India’s decision to offer suo motu statements on border tensions with China in Parliament and to brief a parliamentary panel marks a welcome, albeit overdue, step toward transparency in addressing this critical issue.
Progress on LAC Negotiations
The statements by External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and the briefing by Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri provided much-needed clarity on the government’s approach. Key highlights of the discussions include:
- Linking LAC Resolutions with Broader Engagement: India firmly conveyed to China that “normal” bilateral relations could not be resumed unless the LAC tensions are fully resolved.
- Continuous Engagement and Step-by-Step Negotiations:
- 17 meetings of the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs (WMCC).
- 21 rounds of Senior Highest Military Commanders’ Meetings (SHMC).
- High-level meetings involving Foreign and Defence Ministers and Special Representatives.
- Next Steps Post-Disengagement:
- While disengagement has been “fully achieved” at several points, the focus now shifts to troop de-escalation and de-induction from friction zones.
- A long-term framework to manage ties in border areas is being explored.
- Specific Progress at Friction Points:
- For Depsang and Demchok, “patrolling arrangements” have been discussed, but patrols have yet to resume.
- In North and South Pangong Tso, Gogra, and Hot Springs, disengagement has been achieved via the creation of buffer zones—temporary measures designed to reduce direct confrontations.
Check Out UPSC Modules From PW Store
What Remains Unaddressed
Despite these updates, the government’s 2,500-word statement lacked critical details on several key issues:
- Cause of the Conflict: There was no explanation of why the PLA initiated the 2020 transgressions. Understanding China’s motivations is essential for crafting a strategic response.
- Return to the 2020 ‘Status Quo Ante’: The government offered no timeline or roadmap for restoring positions to their pre-2020 state, leaving the public uncertain about India’s territorial claims.
- Territorial Integrity vs. National Security: The statement emphasized “national security” but avoided any mention of safeguarding “territorial integrity,” which is a vital concern in such disputes.
|
Conclusion
While progress has been slow, it offers a ray of hope. The steps toward greater transparency and continuous negotiation are encouraging, but much more needs to be done to rebuild trust and ensure that India’s territorial and security interests are effectively safeguarded.