selvan33
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,267
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
There wont be a repeat of the 1962 military disaster
Chinas recent action of establishing a tented post in the Daulat Beg Oldi area of eastern Ladakh, 19 km into Indian territory, has created a storm that refuses to subside. Against this backdrop, former deputy chief of the Army Lt. Gen. Raj Kadyan talks to Sridhar Kumaraswami on the implications of the incident and how India should respond.
Why has China established a tented post in the Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) area? What are the Chinese objectives?
We have a Line of Actual Control (LAC) with China, which is over 4,000 kilometres long. It is a tough terrain in Ladakh and there are no identifiable features. It is quite possible that they (China) have done it knowingly but at the tactical level (at the level of the local PLA Army commander).
The wide publicity in the media has also raised the temperatures. If you look at the ground realities, we have more manpower there. This is an action that should be left to the tactical level to handle. Even if we assume that the Chinese have done this as part of a conscious strategy, then it is muscle flexing at best. They want to discourage us from developing our infrastructure in our part of the border areas. But there is a false impression being created by some that our Army is weaker than the Chinese on the ground and that the Chinese are dictating the terms.
But some would argue that China has a habit of creating such a stir before a high-profile visit. The Chinese Premier is to visit India shortly.
China may want to be in a stronger position to bargain. But the visit of the Chinese Premier covers a much larger canvas. It has much higher objectives to achieve. China is not going to make the visit subservient to a small incident at the local level. In my view, its a tactical action that will be handled by the Indian Army at the tactical level.
What are the implications of this incursion? Could the act of pitching the tent be a symbolic yet physical laying claim to territory?
If there were any large-scale implications, they (the Chinese) would have had a backup. There are reports that China has not sent in reinforcements. We have a higher number of troops in that area than China. So far as pitching a tent by itself is concerned, it is a little more serious than patrolling. But the Indian Army is in a strong position. This is not such a serious escalation that we, as a country, should get worried about. The matter is also being resolved at the diplomatic level.
Should there be a detailed agreement between India and China on patrolling near the LAC? China wanted a written agreement that there should be no tailing of border patrols by the other side at the LAC.
What the Chinese may have proposed has certain intricacies. This is an ongoing pro*cess of dialogue. This point will be tied up with other issues. One point cannot be taken in isolation. But even if certain concessions are made, there is no guarantee that such incidents will not take place again or that the Chinese will not patrol up to their perception of the LAC.
How will the current crisis be resolved in that case? Our external affairs minister is going to visit China. Does this not indicate that this is not just a minor incident?
I do not subscribe to the view that this is a crisis. It is a small incident that is being blown out of proportion by some sections of the media. It is a tactical-level event and will be sorted out by the tactical-level commanders. I am sure our Army is well poised to deal with the situation and take whatever action is considered essential. The situation is being monitored by various inter-ministerial groups of the government and an appropriate response would be made. As part of preliminary discussions to prepare the ground for the Chinese Premiers visit, the visit of our foreign minister is normal at this stage.
The Army has been demanding that the Indo-Tibetan Border Police be put under its operational control. Do you agree with this demand?
Yes. Accountability and authority must go together. Accountability of guarding the border stays with the Army. The authority of patrolling is given to the ITBP, which does not function under the Army. Operational control of anyone patrolling the border, like the India-China border, must be with the Army. This is because the Army has the responsibility of safeguarding the countrys territorial integrity. The ITBP must be under the operational control of the Army, so that patrolling and deployment activities can be co-coordinated by the Army.
Could the current incident spiral out of control and result in a border conflagration? After all, just recently, China and its eastern neighbour Japan got into a bout of military tension over a group of islands in the East China Sea?
Both the Chinese and Indian economies are growing. I dont think either country will want to do anything that will retard that process. Wars dont start overnight; they have a long-term aim. I dont think India and China will want a border conflagration or armed conflict. It makes no sense. This piece of territory under the lens today is too small to give China a huge strategic advantage. This is an isolated incident. So far as the tension between China and Japan is concerned, at stake was the ownership over a group of islands, which perhaps gave a strategic advantage over the sea-lanes of communication. Indeed, China has been assertive with India as well. But this incident is not comparable with what happened between China and Japan.
China had refused a visa in 2010 to the then Northern Command chief Lt. Gen. B.S. Jaswal. And they were issuing stapled visas to Indian citizens from Jammu and Kashmir. China has indulged earlier in blatant provocative actions.
Perhaps, China wanted to send a strong signal to Pakistan that it supports Pakistan. China only sees India as a rival in the region. They may resort to actions to contain Indias growing strength. But we need to engage China in all spheres. At the same time, we need to develop our military capabilities. When we want to raise a mountain strike corps, there are some who think that the Army wants to indulge in empire building.
But raising a mountain strike corps is a national requirement. We must develop infrastructure in the border areas quickly. We have been slow at it. But now that the Chinese have developed it on their side quickly, we are reacting. We should be prepared so that in the future, if there is any adventurism on the part of China, we should not be found wanting. But I am confident there wont be a repeat of the 1962 military disaster.
âThere wonât be a repeat of the 1962 military disasterâ | Deccan Chronicle
Chinas recent action of establishing a tented post in the Daulat Beg Oldi area of eastern Ladakh, 19 km into Indian territory, has created a storm that refuses to subside. Against this backdrop, former deputy chief of the Army Lt. Gen. Raj Kadyan talks to Sridhar Kumaraswami on the implications of the incident and how India should respond.
Why has China established a tented post in the Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) area? What are the Chinese objectives?
We have a Line of Actual Control (LAC) with China, which is over 4,000 kilometres long. It is a tough terrain in Ladakh and there are no identifiable features. It is quite possible that they (China) have done it knowingly but at the tactical level (at the level of the local PLA Army commander).
The wide publicity in the media has also raised the temperatures. If you look at the ground realities, we have more manpower there. This is an action that should be left to the tactical level to handle. Even if we assume that the Chinese have done this as part of a conscious strategy, then it is muscle flexing at best. They want to discourage us from developing our infrastructure in our part of the border areas. But there is a false impression being created by some that our Army is weaker than the Chinese on the ground and that the Chinese are dictating the terms.
But some would argue that China has a habit of creating such a stir before a high-profile visit. The Chinese Premier is to visit India shortly.
China may want to be in a stronger position to bargain. But the visit of the Chinese Premier covers a much larger canvas. It has much higher objectives to achieve. China is not going to make the visit subservient to a small incident at the local level. In my view, its a tactical action that will be handled by the Indian Army at the tactical level.
What are the implications of this incursion? Could the act of pitching the tent be a symbolic yet physical laying claim to territory?
If there were any large-scale implications, they (the Chinese) would have had a backup. There are reports that China has not sent in reinforcements. We have a higher number of troops in that area than China. So far as pitching a tent by itself is concerned, it is a little more serious than patrolling. But the Indian Army is in a strong position. This is not such a serious escalation that we, as a country, should get worried about. The matter is also being resolved at the diplomatic level.
Should there be a detailed agreement between India and China on patrolling near the LAC? China wanted a written agreement that there should be no tailing of border patrols by the other side at the LAC.
What the Chinese may have proposed has certain intricacies. This is an ongoing pro*cess of dialogue. This point will be tied up with other issues. One point cannot be taken in isolation. But even if certain concessions are made, there is no guarantee that such incidents will not take place again or that the Chinese will not patrol up to their perception of the LAC.
How will the current crisis be resolved in that case? Our external affairs minister is going to visit China. Does this not indicate that this is not just a minor incident?
I do not subscribe to the view that this is a crisis. It is a small incident that is being blown out of proportion by some sections of the media. It is a tactical-level event and will be sorted out by the tactical-level commanders. I am sure our Army is well poised to deal with the situation and take whatever action is considered essential. The situation is being monitored by various inter-ministerial groups of the government and an appropriate response would be made. As part of preliminary discussions to prepare the ground for the Chinese Premiers visit, the visit of our foreign minister is normal at this stage.
The Army has been demanding that the Indo-Tibetan Border Police be put under its operational control. Do you agree with this demand?
Yes. Accountability and authority must go together. Accountability of guarding the border stays with the Army. The authority of patrolling is given to the ITBP, which does not function under the Army. Operational control of anyone patrolling the border, like the India-China border, must be with the Army. This is because the Army has the responsibility of safeguarding the countrys territorial integrity. The ITBP must be under the operational control of the Army, so that patrolling and deployment activities can be co-coordinated by the Army.
Could the current incident spiral out of control and result in a border conflagration? After all, just recently, China and its eastern neighbour Japan got into a bout of military tension over a group of islands in the East China Sea?
Both the Chinese and Indian economies are growing. I dont think either country will want to do anything that will retard that process. Wars dont start overnight; they have a long-term aim. I dont think India and China will want a border conflagration or armed conflict. It makes no sense. This piece of territory under the lens today is too small to give China a huge strategic advantage. This is an isolated incident. So far as the tension between China and Japan is concerned, at stake was the ownership over a group of islands, which perhaps gave a strategic advantage over the sea-lanes of communication. Indeed, China has been assertive with India as well. But this incident is not comparable with what happened between China and Japan.
China had refused a visa in 2010 to the then Northern Command chief Lt. Gen. B.S. Jaswal. And they were issuing stapled visas to Indian citizens from Jammu and Kashmir. China has indulged earlier in blatant provocative actions.
Perhaps, China wanted to send a strong signal to Pakistan that it supports Pakistan. China only sees India as a rival in the region. They may resort to actions to contain Indias growing strength. But we need to engage China in all spheres. At the same time, we need to develop our military capabilities. When we want to raise a mountain strike corps, there are some who think that the Army wants to indulge in empire building.
But raising a mountain strike corps is a national requirement. We must develop infrastructure in the border areas quickly. We have been slow at it. But now that the Chinese have developed it on their side quickly, we are reacting. We should be prepared so that in the future, if there is any adventurism on the part of China, we should not be found wanting. But I am confident there wont be a repeat of the 1962 military disaster.
âThere wonât be a repeat of the 1962 military disasterâ | Deccan Chronicle
