There are three reasons why India should be particularly concerned about China’s construction activities on Pangong Tso. One, India’s war with China in 1962 revealed its diplomatic miscalculations and inadequacies in defence preparedness. China surprised India with an announcement in 1957 that it had built a road through Aksai Chin linking Tibet and Xinjiang. India protested this move formally in 1958. There is still trauma in India surrounding that war. Two, China does not seem to favour the idea of entering into treaties for resolving territorial disputes and maritime disputes with its neighbours. Recently, China began constructing a bridge on a portion of Pangong Tso which India claims is its international boundary and is within its territory. A portion of the area has been under Chinese control since 1958. The Pangong Tso saw military action between the Indian and Chinese forces in 1962. There were confrontations between the forces of the two countries in 2017, and in 2020, violent clashes resulted in casualties. Three, what is most worrying is that China does not adhere to the general rules of international law; rather, it tries to derive its claims on the basis of historic rights to the detriment of the rights of its neighbours, as is the case with its claims in the South China Sea.
Illegality in international law
China’s belligerent action and military strategy to acquire territory place Pangong Tso in the category of occupied and disputed territory. In the eyes of international law, occupation is a temporary phenomenon. The Permanent Court of Arbitration’s Award in the Island of Palmas case noted that only the continuous and peaceful display of territorial sovereignty (peaceful in relation to other States) is as good as a title; the title based on contiguity has no standing in international law. India has neither accepted China’s unjustified claims on that portion nor its construction activities. Therefore, China cannot take the plea that India has acquiesced; that there is an expression of consent by conduct or inaction by India. In contemporary international law, the most realistic approach to settling a border agreement is to create in each other shared expectations of mutual obligation. What is important is an indication to the other party that a final commitment has been made.
