Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, February 16

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday issued notice of motion to the Union of India and other respondents on a petition seeking action against persons who had dug the national highways and other roads following farmers’ agitation against the farm bills.

The petitioner submitted that the persons had intentionally blocked the highways and the roads by putting nails, barricades and other “iron and allied items”. Directions were also sought Delhi Director-General of Police to remove the obstacle created by its force. A judicial inquiry in the matter was also prayed for.

The matter was brought to the high court’s notice by Ravinder Singh Bassi for issuance of directions for “opening” the national highways blocked/obstructed by the Delhi police. Among other things, the petitioner contended that the national highways could not be blocked. Appearing before the Bench in person, the petitioner—ex-president of the UT district Bar Association—referred to the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, in support of his contentions. He added that the blocking of the highways had caused “a lot of inconvenience to the general public”. Taking up the matter, Justice GS Sandhawalia fixed March 15 as the next date of hearing.

Maj Gen Ashok K Mehta (retd)

Military Commentator

Keeping politics aside, relevant questions need to be asked about the ongoing LAC withdrawal plan. One of India’s worst fears of squandering gains on the ground for restoring the adverse situation on the LAC is turning out to be true. China looks set to get what it has wanted: not all, but most of it, including consummation of its 1959 claim line.

India has committed intelligence, operational and, now, negotiating lapses while managing the border standoff with China. After rejecting, it has conceded to a Chinese proposal of September 2020 containing a segregated agreement on phased disengagement, de-escalation and de-induction north and south of the Pangong Tso lake, according to which India will vacate the pivotal commanding heights on the Chushul range on its side of the LAC for a Chinese pullback from Finger 4 to Finger 8, an outright 8-km intrusion into Indian territory.

That is not all. Indian troops will move from Finger 4 to west of Finger 3. The space vacated will become a buffer zone in which patrolling will be suspended.

Still worse, there is no iron-clad linkage of this agreement with subsequent negotiations on the Gogra/Hot Springs, Demchok and especially Depsang where the Chinese have intruded 18 km and imposed a patrolling ban for the Indian forces.

After yielding so much, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh informed Parliament that he ‘did not concede anything’, which was clarified the next day by an MoD statement reading, ‘did not concede any territory.’ This is equivalent to the government’s earlier claims that the Chinese ‘have not intruded’ and ‘no territory has been lost’, when the facts on the ground were different.

The Chinese have imposed the Galwan model of disengagement weighted against India.

How can Singh describe the surrender of strategic space on the dominating Kailash heights as a tradeoff for withdrawal from the Fingers area astride the frozen lake along with the restriction of movement on the Indian side of the LAC as ‘not conceding’, especially after letting China cherrypick the withdrawal option?

In September 2020, the Chinese had posed this selective disengagement, but with the proviso that India, which had occupied Chushul heights on August 29/30, first withdraws from the heights and only then would the Chinese vacate the intrusion between Fingers 4 and 8.

At the time, many defence and strategic experts had warned the government against falling into China’s trap of conceding the one towering advantage it had gained and one which had unnerved the Chinese until the bottom line of restoration of status quo pre-April 2020 was achieved.

After a long rethink, China agreed to a simultaneous withdrawal, dropping the precondition that India, which moved first to occupy the Kailash range, should be the first to withdraw.

Clearly, the Chinese have brushed aside the demand for the restoration of status quo ante. The Chinese have never used the terminology of restoring status quo ante, but instead used restoring peace and tranquility in border areas. So far, the Chinese had categorically refused to discuss Depsang, which locks up the Indian strategic garrison of Daulat Beg Oldie (DBO).

Singh referred to this in Parliament: ‘The House should also know that there are still some outstanding issues with regards to deployment and patrolling at some other points along the LAC in eastern Ladakh.’

He did not name Depsang, a veritable dagger pointing towards DBO, the capture of which has for long been on the Chinese operational agenda. DBO links up with the 5,180-sq-km Shaqsgam valley — gifted by Pakistan to China in 1963 — which connects with the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.

The loss of DBO will unhinge the India-occupied Siachen snow wall separating the Pakistani forces and the Chinese PLA. China has unilaterally established blocks at Depsang to prevent Indian troops from moving to their traditional patrolling points on the LAC.

The Congress has questioned the government on the selective disengagement, worrying that Singh’s statement gave little reassurance of the status quo ante as of April 2020.

It also lamented the fact that the government had agreed to withdraw from the dominating heights without any quid pro quo by China. When MP Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury sought a clarification in the Lok Sabha on these issues, strangely Parliamentary Affairs Minister Arjun Meghwal interrupted him, saying that he should be proud of the country’s defence forces.

In the Rajya Sabha debate, the Chair did not allow clarifications in order to uphold national unity and security. When former Defence Minister AK Antony rose to speak, Railway Minister Piyush Goyal rushed to urge his silence. During last year’s debate, the Chair, Vice President Venkaiah Naidu, had twice requested Singh to brief a select group of MPs on the situation along the LAC separately. But he has not done so till this day.

The government, which has demonstrated immense resolve by matching soldier for soldier and height for height, determined to stand up to China, seems to have suddenly cracked and, surprisingly, given in to Beijing’s pressure. Unacclimatised to deployment in winter, it was the PLA that was keen to pull back and descend from the heights which it had occupied for the first time after 1962. The speed and alacrity with which Chinese tanks, guns and troops pulled back last week was surprising.

To obfuscate the advantage-China withdrawal deal, government officials have been planting stories about the consummate skills of the national security trio — the Defence Minister, Foreign Minister and National Security Adviser — in achieving the breakthrough and restoring India’s image as well as its deterrence of defence, diplomacy and international partnerships.

The Chinese have a penchant for changing goalposts. They cite principles, with ‘those who advanced first must withdraw first’ being the most common and also the most flouted one.

The negotiations are likely to end up in China’s ‘two steps forward, one step backward’ approach, retaining Depsang, as predicted earlier, and Singh admitting to ‘substantially restoring the situation’ to that existing prior to the standoff.

By agreeing to the strategically stunted and segmented withdrawal plan north and south of the Pangong lake, and forfeiting the preponderant advantage of the commanding heights on the Chushul range for a couple of Fingers will probably go down as a ‘breakthrough blunder’ in ensuring that India’s quest for the restoration of status quo ante on the LAC is never met.

Sunit Dhawan

Tribune News Service

Rohtak, February 16

Bhartiya Kisan Union (BKU) national spokesperson Rakesh Tikait on Tuesday demanded the creation of an ‘agriculture cabinet’ for addressing the concerns of farmers effectively.

Addressing the gathering at a farmers’ mahapanchayat on Sir Chhotu Ram’s birth anniversary at his memorial in Sampla, Tikait said several ministries and departments were looking after the farm sector.

“There is no agriculture ministry or minister in the country. The minister we are talking to has only 18 per cent charge of agriculture while the rest is being taken care of by other ministries,” he stated.

“The MSP regime brought prosperity to farmers in Punjab and Haryana. Farmers in Uttar Pradesh come to Haryana to sell their produce, but this practice has been stopped by the government,” he maintained. He exhorted farmers to stay united and appreciated the contribution of members of the Sikh community to the agitation. He said farmers’ panchayats would also be organised in West Bengal, Maharashtra, Gujarat and other states.

Balbir Singh Rajewal, Gurnam Singh Charuni, Inderjit Singh and other farmer leaders reiterated their resolve to strengthen the agitation.

Mahapanchayat calls for complete ‘rail roko’

• A mahapanchayat organised under the aegis of the Kisan Mazdoor Sangharsh Samiti at Mohana village in Sonepat on Tuesday resolved not to allow the Railway authorities to run trains on February 18.
• “Protesters will assemble at the Sonepat railway station on February 18 and sit on railway tracks between 12 noon and 4 pm,” said samiti leader Ishwar Singh Rathi. He said the protest would be peaceful.
• Rathi said residents of 40 villages attended the mahapanchayat and extended support to the farmers’ agitation. TNS

Tributes to Chhotu Ram

Farmers paid floral tributes to Sir Chhotu Ram in Karnal on Tuesday. They garlanded his statue. Later, they proceeded to the Bastara toll plaza and chalked out their strategy for the ‘rail roko’. Farmer leaders visited villages to garner support for the protest on February 18. TNS

Kulwinder Sandhu
Tribune News Service
Moga, February 16

A 52-year-old farmer from Moga, who complained of heart problem because of cold weather conditions, died while getting treated in a hospital, confirmed the district administration officials, here, on Tuesday.

The deceased was identified as Jagdev Singh—son of Gopal Singh—a resident of Kotla Meher Singh Wala, sub-division Baghapurana, district Moga.

Jagdev had joined the agitation a few weeks back. Soon after this, he complained of uneasiness due to high blood pressure.

His companions brought him back, and got him admitted in a hospital at Bathinda where he died while getting treated on late Monday night.

Jagdev was not a member or an activist of any farm or labour organisation. He was a common farmer who was protesting along with other people of his village.

Sandeep Dikshit

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, February 16

In addition to the arrest of young environmentalist Disha Ravi, the farmers’ agitation had ripples overseas, including a tense situation in Sydney and an aggressive stance by Indian missions that included specifically countering the Labour MP from Leicester East.

In Sydney, the police intervened to divert a car-rally by Indian diaspora groups supporting the farm laws which was allegedly moving in the direction of a Sikh Gurdwara.

The Australian Sikh Association “lauded the prompt police action in preventing any untoward incident” as “mobsters were proceeding towards Glenwood gurdwara after a protest rally in Parramatta”.

But a diaspora media outlet quoted the Sunday’s ‘Tiranga Rally’ participant Gayatri Sharma as stating that it was “unfortunate, we have to change the route just because some ‘Khalistani’ elements threatened to disrupt our peaceful rally”.

Prakash Mehta, president of Hindu Council of Australia, said there has been a strong brotherhood between Hindus and Sikhs. “We in Australia have marked Guru Nanak’s milestone birth anniversary recently. We condemn the recent incident if it is true that they set out to disrespect the Gurdwara. It is up to the Police now, and no one should take the law in their own hands.”

The Sydney-based South Asia Times reported that such incidents seem to be dividing the community. “It is not clear who were the organisers of the ‘Tiranga Rally’and no one has claimed any responsibility for the same.”

The Indian High Commission in London took on British MP Claudia Webbe opposing the arrest of Disha Ravi and backing the farmers’ agitation. In a four-page open letter, the High Commission invited the MP to “obtain facts and correct information from” the mission. It also pointed out that India’s internal law and order is a sovereign subject and “not open to external interference”.

All the missions abroad have been active in supporting the farm laws especially the several social media posts by PM Narendra Modi. They are also reaching out to diaspora Indians with frequent e-mailers justifying the government’s approach to the agitation.

Recently, the missions forwarded “additional inputs from the Ministry of Agriculture” that said the Government has taken all conceivable steps to sort out the grievances of farmer unions who are “obstinately demanding the repeal of all the three laws”. The laws provide the much-needed enabling environment for farmers to sell their produce across the nation from their doorstep through these Farm Acts, it said.

Lt Gen Pradeep Bali (retd)

Ex-commander, Sikkim-based 33 corps

After the protracted standoff between the Indian Army and the Chinese PLA that lasted over nine months in eastern Ladakh, the process of disengagement and pullback to previous positions has started. The military tension between the two neighbours had grabbed international attention even as the world was grappling with the Covid-19 pandemic.

The last six months saw a number of engagements between the two countries, both military and diplomatic, including long-drawn-out confabulations between commanders at the corps level, the highest field formation of the Army. The last such meeting on January 24 apparently led to this disengagement of frontline troops.

What has led to this pullback of forces? Chinese proclivity for inordinately dragging out territorial disputes and its intransigence are well-known. It is habituated to making extravagant claims, tenacious in maintaining these and cloaking them with plausibility by sheer persistence. This ‘grab what you can get and then try and grab some more’ policy, accompanied by bluff and bluster, are greatly favoured by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Consistent with this policy, China had deployed its troops in extreme winter opposite the Indian formations in Ladakh, indicating that the PLA was there for the long haul. The Indian Army formations stood steadfast, holding their ground.

With troops on either side having faced the harshness of extreme cold conditions, the PLA has now decided to pull back, especially in the north of Pangong Tso, to areas which the Indian Army had been insisting upon during various rounds of talks. The Raksha Mantri’s statement mentions “the Chinese side will keep its troop presence in the North Bank area to east of Finger 8… any structures built since April 2020 will be removed and landforms will be restored.”

Many Sinophiles would surely have been surprised by this sudden acquiescence by the PLA. While the operational orders to the PLA troops would have been issued by its western theatre command at Chengdu, it would only be at the explicit directions of the top leadership of the CCP in Beijing.

A quid pro quo is expected from the Indian troops, especially from the tactically advantageous positions to the south of Pangong Tso.

There are many reasons for this change in Chinese obduracy. First, the terrain-hardened Indian Army has matched it in every which way on the frozen soils of Ladakh — operationally and logistically. Though China may have mobilised adequate logistic resources, there have been inputs about unease among the PLA soldiers during the severe winter conditions. Plentiful supplies are worth little when the morale is low.

The Chinese decision-makers cannot but be aware of the Indian Army’s capabilities and long experience both in combat and sustaining viable fighting formations in extreme conditions. They seem to have realised that the Indian Army could not be stared down.

Even more importantly, the Indian government’s political line has been very clear and widely supported during this confrontation with the northern adversary. Optimum synergy between the Indian Army and the Foreign Ministry was apparent at all times, be it during various meetings at the LAC or in diplomatic statements. The Chinese had been effectively halted at Doklam in west Bhutan in June 2017 and the PLA got a much larger dose of the same medicine from the same Army in east Ladakh for the better part of 2020.

Apparently, China has realised that being the bigger power, continuation of this standoff would not be to its advantage. This was one battle it may not be able to win by contact warfare.

However, if the Dragon has blinked, it is also due to various reasons which are not directly related to India. The LAC situation would be a minor headache for China compared to the problems it faces to its east and south-east. From Senkaku islands to the South China Sea, it has an inimical neighbourhood. Taiwan continues as a festering sore below its underbelly.

The Biden administration has yet to spell out any tangible policy changes from the last regime vis-à-vis China, but whatever has emerged so far appears a continuation of dealing with it from a position of strength.

The deployment of the Nimitz carrier strike group to join the Theodore Roosevelt strike group, on the heels of a French nuclear submarine sailing in the South China Sea, which China has convinced itself it owns, would surely be disquieting to its leadership and a bigger military challenge than Ladakh.

The protests in Hong Kong have been a constant irritant for the CCP leaders and make for poor optics. Its heavy-handed repression of the restive Uyghurs in Xinjiang shows China’s leadership very unfavourably. The much-flaunted Belt and Road Initiative is increasingly mired in controversy in many countries, seen it is as a debt trap. With all this on its plate, the Chinese leadership would do well to put the Ladakh issue on the back burner.

However, this is definitely not the last of it. To draw a parallel with Doklam, though the PLA was stopped from its direct progress further south, in the last three years, it has managed to circumvent that area by building a road to the east, through western Bhutan, by which it can outflank the Jampheri ridge line. It has also been busy settling population in newly created border villages, near sensitive and disputed areas on the LAC in Arunachal Pradesh.

While weather and terrain may make such settlements unfeasible in eastern Ladakh, China will surely look for indirect ways and means to achieve its objectives of regional dominance by pursuing territorial claims, however unfounded they may be. These would go beyond the military and could encompass economic, diplomatic and non-contact (non-kinetic) means of warfare.

As the pullback on the LAC progresses, there will be a bevy of experts who may question the tactical and operational wisdom of vacating areas occupied earlier, especially south of Pangong Tso. Rest assured that the formation and theatre commanders of the Indian Army are battle hardened professionals, who know what they are doing.

For India, being ever wary of its northern neighbour is a given. The Army needs to be equipped and prepared for the long haul all along the 3,500-km Line of Actual Control. More importantly, coordination between Indian defence and diplomacy has to remain on an upward trajectory.