The Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson’s remarks came a day after officials in New Delhi suggested that Indian & Chinese forces have undertaken a ‘limited disengagement’ in few areas.

The Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson’s remarks came a day after officials in New Delhi suggested that armies of India and China have undertaken a “limited disengagement” in few areas in eastern Ladakh in a demonstration of their intent to end the border standoff peacefully ahead of another round of military talks on Wednesday.

Asked about the reports of the troops on both sides disengaging and moving back to their previous positions, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying told a media briefing here that both sides are taking steps to ease the situation along the borders.

“Recently the diplomatic and military channels of China and India held effective communication on the situation along the border and reached positive consensus,” she said.

“The two sides are following this consensus to take actions to ease the situation along the borders, the spokesperson said.

Military sources in New Delhi said the two armies have begun “disengagement” around patrolling points 14 and 15 in Galwan Valley and another in the Hot Spring area, adding the Chinese side has even moved back up to 1.5 km in two areas.

Indian and Chinese troops have been engaged since May 5 following a violent clash in Pangong Tso.

The trigger for the face-off was China’s stiff opposition to India laying a key road in the Finger area around the Pangong Tso Lake besides construction of another road connecting the Darbuk-Shayok-Daulat Beg Oldie road in Galwan Valley.

During their military-level talks on June 6, India and China agreed to follow the broad decisions taken by their leaders in the Wuhan summit in 2018 to ensure peace and tranquillity along the Line of Actual Control.

On June 6, Lt General Harinder Singh, the general officer commanding of Leh-based 14 Corps, and Commander of the Tibet Military District Maj Gen Liu Lin held an extensive meeting.

The India-China border dispute covers the 3,488-km-long LAC. China claims Arunachal Pradesh as part of southern Tibet while India contests it.

Also read: The new reality of China-centric bipolar world order, and reasons behind Ladakh standoff

Army has proposed to change the way volunteers are selected and trained for special forces under Parachute Regiment, wants a maximum of 500 personnel trained in every course.

Top defence sources said it is being proposed that there should be a centralised training-based selection process of volunteers at the Special Forces Training School (SFTS) at Nahan in Himachal Pradesh. The school may also shift to Bakloh in the same state.

Currently, this rigorous training-based selection process, called probation, is conducted by different units of the Parachute Regiment.

The Parachute Regiment, under which come the special forces and airborne battalions, comprises specially trained personnel who volunteer from all arms and services of the Army. Officers and all other ranks can volunteer to join the regiment and the special forces.

The volunteers are put through a difficult probation of three months, and are inducted into the regiment or the special forces once they qualify.

Also read: Army reviewing policy to assign aides-de-camp to governors, cites shortage of young officers

Why the change?

According to sources, the current selection to the Parachute Regiment is conducted by the units in line with their operational requirements based on fixed theatres.

“So if a person is selected for operating in the deserts, he usually continues to operate in that theatre. But with changing operational requirements, each special forces unit may be needed to perform its role in more than one theatre,” a top defence source explained.

The source added that there is a requirement to multitask and also work in conjunction with other special forces units, and thus the need to expand the spectrum of training.

“Each soldier, after his probation, should expect and be prepared for operations in any terrain and operational environment,” the source said.

“The new system will standardise the selection and training procedures.”

A second source said the need to revisit the selection process also arose to address the shortfall of volunteers with the expansion of Parachute Regiment and special forces.

Also read: Covid blurs distinction between war and peace as soldiers worldwide fight the third army

What is the current process?

According to the current process, officers who volunteer first go to the Parachute Regimental Training Centre (PRTC) in Bengaluru and are subsequently sent to the Parachute Regiment units for the probation period. However, other ranks directly go to the units for the probation.

No one organisation conducts the probation, instead it is handled by the special forces unit taking in the volunteers.

“Each special forces unit prides itself in certain traditions and ethos … the probation is to ensure that the soldier is mentally adapted to these and willing to accept them,” said the first source quoted.

Officers who volunteer directly from the Army training academies — such as the Indian Military Academy in Dehradun and the Officers Training Academy in Chennai — or after a few years of service undergo an initial month-long training at the PRTC in Bengaluru.

The Military Secretary’s Branch assigns volunteers to airborne or special forces units during the phase 1 probation based on a battalion’s officer strength.

On clearing phase 1, officers move to the phase 2 of probation for three months.

In case of jawans, new recruits go to the PRTC and undergo the entire process. Those who volunteer from other regiments directly go to the units they are detailed for, and undergo the three-month probation there.

The Parachute Regiment units are allotted by infantry directorate based on deficiencies.

Most Army personnel volunteer for the special forces within the first two years of their career.

Also read: Online courses, non-contact sports — how military training is taking on Covid challenge

What is the new proposal?

The Army has proposed that volunteers for the special forces and the Parachute Regiment be given a two-month notice before the selection process begins, after which a week-long preparatory phase of orientation will take place.

Once the orientation is done, the first phase of training will include a four-week selection and screening process at Special Forces Training School.

After screening, they will be allotted to Parachute or special forces battalions through a board of officers.

Once allotted a battalion, volunteers will undergo phase 2 of probation — three months of training in basic skills. This will be different for special forces and airborne volunteers.

Subsequently, the selected group will go through a third level of training, which will include four weeks of the para basic course at the Parachute Training School in Agra.

The proposal says four courses can be held throughout the year — in March, June, September and December — with a maximum of 500 volunteers per course, including officers.

Also read: 5 Special Forces men, 5 terrorists: How a deadly hand-to-hand fight at the LoC unfolded

The talks between GOC (General Officer Commanding), 3 Division, and his Chinese counterpart came a day after both sides carried out “small disengagement” steps in multiple locations as part of confidence building measures.

The talks happened on a day the Chinese foreign ministry said that troops have started implementing the “positive consensus” reached by senior military officials of the two countries on 6 June aimed at “easing” the situation along the borders.

“The Div Commander level talks happened as per schedule. They carried forward the talks held by the 14 Corps Commander on Saturday,” a source said, without elaborating.

He said the talks were “longish” as they went on for about four hours.

Sources said multiple rounds of talks, both at military and diplomatic levels, will happen in the coming days.

They accepted that Pangong Lake remains a point of contention.

As reported by ThePrint on earlier, India has demanded that the Chinese maintain the status quo as of early April this year along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

This means the Chinese would have to pull back the troop build-up along the LAC in the Galwan Valley, and retreat from the transgressions in the larger Hot Springs area and the Finger area of the Pangong Lake.

Pangong Lake remains a point of contention

The main point of contention is ‘Finger 4’ area along the Pangong Lake, where the Chinese have come in and built structures to stop Indian patrol teams from going ahead.

Indians claim the LAC begins from Finger 8 of the Pangong Lake, a claim disputed by the Chinese.

ThePrint had earlier reported that that while “no transgressions have taken place in the Galwan Valley”, Chinese troops have come in at least 3 km into Indian territory in the larger Hot Spring Area — Patrol Point 14, 15 and Gogra Post (also known as PP 17) — besides in the Finger areas of Pangong Lake.

Nowhere have the Chinese crossed the Chinese Claim Line (CCL). In the strategic Galwan Valley, the CCL and the LAC are the same according to the understanding between the two sides at the local level, though no formal maps have been exchanged.

However, in the larger Hot Springs area and the Pangong river side, the CCL extends into the Indian territory and this is where the Chinese have come in.

Also read: CPEC is China-Pakistan corruption corridor. This challenges Indian security in new ways

PUNJAB EXPRESS BUREAU New Delhi, June 10 Indian and Chinese armies on Wednesday held Major General-level talks with an aim to end the military standoff in Pangong Tso and a number of other areas in eastern Ladakh, people familiar with the development said. In the over fourand-half-hour meeting, the Indian delegation pressed for restoration of status quo ante and immediate withdrawal of sizeable number of Chinese troops from all the standoff points, they said. The Major Generallevel dialogue took place in a “positive atmosphere” with an aim to further ease tension between the two sides, they said. The talks came a day after the two armies began a limited disengagement in a few areas in Galwan Valley and Hot Spring in a demonstration of their intent to end the row peacefully. However, both sides remained engaged in aggressive posturing in areas such as Pangong Tso, Daulat Beg Oldie and Demchok. Military sources on Tuesday said the two armies began “disengagement” around patrolling points 14 and 15 in Galwan Valley and another in the Hot Spring area, adding the Chinese side has even moved back up to 1.5 km in the two areas. Indian and Chinese troops have been engaged since May 5 following a violent clash in Pangong Tso. In their first serious efforts to end the row, Lt General Harinder Singh, the general officer commanding of Lehbased 14 Corps, and Commander of the Tibet Military District Maj Gen Liu Lin held an extensive meeting on June 6. China said on Wednesday that Indian and Chinese troops have started implementing the “positive consensus” reached by the senior military officials of the two countries on June 6 aimed at “easing” the situation along the borders.

Both the Indian Air Force (IAF) and PLAAF (People’s Liberation Army Air Force) had been flying their platforms since the stand-off between India and China’s armies began a month ago in the Galwan and Pangong Tso areas of eastern Ladakh.

Nepal Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli on Wednesday criticised Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath for his remarks on a border row, saying the Indian leader should be advised not to make “threatening” remarks.

Oli’s remarks were the latest twist in the border dispute between India and Nepal, which erupted last month when Kathmandu protested against the opening of an 80-km road running to Lipulekh on the border with Tibet. Nepal claims the Lipulekh region and the Oli government recently published a new political map that shows the area as part of Nepalese territory.

A constitutional amendment to give legal backing to the map was unanimously endorsed by lawmakers from all political parties in the House of Representatives or the lower house of Nepal’s Parliament on Tuesday.

Participating in a discussion on the issue in the lower house on Wednesday, Oli was quoted by media reports as saying that India’s central leadership should advise Adityanath not to “threaten” Nepal.

“Uttar Pradesh chief minister Adityanath-ji said some things about Nepal. His remarks were not appropriate or legitimate. The leadership of the central government [in India] should tell him not to speak on issues that he is not responsible for. He should also be told that his comments threatening Nepal will be condemned,” Oli said.

Oli was also quoted as questioning India’s contention that the regions of Lipulekh, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura are part of its territory. He said India had deployed its armed forces in these areas since the early 1960s but they belonged to Nepal.

There was no immediate response to Oli’s remarks from Indian officials.

During a recent interview, Adityanath had said Nepal should not “repeat the mistake of Tibet” while determining its political boundaries. “Nepal should think of the consequences and remember what happened to Tibet,” he had said.

Adityanath also said India and Nepal are two political entities but have one soul.

“The two countries have cultural, historical and mythological links that date back several centuries and Nepal should remember this,” he added.

While speaking in Parliament, Oli reiterated Nepal’s offer for a dialogue to settle the border issue. He said Nepal is confident about getting its territory back though diplomatic dialogue as its claims are backed by evidence.

Disturbing trends towards lead nation-led coalitions or lead nation-dominated military interventions have enervated the UN. There is a need to increase the number of permanent members so as to represent the world order. Let critical peace and security issues be decided in the Security Council by two-thirds majority, with no power of veto of any member.

Lt Gen Sanjiv Langer (retd)

former International Civil Servant, UN HQ

WITH the world in the aching throes of a horrifying pandemic, the US President announced withdrawal from the WHO on May 29.This follows a sequence of events and ferociously contested allegations between the US and China, and targeting of the WHO. Without fully verifiable facts, the allegations are open to equivocation. WHO is the visible fall guy, being hit when it is essential to the international battle against Covid-19. Financially, up to 15 per cent of its budget has evaporated, with wider effects. In the resultant ‘incoherence of global response’, the real loser is the community of nations struggling to defeat Covid-19

We need to take a wider view of this increasing phenomenon of the emasculation of the UN and the UN family. The boiling cauldron of Syria is instructive, a conflict that has extended for over a decade, resulted in an estimated 4,00,000 deaths, created 5.6 million refugees, and displaced 6.2 million people internally. Characterised by brutality and complete disregard of humanitarian considerations, the UN was repeatedly annulled by its own permanent members (P5). While there were numerous UN initiatives, draft resolutions, Human Rights Council reports, the Security Council— 15 members, including the P5 — was held hostage.

The acute divide comes in focus when, in contrast, the concern and consensus of the General Assembly (193 nations) is seen. In the UNSC, during this conflict, there have been 14 Russian, and at least seven Chinese vetoes. China supported Russia on most occasions even when it did not veto. What is painful is that but for the veto, the SC was in unison on the need for effective measures to end the conflict and deliver immediate humanitarian aid. These two permanent members even blocked the opening up of humanitarian access to the beleaguered citizens in Syria in December 2019.

During the period of this conflict, the SC was permitted some resolutions on illicit financing, chemical weapons, humanitarian aid, and resolution 2254 of 2015 gave a roadmap for peace. The action end was always curtailed with even the military observer mission collapsing due to violence. It is one thing to approve an investigation team for chemical weapons, quite another to allow it actual access for the investigation.

Let’s wind back to the WHO and the pandemic. In the UNSC, even a discussion on the pandemic was not permitted by the US and China due to their ‘personal’ antagonism for four months. This is in acute contrast with the Ebola epidemic, where the SC resolutions of July 2000 (1308) and September 2014 (2177) galvanised global support. Naturally, the WHO, among others, was at the forefront of that campaign.

In March this year, China, as the chair, blocked discussions on the pandemic. It is only in April, when the Dominican Republic took over, that a draft resolution was fielded. This was, however, blocked by the US on May 9. With close to 206 nations and territories affected and nearly 40% of the cases in the P5 nations and a clear precedence of Ebola, the UNSC has not been permitted to act.

During the same period, the UNGA adopted a resolution co-sponsored by 188 nations, including India, articulating solidarity to fight the Covid-19 pandemic. It is a fine manifestation of the international will, but why not the full institutional power of the UNSC? Evident is a debilitating malaise in the UN family, orchestrated by members who are chartered to be more responsible.

Admittedly, when the UN Charter was adopted, it was far from democratic. The vesting of special role to the P5, a fallout of World War II, and other factors, was iniquitous. Despite this, till the 1990s, the UN managed quite well in peace and security, despite some failures, such as in Congo (1960-64).

Commencing with Cambodia (1991-93), and, more significantly, Somalia (1991-95), the UN struggled with complex emergencies, a genre that has continued till the missions in Sudan.

Those who have worked in the UN are aware of the politics and predilections of the P5. Mandate formulation and mission execution was challenging and complex. The finalisation of the rules of engagement and operational guidance for missions was peppered with impediments. There was, however, no despondency and the organisation struggled on. This was a reflection of the belief in the UN. Multifaceted security situations and human suffering was not wished away (with exceptions, for example Rwanda, the Great Lakes Region, Africa). Also, as peacekeepers, we were aware that the members of the UN family, like WHO, WFP, UNDP, UNHCR and committed NGOs such as MSF and the ICRC were effective well before the UN missions and stayed on till well after. In many cases, they gave vital support for UN missions.

Disregarding this, the disturbing recent trends towards the lead nation-led coalitions or lead nation-dominated military interventions have enervated the UN. A graduation of this trend is now the complete obstruction of the UN or its negation (WHO), at the behest of the P5. Those charter-bound for greater responsibility have become its greatest adversaries. In exception, France and the UK of the P5 cannot be encumbered with this stigma.

The international community has reached a stage where the tragedy of Syria has manifested and continues, while the UN is hostage to select members of the P5. While the world community sees its duty to humanity, these select members do not. A direct attack has been launched on the WHO, which is critical to the world at this stage. The world community needs and wants the WHO. Can the autocracy of the few ruin the commitment of the world community? With the UN structured the way it is, unfortunately, yes.

The way ahead lies in not only empowering the UN and increasing the number of permanent members, but also in obliterating the veto. Permanent members need to increase to represent the world order. This should be centred on their commitment and capabilities. Let critical peace and security issues be decided in the Security Council by two-thirds majority, with no power of veto of any member.

With the cascading US withdrawal from world fora and China’s obsession with the capture of strategic international space, their veto privilege is anachronistic. Russia, with its impressive rebound, fired by Syria, and hydrocarbons, is seeking its own unique world stature. An objective commitment is suspect. The veto power with them is irrational.

The community of nations has shown its might in the General Assembly repeatedly, in sharp contrast to the P5 members. As a first, we should demand an amendment of the UN Charter to strike down veto powers. If the immense suffering caused, in conflict and health, is meditated on, we, as a conscientious member of the UN, would do well to recall the words of Guru Gobind Singh in his Zafarnama: ‘B-Been Gardish-e Be-wafaai-e-zamaan, Pas-e-pusht Uftad Rasaanad Ziyaan’ (Look at the turn of the unfaithful world, when it sets itself after someone, it inflicts injury and does harm to him).