New Delhi: Amid continued tensions at the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Ladakh, with both India and China ramping up military presence, the focus is on an “amicable solution” through talks, ThePrint has learnt.

Sources told ThePrint that a review of the security situation has been held at various levels, since tensions cropped up early this month.

While noting that the tensions have increased, sources said established channels have been activated to talk and de-escalate the situation.

“The focus is on an amicable solution,” a source said, adding that steps have been taken to counter the Chinese mobilisation at the LAC, which has escalated tensions in the Galwan Valley, Hot Springs area and the ‘Finger’ area of the Pangong lake in eastern Ladakh.

Also read: Stand-off with China in Ladakh is India’s worst border tension since Kargil in 1999

No escalation since mid-May

Sources told ThePrint that there has not been any escalation in the situation in eastern Ladakh since the middle of May, which they say is a good development.

Officials said while the military has taken position and done proactive preventive deployment in the west and central sectors of the LAC, and is prepared for a long stand-off, established channels for resolution of border issues are working round the clock.

While several rounds of military talks have taken place at the local level in Ladakh, no major breakthrough has been achieved.

Diplomatic channels have been activated to ensure that the situation calms down.

Why the Chinese are peeved

As reported by ThePrint earlier, the Chinese are peeved at a road construction work that India is carrying out from ‘Finger 2’ area of Pangong Lake, as well as a feeder road to the strategic Shyok-Daulat Beg Oldi road constructed last year.

While the Shyok-DBO road is well within its territory, India is constructing feeder roads to the LAC, which would enable faster movement of troops and equipment.

The Chinese themselves have built roads near the LAC, but keep objecting to India’s construction.

Army chief Gen. M.M. Naravane had made it clear on 14 May that the development of infrastructure capabilities along the northern borders is on track.

ThePrint had reported that India has decided to “dig in” and conduct “mirror deployment” as China has brought in a large number of its Border Defence Regiment (BDR) troops to the Galwan Valley to force the Indian Border Roads Organisation (BRO) to stop infrastructure-development activities.

Sources maintained that additional troops deployed by China in the Galwan Valley are on their side of the LAC, but they are accompanied by heavy vehicles and logistics such as tents to house the soldiers.

However, Chinese soldiers are said to have “come in” by about 3 km into territory that India perceives as its own. This is near Patrol Point 14, 15 and the Gogra Post, which is several kilometres South East of Galwan Valley as the crow flies, and is between the Valley and Pangong lake. This is largely known as the Hot Springs area, according to the sources.

Sources told ThePrint that the Chinese have not crossed their claim line in these areas, but said these areas are about 3 km within India’s perception of the LAC.

Also read: In Ladakh, like in Doklam, China must learn to deal with the assertive Indian soldier on LAC

The standoff in Ladakh has been triggered by Chinese People’s Liberation Army effort to block building border infrastructure in the Daulat Beg Oldie sector

India has pushed in high altitude warfare troops with support elements to the eastern Ladakh theatre to counter Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) aggressive posture designed to browbeat the government to stop building border infrastructure in the Daulat Beg Oldie (DBO) sector as it may threaten the Lhasa-Kashgar highway in Aksai Chin. The specialised Indian troops are familiar with the Tibetan Autonomous Region of China and are tuned for operating at rarefied altitudes.

The scale of PLA deployment – two brigades strength and more – indicates that the move has the sanction of Beijing and not limited to local military commanders.

“From Australia to Hong Kong to Taiwan to the South China Sea to India and right up to the US, a bellicose China is staring at the world for domination at all costs,” said a senior government official after a meeting convened by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to review the situation on Tuesday.

CDS Gen Bipin Rawat was the Army Chief in 2017 when the Doklam standoff with China had taken place

Also Watch | ‘China hindering patrolling’: India slams Beijing after Ladakh, Sikkim fistfights

For three faces at PM Modi’s strategy meeting, this was the second time in three years that they were faced with a similar situation. National Security Adviser Ajit Doval, Chief of Defence Staff General Bipin Rawat and Foreign Minister S Jaishankar. This was the team that had crafted India’s response to the Doklam standoff in 2017 that lasted 73 days. General Rawat was then the army chief and Jaishankar, India’s foreign secretary.

Also Read: India matches up to China’s military in standoff near Karakoram Pass

The messaging from Tuesday’s meeting mirrored India’s response to the 2017 standoff when Indian troops dug in and stood their ground in the face of a rapid mobilisation by the Chinese side.

Officials said while India favours de-escalating the situation on the LAC through mutual respect and dialogue under the peace and tranquility mechanism in place, PM Modi’s ‘Doklam team’ has been told to prepare for all eventualities.

In purely military terms, the Chinese dominance and deterrence posture in the DBO sector is an effort by the PLA to try to prevent India from executing its rapid border infrastructure building plan. This summer is the last chance it has.

“The Darbuk-Shyok-DBO road will be completed this year and will raise the Indian capacity to rapidly deploy in the area. If the road project is blocked, the Indian Army will be forced to live off aerial supply lines and prepare for an arduous route linking Sansoma to Murgo to DBO through glaciated Saser La,” a national security planner in the government said.

Also Read: China’s tactical play in Ladakh isn’t just about the boundary

To be sure, there has been friction between the Indian Army and PLA in Pangong Tso, Galwan and Depsang Plains for the last two years. But most of these were taken care of.

“Just as China has built infrastructure within its own claim line without any objections from India, the former is opposed to any Indian infrastructure build up as if New Delhi has military objectives while Beijing has done this to promote tourism,” said a former army chief, a reference to the infrastructure on the Chinese side where all military outposts are linked by metalled roads to the base camps.

Also Read: Resolution of the Doklam stand-off is a case study on how to deal with China

While China has all plans to stare down India into submission with its all-weather ally Pakistan deliberately initiating troop movement in neighbouring Gilgit-Baltistan region, India cannot afford to budge from its position as this will amount to acceding to Xi Jinping’s cartographic expansion in the area through military muscle.

It is in this context that the Indian Army has inducted more troops in the theatre with others undergoing through the acclimatization process as this may be a long haul.

“The Chinese have already initiated psychological operations through its mouthpieces to remind India of the 1962 border skirmish in the same area. But this is 2020 and the leader is Narendra Modi,” said a senior cabinet minister.

The Chinese envoy underlined how the two nations are fighting the scourge of Covid-19 together and urged the youth to view each favourably.

he two nations pose no threat to each other, stressed Chinese envoy in India Sun Weidong on Wednesday amid face-off between New Delhi and Beijing over the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the Ladakh sector recently. The envoy further stressed that any “differences” can be solved through communication.

“We should never let differences overshadow our relations. We should resolve differences through communication,” envoy Sun Weidong was quoted as saying by news agency ANI.

The Chinese envoy underlined how the two nations are fighting the scourge of Covid-19 together and urged the youth to view each other favourably.

“China and India are fighting together against Covid-19 and we have an important task to consolidate relations. Our youth should realise the relation between China and India, the two countries are opportunities for each other and pose no threat,” Weidong was quoted again by ANI.

The external affairs ministry said last week the Indian side remained firmly committed to the common objective of maintaining peace and tranquillity in border areas, as this is an essential prerequisite to further development of India-China relations.

On Tuesday, India, officials familiar with developments said, won’t allow any alteration of the status quo on the LAC and the build-up of Chinese troops will be faced with “strength and restraint”.

In many ways, India’s position is a reiteration of the stance it adopted during the 73-day standoff at Doklam in 2017, when Indian troops dug in and stood their ground in the face of a rapid mobilisation by the Chinese side.

PM Modi also met National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and Chief of Defence Staff Gen Bipin Rawat last evening to assess the situation along the LAC amid a tense standoff between thousands of Indian and Chinese troops, especially Galwan Valley and Pangong Lake in eastern Ladakh.

HT was the first to report on May 10 about tensions flaring between India and China in north Sikkim, where 150 soldiers were involved in a tense clash a day earlier. Four Indian and seven Chinese soldiers were injured at Naku La during the confrontation.

Around 250 soldiers from the two sides also clashed near Pangong Lake on the night of May 5-6, with the scuffle leaving scores injured. While an immediate flare-up was avoided as both armies stuck to protocols to resolve the situation, tensions spread to other pockets along the LAC.

Wg Cdr JS Bhalla (retd)

During the lockdown, the things that mark our day — commuting to work, sending kids to school, having a drink with friends — have vanished. Life has come to a standstill. However, stray dogs, who have the roads to themselves, can be seen sunbathing in golden silence. I observed a few enjoying pollution-free vatavaran in front of my house. This reminded me of Boozo, an adorable pet of Flt Lt TK Chaudhuri.

I was posted at the Ambala Air Force Station in 1961. Chaudhuri, a fighter pilot and a teetotaller, was my next-door neighbour. After days of flying, he would relax in the corridor, playing guitar. In squadron parties, he would render soul-stirring melodies of the past, keeping the audience spellbound.

His brown dog was a companion who brought joy to his life. It was a delight to watch the dog delivering the newspaper to his master. The dog would wag his tail to express his happiness whenever Chou, as he was called, was home.

In early 1965, when tension was brewing across the western border, we moved to our operational locations. The Air Traffic Services were made operational in a wooden hut, where one could barely squeeze in with the equipment neatly stacked. Trenches were dug all around to jump in during air raids. Choudhuri, along with his squadron, flew to Halwara. He gave the custody of Boozo to his trustworthy sahayak, Gopi.

In the beginning of September 1965, Pakistan attacked Akhnoor sector, destroying the Akhnoor bridge — a vital link of communication for us. The induction of the Indian Air Force into the battle at that time ruined the well-thought-out plans of the Pakistan army. During an air battle, Flt Lt Trevor Keelor was credited for the shooting of a Sabre by his invisible Gnat. We yelled and welcomed the news by thumping the tables. We were still in the midst of our rejoicing when news trickled down that we had lost Chou in an operation. Words froze in my throat; I couldn’t budge an inch.

Things were not normal with Boozo either. He was no more playful, and wailed a lot for his master to return. He refused to eat anything. It took him some time to realise that Chou had gone forever, and when he did, his health declined rapidly, leading to a frightening visit to the vet. We were told that he may not last long. As he lay dying, Boozo went quiet, but his eyes expressed the pain he was going through. We were all sad when he passed away. The demise of his master was too harsh for him to bear. His death exhibited the sacred bond that existed between the master and his pet. He was given a befitting burial.

Sumedha Sharma

Thirty-nine-year-old Lt Col Robert TA was a loving son, husband, officer, friend, comrade, dear senior and so much more. He bid the world adieu for his second innings, leaving behind a tale of camaraderie, brotherhood, compassion, and an envious smile few can boast of!

Col Robert was martyred when an avalanche hit a patrol party in Lugnak La area of north Sikkim on May 14. Hailing from Senapati district in Manipur, he was the first officer from the Maram Naga community to join the Army’s technical wing.

“I am deeply aggrieved to learn about the sad demise of Lt Col Robert TA of the 3rd Engineers Regiment of the Indian Army. Apart from serving the Indian Army in different capacities in different parts of the country, he was associated with different sporting events and brought laurels to his regiment… May his soul rest in peace,” the Manipur CM, N Biren Singh, said in a tribute.

A heated confrontation recently took place between the Indian and Chinese soldiers in north Sikkim, resulting in injuries to troops on both sides. Despite a warning from the Snow and Avalanche Study Establishment of an avalanche in the region, ground commanders knew that keeping all roads open was an operational necessity. With this objective, Col Robert and his team went ahead with snow clearance, while planning for weather and enemy contingencies.

“The news of the avalanche flashed and we learnt that Robert was missing. The other soldiers had been found and evacuated. We hoped that Robert would be all right. When the news of his supreme sacrifice came, it was hard to believe. The ever-smiling, the ever-enthusiastic Robert was no more,” a close friend shared.

They weren’t there hiking or trekking, but to open a road axis rendered non-operational due to snowfall. They knew their life was at stake, yet they went about their task with unflinching devotion. Col Robert was a highly motivated officer, leading from the front. A football wizard, he could ‘bend it like Beckham’.

Robo, our hero, will live in the hearts of friends and family. “An irreplaceable loss, our God of football, humane and compassionate… he was like a big brother,” said another grief-stricken friend.

Like many who gave up their lives for their motherland, we do not know one promise these men made, one pledge they gave, one word they spoke; but we know they summed up and perfected, by one supreme act, the highest virtues of men and citizens.

In all this din, when the country is busy combating Covid-19, some other heroes have bid adieu forever, silently. They are not just Indian soldiers; they are the true pride of every Indian. We citizens must remember all those brave souls whose sacrifices went unrecognised — they were as brave as the ones we honoured.

Dear Robo, your impressions of life will forever colour the journey of those who came across you.

Lt Gen KJ Singh (retd)

As India takes on Covid-19, I am reminded of a regimental health emergency we battled in April 1980. My roommate announced that he had caught viral infection, which had been reported in Ambala by a few others. His eyes had a distinct pinkish hue and were watering. It was fairly apparent that he had conjunctivitis. As it’s highly contagious, I tried to maintain social distance to the extent possible, in a shared room with beds 4 ft apart and a common toilet. I was doing Adjutant duties, and spending the maximum time in office was a good option. My roommate didn’t believe in concepts like quarantine, and despite being declared sick in quarters, his social forays continued.

Though this infection is limited to the eyes and is highly irritating, it tends to go away in a week. Over the next two days during PT and other regimental parades, it was distressing to see the infection acquiring a virulent form and jawans donning all kinds of sunglasses. My CO got it soon after, and even I was wearing goggles, notwithstanding the irritating infection, refusing to be declared positive.

Regimental Medical Officers (RMOs), due to a shortage of doctors, are rare to find, and invariably shared among units. Our RMO, Capt PK Ghosh, came directly from the medical college after his brief mandatory orientation. Trains those days normally ran six-eight hours late. He arrived past midnight, when a party was in full flow. Upon introduction, he was given regimental wisdom — Peekay (after drinking), one can become madhosh (drunk), but can’t be Ghosh. He readily imbibed not only this wisdom but also reasonable quantities of drinks, becoming a jolly good doctor!

The problem was serious as the RMO was on leave and Gurcharan, his assistant, was holding the fort. Regiments had no medically trained nursing assistants. Gurcharan had learnt it on the job. During a football match, I was forced to take stitches by him. My surgeon-brother saw them later and remarked that only a vet could display such expertise. No wonder, jawans called him neem hakeem.

Saturdays in the Army are utilised for interior economy, as ‘make and mend’ or administrative days. It was decided to extend it till further orders. The meagre stock of eye drops and painkillers, affectionately called ‘All Pain Cure’ (APC) were distributed. Regimental advisory was simple: avoid eye contact, a tacit form of lockdown. Next week, the regiment limped back to normalcy. Die-hard ones like my roommate continued to educate us on the criticality of eyesight, and even warned us of a relapse. Lockdown was becoming part of regimental DNA.

Realising this impasse, we passed simple orders — conjunctivitis is over and there is no relapse; shades are no longer allowed during parade; regimental PT and other parades to resume. One only hopes that life can be equally simple beyond the regiment, and similar orders can be passed — corona has been deported; rise and shine.

Jayadeva Ranade

President, Centre for China Analysis and Strategy

There is high anxiety in the upper echelons of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership in Beijing at the present state of China-US relations. Official Chinese think tanks have described China-US tensions as at a ‘dangerous’ turn and apprehend that relations could rapidly deteriorate further leading even to conflict. China’s leadership assesses that tensions have been sharply accentuated by the coronavirus pandemic and that the consequent worldwide rise in anti-China sentiment has been fanned by the US. The CCP leadership is divided, however, on whether it should make concessions in order to repair relations with the US.

Three Chinese think tanks recently analysed different aspects of US-China relations and issued their reports in late April. Affirming China’s need for good ties with the US, two of them recommended measures to arrest the slide in China-US relations and turn the anti-China sentiment, including in the US, in China’s favour. None recommended yielding concessions to the US, which would mean altering the assertive foreign policy being followed by Chinese President Xi Jinping, and neither suggested steps that might provoke the US. There were two prominent Chinese, though, who hinted through the Hong Kong media at ways to reduce tensions.

The suggestions of these two officials seemed to dilute the deadlines on aspects of China’s ‘Two Centenary’ goals — which include reunification of Taiwan with the mainland and establishment of sovereignty over the South China Sea. Chinese officials have traditionally resorted to publicising their own, or their patrons’, views that are controversial through the Hong Kong media which is read by senior cadres inside China. It is indicative also of serious differences within the top echelons of China’s leadership on whether to re-orient China’s foreign policy.

Reuters reported on May 4 that the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), a think tank of China’s Ministry of State Security (MoSS), had presented an ‘internal’ report to President Xi Jinping and top Chinese leaders in early April. It warned that Beijing faces a rising wave of hostility in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak that could tip relations with the United States into confrontation.

The report concluded that anti-China sentiment globally is at its highest since the Tiananmen Square crackdown and could fuel resistance to China’s Belt and Road infrastructure investment projects. Washington could also step up financial and military support for regional allies, making the security situation in Asia more volatile. The report said Beijing faces a wave of anti-China sentiment led by the United States in the aftermath of the pandemic and needs to be prepared in a worst-case scenario for armed confrontation. It added that the US aims to undercut the CCP by undermining public confidence.

A People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Daily essay on May 5, reinforced the CICIR’s assessment and described the bleak economic and political situation as having reached a ‘high explosive point’. It cautioned that major foreign powers could utilise the difficult global economic situation for gaining overall strategic advantage and use the economic crisis to cause a recession in China and provoke social upheaval. Advocating the need for financial and military preparedness, it warned that an economic crisis could cause a political crisis.

On April 24, China’s biggest government think tank, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) published in its China Social Science Journal a lengthy 3,152-character report analysing US media attacks against China during the Covid-19 pandemic. Published only in Chinese, it identified six main characteristics of the US media ‘slandering and denigrating China’ and said Beijing needs to prepare for future propaganda wars against China during major emergencies.

The CASS report recommended six steps for winning ‘public opinion battles’. Among them are: coordinating with government media, private media, diplomats, enterprises and think tanks to coordinate quick and effective counter-attacks; use all channels including social media and mobilise companies, think tanks, foreign scholars and experts who are ‘China-friendly’ to speak and write articles on foreign platforms; and hire and train people to write op-ed articles in foreign languages and ‘borrow’ think-tank experts and foreign journalists to edit Chinese state media abroad.

The so-called ‘private’ Beijing-based Minzhi International Research Institute, published an article on US-China relations on April 24. The think tank is important because it is headed by Prof Zhang Weiwei, a former Chinese Foreign Ministry official who has successively worked as a translator for then Premier Li Peng, Vice Premier Wan Li and Deng Xiaoping.

Asserting ‘there is no doubt that we can achieve a great renaissance and may even surpass the United States’, the article emphasised ‘senior Chinese officials are very clear-headed that they must improve Sino-US relations’ in which China has invested heavily.

The article discussed 12 ways of reducing anti-China influence in the US, including mobilising lobbies to influence government, and reducing ‘unnecessary’ panic of Americans about China. Panic, it said, will hamper China’s development and rise and ‘is very likely to harm our own fundamental interests.’

Many senior party cadres and officials in Chinese think tanks have since mid-2018 privately blamed Xi Jinping’s aggressive foreign policy for China’s growing international isolation, rapidly deteriorating relations with the US, and poor international image.

Any substantive effort to repair relations with the US would mean backtracking on the ‘Two Centenary’ goals, on which Xi Jinping has staked personal prestige and authority. It would imply reverting to Deng Xiaoping’s policy of ‘lie low, bide your time’. Xi Jinping is unlikely to quietly yield to inner-party opposition.

Manoj Joshi

Distinguished Fellow, Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi

How must one deconstruct the ongoing Sino-Indian face-off along the Line of Actual Control (LAC)? Are events in Naku La in Sikkim and Pangong Tso, Hot Springs, Galwan Valley in Ladakh connected? Or do they have independent drivers? As usual, the answers are not clear, though we should be clear that the actions are about signalling, not making war.

If the events are connected, they are being directed at the theatre level and may have a larger purpose. But if not, should they not be seen as a part of the normal summer-time patrol rush? This is now more frenetic because both sides have improved their infrastructure and mount more patrols in areas where there is a difference of perception with regard to the LAC.

There is one problem with this thesis. Galwan, Hot Springs and Naku La have not been on the list of the 16-odd places along the LAC where there have historically been differing perceptions of the LAC and consequent ‘transgressions’. These have been addressed by a range of agreements with standard operating procedures laid down to prevent any escalation of tensions. Reports now suggest that the tension in Pangong and Naku La has died down. But the Galwan situation remains a puzzle.

First, let us enter a caveat. China does not have an independent media but India does. And it is important to always question official accounts. Media personnel have no access to the areas we are talking about—Galwan, Hot Springs, north bank of Pangong. What we know is what we are being told by some agency—maybe the intelligence, the Army, or the ITBP. In the past, their approach has sometimes been mendacious and quirky.

In 2009, there were a spate of articles in the Indian media charging China with violating the LAC. In September, ‘official sources’ said Chinese forces had intruded 1.5 km into the Indian side of the LAC near Chumar, and sprayed the word ‘China’ in red paint on many rocks there. In June, two Chinese helicopters had violated the Indian air space near Chumar. A PTI report reportedly based on confidential defence documents said Chinese helicopters entered the Indian air space in Demchok area and the Trig heights in north Ladakh, and air-dropped canned food, which were past their ‘use by’ date.

As for Galwan, India has wrought a qualitative change in the area by completing the Durbuk-Shyok-Daulat Beg Oldi road in April 2019. This is also known as the Sub Sector North road and has strengthened India’s posture in this strategic area greatly. The current stand-off was apparently triggered by India trying to build a branch of this road up to its own side of the LAC in the Galwan Valley.

Alarmist reports saying the Chinese have actually intruded into the Indian side area are difficult to accept, since the LAC is just about 10 km from the road. In any case, the Chinese already dominate parts of the road from the heights on their side of the LAC.

Forces in Galwan are separated by at least 500 metres, though the PLA movements seem designed to block further construction of the Galwan Valley road. But they are not into fist fights, as in the Pangong area; or face to face, as in Doklam. Perhaps this is a result of jangled nerves in the local Chinese HQ which has long been used to dominating the area, or a longer term calculation relating to defending Tibet in relation to growing Indian capabilities in eastern Ladakh and northern Sikkim.

A large part of the problem arises from the shifting Chinese stand on just where the LAC lies in the western sector, where their claims have always been somewhat murky. The Chinese claim line of 1956, reaffirmed by Premier Zhou Enlai in 1959, showed both Chip Chap and Galwan rivers flowing into the Shyok, outside their claim. In 1960, they expanded their claim and occupied the Chip Chap and Galwan river valleys. A similar move led to the occupation of Siri Jap on the Pangong Tso. Indians set up posts to counter them, but these were not tenable and wiped out in the 1962 War, after which China occupied another 5,000 sq km along the LAC.

There is a possibility that all the events — in Sikkim, Pangong, Galwan — have another driver: Covid tensions between the US and China. Last week, somewhat uncharacteristically, its outgoing top diplomat for the region, Alice Wells, said the tensions were a reminder of the ‘threat’ posed by China. She added that whether it was the South China Sea of the border with India, ‘we continue to see provocations and disturbing behaviour by China’.

Hit by Covid, and the economic disruption, the Chinese are rattled by the increasingly hostile US. In the past couple of months, temperatures in the South China Sea have been rising; now, US actions, triggered by the approaching elections, have pumped anti-China rhetoric to a dangerously high level. So, Beijing could well be doing some signalling, warning New Delhi to stay away from whatever Washington has to offer. The actions across the LAC could well be a signal to suggest that India, too, has many immediate vulnerabilities and getting involved in any US-led venture could be counterproductive.

Vappala Balachandran

Ex-Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat

Various theories are being proffered on the recent spurt in Chinese incursions, either directly or through third parties like Nepal. Some say that it is to pressure us during the forthcoming WHO-sponsored investigation on the origin of the coronavirus. Others say that it is due to the inner power struggle within the Chinese leadership.

In making a judgement, we should also take into consideration the traditional Chinese way of thinking that the past is a guide for the present and the future. We should also consider the predictable Chinese behaviour while facing, in their assessment, a ‘siege situation’. Hence, I feel that Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s complaint on May 24, directed at America, has considerable significance for us. Wang Yi said that the coronavirus and global trade matters “are taking China-US relations hostage and pushing our two countries to the brink of a new cold war”. He added: “It’s time for the United States to give up its wishful thinking of changing China and stopping 1.4 billion people in their historic march toward modernisation.”

While dealing with siege situations in the past, we also witnessed Chinese anger spewing over those who are considered by them as proxies of their main targets. Thus, around 49 years ago, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger got an earful from Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai on July 10, 1971, for aligning with the Soviet Union, their main enemy at that time. Kissinger, who had come secretly with Pakistan’s help to Beijing to arrange President Richard Nixon’s visit to Beijing to start diplomatic relations, was taken aback by the Chinese fury during his talks lasting 17 hours. Zhou told him that a united US-Soviet Union-Japan axis could try to “carve up China”, but China would resist it by a protracted people’s warfare “engaging in a long-term struggle until victory.”

China also singled out India as the Soviet Union’s proxy by favouring ‘Nehru’s aggression’. He told Kissinger that China had built a road in 1951 connecting Sinkiang with Ali district in Tibet, through ‘their’ Aksai-Chin plateau. At Nikita Khrushchev’s instigation, Nehru started claiming this area from 1956 by using a British traveller’s map.

The December 1959 incident took place when India tried to capture the Chinese post in Ladakh. Khrushchev asked Tass to brand China as aggressor. In June 1959, he tore up the Soviet agreement on atomic cooperation with China. “He brought these two things — the Soviet support to India and the tearing up of the nuclear cooperation agreement with China — as gifts to Camp David.”

Kissinger made no attempt to correct Zhou who was chronologically wrong in regard to the Ladakh incident. Khrushchev visited the US for 13 days from September 15 to 27, 1959, as President Dwight Eisenhower’s guest. It also included their talks at Camp David. The Chinese aggression in Ladakh took place on October 21, 1959, in which they killed 10 CRPF men. None in India had imagined the intensity of the Chinese anger until these declassified records were published in 2002.

I was closely involved in the preparatory work on behalf of my organisation for the path-breaking visit of the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to China during December 19-23, 1988. From then onwards, the Indo-China border was quiet till 1998. On May 13, 1998, the New York Times published the secret letter from Prime Minister Vajpayee to President Bill Clinton, giving our reasons for nuclear testing. Even now, none knows who had leaked it. However, it caused great embarrassment to India with no benefits from the US.

The letter said: “We have an overt nuclear weapon state on our borders, a state which committed armed aggression against India in 1962… To add to the distrust, that country has materially helped another neighbour of ours to become a covert nuclear weapons state…”

China has another grievance against India. When Nixon visited China in 1972, their main anger was against the Soviet Union and also on India for not settling the border issues like other countries. The Chinese negotiating technique is harping upon the same points without any regard to truth or validity until the other side gets tired. Now, only India is left out as Russia finally signed the border treaty on July 21, 2008.

Their 4,300-km border had seen violent clashes since March 2, 1969, when the PLA killed 58 Soviet troops on a disputed stretch on Zhenbao Island on the eastern border. These clashes went on till March 17. Clashes broke out on the western border too on August 13, 1969 in which the Chinese lost 28 soldiers. In 2008, China claimed that Russians had conceded most of Chinese claims in the final round of talks. This involved land transfer of half of Heixiazi Island and all of Yinlong Island.

A Hudson Institute paper of August 1, 2008 said that despite persistent Russian prodding, China is unwilling to make major territorial concessions to India “so that all three countries might form an influential trilateral Moscow-Beijing-New Delhi alignment in Eurasian politics.”

The present BJP-led government has given sufficient indications since 2014 that their main foreign and security policy alignment is with the United States. We are also on board with the latest US policy of punishing China by diverting American companies to other countries, including India. Uttar Pradesh has been identified as the destination for such investments. In April, we also changed the rules to block the automatic route for approving FDI from China, which has been branded as discriminatory by them.

Thus, my 40 years’ study of the Chinese habit leads me to believe that they would hit at those who they believe are ‘accessories’ when they are unable to confront the main targets.

In recapitulating all these, I am only conveying that we would go seriously wrong in not understanding the Chinese mind. We would be equally wrong in convincing ourselves that these are temporary aberrations by their local army units or that the power struggle in China would enable us to ignore such border skirmishes.

India now has the dubious distinction of being the Asian nation with the highest number of coronavirus cases. At a time when the country ought to be devoting all its energies to containing the pandemic, it is constrained to keep an eye on the Line of Actual Control (LAC), where Chinese transgressions are growing by the day. Facing the prospect of international isolation over its handling of the Covid-19 crisis, China is busy throwing its weight around in the neighbourhood. ‘Chinese aggression’, the term often used for the 1962 war, is gradually acquiring a contemporary ring. At Galwan in eastern Ladakh, Chinese troops have positioned themselves 3-4 km inside the line indisputably claimed by India. Such brazenness has apparently not been witnessed in decades. China is also cocking a snook at the border pacts signed since 1993, including the Border Defence Cooperation Agreement of 2013.

A former Foreign Secretary, who also served as the chairman of the National Security Advisory Board, has stated that the Chinese actions could be a three-pronged warning to India: don’t join US-led China-bashing over Covid-19; refrain from backing the restoration of observer status to Taiwan in the World Health Organisation (WHO); and desist from steps that harm China’s economic interests. With India now heading the WHO’s Executive Board, and an inquiry into the origin of the lethal virus imminent, China seems keen on browbeating its neighbour into toeing the line rather than acknowledging the latter’s growing clout in the international arena.

The onus is on New Delhi to exercise restraint. Yet, this is also the time for resolute assertion of India’s interests. India’s priority is to tackle the unprecedented health and humanitarian crisis. In the tug-of-war between the US and China, India is merely guarding its own sovereignty. At the same time, it would be naïve of China to assume that it can plough a lonely furrow in the post-pandemic world. That’s where India has a chance to build on the success of the Wuhan and Mamallapuram summits and make China see reason. Bilateral cooperation, not one-upmanship, should be the way forward.