The INC’s decision to cede tiny Katchatheevu to tiny Sri Lanka is the precedent upon which some fear that they’d cede much larger disputed territory to much larger China in the unlikely event that they come to power in the next elections.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi referenced a recent report in national media about his country’s cession of a tiny island to Sri Lanka half a century ago, the details of which were finally made public through a Right to Information Act request, to accuse the opposition of giving away integral territory. The larger context concerns the upcoming six-week-long elections from 19 April-1 June that are regarded as a referendum on the incumbent BJP’s decade-long leadership of the world’s most populous nation.

According to the newly published report, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of the now-opposition Indian National Congress (INC) that currently leads the “INDIA” coalition acceded to her predecessor Jawaharlal Nehru’s stance that ceding Katchatheevu to Sri Lanka would be to the benefit of bilateral relations. It didn’t matter to her or her party that a colonial-era Indian state enjoyed “continuous and uninterrupted” control over the island, which thus made it an integral part of India, since this goal overruled that.

This position, which supporters describe as “pragmatic” while critics condemn it as “anti-national”, is relevant to the upcoming elections since the theoretical possibility of the INC-led “INDIA” coalition replacing the BJP (however unlikely in reality) could have major implications for the Sino-Indo border dispute. The ruling party’s position is that China is illegally occupying integral parts of India that had been “continuously and uninterruptedly” under Delhi’s control up until Beijing took control of them.

Nehru’s reputation for being “soft” on China, which the BJP blames for emboldening the People’s Republic ahead of their brief 1962 war, could lead to his party ceding these disputed territories that are presently under its control for the so-called “greater good” owing to the Katchatheevu precedent. What’s ironic is that the INC has tried accusing the BJP of being the one that’s “soft” on China since the lethal Galwan River Valley clash in summer 2020 yet Prime Minister Modi just turned the tables on them.

By referencing the recent report in national media that was published as a result of the Right to Information Act request revealing the details of what exactly went into Indira Gandhi’s decision half a century ago, he’s reminding Indians that the INC can’t be trusted with ensuring territorial integrity. External Affairs Minister Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar has said on repeated occasions that bilateral ties can’t return to normal until China withdraws to its pre-2020 position in the Himalayas.

Nevertheless, just like in the run-up to the 1962 Sino-Indo War, so too is there currently a Chinese-friendly lobbying force within the INC which implicitly believes that the “greater good” would be served by promulgating policies that could objectively be described as “soft” towards their northern neighbor. If they return to power in the current context, then they might cede those Chinese-controlled disputed territories to Beijing for the purpose of advancing a planned rapprochement between them.

Not only that, but it also can’t be ruled out that they might give up some or even all of Arunachal Pradesh too, which is a Northeast Indian State that China has territorial claims to. Beijing has recently pressed its claims to that region by publishing 30 new names of residential areas and geographical features there in a move that Delhi condemned as “senseless”. China never directly controlled Arunachal Pradesh, which it calls South Tibet, but only indirectly exerted writ over it via suzerainty over Tibet.

That being the case, it’s also possible that the latest development was meant to create the pretext for what could be presented as a “pragmatic compromise” in the extremely unlikely event that the INC-led “INDIA” coalition comes to power. India could then cede newly Chinese-controlled disputed Himalayan territory to Beijing in exchange for China abandoning its claims to Arunachal Pradesh, though such a deal would be lopsided since India isn’t occupying territory that China ever directly controlled in the past.

Whereas the INC might justify the abovementioned arrangement as advancing the “greater good”, the BJP would regard it as “appeasement” and “emboldening” more of what it considers to be China’s “salami-slicing” tactics. Unlike the INC’s decision to cede tiny Katchatheevu to tiny Sri Lanka half a century ago, which is the precedent upon which some fear that the INC-led “INDIA” coalition could cede much larger disputed territory to much larger China, the BJP has no such track record in its history.

The Sino-Indo rivalry isn’t the main issue is the upcoming six-week-long elections, which are primarily focused on voters’ views about the socio-economic progress that their country has made over the past decade, but its emotive significance is growing after recent events. China’s recent decision to rename parts of Arunachal Pradesh and the latest Right to Information Act request revealing details about Katchatheevu’s cession are quickly turning the elections into a referendum on the BJP’s China policy too.

(The article was published on korybko.substack.com on April 03, 2024 and has been reproduced here)