Weaponised restraint: How China exploited border agreements while India upheld the rules

Over six decades of friction, Indian Army has remained a professional, disciplined, and constitutionally accountable force, whereas the PLA functions primarily as the armed wing of the CCP.

- ASHISH SINGH

On 15 June 2020, Indian and Chinese troops engaged in a violent face-off in Galwan Valley across the Line of Actual Control (LAC). Indian Army sources confirmed that 20 Indian soldiers were killed, the deadliest clash between the two nations in over four decades. The confrontation occurred during a de-escalation process following a standoff across several points in eastern Ladakh that began in May 2020.

While there was no exchange of gunfire, the combat involved hand-to-hand fighting and the use of improvised melee weapons such as stones, clubs, and nail-studded rods. Independent assessments, including US intelligence reports, suggested that China suffered around 35-45 casualties, although Beijing officially acknowledged only four deaths.

WHY NO SHOTS WERE FIRED

A key question after the clash was why firearms were not used. Agreements between India and China prohibit the use of firearms within two kilometres of the LAC as a confidence-building measure (CBM). India has historically adhered to this rule.

However, during the Galwan Valley clash and subsequent standoffs, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) exploited this restraint by using nonfirearm weapons and simultaneously expanding its military infrastructure, eroding mutual trust.

India-China Border Agreements Since 1962: Over the decades, India and China have signed a series of CBMs designed to maintain peace and tranquillity along the border.