Monthly Archives: August 2018

Jammu, June 22

An Army jawan was killed on Monday as Pakistani troops opened fire and lobbed mortar shells at forward areas along the Line of Control (LoC) and the International Border (IB) in Jammu and Kashmir, officials said.

The heavy Pakistani firing and shelling were reported along the LoC in Poonch district’s Krishna Ghati sector and Rajouri’s Nowshera sector, and along the IB in Kathua district, the officials said.

An Army jawan, guarding a forward post, was critically injured after being hit by cross-border shelling in Nowshera sector, they said, adding that he succumbed to his injuries later.

He is the fourth Army personnel to be killed in Pakistani firing along the LoC in Rajouri and Poonch this month. Two soldiers were killed in Pakistani firing in Rajouri district on June 4 and 10, while another soldier fell to cross-border firing in Poonch on June 14.

There has been a spurt in Pakistani shelling along the border in Jammu and Kashmir this year with over 2,027 cases of violation of a ceasefire agreement being reported till June 10.

Earlier, a defence spokesman said, “At about 0330 hours today, Pak army initiated unprovoked ceasefire violation by firing of small arms and intense shelling with mortars along LoC in Krishnagati sector in Poonch district,” a defense spokesman said.

“Again at about 0530 hours Pak army initiated unprovoked ceasefire violation in Nowshera sector in Rajouri district,” he said.

The Indian Army is retaliating befittingly, he said.

Along the International Border, Pakistani Rangers engaged in heavy firing on forward posts and villages in the Karol Matrai area of Hiranagar sector in Kathua district, an official said.

He said the unprovoked firing from Pakistan started around 1 am and the Border Security Force (BSF) gave a befitting retaliation.

The exchange of fire between the two sides continued till 3.50 am, the official said. PTI

http://

As India and China are engaged in a stand-off in the Galwan Valley,
Maj Gen GG Dwivedi (retd) shares his insight into the current situation. He has commanded 16 JAT in Siachen (Durbuk Pangong Tso area), a brigade in the Kashmir Valley and Mountain Division in the North East and also served as India’s defence attaché in China and North Korea from 1997 to 99. He is currently a professor of strategic and global affairs.

China considers it opportune to push its agenda regarding disputed areas as the world is battling the Covid-19 pandemic. Further, President Xi Jinping is under pressure due to slowing down of the Chinese economy. Also, China does not want India to develop infrastructure in Ladakh. —Maj Gen GG Dwivedi (retd)

Can you explain the difference between the LoC and the LAC?

A: There is a tendency to compare the Line of Control (LoC) and the Line of Actual Control (LAC) but these are two distinct terms. We have International Border and LOC with Pakistan and LAC with China in Jammu and Kashmir. LoC is like a de facto border and manned by troops deployed on the either side. In contrast, LAC is neither delineated nor demarcated. It is based roughly on the positions held by both sides towards the end of 1962 war. As a result, both sides have their own interpretation. In the Ladakh region, it generally corresponds with the Chinese claim line as China captured most of the Aksai Chin area in the 1962 war. However, there are a number of contested points where the two sides have a varying perception. In the middle sector and eastern sector (Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh), the LAC is by and large aligned with the McMahon Line.

Can you give a brief overview of the border issue between India and China?

Though no official boundary has been negotiated between India and China, the Indian Government considers a line similar to the Johnson Line of 1865 as the boundary, according to which Aksai Chin is a part of India. The Chinese Government, however, considers a line similar to the McCartney-MacDonald Line of 1899 as the boundary which is well to the west of Johnson Line. The 1913-14 Shimla Convention between Great Britain, China and Tibet defined the boundary between Tibet and British India, which later came to be known as McMahon Line. But China declined to sign it. After China annexed Tibet in 1951, the two countries started sharing boundary. China initially did not raise the border issue as surreptitiously it was constructing a highway from Kashgarh in Xinjiang to Lhasa in Tibet in the 1950s which passed through Aksai Chin. When India learnt of this in 1959, it raised the matter with the People’s Republic of China (PRC). This is how the border problem started, ultimately leading to the 1962 Indo-China war. Incidentally, the opening shots of the war were fired from the Galwan Valley.

Why do you think that the LAC has not been defined as yet?

Chinese has kept dragging their feet on the issue as it is not in their interest to resolve the boundary imbroglio. The PRC has often used the border issue as a tool to build pressure on India.

Why has China created the trouble amid the pandemic?

China is known for creating problems when it is confronted with internal and external issues. At present, China considers it opportune to push its agenda regarding disputed areas with Taiwan, South China Sea and the LAC, as the world is battling the Covid-19 pandemic. Further, President Xi Jinping is under pressure due to slowing down of the Chinese economy and a global outcry holding China responsible for the pandemic. Also, China does not want India to develop infrastructure in Ladakh as presently they have a definite edge over us. The Galwan Valley is important because from there, China can dominate Durbuk- Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) road that India constructed recently. China also has high stakes in the Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir (POK), too, as the China Pakistan Economic Corridor traverses through the region. It has also invested in various projects in the POK, including the proposed $9 billion Daimer-Bhasha Dam.

What are the options before India in present situation?

Our aim is to restore the status quo ante that existed in April which implies that the PLA has to pull back. To ensure this, adequate pressure has to be built on China through various means, including military, political, diplomatic and economic.

Why has not the Chinese media reported on casualties suffered by their troops?

China has an authoritarian rule and a state-controlled media. The communist leadership employs media as an instrument to spread its propaganda and fight an information war.

Harbans Singh

Archaeologists know Akhnoor, in Jammu, as the last Indus valley settlement in the North. This was the point from where timber from higher reaches was floated down the Chenab for downstream settlements. In the history of the former state of Jammu and Kashmir, this was the place where, in the shadow of the Akhnoor Fort, on the banks of the mighty Chenab, Maharaja Ranjit Singh applied Raj Tilak to the Dogra general Gulab Singh and anointed him the Raja of Jammu.

On this June 17, the Dogras celebrated the 199th Raj Tilak ceremony, from whence began a journey that added a new chapter to the history of the subcontinent. The first half of the 19th century had witnessed the fall of the Gurkhas, the Marathas and the Jats while battling the British for supremacy. In the meantime, the Sikhs attained such heights of power and splendour that Lahore attracted people from far and wide. However, their downfall was as swift as their rise — by 1946 they too were a spent force.Dogra forces captured Mantalai Standard, the flag of the Chinese Imperial Army, in a battle in Tibet

From among the remaining Indian princes rose the man who was to shape the destiny of the region. Ambitious but cautious, Gulab Singh took approval of the Lahore Durbar for his ambitious campaigns in the snowbound mountains with Ladakh (Tibet-i-Kalan, i.e. the greater Tibet) as his first target. He had realised that the occupation of the Himalayan kingdom would not only give him the monopoly over Leh’s flourishing entrepôt frequented by merchants from Tibet, Sinkiang (present day Xinjiang) and Kashmir but also the control over an important route between Tibet and Kashmir, which was used for the lucrative pashmina trade. This project began in 1834 under the command of his most trusted and intrepid Dogra General Zorawar Singh. It claimed thousands of lives, including that of the general during the Lhasa campaign in 1842. In 1841, the present day battalion of the 4th Jammu and Kashmir Rifles, then commanded by General Zorawar Singh, captured Mantalai Standard, the flag of the Chinese Imperial Army in a battle in Tibet. It is still in possession of the JAK Rifles. Eventually, with the general killed and the army annihilated, the biting winter and snow halted the march of the Jammu force towards Tibet.

Farsighted and flexible

It was in these adverse circumstances that the farsightedness and flexibility of Raja Gulab Singh came to the fore. Unlike earlier examples, he did not seek reprisals even as he re-established control over Leh, and accepted the limits of his ambition. The Tibetans and the Imperial Court of China, on the other hand, too, realised the futility of waging a war in this extreme end of their empire at a time when it was facing a greater threat in the form of the first Opium War. As a result, both the parties entered into a treaty, signed at Chushul in 1842. It was agreed that the traditional boundary between Tibet and Ladakh would be respected and trade would follow the traditional route between Lhasa and Leh, opening up new trade interests for the Jammu kingdom. For the next 120 years, that’s where the boundaries of Ladakh remained, notwithstanding the fact that the border regions of such lands were inhabited by peregrinating populations for whom cultural identities were stronger than political ones.

Beyond Ladakh

While conquering Ladakh, Raja Gulab Singh looked westward towards Baltistan, known as Tibet-i-Khurd, i.e. the little Tibet, and brought it under his control in 1840, laying the foundation of future expansion by his successor to take control of the trade routes to Kashgar (Xinjiang) and central Asia. It must be said that Kashmir did not figure in his plans since it was part of the Sikh empire. However, a combination of circumstances, which generated a lot of heat and dust, made him acquire it after paying the indemnity that the Lahore Durbar was unable to pay. In 1846, the journey of a soldier in the Sikh army reached its pinnacle with the Treaty of Amritsar between him and the East India Company, bestowing upon him the title of Maharaja.

Soon, these conquests and acquisitions formed the geostrategic pivot that was vital for the interests of Tsarist Russia, decaying but still formidable Imperial China and Great Britain. It continues to be so except that the old rivals are known by new names. Had the Partition of the subcontinent not taken place, India would have been a major player in the politics of the region spanning two continents. But with the Partition began the first phase of the dismantling of the legacy of Maharaja Gulab Singh, when Pakistan occupied the strategic region of Gilgit after the British engineered a revolt of Ladakh Scouts, and Baltistan. What followed is wrapped in enigma and historians are yet to explain the reason why Indian Army marching through Kargil after crossing Zoji La in November 1948 moved towards Leh rather than take the road to Skardu where the State forces had held out against the Pakistani siege till 14th August 1948. Thus, we cry over spilt milk when we protest over the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) since we had displayed no intent to recover the area from Pakistan.

The final phase of dismantling Maharaja Gulab Singh’s legacy was nearly completed last year when, on August 5, 2019, Ladakh acquired a separate entity as a union territory, and Jammu was left in the prickly and uncomfortable embrace of Kashmir as another union territory. With the proud achievements of the Dogra dynasty receding to the pages of history, this 199th Raj Tilak celebration is a reminder of the ruthless march of time which reduces Alexanders and Chandraguptas to mere dates and landmarks.

—The writer is the author of ‘Maharaja Hari Singh: The Troubled Years’ and ‘Karan Singh: Jammu and Kashmir 1949-1967’

New Delhi, June 21

A meeting of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the external affairs should be called at the earliest and briefed by the Foreign Secretary, Defence Secretary and other top officials on the violent faceoff with China in which 20 Indian soldiers died, several panel members from the Opposition parties said on Sunday.

However, panel members from the ruling party termed the demand an act of politics and said it wouldn’t be feasible to call the meeting when the country was grappling with COVID-19 crisis.

The committee is chaired by former Union Minister and BJP MP PP Chaudhary.

Also read: Narendra Modi is actually Surender Modi: Rahul’s swipe at PM over LAC face-off

Modi’s LAC comments ‘endorsed Chinese position’: Kapil Sibal

Twenty Indian Army personnel were killed in a brutal attack by Chinese troops in eastern Ladakh’s Galwan Valley on June 15. This was the worst cross-border violence between the two armies in 45 years and it had frayed ties between India and China.

Following the incident, members from various Opposition parties demanded that a meeting of the standing committee on external affairs be called to discuss the matter.

The RSP MP, NK Premchandran, a member of the panel, said a meeting had to be called on the standoff between India and China.

“A meeting has to be called at the earliest as it is an issue of national importance. Foreign secretary and defense secretary should be invited to brief the panel on the violence faceoff,” Premchandran told PTI.

Former Home Minister and senior Congress leader P Chidambaram said all top officials who could throw light on the incident should be called to brief the members.

“A meeting must be called and the foreign secretary should brief on the violent stand-off between forces of India and China in Galwan Valley and members must be allowed to call other top officials of the government who can throw more light on this,” Chidambaram said.

But BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi said political leaders from across parties should stand united with the government in a time of crisis. She also said there was politics behind this demand at such a moment.

“To fight the Chinese wall, political leaders should stand united with the government as a firewall and avoid propaganda and politics,” Lekhi said.

Wondering why MPs from opposition parties didn’t demand a meeting of the standing committee amid the COVID-19 pandemic, she asserted that “there is definitely politics behind this meeting (call).”

Her party colleague and member in the committee Poonam Mahajan said the meeting wouldn’t be feasible as it could be risky for members of the Lok Sabha Secretariat due to the pandemic.

The members had a right to demand meetings of the parliamentary standing committees but these panels were not a platform to do politics on issues of national interest, she said.

Meanwhile, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu have asked the secretary generals to explore the possibility of arranging a meeting via video-conference. PTI