The brutal murder of the Commanding officer of 16 Bihar, Colonel Santosh Babu, along with two other ranks, close to Patrol Point (PP) 14 of the Galwan Valley on the night of 15/16 June, 2020 once again confirmed the duplicity, treacherous and barbaric behavior of China and its PLA to the world at large, if such a confirmation was truly required. From all accounts, from which the sequence of events of that murderous evening has been pieced together, it appears that Colonel Suresh with a small body of troops comprising his recce party had gone across to check on the withdrawal of Chinese troops as per the consensus and agreement reached between the Lt Gen harinder Singh and Major Gen Liu Lin on June 06. As per the existing protocol, Colonel Suresh and party were perhaps unarmed or the arms were carried but not used. Finding a large body of Chinese troops and some tents, a confrontation ensued in which the Chinese suddenly attacked them with clubs and bats studded with barbed wire and metal spikes in a barbaric manner. Surprised by the unprovoked attack, three, including the CO, immediately fell, the Chinese captured some while others managed to escape the scuffle and get reinforcements. Perhaps, the second scuffle was on the way leading to PP 14 on a narrow mountain path or a small ledge, insufficient for a large number of men engaged in hand to hand combat, in which a large number of casualties were suffered by both sides, many due to falling off the ledge into the icy cold waters of the Galwan river.
Later in the day India confirmed 20 fatalities and over seventy injured, some critically. The Chinese have not officially announced any casualties though various reports estimate these to be between 30 and 43. This has been the largest number of lives lost on the LAC since the Nathu La action of 1967. While the External Affairs Minister of India, Jaishankar, has reportedly called this a premeditated action in his talks with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, it is surprising that the Indian Army has not yet put out the full narrative of this horrendous episode to conclusively prove this barbaric attack on unarmed Indian soldiers. Surely, it should not be impossible to piece together the exact chain of events of the incident from the survivors, and eyewitnesses to the incident, to counter the Chinese propaganda calling this as an act of provocation and aggression from the Indian troops. As per reports, Wang Yi has asked India to probe the conduct of the Indian troops and severely punish those responsible. Whatever be the provocation, it defies all logic and credulity that the CO and his small party would have first attacked the Chinese troops without use of arms, as the Chinese have been claiming.
Also, it is surprising that, being aware of Chinese duplicity and barbarity since the 1962 war, if not earlier, Colonel Suresh was tasked, or decided, to check on the agreed de-escalation and withdrawal in darkness without using suitable drones with appropriate sensors to warn them of the Chinese dispositions ahead. Also, the recording of the entire event in the rear locations would have conclusively proved the aggressive actions of the PLA. Surely, in this technological age, our Army has such drones to help them in their patrols and control of the LAC, which even the Police use regularly. The satellite imagery flashed on most TV channels the next day itself, June 16, showed a large build up of Chinese troops east of PP 14, indicating that they had no intention to disengage or de-escalate in this area. If such information was available to the units in front, perhaps this tragedy may have been avoided with alternate methods found towards compliance of the agreement of June 06. Belatedly, there are reports today, June 17, of 500 riot gear sets being flown across to the troops on the LAC.
Some details of the past record of Chinese duplicity and salami slicing or nibbling tactics, with their changing stance on territorial claims, are given in an article I wrote last year, “Beijing reaches out to bridge differences: Co-Operation on Chinese terms?” available at http://www.icec-council.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/02/ICC-Sept-Oct-2019-book.pdf. After this unfortunate incident, while China has further expanded its claim to the entire Galwan Valley where there has been no dispute after 1962, it needs to be recalled that the Galwan river itself is named after Rasool Galwan of Ladakh who discovered this alternate route to Tibet in early 19 th century. China is already in illegal possession of the entire Aksai Chin, which truly belongs to India as per all historical maps, traditional, administrative and customary evidence, but still remains insatiable in its quest to further improve its positions on the ground and negotiating strength. China has not been able to furnish any credible evidence to support its multiple and increasing claims, much less even hand-over maps of its perception of the LAC since the agreement on this issue of 1993.
In this connection, it may be highlighted that the Panchsheel agreement of 1954, whereby India recognized Chinese suzerainty over Tibet and literally signed it away, without extracting any acceptance of the existing boundary of Ladakh with Tibet, there is a mention of certain passes through which traders and pilgrims of both countries were allowed to travel, indirectly accepting these passes as the boundary between Tibet and India. While none of these were for Ladakh, the Niti and Lipulekh passes are worth mentioning here. Soon after extracting such recognition from India, China protested against police pickets at Barahoti, southwest of Niti pass and well within India thus laying its first claim on Indian territory. The mention of Lipulekh pass may be seen as an earlier confirmation by China of the pass belonging to India in light of its reported attempts to rake up the issue through Nepal lately. Two Chinese claim lines followed the protests on Barahoti with the second one obviously claiming even more territory in ladakh. Even this second claim line, which the Chinese reached in the war of 1962, was a few kilometers east of the Shyok-Galwan junction and just beyond PP 14, which has since been regularly patrolled by Indian troops without any face-off till now.
The point being highlighted is that China continues to be duplicitous with all its neighbors as evident even from its recent aggressive behavior in the East and South China seas. It does this by isolating and pressurizing weaker nations in bilateral talks while continuing its duplicitous approach through muscular salami slicing. I recently came across a picture of a stone sculpture in a temple in Sri Rangam, Tamil Nadu depicting a Chinese trader stabbing a Tamil sailor from the back. This may confirm that even our ancestors had recognized the treacherous nature of Chinese traders. Unfortunately, we keep making new agreements regularly with China, none of which have worked so far, at least on the boundary issue. Fortunately, India is not a walkover and the recent statements, particularly the PM’s statement of June 17, indicate that India has decided to stand firm against further bullying by China.
In addition to all the political, diplomatic, economic and military steps suggested earlier, in the referred article, before co-operating with Beijing or dancing with the dragon, taking this border dispute to the International Court of Justice at an opportune time may also be considered. Our evidence on the boundary issue is convincing from all angles otherwise we would not be sticking to our stand despite being militarily unable to wrest control of our territory, illegally and forcefully occupied by China. Surely, the verdict of the ICJ cannot put us in a territorially worse position than what it is today, even if China refuses to abide by the verdict, as it does against the Philippines after the verdict of 1996 on the dispute in the South China Sea. Our approach to the ICJ may also encourage a number of countries in the Indo-Pacific to initiate similar proceedings bringing a lot of international pressure on China that may finally become unbearable someday, like the last straw on the dragon’s back.