'China not defined LAC yet as it don't want to resolve issue'

As India and China are engaged in a stand-off at Galwan Valley, Maj Gen GG Dwivedi (retd) has a deep insight into the situation. Having commanded 16 Jat in Siachen and Pangong Tso, a brigade in the Kashmir Valley and a mountain division in the North East, and served as India’s defence attaché in China from 1997-99, he talks about the background of the situation and the way ahead.

Q: First of all, can you please explain the difference between LoC and LAC?

A: There is a tendency to compare the Line of Control (LoC) and the Line of Actual Control (LAC) but these are two distinct terms. We have LoC with Pakistan where the line is manned on both sides and there are troops deployed to hold the ground. In contrast, the LAC is not manned but only patrolled by troops from either side. The LoC with Pakistan came into being in 1949, where the firing stopped in J&K and certain grounds that were later gained during operations. It is well defined on the grounds and held by both sides. It is almost like a de facto border.

Q: Why is the border issue being raked up now with China? Please give a background.

A: Against China, the border was delineated in 1914 when the Shimla accord came. The McMohan Line was drawn and on the other side was Durand Line. Chinese have not accepted the McMohan Line while they have partly accepted the Durand Line. Border was not defined then and later, as China set about 12 borders with 14 neighbouring countries, we were one of them. There was not much of a problem till early 1950s. Between India and China, Tibet has always remained a buffer zone. Even after it was annexed, China did not raise the border issue. They had another outlink province of Xingjiang, which was erstwhile in Turkistan. They constructed Western Highway from Kashgarh in Xingjiang with Lhasa, the capital of Tibet. This alignment passed through Aksai Chin. We started raising the issue about the road in 1959, after a year of its construction. Then came the 1962 War, and opening shots were fired from Galwan Valley. The LAC is where firing stopped in 1962. After 1962, the ground forces were partially pulled back.

Q: Why do you thing that LAC has not been defined as yet?

A: China has still not been able to define the LAC for the simple reason that it do not want to resolve the issue. Talks have been going on since 2000. Then people were hopeful that the issue would get resolved but even after 20 years it’s not resolved. They have not exchanged maps of the Western and Eastern sectors while they have done the same for the Central where there is no dispute. China is not interested in resolving it as they are using it as a trump card for creating some disturbances at the place.

Q: Why do you think that China used this time to create trouble?

A: China is known to create problems when it has internal and external issues. In 1962, Mao Zedong was under pressure internally. In 1967, a cultural revolution was going on and Nathu La clashes took place. China chose this time as a window of opportunity when it was facing onslaught due to the Covid-19 spread. Also for them, Aksai Chin is important as Western Highway passes through it. They have invested in dams coming up in POK. They do not want us to develop any infrastructure now as if we do, we will be able to deploy our troops faster and in mountains, it is important to have speedy deployment. The side which can deploy faster has the advantage. The Chinese government feels that we are being aggressive and developing our capabilities. For the same reason, Galwan has become important as from here one can dominate the Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) road, which we have already done. Now, we want to develop the road up to LAC. From the Karakoram highway, the Western Highway of China is only about 30 km. Karakoram is currently with us. Now, if China dominates Galwan and the DBO road, they can pose a threat to Siachen. We are also developing a road from the Siachen side. A road is coming up from Sasoma to Sasser La pass, which is an alternate route to the DBO road and Karakoram. Since we were working on both roads, it was a well-orchestrated and deliberate game plan to organise patrol ambush, which must have been cleared at the highest level.

Q: What are options before India?

A: The first option, of course, is diplomatic talks. Now that China is very smart, it want negotiations on its own terms. They are currently having a good tactical advantage position-wise but we want them to go back from where they came. We have had various agreements with the Chinese side. In 2013, we signed the Border Defence Cooperation Agreement, as per which we can only patrol but cannot take position or put up any infrastructure or do entrenchments. But the Chinese forces have not respected that agreement and therefore, this problem appeared. There are three steps to diffuse the tension. First is disengaging the troops, second is pulling them back and third is de-escalation. Since they are not ready to vacate what they have occupied, we need to build some pressure tactics against them by opening multiple fronts, including military, economic and global. We have a 3488-km border with China. If they have crossed a line, so can we, but at some other strategic location.

Q: Were you allowed to carry weapons during your tenure there?

A: I was posted along the border in 1992. We used to carry firearms for patrol too. When we used to come in front of each other, we would keep our weapons pointed back side to show that we are not hostile. It was from 1996 that the new system of going to patrol without firearms came. But they have developed several hand-held lethal weapons, including barbed batons, which can cause serious injuries as they used now.

Q: How do you compare China’s position to India?

A: If we are fighting a two-front war, China is doing that from everywhere. They have had to manage many fronts at a time. We have enough forces on the ground to handle them. In terms of defence equipment, China is the fourth largest exporter in the world but we are dependent on other countries for our defence imports. Technology-wise also, we are behind but we don’t need to bank upon China for cheapest and nearest availability. We need to move more towards Taiwan and South Korea while starting to manufacture our own stuff.

Q: Why is the Chinese media not reporting about casualties of its troops?

A: Chinese media is completely controlled by the government there. They will not report anything till it is vetted by the government.