Line of Actual Control (LAC) : India & Tibet Border Updates
- Thread starter Shashank
- Start date
Phone call between External Affairs Minister, Dr. S. Jaishankar and Foreign Minister of China, H.E. Mr. Wang Yi
June 17, 2020
June 17, 2020
MEA | Statements : Press Releases
June 17, 2020
- The External Affairs Minister and the State Councillor and Foreign Minister of China, H.E. Mr. Wang Yi, had a phone conversation this afternoon on recent developments in Ladakh.
- EAM conveyed the protest of the Government of India in the strongest terms on the violent face-off in Galwan Valley on 15 June 2020. He recalled that at the meeting of senior Military Commanders held on 6th June, an agreement was reached on de-escalation and disengagement along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). Ground commanders were meeting regularly to implement this consensus throughout the last week. While there was some progress, the Chinese side sought to erect a structure in Galwan valley on our side of the LAC. While this became a source of dispute, the Chinese side took pre-meditated and planned action that was directly responsible for the resulting violence and casualties. It reflected an intent to change the facts on ground in violation of all our agreements to not change the status quo.
- EAM underlined that this unprecedented development will have a serious impact on the bilateral relationship. The need of the hour was for the Chinese side to reassess its actions and take corrective steps. The two sides should scrupulously and sincerely implement the understanding that was reached by the Senior Commanders on 6th June. Troops of both sides should also abide by the bilateral agreements and protocols. They should strictly respect and observe the Line of Actual Control and should not take any unilateral action to alter it.
- The State Councillor and Foreign Minister of China, on his part, conveyed the Chinese position on recent developments.
- At the conclusion of the discussion, it was agreed that the overall situation would be handled in a responsible manner, and both sides would implement the disengagement understanding of 6 June sincerely. Neither side would take any action to escalate matters and instead, ensure peace and tranquillity as per bilateral agreements and protocols.
June 17, 2020
MEA | Statements : Press Releases
China Does not care for Diplomacy or even Written Agreements
They believe in " MIGHT IS RIGHT "
They believe in " MIGHT IS RIGHT "
Seems this is the last resort to ease the tensions. A status quo as on 6th June? What was that? Is it different from previous status quo?
Former Indian diplomat unearths disturbing pattern behind Chinese aggression in Ladakh's Galwan Valley
A former Indian diplomat termed the Chinese aggression in Ladakh as a deliberate policy by China saying that the PLA is trying to flex muscles on the Indo-China border to create tension at highest level.
Interesting..
While all of us are discussing the issue from the Indian point of view, We didn't think about the next step of Chinese after they lost "x" no.of soldiers.
Indian Army officially reported 20 casualties on its side due to violent clashes at Galwan valley. Chinese have not declared their number of casualties. As majority members are arguing that our response is to diffuse the situation and show strategic restraint, we are not prepared for war, logistics issues etc. There are rumours that the Chinese also lost more than 40 troops. My point is after losing some "x" number of troops to inferior Indian Army(their opinion) in a physical brawl, Why they will de-escalate?
Like every one of us who wants to avenge our soldier's deaths. If the Chinese want to retaliate for higher casualties they suffered, this conflict will continue even if the Indian Govt wants to de-escalate because the Chinese lost more number of soldiers than us.
Indian Army officially reported 20 casualties on its side due to violent clashes at Galwan valley. Chinese have not declared their number of casualties. As majority members are arguing that our response is to diffuse the situation and show strategic restraint, we are not prepared for war, logistics issues etc. There are rumours that the Chinese also lost more than 40 troops. My point is after losing some "x" number of troops to inferior Indian Army(their opinion) in a physical brawl, Why they will de-escalate?
Like every one of us who wants to avenge our soldier's deaths. If the Chinese want to retaliate for higher casualties they suffered, this conflict will continue even if the Indian Govt wants to de-escalate because the Chinese lost more number of soldiers than us.
Consider the undermentioned points:
1. The PLA may not have released casualty figures as their KIAs may not be that high as India. This will allow them to send 'feelers' to GoI to seek a negotiation.
2. The Chinese, alternatively, may have had higher casualty figures in terms of killed & wounded together (although I believe is not the case) and the release of those figures may not be helpful in their seeking to secure their southern borders by bullying India. I read the current Chinese actions as an attempt to secure its borders against India in order to remove one powerful 'littoral state' on its periphery as Xi Jinping looks to offset the internal criticism and external pressures.
I think there is no need to speculate. If there is more build up and chatter, that will confirm. Which India lacks. I hope DMI is awake now.
There are multiple sources confirming that China lost 35-43 soldiers and all of them can't be wrong.
Then losses of CO?
22 RR and this ....
CO had no business being in front of his troops. The CO is the figure head and the rallying point who takes the unit over the last lap. If he is taken off in the first instance, the unit feels it is incapable of protecting it's CO
There are two people who are protected with their 'lives' by soldiers - the CO, and more than him, the RMO (Medical Officer). Men have risked their lives for these two.
Responsibility of a commander is not to exhibit personal courage, but to have show the courage to lead his/her men, to any point he/she is required to, through thick and thin and through hell itself. And as long as he/she is around, the men have faith in their leader to get them there.
The psyche of a soldier going to a battle is quite different. They believe in their commander. I have yet to see an officer survive 2 mins in a unit where the troops have lost faith in their commander.
I said, ponder over these points.
And I would request you to read the Dhola incident of 1962 too. Interesting insight.
Ignore this. This is just optics
We will do something. Actually, I am getting some inputs that we did do something that resulted in this. Not sure about it. And it is not confirmed.
Most wars are fought by poorer/middle income countries countries, but yes, rich country economies and civic populace suffer less during a war
What Chinese reaction is being talked about here ?
I once mentioned that they occupied a few rocky outcrops, so did we. We are giving them back equally.
The Babuas of 16 Bihar and others of Artillery and Armour who were there, did us proud. They charged up the mountain. Without rifles, but a charge of the infantry took place. Outnumbered and dominated yes, but the Babuas did not back down.
I am proud of them. And I am overwhelmed at their courage. That is sheer guts and raw courage. Knowing you won't come down alive. But still charging up.
Global Times confirm 30 Died in Chinese side. Now you can understand how big this was