Shaksgam ours, will defend it: MEA slams inclusion in China-Pak corridor

The Tribune

Context and Central Claim

The article reports India’s strong diplomatic rebuttal to the inclusion of the Shaksgam Valley in the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). India reiterates that Shaksgam is an integral part of the erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir and that the 1963 Sino-Pakistan Boundary Agreement is illegal and void in India’s view. The piece situates the issue within India’s long-standing position on territorial sovereignty, international law, and third-party interventions in disputed regions.

Key Arguments Presented

1. Illegality of the 1963 Agreement

The central legal argument is that:

• Pakistan had no sovereign authority to cede Shaksgam to China in 1963
• Any agreement signed over disputed territory is invalid under international norms
• India has consistently rejected the legal standing of the China–Pakistan boundary arrangement

This reinforces India’s continuity in diplomatic and legal positioning rather than presenting a reactive stance.

2. CPEC as a Sovereignty Violation

The article underscores that:

• CPEC passes through Indian-claimed territory under Pakistan’s illegal occupation
• Infrastructure development does not legitimise territorial claims
• Economic projects cannot override unresolved sovereignty disputes

CPEC is thus framed not merely as an economic initiative but as a strategic assertion with geopolitical consequences.

3. Strategic and Security Implications

Beyond legal objections, the piece highlights:

• Enhanced China–Pakistan strategic coordination in sensitive border regions
• Military and logistical implications for India’s northern frontiers
• The risk of altering the status quo through “facts on the ground”

The narrative links infrastructure to long-term security recalibration in the Himalayas.

4. Diplomatic Signalling and Internal Sovereignty

The parallel reference to India rebuking foreign commentary on internal judicial matters reinforces a broader theme:

• India’s resistance to external interventions, whether territorial or institutional
• Assertion of sovereign decision-making in both foreign and domestic domains

This frames India’s response as part of a coherent sovereignty doctrine rather than an isolated reaction.

Author’s Stance

The article adopts a state-centric and sovereignty-first stance:

• Largely reflects the official position of the Ministry of External Affairs
• Emphasises consistency, legality, and strategic resolve
• Avoids ambiguity or conciliatory language

The tone is firm, declaratory, and aligned with diplomatic signalling rather than exploratory analysis.

Biases and Editorial Leanings

1. Official Narrative Dominance

The piece heavily relies on:

• Government statements and official interpretations
• Legal assertions without engaging counter-arguments from China or Pakistan

This limits plural perspectives but is typical of reportage on foreign policy positions.

2. Limited Historical Nuance

While legally accurate from India’s standpoint:

• The article does not explore the geopolitical context of the 1963 agreement
• The historical evolution of China–Pakistan ties is underplayed

The focus remains on present-day assertion rather than historical causality.

3. Security-First Framing

Economic dimensions of CPEC are subordinated to:

• Strategic and military concerns
• Territorial integrity narratives

This reflects India’s policy lens but narrows the analytical spectrum.

Pros and Cons of the Argument

Pros

• Reinforces India’s consistent legal and diplomatic position
• Clearly links infrastructure to sovereignty and security
• Useful articulation for international audiences and domestic clarity

Cons

• Minimal engagement with international arbitration or multilateral dispute mechanisms
• Lacks discussion on diplomatic off-ramps or confidence-building measures
• Risks being read as purely declaratory without forward-looking strategy

Policy Implications

1. Foreign Policy Doctrine

The article reinforces:

• India’s refusal to accept third-party legitimisation of disputed territories
• A rules-based argument grounded in sovereignty and international law

2. Border Management and Infrastructure Strategy

It highlights the need for:

• Accelerated infrastructure development on India’s side of the Line of Actual Control
• Diplomatic vigilance against incremental territorial assertions

3. India–China–Pakistan Triangle

The piece underscores:

• Deepening China–Pakistan strategic alignment
• The persistence of a two-front challenge for India
• The necessity of long-term strategic preparedness

Real-World Impact

• Shapes public understanding of CPEC beyond economics
• Signals deterrence and diplomatic firmness to adversaries
• Reinforces continuity in India’s Kashmir policy narrative

For civil services aspirants, it offers a clear example of how legal, strategic, and diplomatic arguments intersect in foreign policy articulation.

UPSC GS Paper Alignment

GS Paper II – International Relations

• India–China relations
• India–Pakistan relations
• Sovereignty, territorial integrity, and diplomacy

GS Paper III – Security

• Border management
• Strategic infrastructure and national security
• External threats and internal stability

GS Paper IV – Ethics (Indirect)

• State responsibility in defending sovereignty
• Ethical dimensions of non-recognition of illegal territorial actions

Balanced Conclusion and Future Perspective

The article is a clear, firm articulation of India’s sovereignty-based foreign policy with respect to Shaksgam and CPEC. Its strength lies in consistency and legal clarity, though it consciously avoids broader diplomatic or historical nuance. Going forward, India’s challenge will be to complement such declaratory positions with credible infrastructure capacity, sustained diplomatic engagement, and strategic communication that resonates beyond official statements. The Shaksgam issue thus remains not only a territorial concern but a test case for India’s ability to defend sovereignty in an era of geo-economic assertiveness.