Opinion | Battle In Galwan Valley: Indian Response And International Law

Use of armed force as a state policy is always resorted to achieve some meticulously defined political or other objectives. No state would yearn for armed conflict without the tangible objective that it wishes to achieve, which is otherwise non-achievable through peaceful means.

A roadsign displaying distances to Leh (top R), the capital of the union territory of Ladakh, is seen along the Srinagar-Leh National Highway in Sonmarg some 89 Kms of Srinagar on May 28, 2020. (Photo by TAUSEEF MUSTAFA / AFP)

On the night of  June 15, 2020, India lost twenty gallant soldiers to Chinese troops in the Galawan valley of Union Territory of Ladakh, India. I am perturbed and disturbed both; my thoughts and prayers are with the bereaved family who made the supreme sacrifice. In this write up, I have few points to make to understand the response that Bharat must have in order to effectively deter the enemy and its nefarious designs. The raison d’etre of Chinese incursion in Ladakh: Use of armed force as a state policy is always resorted to achieve some meticulously defined political or other objectives. No state would yearn for armed conflict without the tangible objective that it wishes to achieve, which is otherwise non-achievable through peaceful means, viz. diplomatic outreach, international arbitration, mediation or negotiations. Now, what is it that Chinese wish to achieve through their incursion in Indian territory, begs some explanation as to their objective for which use of force is last resort according to their calculations. Is the territorial dispute in arid though critical territory of Ladakh, something that India denied to discuss peacefully, that truly explains the Chinese actions? Moreover, what was the urgency for China to come in the Indian side of Line of Actual Control? Was it so urgent that necessitated Chinese action in this trouble time of Corona with a steep slump in Indian and world economy. Answer is, there was no urgency or necessity, and Chinese action does not explain the objective that they wish to achieve through military force which is not achievable otherwise. Therefore, arises the question, what then explains their actions? In my humble opinion, it’s a fight between democracy and authoritarianism; former is represented by India and later is championed by China. The Chinese regime is alien to the idea of political accountability, their’s is not a responsible government, it is authoritarian government which answers to no one accept to handful Polit Bureau which is coterie of like-minded people and not a Parliament of diverse opinion and ideology. Chinese people has lots of question that they are yearning for and regime in China is covering up and muzzling any dissent. An unrest is brewing within the mainland because of utter failure of managing the Covid-19 affair. The situation could very well spiral up into an internal rebellion or civil war. However, if there is any way in which attention could be deflected, it is the war. This will emotionally charged up the angered nations and also transfer the anger from Chinese dispensation to the external enemy like India, or other. (File Photo/ Getty) War or armed conflict was the reason that European thinkers thought of a government which not political absolutism. In a democracy where the government is will of people, it would be virtually impossible to go to war because rule of law and freedom of speech and expression would puncture the one sided propaganda in the name of information. It is proven through research that post world war constitutional democracies have not fought a war against each other. It is also established that authoritarian regimes are more prone to wage war against democracies. Indian response: Modern day international law has sprang from European practices. What was European nations’ international or select club to protect their internal affairs from external aggression, led them to come together under one umbrella not as federation but confederation or group of sovereign nations that wanted to protect constitutional democracies based on rule of law from external aggressor who were against such societies. Thus came the concept of modern law of nations or international law. Today it has grown into full-fledged independent system and expanded across the world, however, its foundational premise remains the same. It’s a tool to protect and promote democracies and governance based on rule of law within the home and outside the home. Europe, as NATO and the USA have always gone out of their shores to protect free societies at their home, is testimony to this fact. International Law: In international landscape the appropriate forum is the United Nations (UN) and its executive organ of Security Council which should now swoop in action, however, it seems impossible because of the nature of functioning thereof. No substantive matter therein can be passed through a resolution without the concurrence of five permanent member, and China is one of the permanent members, therefore, Security Council is not going to act. Another option that UN has is United for Peace Resolution (General Assembly Resolution 377A) which mandates the General Assembly to consider and act on those matter on which Security Council could not act upon because of non-concurrence of all the five permanent members. Given the poor track record of Chinese across the world because of their expansionist movement, the resolution against Chinese incursion would sail through. It is highly unlikely that India would resort to it unless there is consensus among the comity of nations. Foreign policy is nothing but the extension of domestic interest at the international platform. Constitutional democracies need to come together to thwart authoritarianism and its blatant display by China. Their foreign policy is to pummel the small states and grow economically to justify to their population this form of government. Expansionism is the tool of all political absolutist form of government, which is again being established by Chinese. India must fight them out, but not for mere piece of land, but for freedom and rule of law. That is the true and metaphysical nature of this conflagration. Constitutional democracy would ensure perpetual peace and political absolutism would always cause imperialism and subjugation. Let’s fight for freedom and rule of law. India did not invade any country in its glorious ten thousand years of civilization should not be the humdinger for us, for we were not spared invasion and attacks. If Bharat wishes peace, it must first fight it out. Change the course of civilization to protect very civilization. (Abhishek Mishra is a Ph.D fellow, Albrecht Mendelssohn Bartholdy Graduate School of Law) Disclaimer: The opinions, beliefs and views expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this website are personal and do not reflect the opinions, beliefs and views of ABP News Network Pvt Ltd.