Dr
R Srinivasan
India
returns Chinese soldier
On
18 October 2020, Corporal Wang Ya Long of the Chinese PLA strayed across the
LAC in Demchok sector and was apprehended by Indian Army. Army sources
confirmed the apprehension and also issued a statement that he would be
released after completing specified formalities[i]. Forty
eight hours later, Corporal Wang Ya Long was handed over to PLA front line
troops at Chushul-Moldo meeting point, which was corroborated by Chinese media
in their press releases[ii].
Though
the above incident did not cause any stir in public minds, not to say scholarly
discussions, it is an important of dimension to be looked at in the light of
Sino-Indian skirmish at Galwan in May this year. The board game of chess that
commenced at that time remains in spotlight what with both the countries moving
their pawns in manners that are testing each other’s will.
India
and China are both signatories to the Geneva Conventions 1949. While India
ratified the Conventions in 1950, China ratified them in 1956[iii].
Under Article 118, first paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention III
(GC III): “Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated
without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.” Being signatories to
the Convention, both India and China have an International legal obligation to
repatriate PsOW, should and whenever conflicts between the countries occur.
Interestingly, GC III applies only in conflicts that are declared as war.
Technically
speaking, a soldier in uniform (with or without weapons) straying into another
country is deemed as a mercenary and is liable for criminal prosecution in the
country where he is apprehended. Should that person be not in uniform, he is
deemed as a spy and is likely to be prosecuted accordingly. Both these
conditions could apply in situations where armed conflicts not declared as war
by respective countries prevail. ICRC and the larger international community of
scholars have always advocated fair treatment and return of soldiers even under
these circumstances, though such opinions are at best looked upon as
humanitarian appeals rather than mandates of GC III.
China and Indian PsOW
Immediately
after the 1962 Sino-Indian operations, the Indian Red Cross handed over a list
of 3968 names of Indian soldiers as having been would, killed or captured to
the Chinese Red Cross. China refuted the claims and delayed its responses till
1963. After an intensive diplomatic and international intervention, courtesy
Rajkumari Amrit Kaur and Maj Gen CK Lakshmanan, China accepted that it held
1132 POW and had returned 715 wounded earlier with 13 dead bodies. On January
25, 1963, the ICRC's executive director wrote to General Lakshmanan to draw the
IRC's attention to the announcements of the China News Agency that 2,156, (or
3,350) Indian POWs were still in Chinese hands.
On
6th February 1963, President ICRC himself took up the matter with
Marshal Chen Yi, the then Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs. Marshal Chen
intimated ICRC two weeks later that “Since the Sino-Indian border clashes, the
Chinese government has all along given good treatment in every respect to the
Indian military personnel who were captured in the course of their attacks on
the Chinese frontier guards.”[iv]
China maintained that it was Indian troops that had attacked ‘unsuspecting’
border guards of the Chinese Army in Tibet and Sinkiang!!
Importantly,
as Claude Arpi noted in his report, China found it “most regrettable that the
India PoWs 'captured in the course of the Chinese frontier guards's
counterattacks in self-defence' were equated with the 'law-abiding overseas
Chinese illegally detained by the Indian authorities.' On 27th February
1963, the ICRC confirmed to General Lakshmanan that the total number of Indian
prisoners of war still in Chinese hands was 3,319, excluding the 716 wounded
and sick who have been repatriated and the 13 bodies returned by the Chinese
Red Cross.” [v]
From 1963 onwards, China announced that it will release PsOW in batches. As of
now, there does not appear to be any clear document or report by either
governments whether all PsOW have been repatriated. Such an action by Chinese
took nearly eighteen months after considerable international pressure.
India and PsOW
India’s
actions to repatriate 93000 Pakistani soldiers who surrendered at Dacca after
1971 Indo-Pak war stands testimony to the commitment to International Law and
Humanitarian Principles that India stands by. Repatriating Wang Ya Long now
reiterates India’s position on such issues.
In
contrast, during 1962, the Chinese had even pointed out that there was no
‘Declaration of War’ between India and China. They used this line of
international legal logic to deny ICRC the right to visit China and inspect
their internment facilities. Initiatives taken by President ICRC, Rajkumari
Amrit Kaur as President of Indian Red Cross and Maj Gen Lakshmanan eventually
melted down their cold denial.
Conclusion
Clauswitz
famously said, “War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation
of politics by different means”[vi].
While the common perception is politics sans morality, war is not fought on
barbaric terms. The soldiers partaking in war are merely executing the will of
the polity. They have neither personal enmity nor do they entertain culturally
induced hatred. Therefore, a polity when it chooses to defy international norms
such as laid down in Geneva Conventions, indulges in acts that humanity has
always held as abhorrent.
India’s
action to return Wang stands as a testimony to the nation’s vibrant culture
that upholds non-violence and forgiveness as core principles even in
international relations where geopolitical compulsions give rise to temptations
and vanity resulting in irresponsible acts by political actors.
Acknowledgement: This article was earlier published by the author on Defence Research and Studies website at https://dras.in/pawns-in-a-board-game-prisoners-of-war/ on 24 Oct 2020.
