New Delhi: Retired diplomat Ashok Kantha has said that the Ministry of External Affairs’ latest readout on the meeting of the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs in New Delhi contradicts what external affairs minister S. Jaishankar said about disengagement in parliament mere days ago.
Kantha was an Indian Ambassador to China and is an honorary fellow and former director (2017- 2022) of the Institute of Chinese Studies.
In a multi-part post on X, Kantha has essayed how the Working Mechanism – WMCC – meeting’s official version gives rise to apprehensions of India losing control of the situation at the Line of Actual Control with China in eastern Ladakh. The indented portion’s are Kantha’s posts, edited slightly for clarity.
“Intrigued by [the] MEA readout on India-China WMCC: both sides have “positively affirmed” that implementation of disengagement agreement has “completed the resolution of the issues that emerged in 2020”. This contradicts [S. Jaishankar’s] statement in Parliament on 3 Dec. My doubts:
“[Jaishankar] noted that talks will now shift to ““de-escalation as well as effective management of our activities in the border areas”, issues which emerged in 2020. There is continuing entrenched deployment of troops with heavy weapons. Does this become “new normal”?
In May 2020 a military standoff between the India and Chinese forces led to a June skirmish at Galwan Valley, leading to the deaths of at least 20 Indian soldiers and four Chinese soldiers.
“[Jaishankar] referred to ““steps of a temporary and limited nature” in several pockets of Chinese intrusions. This reportedly involves denial of patrolling by Indian troops and grazing by Indian graziers in areas they were accessing until April 2020. Another “new normal”?
As The Wire has reported, the foreign minister stated in parliament that the disengagement measures at four friction points were implemented to prevent further friction, describing them as “temporary” and open to being “revisited,” though he did not specify the conditions for such a review.
Jaishankar was following up on an announcement by India in October 21, that a “patrolling agreement” had been finalised between the two neighbours.
“Army Chief on 23 October: “We want to go back to status quo of April 2020”. Is this requirement of restoration of status quo ante no longer an issue (though stemming from Chinese intrusions of 2020) which remains to be addressed, despite its territorial implications?
“This categorical conclusion in MEA statement that “all issues that emerged in 2020” have been resolved is baffling to someone who was a border negotiator with China for nearly a decade. Clearly, I am out of touch with “new normal”.
“Finding it difficult to shake off apprehensions that this premature declaration of victory, a la Doklam, will have serious implications. Humble advice: Let SRs address these and other unresolved issues as part of border peace & tranquility mandate given to them at Kazan.
On December 5, Indian and Chinese officials met for the first time since military disengagement was reportedly concluded. The Wire has reported that the two, based on the MEA’s handout, that the two “positively” affirmed that the process had been successfully implemented.
