Sanjha Morcha

Ladakh face-off: US senators express solidarity with India

Republican Senator Marco Rubio spoke with India’s ambassador to the US, Taranjit Singh Sandhu, to “express our solidarity with the people of #India as they firmly confront unwarranted and lawless armed aggression by the Communist Party of China”.

An Indian Army convoy moves along a highway leading to Ladakh, at Gagangeer in Ganderbal district.

An Indian Army convoy moves along a highway leading to Ladakh, at Gagangeer in Ganderbal district.(HT photo)

Expressing solidarity with the people of India on the Ladakh face-off with China, a top US senator has said India had made it clear that it would not be bullied by Beijing.

Republican Senator Marco Rubio spoke with India’s ambassador to the US, Taranjit Singh Sandhu, to “express our solidarity with the people of #India as they firmly confront unwarranted and lawless armed aggression by the Communist Party of China”.

“India has made it clear, they will not be bullied by Beijing,” the senator from Florida tweeted.

On the Senate Floor, Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, for the second time in less than a week, accused China of aggression against India.

A day earlier, Senator Tom Cotton slammed China for its aggression against India.

“China has resumed its submarine intrusions in the Japanese contiguous zones and picked deadly fights with India at high altitude,” the top Republican Senator had said.


Pakistan violates ceasefire along LoC in Naugam sector of Jammu and Kashmir

The BSF personnel patrolling on the fence at International Border at Suchetgarh about 30 km from Jammu

The BSF personnel patrolling on the fence at International Border at Suchetgarh about 30 km from Jammu(Nitin Kanotra /HT File Photo )

Pakistani troops opened unprovoked fire towards Indian positions along the Line of Control (LoC) in Naugam sector of Jammu and Kashmir on Tuesday in violation of a ceasefire agreement, an army official said.

“On 30 Jun 2020, in the morning hours, Pakistan initiated an unprovoked ceasefire violation (CFV) along the LoC in Naugam sector (in north Kashmir’s Kupwara district) by firing mortars and other weapons,” the official said.

He said befitting response is being given to the Pakistani aggression.

There were no reports of any casualties so far.

 


Open letter to the Chief of the Defence Services

June 20, 2020, 11:32 AM IST Ambreen Zaidi in Barracks and Beyond | India | TOI

   
Dear General,
We the families of serving and retired personnel of the armed forces stand steadfast with our soldiers, our army. No, we are not scared; yes, we are praying for the safety of our men. But we need to know about what happened in Galwan Valley. I do understand there are reasons why strategic decisions or outcomes are not shared in the public domain. But with a super active social media, so many contradicting statements and horrifying photographs doing the rounds, where do we go, whom do we trust?
– How did we suffer so many casualties, including that of a Commanding Officer, if there were no intrusions by China?
– Not only were our soldiers barbarically killed, their bodies were mutilated. Why?
– Did they enter the enemy territory on their own (as claimed by China) and got attacked in defence?
– Why us there a new spin to the Ladakh Disaster, everyday?
– Will we ever know the truth?
– Did our soldiers fell into the trap laid by their own?
Our soldiers are not cannon fodder, they cannot be butchered for diplomatic gains. As crazy as it may sound, more than the Chinese military, it is you that we are warier of. Your policies, your directives and so ever evident step-motherly treatment to your very own is what concerns us more. When the post of the Chief of the Defence Staff was created and it was communicated that all the tri-services, Indian Army, Navy, and Airforce will come under one umbrella so that India is better protected, it was reassuring. We felt safe more, on all the frontiers.
But what is happening is completely opposite. We are facing a tough time both internally as well as externally. Even though every citizen of the country stands with our soldiers, the members of our armed forces are not in the highest of their sprits, because of your interventions to a large extent. The Ladakh disaster made it more than evident how the various Headquarters of the Indian army across the hierarchy stood clipped of all their powers, because of your constant interference. The whispers in the corridors are now the screams to save our soldiers from any such fiascos in the future. We lost our men in an unsoldierly manner and there are major cover-ups after cover-ups to hide the ground reality. Their blood could be on the hands of the political decision-makers and on YOURS too, to a large extent!
It certainly must be a nice feeling to have a powerful Godfather in the govt from the same village as yours. Someone, who protects you, gets you promoted superseding the other best, has a cushy appointment custom made for you so that you can serve your country for a longer period. Fantastic! Not everyone is so blessed.
With such a strong connection in the government and the incredible power it wields, imagine how beautifully the organisation would have benefited, if only, you STILL considered yourself truly part of this family of olive greens. But you preferred to play the part of the boss who loved to strip his own, of their basics.
For once please put a hand on your heart and reflect-
– Did you do justice to the responsibilities and privileges showered on you?
– Did you stand up for your brothers in arms?
– Did you not let the politicians make you the scapegoat and get some decisions made which invariably harmed the organisation?
– Did you not fail our soldiers in Ladakh?
I am sure you know the answers. Ever considered putting your foot firmly on the ground for your boys fighting it out and getting killed in sub-zero temperatures with not even adequate protective gear. Yes, then go ahead do it, we stand in solidarity with you.
No?
What about resigning on moral grounds, then?
While we stand with our soldiers and will not bat an eyelid when they go for a war, we request you to ensure that they are not cheated, not asked to go unarmed or don’t use the weapon, we would certainly not want them to be butchered the way they were by China.
No!!
Let Ladakh be the gamechanger….
Jai Hind.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author’s own.

AUTHOR

Ambreen Zaidi

Ambreen is a well-known journalist and blogger. She has won several awards for her work. She has also worked with UNICEF and NASSCOM Foundation. As an Army .

. *FREEBIES IN ARMY*
*Free Ration*…. The name Free Ration is the biggest jhaansa giving an idea to Indian Public that Fauj me toh sab kuch free hota hai.
*Public Must Know*

*Free Ammunition,
Free Hathiyar,
Free Tank,
Free Topain,
*Free Border Posting,*
*Free mein Siachen Visit*,
*Free ki Golian aur IED Blasts, Bum dhamake,*
*Free ka Vanvas,*
*Free ka Frequent Change of Station,*
*Free ka Encounter* with Militants,
*Free ke Zakhm etc. etc.*

*Aisi kaun si cheez hai jiske liye hum paisa dete hain.*

Lekin Haan,

*Income Tax zarur pura dete hain*,
*Apni Life Insurance ka payment hum khud dete hain.*

Par fir bhi *itne raees* hain,
*APNE KHOON KO PAANI KI TARAH BAHATE HAIN.*


Crossed Shyok river barefoot with ice cutting our feet: 1962 war veteran recalls Galwan

Naik Elihud George, who served in 1962, said today’s India-China scenario is more precarious & needs diplomacy to avoid a World War III-like event.

Naik Elihud George, who served in the 1962 India-China war, in Leh | Photo: Sajid Ali

Naik Elihud George, who served in the 1962 India-China war, in Leh | Photo: Sajid Ali
Leh: After India and China decided to start the process of de-escalation along the Line of Actual Control, tensions are still rife, notably in the Ladakh region. While many have been calling for war, revenge or at least a boycott of Chinese-made goods, quite a different message comes from Naik Elihud George, who served in the 1962 war between India and China.

Meeting ThePrint’s team in Leh, the war veteran, who lives on the outskirts of Ladakh, recalled his and his platoon’s experience of the harsh terrain of the Galwan Valley. A frozen river with ice chips that cut into the bare feet of soldiers’, Naik George called this a “punishing terrain” that even horses didn’t survive.

He also pointed out that in terms of arms and ammunition, both countries are now in a very different place than they were in 1962. For instance, both are nuclear powers, and so any escalation could lead to a World War-like situation, which must be avoided, George said.


Also read: Galwan Valley has been & will always be India’s, says grandson of explorer it’s named after


Punishing terrain of Eastern Ladakh

Of the 20 Indian soldiers who died on the intervening night of 15 and 16 June in Eastern Ladakh’s Galwan Valley, several had died from hypothermia after falling into the freezing waters of the Shyok River with injuries.

Recalling the 1962 war, 77-year-old Naik George said that the terrain in Galwan Valley was just as punishing then, and survival at 18,000 feet is extremely difficult. “My platoon started with 30 men and 130 horses on a 13-day journey to reach Galwan Valley. By the time we reached Daulat Beg Oldie, we were left with 90 horses though our men managed to survive,” he said.

Reaching Galwan Valley by crossing the Shyok river, also known as the river of death, was a herculean task, he said.

“We had to cross the freezing Shyok river barefoot in March 1962. There were pieces of ice that cut through our bare feet, but we had to go along. After the Shyok, we had to cross the Chip Chap river, which flows in a zig-zag manner. It took us 180 tries to cross it. We set up camp along the Galwan River and on the 13th day, we reached Daulat Beg Oldie,” he recalled.


Also read: 14-day quarantine waived for Army, Navy, Air Force amid India-China row, but riders apply


‘Diplomatic solution only way out’

The face-off on 15 June is the first bloody clash between India and China in several decades. It was a culmination of events that began weeks before, when reports of Chinese construction activity emerged in May. Naik George said there was a similar pattern of events in 1962.

“When we reached Daulat Beg Oldie, we realised that the Chinese had already built roads behind the Karakoram Range. We found that road building would even continue in night with one lantern attached to each PLA soldier’s back. And then finally, on the night of 22 October, the Chinese attacked three of our posts,” he said.

Now, Naik George’s son is a Havildar deputed at Pangong Lake and is facing the Chinese just as his father did almost six decades ago.

The war veteran, however, explained that India in 2020 is not the same country as it was in 1962.

“Now we have all the sophisticated weaponry that the Chinese have. We no longer fight wars with rifles and swords as we used to. Both sides are nuclear powers and an escalation may result in a World War III-like scenario, with different countries siding with either India or China. A diplomatic solution is essential and must be found to ensure that such a dangerous escalation can be avoided,” he said.


Also read: How Indian troops chased the Chinese for a kilometre over LAC in Galwan on 15 June night


Chinese game plan in Galwan — push Indian patrols 4 km behind LAC

An Indian Army truck on a Kashmir highway leading to Ladakh | Representational image | ANI

An Indian Army truck on a Kashmir highway leading to Ladakh | Representational image | ANI
New Delhi: The eventual game plan of Chinese incursions in the Galwan Valley seems to be to desist India from carrying out any new construction beyond the confluence of the Shyok-Galwan river, sources in the defence and security establishment have told ThePrint.

The Chinese also seek to restrict Indian patrols to the same point, located 4.5 km from the Line of Actual Control (LAC), rather than until Patrol Point 14, which is 500 metres from the border (according to the 1960 claim line of China) and marks the status quo before the PLA incursions began in May, the sources said.

However, the sources added, the Army is standing its ground and has demanded that the status quo as of early April be maintained.

According to the sources, while the Chinese have been objecting to the 60-metre-long bridge over the Shyok river, which was completed by India during the stand-off earlier this month, the real problem was “certain construction” being carried out by India beyond the confluence point.

The sources remained tight-lipped about the exact nature of this construction, but indicated that it was some kind of a track, possibly a temporary structure meant to ease the movement of personnel and not vehicles.

“To reach PP14, the patrol team had to wade through the water about five times,” said one of the sources.

Latest satellite imagery from the area shows some kind of a bridge connection near the Y-Axis area, which is about a kilometre and a half from the LAC, in May, but is no longer visible.

Fresh satellite images presumably also show a new “wall” kind of structure, which seems to have been built by India. This comes amid increased Chinese presence in the area and the reappearance of the Chinese observation point on India’s side of the LAC, at the mouth of the Galwan Valley, whose destruction by the Army triggered the 15 June clash.


Also Read: ‘Pitegi China’ to ‘India-China bye bye’, news channels waged headline war against the 3 Cs


Chinese push in Galwan Valley

According to the understanding established earlier at the local level, Indians would patrol until Patrol Point 14. However, the Chinese now seem to be trying to push ahead.

While the Chinese have laid claim to the entire Galwan Valley in government announcements, sources said the Chinese, in talks at various levels, have demanded that the Indian patrol team should not cross the confluence of Shyok and Galwan.

The Galwan Valley is strategically important for both sides because it gives India direct access to Aksai Chin, Indian territory under Chinese occupation.

The External Affairs Ministry spokesperson said Thursday that, in early May, the Chinese side had taken action to hinder India’s normal, traditional patrolling pattern in the Galwan Valley area.

He added that the resulting face-off was addressed by the ground commanders in keeping with the provisions of bilateral agreements and protocols.


Also Read: As LAC stand-off continues, elated Pakistanis see national interest in Chinese interest

 


Army chief Naravane briefs Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on situation in eastern Ladakh

The Army chief was in Ladakh on a two-day visit from 23 June. He also informed the defence minister on India’s military preparedness in the region.

File photo of Defence Minister Rajnath Singh interacts with Army Chief General Manoj Mukund Naravane in Delhi | PTI

New Delhi: Army Chief Gen MM Naravane on Friday briefed Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on the overall situation in eastern Ladakh as well as India’s military preparedness in the region where Indian and Chinese troops are locked in a bitter standoff, official sources said.

The Army Chief was in Ladakh on a two-day visit from June 23 to take stock of the situation.

“The Chief of the Army Staff apprised the defence minister about the situation in eastern Ladakh,” said a military source.

Singh was on a three-day visit to Russia from June 22-24.

On Thursday, External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Anurag Srivastaba said the conduct of the Chinese forces in the region is in “complete disregard” of all mutually agreed norms, and warned that “continuation of the current situation would only vitiate the atmosphere for the development of the relationship” between India and China.

The Indian and Chinese armies are locked in a bitter standoff in multiple locations in eastern Ladakh for the last six weeks, and the tension escalated manifold after 20 Indian soldiers were killed in a violent clash in Galwan Valley on June 15.

Senior military commanders of the two armies on Monday held a nearly 11-hour meeting during which they arrived at a “mutual consensus” to “disengage” from all the friction points in eastern Ladakh in a gradual manner.

The two sides on Wednesday held diplomatic talks under the framework of Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs.

In the diplomatic talks, both sides agreed to ensure expeditious implementation of the understanding on disengagement of troops from eastern Ladakh as decided in a meeting of senior military commanders on June 6.

Following the Galwan Vally clashes, the Army has sent thousands of additional troops to forward locations along the Line of Actual Control in various sectors including in Arunachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Sikkim.

The IAF has also moved a sizeable number of its frontline Sukhoi 30 MKI, Jaguar, Mirage 2000 aircraft and Apache attack helicopters to several key air bases including Leh and Srinagar following the clashes.

The situation in eastern Ladakh deteriorated after around 250 Chinese and Indian soldiers were engaged in a violent face-off on May 5 and 6. The incident in Pangong Tso was followed by a similar incident in north Sikkim on May 9.

Prior to the clashes, both sides had been asserting that pending the final resolution of the boundary issue, it was necessary to maintain peace and tranquillity in the border areas.


Also read: In Ladakh’s Leh, people are caught between coronavirus and border tensions with China

 


VIP for a day, at 22,000 ft

VIP for a day, at 22,000 ft

Col DS Cheema (retd)

The threatening posture and incursions by China have brought Ladakh back into focus and have revived sad memories of the humiliating defeat we suffered at the hands of the Chinese 58 years ago. Nehru had no idea of the strategic importance of Ladakh when he made the historic but infamous statement about it in 1964, ‘not even a blade of grass grows’ — about Chushul — that agitated the average Indian.

I had known about Chushul before I went for my SSB interview at Bangalore, but was fortunate to get first-hand account of the battle of Rezeng La from the then GOC, Maj Gen DD Saklani, when I commanded a battalion in Leh in 1986. He was Adjutant of 13 Kumaon during the fateful days. The spirited defence by the Ahirs to defend Chushul, in which only 14 men of the ‘C’ Company survived, out of 127 men led by the legendary Major Shaitan Singh, was perhaps the only redeeming feature of an otherwise dismal disaster. Their supreme sacrifice is one of the greatest acts of heroism, when death and defeat were inevitable. Major Shaitan Singh was awarded PVC and the company won eight VCs and four Sena Medals, the highest number of honours for any company.

The unit I was to command for the next 24 months was deployed in bits and pieces at many remote locations. There was a detachment at Chushul to support an ITBP unit. I was keen to pay obeisance at Chushul and the GOC’s outstanding leadership made my resolve to visit the place where many heroes had fallen much stronger. Since the day he saw his men making the supreme sacrifice because of lack of winter clothing, he never wore any jacket or overcoat over his half-sleeved shirt, even while visiting posts at 22,000 ft.

I got an opportunity in the first week of November 1986 — 24 years after the fateful day of November 18, 1962. My officers advised me to wait for summer, but I had made up my mind to experience the conditions only in winter. The journey by Jonga was not as uncomfortable as I had anticipated. A couple of stoppages en route to meet my men rejuvenated me. I was full of pride to be at a place where a saga of unprecedented courage had been written by a great Army, which had unfortunately been let down by poor leadership. I met the men and observed the high morale of ITBP soldiers and regular troops. It was a humbling moment.

The ITBP Havildar detailed to look after me was also in charge of accommodation. When he informed me that I was to stay in the room where former PMs Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi had spent some time during their visits, I was thrilled. On a wall was displayed their photographs interacting with troops. The Visitor’s Book had their comments and signatures. I was elated to put my comments in the same book. I wanted to take some pictures of the room, but rules forbade it. The next day it was time to head back to Leh. I was fortunate to get lift in a chopper. When I landed at the Leh airport, I felt I was no less than a VIP, though only for a day.


How Ranjit Singh kept the invaders at bay

Why did Maharaja Ranjit Singh, whose death anniversary falls today, remain unconquered? It was owing to the ruler’s fair-mindedness, objectivity, impartiality and the ability to rise above narrow clan, community, caste, communal or other negative characteristics which afflicted numerous princely rulers of Hindustan.

How Ranjit Singh kept the invaders at bay

owering legacy: Maharaja Ranjit Singh would have been disappointed over India’s failure to protect its own territory.

Abhijit Bhattacharyya

Commentator and Author

LAHORE was the capital of the empire of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, that rare strategic visionary and victor in the midst of falling, failing, vanquished, vassal and semi-vassal rulers of South Asia. It was a success needing neither corroboration nor endorsement from anyone. No Western foreign trader or aspiring ruler dared to mess with his realm. He lost a few tactical battles but invariably emerged victorious in war, and ended unconquered, a feat achieved neither by any indigenous ruler before him nor those who succeeded him.

Ranjit Singh (1780-1839), whose 181st death anniversary falls today, was a victor because of a rare geo-strategic vision of security, intrusion and recurring foreign invasions of Indian territory. Another unpleasant reality, it may look to some. None of the numerous indigenous rulers of his time, or those in succeeding generations, across South Asia, could effectively stop the British juggernaut during their rule or unite the subjects or neighbours in vicinity to effectively counter the outsiders like the French and the Portuguese.

The astute Ranjit Singh certainly learnt the lessons of history fast— the magnetic attraction of the Indian soil to suppress the simple subjects, marked by loot, pillage, plunder and occupation by the foreign invaders. Understandably, going on the offensive was the best defence for Ranjit Singh, Misldar of the Sukerchakia Misl.

Being a landlocked state, the threat to his realm loomed large from the south (Delhi), west (Kabul-Kandahar) and north-east (Kashmir and beyond, from Kashgarh). Hence, to stop the British advance to the Punjab from south, the Treaty of Amritsar was concluded on April 25, 1809, thereby making Sutlej the river border. The British remained still, till the Maharaja’s death. Thereafter, followed Kangra, Multan, Kashmir, Attock, Afghan territory and Sindh, one by one. What’s important is that Ranjit Singh rose from nowhere to establish a “kingdom large in extent and rich in fame”, a ruler who checked foreign invasions and traditional, aggressive ruler-cum-looters. In the process, however, Ranjit Singh attracted criticism from several quarters. Indeed, he can be criticised because warfare and conquest were his forte.

But, one has to recall that the first half of the 19th century was an era of war and bloodshed across South Asia, wherein everybody was fighting everybody. There were regional rulers galore, all in disarray, facing the Western foreign ‘trader rulers’ and the Delhi Durbar was in veritable decline. The subjects were on the verge of ruin and subalterns were on the run, from region to region.

The choice for Ranjit Singh, therefore, was limited. Either stand, fight and perform or retreat, escape and perish. Ranjit Singh chose to fight and, therefore, stood out in the chapters of post-Mughal history as one indigenous ruler who died unconquered. He stopped the foreign invasions and took the battle to the enemy camp — from Punjab to Kashmir and beyond; from the Sutlej to Sindh; Kandahar to the borders of Persia (Iran). The lion’s reign constituted a glorious, inimitable period, of the sole indigenous ruler of South Asia.

The question is: how and why did Ranjit Singh die unconquered? Not humiliated, disgraced or vanquished? It’s owing to the ruler’s fair-mindedness, objectivity, impartiality and the ability to rise above narrow clan, community, caste, communal or other negative characteristics which usually afflicted the numerous princely rulers of Hindustan. A glowing tribute to Ranjit Singh came from a German, Baron Carl von Hugel: “Never perhaps was so large an empire founded by one man with so little criminality.” However, there was another serious criticism against him, that “he created a Sikh kingdom but took no steps to prevent British dominion.” Yes, theoretically correct but not practically. History shows that no landlocked country can aggressively take on a naval power with an army. Afghanistan is an exception, though it too cannot go on the offensive, except for defence or a counter-attack.

Now, what would have been Ranjit Singh’s take on the 73-year-long road traversed by India? A job the Lion of Lahore is best remembered for? Defending the country and stopping foreign invasions? Surely, Ranjit Singh would have been sorely disappointed to see a complete reversal of his deeds, a recurring Indian failure to protect its own acclaimed territory from foreign invaders, owing to the weak, vacillating, compromising policy of the ruling class.

In 1965, the Haji Pir pass was re-taken by India from the enemy after a bitter, bloody battle. Since J&K acceded to India on October 26, 1947, Haji Pir, being part thereof, belonged to India. Yet, whereas India was the owner, Pakistan was the forced occupant thereof. Hence, post-1965, the ‘return’ of Haji Pir to Pakistan constituted a submission of one’s own land to the foreign invader by India’s ruling class. Would Ranjit Singh have accepted it? Anybody else, not him surely.

Again, when India, in 1999, retreated from J&K’s Kargil highland, only to find it being promptly captured by the enemy and thereafter counter-attacking to re-capture it at the expense of hundreds of soldiers’ lives, what would have Ranjit Singh said?

And what about June this year when the Indian Army lost 20 soldiers in Ladakh’s Galwan valley? What can one say about the fall of Indians deep inside their own territory before the criminal, cunning, congenitally lying invaders of the Communist Party of China’s ruling class?

Fairly and squarely, therefore, India’s successive ruling class is culpable for repeated catastrophes during the past 73 years. Regrettably, one has to confess that faulty border management, failure to preserve territorial integrity and ceaseless appeasement to foreign invaders constitute the hallmark of Indian history. Post-1947 India makes Ranjit Singh’s empire look greater and more heroic than ever before. Ranjit Singh would have enjoyed his glorious numero uno status in the eyes of the common Indians, including one hailing from the homeland of Subhas Chandra Bose, who must have taken a cue from the one and only Maharaja to fight foreign invaders.


Shedding old inhibitions Ignoring China’s concerns, India must reach out in the region to further own interests

Shedding old inhibitions

Ours Alone: There is no legal or historical basis for Chinese territorial claims across the Pangong lake and Galwan valley, which are integral parts of India.

G Parthasarathy

Chancellor, Jammu Central University & Former High Commissioner to Pakistan

Passions are running high in India after 20 Indian Army personnel were martyred in a face-off with Chinese soldiers in the Galwan valley. China has been strengthening its presence in this region and has also laid claim to sections of the adjacent Pangong Tso area. The slopes of eight of the adjacent mountains, which are described as ‘fingers’, extend into the Pangong lake. China has claimed four of these slopes.

There have been violent exchanges in the past between the Chinese and not just our soldiers, but also the local Buddhist population, which deeply resents Chinese presence in the Galwan river area. India had a military presence in the Galwan valley in 1962, which was overrun during the Sino-Indian conflict on October 19-20, 1962. There is, therefore, no legal or historical basis for Chinese territorial claims across the Pangong lake and Galwan valley, which are integral parts of India. But there are predictable expressions of Chinese concerns over Home Minister Amit Shah’s statement last year, declaring Aksai Chin, which links Tibet and Xinjiang, as being a part of Ladakh.

While the Galwan valley has been a location for battles in the past, the Partition of India did create a new situation, when J&K was also partitioned, with Pakistan getting control of the northwestern part of the state. Pakistan, thereafter, illegally ceded the Shaksgam valley in J&K to China in 1963, giving China access through Aksai Chin and Shaksgam to its Muslim majority, Xinjiang province. China, however, also has concerns about India’s presence in Daulat Beg Oldie, which is located close to the strategic road linking Aksai Chin to restive Xinjiang, where Beijing holds over a million Muslims in custody today. China is also concerned about the road India is building, which traverses across the Pangong Tso and the Galwan river to Daulat Beg Oldie, where India has built an airport, capable of accommodating even heavy transport aircraft.

Even as tensions were rising in Galwan, it was agreed at a meeting of senior commanders of the two armies on June 5, that there would be moves to de-escalate tensions. There was an understanding that China would pull back. Hence, the killing of the Indian Battalion Commander, who went to the Galwan valley on June 16, to ascertain how the disengagement was proceeding, enraged people across India. This escalated into a no-holds-barred attack in which 20 Indian soldiers and an estimated 30-40 Chinese were killed.

New Delhi is set to comprehensively restructure its economic relationship with China. An adverse balance of $54 billion on trade with China is neither desirable nor sustainable. China now dominates the electronics sector in India. Its companies assemble 70% of our mobile telephones. China is also seeking to dominate the coming 5G services in India through its Huawei conglomerate. One abiding feature of all Chinese electronic telecommunication services in India is that its products have little value added. Virtually every component is imported from China. Moreover, the entire technical management is in the hands of the Chinese. There is no technology transfer. Given recent developments, Huawei will not have any significant role in the 5G services in India. Moreover, Taiwan is now emerging as a major partner, even in the US, in electronics and other industries. It is time for India to undertake major projects with Taiwan. India sent an unambiguous message to China, when two senior MPs participated in the swearing-in of the re-elected and gutsy President of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen.

The US is planning to use Taiwan Superconductor Manufacturing Company, the main chipmaker for Apple Inc, to shift its high-tech manufacturing to Arizona to exclude Huawei from any major global role. The UK and other European countries would likely follow suit. It would only be appropriate if Indian companies sign agreements for large projects in areas like computers, communications and other electronics industries, including facilities for manufacturing key strategic items like semiconductors and computer chips, with companies in Taiwan. China’s objections can be rejected. Beijing has, after all, been investing heavily in infrastructure projects in the POK. China has even welcomed high-level politicians from the POK in Beijing.

India has now shed its earlier inhibitions about security partnerships with countries in its Indo-Pacific and Indian Ocean neighbourhood. China has serious differences on its maritime boundaries, with virtually all its neighbours, including Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines and Malaysia. India has not yet been able to respond in any appropriate, or meaningful manner to the continuous supply of weapons, nuclear weapons designs, ballistic missiles, fighter aircraft and warships by China to Pakistan. There is a strong feeling in India that the time has come for India to respond positively to requests from Vietnam, a good friend, with a remarkably fast-growing economy, with the supply of weapon systems like Brahmos missiles, to enable Vietnam to counter Chinese maritime threats. India would, hopefully, shed old inhibitions by expanding military cooperation with friendly regional countries. Most importantly, however, doors should be kept open for a serious and continuing dialogue with China, while eschewing rhetoric.

One cannot but appreciate the role of Russia and its Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who stressed the importance of peace and cooperation, in his tripartite meeting, earlier this week, with the foreign ministers of India and China. His remarks came after prolonged negotiations between senior military commanders of India and China led to an agreement on ‘verifiable disengagement’ of forces. One should, however, be under no illusion that this process of phased withdrawal is going to be smooth. But it is a move towards peace. Finally, a grateful nation can never forget the valour and sacrifices of those who laid down their lives defending our country, in hand-to-hand combat, far from their homes, in the high mountains, astride the banks of the Galwan river.


Blame game futile in China border row

Some sections feel that any criticism of PM Modi’s statement at the all-party meeting on the Chinese incursions would result in undermining national solidarity, and should not be permitted. Those who question government statements are labelled as ‘pro-Chinese’. However, we did not observe any such tradition when the Chinese question was discussed since 1959.

Blame game futile in China border row

Vappala Balachandran

Ex-Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat

It’s time for a blame game after the June 15 killings in the Galwan valley. The ‘WhatsApp University’ has started circulating how we lost the 1962 war and also the Coco islands in Bay of Bengal, both to China’s advantage. The villain, no doubt, is our first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru.

I shall confine my remarks only on the border war as the allegation that India could have retained these old Portuguese islands is ridiculous. In 1882, the British acquired the Coco islands and incorporated it within British Burma, which was a part of British India. In 1937, Burma was separated from British India on the recommendations of the Simon Commission. By the same token, Nehru should be blamed for ‘losing’ Aden too, which was governed from Bombay till 1932.

A video figuring a friend of mine, who was our Air Attache in a West European embassy in the 1980s, has emerged calling Jawaharlal Nehru ‘spineless’ in not ordering our Air Force in 1962. This officer, who retired as an Air Marshall, says that India could have easily beaten the Chinese had we used our Air Force. I have no means of verifying whether this is genuine or morphed. If genuine, it would indicate a poor reading of history.

Nehru was aware of the capability of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) when the border tension with China erupted in the mid 1950s. Mao had challenged in Korea the strongest army in the world under General Douglas MacArthur who had defeated Japan in 1945. This was within a year of Mao’s win over Chiang-Kai-shek in December 1949 after the 1945-49 civil wars. Earlier, the UN forces under American leadership had pushed the Communists till Yalu river in the north.

However, in November 1950, Mao flooded Korea with four lakh Chinese ‘volunteer soldiers’ to help the North Korean communists. They pushed the UN forces back to the 38th Parallel. For two years, they held on despite suffering large-scale bombardment. America lost 34,000 soldiers in the battle which ended under an Indian-sponsored armistice on July 27, 1953.

India was closely involved in settling this crisis through the much maligned VK Krishna Menon. Former Congress minister Jairam Ramesh has narrated this role in his scintillating biography, A Chequered Brilliance: The Many Lives of VK Krishna Menon. A superpower like the US had to seek Nehru’s help in 1955 for the release of four US airmen held captive by China in the Korean War. President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles also requested Nehru to convey to China the US alarm over Communist shelling of Quemoy and Matsu.

Nehru deputed Menon to visit China to hold parleys with Zhou en Lai and Mao. Menon reached China on May 11, 1955 and stayed for 10 days. On May 26, 1955, Nehru informed Eisenhower that Krishna Menon’s talks were successful and that the Chinese had decided to release the four US airmen. The news of their imminent release was announced by Menon in New Delhi on May 30, 1955. They were released the next day in Hong Kong. That was the highest point in our diplomacy. India did not have to run after the superpowers. Unlike now, they were soliciting our help.

Nehru was also reluctant to divert scarce national resources to war when there was a possibility of diplomacy succeeding in solving complex disputes. He also wanted to avoid ‘spreading the conflict’ without exhausting diplomatic negotiations. In this, he was remarkably similar to President Harry Truman. Despite ordering the dropping of atom bombs on Japan in August 1944 to end World War II, Truman did not agree with MacArthur’s suggestion in December 1950 of bombing Communist China to win the Korean War. He fired him in April 1951 for airing his views publicly. Later, he told the nation on April 11 that America’s aim was “to avoid the spread of conflict…and to prevent a third world war.”

Some sections of our public opinion feel that any criticism of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement made at the all-party meeting on the Chinese incursions would result in undermining national solidarity, and hence, should not be permitted. Those who question government statements are being labelled as ‘pro-Chinese’. However, we did not follow any such norm or tradition of observing similar restraint during discussions in Parliament when the Chinese question was discussed since 1959.

On the other hand, Nehru was subjected to savage attacks provoking our most respected diplomat, the late KPS Menon to remark, as quoted by Manohar Parrikar Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis: “The entire attitude adopted by Parliament during the crises was unhelpful. Brave talks that not an inch of Indian territory should be surrendered and so on, left the government with no room for manoeuvring.”

On December 4, 1961, AB Vajpayee, then a Jan Sangh leader, alleged that Nehru was suppressing information and “would even surrender Ladakh to China if similar kind of appeasement continued”. PK Deo of Ganatantra Parishad suggested an innovative way of dealing with the crisis by suggesting the transfer of border issue from diplomats to military leadership. Even during the war, Parliament’s attitude did not help the war efforts. On November 20, 1962, veteran PSP leader HV Kamath demanded that a parliamentary committee should supervise military operations on a