Air Chief Marshal RKS Bhadauria today said that the IAF was well prepared and suitably deployed to respond to any contingency along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
The Air Force Chief was speaking after reviewing the passing-out parade of officers at the IAF Academy, Dundigal, around 40 km from Hyderabad. “I assure the nation that we are determined to deliver and will never let the sacrifice of our braves of Galwan go in vain,” he said.
“I salute the act of Col Santosh Babu and his men in defending the LAC. It shows our resolve,” he said.
In spite of unacceptable Chinese actions in violation of agreements reached during military talks and the resultant loss of life, all efforts were underway to ensure that the current situation along LAC was resolved peacefully, he added. — TNS
US talking to India and China, will try and help them out: Trump They’ve come to blows, and we’ll see what happens. We’ll try and help them out: Trump
he United states is talking to both India and China to help them resolve their ongoing border tensions, President Donald Trump said on Saturday.
Washington, June 21
The United states is talking to both India and China to help them resolve their ongoing border tensions, President Donald Trump said on Saturday.
“It’s a very tough situation. We’re talking to India. We’re talking to China. They’ve got a big problem there,” Trump told reporters at the White House before boarding Marine 1 on his way to his first post-COVID19 election rally in Oklahoma.
“They’ve come to blows, and we’ll see what happens. We’ll try and help them out,” Trump said when asked about his assessment of the situation between India and China.
Over the past few days, the entire Trump Administration has rallied behind India against the illegitimate incursions of the Chinese Army into the Indian side of the Line of Actual Control in Eastern Ladakh.
As many as 20 Indian soldiers achieved martyrdom in fierce clashes against Chinese intruders into Galwan Valley in Ladakh early this week. Indians, according to US intelligence sources, killed more than 35 Chinese soldiers during the skirmish.
The United States has accused China of escalating border tension with India and other neighbours by trying to take benefit of these countries busy fighting coronavirus pandemic.
“The PLA (People’s Liberation Army) has escalated border tensions with India, the world’s most populous democracy. It’s militarizing the South China Sea and illegally claiming more territory there, threatening vital sea lanes,” US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, in a major speech on China a day earlier.
In his virtual address on ‘Europe and the China Challenge’ during the 2020 Copenhagen Democracy Summit on Friday, Pompeo described the ruling Chinese Communist Party as a ‘rogue actor.’
Early this week, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said the president is aware of the situation and the US is monitoring the situation between Indian and Chinese forces along the line of actual control in Eastern Ladakh.
During a phone call on June 2nd that Trump had with Prime Minister Modi, they did discuss the situation on the Indo-China border, McEnany said.
“Trump and Modi have a terrific relationship and trust between them,” Al Mason, co-chair of the Trump Victory Indian American Finance Committee said, adding that the statements coming from the White House, the State Department and the US Embassy in New Delhi is reflective of this.
Coming out in support of India, Texas Congressman Lance Gooden said that China cannot be trusted.
“As more news comes out about the deadly conflict between China and India, once again CHINA appears to be an aggressive bad actor,” the Republican Congressman said.
“The CCP (Chinese Communist Party) cannot be taken at their word, EVER,” Gooden said in a tweet.
On the Senate floor, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that “on land, for the sake of grabbing territory, the PLA appears to have instigated the most violent clash between China and India since those nations went to war in 1962”.
Needless to say, the rest of the world has watched with grave concern this violent exchange between two nuclear states. We are encouraging de-escalation and hoping for peace,” McConnell said.
Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs David Stilwell earlier said that this Chinese activity is similar to activity the world has seen in the past on border disputes with the Peoples Republic of China.
“I would point you to those – I think it was 2015 when Xi Jinping traveled to India the first time,” he said.
“The PLA (People’s Liberation Army) invaded this contested area deeper and longer, with more people, than ever before historically. Whether that was a negotiating tactic or just a punch in the nose to demonstrate their superiority, I don’t know,” he told reporters early this week.
“But then we saw the Doklam issue down near Bhutan, where we saw similar concerns. I wish I knew. Again, we don’t have a lot of visibility and we don’t have a lot of open dialogue with our Chinese counterparts, and honestly I’d like to see more of that if we can,” Stillwell said.
US experts feel that the latest Chinese behavior will swing India towards US.
“Even before the latest flareup, a majority of Indian strategists saw Chinese assertiveness as India’s biggest foreign-policy challenge. This has resulted in an unspoken but unmistakable swing toward the US,” Jeff Smith from The Heritage Foundation think tank said.
“The bullying of US partners and allies needs to come at a cost,” Smith said in a tweet.
Unacceptable, China’s claim on Galwan: MEA PMO clarifies as Opposition questions Modi’s ‘no intrusion’ remark
India’s position with regard to the Galwan valley has been historically clear, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on Saturday said, rejecting China’s claim of sovereignty over the area.
The PM’s observations that there was no Chinese presence on our side of the LAC pertained to the situation as a consequence of the bravery of our armed forces, who foiled an attempt by Chinese troops to transgress into the Galwan valley — PMO
At the same time, India maintained that the skirmish on June 15-16 took place after Chinese troops entered its side of the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the valley for the second time. In response to Chinese Foreign Ministry’s “step-by-step” version of the Galwan valley incident, the MEA said the violence flared up when Indian troops resisted an attempt by the PLA to raise structures.
Indian student in china in soup over ‘offensive’ post
A Chinese university has threatened to take action against an Indian student for allegedly posting offensive comments against the Chinese people on social media, a media report said. The Indian national is a student at the Jiangsu University in east China’s Jiangsu province. PTI
Refuting Chinese assertions that the valley was located on its side of the LAC, MEA spokesperson Anurag Srivastava said: “Attempts by the Chinese side are not acceptable. They are not in accordance with China’s own position in the past.” However, India made no claim of its own with Srivastava simply stating that “the position with regard to the Galwan valley area has been historically clear.”
Rahul Gandhi, Congress
Posers to govt
If the land was Chinese, why were our soldiers killed and where were they killed?
Countering two other allegations, he said Indian troops had never undertaken any action across the LAC and that all infrastructure built for the purpose by India was “naturally on its own side’’.
Sitaram Yechury, CPM
What else did the PM say at the all-party meeting which he did not mean? Sacrifices of our soldiers should not be reduced to vote-bank politics,Mr Modi.
He said the Chinese troops had been hindering India’s patrolling pattern in the area for over a month and this led to a faceoff which was addressed by the ground commanders. Earlier Chinese attempts to cross the LAC in other areas of the Western Sector too were rebuffed, leading to talks between senior commanders on June 6, who agreed on de-escalation and disengagement. But the Chinese side departed from this understanding and for the second time tried to erect structures. The Chinese troops turned to violent action when this attempt was foiled, Srivastava explained.
PC Chidambaram, Congress
If no Chinese troops are in Indian territory, why did the Foreign Minister’s statement and by the MEA demand restoration of status quo ante?
.
Separately, the Prime Minister’s Office said a “mischievous interpretation” was being made of the PM’s remarks at the Friday all-party meeting that there was neither intrusion nor capture of any post. With the Congress-led Opposition and strategic community joining issue over the remarks, the PMO in a statement said: “The Prime Minister’s observations that there was no Chinese presence on our side of the LAC pertained to the situation as a consequence of the bravery of our armed forces.The sacrifices of the soldiers of the 16 Bihar Regiment foiled the attempt of the Chinese side to erect structures and also cleared the attempted transgression at this point of the LAC on that day.”
Akhilesh Yadav, SP
Is Galwan valley Indian or not? We don’t need clarifications. We need the truth
The statement sought to contextualise the remarks as ever since the statement there were more questions across social media as to what was the violent clash of June 15 about that led to loss of 20 Indian soldiers if there was no intrusion or capture.
Ladakh, scenic Himalayan desert at the centre of most fierce India-China conflict in 53 yrs
A file photo of Pangong Lake in Ladakh | Visharad Saxena | Special arrangement
When the United Nations Security Council held a discussion on Kashmir on 16 August last year — the first since 1965 — many in the security establishment in Jammu and Kashmir began to speculate over the swift Chinese backing to Pakistan. Islamabad had gone to the UN over the Narendra Modi government’s decision to scrap Article 370 and bifurcate the erstwhile state into the Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh.
The murmurs amplified when China unsuccessfully attempted to call for another UNSC meeting on Kashmir in December 2019. Security officials began to discuss how the diplomatic tussle would translate or manifest on the ground.
The speculations ended on 15 June when, following a month-long stand-off in Ladakh’s Galwan Valley and several clashes with sticks and stones, a physical combat resulted in the death of 20 Indian soldiers, including a Colonel. The unprecedented developments in the mostly uninhabited snowy deserts is why Ladakh is ThePrint’s Newsmaker of the Week.
Domain experts, journalists and former Army officials have analysed the strategic importance of Ladakh to India and China.
For China, it is not limited to territorial dominance over the Galwan Valley alone. The barren landscape of Ladakh is yet to be fully explored for natural resources and the region is crucial to both India and China’s plans to boost their respective economies.
The location itself offers strategic advantage throughout the Himalayan region. Aksai Chin, formerly part of Ladakh before the Chinese occupation following the 1962 war, connects the Xinjiang Province of China to Tibet, which China annexed in 1950 and remains a site of political contestation.
It is not surprising that India’s activities near the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the past decade have been a source of concern for China. The decision to make Ladakh a separate Union Territory and bring it under direct control of New Delhi aligns with the Modi government’s ambitions to develop the region and get vindication for its stand on how previous central and J&K governments had neglected the region and how the BJP rescued it.
India reactivating its airfields in Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO), Fukche, and Nyoma to reduce reliance on Leh as the main air support hub for Ladakh, needs to be seen in this context. India has invested heavily in the 255-km Darbuk-Shayok-DBO road construction, which allows it to access Aksai Chin with ease.
Aksai Chin is also crucial to China’s access to the Central Asia regions — specifically, the ambitious China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (part of its Eurasian Belt and Road Initiative), which spans Aksai Chin-Gilgit Baltistan (PoK)-Balochistan. Any change in the status quo in the volatile Himalayan region of Jammu, Kashmir or Ladakh threatens the plausibility of BRI, an initiative that President Xi Jinping has himself been pushing.
Xi’s ambitious business project is also seen as an effort to replicate the historic silk trade routes, of which Ladakh was an important part.
If it wasn’t for the current skirmishes in the Galwan Valley, Ladakh would continue to be discussed for its scenic beauty and be populated by tourists from all over India. The economy of the region depends heavily on tourism and construction contracts provided by the security forces. The tourism industry received a shot in the arm after the climax of a famous Bollywood movie, 3 Idiots, was shot at the serene Pangong Lake, turning it into a popular tourism hub overnight.
But heavy presence of defence forces means contractual work all year round. Not only are the local people provided with contracts to build infrastructure, labourers, both local and non-local, are provided with employment opportunities. As recently as on Monday, more than 1,500 labourers from Jharkhand, who had reached home after bracing the coronavirus lockdown, were brought back to Ladakh in a special train for road construction-related works along the LAC.
Another major source of income is the world famous Pashmina shawls, which come from the Pashmina goats that Ladakh farmers rear in areas such as Zanskar, Nubra and Changthang. In Changthang alone, where the Changpa tribe live, there are more than 2.5 lakh Pashmina goats and are the only source of income for about 1,200 families.
So, when contextualising the current Chinese fortification of the Galwan Valley, it is important to locate it in the game for dominance over the Himalayan region.
Mao Zedong, the founder of People’s Republic of China, had famously described Tibet as China’s “right hand’s palm” and Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and Arunachal Pradesh as the “five fingers”, which he wanted to “liberate”.
China’s ‘two steps forward, one step back’ and salami-slicing policies to expand into contested territories are just a manifestation of Mao’s thoughts, and security officials responsible for the upkeep of the LAC know this very well.
The capturing of Aksai Chin, Pakistan’s decision to cede territory to China in 1963, and now the claim over Galwan Valley, as one senior security official said, are all part of China’s grand strategy to fulfil Mao’s quest by 2048.
So, does the Chinese plan point towards a turbulent time in Ladakh, a region that has remained largely peaceful even when Jammu and Kashmir was hit by an insurgency that refuses to die down after 30 years?
Ladakh, with a population of over 2.7 lakh, of which Muslims comprise nearly 46 per cent and Buddhists about 40 per cent, has not witnessed major conflicts other than the main fault line, which was over the demands of making it a Union Territory.
The demand was overwhelmingly supported by the Buddhist population, which, coupled with the abrogation of Article 370 and the subsequent release of the new map of Ladakh, might just have finally irked China.
The Chinese have made themselves a more vocal “stakeholder” in the Kashmir conflict, which wasn’t the case in the past.
There is, however, a section of intellectuals and political experts, who, like many in the J&K security establishment, believe that the Chinese did not need the abrogation of Article 370 to further its agenda. For them, China is doing what it does — expand.
On possible reasons behind the Chinese aggression in Ladakh, a prominent political commentator based in Kashmir, during an informal chat, quoted English mountaineer George Mallory’s famous response to why he wanted to climb the Mount Everest. Mallory, back in the 1920s, had responded, “Because it is there”.
So why did the Chinese advance into Ladakh? Because it is there.
Views are personal.
IAF deploys Apache attack helicopters and Chinooks in Ladakh, increases combat air patrols
Apaches were brought to provide close air support to the ground forces, while Chinooks were brought to enable faster deployment of troops and equipment.
n Apache attack helicopter (representational image) | Commons
New Delhi: The Indian Air Force (IAF) has deployed Apache attack helicopters in Ladakh to provide tactical support to the ground forces if needed, besides using the Chinook heavy-weight choppers to help in the movement of men and equipment amid tensions with China.
The increased deployment also includes regular Combat Air Patrols, besides flying a host of surveillance aircraft, including by intelligence agencies and the Navy’s P8I aircraft, defence sources said.
Mirage 2,000 fighter aircraft, which carried out the Balakot air strikes last year, have also been moved to bases near the Ladakh region from Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, where it is based.
This has been done to ensure they can fly over in the Ladakh region within minutes of taking off, sources said.
Air Force chief Air Chief Marshal R.K.S. Bhadauria has reportedly made a hush visit to Leh and Srinagar air bases Wednesday evening after high-level meetings with the government.
Following the meetings, the Navy and the IAF had been put on high operational alert.
ThePrint had earlier reported that the Navy has sent out additional ships from its eastern fleet for deployment in the Indian Ocean region.
These developments came even as the Army moved in more ground forces and other assets to Ladakh.
On 2 June, ThePrint reported the Army moved in about two additional division strength-level forces to the region. Sources said these numbers have now increased further.
While the 14 Corps, the Army division that looks after Ladakh, is sufficiently armed in terms of artillery, armour, men and reserves, more soldiers have been brought in to create large reserves and forward deployment.
The IAF has remained tight-lipped about the movement of its assets.
However, sources said the Apache helicopters have been deployed in Ladakh and that Chinooks are already doing the work they are meant for.
“The assets are there to be used. These are tactical matters. Apache was brought to provide close air support to the ground forces. Chinooks were brought to enable faster deployment of troops and equipment,” a source said.
According to new rules, Army commanders will have the full freedom to put in use any instrument under his command for tactical operations as deemed fit.
SF soldiers stand guard at a checkpoint along a highway leading to Ladakh in Kashmir’s Ganderbal district on 17 June 2020 (representational image) | ANI
New Delhi: The rules of engagement at the Line of Actual Control (LAC), which had put certain restrictions on soldiers, have been changed, and the Chinese have been told about it both at military and diplomatic levels, ThePrint has learnt.
“The rules of engagement have changed. The Army commander on the ground will decide on the tactics to be used to counter any kind of aggression. There is nothing now that binds the commander from taking certain kinds of tactical decisions,” a source told ThePrint.
The decision comes following the clash Monday evening in the Galwan Valley, Ladakh, which claimed the lives of 20 Indian soldiers, including the commanding officer of 16 Bihar battalion, and injuries to several others.
Ten Indian soldiers were also taken hostage by the Chinese, but released Thursday after hectic negotiations at the military and diplomatic levels.
ThePrint on 17 June reported India is likely to review the rules of engagement and Standard Operating Procedures at the LAC in wake of the Galwan incident.
‘India will counter forcefully any violence by China’
Sources said Army commanders will have the full freedom to put in use any instrument under his command for tactical operations as deemed fit.
One of the main questions was the use and carrying of firearms. Sources said, on the ground, the practice was that not all carried loaded firearms while on patrol.
The practice of not opening fire draws its inspiration from the 1996 agreement between India and China, which says “neither side shall open fire or conduct blast operations within 2 km of the Line of Actual Control”.
After the 5 May clash in Pangong lake, soldiers posted there were supplied with light anti-riot gear, including body armours, shields and fibre lathis.
“The Chinese have been told both at diplomatic and military levels that rules of engagement have changed. India will counter forcefully any kind of misstep or violence by China,” another source said.
In an interview with ThePrint, National Security Advisory Board member retd. Gen Narasimhan says India’s response to China doesn’t mean it will only be military, but could be diplomatic, economic as well.
Representational image | Soham Sen | ThePrint
New Delhi: A “befitting reply” to Chinese actions in the Galwan Valley, as talked about by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, doesn’t necessarily mean “it is going to be only in the military domain, it could also be economic or diplomatic”, according to retired General S.L. Narasimhan, member of India’s National Security Advisory Board (NSAB).
In an interview with ThePrint, Gen. Narasimhan talked about the various aspects of the on-going military stand-offs between India and China.
“Even if you go by the claim lines put out by China in 1960, the Galwan Valley is our territory,” said the General. However, the Chinese foreign ministry, which put out a statement Friday detailing their account of last week’s violent face-off, said the Galwan Valley was on China’s side of the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
When asked about any Indian soldiers missing from after the clashes, Gen. Narasimhan said, “Officially, we don’t know…We need to wait and watch. If there are further people missing, official communications will come.”
The NSAB member said that from the Indian perspective, the bottom line is that the “status quo ante” needs to be restored.
“The Chinese need to go back to locations they were holding before the month of May. Character of the LAC (Line of Actual Control) would not change unilaterally, even if they try, they won’t succeed,” remarked the general.
The NSAB member clearly stated that military action against China was definitely the last option.
When asked to elaborate on Prime Minister’s remark regarding India’s ability to provide a befitting reply when provoked, he said, “Military option is the last option. We need to exhaust all other options that are available to us before we go down that path. And I think there is still space available before we take a call about that (military action).”
According to Narasimhan, the “available space” means that when responding to Chinese aggression, India has a lot of options. He said India has diplomatic, ground level, foreign minister related options available.
“There are a lot of other military options as well, (which are) not in the kinetic domain that I would not like to talk about,” he said.
According to the NSAB member, at the lieutenant general-level talks that took place on 6 June, a “consensus was arrived” that “disengagement would take place”.
Moreover, at the places where these face-offs are taking place, it was decided that further discussions would take place to discuss the “modalities of disengagement process”.
But the Chinese went back on the 6 June agreement to facilitate disengagement, according to Narasimhan.
“On the evening 15th June, as a unit of Bihar Regiment patrol went to see if disengagement process was on (at the LAC in Galwan Valley) … they found probably a structure kind of thing built by Chinese on the Indian side. When the Indian side asked them to go back, they did. But then they came back and that’s when the scuffle seems to have taken place,” he said.
The general further elaborated on Minister of External Affairs S. Jaishankar’s statement to his Chinese counterpart, that the action by People’s Liberation Army forces at Galwan Valley was “pre-meditated”.
“When Chinese went back and came back again, that indicated that it was premeditated action,” he explained. “I think they wanted to ensure that particular place is with them. Given that didn’t happen, that must have upset their plan and they decided to come back.”
Here Narasimhan is referring to how the Bihar Regiment patrolling forces had pushed back PLA troops on 15th June evening, but the latter decided to come back again.
‘Casualties would have been higher if there was firing’
In terms of the nature of violence between the two sides, Narasimhan said, “the level of violence seems to be varying between pushing and pulling and less than opening firing”.
“It happened sometime in the evening. Some stone pelting had taken place and batons were used. What I can say for sure is there was no firing. If there was firing, casualties would be even higher,” he said.
When talking about Chinese casualties, he said that he was certain the Chinese side had suffered casualties, but it was not possible to know the exact numbers.
When pressed to provide a ballpark figure, Narasimhan said, “I get a feeling it would be around the same number as our side or little more than that. It is possible that they suffered more.”
Galwan different from recent Chinese aggressive behaviour
As the general tried to analyse how the current standoff was different from the ones in the past, he listed four points of departure.
“It is happening simultaneously at multiple places. What is happening can’t be attributed to a local commander this time. Their numbers are much larger than before. And the aggressiveness is also more than the previous time,” explained Narasimhan.
When the NSAB member — who also speaks Mandarin and is a close observer of Chinese behaviour — was asked about what explains the recent aggressive Chinese behaviour, he pointed towards a pattern.
“This aggressive behaviour with China has been around for some time. Look at what they are doing in South China Sea, look at the aid they are front loading to cover their initial mishandling of the pandemic,” Narasimhan said.
He said this behaviour could be explained by the comprehensive growth in China’s national power and the country is now trying to spread its influence across the board.
The bailey bridge holds strategic significance for the Indian Army as it helps movement of men and material closer to the Line of Actual Control.
Trucks carry essential commodities in Ladakh | Representational image | ANI
New Delhi: A strategically important bridge in the Galwan Valley of Eastern Ladakh has been made “functional” amid the ongoing tensions with China in the region, ThePrint has learnt.
This means that while minor works carry on, vehicles can now pass on the bridge which replaces an already existing wooden structure.
Army sources said that the 60-metre bridge is on the Shyok River and is very close to the confluence of the Shyok-Galwan rivers.
“It links Daulat Beg Oldie (DBO) and is not on the track moving to Patrol Point 14 (PP14) and neither on Galwan river,” a source explained.
The bailey bridge, built on four concrete pillars and comprises of metal trusses (beams), can be used for movement of men and different kinds of vehicles.
It was made functional Thursday and vehicles crossed it as part of trials.
This gives strategic heft to the movement of men and material closer to the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
ThePrint had reported on 12 June that the work on the bridge was on and had sped up amid the ongoing stand-off with China.
India had made it clear to the Chinese that it will carry on with border infrastructure development.
The Print had also reported that China’s main concern in the Galwan Valley was the construction of a bridge.
The bridge is about 7.5 kilometres from the LAC and the construction had started late last year. It is also about 3-4 kilometres away from the spot where Indian and Chinese troops clashed on 15 June.
Sources said that there is no presence of Chinese troops on the Indian side of the Galwan Valley.
China had erected two tents within Indian territory close to PP14, which is at the mouth of the Galwan Valley, ThePrint had reported.
The violent face-off happened when the Chinese did not fully implement the terms of agreement decided upon during a 6 June meeting between 14 Corps Commander Lt Gen. Harinder Singh. At these talks, bot sides had agreed to move back from the area by about 2 kilometres.
The BJP — by disengaging with Pakistan — has projected itself as a nationalist force. Its advice to the Opposition not to “politicise” the national security issue may go unheeded, for if the BJP has benefited from weaponising security for electoral ends, the Opposition will seek to emulate the same.
The killing of 20 Indian Army personnel on June 15 has made the threat of China real and tangible for two generations of Indians and placed the relationship at the centre of public consciousness. It will shape the politics of nationalism(HTPHOTO)
The brutal killing of 20 personnel of the Indian Army, including a colonel-level officer, by China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in the Galwan Valley on the night of June 15 will reverberate across India for a long time to come. Indian security personnel — from the armed forces, paramilitary forces, and the police — have often given their lives in the quest to defend India’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and the Constitution. And as often, their contribution is forgotten.
But Colonel Santosh Babu and the 19 other men killed in the line of duty will stay on in public memory for three reasons. First, this was the first time since 1975 that Indian blood was shed defending the border against China. Two, the nature of the killing was brutal — PLA, in what India has called a “pre-meditated” attack, violated norms of war. And India and China are not even officially at war. And finally, their killing has highlighted the place of Ladakh in general, and Galwan Valley in particular, as essential to India’s territorial imagination.
This, then, can make June 15 — or Ladakh 2020 — the moment when, for two generations of Indians, the security threat from China has become tangible and real. It can make it the moment when discussions about the “competitive-cooperative” relationship with China and how to navigate great power politics will move beyond the rarefied seminar circuits of elite analysts and assume a strong place in public consciousness. And it can make it the moment when China becomes an issue in Indian domestic politics, strongly tied to public opinion, partisan positions, and the idea of nationalism.
The intersection of domestic politics and foreign policy is old. Indeed, a lot of scholarship suggests that foreign policy itself is the extension of domestic politics and is shaped substantially by it.
In India’s case too, this has been true. But barring the 1962 war, and the criticism that the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru faced, the most critical foreign policy issue has been Pakistan. This is not surprising. The tragedy of Partition, Pakistan’s support for Khalistan, the Kashmir question, its sponsorship of terrorism in India which has cost thousands of lives, four wars (1948, 1965, 1971 and 1999), and the manner in which the external enemy (Pakistan) is often used in political discourse to demonise an internal constituency (Indian Muslims) lends the India-Pakistan relationship particular political salience. Indeed, as the saying in South Block goes, the real joint secretary in charge of the Pakistan desk at the ministry of external affairs is the Prime Minister of India. And that is because each decision on Pakistan is a political, not a bureaucratic, one.
The Indian strategic community has long recognised China as a threat. The border dispute and Beijing’s efforts to change the facts on the ground by its consistent incursions; its claim over Arunachal Pradesh, particularly Tawang; the large trade deficit; China’s firm support to its “all-weather friend”, Pakistan, now buttressed by the China-Pakistan economic corridor; its efforts to box in India by encouraging regimes hostile to New Delhi in the neighbourhood; its moves to thwart India’s legitimate ambitions (such as permanent membership of the Security Council or entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group); and its ambitions to establish new style imperialism through the Belt and Road Initiative have all been closely noted and are a part of the institutional memory of the government of India.
But along with this, there is also a recognition of the power asymmetry between the two countries. India’s economy is much weaker; its military and technological capabilities don’t match up to China; its State capacity is more limited; and in the maze that is international politics, China is a more significant player and India cannot rely on partnerships and external bandwagoning. Along with it, India — at this stage of its economic development — needs foreign capital and investment, and deepening economic interdependence with China has been seen as a way to both neutralise the competitive elements and aid Indian development.
This measured policy approach worked because China was not an issue that animated public opinion. But it will now face a challenge. This is both because of China’s aggression (not unique to India — just ask Vietnam, Japan, Australia and others in its neighbourhood) and because in Indian democracy, policies cannot be completely out of sync with popular sentiment.
The killings of June 15 have suddenly woken a large number of citizens to the fact that Pakistan is an important, but perhaps not the most important, security challenge India confronts. The Chinese willingness to assert itself abroad under President Xi Jinping, and the power differential with India, makes it a more serious adversary. The calls for boycotting Chinese goods may be populist and rooted in ignorance of economic realities but they reflect the emerging mood about China, which is going beyond suspicion to a degree of loathing.
The evolution of public opinion is bound to have an impact on political discourse. And that is why even a prime minister such as Narendra Modi — who has proudly worn the badge of nationalism and presented himself as a security hawk — had to face tough questions, not just from critics but also more independent observers, about his claim on Friday night that there is no external presence in Indian territory. The Prime Minister’s Office, on Saturday, came up with a clarification. But the response to his initial statement is instructive. Indian public opinion is not in the mood to tolerate even the hint of a territorial concession to China anymore.
This, then, will have an impact on the politics of nationalism in India. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) — by disengaging with Pakistan till it acts on terror and through the surgical and air strikes under its term in office — has projected itself as a staunchly nationalist force. But now, it will have to be accountable for its actions on China too. The well-meaning advice to the Opposition not to “politicise” the national security issue may go unheeded, for if the ruling dispensation has benefited from weaponising national security for electoral ends, the Opposition will seek to emulate the same. Expect the BJP to talk about Pakistan, and expect the Opposition to counter it with China from now on. Ladakh 2020 has introduced the China factor into Indian politics. Its consequences will be long-lasting.
Punjab CM Amarinder Singh reaches Chandigarh Air Force station, pays tribute to Galwan martyrs
Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh on Friday reached Chandigarh Air Force Station to pay tribute to the soldiers who were martyred in a violent face-off with the Chinese at the Galwan Valley.
The mortal remains arrived here from Leh.
The Chief Minister laid wreaths on the coffins of the fallen soldiers.
Among the 20 troops, four soldiers were from Punjab, including a Colonel, who was killed in the fracas.
While the mortal remains of Nb Sub Satnam Singh of Gurdaspur and Nb Sub Mandeep Singh had arrived on Thursday, the mortal remains of Sep Gurbinder Singh of Sangrur, Sep Gurtej Singh of Mansa and Sep Ankush Singh of Hamirpur were airlifted to Chandigarh on Friday.
However, the mortal remains are being sent to their respective homes by road.
Earlier, the Chief Minister had the act of killing Indian soldiers as “horrendous” and demanded accountability for the loss of lives.
On Thursday, Captain Amarinder had announced that the state government has hiked the ex-gratia payable to martyrs from Rs 10 lakh to Rs 50 lakh.
Capt.Amarinder Singh
✔@capt_amarinder
Laying a wreath on the mortal remains of Sepoys Gurbinder Singh from Sangrur, Gurtej Singh from Mansa & Ankush from Hamirpur, HP at Chandigarh. Salute their supreme sacrifice at this young age. The nation is forever indebted. Jai Hind!
State Stalwarts
DEFENCE MINISTER
Minister Rajnath Singh
ALL HUMANS ARE ONE CREATED BY GOD
HINDUS,MUSLIMS,SIKHS.ISAI SAB HAI BHAI BHAI
CHIEF PATRON ALL INDIA SANJHA MORCHA
LT GEN JASBIR SINGH DHALIWAL, DOGRA
SENIOR PATRON ALL INDIA SANJHA MORCHA
MAJOR GEN HARVIJAY SINGH, SENA MEDAL ,corps of signals
.
.
PATRON ALL INDIA SANJHA MORCHA
MAJ GEN RAMINDER GURAYA ,MADRAS REGIMENT
sanjhamorcha303@gmail.com
PRESIDENT SOUTH ALL INDIA SANJHA MORCHA
COL SS RAJAN BOMBAY SAPPERS,
PRESIDENT UTTARAKHAND ALL INDIA SANJHA MORCHA
COL B M THAPA ,BENGAL SAPPERSS
PRESIDENT HARAYANA STATE CUM COORDINATOR ESM
BRIG DALJIT THUKRAL ,BENGAL SAPPERS
PRESIDENT TRICITY
COL B S BRAR (BHUPI BRAR)
PRESIDENT CHANDIGARH ZONE
COL SHANJIT SINGH BHULLAR
.
.
PRESIDENT PANCHKULA ZONE AND ZIRAKPUR
COL SWARAN SINGH
INDIAN DEFENCE FORCES
DEFENCE FORCES INTEGRATED LOGO
INDIAN AIR FORCE
Air Officer C-in-C WESTERN AIR COMMAND
AIR MSHL S PRABHAKARAN AVSM VM
AOC-IN-C, EASTERN AIR COMMAND
Air Marshal Inderpal Singh Walia
AOC-in-C SOUTH WESTERN AIR COMMAND
Air Marshal Vikram Singh
AOC-IN-C, SOUTHERN AIR COMMAND
Air Marshal J.Chalapati
AOC-IN-C TRAINING COMMAND
AIR MARSHAL SK GHOTIA VSM
AOC-IN-C MAINTENANCE COMMAND
Air Marshal Jagdish Chandra
Flag Officer Commanding in Chief, Western Naval Command
ice Admiral R Hari Kumar, PVSM, AVSM, VSM
Flag Officer Commanding in Chief, Eastern Naval Command
Vice Admiral Sanjay Bhalla, AVSM, NM
Flag Officer Commanding in Chief, Southern Naval Command
