6

Here are the lines I am talking about,

enter image description here

My point is if Pakistan and China control some territory of Kashmir, why are they keeping those issues dangling for years rather than establishing international borders along those lines?

  • 2
    Because they don't consider it Indian territory. Pakistan for one has claim over the entire J&K state, formalizing a border on LOC would put an end to that claim. China presumably also has claims beyond the LOAC and so does India, declaring LOAC the border would end both their claims. India consider LOC de-facto border unilaterally but it does no good when the Other side and the UN doesn't accept it as such – NSNoob Jul 20 '17 at 14:09
  • 2
    Flip the question around: why would they establish international borders along those lines, when all three claim the entire area? It's not like all three countries are led by peace loving hippies. – Denis de Bernardy Jul 20 '17 at 14:09
  • If both sides agreed, they could negotiate partition along those lines. Why they don't would have to be speculation. – James K Jul 21 '17 at 21:44
  • 1
    The question seems to presume that establishment of international border is a unilateral action, which it isn't. Please amend the question to clarify this ambiguity. – Dynamic Stardust Oct 12 '17 at 15:15
3

Simple answer: Politics

Long Answer:

International Border is the line that both countries and the rest of the world have agreed upon. Both LOC and LOAC are unofficial control lines which are taken by the armies.This border is not accepted by either nations as official. India still wants to take back Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir(Or Azad Kashmir as is called in Pakistan) and Aksai Chin while Pakistan wants to take the whole of Jammu and Kashmir and China wants Arunachal Pradesh which it considers to be Southern Tibet.

Now, let's be honest. All 3 countries, being nuclear powers themselves, know that a war in the 21st Century is not possible. Status quo is the only thing that establishes some sort of peace between the countries. However, all 3 countries have to satisfy the nationalistic fervour in their own countries. It has become an emotional issue in the democratic countries. In Indian terms, Kashmir is a "Brahmastara" (Invincible Weapon) for politicians. In either India or Pakistan, if any leader even tries to resolve it, they are just committing political suicide. Because resolving means negotiating and people on both sides of the border want absolute control and no negotiation.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Most Chinese don't give India a thought in their whole life. Now India has successfully roused China's hatred. When people hate you, they will do everything to destroy you. Nuclear doesn't mean anything. – George Chen Jul 22 '17 at 15:50
  • @GeorgeChen Eh, do you actually think most Indians care about China either? It's just some heightened nationalistic passionate guys who spew hatred all around. And both India and China's leaders are sensible enough not to go to war over some border dispute. – Sid Jul 22 '17 at 15:53
  • Please don't compare everything with China. You guys should compare with the US and leave China alone. – George Chen Jul 22 '17 at 16:07
  • This answer doesn't cover the Cinese LOAC part. Politics is certainly not a problem from Chinese side. – user4514 Jul 23 '17 at 5:07
  • 1
    @Sid, China has border issues with just about everyone in its vicinity.- so does India. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disputed_territories_of_India – user4514 Jul 30 '17 at 21:11
0

There are many reasons.

  1. Politics

Kashmir is used as a political weapon in the countries. Any yield or comprise would be political suicide.

  1. Legality

The land occupied by Pakistan and China was occupied by force. If these borders were recognised, The Crimean occupation of Russia, China's occupation of the South China Sea, Houthi insurgency in Yemen, Syrian insurgency, Islamic State, etc. would have legal precedent to be recognised.

  1. Practicality

There is no point for the recognition and it would not directly benefit any of those countries.

EDIT: For references:

  1. Chinese Occupation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War
  2. Pakistani Occupation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947%E2%80%931948

As you can see in both the wars Pakistan and China were the initiators, in fact, the Accession of Kashmir was forced as Kashmir was unable to defend itself, if Pakistan had not started the war, Kashmir may have been independent and this border dispute probably would not have happened.

| improve this answer | |
  • It would help if you can support your answer with references. – JJJ Sep 18 '19 at 12:57
  • @JJJ Well most of my answer is based on my personal views as a citizen of India. link for Pakistani occupation link Chinese occupation – JERRY_XLII Sep 18 '19 at 14:36
-2

China has demonstrated its willingness to concede large tracks of land for the sake of peace, but experience has shown that compromise to India does not lead to peace. See Maxwell's This Is India's China War, Round Two. It seems that India has resumed its ancient career as a stooge for its colonial masters. As long as India continues to bite China's kneecap, India can rally massive support from the western world.

The 1962 war was the result of Nehru's decade-long rude encroachment and his not-negotiable attitude. After a decisive Chinese victory Chinese troops declared unilateral ceasefire and withdrew to positions 20 kilometres behind the previous line of control. India, instead of using this opportunity to break contact with China, quickly sent their defeated army to reoccupy every inch of land that was voluntarily evacuated by Chinese troops. Southern Tibet was part of Greater China before India was part of the British Raj and before British Raj there was no such thing called India. Mao ordered the withdrawal on a whim because he was eager to make friends with Indian people and was ready to bestow largesse to his friends; at the back of Mao's head, poor people are natural friends. If India had made the slightest friendly gesture, Mao would have renounced Southern Tibet. Instead of reciprocating China's good will, India mounted accusations after accusations against China and waged a decades-long anti-China propaganda campaign and cultivated a nation of rabid China haters.

For the next 50 years, China's strategic interest along the border was peace, not land, but India used the border issue as a political bargaining chip. Every time China makes a concession (See Sikkim and Souther Tibet), India claims more. Even worse, under the pretext of China threat, India started a new round of nuclear arms race after the cold war when everyone else was in the mood for nuclear disarmament.

As the older generation slowly departed from the scene, China's new generation of policy makers began to re-evaluate the assumptions China previously held about India. If compromise does not work, China today has no other choice but the opposite. India has taught China how to haggle: if you want peace, you have to ask for a lot more. Starting from 2012, China's policy changed from "peace above all" to "whoever makes trouble for us will have to pay for it."

The following was Bertrand Russell's observation of the 1962 conflict:

When populations have been worked up to a pitch of bellicose excitement, it becomes very difficult for governments to restrain them. This has happened most notably in India. The government misled the population by concealing the fact that the Chinese had a legal case which, on the face of it, was as strong as the Indian case, and that what was needed was negotiation supplemented by arbitration if necessary. China was willing to adopt this this course, but India was not, because the Indian government had persuaded Indian public opinion that the Chinese had no case.

Russell, Bertrand. Unarmed Victory. New York: Simon And Schuster, 1963. 143. Print

| improve this answer | |
  • Could you kindly care to answer the original question? This answer is still incomplete. – user4514 Jul 20 '17 at 20:13
  • @anonymous - I think your original question is a better one. If China is occupying India's land, it would be a good deal for China to settle for the status quo. Actually China was willing to settle for much less, but India's behaviour in the past 55 years put a stop to it. – George Chen Jul 20 '17 at 22:03
  • It is not quite clear what is it that India wants. Territory or prestige? Based on online sentiments, it seems that Indian nationals think in comparison terms. So long as China is doing better, India is not happy. Nations with such character can brook poverty very well but cannot enjoy prosperity together. It is possible that as soon as India's economic condition improves, its source of cohesion disappears. This India thing will dissolve as soon as money flows in. – George Chen Jul 21 '17 at 0:35
  • Bro, kindly, consolidate your comments and answers, so that I can accept it. Otherwise, you are just beating around the bushes. – user4514 Jul 21 '17 at 17:13
  • Comments redacted. Please don't use comments for extended storytelling. Answer comments are for discussions how the answer could be improved. If you want to add additional content which is relevant to the question, edit it into the answer. – Philipp Jul 22 '17 at 8:22

You must log in to answer this question.