Monthly Archives: August 2018

The brutal clash between Indian and Chinese soldiers on the night of June 15 has exposed the People’s Liberation Army (PLA)’s well-planned design of stealthily wresting the entire Galwan Valley from India’s control. It also carries a set of underlying messages and possibilities.

First, immediately after the incident, PLA’s Western Theatre Command (WTC) issued a statement on June 16, claiming China’s territorial “sovereignty” over the entire Galwan Valley. That was followed by a June 17 statement from Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, Zhao Lijian, that echoed, in verbatim, WTC’s line claiming China’s sovereignty over the Galwan Valley area.

Second, it appears to have been triggered by local factors at a micro-level, with, at the most, instructions from WTC headquarters. Clearly, it is a case of a disengagement process not being handled properly at the local level and things going out of control. There have been other violent hand-to-hand clashes in this area since the 2017 Doklam standoff. It turned more violent this time with PLA using more lethal weapons, stones, boulders, rocks wrapped with barbed wire and wooden logs studded with nails.

A third, inter-related, point is that the top PLA officials of WTC seem to enjoy more autonomy than other Chinese military theatres. In this case, the Chinese government only seems to have endorsed WTC’s line, which has a specific mandate or a direct and wider strategic direction from Beijing to alter the ground situation in consonance with China’s national vision for western provinces ie Xinjiang and Tibet. It also has a larger focus agenda with regards to securing Chinese interests, including safeguarding China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)-related projects moving just north of the Karakoram Range. PLA views India’s building of strategic roads in Ladakh as potentially causing disruption to the security of the BRI/Chinese Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

Fourth, the incident can either spark greater escalation or actually, counter-intuitively, lead to de-escalation. The Indian Army has lost 20 personnel, including a commanding officer in the vicious attack. This is the biggest military clash in over five decades and the risk of the border standoff escalating into a full-scale confrontation is clearly present. However, unconfirmed reports suggest the Chinese side too suffered “proportionate casualties”, with at least 43 PLA personnel either dead or injured in the clash. If this is the case, then the balance of tragedies is established, and opens up the scope for further de-escalation to continue as agreed upon during military talks held on June 6.

What happens now also depends on the political will of the two countries. If the political relationship between India and China is not smooth, the Chinese party leadership may find it hard to control PLA, which is generally seen as more hardline on India. At the same time, the situation can still be brought under control by political and diplomatic interventions at a higher level. The clash has finally compelled both sides to open up talks at the foreign minister-level.

However, if China refuses to revert to a pre-standoff status quo position, India may be forced to evict PLA from the Indian side though a military intervention.

Whether there is escalation or not is also closely related to how the two sides tell the story of the incident to their people. The Chinese side is not giving the exact figure of casualties. We do not know if they are embarrassed or whether they want to hide the figures from their own people and underplay the incident to prevent escalation.

Where does this leave New Delhi?

India must respond to China’s move, not just through military means but through a forward-looking strategic, economic and connectivity vision matching China’s BRI project. It must think about reconnecting and resuming old trade links. Ladakh is a geostrategic axis or a pivot point for India to reach out to central Asia, Europe and Russia. The Dorbo-Shayok-DBO road should be called the Ladakh economic corridor. It should be India’s approach to go beyond the Himalayas. Otherwise, India is destined to remain defensive in posture.

This, however, is contingent on India reworking the governance priorities in Ladakh. It is the locals who have the best understanding of the border. The region has already remained neglected for a long time due to Article 370 and 35A.

The way forward must have several components. First, the Ladakh administration should distribute the entire stretch of vacant land in eastern Ladakh (from Chumur to Karakoram) among the population of the Leh district for agriculture, horticulture and other economic activities.

Two, the government must expedite infrastructure airport/road network expansion in eastern Ladakh. The Indian Air Force must reactivate the Fukche/Loma airport for both civilian and military use. Attempts should be made to reopen and refurbish the old Chuchul airport base.

Three, authorities must re-populate the area with legal ownership to citizens and not leave the borderland vacant. The government must provide incentives for Changpa nomadic farmers presently settled in Leh (Kharnag-Ling settlement) to return to the borderland areas and encourage them to reactivate their nomadic Rebo herding skills. Security forces should be directed not to prevent their movement along the border areas.

Four, large-scale forestation and large-scale grass-sowing activities through aerial seeding and use of drip-irrigation technology must be undertaken. Five, NITI Aayog should prepare a defence-development plan for area development. And six, the Indian Army should revisit the idea of legalising the existing illegal border trade at specific places such as at Dhumtsele and Demchok.

Galwan has changed geopolitics in the Himalayas. India must step up.

The rising border tensions between India and China in the Galwan Valley took a bloody turn when 20 brave Indian soldiers lost their lives in a military skirmish with China. As strategic affairs experts try to figure out China’s Achilles heel which India can exploit to tame the dragon, the clamour for an economic boycott of China is growing.

From an international law point of view, can India can impose restrictions on Chinese imports by, say, revoking China’s most favoured nation (MFN) status in the World Trade Organization (WTO)? In the immediate aftermath of the Pulwama terror attack, last year, in which around 40 Central Reserve Police Force soldiers died, India revoked Pakistan’s MFN status in the WTO. So arguably what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

Article XXI (b) (iii) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) allows a WTO member country to take action “which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations”. The current situation between India and China definitely qualifies as an emergency in international relations. Since this standoff also involves safeguarding India’s territorial sovereignty, there is an “essential security interest” at stake.

The legal challenge for India, in order to make a successful case under Article XXI, will be to demonstrate that the trade-restrictive measure it adopts during this emergency with regard to China is “necessary” to address the current security situation. Contrary to what many believe, the words, “which it considers” in Article XXI (b) (iii) does not make the provision self-judging. Although India will enjoy significant leeway in determining what constitutes “necessary” measures, these shall be subject to a good faith review. There are two cases in which WTO panels dealing with the national security and defence have affirmed this. These are the Russia-Traffic in Transit case involving Russia and Ukraine and the recently decided Qatar — Goods from the UAE case, involving Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

Therefore, in order to show that the measure adopted is “necessary”, India has to prove two things. First, that India genuinely believes that adopting the measure (say reneging on an MFN obligation) is necessary to protect its essential security interests. Second, as the Russia-Transit case demonstrates, the measure meets the minimum requirement of plausibility with regard to the essential security interests in question. In other words, the measure should be connected to the emergency at hand as to make it feasible for the protection of essential security interests.

In Pakistan’s case, India retracted its MFN promise by increasing tariff rates to 200% on all Pakistani imports. Although India’s decision to increase tariffs on Pakistani imports was driven by national security concerns, oddly enough, the notification on this did not even mention national security. This could have been because the decision was taken under Section 8A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, which gives “emergency power” to the Indian government to increase import duties if the government is satisfied that this is necessary in the given circumstances. But, section 8A(1) does not talk of “national security” as a ground to modify tariff rates; it refers to economic emergencies.

Consequently, it will be difficult to accept under WTO law that India genuinely believed that hiking tariff rates to 200% on all Pakistani imports is necessary to safeguard India’s essential security interests. India got away because Pakistan has not challenged India’s measure before a WTO panel. The reason could be that bilateral trade between the two countries is too small.

But, using Section 8A(1) to impose trade restrictions on China will be tricky. China will, in all probability, challenge this in the WTO, and India will find it difficult to defend its action. If India wants to restrict Chinese imports on national security grounds, it will have to provide a reasonable explanation as to why and how imposing trade restrictions on China are “necessary” to defend India’s essential security interests.

The other constraining factor for India is the high quantum of bilateral trade between the two countries. With bilateral trade at almost $90 billion a year, it is around 45 times more than that with Pakistan. Moreover, numerous Chinese imports are used as intermediary products in Indian industries ranging from pharmaceuticals, automobiles, and electronics. So, curbing imports on these will be tantamount to India losing out too. It is clear from this — when it comes to India’s dealing with Pakistan and China under WTO, what’s sauce for the goose is definitely not sauce for the gander.

In the wake of the killing of 20 Indian Army soldiers by China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in Ladakh’s Galwan Valley and amid reports of Chinese forces intruding across the Line of Actual Control (LAC), Prime Minister Narendra Modi categorically said on Friday that neither has anyone entered Indian territory, nor is anyone present in Indian territory currently, and nor is any Indian post captured.

The PM also praised the valour of the 20 army personnel killed in the clash, and said they “taught a lesson” to those who were eyeing Indian territory.

While highlighting the capability of India’s armed forces and suggesting they have been given a free hand, Modi said that with India upgrading its border infrastructure, its armed forces better equipped, and more frequent patrolling, India is able to better “monitor” developments at the LAC and “respond better”.

“Neither has anyone entered our territory, nor is anyone still there, nor is any of our posts under anyone’s capture. In Ladakh, our 20 jawans got martyred. But they taught a lesson to those who were eyeing Indian territory,” he said at an all-party meeting called to discuss the India-China border situation.

But the PM’s remarks led to some speculation about the exact status at the LAC, particularly the Galwan Valley, which China, in recent statements, has claimed is part of its sovereign territory. India has dismissed the Chinese claim of sovereignty over the Galwan valley.

A ministry of external affairs (MEA) statement on Wednesday said the Chinese sought to erect a structure in Galwan valley on the Indian side of the LAC and took “pre-meditated and planned action” that resulted in the violence and casualties on June 15. The statement further said the Chinese intended to change the status quo on the ground in violation of all bilateral agreements not to do so.

China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) killed 20 personnel of the Indian Army, including a Colonel, on June 15 in the Galwan valley after the PLA did not follow through on a commitment to disengage as per an understanding reached between the two militaries on June 6. While China has not officially given out numbers of casualties on its side, Indian military officials familiar with the sequence of the clash believe there were over 40 casualties on the Chinese side, including deaths and injuries. This was the first incident of bloodshed on the India-China border since 1975 and has led to an escalation of the ongoing conflict at the border in eastern Ladakh.

Friday’s all-party meeting to discuss the fallout of the incident was attended by defence minister Rajnath Singh, external affairs minister S Jaishankar, Congress president Sonia Gandhi, Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee, Bahujan Samaj Party chief Mayawati, Nationalist Congress Party chief Sharad Pawar, Telangana Rashtra Samithi leader K Chandrasekhar Rao, Janata Dal (United) chief Nitish Kumar, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader MK Stalin, YSR Congress Party’s YS Jagan Mohan Reddy and Shiv Sena president Uddhav Thackeray .

Even as all political parties expressed their solidarity with the government and the armed forces in the wake of the ongoing confrontation with China in eastern Ladakh, Congress president Sonia Gandhi questioned the government about a possible intelligence failure, suggested that the country had been kept in dark about developments, and demanded the restoration of status quo ante at the LAC.

In his remarks at the end of the meeting, according to an official statement released by the Prime Minister’s Office, Modi said that the entire country was “hurt and angry” at China’s steps at the LAC, but emphasised that the armed forces were doing all that they needed to do protect the country. “Be it deployment, action or counter action, through land, sea or air, our forces are taking the necessary steps to protect the country… Indian forces are capable of moving together across sectors.” He said that while the army had been given the freedom to take necessary steps, India had also conveyed its position through diplomatic means.

The PM also said that the government had given primacy to development of border area infrastructure; it had also provided fighter planes, modern helicopters, missile defence systems and other needs of the armed forces; and patrolling capacity at LAC had also increased. “We are better informed about the developments at LAC and consequently are able to monitor and respond better. The movement of those which used to take place without any disruption earlier is now checked by our jawans, which, at times, leads to build up of tension,” he said, according to the official statement.

External affairs minister S Jaishankar made a presentation at the meeting, which conveyed the stance taken by the ministry and included a summation of the engagements through diplomatic and other channels with the Chinese side to de-escalate and to disengage, people familiar with development said. According to the official statement, he also gave an overview of agreements between India and China on border management, informed about the directions given by the PM in 2014 to accord highest priority to the development of infrastructure in border areas in the regions identified and approved by the government back in 1999.

Commenting on the PM’s comments on the incursion, Commodre (retired) C Uday Bhaskar, director of the Society for Policy Studies, said: “PM Modi’s s statement that nobody has entered Indian territory may be ‘legally’ accurate but it is disingenuous. It is contrary to the MEA’s assertion about a premeditated attack by the PLA and will baffle a nation that is shocked and enraged at the manner in which 20 army personnel have lost their lives.”

Bhaskar added that while the sensitivity of the LAC violence must be recognised, there was a “growing sense, accompanied with dismay” that the country was not being told the full truth about the Galwan setback.

Two retired army officials, who asked not to be named, also expressed their surprise.

A former army commander, who asked not to be named, said: “If the PLA has not breached the LAC and come into our areas, what is the dialogue at the military and diplomatic level for? The people of the country must be made aware of the reality along the border.”

A second retired officer said on condition of anonymity that China was trying to change status quo along the border. “We have to assert our claims forcefully. Many soldiers have died guarding these frontiers. We must never forget that.”

Pensioners of Nepal, who have retired from the Indian Army are facing financial crises these days. They are not being able to draw pensions form banks on the Indian side in Uttarakhand since March due to the sealing of the border between the two countries, said an ex-serviceman.

Several veteran ex-servicemen of Nepal who worked in the Indian Army, are living in the border areas of western Nepal. They draw their pension from Indian banks situated in Banbasa area of Champawat, Jhulaghat and Dharchula areas of Pithoragarh and Khatima area of US Nagar district in Uttarakhand.

“These are the Nepalese citizens who joined the Indian Army previously through a certain quota for the Nepalese and are now living in border areas of Nepal. They still draw a pension from different Indian banks situated on this side of the border,” said Capt Bhani Chand (Retd), president, Gaurav Sainani Kalyan Samiti, Banbasa, Champawat.

Also read: No intrusion in our territory, army has free hand, says PM

The Nepalese used to be recruited in the army under the Indo-Nepal treaty. They worked in the Indian Army and later returned to their native places after retirement. Several of them have been settled in Dehradun, Almora, Pithoragarh and different parts of Uttarakhand also.

“Nepalese ex-servicemen are facing this problem along the Uttar Pradesh and Bihar border also. Nepalese ex-servicemen requested us to raise their problem so we are sending a memorandum to defence ministry of India,” said Capt Chand.

“Around 700 Nepalese pensioners draw pension every month from our branch. Their pension is pending due to the sealing of India-Nepal border,” said Kamlesh Joshi, branch manager, state bank of India, Jhulaghat.

The Nepalese are recruited in the army as per the Indo-Nepal treaty-1950. According to its provisions, the Nepal government allows its citizens to serve Indian Armed Forces and in return, India allows Nepalese to work anywhere in India in the private sector or government services (except for Indian administrative services).

Pramod Bhatt, a businessman from Jhulaghat, said, “I have been watching Nepalese pensioners coming for their pension and purchasing household materials since childhood. They are not coming for the last three months due to the sealing of the international border.”

Notably, international border is sealed since March due to Covid-19 outbreak. Entry points along the border were opened but only for migrants of both sides. No other person was allowed to cross the border during the lockdown, said officials.

Air Chief Marshal RKS Bhadauria said on Sunday the “gallant action” of the 20 Indian Army personnel, who were killed in a violent face-off with Chinese troops in eastern Ladakh’s Galwan Valley, have shown the forces’ resolve to protect “India’s sovereignty at any cost”.

Bhadauria had made a low-key visit to Ladakh to review the Indian Air Force’s (IAF’s) preparedness in the sensitive sector where the force is operating its fighter jets and new attack and heavy-lift helicopters two days after the 20 men, including a commander, were killed in Galwan Valley.

The IAF chief visited the forward airbases—Leh on Wednesday and Srinagar on Thursday—at a time of increased Chinese military activity across the disputed Line of Actual Control (LAC) where Indian and Chinese troops have been caught in a tense confrontation for over seven weeks and efforts to de-escalate have failed.

“Please join me in paying tribute to Colonel Santosh Babu and his brave men who made the sacrifice while defending the LAC in Galwan Valley. The gallant actions in a highly-challenging situation have demonstrated our resolve to protect India’s sovereignty at any cost,” Bhadauria, the Indian Air Force (IAF) chief, said, according to news agency ANI.

He made the comments during the Combined Graduation Parade (CGP) at the Air Force Academy in Hyderabad.

“In spite of unacceptable Chinese action after agreements reached during military talks and the resulting loss of lives, all efforts are underway to ensure that the current situation at LAC is resolved peacefully,” Bhadauria said.

“The security scenario in our region mandates that our armed forces remain prepared and vigilant at all times. The development at the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Ladakh is a small snapshot of what we are required to handle at short notice,” he said.

Tensions between India and China have increased after the June 15 Galwan Valley scrap that marked the first Indian casualties in a border clash with China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) since October 1975 when Chinese troops ambushed an Indian patrol in Arunachal Pradesh’s Tulung La sector and shot four soldiers dead.