Hu Shisheng, however, insists troop pullback and talks is the only way forward.

India may be responding to a perceived security threat resulting from the Chinese road construction in the Donglang area, according to a Chinese scholar, who said a pull-back of troops by India followed by negotiations is the only way forward.

In a conversation with The Hindu, Hu Shisheng, Director of the Institute of South and Southeast Asian and Oceania Studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, acknowledged that India’s “strategic” considerations may have led to the stand-off.

“My personal understanding [is] that this time, the Indians purposely did it. The reason is to stop the potential strategic construction. But this should not be the way,” he said, when asked whether New Delhi’s security considerations may have been a factor in the standoff, as the construction of a new Chinese road, if persisted, would have added to the vulnerability of the “chicken’s neck”, or the Siliguri corridor, that links the north-east with the rest of India.

“I do not think that because of this (troops presence), the Chinese side will stop it (the construction).” Dr. Hu underscored that the area of the face-off between Chinese and Indian forces at Donglang is not disputed between Beijing and Thimpu.

“That place is on the margin. If you say it (standoff) is at Donglang, it is on the margin. But on Donglang, the Chinese position is that there is no dispute. We only have some dispute in the Chumbi valley, closer to the Bhutan border,” he said. “From the map released by the (Chinese) Foreign Ministry, it is much nearer to the Sikkim side, far away from the Bhutan side, although the whole area of Donglang is bordering three countries.”

Dr. Hu’s observations contradict the statement by Vetsop Namgyel, the Bhutanese Ambassador to India, who has been categorical in stating that Doklam or Donglang, the area of the current military tensions, is disputed between China and Bhutan. Mr. Namgyel has gone on record, saying: “Doklam is a disputed territory and Bhutan has a written agreement with China that pending the final resolution of the boundary issue, peace and tranquillity should be maintained in the area.”

But in his counter-narrative, the Chinese scholar argued that, “Maybe if this is a disputed area, this should be a disputed area between China and Bhutan, but not directly between China and India.”

Analysts, however say New Delhi is obligated to side with Thimpu as India and Bhutan have special ties, which have been legally affirmed by the India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty of 2007. Article 2 of the Friendship Treaty, which succeeded the 1949 Treaty of Perpetual Peace and Friendship between the two countries, affirms that India and Bhutan shall “cooperate closely with each other on issues relating to their national interests”. It adds: “Neither Government shall allow the use of its territory for activities harmful to the national security and interest of the other.”

Consistent with the 2007 treaty, a statement by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on June 30, following the standoff, highlighted that in keeping with their “tradition” of maintaining close consultation on matters of mutual interest, Bhutan and India “have been in continuous contact through the unfolding of these developments”.

Dr. Hu stressed that India should have used diplomatic channels, instead of adopting a military stance, if it perceived that the road construction by China was “threatening”.

“In the past, the Indian side left behind infrastructure construction because one of the lessons of the 1962 war (was) not (to) build infrastructure. Anyway, for many years in the past, China has been building infrastructure extending to the frontier regions. So my personal understanding is that this is (road construction in Donglang) one part of the effort.”

He added: “But when this kind of effort regarded by Indian side; okay, as threatening, then, this kind of approach is not the right approach, to raise this kind of protest. You can raise it (concerns) through strategic dialogue, thorough special envoy engagement, or other forms of consultations to see what China’s concerns are.” However, analysts in India say that once new “facts on the ground” in the form of finished road by China are established, it would be hard for diplomacy to achieve any tangible results.

Nevertheless, Dr. Hu acknowledged that “India also has the right to do so (build infrastructure) on its side.” “That is no problem. Even one day the roads from each side can link with each other in the Sikkim area,” he observed.

The scholar regarded the military face-off as a “watershed incident”, having grave implications, including opening out the possibility of “even a small scale conflict”, undermining the Brazil-Russia-India-China- South Africa (BRICS) grouping, and casting a long shadow on the future of border talks and cross-border cooperation. “From the Belt and Road summit, the international community knows the big difference between these two Asian giants. Now on this issue (at the border), if we cannot tackle it skilfully, it will lead to the third negative development that is the BRICS.”

“I do not think China would be that foolish that in order to hold the BRICS summit, they will swallow this bitter pill, that is India just stays there, without backing off. Finally (if Indian Prime Minister) Narendra Modi says, okay, I will not participate, in that case the BRICS will be dismantled.”