The very fact that India’s Lt. Gen. Harinder Singh, commander of 14 Corps, held 11-plus hours of discussions on Monday with his Chinese counterpart, Maj. Gen. Liu Lin, commander of the South Xinjiang military region, and that these “disengagement” talks will continue, to press for the withdrawal of Chinese military forces from the Finger area around Pangong Tso lake as well as from the Galwan Valley, the site of the deadly June 15-16 clash between the two amies, seems to be a clear indication that the People’s Liberation Army continues to remain in control of Indian territory.
After all, if there were no Chinese forces on Indian soil now, what would be the need for these talks anyway, and why would we demand that the Chinese withdraw and go back to the status quo that prevailed before May 2? What then is the “breakthrough” that we are looking for in this dialogue at Moldo?
This also raises some fundamental questions about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s stunning assertion to top Opposition leaders at Friday’s all-party meeting that “neither has anyone intruded into Indian territory nor has anyone captured any (Indian) military posts”.
Not surprisingly, senior Opposition leaders were driven to ask if that was indeed the case, what was the ongoing India-China military conflict in Ladakh all about. And even if one accepts the far-fetched “clarification” by the Prime Minister’s Office the next day that Mr Modi had been referring only to the Galwan Valley, why are we – several days later – still demanding that the PLA withdraw from Galwan?
It does not even begin to make sense. And no matter how much the PMO may talk about “mischievous interpretations” and the BJP, its pliant allies and Modi bhakts in general try to spin the PM’s remarks, his clear-cut claim – which was quickly and gratefully acknowledged by the Chinese – are still hard to explain away.
It’s in this context that we should see former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s sage counsel to his successor on Monday to be “mindful of the implication of his words on the nation’s strategic interests” and that “disinformation” can never be a substitute for diplomacy and decisive leadership.
The BJP and its current president J.P. Nadda were of course quick to hit back at Dr Singh, calling his statement a “mere word play”, and tried to change the narrative, as is its wont, by referring to an alleged 600 Chinese incursions under the watch of both UPA governments, and claimed it had “abjectly surrendered hundreds of sq km of India’s land”, but the ruling party’s discomfiture was palpable.
The BJP is fully aware that the former PM’s credibility and standing with the Indian public is far higher than most Indian leaders and that, as a man of few words, Dr Singh speaks only when he feels he must. Noting that the Chinese had welcomed the PM’s remarks on Friday, the former PM cautioned that Mr Modi “cannot allow them to use his words as a vindication of their position”.
On Tuesday, China’s foreign ministry claimed the two armies had reached a consensus on resolving the “outstanding issues” between them and agreed to take steps to “cool down tensions” in Ladakh. That, of course, is extremely welcome and we await further clarity on how the disengagement process moves forward.
