HIGH LEVEL ARMY TALKS [06-JUNE]

3 days after Indian Army and Chinese Army commanders met on 06-JUNE Saturday at Chushul, in Ladakh, to discuss the crisis caused by the occupation by thousands of Chinese soldiers of territory routinely patrolled by both armies. India China Border Talks explained

India China Border Talks explained

OUTCOME OF TALKS

Land Claiming that both sides — the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Indian Army — have “retreated a bit” after the 06-JUNE Saturday meeting, the army sources revealed that another Sino-Indian meeting would be held on Wednesday 10-JUNE at a more junior level.

India China Border Talks explained

BUT, GROUND SOURCES DIFFER…

However, sources on the ground paint a far bleaker picture of Chinese intransigency along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). They said that during the talks, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) interrogator flatly rejected the Indian demand for Chinese troops to withdraw from areas they occupied in May and put back the state of affairs that succeed in April.

CHINA DIDN’T EVEN DISCUSS GALWAN VALLEY

In fact, during the military-to-military talks on 06-JUNE Saturday, China refused to even discuss its invasion of into the Galwan River valley, instead claiming ownership over the entire area.
Underlining these sharp division between the Indian and Chinese positions, no joint statement was released after Lieutenant General Harinder Singh, the Leh corps commander, met the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Major General Liu Lin, who heads the South Xinjiang Chinese Military Region.

JUNE-9: DISCUSSIONS RELEASED

In a statement, the external affairs minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar on Sunday 07-JUNE said the meeting took place in a “cordial and positive atmosphere” and that both sides agreed that an “early resolution” of the situation would kick in to the further development of the relationship between the two nations.
in its comments, the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said both the developing countries have agreed to work to maintain peace along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and resolve the standoff through talks.

India China Border Talks explained

AS PER THE STATEMENT

The Indian and Chinese corps commanders met one-on-one for almost 3 hours before engaging further during delegate level talks. The two sides “mutually agreed and identified 5 locations of conflicts” between the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and Indian Army troops. These involve Patrolling Point 14 (PP-14), PP15, PP17, the north bank of Pangong Tso Lake and Chushul.
The fact that these disputation 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

Now the People’s Liberation Army (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 People’s Liberation Army (PLA) suppose that the single kilometre road that India had construct from the Shyok-Galwan river junction, inscription eastwards along the Galwan River, was an encroachment on Chinese territory. They claimed that India was developing this track into a metal (black-topped) road.

CHINA ALREADY CONSTRUCTED ROAD UP TILL LAC

The Indian army representatives contradict that the Chinese had constructed a metal road right to where the Line of Actual Control (LAC) had existed up till May that is 5 kilometres from where the Galwan flows into the Shyok river and that the road would soon cross the Line of Actual Control (LAC). The Chinese rejoin that the Galwan Valley was their area and it was legitimate for them to build a road in it.

No CLARITY ON GOGRA

Indian mediator also objected strongly to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops deploying in the close vicinity of India’s Gogra post. Sources say the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) did not offer a valid response. Nor was there a cogent the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) response to Indian allegations that the Chinese were constructing a road on India’s side of the Line of Actual Control (LAC) between Hot Springs and Gogra.

PANGONG TSO AREA

Responding to Indian charges of Chinese intrusions onto the Pangong Tso north bank, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) middleman claimed they had “acted rightfully” in constructing a metalled road up to Finger four, and preparing defensive positions in that disputed area.

Prior to May, the Indian army regularly patrolled till their perceived the Line of Actual Control (LAC) at Finger 8, 8 kilometres east of Finger 4. However, since 5, May when thousands of the People’s Liberation Army (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 Line of Actual Control (LAC)

INDIA ALSO ASKED TO REDUCE ARMOURED VEHICLES, CHINA DIDN’T RESPOND

The Indian army also brought up the need to shrink ahead deployments of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) soldiers, armoured vehicles and artillery guns. The Chinese responded they would have to refer the matter to their chief.

India China Border Talks explained

GAINS AND LOSSES

Army sources detain the People’s Liberation Army (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.

SIKKIM ACTIVITY IS MERELY TO DIVERT TROOPS

The other the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) affair at Naku La (Sikkim) and at Harsil and Lipu Lekh (Uttarakhand state) are being viewed as “red herrings”, aimed at tying down Indian Army troops rather than serving any larger strategic objectives.
The army is also closely observe the long border between Arunachal Pradesh state and Tibet, which is called the McMahon Line.

WHO IS TO BLAME? -1

On Tuesday, Indian army sources provided a military political perspective to the on going the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) intrusions.
“The core issue is the unsure the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

WHO IS TO BLAME? -2

Also to blame, according to the Indian army sources, was the the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) militarisation of the border areas. “China has install fighter bombers, rocket forces, air defence radars, jammers, etc. India has also deployed all its major assets along the Line of Actual Control (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. India China Border Talks explained