In a press release on Monday, New Delhi stated that the two officials “agreed that it was necessary to ensure at the earliest complete disengagement of the troops along the LAC and de-escalation from India-China border areas for full restoration of peace and tranquillity. In this regard, they further agreed that both sides should complete the ongoing disengagement process along the LAC expeditiously”. On the question of easing the current border face-off between the two countries, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) release referred only to “a positive consensus”.
While Beijing’s official readout of the conversation had no mention of any agreement to “disengage” or “de-escalate,” when asked whether China had pulled back equipment in the Galwan valley, Chinese foreign ministry Spokesman Zhao Lijian said both sides were “taking effective measures to disengage and ease the situation on the border”.
Beijing stated that Wang had told Doval that India and China “have long-term strategic interests” in the “realisation of development and revitalisation” and that the two “do not pose a threat to each other”.
China’s statement, however, blamed Indian troops for the June 15 clash and reiterated Beijing’s previously stated claim over the Galwan River valley. “The merits of the recent incident in the Galvan (Galwan) Valley in the western section of the China-India border are clear, and China will continue to vigorously defend its territorial sovereignty and safeguard peace in the border areas,” said a Chinese ministry of foreign affairs press release.
New Delhi’s statement said diplomatic and military dialogue would continue, including under the framework of the “Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination” and at the level of special representatives i.e. Doval and Wang.
Within India’s military, there is worry that a “mutual pullback agreement” would effectively result in the loss of Indian territory. With Chinese troops already having intruded more than 2 km into areas that India has traditionally claimed, occupied and patrolled, a mutual pullback of 2 kilometres would create a 4-kilometre-deep “buffer zone” that would lie entirely in Indian territory. Senior military officers point out that Indian troops have historically patrolled up to the areas of PP14, PP15, PP17 and PP17A. A “mutual pullback” and “buffer zone” agreement would mean these areas would now be out of bounds.
Meanwhile, the Chinese remain unwilling to discuss a pullout from the Pangong Tso area, say government sources. Here they have occupied 8 km of Indian territory between Finger 4 and Finger 8. “This would be a double whammy for India: The Chinese staying put in Pangong Tso, and creating a buffer zone on Indian territory in other areas,” said a senior serving general.
Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.
As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.
Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.