Examine how this unresolved issue shapes their bilateral security framework and foreign policy.”

Introduction

India-China relations, encompassing 3,488 km of disputed border, remain shadowed by unresolved territorial disputes. Despite “diplomatic thaw” moments post-Kazan and Tianjin, Galwan 2020 reaffirmed LAC fragility, shaping enduring mistrust in security and foreign policy.

Historical Legacy and Core Dispute

1. The territorial-cum-border dispute, dating to colonial cartographic legacies (McMahon Line 1914, Johnson-Ardagh vs. Macartney-MacDonald lines in Aksai Chin), remains central.
2. Since the 1962 war, efforts—Special Representative talks (2003), Agreement on Political Parameters (2005)—have not produced a final settlement. Galwan clashes (2020) underscored the absence of mutually acceptable resolution, despite prior CBMs (1993, 1996 agreements).

Shaping Bilateral Security Framework

1. Security Dissonance and Strategic Mistrust: Border contestation compels India to maintain large-scale forward deployment in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh. PLA’s assertiveness, coupled with India’s military modernisation (e.g., BRO’s DSDBO road), perpetuates a security dilemma.
2. Border Talks: Work in Progress: Despite disengagement in areas like Pangong Tso and Gogra, friction persists at Depsang Plains and Demchok. The 17th round of Corps Commander-level talks (2022) shows incremental progress but no structural resolution.
3. External Balancing and Strategic Autonomy: Border tensions push India towards coalition-building: QUAD, India-US foundational defence pacts (LEMOA 2016, COMCASA 2018, BECA 2020). Yet, India also pursues “multi-alignment” via SCO and BRICS to avoid bloc politics.

Impact on Foreign Policy

1. Constraining Economic Cooperation: Bilateral trade crossed $136 billion (2022), yet trust deficit persists with restrictions on Chinese investments in India post-Galwan (via FDI policy amendments 2020). India banned 300+ Chinese apps, linking economic policy to security concerns.
2. Regional Geopolitics and Connectivity Rivalry: China’s CPEC corridor through PoK challenges India’s sovereignty. India counters via Chabahar Port and participation in IMEC (India-Middle East-Europe Corridor, 2023).
3. Indo-Pacific Theatre and Strategic Balancing: China’s Indo-Pacific assertiveness and maritime forays (Hambantota, Gwadar, “String of Pearls”) shape India’s SAGAR doctrine and partnerships with ASEAN, Japan, and Australia. Modi’s Tokyo-Tianjin diplomacy (2024) highlights simultaneous outreach—deepening with Japan while cautiously normalising with China.

Critical Examination

While summitry diplomacy (Kazan, Tianjin, Wuhan informal summits) generates symbolic warmth, structural impediments remain:

1. Asymmetry in Power: China’s $18 trillion GDP vs. India’s $3.7 trillion limits bargaining parity.
2. Alliance Patterns: Beijing’s “all-weather” ties with Pakistan directly impinge on India’s security.
3. Strategic Culture Clash: India’s strategic autonomy vs. China’s hegemonic worldview obstruct trust.

Thus, despite engagement in multilateral forums (SCO, BRICS, G20), the border dispute is the prism through which bilateral security and foreign policy choices are refracted.

Conclusion (30 words)

As it is being suggested by many think tanks, India-China ties oscillate between cooperation and confrontation; until the border dispute resolves, true strategic trust will remain elusive.