Skip to footer

Taking the high road in a Himalayan hostility

India and China, two giants that cannot afford a war, are in a military standoff over a piece of Bhutan. Patient diplomacy will hopefully win the day.

|
AP Photo
In this 2016 photo, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, left, talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping during the BRICS summit in Goa, India. India and China have faced off since June after China seized control of territory in Bhutan.
  • By The Monitor's Editorial Board

For the past six weeks, the armies of India and China have been in a tense standoff over the control of a 104-square-mile plateau at about 11,000 feet in the Himalayas. When the only countries with more than a billion people are poised for war, the rest of the world should hope for restraint.

So far, the contest for patience goes to India. It has seen Chinese encroachment many times and watched in recent years as China intruded on the islands of others in East Asia. The two giants even fought a violent war in 1962 over Himalayan territory. India now prefers calm diplomacy over calamitous dispute.

In China, on the other hand, official media has been stoking nationalist fires against India. The warlike rhetoric has yet to provoke India even as China rushes more troops to the region.

China’s aspiration to assert itself as a global power lies at the root of the current confrontation. The standoff began June 16 when a Chinese military unit was caught building a road through the tiny kingdom of Bhutan in an area known as Doklam (or Donglang in Mandarin). India handles many of the foreign affairs of Bhutan, a legacy of British rule as well as Bhutan’s isolation and its own fears after the takeover of nearby Tibet by Communist China in the 1950s.

The new road is part of China’s grand plan known as the “One Belt, One Road” initiative to build a transportation corridor to Europe. The plan is more than economic. China seeks influence over other countries in the region and may be trying to pry Bhutan from India’s orbit. It is also angry that India did not attend the launch of the One Belt initiative in May. The project is a point of pride for Chinese President Xi Jinping as he consolidates power in the run-up to this fall’s Communist Party Congress. India was absent because China plans a road through a part of Pakistan claimed by India.

India’s restraint comes in part from a confidence that other countries, such as Japan and the United States, are challenging China’s territorial claims and aggression in Asia. China and India rely more than ever on global trade, and China is India’s largest trading partner. In addition, both countries have leaders at the helm occupied with internal reform. The two nuclear powers cannot let this military showdown escalate.

The two countries are ancient civilizations but with a key modern difference. One is a democracy, the other a dictatorship. India is used to resolving disputes by a peaceful contest of ideas. Its constructive diplomacy over the Bhutan face-off will hopefully win the day. And as winter approaches in the Himalayas, the two armies may need to retreat anyway. With patience, India and China can then have a fresh opportunity to resolve their differences over Bhutan’s territory peacefully.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Taking the high road in a Himalayan hostility
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2017/0728/Taking-the-high-road-in-a-Himalayan-hostility
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe