Exactly right that pointing to Ladakh becoming Union Territory as a cause for China's agitation ≠ India being at fault. Domestic sovereignty is non-negotiable. However, on PRC paranoia, impossible to distinguish between genuine and instrumental. 1/6 https://twitter.com/RRajagopalanJNU/status/1276402291898068992

Both types of paranoia (genuine and instrumental) have the same behavioral outcome: China "won’t be satiated except by complete submission." Yet, the distinction matters in terms of the threshold at which obtaining submission becomes too costly. 2/6

If PRC is genuinely paranoid, then it is not a rational actor & cannot be negotiated with. If PRC is instrumentally paranoid, then paranoia is a bluff & a point will come when it will give way to cost-benefit. These are of course two extreme ends of a spectrum. 3/6

Reality is more likely in between. PRC genuinely has sovereignty anxiety & reacts extremely to the slightest external change as a way of ensuring other states can never take advantage. Much of this is also driven by imperatives of domestic legitimacy. 4/6

India's immediate challenge: make PRC paranoia unacceptably costly. Requires multi-pronged strategy: mil, econ, diplo. Mil is faring decently in response. Econ will be costly but not impossible. Diplo prob least likely, given world priorities & Ladakh remoteness. 5/6

There are also reputational concerns. Even if the PLA & Indian Army blundered into a crisis by miscalculating each other's intentions/resolve, once you are in it, hard to back down without broader political negotiation. This is why Sumdorong Chu took years to resolve. 6/6