S. Jaishankar’s statement in Parliament on India-China relations

Source: The post S. Jaishankar’s statement in Parliament on India-China relations has been created, based on the article “A good beginning but China negotiations must continue” published in “The Hindu” on 9th December 2024

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2- International relations-India and its neighbourhood- relations.

Context: The article discusses S. Jaishankar’s statement on India-China relations. It highlights the lack of clarity on disengagement details, the challenges in border management, and the need for transparency. It also calls for greater political unity in addressing India’s concerns with China. S. Jaishankar’s statement in Parliament on India-China relations.

For detailed information on India China Relations read this article here

What was the focus of the Minister’s statement in Parliament on India-China relations?

1. The Minister addressed developments in India-China relations, marking his first detailed statement since the 2020 Eastern Ladakh border tensions.
2. He highlighted China’s troop amassment in 2020 and India’s counter-deployment, which led to disengagement through negotiations.
3. He avoided using the term “buffer zones” but referred to “temporary and limited measures” in areas like Galwan Valley and Pangong Lake to prevent further friction.
4. Disengagement is declared complete, but issues like “de-escalation” and restoring patrolling rights in Depsang and Demchok remain unresolved.
5. The statement confirmed that borders remain abnormal with large-scale troop deployments for a fifth consecutive winter.

What Issues Remain Unaddressed?

1. Detailed Terms of Disengagement: The specific arrangements for troop withdrawal and terms of disengagement at various friction points like Depsang and Demchok are not disclosed.
2. Access to Patrolling Points: It’s unclear whether Indian troops can resume patrolling at traditional areas, including five points beyond Y-Junction in Depsang Plains and the Charding Nala junction in Demchok.
3. New Patrolling Concepts: The concept of “coordinated patrolling” is undefined, raising questions about the size and frequency of patrols and the extent of restrictions.
4. Status Quo Restoration: Despite disengagement, the status quo along the border has not been restored to the pre-April 2020 conditions, with China reportedly changing it unilaterally.
5. Concerns over Yangtse: Reports suggest Chinese troops are allowed to patrol Yangtse in Arunachal Pradesh, despite earlier objections from India labeling their demands “unreasonable.”

What should be done?

1. India should avoid permanent buffer zones and insist on restoring the April 2020 status quo.
2. Ensure Transparency: Share disengagement details publicly, as vague terms like “coordinated patrolling” raise questions.
3. Engage Opposition: Build bipartisan consensus, as seen in agreements on Confidence Building Measures (1996) and Political Parameters (2005).
4. Highlight Economic Security Risks: Avoid dependency on Chinese supply chains, given China’s history of weaponizing economic ties.
5. Maintain Consistent Messaging: Align Army and Ministry statements to counter China’s grey-zone tactics effectively.

Question for practice:

Evaluate the effectiveness of India’s approach to addressing the challenges in its relations with China post-2020 border tensions.