Besides
representing India at a variety of multilateral fora including the IAEA
(International Atomic Energy Agency), WHO (World Health Organization), ILO
(International Labour Organization), and the UN Human Rights Commission, he has
also served as the President of the Conference on Disarmament during his
assignment in Geneva. He spoke to Vijay Thakur, the Special Representative of
the Statesman, on the recent developments along Indo-China border in Ladakh. Excerpts:
BY Vijay Thakur, Special Representative, The Statesman, vijaythakurx@gmail.com
Question
Indo-China
border problem is very old. Of late tension along Indo-China border has been
worsening. First it was Doklan and now Galwan how you see all this.
Answer
There
are a few more added factors like India’s deterrence capabilities in terms of
comprehensive power is much less than that of China. I am not talking in terms
of nuclear capabilities but in terms of comparative strength between China
and India. And the gap of deterrence capabilities between the two has increased
over the years.
Question:
What
is your take on the Galwan Valley clash between the Indian and Chinese troops
on 15 June night that claimed the lives of 20 Indian soldiers? This was the
worst India-China clash on the LAC in nearly half a century that happened
despite various existing bilateral agreements as well as PM Modi’s major push
to enhance and upgrade relations with Xi Jinping-led China. Why did it happen?
Answer
Actually,
in the garb of 1993 agreement and the CBMs (Confidence Building Measures)
agreed upon thereafter, China is encroaching our territory inch by inch for the
past two decades. Now they are trying to grab more and more Indian Territory
and change the ground realities of the Line of Actual Control.
India
had committed its first big mistake in 1993 when it accepted the concept of
Line of Actual Control (LAC). Unfortunately, even after 27 years, the LAC is
not defined, it is not understood clearly, and there is a great deal of
ambiguity. The LAC was never demarcated and both countries have a different
impression of LAC. I think, what we are seeing today was inbuilt into the
mechanism of the LAC because it lacks clarity.
Secondly,
the kind of agreements and CBM measures we signed in 1995, 2005, 2012 and 2013
were also in India’s interest. The commitment from the Indian side that we
would maintain maximum restrain and not fire was actually favouring China.
Question
Anwer:
We
must accept the fact that the decision on the Galwan faceoff was not taken
locally, it must have been a top-level decision. That's why it is a very
serious issue and would affect Indo-China relations for ever. It would take
longer to build up similar kind of relationship again.
Personally
I am happy that the mood has changed in the government and India has taken a
tough stand. It has categorically announced that Indian Army commanders can use
the weapon according to the situation. I went through the statements made by
the government of India on Galwan faceoff. Those were not mere rash statements.
PM’s statement on Galwan was a measured, well-considered and a firm statement.
India said it wants peace, wants to deescalate the situation, but at the same
time maintained that it would not compromise with its territory. Talks are
going on at various military and diplomatic level and hopefully, the issue would
settle down soon.
Question
Answer
Defence
Minister’s statement that Indian Army commanders can use the weapon according
to the situation is an indication of what is going to be India’s future
roadmap. This means the 1996 agreement of not using weapons is apparently
over. India has indirectly told its officers on the ground that the restrained
of not using weapon has been lifted. But still, there are many more things we
need to do.
For
quick action, India should give a befitting reply to the Chinese aggression
along the LAC. If the military situation is not favourable at one point than we
should look for an alternate option at other places. Indian Army commanders
should be allowed to take countervailing actions.
Since
1993 we have been discussing LAC, we had 22 or 23 rounds of talk but nothing
happened. Let's take the Galwan incident as an opportunity and press for the
settlement of LAC issue in a time-bound manner—maybe six months.. a year… or
one and a half year. India should Categorically tell Chinese authorities that
if you do not resolve the LAC issue within a specified time frame, India would
not accept the concept of LAC anymore.
Question:
Should
we take up the present faceoff on the international forum and expose the
barbaric acts of China?
Answer:
Yes
India should take up the violations that took place in the Galwan valley by
Chinese authorities and haul it up for before the UN Human Right Council
(UNHRC). Chinese Army used ‘weapons of torture’ that caused ‘superfluous and
unnecessary injuries'. The present situation in Galwan valley legally qualifies
as an International Armed Conflict. And as per Article 12 sub clause (II) of
the UN Human Right Conventions the use the ‘weapons of torture’ is prohibited.
Imagine they used baton with spike, iron rods with barbed wire to attack our
soldiers. All this strictly violates the ‘Methods and means of warfare’ during International Armed Conflicts under Part III
Section I Article 35 of the 1977 Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva
Conventions.
We
must expose China before the world that it is not a civilized state. The world
must know that It is a barbaric nation and has no respect for Human rights.
Further, we must develop a comprehensive strategy to handle china and should be
more vocal to the way China handles Hongkong, Taiwan, Tibet and Xingxiang.
India must support their cause on international forum. We should become much
more active on these issues particularly where China is committing human right
violations.
India
should take this opportunity to further strengthen its ties with Taiwan,
develop long term business association to take advantage of technological
advancements of Taiwan to help to improve our domestic industry.
Ends.
