India and China Border Dispute — China’s New National Map
Analytical Essay by Parth Gupta | October 2023
INTRODUCTION
In this paragraph, I will introduce the context and background history of this conflict and discuss the historical concepts linked to it.
Background History and Context
Animosity between the two Asian superpowers arose in 1959 when Jawaharlal Nehru visited China. He questioned Chinese maps and boundaries as they did not reflect the designated McMahon Line from 1914. Since then, China’s government still claims over 90,000 square kilometers of territory most of which constitutes the Indian State of Arunachal Pradesh. Over the course of the past few decades, conflict between India and China remained continual, prompted by the 1962 Sino-Indian War. The four-week-long invasion of India by China left thousands of Indians dead before China withdrew. However, they retained with them an area called Aksai Chin, a strategic corridor linking Tibet with the rest of China. India still claims the Aksai Chin region although it is currently being administered by China. This is one of the many controversies along the disputed borderline. Other violent conflicts occurred in 1967, 1975, 2017, and most recently, in 2020. Through indirect confrontations, such as the building of infrastructure and military complexes and increasingly blunt and obstinate territory demands, the Asian superpowers have kept their mutual animosity strong. Most recently, the Chinese government released its new national map which has several controversies surrounding it. It claims the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh and the Indian-claimed region of Aksai Chin. The map also includes the 9-dash line in the South China Sea which has caused unrest in other Southeast Asian countries. This recent incident has created a whirlwind of geopolitical disputes and is causing a strain on the diplomacy between the two countries.
Concepts
Several geographical and Historical concepts apply to this incident however two that especially apply are Continuity and Change. The significance of these historical concepts is that they help evoke critical thinking to relate the event with historical events. Continuity and Change help compare and contrast to add historical depth and context to the plot of this recent event.
Continuity
The continuity aspect of the recent India-China dispute is that similar events have occurred throughout the modern history of these two countries. Starting from the Sino-Indian War in 1962 to the border skirmishes in 2020, regular incursions and border incidents have taken place as a part of China’s Salami-Slicing tactic to gain land. This recent event is another domino that has fallen since the indistinct McMahon borderline was first erected in 1914 and therefore creates consistency and continuity.
Change
While violent interactions and border intrusions are not infrequent along the borderline, China has recently shifted strategies to project strength rather than demonstrate it. The difference is that instead of violent intrusions and illegal annexations, China is using its newer Salami-Slicing tactics to gain strategic advantage through a steady development of smaller actions. China has been building a substantial amount of infrastructure and “standardizing” the names of landmarks in territory that India claims and administers. Most notably, China has built a large military complex along the border and has built strong diplomatic ties with Pakistan, a historical adversary of India. In response, India has built roads and other strategic infrastructure in Chinese-claimed territories as a part of both countries’ shifting tactics.
BODY PARAGRAPH 1.
This paragraph outlines the specific events involved in this transnational affair using the two opposing sources. The two different media sources (Wion+Quartz and the Global Times) have two contradictory viewpoints on the topic making it hard to narrate one story while using both of the differing articles. However, I tried my best to integrate them into one plot with their divergent viewpoints contrasted. This is to retain the perspectives and biases of each side without diminishing the development of discrepancies.
Outline of the Story using both Media Perspectives
According to the two pro-India sources, China’s new national map shows its “aggressive character” in the South China Sea and Indo-Pacific Region. The map shows parts of Arunachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Aksai Chin, Taiwan, and the disputed South China Sea as its own. In response, India has launched a strong diplomatic protest. On the other hand, the Global Times article alleges that India is unjustifiably* claiming two Chinese territories, Zangnang (Arunachal Pradesh) and Aksai Chin through their diplomatic protest. The article claims that it is completely in practice and routine for China to publish this map and India should not overinterpret it. It also mentions that 2023 is the 30th year with the national map in order to establish its unremarkableness. Diverging from this, the Pro-India source(s) claim that in a post, state-run Global Times said that the map was based on drawing methods from China as well as various other methods. This is despite the fact that the map depicts India’s land as its own. The Indian Government has rightfully* dismissed this. Also according to the pro-India source(s), the map is a recent event in a series of territory-claiming tactics by China. This includes the building of a 101-home village in Arunachal Pradesh and standardizing the names of 11 landmarks in the state. The Global Times, on the other hand, focuses on the spread of the map by describing that China issued a post to standardize the use of the map and instructions to download it. The article informs readers that there are more than 5.47 million downloads of the national map, eliminating the use of “problem maps”. Additionally, the article stresses that China is trying to establish better relations between the two and alludes that India is disrupting this with their threatening* protest and should instead remain objective. On a different note, the Wion and Quartz articles say that due to these complications, Xi Jinping is not expected to be present at the G20 conference hosted by India fearing* being multilaterally attacked by several countries.
BODY PARAGRAPH 2.
This paragraph dissects the perspectives and biases of the pro-India sources, Wion and Quartz. Although most news sources provide accurate information, they frequently leave certain bits of information out to provide the story that readers want to read. This paragraph analyzes the origin, purpose, content, value, and limitations of the source(s).
OPCVL Dissection of Wion Article
Origin
The Wion Article was published on August 29, 2023, which is only 1 day after the map was published on August 28. This limits the article from any post-publishing updates that may have come out. The author covers a variety of topics such as world sports, medicine, and international politics. This could be conceived as a disadvantage due to a lack of knowledge-concentration in the India-China border disputes. The publisher is an Indian-based news source which means that although their content is truthful, it may have bias in favor of India. Their bias ranking is “least biased/center” however their factual reporting indicator is “mixed” (in between mostly factual and low).
Purpose
The intention of the author was probably to inform readers about the controversies regarding China’s new national map from an Indian viewpoint. The intended audience is probably Indian due to the publisher being an Indian-based company. Therefore, the content of the article is probably limited to the perspectives and biases of an Indian reader. The article also had connotations of anger and contempt towards China’s actions.
Content
The primary argument of this article appears to be portraying China as an aggressive character regarding the Indo-China border and also the rest of Asia. This limits the article to not being able to describe potential instigations by India. One example in the article that shows the author’s displeasure regarding China’s actions is, “But [China] doesn’t seem to consider the boundaries of all the countries as it wrongly depicts Indian territories.” This excerpt describes a very subjective topic in a straightforward and biased fashion. The author should do a better job in staying objective and masking their personal convictions. News is formed upon facts and not opinions. Additionally, the source did not use many statistics, however, this did not seem to result in a lack of coverage. The article’s tone showed obvious contempt however the information was very accurate. Some additional context could be provided such as the number of downloads the map received and the responses of other countries outside Asia.
Value
The source was quite valuable despite sometimes not being as objective as it could have been. Bias is something that all news sources have and the source was able to provide an accurate retelling of the incident for the most part. The article does reference information from other sources however it is rare and the content is mostly original. Language did not appear to be a large issue because along with a majority of international politics, the article was in English.
Limitations
There were many limitations in the article because there has to be an extent of information to stay in the parameters of bias. In the case of this article, many details regarding the international response and effects on regional geopolitics were undescribed. However, in comparison to other news sources, the article was well-informed and mostly objective.
OPCVL Dissection of Quartz Article
Origin
The Quartz article was written on August 30, 2023, which gives it a slight advantage over the Wion Article as it was able to describe India’s response in more detail. Ananya Bhattacharya, the author of this article, is originally from India, however has lived in four very different countries which deepens her perspective. Due to the article being written by someone of Indian origin, it is more likely to have a bias for India due to the author’s personal perspective. Additionally, as a journalist in business, law, politics, economics, and architecture, she is unlikely to have as much knowledge of the India-China border dispute (or even geopolitics in general), as someone who has studied it their entire lives. The news website, Quartz, where the article was published, is an American-based news outlet that focuses on International Business News. This means that their view on the topic may be less biased than an article written in India or China. Also, they are comparatively center-biased with a few left-leaning tendencies and a bias ranking of -4.91. However, the article may be less informed due to its focus on business rather than politics. Additionally, it is a private company (not state-owned) which means that they might include news that is more popular rather than true in order not to compromise their profits.
Purpose
The intention of the author in the case of this article is to inform the general public about the recent border incident between India and China with minimum bias. The article was published by an American news outlet which means that the intended audience is also likely American (or at least Western). This means that the targeted audience probably does not have as much knowledge regarding the topic as an Indian or Chinese audience might. From my experience, this results in a greater depth into the history and causes of the event and consequentially, includes more information. This increases the value of the article and decreases the limitations of information for the reader.
Due to Quartz being an American (3rd party country) news source, the author of the article is unlikely to try to evoke a specific sentiment in favor of either side. However, based on my experience with other articles on the topic, the Quartz article doesn’t filter any information regarding China’s intimidation in Southeast Asia. Instead, the Quartz article unequivocally examines China’s unpopular and aggressive* actions throughout the region to provide important context. This is in contrast to other pro-China sources which are blunt, uninformed, and ignorant of the full picture. This adds to the purpose of the article which is to provide unbiased information and context to readers.
Content
The main thesis of the article is that China is portraying an aggressive* stance in Southeast Asia and has been taking advantage* of countries and companies that fail to comply with China’s irrational border claims. The recent episode regarding China’s national map is just another example of this. However, despite these seemingly strong convictions against China, the author manages to stay objective and provide the perspectives of both sides on the issue. One excerpt from the article that supports the development of the thesis is, “The map shows … the Aksai Chin plateau, which has been disputed since the 1962 Indo-Sino war, as China’s territory.” This quote shows a bias in favor of India by leaving out information that Aksai Chin has been Chinese-administered for decades and that China is wrong to include it in their map*. The quote also demonstrates an objective view by mentioning Aksai Chin as disputed, rather than Indian or Chinese territory. As mentioned earlier, the article does omit certain information in favor of India, however, for the most part uses an objective and unbiased tone.
Value
The article has a strong value due to its relative objectivity and depth of information. Periodically, the article contains bias in favor of India, however, it is rare and unnoticeable. The omission of information is also apparent throughout the text and is one of the article’s lacking qualities. Language and translation issues were not problematic due to the article being in English. The article also frequently includes a primary account of India’s response by quotations.
Limitations
Due to the article being from a 3rd party standpoint, it is able to provide a broader perspective and therefore has fewer limitations. However, due to the article not having anything directly to do with the issue, this also results in the article being a secondary source and a compilation of information from other sources. Other limitations include several omissions of important information due to a slight bias in favor of India.
BODY PARAGRAPH 3.
This paragraph dissects the perspectives and biases of the pro-China source, the Global Times. Although most news sources provide accurate information, the Global Times is known to provide biased information in favor of the People’s Republic of China and frequently omits certain information in favor of China. This paragraph analyzes the origin, purpose, content, value, and limitations of the source.
OPCVL Dissection of Global Times Article
Origin
The article was published by the Global Times which is a Chinese state-owned media outlet. This adds value by providing important insight into the Chinese perspective; however, limits their content to the government’s view on the topic. To add upon that, the Global Times has been known to be an outlet of Chinese propaganda with an intent to influence readers rather than factually educate them. Additionally, there is no author given for the article which weakens its value as a reliable source. This is because, without a given author, it could have been written by anyone who might speak from bias rather than knowledge. MBFC ranks them as a questionable source with left-leaning tendencies and their factual reporting indicator being “mixed” (in between mostly factual and low).
Purpose
The purpose and intention of the author regarding this article was to influence readers toward the Chinese Government’s view of the national map. The author does this by analyzing China’s view of India’s strong protest in a biased and prejudiced manner. The intended audience is likely to be Chinese due to the publisher being a Chinese news outlet. This indicates that the information presented in the article is likely an attempt to appease the Chinese people. However, despite this, the article has omitted key details in order to keep the reader in favor of the Chinese government’s perspective.
Content
The primary point that the article is trying to put forward is that India has wrongly* claimed Chinese territories by protesting against China’s established and accurate national map. This is fueled by propaganda from the Chinese government to indoctrinate Chinese people into acceptance of the government’s actions. One such example of this is, “[India] claims China’s Zangnan (South Tibet) region and Aksai Chin region as its territory.” This excerpt completely omits the fact that “Zangnan” is a functioning Indian State with Indian citizens under an Indian government. The purpose of the article, to influence and misinform the Chinese people in favor of the government, comes into conflict with providing accurate news to the public. The article does not use any statistics to back up their information, however, they do use statistics to their advantage. The article uses several facts to describe the extent of the map’s downloads to appeal to the readers’ logos and make the use of the map more established. Additionally, several of the claims made by the article seem exaggerated and doubtful. Important context and key details were also precluded due to the pernicious purpose of the article.
Value
The article has an integral value to this analysis due to its insight into the Chinese perspective on the issue. Although it could be disregarded as propaganda, the article describes another point of view and a point of comparison for other articles. Despite the strong bias in favor of China, the article provides a primary source of the Chinese government’s response to India’s diplomatic protest through dialogue and speech.
Limitations
The article had many limitations due to its accordance with the Chinese government’s perspectives. Most notably, the article fails to acknowledge the region of Arunachal Pradesh by its name, much less as an Indian State. The article also omits details about China’s historical role in border intrusions and the map’s implications in the South China Sea. Another subtle limitation is the author’s name which is not given for unknown reasons. This could be to protect the author from those who find the article’s content inaccurate and prejudiced. However, either way, this limits the reader from knowledge that could potentially inform them of any additional biases or perspectives the author may have.
CONCLUSION
This is the beginning of the end where I analyze the differences between the Values and Limitations of both sources and my personal opinion on the matter given both perspectives.
Comparison of the Sources’ Values and Limitations
Both sources contain some amount of bias to serve their individual purposes. These biases can affect the values and limitations of the content in the articles and could influence the reader in a certain direction.
Wion and Quartz
The Wion and Quartz articles use bias to portray China as an aggressive neighbor in the Indo-China border region and Southeast Asia in general. This limits them from information about the establishment of the map and Aksai Chin being a Chinese-administered region. However, the extent of the bias in the two articles is too minor to have a substantial diminishment on the articles’ value. Both sources were well-informed, however, the Quartz article had the edge of being more objective due to viewing the issue from a relatively neutral 3rd party standpoint.
The Global Times
The Global Times article had a strong bias towards the topic in favor of China. Their view of the topic wasn’t even regarding China’s national map, but rather about India’s unjustifiable* protest against it. The Global Times’ purpose of indoctrinating Chinese viewers into acceptance of their government’s actions limits the amount of truth in the content they provide. There are multiple examples throughout the text of the article omitting key information in accordance with their limitations. This unambiguous prejudice severely reduces the credibility and value of the source. However, the Global Times simultaneously provides an additional perspective into the Chinese response to the incident and the version of events that China claims is true. This unique point of view and primary source, in effect increases the value of the source.
Final Contrast
Both sources have opposing and seemingly polar views on the incident. This is a result of their inevitable biases. One such discrepancy originating in the sources’ respective biases is their views on India’s protest. The Wion and Quartz articles view India’s diplomatic protest as an adequate and fair* response to China’s irrational actions, whereas the Global Times article finds India’s response to be threatening and unnecessary*. Based on the facts and the true events regarding China’s national map, the Quartz and Wion articles seem to be less prejudiced and contain fewer divergences from reality than the Global Times article which serves mainly as a view into China’s perspective and not as a reliable conduit of facts. Both of the sources were valuable due to their perspectives and/or content however the limitations of the Global Times article produced too many discrepancies and controversies.
My opinion
My opinion on the topic is similar to the Wion and Quartz articles in that China has overstepped its bounds with this recent cartographical encroaching of Indian territory. India has the complete right to rebuke against this unjustifiable show of aggressive behavior by the Chinese government. However concurrently, the Global Times also brings up a good point that China does have the established liberty to publish its own national map despite potential international controversies*, especially if they have been doing so for years. Conversely, this incident could also be the instigation of potentially dangerous violent combat between the two Asian superpowers and they must remain cautious of the consequences of their actions. There have been far too many incidents and border skirmishes between the two nations, and they must get past leveraging each other’s sovereignty for territorial gain. Instead, they should begin cooperating to ensure a safer society for both countries. Although this is a relatively unattainable goal due to China’s repetitive obstinacy and incoherence with its neighbors, maybe India can take the first step towards establishing stronger relations.
*The article did not specifically use this word/phrase however it was implied through the text
Author’s Note — This blog is exclusively dedicated to academic purposes within the school context and is committed to maintaining a neutral stance, avoiding any political influences or affiliations.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Citing your sources is an integral part of any essay and I thank the following resources for their content and information.
Source 1.1
Sisodia, Srishti Singh. “China’s Map Claiming Regions beyond Its Border, Including India, Shows Beijing’s ‘Aggressive Character.’” WION, 29 Aug. 2023, https://www.wionews.com/world/chinese-map-claiming-regions-beyond-its-border-is-aggression-shows-beijings-character-630176.
Source 1.2
Bhattacharya, Ananya. “China’s New Standard Map Reignited a Land Dispute with India.” Quartz, 30 Aug. 2023, https://qz.com/india-china-border-dispute-map-arunachal-pradesh-1850786461.
Source 2
“India Called to Stay Objective, Refrain from over-Interpreting China’s New National Map.” Global Times, 30 Aug. 2023, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202308/1297264.shtml.
Source 3.1 — Additional Context
“India-China Border Tensions: Key Dates in Decades-Long Conflict.” Al Jazeera, 17 June 2020, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/6/17/india-china-border-tensions-key-dates-in-decades-long-conflict.
Source 3.2 — Additional Context
Ethirajan, Anbarasan, and Vikas Pandey. “China-India Border: Why Tensions Are Rising between the Neighbours.” BBC News, 30 May 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52852509.
