The Doklam plateau crisis of June–August 2017 remains one of the most serious military stand-offs between India and China in recent decades. Located at the tri-junction of India (Sikkim sector), China (Tibet Autonomous Region), and Bhutan, the remote high-altitude region suddenly became the focal point of global attention when Indian troops physically intervened to halt Chinese road construction activity. The 73-day confrontation brought the two nuclear-armed neighbours dangerously close to conflict while exposing the complex interplay of history, geography, and strategy in the eastern Himalayas.
Geographical and Strategic Context
Doklam (known as Donglang in China and Dok La in India) is a 89-square-kilometre plateau lying south of the Chumbi Valley. The area is claimed by Bhutan but has been under effective Chinese administrative control in certain pockets since at least the early 1980s. The plateau overlooks the narrow Siliguri Corridor — popularly called the “Chicken’s Neck” — a 22-kilometre-wide strip of Indian territory that connects the eight north-eastern states to the rest of India. Any permanent Chinese military presence on the southern slopes of Doklam would bring Indian defences within direct line-of-sight and artillery range of this vital artery, dramatically altering the regional balance of power.
For Bhutan, whose entire southern border with India is governed by the 1949/2007 Treaty of Friendship (revised to grant Thimphu greater autonomy in foreign affairs), the Doklam region forms part of its western sector claims. China and Bhutan have held 24 rounds of boundary talks since 1984 and have signed a 1998 agreement to maintain peace and tranquillity along the undelimited border, yet no final settlement has been reached.
Historical Background of the Dispute
The present controversy has roots in the 1890 Convention between Great Britain and Qing China, which defined the border between Sikkim (then a British protectorate) and Tibet. Article I of the convention states that “the boundary shall follow the watershed between the Teesta River system and the Mochu River system, passing through Mount Gimpochi”. China maintains that Mount Gimpochi is the tri-junction point and that the border runs south along the ridge to Batang La, placing Doklam entirely in its territory.
India and Bhutan, however, interpret the same article differently. They argue that the watershed line continues further south to a point near Batang La and then turns west toward the peaks of Merug La and Sinche La before descending to the Amo Chu River, thereby placing the Doklam plateau within Bhutanese territory. A series of diplomatic exchanges in the 1950s and 1960s, including letters from Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to his Chinese counterpart Zhou Enlai in 1959, show that India explicitly stating that the 1890 convention applied only to the Sikkim–Tibet sector and not to the Bhutan–Tibet sector. Nehru clarified that the tri-junction point had never been delimited on the ground and remained subject to future negotiation.
Trigger of the 2017 Crisis
On 16 June 2017, Chinese construction teams, escorted by People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, began extending an existing motorable track southward from the vicinity of the 2012-agreed “turning point” toward the Royal Bhutan Army post at Jampheri Ridge. Bhutan immediately protested through diplomatic channels and requested Indian assistance under the terms of the 2007 treaty. On 18 June, approximately 270 Indian soldiers crossed the recognised international border from Sikkim into Doklam and physically blocked the construction party, leading to a tense but largely non-violent face-off.
Both sides rushed reinforcements. By early July, several hundred troops from each army were camped within a few hundred metres of each other at altitudes exceeding 4,000 metres. Images of soldiers pushing and shoving each other went viral, raising fears of escalation.
Competing Narratives
China insisted that the construction was taking place well within its sovereign territory and accused India of “trespassing” across a delimited border. Beijing repeatedly cited the 1890 convention and a purported 1959 acceptance by Nehru. Indian officials countered that Nehru’s letter had only accepted the alignment north of Gipmochi peak and explicitly excluded the tri-junction area. New Delhi further argued that it was acting at the formal request of Thimphu and in defence of a friendly neighbour whose security is inextricably linked to its own.
Bhutan issued two strong démarches (8 June and 20 June 2017) asserting that the road construction violated the 1998 and 2012 written agreements with China to refrain from unilaterally altering the status quo. The Bhutanese statement received comparatively less international coverage but was crucial in establishing the legal basis for India’s intervention.
Diplomatic and Media Warfare
The crisis played out not only on the cold plateau but also in press briefings and op-ed pages. Chinese state media adopted an unusually belligerent tone, with the Global Times warning of a “short, swift war” and reminding India of the 1962 conflict. Official spokespersons demanded unconditional Indian withdrawal as a prerequisite for any dialogue. India maintained a relatively restrained posture, with the Ministry of External Affairs emphasising peaceful resolution while refusing to accept unilateral alteration of the tri-junction.
Third-party diplomacy remained limited. The United States offered mild statements supporting peaceful resolution, while Russia and several ASEAN countries urged restraint. The small kingdom of Bhutan, bound by its policy of avoiding direct confrontation with Beijing, relied heavily on Indian diplomatic channels.
Path to Disengagement
Back-channel negotiations intensified after the BRICS summit scheduled for September 2017 in Xiamen, which both Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping were expected to attend. On 28 August 2017, the Ministry of External Affairs of India and the Chinese Foreign Ministry simultaneously announced that “expeditious disengagement” had been agreed upon. Indian troops withdrew to their pre-16 June positions in Sikkim, while Chinese personnel ceased road extension toward Jampheri Ridge. Both sides claimed the outcome as a diplomatic success.
Satellite imagery analysis later revealed that while the road extension was halted, China significantly strengthened its permanent military infrastructure north of the confrontation site, including hardened shelters and helipads.
Long-term Implications (as understood by January 2019)
By early 2019, the Doklam episode had produced several lasting effects:
- Acceleration of infrastructure development on both sides of the Line of Actual Control (LAC), particularly in the Sikkim and Arunachal sectors.
- Increased Indian military aid and training support to the Royal Bhutan Army.
- A temporary cooling of India–China relations, with the informal Wuhan summit between Modi and Xi in April 2018 intended to stabilise ties.
- Greater international awareness of Bhutan’s unresolved boundary with China and the strategic significance of the Siliguri Corridor.
- Heightened debate within India on economic decoupling from China and the vulnerabilities posed by heavy dependence on Chinese imports in critical sectors.
Lessons for Regional Stability
The Doklam crisis illustrated the fragility of peace along one of the world’s longest disputed borders and the risks inherent in unilateral actions in sensitive tri-junction areas. It also underscored the unique India–Bhutan security relationship and the limitations of small states when caught between two giants. Most analysts agree that while tactical de-escalation was achieved in 2017, the underlying boundary dispute and strategic competition remain unresolved.
As of 14 January 2019, no fresh military incident had been reported from the Doklam area, but both Indian and Chinese forces maintain a substantially higher permanent presence than before 2017. The episode serves as a reminder that in the absence of a mutually accepted boundary alignment, high-altitude plateaus can quickly transform from remote pastures into flashpoints with continental implications.
Diplomatic engagement, mutual restraint, and accelerated boundary negotiations — particularly between China and Bhutan — remain the most viable paths toward lasting tranquillity in this strategically sensitive corner of the Himalayas.
Post a Comment