New Delhi: As external affairs minister S. Jaishankar issued a statement on the India-China border crisis in Lok Sabha on Tuesday (December 3), it is important to understand what he didn’t say, and where he was deceptive and disingenuous.
“The House is cognisant of the fact that China is in illegal occupation of 38,000 sq. kms. of Indian territory in Aksai Chin as a result of the 1962 conflict and the events that preceded it. Furthermore, Pakistan illegally ceded 5180 sq. kms. of Indian territory to China in 1963, which had been under its occupation since 1948. India and China have held talks for multiple decades to resolve the boundary issue. While there is a Line of Actual Control (LAC), it does not have a common understanding in some areas. We remain committed to engaging with China through bilateral discussions to arrive at a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable framework for a boundary settlement,” Jaishankar said, in an attempt to explain some recent developments in the India China border areas and their implications for “our overall bilateral relations”.
However, it is noteworthy that the LAC has never been agreed upon by the two sides. If there is indeed an LAC, where is India’s map showing it? Why is it kept classified?
In his statement, Jaishankar mentioned that “the House is well aware of the circumstances leading up to the violent clashes in Galwan Valley in June 2020.” This assumption is wrong since no one has said anything about it except Prime Minister Narendra Modi telling an all party meeting on June 19, 2020 that no one has entered the Indian territory.
A screen grab of the post shared by Sushant Singh on X. Photo: X/@SushantSin
“In 2012, a Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination (WMCC) was established. And a year later in 2013, we reached an understanding on border defense cooperation as well. The purpose of my recalling these agreements is to underline the elaborate nature of our shared efforts to ensure peace and tranquility,” the minister said.
What Jaishankar didn’t mention here is the two informal summits between Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping, particularly the one in Wuhan in 2018 where the two leaders discussed border issues and agreed to issue strategic guidance to respective militaries. Notably, this was a few months after the Doklam crisis.
Further, Jaishankar said, “In all of this, we were and we remain very clear that the three key principles must be observed in all circumstances: (i) both sides should strictly respect and observe the LAC, (ii) neither side should attempt to unilaterally alter the status quo, and (iii) agreements and understandings reached in the past must be fully abided by in their entirety.”
It is imperative to note that this point is misleading due to three reasons. First, which LAC? There is no agreed upon LAC. Second, the status quo has been altered by China in 2020, very visibly and the Indian government is no longer demanding a return to status quo ante bellum. Third, what happened to the understandings Modi and Xi reached in Wuhan and Chennai?
A screen grab of the post shared by Sushant Singh on X. Photo: X/@SushantSin
Jaishankar added, “I would like to inform the House today about the agreement reached on 21 October, 2024 regarding Depsang and Demchok. The twin considerations of an unstable local situation and an impacted bilateral relationship were clearly the drivers for these recent endeavors. These two areas have been the focus of our discussions in both WMCC and SHMC with the Chinese side since September 2022, when the last disengagement agreement was concluded at Hot Springs area.”
It is wrong to call it an “agreement” since the Chinese have never used the word agreement, not even once. Where are those who said Depsang and Demchok are ‘legacy issues’ and do not have any connection with the 2020 border crisis?
“As a result of this recent understanding arrived at after intensive negotiations, resumption of patrolling to the traditional areas is underway. It was initially tested by sending out patrols for verification of disengagement on the ground and is being followed up by regular activities as per the agreed understanding,” the minister mentioned.
Now, the phrasing doesn’t say patrolling has resumed. It only says the resumption process is underway. The regular activities as per agreed understanding is rather vague and all encompassing. There is no word about agreeing to People’s Liberation Army (PLA) patrols coming in across the LAC in Arunachal Pradesh where they were not coming earlier.
In his statement, Jaishankar said, “Raksha Mantri has also met the Chinese Defense Minister Dong Jun at the ASEAN Defence Ministers (ADMM+) meeting in Vientiane on November 20, 2024. The two Ministers discussed progress on the recent agreement on disengagement, the need to address de-escalation and the requirement of strengthening confidence building measures. They agreed on the importance of continuing meetings and consultations at various levels.”
The question which arises is where have the Chinese used the word de-escalation? On the contrary, they refuse to engage on the next step altogether.
A screen grab of the post shared by Sushant Singh on X. Photo: X/@SushantSin
“For the benefit of honourable members, I would also flag for your attention the previous positions articulated by the Government in Parliament previously on this issue. On 15 September, 2020, Raksha Mantri ji had made a detailed statement on Chinese attempts to transgress the LAC and the appropriate response given by our armed forces. On 11 February, 2021, Raksha Mantri ji again briefed the House about our disengagement agreement in the North and South banks of the Pangong Lake,” Jaishankar said.
Notably, these statements told the country or the parliament little of significance. There was no debate or discussion, neither were questions allowed.
Further, Jaishankar said, “As members are aware, there is a long history of frictions, transgressions and face offs in several sectors of the India-China border. This goes back to Barahoti from 1954, to Longju in 1959, to Sumdorong Chu from 1986-1995 and Depsang in 2013, amongst others. In the past, earlier Governments have agreed to a range of steps to defuse situations that have arisen at different times, including offers on our side to create de-militarized zones, limited non-patrolling zones, relocation or withdrawal of posts, disengagement of troops and dismantlement of structures. Different locations have seen different solutions being examined.”
Also read: India-China Border Tensions Easing, Patrolling Resumes in Ladakh, Says Jaishankar
The minister himself says the current phase of ties with China started in 1988. What’s the point of raising pre-1962 issues? But the funniest thing is the missing mention of the PLA border ingress in Chumar in 2014 when Modi was escorting Xi on a swing in Ahmedabad or the 2017 Doklam crisis. Those crisis do not exist anymore.
Further, it is disingenuous to say this since after 1988, India’s aim has been to seek restoration of the status quo before the crisis and India has succeeded, except for Doklam in 2017 and now in 2020.
“Where the October 21 understanding is concerned, our objective has been to ensure patrolling as in the past to the relevant patrolling points, as well as resumption of grazing by our civilians as per longstanding practice. This is indeed what we have agreed upon in regard to Depsang and Demchok,” the minister added.
Since Jaishankar suggested that “this is indeed what we have agreed,” it is worth noting that there is no mention of return to status quo ante bellum.
A screen grab of the post shared by Sushant Singh on X. Photo: X/@SushantSin
Jaishankar mentioned, “In a few other places where friction occurred in 2020, steps of a temporary and limited nature were worked out, based on local conditions, to obviate the possibility of further friction. This, I must stress, applies to both sides and can be revisited as the situation demands. In that sense, our stance has been resolute and firm and serves our national interest fully.”
Interestingly, this phrase “steps of a temporary and limited nature were worked out” is an example of bureaucratic phrasing, meant to confuse people. These are buffer zones, denying Indian patrols access to areas they were going to earlier. Most of them fall on the territory that was regularly accessed by Indian soldiers before 2020. Temporary since 2021? How long more is temporary?
Because India’s foreign minister issued a supposedly detailed statement (no discussion, debate or questions permitted) on the China border crisis, it is important to understand what he didn’t say, and where he was deceptive and disingenuous. I annotated parts of his one-sided statement.
— Sushant Singh (@sushantsingh.bsky.social) December 4, 2024 at 3:42 AM
This article is compiled from a post written by Sushant Singh on social media platforms.
Sushant Singh is a lecturer at Yale University in the US, consulting editor of Caravan magazine and co-founder, The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas.
