Indian Army deploys Armoured bulldozers to destroy Chinese bunkers on Bhutan border
- Thread starter Smoking Snakes
- Start date
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
Workers prepare a barbed wire fencing along the India-China trade route amid dense fog at Nathu-La.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...62-conflict/article19203308.ece?homepage=true
''intrusion by Indian troops in the Sikkim sector is a betrayal of a former colonial era understanding of the boundary alignment in this area'', says Beijing.
The wrangling over Bhutan between China and India escalated on Monday amid accusations by Beijing that ''intrusion by Indian troops in the Sikkim sector'' is a “betrayal” of a former colonial era understanding of the boundary alignment in this area.
In a shriller tone demanding the ''pullback on Indian forces'' from the Doklam area, where there has been a military standoff, the Chinese foreign ministry accused New Delhi of virtually manipulating Bhutan to “distort facts,” and engineering a “cover-up” for the “illegal entry” of its forces in its territory.
As the war of words escalated, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, Geng Shuang responded to Defence Minister Arun Jaitley's remarks that "India of 2017 is different from what it was in 1962", saying "China too is different and will take all necessary measures to safeguard its territorial sovereignty."
The Chinese allege that Indian troops have breached New Delhi’s well recorded position of abiding by the 1890 British era convention defining the boundary between Sikkim and Tibet.
Besides, the boundary between China and Bhutan — a country with which India has special ties — has not been settled, despite 24 rounds of negotiations that began in the 1980s between Beijing and Thimpu.
'No dispute between Beijing and Thimpu'
Asked to comment on breaching an understanding with Bhutan on maintaining the status quo in areas of dispute, Mr. Geng denied that there was a dispute between Beijing and Thimpu in the Doklam area, on the tri-junction of China, India and Bhutan.
“Chinese side has been stressing that Doklam belongs to China. It is under the effective jurisdiction of China and it is without any dispute. The boundary between the two countries is yet to be defined but the two sides have a consensus on the alignment of the boundary. Regarding that Doklam belongs to China, the two sides have no dispute over that. Doklam has always been under the effective jurisdiction of China,” he said.
Mr. Geng’s remarks sharply contradict the assertion by Vetsop Namgyel — Bhutan’s Ambassador to India, that "Doklam is a disputed territory and Bhutan has a written agreement with China that pending the final resolution of the boundary issue, peace and tranquility should be maintained in the area."
The current border tension was triggered by the construction of a road by China in the Doklam area. New Delhi has maintained that the road construction will threaten its national security.
Analysts say that if built, the road will provide China further access to the Chumbi Valley, adding to the vulnerability of the “Chicken’s Neck”, a narrow corridor that links the Northeast with the rest of India.
Mr. Geng stressed that China would work with Bhutan on the bilateral track, without the interference of any “external forces”— an obvious reference to India.
Official sources told The Hindu that China’s moves in Bhutan were in tune with its growing political profile in South Asia that included Nepal, Sri Lanka and the Maldives.
Mr.Geng said that India was using Bhutan as an excuse for “infringing on Chinese territory,” citing that initially, Thimpu was not even aware of the entry of Indian forces in the Doklam area. But in a statement on Thursday, sharply contesting the Chinese perception, the Ministry of External Affairs said that “a PLA construction party entered the Doklam area and attempted to construct a road. It is our understanding that a Royal Bhutan Army patrol attempted to dissuade them from this unilateral activity. “
In its remarks. the Chinese foreign ministry accused India of infringing Bhutan’s sovereignty, “in order to cover up the illegal entry by Indian troops into Chinese territory…”
Responding to the Indian statement that cited a 2012 agreement with China, which stated that the tri-junction boundary points between India, China and third countries were yet to be finalised, the spokesperson said: “We have noted [that] the statement by the Indian side evaded the 1890 convention between China and Great Britain relating to Sikkim and Tibet. But it is this convention that has confirmed the alignment of the boundary between the two sides in the Sikkim section.”
Mr.Geng pointed out that former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his Chinese counterpart, Zhou-en-Lai, had affirmed in two letters written in 1959 that the 1890 convention must be observed by the two sides.
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...vereignty-chinese-experts/article19202374.ece
Chinese analysts sound a grim warning on border rows with India, amid a standoff in the Sikkim sector.
China will resolutely safeguard its sovereignty in the border conflicts with India even at the cost of war, Chinese experts warned on Monday, amid a standoff between the two nations in the Sikkim sector.
As the standoff at the Doklam area continued for the third week, the longest between the two countries, the official media and the think-tanks here said that “war is possible if the conflict between India and China is not handled properly.”
Of the 3,488-km-long India-China border from Jammu and Kashmir to Arunachal Pradesh, a 220-km section falls in Sikkim.
China will resolutely safeguard its border sovereignty in conflicts with Indian troops even at the cost of war, state-run Global Times daily quoted Chinese experts as saying.
‘We too are not China of 1962’
“China is also different from what it was in 1962,” Wang Dehua, a professor at the Shanghai Municipal Centre for International Studies told the daily reacting to Defence Minister Arun Jaitley’s comments that India of 2017 is different from what it was in 1962.
“If they are trying to remind us, the situation in 1962 was different and the India of 2017 is different,” Mr. Jaitley had said.
“India has been treating China as its biggest competitor since 1962, as both countries share many similarities. For instance, they are both developing countries with huge populations,” Mr. Wang said.
“There could be a chance of war if the recent conflict between China and India is not handled properly, observers said, noting that China will resolutely defend its territory and safeguard the border,” the Global Times report said.
“In 1962, China fought a war with India after the latter encroached on Chinese territory, resulting in the deaths of 722 Chinese troops and 4,383 Indian soldiers,” the daily said.
Development-centric talks urged
Experts called on both sides to resolve the conflict through dialogue and negotiations, the newspaper said.
“Both sides should focus on development rather than conflict or war,” Zhao Gancheng, director of the Centre for Asia-Pacific Studies at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies, told the paper.
“A conflict between the two may give other countries a chance to take advantage, for example, the US,” he said.
“India should change its hostile attitude toward China as a good relationship is beneficial for both sides,” Mr. Wang said.
The Chinese experts also took exception to reports that India’s Defence Ministry is surveying the China-India border in order to build an “all-weather railway corridor” with broad-gauge network for swift movement of troops and weaponry.
“India is trying to catch up with China in the construction of frontier defence,” Zhao said.
*******
Press Trust of India, New Delhi, Jul 3 2017, 21:02 IST
The spokesman also claimed that no such incident ever happened on June 6 and referred to a statement made by the Ministry of External Affairs in which the date of incident was mentioned as June 16. PTI file photo
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/620704/no-bulldozers-used-china-destroying.html
The Indian Army today maintained that no bulldozers were used when its bunkers were destroyed by the Chinese army amid the current standoff with China in the Sikkim sector.
The army also denied that the border standoff with China is the longest ever since 1962.
"The incident is not the longest standoff between the two nations," said a statement issued by the Army spokesman here.
The spokesman also said that no bulldozers were "ever employed" for destroying the Indian bunkers and that no physical scuffle had occurred between the personnel of Indian Army and the People's Liberation Army(PLA). A senior government functionary had earlier said that bulldozers were used to destroy the Indian bunkers.
The spokesman also claimed that no such incident ever happened on June 6 and referred to a statement made by the Ministry of External Affairs in which the date of incident was mentioned as June 16.
The spokesman went on to clarify that "Indo-China relations as also the relationship between both the armies are extremely well managed by a host of mechanisms.
"The MoD (Ministry of Defence) or the Indian Army has neither issued any official statement nor has undertaken any unofficial briefings due to the fact that such sensitive issues are best dealt between two nations away from the media glare," the spokesman said.
He said that in this situation "as some of the acts have happened involving Bhutan, therefore, Ministry of External Affairs has already given a substantial briefing on the issue."
Chinese analysts sound a grim warning on border rows with India, amid a standoff in the Sikkim sector.
China will resolutely safeguard its sovereignty in the border conflicts with India even at the cost of war, Chinese experts warned on Monday, amid a standoff between the two nations in the Sikkim sector.
As the standoff at the Doklam area continued for the third week, the longest between the two countries, the official media and the think-tanks here said that “war is possible if the conflict between India and China is not handled properly.”
Of the 3,488-km-long India-China border from Jammu and Kashmir to Arunachal Pradesh, a 220-km section falls in Sikkim.
China will resolutely safeguard its border sovereignty in conflicts with Indian troops even at the cost of war, state-run Global Times daily quoted Chinese experts as saying.
‘We too are not China of 1962’
“China is also different from what it was in 1962,” Wang Dehua, a professor at the Shanghai Municipal Centre for International Studies told the daily reacting to Defence Minister Arun Jaitley’s comments that India of 2017 is different from what it was in 1962.
“If they are trying to remind us, the situation in 1962 was different and the India of 2017 is different,” Mr. Jaitley had said.
“India has been treating China as its biggest competitor since 1962, as both countries share many similarities. For instance, they are both developing countries with huge populations,” Mr. Wang said.
“There could be a chance of war if the recent conflict between China and India is not handled properly, observers said, noting that China will resolutely defend its territory and safeguard the border,” the Global Times report said.
“In 1962, China fought a war with India after the latter encroached on Chinese territory, resulting in the deaths of 722 Chinese troops and 4,383 Indian soldiers,” the daily said.
Development-centric talks urged
Experts called on both sides to resolve the conflict through dialogue and negotiations, the newspaper said.
“Both sides should focus on development rather than conflict or war,” Zhao Gancheng, director of the Centre for Asia-Pacific Studies at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies, told the paper.
“A conflict between the two may give other countries a chance to take advantage, for example, the US,” he said.
“India should change its hostile attitude toward China as a good relationship is beneficial for both sides,” Mr. Wang said.
The Chinese experts also took exception to reports that India’s Defence Ministry is surveying the China-India border in order to build an “all-weather railway corridor” with broad-gauge network for swift movement of troops and weaponry.
“India is trying to catch up with China in the construction of frontier defence,” Zhao said.
*******
Press Trust of India, New Delhi, Jul 3 2017, 21:02 IST
The spokesman also claimed that no such incident ever happened on June 6 and referred to a statement made by the Ministry of External Affairs in which the date of incident was mentioned as June 16. PTI file photo
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/620704/no-bulldozers-used-china-destroying.html
The Indian Army today maintained that no bulldozers were used when its bunkers were destroyed by the Chinese army amid the current standoff with China in the Sikkim sector.
The army also denied that the border standoff with China is the longest ever since 1962.
"The incident is not the longest standoff between the two nations," said a statement issued by the Army spokesman here.
The spokesman also said that no bulldozers were "ever employed" for destroying the Indian bunkers and that no physical scuffle had occurred between the personnel of Indian Army and the People's Liberation Army(PLA). A senior government functionary had earlier said that bulldozers were used to destroy the Indian bunkers.
The spokesman also claimed that no such incident ever happened on June 6 and referred to a statement made by the Ministry of External Affairs in which the date of incident was mentioned as June 16.
The spokesman went on to clarify that "Indo-China relations as also the relationship between both the armies are extremely well managed by a host of mechanisms.
"The MoD (Ministry of Defence) or the Indian Army has neither issued any official statement nor has undertaken any unofficial briefings due to the fact that such sensitive issues are best dealt between two nations away from the media glare," the spokesman said.
He said that in this situation "as some of the acts have happened involving Bhutan, therefore, Ministry of External Affairs has already given a substantial briefing on the issue."
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
Indian Military means Fauj e Hind . Ever heard the name Azad Hind Fauj /Indian National Army ?
They can but the truth is visible .
Fledgingwings
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2017
- Messages
- 3,086
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
In Phantom Style!
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...order-issue/article19210128.ece?homepage=true
The current round of tensions was triggered by China's bid to construct a road in the Doklam area, which falls in the tri-junction of India, China and Bhutan.
The ongoing standoff at the Sikkim sector of the India-China border between troops of the two countries has brought the “Sino-British Treaty, 1890” into focus.
Here’s what the treaty is all about and why China is raking it up now.
Officially called the Convention Between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet, the treaty was signed in Calcutta on March 17, 1890. The Convention, according to Beijing, settles the border between the two regions. But India maintains that the borders in Doklam, the area in question, are yet to be settled.
Article I of the Convention talks about the boundary of Sikkim and Tibet in physical detail. “The boundary of Sikkim and Tibet shall be the crest of the mountain range separating the waters flowing into the Sikkim Teesta and its affluents from the waters flowing into the Tibetan Mochu and northwards into other rivers of Tibet. The line commences at Mount Gipmochi, on the Bhutan frontier, and follows the above-mentioned water-parting to the point where it meets Nepal territory,” the Article states.
The standoff
The current round of tensions was triggered by the China's bid to construct a road in the Doklam area, which falls in the tri-junction of India, China and Bhutan. New Delhi says that a road there will threaten its national security.
Analysts say that if built, the road will provide China further access to the Chumbi Valley, adding to the vulnerability of the “Chicken’s Neck”, a narrow corridor that links the Northeast with the rest of India.
What is India’s stand?
India has expressed deep concern at the Chinese actions at the Doko La (Doklam) tri-junction. “…Conveyed to the Chinese Government that such construction would represent a significant change of status quo with serious security implications for India,” said a government statement on June 30, 2017 in its first reaction since the tensions at the tri-junction were made public a week earlier. The war of words also saw Chinese anger towards Bhutan.
What is Beijing’s stand?
China stresses that the Sikkim section of the China-India boundary was defined by the 1890 treaty. China has accused India of “betrayal” of the treaty, a colonial era understanding of the boundary alignment relating to Tibet and Sikkim. Beijing, on July 3, 2017, cited letters between Prime Ministers Jawaharlal Nehru and Zhou Enlai that “had explicitly recognised many times that the (1890) Convention has defined the boundary between Xi Zang (Tibet) of China and Sikkim”.
According to a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, in his letters to Zhou on March 22, 1959 and again on September 26, 1959, Nehru acknowledged that the boundary between Sikkim and Tibet “was defined by the 1890 Convention and demarcated by the two sides on the ground in 1895” and that “there’s no dispute over the boundary between Sikkim and Xi Zang, China”.
“Current actions by the Indian side undoubtedly run counter to the Indian government's longstanding position,” the spokesperson said.
What did Nehru say in the letter?
Nehru’s September 26, 1959 letter to Zhou, cited by China, was a point-by-point refutation of the claims made by the latter on September 8, 1959. Contrary to the claim that the letter was an overwhelming endorsement of the 1890 treaty on the Sikkim-Tibet border, Nehru takes objection to Zhou’s statement that the boundaries of Sikkim and Bhutan did not fall within the scope of the discussion. Nehru explicitly states in the letter that the 1890 treaty defined only the northern part of the Sikkim-Tibet border and not the tri-junction area that brings Bhutan into play. India’s first Prime Minister goes on to state that “rectification of errors in Chinese maps regarding the boundary of Bhutan with Tibet is therefore a matter which has to be discussed along with the boundary of India with the Tibet region of China in the same sector.”
Then only Nehru makes the statement that China now latches on to, out of context. He says: “This Convention of 1890 also defined the boundary between Sikkim and Tibet; and the boundary was later, in 1895, demarcated. There is thus no dispute regarding the boundary of Sikkim with the Tibet region”.
Nehru concludes his letter with regret and shock while invoking the 1954 Panchsheel Agreement. “India was one of the first countries to extend recognition to the People's Republic of China and for the last ten years we have consistently sought to maintain and strengthen our friendship with your country. When our two countries signed the 1954 Agreement in regard to the Tibet region I hoped that the main problems which history had bequeathed to us in the relations between India and China had been peacefully and finally settled,” he states.
Why is China angry with Bhutan?
In the current standoff, Bhutan has rebuffed China by refuting the latter’s contention that it (China) was constructing a road at the India-China-Bhutan tri-junction in an “indisputable” part of Chinese territory. Thimphu had said it had conveyed to the Chinese government that this was not the case.
According to an explanation published in The Hindu on ‘Why Bhutan is special to India’, “Under the 2007 India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty, the two sides have agreed to ‘cooperate closely with each other on issues relating to their national interests. Neither Government shall allow the use of its territory for activities harmful to the national security and interest of the other.’
Under a previous treaty, India was to ‘guide’ Bhutan on foreign and defence policies. The language of the 2007 treaty is meant to respect the sensitivities of Bhutan regarding its sovereignty. But the reality is that the Indian military is virtually responsible for protecting Bhutan from the kind of external threat that the Chinese military poses.
****************
While the 1890 Sikkim-Tibet treaty backs China's claims on the trijunction being located farther south at Mount Gipmochi - which Beijing uses to claim 89 sq km in the Doklam plateau - India has only affirmed this treaty insofar as "the basis of alignment" of the India-China border in Sikkim, based on watershed, and not the treaty's other aspects.
*********
http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...-compromise/article19210352.ece?homepage=true
China’s Ambassador to India Luo Zhaohui said “the ball is in India’s court”.
China on Tuesday ruled out a compromise in the military standoff with India in Doklam, and put the onus on New Delhi to resolve the “grave” situation.
China’s Ambassador to India Luo Zhaohui said “the ball is in India’s court” and it was for the Indian government to decide what options could be on the table to resolve the standoff.
Asked about remarks by official Chinese media and think-tanks that the conflict can lead to a “war” if not handled properly, the Ambassador said in an interview to PTI: “There has been talk about this option, that option. It is up to your government policy (whether to exercise military option).”
The Chinese government is very clear that it wants peaceful resolution, for which the withdrawal of Indian troops from the area is a “pre-condition”, he asserted.
“The first priority is that the Indian troops unconditionally pull back to the Indian side of the boundary. That is the pre-condition for any meaningful dialogue between China and India,” he said.
China and India have been engaged in a standoff in the Dokalam area near the Bhutan tri-junction for the past 19 days after a Chinese army’s construction party came to build a road.
“The situation is grave and has made me deeply worried. It is the first time that Indian troops have crossed the mutually-recognised boundary and trespassed into China’s territory, triggering a close range face-off between Chinese and Indian border troops. Now 19 days have passed, but the situation still has not eased,” Mr. Luo said.
He also asserted that India has no right to interfere with the China-Bhutan boundary talks, nor is it entitled to make territorial claims on behalf of Bhutan.
On the standoff, the Ministry of External Affairs had said India was “deeply concerned at the recent Chinese actions and has conveyed to the Chinese government that such construction would represent a significant change of status quo with serious security implications for India“.
“As for the so called ‘security concerns’ of the Indian side, India has crossed a delimited boundary into other country’s territory in the name of security concerns, which will not be acceptable to any sovereign State.
“India cannot encroach upon the territory of other countries on the ground of its ‘security concerns’ Otherwise, the world would be in chaos,” the Chinese envoy added.
He also asserted that “it is critical that India shall withdraw its troops immediately to minimise the negative impact. It serves the interests of the two sides.”
**************
The current round of tensions was triggered by China's bid to construct a road in the Doklam area, which falls in the tri-junction of India, China and Bhutan.
The ongoing standoff at the Sikkim sector of the India-China border between troops of the two countries has brought the “Sino-British Treaty, 1890” into focus.
Here’s what the treaty is all about and why China is raking it up now.
Officially called the Convention Between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet, the treaty was signed in Calcutta on March 17, 1890. The Convention, according to Beijing, settles the border between the two regions. But India maintains that the borders in Doklam, the area in question, are yet to be settled.
Article I of the Convention talks about the boundary of Sikkim and Tibet in physical detail. “The boundary of Sikkim and Tibet shall be the crest of the mountain range separating the waters flowing into the Sikkim Teesta and its affluents from the waters flowing into the Tibetan Mochu and northwards into other rivers of Tibet. The line commences at Mount Gipmochi, on the Bhutan frontier, and follows the above-mentioned water-parting to the point where it meets Nepal territory,” the Article states.
The standoff
The current round of tensions was triggered by the China's bid to construct a road in the Doklam area, which falls in the tri-junction of India, China and Bhutan. New Delhi says that a road there will threaten its national security.
Analysts say that if built, the road will provide China further access to the Chumbi Valley, adding to the vulnerability of the “Chicken’s Neck”, a narrow corridor that links the Northeast with the rest of India.
What is India’s stand?
India has expressed deep concern at the Chinese actions at the Doko La (Doklam) tri-junction. “…Conveyed to the Chinese Government that such construction would represent a significant change of status quo with serious security implications for India,” said a government statement on June 30, 2017 in its first reaction since the tensions at the tri-junction were made public a week earlier. The war of words also saw Chinese anger towards Bhutan.
What is Beijing’s stand?
China stresses that the Sikkim section of the China-India boundary was defined by the 1890 treaty. China has accused India of “betrayal” of the treaty, a colonial era understanding of the boundary alignment relating to Tibet and Sikkim. Beijing, on July 3, 2017, cited letters between Prime Ministers Jawaharlal Nehru and Zhou Enlai that “had explicitly recognised many times that the (1890) Convention has defined the boundary between Xi Zang (Tibet) of China and Sikkim”.
According to a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, in his letters to Zhou on March 22, 1959 and again on September 26, 1959, Nehru acknowledged that the boundary between Sikkim and Tibet “was defined by the 1890 Convention and demarcated by the two sides on the ground in 1895” and that “there’s no dispute over the boundary between Sikkim and Xi Zang, China”.
“Current actions by the Indian side undoubtedly run counter to the Indian government's longstanding position,” the spokesperson said.
What did Nehru say in the letter?
Nehru’s September 26, 1959 letter to Zhou, cited by China, was a point-by-point refutation of the claims made by the latter on September 8, 1959. Contrary to the claim that the letter was an overwhelming endorsement of the 1890 treaty on the Sikkim-Tibet border, Nehru takes objection to Zhou’s statement that the boundaries of Sikkim and Bhutan did not fall within the scope of the discussion. Nehru explicitly states in the letter that the 1890 treaty defined only the northern part of the Sikkim-Tibet border and not the tri-junction area that brings Bhutan into play. India’s first Prime Minister goes on to state that “rectification of errors in Chinese maps regarding the boundary of Bhutan with Tibet is therefore a matter which has to be discussed along with the boundary of India with the Tibet region of China in the same sector.”
Then only Nehru makes the statement that China now latches on to, out of context. He says: “This Convention of 1890 also defined the boundary between Sikkim and Tibet; and the boundary was later, in 1895, demarcated. There is thus no dispute regarding the boundary of Sikkim with the Tibet region”.
Nehru concludes his letter with regret and shock while invoking the 1954 Panchsheel Agreement. “India was one of the first countries to extend recognition to the People's Republic of China and for the last ten years we have consistently sought to maintain and strengthen our friendship with your country. When our two countries signed the 1954 Agreement in regard to the Tibet region I hoped that the main problems which history had bequeathed to us in the relations between India and China had been peacefully and finally settled,” he states.
Why is China angry with Bhutan?
In the current standoff, Bhutan has rebuffed China by refuting the latter’s contention that it (China) was constructing a road at the India-China-Bhutan tri-junction in an “indisputable” part of Chinese territory. Thimphu had said it had conveyed to the Chinese government that this was not the case.
According to an explanation published in The Hindu on ‘Why Bhutan is special to India’, “Under the 2007 India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty, the two sides have agreed to ‘cooperate closely with each other on issues relating to their national interests. Neither Government shall allow the use of its territory for activities harmful to the national security and interest of the other.’
Under a previous treaty, India was to ‘guide’ Bhutan on foreign and defence policies. The language of the 2007 treaty is meant to respect the sensitivities of Bhutan regarding its sovereignty. But the reality is that the Indian military is virtually responsible for protecting Bhutan from the kind of external threat that the Chinese military poses.
****************
While the 1890 Sikkim-Tibet treaty backs China's claims on the trijunction being located farther south at Mount Gipmochi - which Beijing uses to claim 89 sq km in the Doklam plateau - India has only affirmed this treaty insofar as "the basis of alignment" of the India-China border in Sikkim, based on watershed, and not the treaty's other aspects.
*********
http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...-compromise/article19210352.ece?homepage=true
China’s Ambassador to India Luo Zhaohui said “the ball is in India’s court”.
China on Tuesday ruled out a compromise in the military standoff with India in Doklam, and put the onus on New Delhi to resolve the “grave” situation.
China’s Ambassador to India Luo Zhaohui said “the ball is in India’s court” and it was for the Indian government to decide what options could be on the table to resolve the standoff.
Asked about remarks by official Chinese media and think-tanks that the conflict can lead to a “war” if not handled properly, the Ambassador said in an interview to PTI: “There has been talk about this option, that option. It is up to your government policy (whether to exercise military option).”
The Chinese government is very clear that it wants peaceful resolution, for which the withdrawal of Indian troops from the area is a “pre-condition”, he asserted.
“The first priority is that the Indian troops unconditionally pull back to the Indian side of the boundary. That is the pre-condition for any meaningful dialogue between China and India,” he said.
China and India have been engaged in a standoff in the Dokalam area near the Bhutan tri-junction for the past 19 days after a Chinese army’s construction party came to build a road.
“The situation is grave and has made me deeply worried. It is the first time that Indian troops have crossed the mutually-recognised boundary and trespassed into China’s territory, triggering a close range face-off between Chinese and Indian border troops. Now 19 days have passed, but the situation still has not eased,” Mr. Luo said.
He also asserted that India has no right to interfere with the China-Bhutan boundary talks, nor is it entitled to make territorial claims on behalf of Bhutan.
On the standoff, the Ministry of External Affairs had said India was “deeply concerned at the recent Chinese actions and has conveyed to the Chinese government that such construction would represent a significant change of status quo with serious security implications for India“.
“As for the so called ‘security concerns’ of the Indian side, India has crossed a delimited boundary into other country’s territory in the name of security concerns, which will not be acceptable to any sovereign State.
“India cannot encroach upon the territory of other countries on the ground of its ‘security concerns’ Otherwise, the world would be in chaos,” the Chinese envoy added.
He also asserted that “it is critical that India shall withdraw its troops immediately to minimise the negative impact. It serves the interests of the two sides.”
**************
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/620896/china-claiming-sizeable-bhutan-territory.html
Contrary to the Chinese government's assertion that Jawaharlal Nehru had accepted the 1890 Sino-British treaty over Sikkim to buttress Beijing's claim over the Dokalam area, the former prime minister had pointed out to China that it is claiming sizeable part of Bhutan's territory.
"It is not clear to us what exactly is the implication of your statement that the boundaries of Sikkim and Bhutan do not fall within the scope of the present discussion," Nehru wrote in a letter to his then Chinese counterpart Zhou Enlai on September 26, 1959.
"In fact, Chinese maps show sizable areas of Bhutan as part of Tibet," Nehru said in the letter accessed by PTI here.
In the lengthy letter highlighting India's stand on the boundary dispute, Nehru wrote that under treaty relationships with Bhutan, the Government of India is the only competent authority to take up with other Governments matters concerning Bhutan's external relations, and in fact it has taken up with China a number of matters on behalf of the Bhutan Government.
"The rectification of errors in Chinese maps regarding the boundary of Bhutan with Tibet is therefore a matter which has to be discussed along with the boundary of India with the Tibet region of China in the same sector," he wrote.
After asserting that Chinese maps are showing sizable areas of Bhutan as part of China, Nehru referred to the 1890 Sino-British treaty granting India's sovereignty to Sikkim.
"As regards Sikkim, the Chinese Government recognised as far back as 1890 that the Government of India 'has direct and exclusive control over the internal administration and foreign relations of that State'. This Convention of 1890 also defined the boundary between Sikkim and Tibet; and the boundary was later, in 1895, demarcated. There is thus no dispute regarding the boundary of Sikkim with the Tibet region," Nehru said.
At the same time, he pointed out that "it is wrong to say that the frontier east of Bhutan as shown on Chinese maps is the traditional frontier. On the contrary, it is the McMahon Line which correctly represents the customary boundary in this area. The water-parting formed by the crest of the Himalayas is the natural frontier which was accepted for centuries as the boundary by the peoples on both sides."
China and India have been engaged in a standoff in the Doka La area near the Bhutan trijunction for almost a month.
Sikkim, which became a part of India in May 1976, is the only state which has a demarcated border with China. The lines are based on a treaty signed with the Chinese in 1898. Doka La is the Indian name for the region which Bhutan recognises as Dokalam, while China claims it as part of its Donglang region.
Chinese are making attempts to build a road which was objected to by Bhutan.
The Ambassador of Bhutan has a lodged a protest with the Chinese Government through their Embassy in New Delhi on June 20. Bhutan has no diplomatic relations with China.
Contrary to the Chinese government's assertion that Jawaharlal Nehru had accepted the 1890 Sino-British treaty over Sikkim to buttress Beijing's claim over the Dokalam area, the former prime minister had pointed out to China that it is claiming sizeable part of Bhutan's territory.
"It is not clear to us what exactly is the implication of your statement that the boundaries of Sikkim and Bhutan do not fall within the scope of the present discussion," Nehru wrote in a letter to his then Chinese counterpart Zhou Enlai on September 26, 1959.
"In fact, Chinese maps show sizable areas of Bhutan as part of Tibet," Nehru said in the letter accessed by PTI here.
In the lengthy letter highlighting India's stand on the boundary dispute, Nehru wrote that under treaty relationships with Bhutan, the Government of India is the only competent authority to take up with other Governments matters concerning Bhutan's external relations, and in fact it has taken up with China a number of matters on behalf of the Bhutan Government.
"The rectification of errors in Chinese maps regarding the boundary of Bhutan with Tibet is therefore a matter which has to be discussed along with the boundary of India with the Tibet region of China in the same sector," he wrote.
After asserting that Chinese maps are showing sizable areas of Bhutan as part of China, Nehru referred to the 1890 Sino-British treaty granting India's sovereignty to Sikkim.
"As regards Sikkim, the Chinese Government recognised as far back as 1890 that the Government of India 'has direct and exclusive control over the internal administration and foreign relations of that State'. This Convention of 1890 also defined the boundary between Sikkim and Tibet; and the boundary was later, in 1895, demarcated. There is thus no dispute regarding the boundary of Sikkim with the Tibet region," Nehru said.
At the same time, he pointed out that "it is wrong to say that the frontier east of Bhutan as shown on Chinese maps is the traditional frontier. On the contrary, it is the McMahon Line which correctly represents the customary boundary in this area. The water-parting formed by the crest of the Himalayas is the natural frontier which was accepted for centuries as the boundary by the peoples on both sides."
China and India have been engaged in a standoff in the Doka La area near the Bhutan trijunction for almost a month.
Sikkim, which became a part of India in May 1976, is the only state which has a demarcated border with China. The lines are based on a treaty signed with the Chinese in 1898. Doka La is the Indian name for the region which Bhutan recognises as Dokalam, while China claims it as part of its Donglang region.
Chinese are making attempts to build a road which was objected to by Bhutan.
The Ambassador of Bhutan has a lodged a protest with the Chinese Government through their Embassy in New Delhi on June 20. Bhutan has no diplomatic relations with China.
salarsikander
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2013
- Messages
- 8,860
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Nuke turbines ? Lol
I thought Indians were making their own submarine nuke reactors
BetterPakistan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2014
- Messages
- 2,907
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Yeah they can but they are not accepting those fake sur-gi-kal strikes because they know that strikes never happened and no strike can be done on the soil of Pakistan.
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
Turkish news agency Anadolu
Relations between China and India have soured over a tri-junction border between India, China and Bhutan.
Relations between China and India have soured over a tri-junction border between India, China and Bhutan.
shjliu
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2016
- Messages
- 499
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
so where is the Indian army now? is it inside of China border?http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...order-issue/article19210128.ece?homepage=true
The current round of tensions was triggered by China's bid to construct a road in the Doklam area, which falls in the tri-junction of India, China and Bhutan.
The ongoing standoff at the Sikkim sector of the India-China border between troops of the two countries has brought the “Sino-British Treaty, 1890” into focus.
Here’s what the treaty is all about and why China is raking it up now.
Officially called the Convention Between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet, the treaty was signed in Calcutta on March 17, 1890. The Convention, according to Beijing, settles the border between the two regions. But India maintains that the borders in Doklam, the area in question, are yet to be settled.
Article I of the Convention talks about the boundary of Sikkim and Tibet in physical detail. “The boundary of Sikkim and Tibet shall be the crest of the mountain range separating the waters flowing into the Sikkim Teesta and its affluents from the waters flowing into the Tibetan Mochu and northwards into other rivers of Tibet. The line commences at Mount Gipmochi, on the Bhutan frontier, and follows the above-mentioned water-parting to the point where it meets Nepal territory,” the Article states.
The standoff
The current round of tensions was triggered by the China's bid to construct a road in the Doklam area, which falls in the tri-junction of India, China and Bhutan. New Delhi says that a road there will threaten its national security.
Analysts say that if built, the road will provide China further access to the Chumbi Valley, adding to the vulnerability of the “Chicken’s Neck”, a narrow corridor that links the Northeast with the rest of India.
What is India’s stand?
India has expressed deep concern at the Chinese actions at the Doko La (Doklam) tri-junction. “…Conveyed to the Chinese Government that such construction would represent a significant change of status quo with serious security implications for India,” said a government statement on June 30, 2017 in its first reaction since the tensions at the tri-junction were made public a week earlier. The war of words also saw Chinese anger towards Bhutan.
What is Beijing’s stand?
China stresses that the Sikkim section of the China-India boundary was defined by the 1890 treaty. China has accused India of “betrayal” of the treaty, a colonial era understanding of the boundary alignment relating to Tibet and Sikkim. Beijing, on July 3, 2017, cited letters between Prime Ministers Jawaharlal Nehru and Zhou Enlai that “had explicitly recognised many times that the (1890) Convention has defined the boundary between Xi Zang (Tibet) of China and Sikkim”.
According to a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, in his letters to Zhou on March 22, 1959 and again on September 26, 1959, Nehru acknowledged that the boundary between Sikkim and Tibet “was defined by the 1890 Convention and demarcated by the two sides on the ground in 1895” and that “there’s no dispute over the boundary between Sikkim and Xi Zang, China”.
“Current actions by the Indian side undoubtedly run counter to the Indian government's longstanding position,” the spokesperson said.
What did Nehru say in the letter?
Nehru’s September 26, 1959 letter to Zhou, cited by China, was a point-by-point refutation of the claims made by the latter on September 8, 1959. Contrary to the claim that the letter was an overwhelming endorsement of the 1890 treaty on the Sikkim-Tibet border, Nehru takes objection to Zhou’s statement that the boundaries of Sikkim and Bhutan did not fall within the scope of the discussion. Nehru explicitly states in the letter that the 1890 treaty defined only the northern part of the Sikkim-Tibet border and not the tri-junction area that brings Bhutan into play. India’s first Prime Minister goes on to state that “rectification of errors in Chinese maps regarding the boundary of Bhutan with Tibet is therefore a matter which has to be discussed along with the boundary of India with the Tibet region of China in the same sector.”
Then only Nehru makes the statement that China now latches on to, out of context. He says: “This Convention of 1890 also defined the boundary between Sikkim and Tibet; and the boundary was later, in 1895, demarcated. There is thus no dispute regarding the boundary of Sikkim with the Tibet region”.
Nehru concludes his letter with regret and shock while invoking the 1954 Panchsheel Agreement. “India was one of the first countries to extend recognition to the People's Republic of China and for the last ten years we have consistently sought to maintain and strengthen our friendship with your country. When our two countries signed the 1954 Agreement in regard to the Tibet region I hoped that the main problems which history had bequeathed to us in the relations between India and China had been peacefully and finally settled,” he states.
Why is China angry with Bhutan?
In the current standoff, Bhutan has rebuffed China by refuting the latter’s contention that it (China) was constructing a road at the India-China-Bhutan tri-junction in an “indisputable” part of Chinese territory. Thimphu had said it had conveyed to the Chinese government that this was not the case.
According to an explanation published in The Hindu on ‘Why Bhutan is special to India’, “Under the 2007 India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty, the two sides have agreed to ‘cooperate closely with each other on issues relating to their national interests. Neither Government shall allow the use of its territory for activities harmful to the national security and interest of the other.’
Under a previous treaty, India was to ‘guide’ Bhutan on foreign and defence policies. The language of the 2007 treaty is meant to respect the sensitivities of Bhutan regarding its sovereignty. But the reality is that the Indian military is virtually responsible for protecting Bhutan from the kind of external threat that the Chinese military poses.
****************
While the 1890 Sikkim-Tibet treaty backs China's claims on the trijunction being located farther south at Mount Gipmochi - which Beijing uses to claim 89 sq km in the Doklam plateau - India has only affirmed this treaty insofar as "the basis of alignment" of the India-China border in Sikkim, based on watershed, and not the treaty's other aspects.
*********
http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...-compromise/article19210352.ece?homepage=true
China’s Ambassador to India Luo Zhaohui said “the ball is in India’s court”.
China on Tuesday ruled out a compromise in the military standoff with India in Doklam, and put the onus on New Delhi to resolve the “grave” situation.
China’s Ambassador to India Luo Zhaohui said “the ball is in India’s court” and it was for the Indian government to decide what options could be on the table to resolve the standoff.
Asked about remarks by official Chinese media and think-tanks that the conflict can lead to a “war” if not handled properly, the Ambassador said in an interview to PTI: “There has been talk about this option, that option. It is up to your government policy (whether to exercise military option).”
The Chinese government is very clear that it wants peaceful resolution, for which the withdrawal of Indian troops from the area is a “pre-condition”, he asserted.
“The first priority is that the Indian troops unconditionally pull back to the Indian side of the boundary. That is the pre-condition for any meaningful dialogue between China and India,” he said.
China and India have been engaged in a standoff in the Dokalam area near the Bhutan tri-junction for the past 19 days after a Chinese army’s construction party came to build a road.
“The situation is grave and has made me deeply worried. It is the first time that Indian troops have crossed the mutually-recognised boundary and trespassed into China’s territory, triggering a close range face-off between Chinese and Indian border troops. Now 19 days have passed, but the situation still has not eased,” Mr. Luo said.
He also asserted that India has no right to interfere with the China-Bhutan boundary talks, nor is it entitled to make territorial claims on behalf of Bhutan.
On the standoff, the Ministry of External Affairs had said India was “deeply concerned at the recent Chinese actions and has conveyed to the Chinese government that such construction would represent a significant change of status quo with serious security implications for India“.
“As for the so called ‘security concerns’ of the Indian side, India has crossed a delimited boundary into other country’s territory in the name of security concerns, which will not be acceptable to any sovereign State.
“India cannot encroach upon the territory of other countries on the ground of its ‘security concerns’ Otherwise, the world would be in chaos,” the Chinese envoy added.
He also asserted that “it is critical that India shall withdraw its troops immediately to minimise the negative impact. It serves the interests of the two sides.”
**************
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
http://zeenews.india.com/india/sino...my-gave-befitting-reply-to-china-2021447.html
New Delhi: China never shies away from reminding India about the humiliating defeat in the 1962 war. But at the same time, our northern neighbour conveniently forgets the severe mauling its troops received at the hands of Indian soldiers in 1967 in Sikkim and the strategic outmanoeuvering along the Line of Actual Control in Arunachal Pradesh in 1987.
Amidst the ongoing standoff at the Sikkim border, China on numerous occasions has threatened India to "learn a lesson from its defeat in 1962", but it must also keep in mind that an aggressive India has managed to give it a bloody nose on more than one occasions.
The Nathu La (1967), Cho La conflict (1967) and 1987 Sino-Indian skirmish (1987) are three military conflicts when Indian Army succeeded in giving a befitting reply to Chinese People's Liberation Army Ground Force.
China has been accusing India of "misleading the public" by claiming that Chinese troops are building a road close to the Chicken's Neck in the Sikkim sector which
could endanger India's access to the north- eastern states.
"In disregard of the 1890 Sino-Britain convention, the Indian side said that Doklam is located within the tri- junction of the three countries, that is misleading the public. The 1890 convention said that the Sikkim section of the boundary commences from East Mountain and the incident (of road building) took place about 2,000 meters away from Mount Gipmochi," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Gen Shuang said.
"The Indian side is actually misleading the public by saying that the incident took place at the tri-junction point," Geng said as he defended China's road-building at the Doklam sector which India and Bhutan have objected to.
Nathu La of 1967
It is also known as India-China War of 1967 and it was one the major border skirmish between India and China after the war of 1962.
The clashes started on 11 September 1967, when China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) launched an attack on Indian posts at Nathu La, which lasted until 15 September 1967.
As per a report, the end of the conflict resulted in the defeat of Chinese military in the hands of Indian forces. Indian troops drove back the attacking Chinese forces and were able to destroy many Chinese bunkers at Nathu La.
A significant number of casualties is said to have been taken place on both sides though the actual number remains unforeseeable. The competition to control the land in the border region was seen as a major cause of tensions in these incidents.
It all started from 13 August 1967, when Chinese troops began digging trenches in Nathu La on the Indian side. The Indian troops pointed this out to the local Chinese commander, who was subsequently asked to withdraw its forces from there.
Later, Indian troops decided to stretch a barbed wire along the ridges of Nathu La in order to indicate the boundary.
Accordingly, from 18 August, wires were stretched along the border, which was resented by the Chinese troops. After two days, armed Chinese troops took positions against the Indian soldiers who were engaged in laying the wire.
Accordingly, in the morning of 11 September 1967, a heated argument broke out between the Chinese Commissar, who had come to the Indian side and asked Lt Col Rai Singh to stop laying the wire. After Singh refused to flinch, the 'sulking' Chinese Commissar went back to its bunker and reportedly gave the order to its troops to launch fire at the Indian soldier, who was deployed at Nathu La as a shield to protect the engineers engaged in wire laying.
Soon after, a heavy gun fire medium machine gun firing began from the Chinese side against the Indian troops from the north shoulder.
Due to the lack of cover in the pass, the Indian troops initially found it difficult to find any place to cover and prepare themselves and suffered heavy casualties.
A little later, Indian troops opened artillery from their side and began targeting the Chinese bunkers.
Due to the advantageous position Indian troops had because of their occupation of high grounds at the pass in Sebu La, they succeeded in having an upper hand on the Chinese soldiers.
The clashes lasted for three days after which the Indian Army delivered a strong message to China that '1962 mistakes won't be repeated'.
The Cho La conflict of 1967
After getting a humiliating defeat at Nathu La, the Chinese army carried another attack on Indian Army on Cho La on 1st October 1967. To their surprise, the 7/11 GR and 10 JAK RIF stood firm and answered the Chinese firing with double magnitude.
By October 10th, Chinese had to withdraw nearly three kilometres away from the border to a feature named Kam Barracks where the Chinese Army is deployed till date. Since then Nathu La and Cho La passes have remained under India’s control and China never raised its voice against it.
1987 Sino-Indian skirmish
Sumdorong Chu incident in 1987 in Arunachal Pradesh is one such standoff where India-China came close to a war. But Indian diplomacy mixed with caution and aggression managed not only to avoid war but also brought China to the table to discuss.
It happened when at the end of 1986, India had granted statehood to Arunachal Pradesh, an area claimed by China. The Chinese government proceeded to protest.
But the military movements in Tawang, taken in conjunction with this political action were seen as a provocation by the Chinese. In early 1987 Beijing's tone became similar to that of 1962, and with the Indian Army refusing to stand down, Western diplomats predicted a war.
However, External Affairs Minister ND Tiwari's arrival in Beijing in May 1987 helped lowering the tension.
The first formal flag meeting to discuss the freezing of the situation since 1962, was held. Both sides reaffirmed their desire to continue the on-going talks on the border. A few months later, the Indian and Chinese troops withdrew from their positions in the Sumdorong Chu area.
Finally, in 1993, the two countries signed an agreement to ensure peace along the LAC.
**********
http://zeenews.india.com/world/no-dispute-with-bhutan-in-doklam-china-2021433.html
Beijing: China today claimed that it has a "basic consensus" with Bhutan on the boundary and there is no dispute between two countries in the Doklam area, the centre of the current Sino-India military standoff.
The standoff between troops of India and China at Doklam area started after Bhutan, which has close diplomatic and military ties with India, protested to Beijing about the People's Liberation Army troops building a road in the strategic location close to the 'Chicken's Neck' tri-junction.
"I can say that we have been stressing that Doklam belongs to China since ancient times. It was under the effective jurisdiction of China without any dispute. China and Bhutan had about 24 rounds of boundary talks," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told a media briefing answering a question about Bhutan's protest.
"Although the boundary between the two countries is yet to be settled but we have basic consensus on the boundary and there is no dispute between both of us that Doklam belongs to China," he said.
Geng said China had been acting according to the agreements between the two countries and Doklam had been under the effective jurisdiction of China.
"Chinese activities (road building) in the relevant area does not violate relevant agreements and does not alter the status quo. The Bhutan side also knows it clearly. We will work together with Bhutan through friendly negotiations and jointly maintain peace and tranquility in the border areas," he said.
New Delhi: China never shies away from reminding India about the humiliating defeat in the 1962 war. But at the same time, our northern neighbour conveniently forgets the severe mauling its troops received at the hands of Indian soldiers in 1967 in Sikkim and the strategic outmanoeuvering along the Line of Actual Control in Arunachal Pradesh in 1987.
Amidst the ongoing standoff at the Sikkim border, China on numerous occasions has threatened India to "learn a lesson from its defeat in 1962", but it must also keep in mind that an aggressive India has managed to give it a bloody nose on more than one occasions.
The Nathu La (1967), Cho La conflict (1967) and 1987 Sino-Indian skirmish (1987) are three military conflicts when Indian Army succeeded in giving a befitting reply to Chinese People's Liberation Army Ground Force.
China has been accusing India of "misleading the public" by claiming that Chinese troops are building a road close to the Chicken's Neck in the Sikkim sector which
could endanger India's access to the north- eastern states.
"In disregard of the 1890 Sino-Britain convention, the Indian side said that Doklam is located within the tri- junction of the three countries, that is misleading the public. The 1890 convention said that the Sikkim section of the boundary commences from East Mountain and the incident (of road building) took place about 2,000 meters away from Mount Gipmochi," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Gen Shuang said.
"The Indian side is actually misleading the public by saying that the incident took place at the tri-junction point," Geng said as he defended China's road-building at the Doklam sector which India and Bhutan have objected to.
Nathu La of 1967
It is also known as India-China War of 1967 and it was one the major border skirmish between India and China after the war of 1962.
The clashes started on 11 September 1967, when China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) launched an attack on Indian posts at Nathu La, which lasted until 15 September 1967.
As per a report, the end of the conflict resulted in the defeat of Chinese military in the hands of Indian forces. Indian troops drove back the attacking Chinese forces and were able to destroy many Chinese bunkers at Nathu La.
A significant number of casualties is said to have been taken place on both sides though the actual number remains unforeseeable. The competition to control the land in the border region was seen as a major cause of tensions in these incidents.
It all started from 13 August 1967, when Chinese troops began digging trenches in Nathu La on the Indian side. The Indian troops pointed this out to the local Chinese commander, who was subsequently asked to withdraw its forces from there.
Later, Indian troops decided to stretch a barbed wire along the ridges of Nathu La in order to indicate the boundary.
Accordingly, from 18 August, wires were stretched along the border, which was resented by the Chinese troops. After two days, armed Chinese troops took positions against the Indian soldiers who were engaged in laying the wire.
Accordingly, in the morning of 11 September 1967, a heated argument broke out between the Chinese Commissar, who had come to the Indian side and asked Lt Col Rai Singh to stop laying the wire. After Singh refused to flinch, the 'sulking' Chinese Commissar went back to its bunker and reportedly gave the order to its troops to launch fire at the Indian soldier, who was deployed at Nathu La as a shield to protect the engineers engaged in wire laying.
Soon after, a heavy gun fire medium machine gun firing began from the Chinese side against the Indian troops from the north shoulder.
Due to the lack of cover in the pass, the Indian troops initially found it difficult to find any place to cover and prepare themselves and suffered heavy casualties.
A little later, Indian troops opened artillery from their side and began targeting the Chinese bunkers.
Due to the advantageous position Indian troops had because of their occupation of high grounds at the pass in Sebu La, they succeeded in having an upper hand on the Chinese soldiers.
The clashes lasted for three days after which the Indian Army delivered a strong message to China that '1962 mistakes won't be repeated'.
The Cho La conflict of 1967
After getting a humiliating defeat at Nathu La, the Chinese army carried another attack on Indian Army on Cho La on 1st October 1967. To their surprise, the 7/11 GR and 10 JAK RIF stood firm and answered the Chinese firing with double magnitude.
By October 10th, Chinese had to withdraw nearly three kilometres away from the border to a feature named Kam Barracks where the Chinese Army is deployed till date. Since then Nathu La and Cho La passes have remained under India’s control and China never raised its voice against it.
1987 Sino-Indian skirmish
Sumdorong Chu incident in 1987 in Arunachal Pradesh is one such standoff where India-China came close to a war. But Indian diplomacy mixed with caution and aggression managed not only to avoid war but also brought China to the table to discuss.
It happened when at the end of 1986, India had granted statehood to Arunachal Pradesh, an area claimed by China. The Chinese government proceeded to protest.
But the military movements in Tawang, taken in conjunction with this political action were seen as a provocation by the Chinese. In early 1987 Beijing's tone became similar to that of 1962, and with the Indian Army refusing to stand down, Western diplomats predicted a war.
However, External Affairs Minister ND Tiwari's arrival in Beijing in May 1987 helped lowering the tension.
The first formal flag meeting to discuss the freezing of the situation since 1962, was held. Both sides reaffirmed their desire to continue the on-going talks on the border. A few months later, the Indian and Chinese troops withdrew from their positions in the Sumdorong Chu area.
Finally, in 1993, the two countries signed an agreement to ensure peace along the LAC.
**********
http://zeenews.india.com/world/no-dispute-with-bhutan-in-doklam-china-2021433.html
Beijing: China today claimed that it has a "basic consensus" with Bhutan on the boundary and there is no dispute between two countries in the Doklam area, the centre of the current Sino-India military standoff.
The standoff between troops of India and China at Doklam area started after Bhutan, which has close diplomatic and military ties with India, protested to Beijing about the People's Liberation Army troops building a road in the strategic location close to the 'Chicken's Neck' tri-junction.
"I can say that we have been stressing that Doklam belongs to China since ancient times. It was under the effective jurisdiction of China without any dispute. China and Bhutan had about 24 rounds of boundary talks," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told a media briefing answering a question about Bhutan's protest.
"Although the boundary between the two countries is yet to be settled but we have basic consensus on the boundary and there is no dispute between both of us that Doklam belongs to China," he said.
Geng said China had been acting according to the agreements between the two countries and Doklam had been under the effective jurisdiction of China.
"Chinese activities (road building) in the relevant area does not violate relevant agreements and does not alter the status quo. The Bhutan side also knows it clearly. We will work together with Bhutan through friendly negotiations and jointly maintain peace and tranquility in the border areas," he said.
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india...warns-china/story-2570Ds0PudgopDOLd4zQ8H.html
China on Wednesday said Indian troops were “still standing in Chinese territory” at Donglang, hinting that the standoff near the Sikkim border could affect the bilateral mechanism created to address the long-standing boundary dispute.
The foreign ministry said the “trespass” by Indian troops violated the “spirit” of talks by the Special Representatives on the border issue. It also said the current face-off could be resolved only by Indian troops returning to their original positions.
The foreign ministry added India had “trampled” on the Panchsheel pact or the “five principles of peaceful existence” by allegedly entering Chinese territory.
India and China have held 19 rounds of talks under the Special Representatives mechanism since 2003.
China also said India was “misleading” its citizens by saying that Doklam or Donglang is located at the tri-junction of India, Bhutan and China.
“As we all know, China, India and Myanmar in the 1950s jointly proposed five principles of peaceful coexistence,” foreign ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang said.
“However, to the surprise of everyone, the Indian side has trampled on the basic norms of international relations that were proposed by itself by illegally crossing into other’s territory.”
Geng reiterated the Chinese allegation that Indian troops had “entered the Chinese side of the delimited boundary” in the Sikkim sector and described it as a “serious” matter. “The Indian border troops are still standing in Chinese territory and the issue is not resolved,” he said.
“China and India have been trying to explore ways to resolve the boundary question through the Special Representatives mechanism and have jointly taken measures to maintain peace and tranquillity in border areas. This incident, we believe, violates the spirit upheld by the Special Representatives mechanism.”
Geng also rhetorically asked how Indian is supposed to win the trust of its neighbours and play a bigger role in international affairs if it “refuses to correct its mistakes in a timely fashion”
Troops from the two countries have been locked in a standoff at Donglang for three weeks following allegations of territorial trespass and illegal construction. The Chinese government and state-controlled media have aggressively held India responsible for the impasse.
The only official reaction from the Indian government was on June 30, when New Delhi said the construction of a road in Donglang amounted to changing the status quo. The external affairs ministry also said it was “deeply concerned at the recent Chinese actions” at the strategic tri-junction between India, China and Bhutan.
China and Bhutan have a territorial dispute in Donglang region.
China has repeatedly cited the “Convention between Great Britain and China relating to Sikkim and Tibet”, signed in 1890, to say it had demarcated the borders between Tibet, under China’s Qing dynasty, and Sikkim.
Referring to Bhutan’s position in the standoff, Geng said Beijing is in talks with Thimphu to resolve the bilateral boundary issue. “We have already had 24 rounds of talks with Bhutan since the 1980s. Although the boundary is yet to be settled we have a basic consensus on the boundary. There is no dispute between our countries that Doklam belongs to China,” he said.
“China’s actives in relevant areas do not violate agreements and do not alter the status quo. We will work together with Bhutan to properly resolve the boundary question through friendly negotiations,” he said.
However, Bhutan last week issued a demarche to China to stop building the road in Donglang area and to maintain status quo.
China on Wednesday said Indian troops were “still standing in Chinese territory” at Donglang, hinting that the standoff near the Sikkim border could affect the bilateral mechanism created to address the long-standing boundary dispute.
The foreign ministry said the “trespass” by Indian troops violated the “spirit” of talks by the Special Representatives on the border issue. It also said the current face-off could be resolved only by Indian troops returning to their original positions.
The foreign ministry added India had “trampled” on the Panchsheel pact or the “five principles of peaceful existence” by allegedly entering Chinese territory.
India and China have held 19 rounds of talks under the Special Representatives mechanism since 2003.
China also said India was “misleading” its citizens by saying that Doklam or Donglang is located at the tri-junction of India, Bhutan and China.
“As we all know, China, India and Myanmar in the 1950s jointly proposed five principles of peaceful coexistence,” foreign ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang said.
“However, to the surprise of everyone, the Indian side has trampled on the basic norms of international relations that were proposed by itself by illegally crossing into other’s territory.”
Geng reiterated the Chinese allegation that Indian troops had “entered the Chinese side of the delimited boundary” in the Sikkim sector and described it as a “serious” matter. “The Indian border troops are still standing in Chinese territory and the issue is not resolved,” he said.
“China and India have been trying to explore ways to resolve the boundary question through the Special Representatives mechanism and have jointly taken measures to maintain peace and tranquillity in border areas. This incident, we believe, violates the spirit upheld by the Special Representatives mechanism.”
Geng also rhetorically asked how Indian is supposed to win the trust of its neighbours and play a bigger role in international affairs if it “refuses to correct its mistakes in a timely fashion”
Troops from the two countries have been locked in a standoff at Donglang for three weeks following allegations of territorial trespass and illegal construction. The Chinese government and state-controlled media have aggressively held India responsible for the impasse.
The only official reaction from the Indian government was on June 30, when New Delhi said the construction of a road in Donglang amounted to changing the status quo. The external affairs ministry also said it was “deeply concerned at the recent Chinese actions” at the strategic tri-junction between India, China and Bhutan.
China and Bhutan have a territorial dispute in Donglang region.
China has repeatedly cited the “Convention between Great Britain and China relating to Sikkim and Tibet”, signed in 1890, to say it had demarcated the borders between Tibet, under China’s Qing dynasty, and Sikkim.
Referring to Bhutan’s position in the standoff, Geng said Beijing is in talks with Thimphu to resolve the bilateral boundary issue. “We have already had 24 rounds of talks with Bhutan since the 1980s. Although the boundary is yet to be settled we have a basic consensus on the boundary. There is no dispute between our countries that Doklam belongs to China,” he said.
“China’s actives in relevant areas do not violate agreements and do not alter the status quo. We will work together with Bhutan to properly resolve the boundary question through friendly negotiations,” he said.
However, Bhutan last week issued a demarche to China to stop building the road in Donglang area and to maintain status quo.
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
http://www.thehindu.com/news/intern...t-play-in-border-standoff/article19220716.ece
Hu Shisheng, however, insists troop pullback and talks is the only way forward.
A leading Chinese scholar has acknowledged that India may be responding to a perceived security threat resulting from the Chinese road construction in the Donglang area, but has insisted that pullback of troops followed by negotiations is the only way forward.
In a conversation with The Hindu, Hu Shisheng, Director of the Institute of South and Southeast Asian and Oceanian Studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, acknowledged that India’s “strategic” considerations may have led to the stand-off.
“Indians purposely did it”
“My personal understanding [is] that this time the Indians purposely did it. The reason is to stop the potential strategic construction. But this should not be the way,” he said, when asked whether New Delhi’s security considerations may have been a factor in the standoff, as the construction of a new Chinese road, if persisted, would have added to the vulnerability of the “chicken’s neck” or the Siliguri corridor that links the north-east with the rest of India.
He added: “I do not think that because of this, the Chinese side will stop it [the construction].”
Dr. Hu underscored that the area of the face-off between Chinese and Indian forces at Donglang is not disputed between Beijing and Thimpu.
“That place, is on the margin. If you say it [standoff] is at Donglang, it is on the margin. But on Donglang, the Chinese position is that there is no dispute. We only have some dispute in the Chumbi valley, more closer to the Bhutan border.”
He added: “From the map released by the [Chinese] Foreign Ministry, it is much nearer to the Sikkim side, far away from the Bhutan side, although the whole area of Donglang is bordering three countries.”
Bhutanese envoy at variance
Dr. Hu’s observations contradict the statement by Vetsop Namgyel, the Bhutanese Ambassador to India, who has been categorical in stating that Doklam or Donglang, the area of the current military tensions, is disputed between China and Bhutan. Mr. Namgyel has gone on record saying that, “Doklam is a disputed territory and Bhutan has a written agreement with China that pending the final resolution of the boundary issue, peace and tranquillity should be maintained in the area.”
But in his counter-narrative, the Chinese scholar argued that, “Maybe if this is a disputed area, this should be a disputed area between China and Bhutan, but not directly between China and India.”
India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty
Analysts, however say that New Delhi is obligated to side with Thimpu as India and Bhutan have special ties, which have been legally affirmed by the India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty of 2007.
Article 2 of the Friendship Treaty, which succeeded the 1949 Treaty of Perpetual Peace and Friendship between the two countries, affirms that India and Bhutan shall “cooperate closely with each other on issues relating to their national interests.” It adds: “Neither government shall allow the use of its territory for activities harmful to the national security and interest of the other.”
Consistent with the 2007 treaty, a statement by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on June 30, following the standoff, highlighted that in keeping with their “tradition” of maintaining close consultation on matters of mutual interest, the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB) and the government of India “have been in continuous contact through the unfolding of these developments.”
Use diplomatic channels: Hu
Dr. Hu stressed that India should have used diplomatic channels, instead of adopting a military stance, if it perceived that the road construction by China was “threatening.”
“In the past, Indian side left behind infrastructure construction because one of the lessons of the 1962 war [was] not [to] build infrastructure. Anyway, for many years in the past, China has been building infrastructure extending to the frontier regions. So my personal understanding that this is [road construction in Donglang] one part of the effort.”
He added: “But when this kind of effort is regarded by Indian side; okay, as threatening, then, this kind of approach is not the right approach, to raise this kind of protest. You can raise it [concerns] through strategic dialogue, thorough special envoy engagement, or other forms of consultations to see what China’s concerns are.”
‘Let India also build infra’
However, analysts in India say that once new “facts on the ground” in the form of finished road by China are established, it would be hard for diplomacy to achieve any tangible results. Nevertheless, Dr. Hu acknowledged that, “India also has the right to do so [build infrastructure] on its side.” “That is no problem. Even one day the roads from each side can link with each other in the Sikkim area,” he observed.
The Chinese scholar regarded the military face-off at Donglang as a “watershed incident,” having grave implications, including opening out the possibility of “even a small scale conflict,” undermining the Brazil-Russia-India-China- South Africa [BRICS] grouping, and casting a long shadow on the future of border talks and cross-border cooperation.
“From the Belt and Road summit, the international community knows the big difference between these two Asian giants. Now on this issue [at the border], if we cannot tackle it skillfully, it will lead to the third negative development that is the BRICS.”
"China won't swallow bitter pill"
“I do not think China would be that foolish that in order to hold the BRICS summit, they will swallow this bitter pill, that is India just stays there, without backing off. Finally [if Indian Prime Minister] Narendra Modi says, okay, I will not participate, in that case the BRICS will be dismantled.”
Beijing may support 'pro-independence appeals in Sikkim': Chinese daily
Press Trust of India, Beijing, Jul 6 2017, 12:13 IST
The tabloid daily of the ruling Communist Party of China (CPC) also accused India of exerting startling control and oppression over Bhutan. DH file photo
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/621226/beijing-may-support-pro-independence.html
Ratcheting up its rhetoric against India, a state-run Chinese daily today warned that Beijing may support "pro-independence appeals in Sikkim" if New Delhi does not stop pursuing "regional hegemony" through the border face-off.
"In the past, China was wary of India playing the Dalai Lama card, but this card is already overplayed and will exert no additional effect on the Tibet question. But if Beijing adjusts its stance on India-sensitive issues, it could be a powerful card to deal with New Delhi," state-run Global Times said.
The paper, known for its aggressive rhetoric, said that China should reconsider its stance over Sikkim.
"Although China recognised India's annexation of Sikkim in 2003, it can readjust its stance on the matter," the daily said.
"There are those in Sikkim that cherish its history as a separate state, and they are sensitive to how the outside world views the Sikkim issue. As long as there are voices in Chinese society supporting Sikkim's independence, the voices will spread and fuel pro-independence appeals in Sikkim," it added.
Sikkim is a powerful card against the Dalai Lama, it said.
The tabloid daily of the ruling Communist Party of China (CPC) also accused India of exerting "startling control and oppression over Bhutan."
"As a result, Bhutan has not established diplomatic ties with China or any other permanent member of the UN Security Council. Through unequal treaties, India has severely jeopardised Bhutan's diplomatic sovereignty and controls its national defence," it said.
It also accused India of imposing a "similar coercive policy on Sikkim before".
"The small neighbour’s revolts over sovereignty in the 1960s and 1970s were brutally cracked down on by the Indian military. New Delhi deposed the king of Sikkim in 1975 and manipulated the country's parliament into a referendum to make Sikkim a state of India. The annexation of Sikkim is like a nightmare haunting Bhutan, and the small kingdom is forced to be submissive to India's bullying," it said.
The daily said that India after its independence inherited the brutal colonial policies of Britain and pursued "regional hegemony at the sacrifice of tiny Himalayan nations".
"New Delhi's regional hegemony is boldly shown by the border face-off this time. Using the excuse of 'helping Bhutan protect its sovereignty', India brazenly obstructs China's road construction in Chinese territory," it said.
The daily was apparently referring to Bhutan's diplomatic protest to China accusing that the Chinese troops of constructing the road in Doklam, a territory claimed by both nations.
"New Delhi's regional hegemony is swelling to a tipping point. The country has to pay for its provocations," The daily said.
"With certain conditions, Bhutan and Sikkim will see strong anti-India movements, which will negatively affect India's already turbulent northeast area and rewrite southern Himalayan geopolitics," it warned.
"The Sino-India relationship is complicated. Beijing is more powerful yet unwilling to face a confrontation with New Delhi. But meanwhile, we must have enough tools to deter India from provocations," it added.
The newspaper also carried an article quoting a security analyst as saying that India should "drop delusion of military strength" with China as the military gap between the two countries is bigger than in 1962.
"In 1962, the People's Liberation Army still achieved an overwhelming victory in the military conflict against the Indian army with really poor logistics conditions. Nowadays, the situation is entirely different from 1962, so we hope India will not do anything irrational for its own good, otherwise it will pay more than in the past," Hu Zhiyong, a research fellow at the state funded Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, said.
"Not only militarily, but economically and technologically, India has no comparison to China at this moment. We have no hostility to India and we really want to cooperate with India to improve our ties. The door of peaceful resolution is always open as long as India doesn't shut it," Hu said.
Hu Shisheng, however, insists troop pullback and talks is the only way forward.
A leading Chinese scholar has acknowledged that India may be responding to a perceived security threat resulting from the Chinese road construction in the Donglang area, but has insisted that pullback of troops followed by negotiations is the only way forward.
In a conversation with The Hindu, Hu Shisheng, Director of the Institute of South and Southeast Asian and Oceanian Studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, acknowledged that India’s “strategic” considerations may have led to the stand-off.
“Indians purposely did it”
“My personal understanding [is] that this time the Indians purposely did it. The reason is to stop the potential strategic construction. But this should not be the way,” he said, when asked whether New Delhi’s security considerations may have been a factor in the standoff, as the construction of a new Chinese road, if persisted, would have added to the vulnerability of the “chicken’s neck” or the Siliguri corridor that links the north-east with the rest of India.
He added: “I do not think that because of this, the Chinese side will stop it [the construction].”
Dr. Hu underscored that the area of the face-off between Chinese and Indian forces at Donglang is not disputed between Beijing and Thimpu.
“That place, is on the margin. If you say it [standoff] is at Donglang, it is on the margin. But on Donglang, the Chinese position is that there is no dispute. We only have some dispute in the Chumbi valley, more closer to the Bhutan border.”
He added: “From the map released by the [Chinese] Foreign Ministry, it is much nearer to the Sikkim side, far away from the Bhutan side, although the whole area of Donglang is bordering three countries.”
Bhutanese envoy at variance
Dr. Hu’s observations contradict the statement by Vetsop Namgyel, the Bhutanese Ambassador to India, who has been categorical in stating that Doklam or Donglang, the area of the current military tensions, is disputed between China and Bhutan. Mr. Namgyel has gone on record saying that, “Doklam is a disputed territory and Bhutan has a written agreement with China that pending the final resolution of the boundary issue, peace and tranquillity should be maintained in the area.”
But in his counter-narrative, the Chinese scholar argued that, “Maybe if this is a disputed area, this should be a disputed area between China and Bhutan, but not directly between China and India.”
India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty
Analysts, however say that New Delhi is obligated to side with Thimpu as India and Bhutan have special ties, which have been legally affirmed by the India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty of 2007.
Article 2 of the Friendship Treaty, which succeeded the 1949 Treaty of Perpetual Peace and Friendship between the two countries, affirms that India and Bhutan shall “cooperate closely with each other on issues relating to their national interests.” It adds: “Neither government shall allow the use of its territory for activities harmful to the national security and interest of the other.”
Consistent with the 2007 treaty, a statement by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on June 30, following the standoff, highlighted that in keeping with their “tradition” of maintaining close consultation on matters of mutual interest, the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB) and the government of India “have been in continuous contact through the unfolding of these developments.”
Use diplomatic channels: Hu
Dr. Hu stressed that India should have used diplomatic channels, instead of adopting a military stance, if it perceived that the road construction by China was “threatening.”
“In the past, Indian side left behind infrastructure construction because one of the lessons of the 1962 war [was] not [to] build infrastructure. Anyway, for many years in the past, China has been building infrastructure extending to the frontier regions. So my personal understanding that this is [road construction in Donglang] one part of the effort.”
He added: “But when this kind of effort is regarded by Indian side; okay, as threatening, then, this kind of approach is not the right approach, to raise this kind of protest. You can raise it [concerns] through strategic dialogue, thorough special envoy engagement, or other forms of consultations to see what China’s concerns are.”
‘Let India also build infra’
However, analysts in India say that once new “facts on the ground” in the form of finished road by China are established, it would be hard for diplomacy to achieve any tangible results. Nevertheless, Dr. Hu acknowledged that, “India also has the right to do so [build infrastructure] on its side.” “That is no problem. Even one day the roads from each side can link with each other in the Sikkim area,” he observed.
The Chinese scholar regarded the military face-off at Donglang as a “watershed incident,” having grave implications, including opening out the possibility of “even a small scale conflict,” undermining the Brazil-Russia-India-China- South Africa [BRICS] grouping, and casting a long shadow on the future of border talks and cross-border cooperation.
“From the Belt and Road summit, the international community knows the big difference between these two Asian giants. Now on this issue [at the border], if we cannot tackle it skillfully, it will lead to the third negative development that is the BRICS.”
"China won't swallow bitter pill"
“I do not think China would be that foolish that in order to hold the BRICS summit, they will swallow this bitter pill, that is India just stays there, without backing off. Finally [if Indian Prime Minister] Narendra Modi says, okay, I will not participate, in that case the BRICS will be dismantled.”
Beijing may support 'pro-independence appeals in Sikkim': Chinese daily
Press Trust of India, Beijing, Jul 6 2017, 12:13 IST
The tabloid daily of the ruling Communist Party of China (CPC) also accused India of exerting startling control and oppression over Bhutan. DH file photo
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/621226/beijing-may-support-pro-independence.html
Ratcheting up its rhetoric against India, a state-run Chinese daily today warned that Beijing may support "pro-independence appeals in Sikkim" if New Delhi does not stop pursuing "regional hegemony" through the border face-off.
"In the past, China was wary of India playing the Dalai Lama card, but this card is already overplayed and will exert no additional effect on the Tibet question. But if Beijing adjusts its stance on India-sensitive issues, it could be a powerful card to deal with New Delhi," state-run Global Times said.
The paper, known for its aggressive rhetoric, said that China should reconsider its stance over Sikkim.
"Although China recognised India's annexation of Sikkim in 2003, it can readjust its stance on the matter," the daily said.
"There are those in Sikkim that cherish its history as a separate state, and they are sensitive to how the outside world views the Sikkim issue. As long as there are voices in Chinese society supporting Sikkim's independence, the voices will spread and fuel pro-independence appeals in Sikkim," it added.
Sikkim is a powerful card against the Dalai Lama, it said.
The tabloid daily of the ruling Communist Party of China (CPC) also accused India of exerting "startling control and oppression over Bhutan."
"As a result, Bhutan has not established diplomatic ties with China or any other permanent member of the UN Security Council. Through unequal treaties, India has severely jeopardised Bhutan's diplomatic sovereignty and controls its national defence," it said.
It also accused India of imposing a "similar coercive policy on Sikkim before".
"The small neighbour’s revolts over sovereignty in the 1960s and 1970s were brutally cracked down on by the Indian military. New Delhi deposed the king of Sikkim in 1975 and manipulated the country's parliament into a referendum to make Sikkim a state of India. The annexation of Sikkim is like a nightmare haunting Bhutan, and the small kingdom is forced to be submissive to India's bullying," it said.
The daily said that India after its independence inherited the brutal colonial policies of Britain and pursued "regional hegemony at the sacrifice of tiny Himalayan nations".
"New Delhi's regional hegemony is boldly shown by the border face-off this time. Using the excuse of 'helping Bhutan protect its sovereignty', India brazenly obstructs China's road construction in Chinese territory," it said.
The daily was apparently referring to Bhutan's diplomatic protest to China accusing that the Chinese troops of constructing the road in Doklam, a territory claimed by both nations.
"New Delhi's regional hegemony is swelling to a tipping point. The country has to pay for its provocations," The daily said.
"With certain conditions, Bhutan and Sikkim will see strong anti-India movements, which will negatively affect India's already turbulent northeast area and rewrite southern Himalayan geopolitics," it warned.
"The Sino-India relationship is complicated. Beijing is more powerful yet unwilling to face a confrontation with New Delhi. But meanwhile, we must have enough tools to deter India from provocations," it added.
The newspaper also carried an article quoting a security analyst as saying that India should "drop delusion of military strength" with China as the military gap between the two countries is bigger than in 1962.
"In 1962, the People's Liberation Army still achieved an overwhelming victory in the military conflict against the Indian army with really poor logistics conditions. Nowadays, the situation is entirely different from 1962, so we hope India will not do anything irrational for its own good, otherwise it will pay more than in the past," Hu Zhiyong, a research fellow at the state funded Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, said.
"Not only militarily, but economically and technologically, India has no comparison to China at this moment. We have no hostility to India and we really want to cooperate with India to improve our ties. The door of peaceful resolution is always open as long as India doesn't shut it," Hu said.
shjliu
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2016
- Messages
- 499
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
http://www.bhutannewsnetwork.com/2017/06/india-enters-into-bhutan-china-border-conflict/
take a look news from bhutan
take a look news from bhutan
Similar threads
