IIndia and China met on Sunday without much fanfare for the 18th round of Corps Commander-level talks. The talks were conducted in an unusually silent manner, without any prior announcement, and neither side even bothered to issue a joint statement. or that it was not possible to reach a joint statement. Both are reasonable assumptions, given that close to three years into the bloody conflict in Ladakh, both sides are yet to return to their pre-April 2020 positions, geographically as well as linguistically. The goalposts have shifted dramatically since then, perhaps irreversibly.
Given that India’s Defense Minister Rajnath Singh is scheduled to meet his Chinese counterpart General Li Shangfu on April 27, Sunday’s talks could be pushed ahead to keep the diplomatic atmosphere conducive. Since the defense ministers of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization are meeting on April 28, it would be a huge embarrassment if the Ladakh talks turn hostile. This may have cast a shadow over the widely anticipated event. Efforts to resolve the Ladakh standoff have now virtually become a regular occurrence. The text of the official briefing really reflects the repetitive nature of things.
while the Indian statement Continuing from where it left off last time, “According to the guidance provided by the state leaders and following the meeting between the two foreign ministers in March 2023, they exchanged views in an open and frank manner”, the Chinese had one extra row One that stood out was, “Expedite the settlement of relevant issues on the western section of the China-India border”.
Read also: US spying leads China to drastic changes in espionage law. This means more control over citizens
on different page and speed
A clue to this quick settlement lies in an article in Global TimesIt is also widely regarded as the English-language mouthpiece and sounding board of the Chinese Communist Party.
On talks at Chushul-Moldo border meeting point, Global Times wrote“China and India held the 18th round of Corps Commander-level meeting on Sunday, Chinese experts said on Monday in a move that shows the border issue is shifting from an impasse generalized management, when one party is convinced generalized management has been reached, naturally there are expectations to arrive at an early solution. Especially given that extended negotiations have repeatedly resulted in disengagement agreements that have been in favor of the Chinese position. India has accepted the right to patrol the negatively affected land Affected civil life.
The concessions have, unfortunately, extended to military posts as well, as of April 2020, the story has been that of territorial concessions. The accumulated loss is now estimated to be around 1000 sq km, India has also accepted strategically important positions for ‘peace and tranquility’ on the border, which was evident from the withdrawal of troops in the war. Kailash Range, All eyes are now on the highly sensitive Depsang and Demchok areas where no breakthroughs has been achieved. But any concession here would be tantamount to a colossal military defeat. Clearly, the lessons of negotiation from history have not been imbibed.
diplomacy and power
“We can never succeed in promoting our ideals or our interests if we ignore a central truth: strength and diplomacy go hand in hand … if the shadow of power is not cast over the bargaining table So negotiation is a euphemism for surrender.” So said the then US Secretary of State George Shultz in a famous Kansas State University lecture in 1986, and which has been recited innumerable times in the world of diplomacy. A firm believer in negotiation, with enough riders, Schultz is credited with helping create an environment that ultimately wound up cold war,
He further elaborated this thesis.
a decade later wrote, “The interplay between force and diplomacy is essential. Diplomacy without power – military and economic – is meaningless; But strength without diplomacy is not sustainable, especially in the modern age…Force and diplomacy have always gone hand in hand and still do.’ India clearly lacks that vitally important component of this modern-day formula for dialogue. While its diplomatic space has not suffered, its military expansion, its ability to maneuver in long-sacred territory has been severely shrunk. There has clearly been an insufficient presence of power on the Indian side at the bargaining table for delegations.
net result, according to a Presentation Letter In the conference conducted by D Nithya, IPS and Ladakh SP, DGP, it is that “Out of 65 PPs (patrol points), we would have lost our presence in 26 PPs due to restrictive or no patrolling by ISF (Indian Security Forces) is … China compels us to accept the fact that, in such areas which have not seen the presence of ISF or civilians for a long time, the Chinese were present in these areas … and all such pockets have a ” “buffer zones” are created, which eventually leads to loss of control. These areas by India… Since 2014, restrictions on grazing movement and areas have been increased.
hardly surprising that these recordings are now missing,
Manvendra Singh is a Congress leader, Editor-in-Chief of Defense and Security Alert and Chairman, Sainik Welfare Advisory Committee, Rajasthan. He tweeted @ManvendraJasol. Thoughts are personal.
(Editing by Anurag Choubey)