It will be one year due to the fact the standoff in between the Indian and Chinese armies began. And, China has been in a position to prevail on the Indian Government in vacating the Kailash Range and as a result providing away the only benefit it had more than the PLA by dominating the depth areas. And it refuses to vacate 4 friction points.
“With superior infrastructure and resources the ability to deploy its troops faster, the advantage lies with the PLA for the time being. The issue of reduction of troops in depth areas is something to be reviewed with caution,” an Indian Army Veteran Lt Col Manoj K Channan (Retd), opines.
Sharing his views with TheSpuzz Online, the Indian Army veteran says “The official history notes that the Chinese had “succeeded in eliminating possible launch pads for any offensive against the Aksai Chin highway by eliminating DBO, Chushul and Demchok positions. It said that it “all the more strengthens the contention that Indians should have attempted to retain at least one jump off point Chushul”.
“It can be assessed that China will not allow India to build up any infrastructure which will threaten the disputed area of Aksai Chin, an area administered by the People’s Republic of China but also claimed by India, and its construction was one of the triggers for the Sino-Indian War of 1962. Originally made of gravel, it was fully paved with asphalt in 2013,” Lt Col Manoj K Channan, adds.
This also threatens the flank of the Indian Army in Siachen Glacier which the PLA could exploit in the days ahead. “The China Study Group under the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) should be overseen by the office of DMA / CDS to come to rationale and logical decisions which do not compromise any future course of action of the Indian Army / Defence Forces,” he suggests.
In conclusion, the Indian Army veteran says, “The Summers have just begun and it’s a long wait before winters set in and foreclose any options that the PLA may have up its sleeve.”
As reported in TheSpuzz Online earlier, the 11th round of talks in between India and China held earlier this month remained inconclusive.
The concentrate of the talks was to resolve the 11-month lengthy standoff in eastern Ladakh. And efforts have been created throughout the discussion on April 9, 2021, to urge China to vacate two of the 4 original friction points.
Read: India-China border talks: 11th round of talks remained inconclusive
In March at the finish of talks held below the framework of the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs (WMCC), each and every nation agreed to continue their dialogue. And, to mutually acceptable options for full disengagement from all friction points at the earliest.
At the finish of a series of military and diplomatic talks, India and China had completed withdrawal of each weapons and troops from the North and South banks of Pangong Lake. This was in line with an agreement on disengagement.
Reports quoting sources have mentioned that at the finish of 11th round of talks, “China told India to be happy with the disengagement in the Pangong Tso Lake area.”
And, India, in an work to bring down the tensions in the mountainous area, has been pushing for a more quickly disengagement course of action in places like Hot Springs, Gogra and Depsang.
Which are the friction points and why are they essential?
China continues to have a platoon-level strength each and every, along with cars at two friction points, Patrolling Point 15 (PP15) in Hot Springs, and PP17A close to Gogra Post. The soldiers have been eyeball to eyeball when they came face to face in May 2020 along the Line of Actual Control in eastern Ladakh.
And the other two friction points have been PP14 in Galwan Valley and the north bank of Pangong Tso. Last year, the Chinese troops had crossed the LAC at all these points and positioned themselves across.
More about PP15 and 17A?
As decided by the China Study Group (CSG), along the LAC, the Indian Army has been offered particular areas exactly where the troops have access to patrol. And these are recognized as Patrolling Points or PPs. And these are positioned on the LAC.
PP15 and PP17A are two of the 65 patrolling points in Ladakh along the LAC and reports indicate that some of these also have more Alpha PPs. These are additional ahead from the original PPs. This indicates that PP17A is distinctive from, but is close to, PP17.
While PP17A is close to an region named the Gogra post, PP15 is positioned in the Hot Springs, which is just north of the Chang Chenmo river, and the Gogra Post is east of the point exactly where the river requires a hairpin bend coming southeast from Galwan Valley, prior to it turns southwest.
This region is close to the Kongka Pass, which is one of the key passes, and according to China this marks the boundary in between the two nations. And, India’s claim of the international boundary is positioned drastically east, and it involves the complete Aksai Chin region as properly.
And, according to officials, each Hot Springs and Gogra Post are really close to the boundary which is in between two of the most historically disturbed provinces of China.
According to history, in 1960, Yang Kung-su, the Tibet Bureau of Foreign Affairs in the Chinese Foreign Office, had stated that the Western Sector of the boundary “is divided into two portions, with Kongka Pass as the dividing point” and the portion “which is north of Kongka Pass is the boundary between Sinkiang (now Xinjiang) and Ladakh. And the portion south of it is between Tibet and Ladakh”.
As far as the PP15 and PP17A are each positioned in an region exactly where each India and China agree on the alignment of the LAC. During the initial rounds of discussion in June 2020 the concentrate was on disengagement of troops from PP15 and PP17A.
According to reports, following the Galwan Valley clashes, the two sides had throughout talks agreed to disengage from PP14 (Galwan Valley), PP15 and PP17A following the third round of meeting of the senior military commanders in June. However, although China pulled back its troops from PP14, it failed to full the disengagement from PP15 and PP17A.