A series of run-ins that China has had with India in the Himalayas—including Doklam and Galwan—is normally viewed in a vacuum. However, these incidents can be traced back to a strategic vision that was born in the formative years of the People’s Republic of China. What is at the center of this strategic vision is the “Five Finger Policy,” which traces its roots back to the vision of Mao Zedong.
What is the five finger policy?
The five finger policy refers
The “Five Finger Policy” envisions Tibet as the “palm” of the right hand of China, and the areas surrounding it, such as Ladakh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, and Arunachal Pradesh, as the fingers. The notion is that after getting Tibet under its control, it was up to China to ensure that the regions around it came under its influence or control.
Though this doctrine has never been formally stated in Chinese official policy, it has appeared in various forms in Chairman Mao’s writings and speeches from the late 1930s and 1940s. Its existence came to be acknowledged in Chinese Communist Party publications in 2017 after the Doklam standoff between China and India.
Historical Background
Claims over the Himalayan region not made by Communist China. Claims over the Himalayan region date back even to the Qing Dynasty. There, Chinese officials maintained that a number of Himalayan kingdoms were actually extensions of Tibet. Mao revived these claims in 1949.
In the 1950s, Chinese officials in Tibet claimed “illegal occupation” in Ladakh, Sikkim, Bhutan, Nepal, and “North East Frontier Agency” in India, which is now known as Arunachal Pradesh. By the end of 1959, high-ranking PLA leaders began demanding that Tibet and these regions be brought under their control as an entity.
Objectives behind the strategy
The Five Finger Policy has geography and power projection as its thrust. Tibet provides China with unparalleled advantages:
- High-altitude military dominance
- A buffer zone shielding China’s central region
- Control over river systems in Asia
- Direct Leverage over South Asia
The direct leverage
Through the control of Tibet, China has been able to apply pressure on India as well as other neighboring countries. This historical geography-based policy shows the Chinese belief that historical geography can justify modern-day ambitions.
The function of each “finger”
Leh
The Chinese stance in the eastern Ladakh region suddenly stiffened in 2020. Regions like the Galwan Valley, which had not been previously claimed by the Chinese, have now become hotspots with violent confrontations taking place there despite various agreements reached by the Chinese with the Indian government.
Bhutan
China exerts measured pressure, especially in the neighboring regions of Bhutan in the west around Doklam and Chumbi Valley. Access to this region would enable China to gain strategic routes to India’s Siliguri Corridor, also known as “ Chicken’s Neck” land, which is India’s lifeline to the northeastern region.
Nepal
Beijing has also increased its political reach and infrastructural role in Nepal. Reports about the building of roads and development of villages in areas close to the disputed border regions have triggered concerns regarding “creeping” territorial pressure and domestic political influence.
Arunachal
China calls the Arunachal Pradesh “Southern Tibet” and protests when Indian leaders visit. China has built villages and other infrastructure that could have a legitimate or illicit use near the disputed area.
Sikkim
Despite the acknowledgement of Sikkim as part of India in 2003, the Doklam crisis saw the reemergence of tension, which makes one realize that previous agreements are easily reversible.
What Tibet holds for China
Tibet holds a strategic position in Chinese security ideology. The Plateau of Tibet serves as a natural defense. The conquest of Tibet in 1950 resulted in the removal of the age-old buffer zone between the territories of India and China. Hence, the Sino-Indian Border Conflict of 1962.
Successive Chinese leaders, from Mao to Xi Jinping, have held that Tibet is a gateway to extending their influence in South Asia. The militarization of the Tibetan Plateau has changed the geopolitics of this region.
ALSO READ: US presses Pakistan to join Gaza force, putting Asim Munir at risk of nationwide backlash
India’s position
India outrightly rejects the policy. The Indian government views Arunachal Pradesh, the state of Ladakh, and Sikkim as integral parts of India and does not want the status quo altered. Through the decades, the response of the Indian government has been the improvement of infrastructure and the use of bilateral arrangements like the 2005 and 2013 Border Protocols. Later on, the Indian government also revalued their economic dependence on China and strengthened strategic partnerships with “like-minded” countries after the incidents in Galwan. Whether the policy remains valid in the current day or not.
In theory, China does not apply any such policy. However, border intrusions, settlement of villages, military exercises, as well as diplomatic intimidation, convey a sense of continuity of thought. Most commentators observe that even though the policy description as ‘Five Finger Policy’ might not be used, its thinking is deeply ingrained in China’s Himalayan policy.
The Five Finger Policy illuminates the dynamics between the India and China standoffs and explains why the two remain opposed despite efforts at India-China dialog and confidence-building measures. Such incidents are not errors of tactics but rather integral to the strategic competition between the two powers that is fueled by history and geography among other factors. In the Indian context, the balancing act required is one of diplomacy and deterrence; maintaining stability in the region with the capability to resist the long-term strategic pressure from the northern neighbor.
FOR MORE: https://civiclens.in/category/international-news/
About the Author
