Text Size: A- A+

New Delhi: Differences seem to have emerged between India and China over the next steps their armies need to take to further ease tension along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in eastern Ladakh.

After the surprise breakthrough in February that saw both sides pulling troops and equipment back from the brink in Pangong Tso, Beijing wants the two armies to de-escalate or withdraw additional troops brought in as back-up to those in the front, ThePrint has learnt.

This is a change in Beijing’s position from what the two sides had discussed in February, it is learnt.

New Delhi, however, is insisting on disengagement from the remaining friction areas along the disputed Himalayan frontier first.

These were part of proposals exchanged between the two sides at the 11th round of Corps Commander level talks held last week, sources in the security establishment said.

De-escalation before disengagement could give China an advantage as it can move troops back to the frontline much faster than India due to the better infrastructure on its side of the Himalayan frontier, experts said.

The China Study Group, the sources said, will meet soon to take stock of the talks and discuss the proposal sent by China, and the Indian response. A key member of the group, Army chief Gen. M.M. Naravane, is currently in Bangladesh and is expected to return Tuesday.

This meeting could, however, be pushed to next week due the assembly election campaign in West Bengal and rising Covid cases. China will also discuss the proposal sent by India for disengagement at higher levels within their system. 

Also Read: These are the key changes Army has made in Ladakh to counter China in summer

De-escalation or disengagement?

New Delhi and Beijing, the sources said, have agreed that further escalation of tensions is in nobody’s interest but there is a difference between the modalities of the steps to be taken next and the order of those steps.

India, they said, is insisting on disengagement because troops are facing each other off in at least four other locations. Last week, ThePrint had explained how China was dragging its feet on disengagement at other friction points, including what experts say are the low-hanging fruits of Gogra and Hot Springs.

A statement released by the Army after consultation with the Ministry of External Affairs following the talks last week said, “it was highlighted also that completion of disengagement in other areas would pave the way for two sides to consider de-escalation of forces and ensure full restoration of peace and tranquility and enable progress in bilateral relations”.

At the 10th round of Corps Commander level talks, held in February after the Pangong Tso disengagement, China and India had discussed the disengagement process and broadly agreed on some steps in the Gogra and Hot Springs area, the sources said.

However, China switched to talking about de-escalation in the 11th round.

Also Read: Disengagement in rest of eastern Ladakh will ‘take time’, but India ‘satisfied’ with China talks

Infrastructure advantage

While Army officers refused to discuss the issue saying that whatever had to be said had been mentioned in the Army press statement, a veteran explained that the Chinese have better infrastructure on their side and this would allow the PLA to move troops back to the frontline much faster than India.

Considering the low trust levels between the two sides, India wants to make sure that the disengagement happens first, which will then pave the way for de-escalation, the sources said.

The Army has already implemented a series of deployment changes in Ladakh for the summer and has also redrawn the Order of Battle (ORBAT) as one of the many steps planned to counter China.

Also Read: How India stood its ground and forced China to end Pangong Tso aggression

Light Bullet Proof Vehicles (LBPV)
In a bid to strengthen its capability to tackle terrorists trying to launch attacks inside its air bases like the Pathankot Airbase, the Indian Air Force (IAF) has inducted specialist vehicles that can withstand bullet and grenade attacks.
“The Light Bullet Proof Vehicles (LBPVs) have been inducted into the service and would be deployed at the airbases to be used during any terrorist attack to suppress them,” IAF officials told ANI here.
The six-ton vehicle has been designed and developed in a way that its engine remains hidden from the front and rear side and cannot be targeted easily, they said.
The vehicle has been provided protection by equipping with 6 mm thick armoured protection and a 40 mm windshield, which can withstand AK-47 and sniper rifle bullets, the officials said.

A canopy covered or protected by armour has also been provided which can allow the gunner to fire freely at its target.
The vehicle can be driven at high speeds up to 100 to 120 km and can also be run on flat tyres, the officials said.
The vehicles can accommodate six fully geared Garud commandos or Quick Reaction Team (QRT) members while the open space in the rear can have more men.
Four terrorists had intruded the Pathankot Airbase at night on the new year’s eve of 2015-16 and tried to attack the assets deployed there, including fighter aircraft and helicopter gunships.
The terrorists were killed and their mission was foiled but the incident suggested certain shortcomings in Air Force’s preparedness to tackle such attacks and manpower training for reacting to such assaults was undertaken at a large scale.

What could possibly be the compelling reason on part of Pakistan to take a sharp U-turn from its immediately earlier decision leading to the federal cabinet reversing the thought considered to have been executed after due diligence? This surely calls for a visceral examination
It’s clearly evident that the House in Pakistan under Prime Minister Imran Khan is sharply divided. There was a flicker of hope noticed in February this year when due to robust back-channel diplomacy and restraint on part of the otherwise vocal critics of an Indo-Pak thaw, gave rise to chances of peace. The guns on the borders were thought to have fallen silent reducing the sense of attrition and warmongering clouds. The aggressive tenor also showed signs of disappearance. Global pacifists and the diplomatic community saw that peace was perhaps on the anvil.
This was further carried forward when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi congratulated Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan on the Pakistan National Day (March 23) hoping for cordial bilateral relations between the two neighbours. Imran Khan reciprocated articulating a similar tenor but wanted resolution of all mutual issues including Kashmir. This development again made the people on both sides hope that peace might dawn sooner than later and tranquil will prevail. This feeling got further boost when the Economic Coordination Committee (ECC), functional under Pakistan’s commerce ministry, decided last week to resume trade ties with India, suspended since 2019 and allowing to import sugar and cotton from India. Again, this was seen as a forward movement towards the amelioration of further normalcy between India and Pakistan.
Sadly, however, the Pakistani Federal Cabinet, in a hurriedly convened meeting, didn’t endorse the ECC decision and there was an outright reversal of decision on an import of sugar and cotton from Pakistan. This was a major setback to a hopeful peace process set in motion barely a month ago ostensibly to give peace a chance. There were other indicators too which made one reckon that at least peace efforts were put to test in all earnest. These include a visible tone-down on parts of the Army Chief General Qamar Bajwa, Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and other hawks in their rhetoric which were hitherto signalled acrimony. At the recently concluded Dushanbe meet also the Pakistan FM Qureshi chose to exercise restraint by not coming out with any anti-India remarks.
Under these circumstances, what could possibly be the compelling reason on part of Pakistan to take a sharp U-turn from its immediately earlier decision leading to the federal cabinet reversing the thought considered to have been executed after due diligence? This surely calls for a visceral examination.
Prime Minister Imran Khan defending the cabinet decision on the imports said on April 2 that resuming trade with India would signal a wrong impression on Kashmir and further expressed that until India reverses the august 5, 2019 decision of abrogating Article 370, the status quo will remain. It’s difficult to fathom how the matter of Kashmir is linked to resumption of trade ties? ECC had already decided.
On this, Prime Minister Imran Khan’s Security Advisor Moeed Yusuf stated on April 2 that the ECC had only explored the commercial angle and merely recommended import of items like sugar and cotton. Final decision rested with the Federal Cabinet. ECC, he further clarified with faint arguments, was an apolitical body.
Judging by his afterthought statements, it would seem that there was a complete lack of coordination between the various ministries causing this volte-face. His defence was also weak when he said in defence that resumption of trade ties was strategically and politically untenable. This again seems far from being logical.
Judging by the rapid unfolding of these developments, it would appear that while PM Imran Khan had given a ‘go ahead’ for initiating the peace attempts, the hardliners within the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) must have prevailed over the decision and derailed the entire thing. Similarly, the religious extremists and the homegrown radicalised terror groups got the better of the political leadership in forcing the cabinet to reverse and reject the decision. Sadly again, it shows that the government in Pakistan is at the mercy of non-governmental ultra and extra-constitutional elements who are calling the shots. More crucially, they want to keep the Kashmir issue somehow alive by bringing it as a spanner in any move to restoring normalisation of relations.
Another factor dampening the prospects of peace efforts is a bunch of ministers within the cabinet. They include Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi (surprising though, as he chose to be unprovocative at the recent Dushanbe meet towards his Indian counterpart), Interior Minister Sheikh Rasheed, another minister Shireen Mazari etc. These ministers, by deduction, must have reeled under their mentors from the ISI or religious extremist groups to rake up Kashmir mainly to divert attention from the core domestic ills that have afflicted Pakistan including the continued stay in the grey list in terror funding as ruled by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The poor economic condition and abysmal standing in the global community is also a major concern for Pakistan for which they continue to whip the Kashmir issue to be seen to remain alive in the domain of international politics though it’s highly illusory.
In a separate Pakistan related development, Prime Minister Imran Khan on April 2 expressed in a very despairing note that he was puzzled at what he described as cacophony over Pakistan not being invited to a conference on Climate Change. To prove his point, smattered with frustration, Imran Khan claimed that his government’s policies were driven solely by Pakistan’s commitment to its future generations of a clean and green Pakistan to mitigate the impact of Climate Change. To cover up the frustration arising out of a conspicuous exclusion, the Pakistan PM cited examples of a green Pakistan campaign and the 10 billion Tree Tsunami initiative. Imran’s statement came in the wake of US Climate Envoy John Kerry’s trips to Abu Dhabi, New Delhi and Dhaka from April 1 to April 9 in an attempt to slow the impact of global warming. Pakistan’s exclusion is seen as good as Pakistan being ignored on the critical issue of Climate Change. That’s obviously difficult to swallow. With such marginalisation, Pakistan could have done well by taking a step further in resuming trade ties with India instead of a forthright reversal of the imports if needed commodities. It would surely have marked a good beginning.

Wednesday, April 14, 2021 by Indian Defence News

Container & cargo ship traffic seen passing through Malacca Strait between IOR & Pacific Oceans
Long considered an underutilised security asset, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands have come into sharper focus amid rising India-China tensions and Beijing’s increased maritime assertiveness. The islands have long been off limits to foreign navies for fear of spooking India’s neighbours, but analysts say recent moves with Japan hint at them opening up more to friendly nations
India’s move, with a little help from Japan, to develop a strategically located island chain near the mouth of Southeast Asia’s main shipping lane is part of a broader plan by New Delhi to keep a closer watch on China’s naval assets, say analysts and former Indian officials – especially its submarines.
The Andaman and Nicobar archipelago of 524 islands, only 38 of which are inhabited, stretches across some 1,000km (620 miles) of Indian Ocean by the western entrance to the Malacca Strait, through which an estimated 80 per cent or more of China’s seaborne trade passes.
“It is like a [permanent] aircraft carrier,” Kanwal Sibal, a former foreign secretary of India, told This Week In Asia, “that gives India very extensive control over maritime space and sea lanes of communication to monitor shipping and naval vessels.”
Long considered an underutilised security asset, the islands have come into sharper focus amid rising India-China tensions following last year’s deadly flare-up at the two countries’ disputed border, and the fact that “China is [becoming] increasingly active in the Indian Ocean as part of its Maritime Silk Road strategy,” Sibal said, in reference to the sea route section of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative plan to grow global trade.
As part of that plan, China has acquired numerous footholds around the Indian Ocean in recent years, Sibal noted, with Chinese companies taking control of commercial ports in Sri Lanka and Pakistan, and the country acquiring its first overseas military base in Djibouti in 2016. Rumours that Beijing will establish a second offshore naval base at Gwadar, the Pakistani port operated by China’s Cosco Shipping Holdings Co, have circulated for years, and Sibal said Chinese submarines now enter the Indian Ocean on a regular basis.
Against this backdrop, India has in recent months expedited plans to base additional military forces on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, including facilities for additional warships, aircraft, missile batteries and soldiers, according to Abhijit Singh, a senior fellow and head of the Maritime Policy Initiative at the Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation think tank.
The retired naval officer said runways at Indian naval air stations in the far north and south of the island chain had been extended to accommodate larger aircraft, while a 10-year infrastructure development plan for the islands has also been fast-tracked.
Last month, Japan extended development assistance to the islands for the first time in the form of a US$36 million government grant to upgrade the power grid on South Andaman Island, where capital city Port Blair and most of the archipelago’s population are located. The grant, which Deepa Wadhwa, a retired Indian ambassador to Japan, says “reflect the two countries convergence on security issues and commitment for a free and open Indo-Pacific”, will be used to buy batteries to aid solar power generation on the island – and hints at a greater opening of the area to friendly nations, according to security experts.
Sujan R. Chinoy, a retired diplomat and the current director general of the Manohar Parrikar Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis in Delhi, has argued in favour of such a move, saying India should collaborate with the US, Japan and Australia – fellow members of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or “Quad” – to implement an effective system of underwater surveillance around the islands, where India’s only tripartite military command, comprising the army, navy and the air force, is located.
“Surveillance of Chinese naval [assets], especially submarines, in the Indo-Pacific should be on the Quad’s – and therefore the Indo-Japan – agenda,” said Sibal, the former top diplomat, who added that “a division of responsibility in the Indo-Pacific should be an objective” for the Quad – with India, Australia and Japan each taking an area of responsibility, while the US fills in the gaps with its massive maritime capabilities.
India does not allow foreign navies to use its facilities in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands at present, partly out of concern that it could spook other nations in the region, according to Abhijit Singh of the Observer Research Foundation. “There is also apprehension that operating sensitive equipment with foreign partners might involve the sharing of critical undersea data and a level of informational access to foreign collaborators that the Indian Navy may not be comfortable with,” he said.
Strategic analysis website Resonant News reported in July that the US and Japan had helped deploy an underwater surveillance network in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands to monitor Chinese submarines – though there was no official confirmation of the supposed development.
Since 2015, Japan has taken part in regular naval exercises with India and the US – which Australia also joined last year – and in September, Delhi and Tokyo signed an agreement that allows their respective militaries to access each other’s bases for logistics support. The pact came after years of negotiations and could reportedly include facilities in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
Japan’s NEC Corporation, through its Indian subsidiary, also helped lay a 2,300 km undersea optical cable connecting the archipelago with mainland India, a project that was completed last year after being launched by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2018.
Other infrastructure projects earmarked for the archipelago include plans to transform the sparsely populated Little Andaman Island into a financial-tourist hub to rival Singapore or Hong Kong – despite environmentalists’ fears it could destroy the island’s fragile ecology

Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones in the Indian Ocean region
by MK Bhadrakumar
The guided-missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones sailing past Lakshadweep Islands on April 7 has thrown India’s Sinophobes into confusion. One leading daily noted it as a “rare falling out between the two partners in the Quad grouping.” An anti-China analyst tweeted that it’s just a “botched PR exercise” on the part of Americans.
The Ministry of External Affairs took a legalistic perspective as if it was answering a writ petition in the Delhi High Court. But, reflect seriously. Yes, this is a rare fracas within the cosy Quad family. Yet, Quad is a toddler. What all can happen when President Joe Biden grooms it into a boisterous adolescent?
Make no mistake, what happened is the military equivalent of what the great American diplomat-scholar George Kennan once wrote about the oil reserves in Persian Gulf — they are “our resources”, he wrote, integral to America’s prosperity and, therefore, the US should take control of them. (Which it did, of course.)
The ocean beds of South China Sea and Indian Ocean are sitting on unimaginable wealth of mineral resources — potentially, the last frontier. USS John Paul Jones acted like a dog marking the lamp post. Spectre of acute future big-power scramble — not only with China or Russia but also involving European rivals — haunts Washington. With all their tragic colonial history, Indians tend to forget.
Thus, after 65 years, Britain is returning to “east of Suez”. The 65,000-ton HMS Queen Elizabeth, Britain’s newest aircraft carrier, is sailing to the Indian Ocean in its inaugural deployment. The grandiloquent title of the impressive 114-page document released last month by the British PM Boris Johnson says it all — Global Britain in a competitive age : The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy.
The document says rather explicitly on Page 66-69 under the sub-title The Indo-Pacific tilt: “Indo-Pacific is the world’s growth engine: home to half the world’s people; 40% of global GDP; some of the fastest- growing economies; at the forefront of new global trade arrangements; leading and adopting digital and technological innovation and standards; investing strongly in renewables and green tech; and vital to our goals for investment and resilient supply chains. The Indo- Pacific already accounts for 17.5% of UK global trade and 10% of inward FDI and we will work to build this further, including through new trade agreements, dialogues and deeper partnerships in science, technology and data.”
It concludes: “We (Britain) will also place a greater emphasis than before on the Indo-Pacific, reflecting its importance to many of the most pressing global challenges in the coming decade, such as maritime security and competition linked to laws, rules and norms.”
Again, the month of April will see French Foreign Minister Jean Yves Le Drian arriving in India to pursue political dialogue with India, and, importantly, the 42,500 tonne Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier is leading a strike force to exercise with INS Vikramaditya in two phases in Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean.
Without this “big picture”, India will keep counting the trees for the wood. There are four things about the US Navy 7th Fleet statement on Friday that arrest attention. One, it asserts in the very first sentence that this freedom of navigation operation (FONOP) took place “inside India’s exclusive economic zone, without requesting India’s prior consent.”
Two, the statement rubs it in: “India requires prior consent for military exercises or manoeuvres in its exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, a claim inconsistent with international law. This freedom of navigation operation (FONOP) upheld the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea recognised in international law by challenging India’s excessive maritime claims.”
Now, don’t the Indians know it? Of course, they do. But the US must proclaim it to the entire IOR including Pakistan — and European capitals alike — that India’s vaulting ambitions will not go unchecked.
Three, the US Navy statement flags that FONOP “demonstrate that the United States will fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows.” Now, interestingly, this is Mike Pompeo’s standard anti-China language.
Plainly put, this is not a freak (“rare”) event. Besides, it’s the Arabian Sea now, but it can be Bay of Bengal tomorrow; it’s a warship sailing by today, but tomorrow it can be an American aircraft roaring in the Indian skies, asserting the US prerogative to operate in India’s Exclusive Economic Zone.
Four, the statement has been issued since the Indians failed to take seriously that the FONOP are “routine and regular… as we have done in the past.” Presumably, Delhi hushed up such previous incidents. But the FONOP missions “are not about one country, nor are they about making political statements.”
Simply put, the US regards India’s EEZ as part of “global commons” where it will exercise its (perceived) prerogative to act in its supreme national interests, as it deems fit. The “defining partnership of the 21st century” with India will not inhibit Washington from pursuit of American interests.
The bottom line is that in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), India should not punch above its weight. It may not be a coincidence that Washington administered this firm stricture within earshot of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s highly-publicised High Level Virtual Event on Thursday with Wavel Ramkalawan, Prime Minister of Seychelles, for “the joint e-inauguration of several development assistance projects funded by India in Seychelles and the handing over of a Fast Patrol Vessel supplied by India for the use of the Seychelles Coast Guard.”
Modi dramatically called Ramkalawan the “son of India”, alluding to the ex-pastor’s Bihari family lineage. But Washington regards Ramkalawan as the doggedly nationalistic leader of an IOR island nation that is a difficult neighbour, separated by a mere 1894 kilometres of blue waters from Diego Garcia. The establishment of a top secret military asset by India in Seychelles’ Assumption Island is bad enough but Modi government’s reported plans of setting up a military base in that island nation is an entirely different proposition. (For all one knows, the media leak bears the stamp of the US intelligence.)
Unsurprisingly, Delhi gave a supine response to the Pentagon warning — straight out of Chanakya’s rule book. However, now that the US warships have disappeared over the horizon, let us sit upon the ground and reflect sadly where all the heady Quad (“Asian NATO”) misadventure is taking India.
The heart of the matter is that the ruling elites’ seething sense of rivalry over China’s rise is engendering a warped Indian mindset. The Chinese commentators have been warning the Indian establishment repeatedly that its big power aspirations in the IOR are unrealistic. They were speaking from experience.
In fact, contrary to the Indian narrative that Quad membership can be leveraged to extract concessions from China, Beijing thinks that Quad is more India and Russia’s geopolitical headache, but it would intrinsically have no future, given internal contradictions.
The Chinese scholars have consistently held the view that although the mainstream of the US-Indian cooperation nowadays has been cooperation instead of competition, “in the specific case of the Indian Ocean, their respective strategic views on the regional power structure are deeply rooted and these will become more and more obvious in the case of the power shift” — to quote from the prominent Chinese scholar Chunhao Lou, Deputy Director of the Institute of South Asian Studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations headquartered in Beijing.
In a 2012 essay titled US-India-China Relations in the Indian Ocean: A Chinese Perspective, the leading scholar added, “Although the China factor will always be there to promote US-India cooperation, the ‘democratic peace theory’ will give way to realistic politics, and the differing interests of the US and India in the IOR will be difficult to reconcile.” Chickens are coming home to roost.

With disengagement still incomplete in some areas almost a year since LAC stand-off began, Army is ensuring there are ‘adequate’ troops in Ladakh
New Delhi: Even as China drags its feet on further disengagement in eastern Ladakh, the Indian Army has put in place a new summer strategy for Ladakh. The force has also implemented key changes in the Order of Battle (ORBAT) to counter the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), with whom it has been locked in a face-off for nearly a year.
Sources in the defence and security establishment said the Army has retained a higher number of troops and equipment in Ladakh, besides the 3 Div, in charge of the Line of Actual Control (LAC), and the 14 Corps Reserve. This includes some of the formations pumped in last year following the tensions with China, besides new elements brought in for summer deployment.
However, the sources said that while various rejigs have taken place, one key element is the focus on the ‘field peace turnover’ issue, because the Ladakh stand-off has put a lot of pressure on this aspect. ‘Field peace turnover’ is a term used for the policy that troops posted in a battle zone get peace postings after a particular period of time, and vice-versa. This is important to maintain the mental and physical fighting capability, and hence, is a worry for the force.
Sources said the Army’s focus is on ensuring that there are “adequate” troops to counter any Chinese aggression, not just in the 14 Corps area, but also in the reserve.
Key Changes In ORBAT
The Army had planned key changes with regard to its rebalancing. Army chief Gen. M.M. Naravane, in January this year, had outlined his broad plans for rebalancing from the western theatre to the north.
Sources said that more changes have been made and the process has been completed. Specific details are being withheld about the changes due to national security reasons.
A new order, sources said, has made changes in a key strike corps, which has now been given a dual task — with the primary focus on the northern borders and the secondary on the western borders. This means that the corps has had to let go of some of its formations while retaining others.
Sources said that the armoured division of the strike corps has now become the Army Headquarters Reserve Division.
Another division, drawn from a different pool and which focuses on mountain warfare, has now been attached with the strike corps, they said, adding that the existing artillery division under the strike corps will get specialised equipment more suited for mountain warfare.
The 17 Mountain Strike Corps (MSC), which had been operating till now with only one division, has now received another. Sources said that a division from the east has now been attached to the 17 MSC.
The sources added that as needed, the MSC will be used for both eastern and northern sectors.
The MSC is also getting a new HQ Reserve Artillery Brigade with specialised equipment.
“The changes effectively mean that instead of three strike corps focused on Pakistan, we now have two. The 17 MSC will get two divisions besides reserve formations,” a source said.
Sources also said that some of the other formations have undergone changes in terms of command and control, besides having more units attached to them for operational effectiveness.
India And China Both Maintain Additional Troops
The sources added that the situation in Ladakh is now such that the 14 Corps has more troops on the ground and in reserve, giving the Army more deployment options.
While one of the reserve divisions of the Army was pulled out as tensions stabilised, large elements from another one remained in Ladakh, besides the 3 Div. Other elements have also stayed put.
Sources said the numbers under the 3 Div, which has three brigades, is more than sufficient to counter any Chinese aggression along the LAC.
Besides, the 14 Corps itself has independent artillery, armoured and infantry brigades.
China has also maintained a large number of troops about 60-70 km from the LAC, who can be brought back in just a few hours.
Interestingly, as part of the troop push into eastern Ladakh, several units from Jammu and Kashmir were also pumped in last year. For example, following the Galwan clash, a Rashtriya Rifles (RR) sector was moved to the Galwan Valley area while units under Uniform Force, a formation in Jammu and Kashmir, were also brought in.
Sources explained that the RR troops were brought in as a back-up because at that time, the focus was on pushing in large numbers of troops since India was not sure where the conflict was headed.
Elements from the 17 MSC were also deployed besides the Special Frontier Force and the Para SF. Most of these have now been withdrawn, with regular soldiers holding fort.
14 Corps Has Enough Troops To Counter China
Former Northern Army Commander Lt Gen. D.S. Hooda (Retd) said the 14 Corps has enough troops to counter China.
“LAC can’t become like the Line of Control (LoC) where each inch of land is defended. The posture at the LAC has to be of deterrence. China should know that if they carry out an incursion in one side, India will carry out a counter response. For example, what happened in August last year on the southern banks of Pangong Tso, when Indians occupied the Kailash Range,” Hooda said.
It was during Lt Gen. Hooda’s tenure when planning took place for how the RR units, especially the Uniform Force, could effectively be used if needed for operations other than counter-insurgency.
Hooda welcomed the rebalance, he hoped that a lot of thought has gone into the process, since this also meant that conventional deterrence capability against Pakistan has reduced a bit.

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, April 12

The Haryana government today stopped the purchase of wheat in 18 mandis of the state for 24 hours due to the excess arrival of wheat in the mandis. The state government has urged the farmers to bring their crops to their respective procurement centres only after receiving the SMS for bringing their crops in the mandis.

Sonepat, April 12

The Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) today appealed to Dalits to reach the Delhi borders in large numbers to celebrate the Save Constitution Day and Kisan-Bahujan Ekta Diwas on April 14 on the occasion of BR Ambedkar’s birth anniversary. Dr Darshan Pal Singh, a member of the SKM, said: “Representatives of the Bahujan Samaj will be reaching Singhu, Tikri, Ghazipur and other borders on April 14 to support farmers.”

“Ambedkar is the architect of our Constitution, which the Modi government is hell bent on amending it,” he said.

Meanwhile, farmer leaders met protesters in their trolleys, camps and huts to boost their morale and urge them to stay at the morcha until the Centre repealed the three controversial farm laws.

Some farmers shared their problems related to sanitation at the protest sites and scarcity of water. The leaders assured them to resolve their problems. — TNS

A leading think tank for science and technology policy has said as Washington seeks to counter a rising China, no nation is more important than India with its abundance of highly skilled technical professionals and strong political and cultural ties with the United States.

It however cautioned that “overreliance” on India as an IT services provider could become a strategic problem if major disagreements emerge between the two nations on issues such as intellectual property, data governance, tariffs, taxation, local content requirements or individual privacy.

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) think-tank in a report released on Monday describes the worst and best-case scenarios.

In one, tensions between India and China are reduced and the many business synergies between these two neighbouring nations come to the fore. In this case, the heart of the global economy would shift to the east, and there would be little the United States could do about it, the report stated.

In the second scenario, the interests of India and the United States become increasingly aligned, as the economic, military, and international relations challenges from China grow. In such a case, democratic norms could prevail across most of the developed world, as developing nations start looking to a ‘Delhi model’ instead of a ‘Beijing model’, it stated.

“As America seeks to counter a rising China, no nation is more important than India, with its vast size, an abundance of highly skilled technical professionals, and strong political and cultural ties with the United States. 

“But the parallels between America’s dependency on China for manufacturing and its dependency on India for IT services are striking,” said the think-tank.

According to David Moschella, a non-resident senior fellow at ITIF and co-author of the report, the same forces that increasingly divide the United States and China are now pushing the US and India closer together.

“The interplay between the United States, India, and China will shape global competition and digital innovation for years to come. While there is a wide range of possible scenarios, two things are clear: India should be an essential part of US efforts to compete with and reduce its dependence on China, and this will inevitably expand America’s global dependencies from manufacturing to services,” he said.

“America’s technology dependencies on India in the 2020s seem certain to rise. Yet it is important to know whether the United States will be dependent on a strategic partner with strong mutual interests, or an increasingly neutral rival,” said ITIF President Robert D. Atkinson, who co-authored the report with Moschella.

Much will depend on the strategic choices that the Joe Biden administration and Indian government make in the next several years. One thing is clear that economic and geopolitical stakes could not be higher, he said.

Photo for representation only.

Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, April 13

A web talk on “Indo Pacific: A Construct in Offing” was organised by the Department of National Security Studies, Central University of Jammu, today.

Highlighting the strategic significance of the Indo-Pacific region Prof Rakesh Datta from the Department of Defence and National Security Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh, said that the geopolitical construct of the ‘Indo-Pacific’ region is not only related to the foreign policy strategies of major powers but also has serious implications for a rising power like India.

Stating that there was a need of maintaining balance of power by containing China in the Indo-Pacific through India’s rise in the region, he added that this region is becoming the most attractive destination for foreign direct investment, trade and business

Prof Datta stressed that there was a desperate need for cooperation in areas such as defence, information sharing, counter-terrorism and peacekeeping and in the given scenario, where the common threads of geopolitics, geoeconomics and geostrategy are closely intermeshed across the Indian and Pacific oceans, this new conceptualization needs to be accorded deeper consideration.

In his presidential remarks, Vice Chancellor of Jammu Central University, Prof Ashok Aima,  shared Chinese discernibility in trapping countries through debt diplomacy and was equivocal about bursting of Chinese bubble in the near future with the rise of market forces.

Prof Rasal Singh, head of the department at Jammu University gave his initial remarks on the relevant theme and highlighted the changing role of India internationally and how India is seen as a global partner by major powers at present.