&w=3840&q=100)
Permanent solutions elude as China plays the long game on Tibet and India's borders
On the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Qingdao, China, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh met his counterpart Admiral Dong Jun and called for a 'permanent solution' to their decades-old Tibet border dispute. The question that immediately emerges here concerns the timing—especially when there have been several narratives about India and China moving toward peaceful disengagement in Depsang and Demchok since last year, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi met President Xi Jinping at Kazan on the sidelines of the BRICS summit and an agreement was drawn up.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
China had stated in October last year that disengagement had been completed at Depsang and Demchok, two of the friction points that emerged post-2020 when China violated India's sovereignty and martyred 20 soldiers of the Indian Army during the Galwan Valley clash. However, a December 2024 Pentagon report noted that the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) had not fully drawn down its forces since 2020 and continued building infrastructure along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), indicating that despite the agreement, full disengagement was yet to take place.
In this context, the use of two terms by Defence Minister Singh during his meeting with Dong in June this year—'permanent' and 'Tibet'—carries significant meanings and signals. The deliberate use of 'permanent' implies that India understands China's actions do not match its words, particularly regarding disengagement at friction points. Second, the temporary nature of so-called agreements for maintaining peace at the disputed borders becomes glaring when the need for a permanent solution is stressed.
Despite multiple rounds of talks between India and China at various levels, the fact remains that conflict is used as the first resort by the Chinese PLA. Examples range from 1962 to 1967, 1987, 2018, 2020, 2021, and 2022. Moreover, China's response to Singh's statement on the need for a permanent solution to the decades-old Tibet border question clarified that China does not actually seek a solution to the dispute. Just days after Singh's statement, China remarked that the boundary dispute with India is 'complicated' and will 'take time to settle.'
This is reminiscent of the 1950s. In 1954, Zhou Enlai stated that China's India policy should strive for co-existence based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, seeking to make it anti-US aggression and anti-war. He added that India was still under British and American influences, so China wanted to win it over. As for the border issue, Zhou said questions regarding areas such as Tawang and Lhoyul—excluded by the McMahon Line—and issues regarding the 'ownership' of these areas would be resolved in the future at an appropriate time due to 'insufficient documents.' He further noted that the stronger China became, the more India's attitude would change.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
In 2025, there are striking similarities with 1954. In April, China urged India to stand with it against U.S. tariffs. Since 2024, China has been actively pushing narratives of how it is trying to stabilise the borders with India. As seen in China's response to Singh's call for a permanent solution, this is reminiscent of Zhou's 1954 view that the future would determine the resolution of the dispute.
The timing of Singh's focus on the border with Tibet is also pertinent. In the run-up to the Dalai Lama's 90th birthday, Chinese attempts to Sinicise Buddhism and obliterate everything about Tibet—including replacing its name with the Chinese term 'Xizang'—need to be noted. A few weeks before the Dalai Lama's 90th birthday, Xi met with the China-chosen Panchen Lama, Gyaincain Norbu. Gedhun Choeki Nyima, the Panchen Lama recognised by the Dalai Lama in 1995, has now been missing for 30 years since being taken into custody by Chinese authorities at the age of six.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The Panchen Lama is the second-highest spiritual leader in Tibetan Buddhism after the Dalai Lama. Norbu, while meeting Xi, stated he would keep in mind Xi's earnest teachings and firmly support the leadership of the ruling Chinese Communist Party.
A few weeks later, China announced it had started the third phase of work on restoring and preserving Buddhist scriptures, most written in Sanskrit. When the Dalai Lama celebrated his 90th birthday and announced that the Gaden Phodrang Trust—the religious authority managing his affairs—will oversee his succession, stating that the CCP will have no authority, China flared up yet again, as it has in the past, and called for no interference in China's internal matters. Leading up to the Dalai Lama's 90th birthday, China also invited Indian journalists to Tibet. Even the most credible among them, perhaps not fully grasping strategic concerns, referred to Tibet as 'Xizang' in their reports.
The continued use of the Chinese term for Tibet not only obliterates Tibetan identity but also normalises China's claims on Arunachal Pradesh. 'Xizang' implies 'Western treasure trove' in Chinese, while China calls India's Arunachal Pradesh 'Zangnan' or 'Southern treasure trove.' Erasing Tibet's identity through manipulation of media narratives also furthers China's claims on Arunachal Pradesh as 'Zangnan.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The fate of Tibet is closely tied to China's claims on India's sovereignty. The timing of China's renewed attempts to Sinicise Buddhism and appropriate everything about Tibet—from its sovereignty to culture to language—in the lead-up to the Dalai Lama's 90th birthday cannot be missed. Singh's statement on the need for a permanent solution to the Tibet dispute must also be seen as a carefully timed pushback.
China's attack on India in 1962, with skirmishes leading up to it, all started in the 1950s after the PLA forcibly occupied Tibet. The parallels between the 1950s and now must be carefully studied by India. China's overtures to push narratives of friendship with India to counter the West, its military onslaught on Tibet then, its attempts to obliterate Tibetan identity now, and the permanent delaying of resolving the border question—back in 1954 and again today—are all ominous signs. India must take cognisance of these realities and understand that China can never be trusted in any sphere of any relationship.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Prof Sriparna Pathak is a Professor of China Studies at O.P. Jindal Global University and serves as a Senior Fellow at the Jindal India Institute. Sagar Naidu is a Doctoral scholar at the University of Basel, Switzerland. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
19 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Duty-free access to US cotton, agri items' quota likely on talks table
Duty-free market access to US cotton, accepting agricultural items under limited quotas — these are among the possible concessions that the industry has suggested ahead of the crucial round of negotiations later this month when the US team is expected to arrive in India, The Indian Express has learnt. Earlier this month, Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal had sought suggestions from industry executives on ways to sweeten the trade deal with the US. While some sectors have proposed incentives to accommodate US products, industry sources said the recent escalation in tension between New Delhi and Washington — due to additional tariffs over the Russian oil trade — is turning popular sentiment against a trade deal. Importing duty-free US cotton is one of the areas being suggested to the government, which would also benefit domestic manufacturing amid declining cotton production in the country. Notably, Bangladesh, which has signed a deal with the US, had also offered a similar concession. The US market accounts for nearly 30 per cent of India's total apparel exports. A government official said that quotas for American agricultural items have also been considered, but these do not include genetically modified (GM) products. There is significant resistance to GM crops in India, and only one GM crop — Bt cotton — is approved for cultivation. However, no GM food crop is commercially grown in India. Queries emailed to the Commerce and Industry Ministry on the issue remained unanswered till press time. Meanwhile, following the steep tariff announced by the US, the industry has sought immediate relief — like expansion of the Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products (RoDTEP) scheme to more sectors, and the Interest Subvention Scheme (ISS) for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs). An exporter who did not want to be named said that established brands are not cancelling orders, but have begun putting them on hold, pending the outcome of negotiations slated for later this month. 'Everybody [US importers] is saying, give us at least three weeks to revert — so, till the US negotiators reach India by August 25, and then maybe some relief could come. Indian exporters can absorb five to seven per cent tariff. Pharma has margins, so the challenge is less there. But in most other areas, margins are low. Other items — say proprietary items like what Apple produces — can withstand the pressure, but footwear and textiles have little margin and the competition is intense,' the exporter said. Another exporter said that higher tariffs could increase exports during the 21-day window. However, if the 50 per cent duty comes into effect, Indian goods will be worse off as compared to China, Bangladesh, Vietnam and most of the other competitors. An executive operating in the gems and jewellery sector said the industry has sought support from the government on the lines of the intervention during Covid, as concerns over imports of rough diamonds still remain and Indian goods may not remain competitive in the US market after 25 per cent tariffs. The Indian Express reported on August 3 that the government has kicked off an exercise to thrash out concessions across sectors that can be offered in the tariff negotiations later this month. Key economic ministries have been asked to examine what they can still afford to offer to sweeten India's deal when the US team visits on August 25. Meanwhile, India has already stepped up its oil imports from the US, with imports jumping over 270 per cent year-on-year in the first four months of 2025. According to data released by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCIS), India imported 6.31 million tonnes of US crude in January–April, a sharp increase from 1.69 million tonnes in the same period last year. Ravi Dutta Mishra is a Principal Correspondent with The Indian Express, covering policy issues related to trade, commerce, and banking. He has over five years of experience and has previously worked with Mint, CNBC-TV18, and other news outlets. ... Read More
Mint
43 minutes ago
- Mint
Harvard scientists warn of lost breakthroughs as Trump halts $2.6B in research funding
Harvard University professor Alberto Ascherio's research is literally frozen. Collected from millions of US soldiers over two decades using millions of dollars from taxpayers, the epidemiology and nutrition scientist has blood samples stored in liquid nitrogen freezers within the university's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The samples are key to his award-winning research, which seeks a cure to multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases. But for months, Ascherio has been unable to work with the samples because he lost $7 million in federal research funding, a casualty of Harvard's fight with the Trump administration. 'It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it,' said Ascherio. 'We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'' The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' 'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus," the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find nongovernment funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead. Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. 'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. 'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost," Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. "It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day." John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were canceled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. 'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?' The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.' Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.' But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. 'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard," she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.' Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Will protect our farmers, ready to pay heavy price for it: PM Modi
NEW DELHI: PM Modi responded on Thursday to US President Donald Trump's decision to raise the tariff against India to 50% by ruling out concessions to American business in the agriculture, dairy and fishery sectors, and said he was ready to pay any price he may personally have to pay for resisting the pressure. "For us, the interests of our farmers is top priority. India will never compromise on the interests of its farmers, dairy farmers and fishermen. I know I will personally have to pay a heavy price but I am prepared for it," Modi said. The PM's remarks came hours after Trump imposed an additional 25% tariff burden on Indian goods as a penalty for, ostensibly, buying Russian oil, bringing the overall duty on Indian exports to 50% and further fanning tariff tensions. US's insistence on access to agriculture, dairy and fishery sectors has been among the major points of discord, with India putting its foot down. "For the farmers of my country, for the fishermen of my country, for the livestock rearers of my country, Bharat stands ready today," he said. PM's readiness to pay 'personal price' marks escalation of resistance The PM's response on Thursday built upon his earlier public "no", the one at Varanasi on Saturday, to US's pressure. The US has not only been demanding low tariffs on certain farm products such as corn, soybeans, apples, cotton, almonds and ethanol, but also pitching for allowing entry of its genetically modified produce like maize, soy, canola & cotton into Indian market. It also wants India to let in beef and cattle feed, which has bones & other animal parts; both absolutely "no-go" zones for govt. During trade negotiations, India resisted the US demand to lower tariffs on these products as it will negatively impact Indian farmers who produce maize, soybean, pulses, cotton and fruits and nuts. India also opposed the American move to push GM products due to biosafety concerns. Significantly, the "whatever-it-takes" assertion came during the PM's speech at an event to mark the centenary of legendary agricultural scientist M S Swaminathan, the driving force behind 'Green Revolution' which helped India overcome its dependence on US foodgrains and shake off the stigma of "ship-to mouth" economy. Modi's statement about his readiness to pay a "personal price" also marked an escalation of Indian resistance and the transformation of the trade dispute into an issue of national pride and self-reliance. With Modi taking it upon himself to lead the "resistance", Trump's claim, already neutered by his hectoring, that he had leveraged a promise of a tariff deal to get India to pause Operation Sindoor, appeared to have receded into the background. Outlining his vision for Indian agriculture, Modi, on the occasion, pushed for combining traditional Indian agricultural practices with modern science, and emphasised the need to ensure nutritional security, crop diversification and development of climate-resilient crop varieties. He also pitched for integration of AI and machine learning in agricultural systems. "Govt has always considered the strength of farmers as the foundation of national progress," Modi said, noting that the policies formulated in recent years were not merely about assistance, but about instilling confidence among farmers.
