Explainer: Why the 2005 India-China pact is focus of attention in 2025

For decades, India and China have wrestled with a resolution of their contested border, the last time as late as August 19, when China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi came to Delhi. Wang is also the Special Representative (SR) on the Chinese side mandated to discuss the border issue with his Indian counterpart, National Security Adviser Ajit Doval.Significantly, the statement at the end of the SR talks issued by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) harked back to the 2005 agreement signed during the prime ministership of Manmohan Singh, called ‘Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for Settlement of the India-China Boundary Question’. The MEA statement added that in line with the 2005 agreement, there was a need to take a “political perspective” of the overall bilateral relationship, “seeking a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable framework for settlement of the boundary question”.In the plethora of agreements between India and China since 1954, the 2005 agreement is notable because it recognises that both sides need to take a “political call” to take things forward. Both sides, it added, should make “meaningful and mutually acceptable adjustments to their respective positions on the boundary question, so as to arrive at a package settlement to the boundary question”.On the face of it, both these points seem obvious. But in diplomatic jargon, and especially in the India-China story, every word doesn’t only mean something, it has a history attached to it.The 2005 agreement was signed between the then Chinese premier Wen Jiabao and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during Wen’s visit to India. It made two key points, path-breaking at the time — references to “settled populations” as well as “prominent geographical features”.Both phrases were agreed to by the Chinese “at the very last minute”, an Indian official present at the talks told The Tribune, speaking on condition of anonymity. This surprised the Indian delegation, which had been pressing for it at least for a couple of years, since the visit of the erstwhile Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to China in 2003.The first phrase, “settled populations”, agrees that populations in both countries will continue to occupy the territories on which they live, continuing with their traditional occupations and lives.This is especially significant in the case of Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh, birth-place of the sixth Dalai Lama, which the Chinese have claimed for decades — they call it South Tibet — and which India, equally resolutely, refuses to concede.Remember that in 1947, entire populations moved from one side to another, making it the largest forced migration in recent human history.The importance of the “settled populations” phrase cannot be overstated. Analysts say that if each country continues to rule over its long-held populations — it implies that both countries agree on the status quo. In theory, this means that the map of India will change. This is the real significance of the 2005 agreement. Analysts add that if MEA has referred to this today, it could mean that the Modi government is ready to signal to Beijing that it is willing to propose a new deal.Second, the phrase “prominent geographical features” refers to the agreement that key features, like the watershed in the high Himalaya, would help resolve the boundary dispute. Henry McMahon, the British surveyor-general, had physically drawn the highest watershed demarcating the boundary between British India and Tibet on a small map in 1914 — but the breadth of his pen nib, on what came to be known as the McMahon Line, allowed a dispute on seven-eight points, albeit negligible ones — for example in Longchu — within a space of a few kilometres.In the eastern sector, across Arunachal Pradesh, the Line of Actual Control generally follows the McMahon Line — there are very few disputed points.The MEA statement also said that an “expert group” would “explore an early harvest in boundary delimitation”. Former ambassador to China Gautam Bambawale pointed out that “early harvest” refers to the boundary in the Sikkim sector, over which the Chinese had agreed to change their maps and accept that Sikkim was a part of India — this had happened in the run-up to Wen Jiabao’s visit to India.While it was significant, analysts agree that it was also a low-hanging fruit. In 2005, India and China had basically agreed to what British India and the Chinese emperor had agreed to in their 1890 treaty. Both sides stuck to the same wording.According to Bambawale, the expert group is now being set up to study this “early harvest”, and that “even if a final boundary agreement is comprehensive, it will necessarily have to be arrived at step by step”.

Explainer: Why the 2005 India-China pact is focus of attention in 2025

Ajay Banerjee

Unlock Premium Insights in This Article