Defence Notes
New Delhi, 10 September 2013
Chinese Incursions
CONUNDRUM FOR UPA GOVT
By Col (Dr) PK Vasudeva (Retd)
Notwithstanding denials, the
Government in its own timid way does concede its concern over reported
incursions by the Chinese. Further, it seems to do so by initiating extra special
care for development of areas along the border. The above can well be gauged by
the latest incident which had hit the headlines.
Last week saw Defence Minister A K
Antony making a statement in Parliament denying reports appearing in a section
of the media which stated that the National Security Advisory Board (NSAB)
chairperson Shyam Saran had apprised Prime Minister Manmohan Singh about the ground
situation—i.e. the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops were not allowing
their Indian counterparts to patrol the Indian perception of the Line of Actual
Control (LAC) in eastern Ladakh.
It was said that Saran has indicated
that the “limits of patrol” line has become the new LAC for India in certain
areas of Ladakh sector. The Chinese have therefore usurped 640 sq km Indian territory! Saran, however, also denied such an
assessment. But it cannot be denied that the PM had asked him to visit the
eastern Ladakh and Siachen sectors to review the border infrastructure
development and LAC situation. Recall that Saran had conducted a similar
exercise in May 2007, and had reported a grim scenario of Chinese
transgressions in the Daulet Beg Oldi (DBO) sector, Depsang Bulge and Chumar.
Following the report, an
inter-ministerial committee has been set up to monitor the LAC situation and
the existing empowered committee on border infrastructure development, led by Cabinet
Secretary Ajit Seth, has been asked to remove the bureaucratic bottlenecks in
Ladakh.
The Indian perception of the LAC, as
marked by the China Study Group (CSG) in 1976 on the basis of the 1962 war
positions, vastly varies from the Chinese one on at least 12 pockets from DBO
to Chumar.
However, the CSG — which comprises
the foreign, home and defence secretaries, the Army Vice-Chief and two Intelligence
chiefs — defined the “limits of patrolling” for the Indian Army to maintain
border peace. The patrol line is between New Delhi
and Beijing’s
LAC perceptions and 2-20 km short of the Indian line.
It has been reported that the
Chinese have built a motorable kutcha road to a sensitive Track Junction area
in the DBO sector, thus changing the position on ground and in violation of the
2005 protocol. This apart, the NSAB chief and former Northern Army Commander Lt
Gen PC Bharadwaj also surveyed Pangong Tso, a saltwater lake through which runs
the LAC. They found a beefed up PLA firmly entrenched in their position in the
Srijap area. The Government is also
concerned with the situation in Chumar where the PLA is making frequent
transgressions, claiming 85 sq km of Indian Territory
despite the international border defining the two countries.
Defence
Minister Antony has as usual categorically stated in Parliament that there was
no question of ceding land to China
and New Delhi was negotiating with Beijing to set up a more
effective mechanism to settle the border issue. “The Government keeps a
constant watch on all developments having a bearing on India’s
security and takes all measures to safeguard it,” he asserted. At the same
time, he admitted to face-offs between the two armies along the border saying
the Chinese feared India
was strengthening its capabilities to match theirs. However, he assured the
members that the Government would continue to strengthen India’s
capabilities in border areas “to protect our national interest.”
He
made it clear that there would be no compromise on strengthening capabilities
along the border since China
had built up its potential. India
was catching up despite the delayed start. While strengthening capabilities
along the border and diplomatically engaging China for a negotiated settlement,
the objective was to maintain peace and harmony along the borders.
On
Saran’s report, Antony
said it dealt with requirement of air facilities in the Ladakh region along
with matters relating to land acquisition and environmental and wildlife
clearances. “Matters such as employment opportunities to local youth, tourism,
mobile and Internet connectivity, law and order, better equipment and
facilities for the ITBP, certain grievances of local people, among others have
been covered in the report,’’ he insisted. But the Opposition was not impressed
and accused the UPA government’s weak defence policy towards China and
stressed it should act tough in the face of such incursions.
Importantly,
Saran and Gen Bhardwaj have not discovered anything that hasn’t been known
since the 90's. There was no need of fact-finding teams by the Prime Minister
as the Army has been reporting incursions regularly on day-to-day basis.
The fact
is that the Army was not permitted to patrol up to the Indian version of
the LAC. It had been an agreed understanding between the two sides post 1962. Patrolling
by the Army therefore is carried out only up to a line as specified by
the Ministries
of Defence, Home and External affairs. Similarly, Chinese patrols are
from their Border Guards Regiment, the difference being that unlike the
ITBP, these units are a part of the PLA and manned by regular soldiers, not
policemen.
The
patrolling line is 15-20 km short of the Indian version of the LAC. It is
not known if the ITBP carries out patrolling on that part, as they did in
early 90s when the Army had much more say in such matters. The ITBP has got to
be under the operational command of the Army like the Chinese Guards for
obvious reasons.
As a
result, willy-nilly, the Chinese have spread themselves and gradually over the
years; the patrolling line has come to be viewed as the LAC. Even many of
the local Army and ITBP officials are not aware of this slow, subtle
encroachment over Indian’s lands - and notably also mind set.
At the
apex policy making level this fact is not only known, but that the Government
seems to have resigned the matter to its fate. It is treated as
unmentionable, basically to prevent public consternation. Keeping the Army away
from controlling the LAC facilitates the public obfuscation.
Having
placed itself in a weak position two decades back due to circumstances
prevailing, this Government does not have the gumption to remedy the
situation by gradually extending the patrol line to conform to the LAC, as the
local military commanders had recommended it.
What
however, is intriguing is that how can the PLA 'prevent' or 'not allow'
Indians to patrol up to the LAC. Have they fenced off the line or do they form
a human chain to block the movement of Indian patrols across that
otherwise open terrain? Obviously it is the Government's excuse to
cover its past pusillanimity. There are many examples of its downright
timidity, bordering on fear or may even be disinterest, when it comes to
maintaining its claim lines whether in Ladakh, or in UP-Tibet Border, or in Himachal
Pradesh. One is not suggesting getting into a fight, but a show of
physical and diplomatic resolve would serve the purpose. One wonders as to how
the nation’s leaders, men of impeccable credentials, could be so naïve! ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News and Feature Alliance)
|