What's new

Featured Indian Defence Minister admits that China is stopping Indian troops patrolling some areas of LAC

Chakar The Great

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Apr 25, 2018
Messages
5,614
Reaction score
0
Country
United Kingdom
Location
Ireland
About 1,000 square kilometres of area in Ladakh along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) is now under Chinese control, intelligence inputs provided to the Centre suggest.

China has been amassing troops and fortifying its presence along the LAC since April-May. Twenty soldiers were killed on June 15 in the Galwan Valley in eastern Ladakh in violent clashes with China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops.

Also read: Thwarted aggressive moves by China at South Bank of Pangong Tso: Army

A senior government official told The Hindu that from Depsang Plains to Chushul there had been a systematic mobilisation by the Chinese troops along the undefined LAC.

The official revealed that in Depsang Plains, from patrolling point 10-13, the scale of Chinese control of India’s perception of the LAC stood at about 900 sq.km.

Also read: India, China gear up for next round of military talks

About 20 sq. km in Galwan Valley and 12 sq. km in Hot Springs area is said to be under Chinese occupation, the official said. In Pangong Tso, the area under Chinese control is 65 sq. km, whereas in Chushul it is 20 sq. km, the official said.

Also read: The Hindu Explains | Who does Galwan Valley belong to?

The standoff at the China border continues even after several rounds of diplomatic and military level talks. A partial disengagement commenced after Special Representatives (SRs) Ajit Doval and Wang Yi, tasked to hammer out a solution to the boundary dispute, spoke on July 5.

However, as per the agreement, Indian troops also moved back from their existing positions leading to creation of buffer zones at all the disputed sites.

Chinese forces are occupying a considerable area from Finger 4 to 8 near Pangong Tso (lake). The distance between Finger 4-8, the mountainous spurs abutting the lake, is about eight km. The stretch was patrolled both by India and China till May and India considers it to form part of its perception of the LAC.


Source: The Hindu
 
From China's perspective, it is Indians that crossed over. You see the mountain at south shore of the lake below Finger 4, just to the right of Chinese line? Indian troops moved into that hill last night claiming they were "per-emptive" measures against Chinese aggression. That's where the confrontation happened.

How the hell can you claim China is the aggressor when India openly admitted they made the first move? It seems to be a standard practice from the Indian side. Start a provocation then claim to be the victim.

1598915610223.png
 
The Centre has admitted for the first time that China is stopping Indian troops from patrolling some of the areas they used to along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), identifying this as the main reason for the ongoing face-off.
This disclosure was made in the Rajya Sabha on Thursday by defence minister Rajnath Singh in response to a clarification sought by Congress MP A.K. Antony on his statement on “the developments on our borders in Ladakh” that was tabled in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday.
“Antony sahab... ne yeh kaha ki China patrolling karne se Bharat ko rokta hai. Mein yah spasht kar dena chahta hoon ki ladai bhi toh isiliye ho rahi hai, fasaad toh isliye hota hai (Mr Antony... said China stops India from patrolling. I want to make it clear that the fight is happening because of this, this is the cause of the dispute),” Rajnath said.
He did not divulge any further details, asserting that the patrolling pattern that Antony — himself a former defence minister — had referred to was traditional and well-defined.
“No force on earth can stop Indian troops from patrolling these areas. It is for this that our soldiers made the supreme sacrifice. There will be no change in the patrolling pattern,” Rajnath said.
Antony had said the army and the ITBP must be allowed to patrol till the points that “we used to patrol”, stressing that Indian troops were not being allowed up to Finger Point 8, which they used to patrol.
While Rajnath was drawn into commenting on the patrolling, he sidestepped questions from Antony and party colleague Anand Sharma whether the restoration of status quo ante would remain a non-negotiable and final objective for India.
Antony was persistent. “The defence minister promised the House that the government will do everything to protect the sovereignty of the country. What does it mean? You have to clarify if ‘sovereignty’ means status quo ante as in mid-April. That is the meaning of protecting sovereignty — status quo ante as of April.”
Referring to his statement in the context of the questions posed by the two Congress members, Rajnath said: “I have clarified it completely in my statement.”
His statement, however, did not mention “status quo ante” even once. What it did was repeatedly assert that neither side should unilaterally alter the status quo.
Patrolling points are designated spots on the LAC that are patrolled according to a pre-determined schedule by the security forces. They are a way of asserting India’s claims along the LAC, which is yet to be delineated. In the Fingers area of the Pangong Lake, flashpoints emerge when the patrols of the two armies end up at the same point around the same time — a possible fallout of the claim lines going beyond the areas physically held.
Commenting on the day’s proceedings, Jairam Ramesh, the Congress chief whip in the Rajya Sabha, tweeted: “Raksha Mantri’s statement this afternoon in the Rajya Sabha drew the support of all political parties. But sadly we are none the wiser on the PM’s claim of 19th June. Was that deliberate or was it a slip-up? Was it a ploy or a mis-step? Whatever it was, it continues to haunt India.”
Given the questions and doubts that persist about the situation along the LAC and the Chinese intent — about which even external affairs minister S. Jaishankar has admitted “we are at a loss to know why” — Rajya Sabha Chairman Venkaiah Naidu suggested to Rajnath that he privately brief leaders of the Opposition parties on the situation.
Later, briefing reporters, external affairs ministry spokesperson Anurag Srivastava said: “The Chinese side should sincerely work with the Indian side for complete disengagement at the earliest from all friction areas including Pangong Lake as well as de-escalation in border areas in accordance with the bilateral agreements and protocols on maintenance of peace and tranquillity in border areas. We hope the Chinese side will strictly respect and observe the LAC and not make further attempts to unilaterally change status quo.”
Earlier in the day, the Chinese foreign ministry had articulated a similar expectation from India, asserting that China had strictly adhered to all border agreements.
“What is pressing now is that the Indian side should immediately correct its mistake, disengage on the ground as soon as possible and take concrete actions to ease the tension and lower the temperature along the border,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said.

 
The Centre has admitted for the first time that China is stopping Indian troops from patrolling some of the areas they used to along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), identifying this as the main reason for the ongoing face-off.
This disclosure was made in the Rajya Sabha on Thursday by defence minister Rajnath Singh in response to a clarification sought by Congress MP A.K. Antony on his statement on “the developments on our borders in Ladakh” that was tabled in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday.
“Antony sahab... ne yeh kaha ki China patrolling karne se Bharat ko rokta hai. Mein yah spasht kar dena chahta hoon ki ladai bhi toh isiliye ho rahi hai, fasaad toh isliye hota hai (Mr Antony... said China stops India from patrolling. I want to make it clear that the fight is happening because of this, this is the cause of the dispute),” Rajnath said.
He did not divulge any further details, asserting that the patrolling pattern that Antony — himself a former defence minister — had referred to was traditional and well-defined.
“No force on earth can stop Indian troops from patrolling these areas. It is for this that our soldiers made the supreme sacrifice. There will be no change in the patrolling pattern,” Rajnath said.
Antony had said the army and the ITBP must be allowed to patrol till the points that “we used to patrol”, stressing that Indian troops were not being allowed up to Finger Point 8, which they used to patrol.
While Rajnath was drawn into commenting on the patrolling, he sidestepped questions from Antony and party colleague Anand Sharma whether the restoration of status quo ante would remain a non-negotiable and final objective for India.
Antony was persistent. “The defence minister promised the House that the government will do everything to protect the sovereignty of the country. What does it mean? You have to clarify if ‘sovereignty’ means status quo ante as in mid-April. That is the meaning of protecting sovereignty — status quo ante as of April.”
Referring to his statement in the context of the questions posed by the two Congress members, Rajnath said: “I have clarified it completely in my statement.”
His statement, however, did not mention “status quo ante” even once. What it did was repeatedly assert that neither side should unilaterally alter the status quo.
Patrolling points are designated spots on the LAC that are patrolled according to a pre-determined schedule by the security forces. They are a way of asserting India’s claims along the LAC, which is yet to be delineated. In the Fingers area of the Pangong Lake, flashpoints emerge when the patrols of the two armies end up at the same point around the same time — a possible fallout of the claim lines going beyond the areas physically held.
Commenting on the day’s proceedings, Jairam Ramesh, the Congress chief whip in the Rajya Sabha, tweeted: “Raksha Mantri’s statement this afternoon in the Rajya Sabha drew the support of all political parties. But sadly we are none the wiser on the PM’s claim of 19th June. Was that deliberate or was it a slip-up? Was it a ploy or a mis-step? Whatever it was, it continues to haunt India.”
Given the questions and doubts that persist about the situation along the LAC and the Chinese intent — about which even external affairs minister S. Jaishankar has admitted “we are at a loss to know why” — Rajya Sabha Chairman Venkaiah Naidu suggested to Rajnath that he privately brief leaders of the Opposition parties on the situation.
Later, briefing reporters, external affairs ministry spokesperson Anurag Srivastava said: “The Chinese side should sincerely work with the Indian side for complete disengagement at the earliest from all friction areas including Pangong Lake as well as de-escalation in border areas in accordance with the bilateral agreements and protocols on maintenance of peace and tranquillity in border areas. We hope the Chinese side will strictly respect and observe the LAC and not make further attempts to unilaterally change status quo.”
Earlier in the day, the Chinese foreign ministry had articulated a similar expectation from India, asserting that China had strictly adhered to all border agreements.
“What is pressing now is that the Indian side should immediately correct its mistake, disengage on the ground as soon as possible and take concrete actions to ease the tension and lower the temperature along the border,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said.

It took 4 months for India to admit this? Are you serious?
 
There are at least 10 patrolling points along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in eastern Ladakh that have been blocked by Chinese troops, a senior government official told The Hindu.


Defence Minister Rajnath Singh informed the Rajya Sabha on Thursday that face-offs with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) happened because “patrols were interrupted.” There was no commonly delineated LAC and there was an overlap in LAC’s perception in many areas, he noted.


Also read: LAC standoff | Status quo on India-China border in eastern Ladakh after Jaishankar-Wang meet


The patrolling points (PPs) are the end points along the undefined LAC, up to which the Indian troops patrol after starting from their respective base camps..


Since April, Indian troops have been denied access to PPs number 9, 10, 11, 12, 12A, 13, 14, 15, 17, 17A. The blocked PPs span from the Depsang plains in the north to Pangong Tso (lake) in the south. In all, there are more than 65 PPs from the base of Karakoram to Chumar.


Also read: China’s LAC aggression, India’s obfuscation


“Since the LAC is undefined, the PPs are the best way to assert territorial claims. With that access blocked by the Chinese and as per the disengagement plans in the past few months when buffer zones were created, many areas have become out of bound for the Indian troops as of now,” said the official.

Untenable demands

Another official said that in the past, Chinese commanders had made untenable demands that India vacate an administrative post in Pangong and some heights near the Kurang nala.


Also read: India-China standoff casts shadow on Nathu La border trade


As per the disengagement plan agreed between the Corps Commanders of India and China on June 30, the two sides agreed to pull back from all the friction points and decided that “depth areas” such as the Depsang plains in the north, where China has amassed troops, will be looked into. However, so far the Chinese transgression at Depsang has not been discussed and in none of the government statements it finds a mention.


Also read: China accuses India of ‘firing warning shots’ and ‘serious military provocation’


As reported by The Hindu, about 1,000 sq. km. of surface area in Ladakh along the LAC is said to be under Chinese control, with Indian troops denied access to patrolling since early this year, the major part- 972 sq. km. lies in Depsang. Patrolling points 10-13, which have been obstructed, fall in Depsang.


The entire stretch along the LAC has witnessed “worrisome hardening of Chinese positions” since April-May, with China occupying a considerable area from Finger 4 to 8 near Pangong Tso. The distance between Finger 4-8, the mountainous spurs abutting the lake, is around 8 km. This was till now patrolled both by India and China as India’s perception of LAC ends at Finger 8.


“The areas currently blocked by the Chinese have always been patrolled by the Indian troops. In all the meetings so far, we have demanded the restoration of status quo ante before April,” said the second official.

Jaishankar, Wang meeting

After the foreign ministers of both countries – S. Jaishankar and Wang Yi, met in Moscow on September 10 and agreed on a five-point solution to ease the border tension, there has been no clarity on when the Corps Commanders will meet.


Since June, the Corps Commanders have met on five occasions- the latest one took place on August 2. The north and south banks of Pangong have witnessed firing in the air on multiple occasions since August 30, a first of its kind escalation since 1975.


On June 15, 20 Indian soldiers were killed in violent clashes with the Chinese.


 
There are at least 10 patrolling points along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in eastern Ladakh that have been blocked by Chinese troops, a senior government official told The Hindu.


Defence Minister Rajnath Singh informed the Rajya Sabha on Thursday that face-offs with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) happened because “patrols were interrupted.” There was no commonly delineated LAC and there was an overlap in LAC’s perception in many areas, he noted.


The patrolling points (PPs) are the end points along the undefined LAC, up to which the Indian troops patrol after starting from their respective base camps..

Since April, Indian troops have been denied access to PPs number 9, 10, 11, 12, 12A, 13, 14, 15, 17, 17A. The blocked PPs span from the Depsang plains in the north to Pangong Tso (lake) in the south. In all, there are more than 65 PPs from the base of Karakoram to Chumar.

“Since the LAC is undefined, the PPs are the best way to assert territorial claims. With that access blocked by the Chinese and as per the disengagement plans in the past few months when buffer zones were created, many areas have become out of bound for the Indian troops as of now,” said the official.

Untenable demands
Another official said that in the past, Chinese commanders had made untenable demands that India vacate an administrative post in Pangong and some heights near the Kurang nala.

As per the disengagement plan agreed between the Corps Commanders of India and China on June 30, the two sides agreed to pull back from all the friction points and decided that “depth areas” such as the Depsang plains in the north, where China has amassed troops, will be looked into. However, so far the Chinese transgression at Depsang has not been discussed and in none of the government statements it finds a mention.


As reported by The Hindu, about 1,000 sq. km. of surface area in Ladakh along the LAC is said to be under Chinese control, with Indian troops denied access to patrolling since early this year, the major part- 972 sq. km. lies in Depsang. Patrolling points 10-13, which have been obstructed, fall in Depsang.

The entire stretch along the LAC has witnessed “worrisome hardening of Chinese positions” since April-May, with China occupying a considerable area from Finger 4 to 8 near Pangong Tso. The distance between Finger 4-8, the mountainous spurs abutting the lake, is around 8 km. This was till now patrolled both by India and China as India’s perception of LAC ends at Finger 8.

“The areas currently blocked by the Chinese have always been patrolled by the Indian troops. In all the meetings so far, we have demanded the restoration of status quo ante before April,” said the second official.

Jaishankar, Wang meeting
After the foreign ministers of both countries – S. Jaishankar and Wang Yi, met in Moscow on September 10 and agreed on a five-point solution to ease the border tension, there has been no clarity on when the Corps Commanders will meet.

Since June, the Corps Commanders have met on five occasions- the latest one took place on August 2. The north and south banks of Pangong have witnessed firing in the air on multiple occasions since August 30, a first of its kind escalation since 1975.

On June 15, 20 Indian soldiers were killed in violent clashes with the Chines

 
It will be appreciated to avoid duplicate Thread and spamming the section with mere change of few words.

Regards,
 
In ‘The Adventure of Silver Blaze’, Arthur Conan Doyle’s story about the theft of the eponymous race horse, everyone assumed a stranger stole the horse. But Sherlock Holmes pinned its disappearance on the horse’s late trainer because a dog at the stable did not bark on the night of the crime. The dog’s silence was an important clue which solved the mystery of who took the horse.

It was in a similar vein that defence minister Rajnath Singh’s speech in parliament on the situation on the border with China in Ladakh was silent about the strategically vital area of the Depsang plains in Sub-Sector North (SSN). The omission of this place name from Singh’s speech provides an important clue as to what the most vital area for India is on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Ladakh.

Of the more than 1,000 square kilometres in Ladakh along the LAC now under Chinese control after tensions erupted in May, the scale of Chinese control in Depsang alone is about 900 square kilometres. That would make it the largest chunk of Indian territory denied to Indian soldiers in a single swoop after the 1962 Sino-India war, a fact which surely warranted inclusion in an official speech to parliament by the raksha mantri.

1600532190376.png



Depsang is the area for which specific major general-level talks were held between the two sides on August 8. It can thus be no one’s case that there is no problem at Depsang – the Chinese have stopped Indian patrols from accessing five patrolling points in the area since May. As the map above indicates, Indian soldiers have effectively been blocked from going up to the traditional ‘limit of patrol’ line near the Line of Actual Control because of the presence of Chinese troops at a key point in Depsang 18 kilometres inside the LAC known as Bottleneck/Y-Junction.

Like the northern bank of Pangong Tso, this area was a point of contention between the two sides where local arrangements allowed both sides to patrol the area but those mechanisms have broken down since May.

While Indian military patrols being denied access to such territory is significant, more worrisome is the fact that the army has always identified this area – including Trig Heights and Daulat Beg Oldie (DBO) – where it finds itself most vulnerable in Ladakh. For decades, the army’s annual war-games in Udhampur have flagged it as the most important area of concern, devising plans to tackle the major Chinese challenge that would put India at a huge strategic disadvantage.


Geography

It is the geography of the area which makes it so vital strategically. Broadly called the Sub-Sector North (SSN), this is an enclave of flat terrain that provides land access to Central Asia through the Karakoram Pass. The Line of Control (LoC) that was marked and signed on maps between India and Pakistan in 1972 ended at a point called NJ9842.

1600532253216.png



India contends that the line runs further northwards, placing the Siachen glacier firmly in Indian territory. That line beyond NJ9842 is called the Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL). But the Pakistani side claims that the line runs towards north east, connecting NJ9842 to the Karakoram Pass. That would place the Siachen glacier inside Pakistani control, and physically link Pakistan and China.

The strategically important area of SSN lies to the east of Siachen, located between the Saltoro ridge on the Pakistani border and the Saser ridge close to the Chinese border. It is the only place where a physical military collusion can take place between Pakistan and China – and the challenge of a two-front war can become real in the worst-case scenario. In such a scenario, it will be nearly impossible for India to launch a military operation to wrest back Gilgit-Baltistan from Pakistan.

The flat terrain of Depsang, Trig Heights and DBO, which provides direct access to Aksai Chin, is suited for mechanised warfare but is located at the end of a very long and tenuous communication axis for India. China, in turn, has multiple roads that provide easy access to the area. This leaves SSN highly vulnerable to an ingress by the PLA. It is also seen as a viable launchpad for a mechanised force-based military offensive launched by India inside Aksai Chin, if the army has to fulfil Union home minister Amit Shah’s desire of getting back Aksai Chin from China.

In 2007, India decided to construct two roads to access SSN. The first was on the alignment of the old track from Darbuk to Shyok and then onwards to DBO. There were problems with the initial alignment, which led to a delay in its completion. The 255-km long all-weather road was formally inaugurated by the defence minister last October. Military planners say that the 430-meter long bridge across the Shyok River, which the minister opened, is also the weakest link on the strategic road.

1600532298630.png


The second road constructed by BRO is from Sasoma in Nubra River valley via the Saser La. This is a jeepable track which has been improved this summer but it provides limited connectivity, that too only during the summer months.

The only other access to SSN is an aerial one via the DBO airstrip, located eight kilometres south of the Karakoram Pass. The old Advanced Landing Ground lying in disuse was made operational in 2008. In peacetime, it can be used to sustain the troops deployed in the area but the army remains doubtful about the Indian Air Force risking its top-end strategic lift aircraft to Chinese action in the event of any conflict.

India’s concern

Indian military planners do not foresee a scenario in which PLA can physically link up with the Pakistan army, as that would mean capturing a formidable obstacle – the Siachen glacier. But the PLA could try and cut off the Indian road to Siachen, providing Pakistan’s army with an opportunity to launch an offensive to capture positions on the Saltoro ridge and the Siachen glacier. Towards this aim, after succeeding in an initial mechanised battle, the PLA could seize Saser La, and then reach Sasoma which lies short of the Siachen base camp. This would deny India the road that feeds its deployment of the central and northern glacier, even though the southern glacier would still be maintained through existing routes.

Aware of the larger strategic challenge, there are three concerns for the army. One, the limited connectivity to the area which can be cut off by targeting the bridge on the DSDBO road which makes sending of reinforcements and provisioning of logistics difficult. It is not confident that the DBO airstrip can be kept operational by the IAF once war breaks out. Two, the lack of good defensive features in SSN, where Indian troops can deploy and force the PLA into a prolonged battle by imposing delay and heavy losses. And finally, the wear and tear imposed on the mechanised military platforms while operating at a high altitude of 17,000 feet in an environment with low oxygen content.

Over the years, the army has taken steps to overcome some of the drawbacks. It had made heavy deployment of mechanised forces, along with the infantry troops, ab initio in the area. A number of shelters and maintenance yards were constructed to protect the mechanised military platforms in the area, to prolong their service life.


Three former Northern Army Commanders that The Wire spoke to said that the battle plans have been refined in the wargames and the army is better prepared for a PLA ingress in the area than it had been earlier. But all of them flagged it as an area of strategic vulnerability and biggest worry for India in the region, far more than Pangong Tso or the Galwan Valley. That is why it is all the more surprising that the defence minister chose to omit Depsang from his statement to parliament on Tuesday.

Sushant Singh is an award-winning journalist who has served in the Indian Army. He has taught political science at Yale University.

 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom