Tensions along a section of the Himalayan border separating the earth’s two most populous countries turned deadly this week in a fresh escalation of a dispute between China and India that has simmered for almost six decades.
On Tuesday, more than 4,200 metres above sea-level, 20 Indian troops were killed along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) - an unofficial cease-fire line separating the two countries since 1962 - after troops clashed with bare hands, rocks, and iron rods, according to Indian media.
The Indian army originally reported that three soldiers had died but later announced a further 17 soldiers had succumbed to their injuries and sub-zero temperatures. The Chinese government has not disclosed a death toll despite the Indian army reporting “casualties on both sides”.
It’s the first time in more than four decades that fighting along the frontier has led to casualties. Here’s how it got to this point.
India and China didn’t always share a border
The LAC runs between Indian-controlled Kashmir and the Tibet Autonomous Region of China.
Tibet declared independence from China in 1913, forming a buffer between China and India.
But in 1950, the newly-formed Chinese Communist Party invaded Tibet. A year later, Tibetans signed an agreement reaffirming Chinese sovereignty over the region and bringing the border back into Chinese control.
Just over a decade later, disagreement over the location of the high-altitude border was the primary catalyst for the Sino-Indian war which began in October 1962, when China crossed into disputed territory along the 3,500-kilometre border.
Relations between the two nations were also strained by India’s decision to offer asylum to Tibetan leader the Dalai Lama when he fled during a 1959 uprising.
An Indian soldier walks near a check post along the Srinagar-Leh National highway. Source: Getty Images
More than 1,000 soldiers were killed in the war, with most fighting taking place at high-elevations and in harsh conditions.
The conflict ended one month and one day after it started, when China declared a ceasefire and retreated to the frontier now known as the LAC.
An uneasy truce: the Line of Actual Control
No official border has ever been negotiated between the two countries, but the LAC - established in the 1962 truce - has up until now allowed for a degree of peace in the largely uninhabited region.
“Because the LAC has never been defined, there are some areas of overlap,” University of Sydney Associate Professor Jingdong Yuan, who authored a book on China-India relations, told SBS News.
“So what India considers the furthest point to be the line of control, the Chinese side probably sees the other side of the territory to be their line of control. So, somewhere in the middle is the overlapping claims.”
There are no markings showing the official location of the LAC, partially due to the heavy snow throughout the region. For this reason, intrusions across the frontier happen “all the time”, Associate Professor Yuan said.
But while skirmishes between the two sides are common, a gunshot has not been fired since 1975 when four Indian soldiers were killed.
Prior to Tuesday, the last time both sides suffered casualties in a single event was in 1967, when it is estimated 300 to 400 Chinese soldiers were killed compared to 80 Indian fatalities.
The lack of casualties over the past four decades is likely a result of an agreement between the two countries not to carry firearms when patrolling the LAC.
Both sides regularly patrol the area, despite the high altitude, in a bid to demonstrate their claim to sovereignty, Associate Professor Yuan said.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping, shake hands with leaders at the BRICS summit in Goa, India in 2016. Source: AP
More recently, in 2017, the Chinese construction of a road in Doklam (a tri-border area claimed by China and Bhutan) led to a 73-day standoff between China and India, who were acting on behalf of their ally.
Why have tensions flared now?
Over the past few weeks, brawls have repeatedly broken out between Chinese and Indian soldiers stationed along the border, causing both sides to deploy additional troops to the area.
On 5-6 May, a scuffle involving hundreds of Indian and Chinese troops broke out at Pangong Tso. Days later, on 9 May, several soldiers on both sides were injured during a clash at Naku La in India’s Sikkim state.
But just last week, China’s foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying announced the two countries had reached a “positive consensus” over resolving the tensions.
The catalyst for the growing violence appeared to be a new road constructed by the Indian Army towards a remote airbase that passes through the Galwan Valley, where the recent incident took place, and along the LAC.
Due to the unresolved nature of the dispute, Associate Professor Yuan said both sides were preparing for “any contingencies” and to be able to mobilise troops to the area rapidly.
“They both want to build up, improve infrastructure, so they can mobilise troops very rapidly … should something happen,” he said.
“China has been doing this earlier than India and with more resources, but India is playing catch-up.
“When you are building those roads very close to the point where their interpretation of the LAC lies, that creates problems.”
What does this mean?
In relation to Monday’s clash, both countries have blamed the other for provoking their troops by crossing the LAC or changing “the status quo”.
Experts are , noting both countries are nuclear-armed. Former Indian ambassador to China Nirupama Menon Rao described it as an “extremely worrisome juncture in the relationship”.
“This is very serious because between 1975 and 2020, until Monday or Tuesday, despite the territory disputes, both sides have managed the contentions quite carefully so nobody had died,” Associate Professor Yuan said.
As of Wednesday afternoon, Chinese officials had played down the incident, refusing to confirm the number of casualties as state media published little detail about the violent event.
“The severity of this incident and the casualties, will, on one hand, stoke nationalist sentiments among the Indian people because the Indian media publishes these reports all the time. So the Indians will read and then, of course, they will be shocked, they will be angry and they will demand the government does something about it,” Associate Professor Yuan said.
“On the Chinese side, because they don’t report the exact number of casualties … it is unlikely you will see a very strong reaction from the Chinese people.”
Associate Professor Yuan said the leaders of both countries would be forced to balance the need to appear strong and not be seen to concede claims to the territory, but also manage the “serious risk” if they allow nationalist sentiment to drive policy.
“Even though these fights were engaged in a more physical way without using guns, both sides have heavy equipment, vehicles and firepower. If this thing is not brought under control, it could be a very dire spectre.”
