Blog

Diplomatic experts say China may also be opening up a front in Sikkim due to ambiguous official position of boundary.

The skirmishes and the standoff between Indian and Chinese troops at Naku La in Sikkim last month, in an area of the Line of Actual Control (LAC) that is considered settled, may be Beijing’s way of attempting a new claim, said defence sources, highlighting the historical Sikkim-Tibet Convention of 1890 as proof of India’s ownership of the territory.

Referring to a major scuffle that took place at Naku La on May 9, the sources said it was unusual for Chinese troops to open up a part of the LAC that has not been in contention before.

According to the Convention, the boundary in the area is based on the watershed principles. Its Article 1 states, “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 waters flowing into the Tibetan Mochu and northwards into other rivers of Tibet. …follows the above mentioned water-parting to the point where it meets Nipal Territory”.

The Gazetteer of Sikkim in 1894, while describing the physical features of Sikkim, also mentions the boundary that runs along Naku la – Chorten Nyima La. The sources said the geographic alignment of the features were so prominent that it could easily be identified and recognized. Even analysing the available Google images of the pass, the location of Naku La could be discerned by anyone as the watershed parting line in the area was very prominent. “There exists no ambiguity with respect to the location of the pass, since geographic realities cannot be altered,” the sources stressed.

‘Hidden agenda’

“The clearly orchestrated actions on an otherwise dormant area masks a hidden agenda, which is far removed from Naku La,” the sources noted referring to the Chinese push at several points along the LAC and also the ongoing Chinese aggression in the South China Sea and Taiwan Straits.

Diplomatic experts point out that China may also be opening up a front in Sikkim due to the ambiguous official position of the boundary.

Although meetings between former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in 2003 and maps exchanged subsequently indicated that India recognised the Tibetan Autonomous Region as a part of China, and Beijing recognised Sikkim as a State of the Indian union, the boundary at Sikkim while undisputed, remains undemarcated on the ground.

Jaishankar’s statement

In 2017, after the Doklam stand-off near the India-Bhutan-China trijunction, then Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar informed the Parliamentary Standing Committee that “there are still steps to be covered before the boundary is finalised.”

Mr. Jaishankar said India accepted the 1890 treaty as “the basis for alignment”, but the treaty had only been “partially implemented on the ground”. “Certainly the segments India is talking about, the Batang La segment, etc. was not there and there is nothing to show that that was actually delineated or demarcated or agreed upon.”

Prior to Sikkim’s merger with India in 1975, the Chinese side accepted the Watershed based alignment of the International Border (IB), and in a Note dated December 26, 1959 stated, “The Sikkim – Tibet boundary has long formally been delimited and there is neither any discrepancy between the maps, nor any dispute in practice.”

The sources stated that India had been guarding the boundary and built defences in this remote area ever since the 60s while no PLA soldiers were seen in the area at that time.

With a perceptible shift in that stand, and incidents of more intrusive patrols by the PLA, experts surmise that not only will the two sides need to negotiate to resolve the stand-off at Naku La, but New Delhi should also have more diplomatic focus on laying down the line firmly to Beijing on the boundary in Sikkim.

With inputs from The Hindu

Srinagar: The Jammu and Kashmir High Court on Wednesday reserved orders on a plea challenging detention under Public Safety Act of Ali Muhammad Sagar, General Secretary of National Conference.

A bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma passed the orders after counsel from both the parties completed arguments. Earlier senior Additional Advocate General B. A. Dar produced the Sagar’s detention record.

The Senior AAG had already submitted counter affidavit. Sagar was represented by Advocate Shuja-ul-Haq.

Previously, the court had directed the Government to consider the bail plea of Sagar having regard to health grounds and submit the report. The court had made orders on an application filed by his son stating that Sagar is an old aged person and is suffering from hypertension and orthopaedic complications.

“The applicant (Sagar) has developed a severe cardio vascular ailment during his detention since August 6,” reads the application. (GNS)

Srinagar: Prominent lawyer Javed Iqbal Wani will take oath as a Judge of the Common High Court for the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on Friday.

According to a notification issued by the Registrar General (officiating), Wani’s oath ceremony will take place on June 12 (Friday) at 11:00 AM in the Chief Justice’s Court Room at Srinagar wing of the High Court.

On Tuesday, President of India appointed Wani as the Judge of the High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.
His recommendation, made by the Supreme Court Collegium, was pending with the central government for the past few months.

After he takes the oath, the bench strength of the high court will increase to 13 against the total strengthen of 17 judges include the Chief Justice.

Advocate Iqbal Wani is the gold medallist in Law from Kashmir University and had started practice in 1990. He had been practising in Jammu and Srinagar Wings of High Court.

He had also served as Additional Advocate General from February 2019 to December 2019 and had also represented army in many cases including the Pathribal fake encounter case. (GNS)

Budgam: Authorities in Magam area of Central Kashmir’s Budgam district sealed a bakery shop after its owner with multiple addresses was found positive for Covid-19 infection.

Ironically, the 52 year old man escaped from Sub District Hospital Magam and despite being positive had himself visited JVC SKIMS Bemina asking the doctors there to take his samples again. When the doctors at JVC asked him, how he come visited the hospital all alone, the man gave a slip and disappeared for almost 24 hours.

“We are trying to find out where he had spent his time after declaring positive. It is a serious matter and will be probed,” said an official.

Tehsildar Magam said that they have sealed his bakery shop and action will be initiated against him for his ‘unpredictable’ behavior and putting the lives of other people into danger.

Block Medical Officer Magam, Dr Abid Ali told news agency KNT that the man has mentioned three addresses Baramulla, Batamaloo Srinagar and Bamrooda and it was confusing. “We called the control room and he has now been put under isolation ward,” he said adding that the man in question is actually the inhabitant of Baramulla and runs a bakery shop in Magam.

When KNT contacted the man in question, he said he was walking near Iqbal Park Srinagar, when he received a call from Sub-District Hospital Magam informing him he was found Covid-19 positive. “After this information, I decided to visit JVC to get tested again, but doctors there refused to take my samples asking me to visit Baramulla or Magam for the re-sampling. I spent the night at my rented house and right now I am at CD Hospital Srinagar,” he said.

He refused to name the location where he had spent the night. (KNT)

PTI

Jammu: The Pakistani Army on Wednesday opened fire and shelled mortars along the LoC in Jammu and Kashmir’s Rajouri district, officials said.

The Indian Army effectively retaliated.

“At about 0730 hours today, Pak initiated unprovoked ceasefire violation by firing of small arms & intense shelling with mortars along LoC in Nowshera Sector”, a defence spokesman said.

Exchanges were on when last reports came from the area.

Pakistani troops had shelled areas along the LoC in Mankote and Khari Karmara sectors of Poonch district on Monday and Tuesday.

During the military-to-military dialogue on Saturday, China refused to even discuss its intrusions into the Galwan River valley, instead claiming ownership over the entire area.

New Delhi: Three days after Indian and Chinese military commanders met on Saturday at Chushul, in Ladakh, to discuss the crisis caused by the occupation by thousands of Chinese soldiers of territory traditionally patrolled by both armies, top army sources in India sought to portray a rapidly improving situation.

Claiming that both sides – the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Indian Army – have “retreated a bit” after the Saturday meeting, the army sources revealed that another Sino-Indian meeting would be held on Wednesday at a more junior level.

However, sources on the ground paint a far bleaker picture of Chinese intransigence along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). They say that during the talks, the PLA interlocutors flatly rejected the Indian demand for Chinese troops to withdraw from areas they occupied in May and restore the status quo that prevailed in April.

In fact, during the military-to-military dialogue on Saturday, China refused to even discuss its intrusions into the Galwan River valley, instead claiming ownership over the entire area.

Underlining these sharp divergences between the Indian and Chinese positions, no joint statement was released after Lieutenant General Harinder Singh, the Leh corps commander, met PLA Major General Liu Lin, who heads the South Xinjiang Military Region in a bid to defuse the confrontation.

Nor did New Delhi release any details about the military discussions. Only on Tuesday, after being sharply criticised by opposition members, including Rahul Gandhi of the Congress Party, did “top army sources” present the media with the military’s version of events.

According to their version, the Indian and Chinese corps commanders met one-on-one for almost three hours before engaging further during delegate-level talks. The two sides “mutually agreed and identified five locations of conflicts” between PLA and Indian troops. These include Patrolling Point 14 (PP14), PP15, PP17, the north bank of Pangong Tso Lake and Chushul.

The fact that these conflict locations make no mention of the Galwan River valley lends credence to the argument that the sector did not feature on the discussion agenda.

Galwan River valley

During the talks, the PLA indicated they were taking control of the Galwan River valley, which has traditionally been a peaceful sector where China adhered to a claim line. Now PLA negotiators have asserted ownership of the entire Galwan Valley, claiming that China had controlled the hilltops astride the Galwan River for “as long as they could remember.”

The PLA alleged that the one-kilometre-long track that India had built from the Shyok-Galwan river junction, heading eastwards along the Galwan River, was an encroachment on Chinese territory. They alleged that India was developing this track into a metal (black-topped) road.

The Indian army representatives countered that the Chinese had constructed a metal road right to where the LAC had existed up till May – that is five kilometres from where the Galwan flows into the Shyok river – and that the road would soon cross the LAC. The Chinese responded that the Galwan Valley was their area and it was legitimate for them to build a road in it.

Indian negotiators also objected strongly to PLA troops deploying in the close vicinity of India’s Gogra post. Sources say the PLA did not offer a cogent response.

Nor was there a cogent PLA response to Indian allegations that the Chinese were constructing a road on India’s side of the LAC between Hot Springs and Gogra.

Pangong Tso area

Responding to Indian charges of Chinese intrusions onto the Pangong Tso north bank, the PLA negotiators claimed they had “acted rightfully” in constructing a metalled road up to Finger 4, and preparing defensive positions in that disputed area.

Prior to May, the Indian army regularly patrolled till their perceived LAC at Finger 8, eight kilometres east of Finger 4. However, since May 5, when thousands of PLA troops blocked and savagely beat up outnumbered Indian troops in that area, Indian patrols are unable to go beyond Finger 4, which the Chinese now claim is the LAC.

The Chinese military officials accepted that the aggression with which PLA soldiers attacked Indian troops at the Pangong Tso in mid-May “was not in the right spirit,” but said it was a reaction to Indian patrols crossing the PLA’s version of the LAC.

The Indian army also brought up the need to reduce forward deployments of PLA soldiers, armoured vehicles and artillery guns. The Chinese responded they would have to refer the matter to their superiors.

Gains and losses

Army sources apprehend the PLA has gained strategically in the Galwan Valley, where they now occupy positions overlooking the strategic Darbuk-Shyok-Daulet Beg Oldi (DSDBO) road to Depsang, at the base of the Karakoram Pass.

The Chinese have also gained strategically by isolating the Depsang area, as a consequence of dominating the DSDBO road. There is currently a large Chinese armour build up opposite Depsang, which is raising apprehensions of surprise ingress in that sector by the PLA.

Chinese gains in the Pangong Tso area, however, are being seen as tactical, even though the levels of violence the PLA displayed there is worrisome.

The other PLA activities at Naku La (Sikkim) and at Harsil and Lipu Lekh (Uttarakhand) are being viewed as “red herrings”, aimed at tying down Indian troops rather than serving any larger strategic objectives.

The army is also closely watching the long border between Arunachal Pradesh and Tibet, which is called the McMahon Line. This has been entirely quiet so far, with no Chinese activity in this area.

On Tuesday, Indian army sources provided a military-political perspective to the on-going PLA intrusions. “The core issue is the undecided LAC. Until that is solved, these episodes and issues will continue to happen,” they stated.

Also to blame, according to the army sources, was the PLA’s militarisation of the border areas. “China has deployed fighter bombers, rocket forces, air defence radars, jammers, etcetera. India has also deployed all its major assets along the LAC… just a few kilometres away from the frontline. India will continue to have a major build up until China withdraws the build up [it has] done there,” they said.

With inputs from The Wire

(This story has not been edited by Kashmir Today staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)