New Delhi: The violent face-off at the Galwan River valley happened on the night of 15 June because of the fact that the Chinese were trying to build structures “just across the LAC” (Line of Actual Control) and the clash happened because the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) “refused to desist from such actions” even as the Indian Army “foiled” their attempts, said the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) Saturday.
The PMO statement came a day after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s speech at an all-party meeting Friday was given “mischievous interpretation” in some quarters.
Clarifying the PM’s speech where he said, “No one entered Indian territory, no border posts were occupied”, the PMO stated these remarks pertained to the “situation as a consequence of the bravery of our armed forces”.
“Attempts are being made in some quarters to give a mischievous interpretation to remarks by the Prime Minister at the All-Party Meeting (APM) yesterday … The Prime Minister’s observations that there was no Chinese presence on our side of the LAC pertained to the situation as a consequence of the bravery of our armed forces,” the PMO statement issued Saturday said.
“The sacrifices of the soldiers of the 16 Bihar Regiment foiled the attempt of the Chinese side to erect structures and also cleared the attempted transgression at this point of the LAC on that day,” the PMO further stated.
It highlighted the fact that what constitutes as Indian territory “is clear from the map of India”.
“Insofar as there is some illegal occupation, the APM (all party meeting) was briefed in great detail how over the last 60 years, more than 43,000 sq.km has been yielded under circumstances with which this country is well aware. It was also made clear that this Government will not allow any unilateral change of the LAC,” it said.
Also read: Xi has thrown the gauntlet at Modi. He can pick it up like Nehru, or try something new
What the PM said at the all-party meet
The PMO said it was made clear at the meeting that the “Chinese forces have come in much larger strength to the LAC and that the Indian response is commensurate”.
However, with regards to the structures it was still not clear what the government meant by the “just across the LAC” given that the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) stated Wednesday that the build up was happening on India’s side of the LAC at the Galwan Valley.
The MEA had also stated at that time India had expected the 6 June agreement, reached during the Commanders’-level meeting, will “unfold smoothly”, but the Chinese side “departed from the consensus” to “respect the Line of Actual Control in the Galwan Valley”.
Reacting to the PM’s statement, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lijian Zhao gave a “the step-by-step account of the Galwan clash”.
In a long Twitter thread, Lijian stated that the Galwan Valley is “located on the Chinese side of the Line of Actual Control in the west section of the China-India boundary. For many years, the Chinese border troops have been patrolling and (are) on duty in this region.”
A step-by-step account of the Galwan clash
1. The Galwan Valley is located on the Chinese side of the Line of Actual Control in the west section of the China-India boundary. For many years, the Chinese border troops have been patrolling and on duty in this region.
— Lijian Zhao 赵立坚 (@zlj517) June 20, 2020
He said Indian border troops have, since April, built roads and bridges at the LAC in the Galwan Valley.
“China lodged representations and protests on multiple occasions but India went even further to cross the LAC and made provocations.
“India’s front-line troops even violently attacked the Chinese officers and soldiers who went there for negotiation, thus triggering fierce physical conflicts and causing casualties,” the Chinese spokesperson said.
Also read: China’s 1960 claim acknowledges Galwan Valley is India’s, says retired General Narasimhan
This was a bit trump-ian of modi, but let’s move on from this matter. Stupid statement, can be costly as it comes from.PM but history shows such words hardly change anything. Probably give Chinese a little bit more room to argue but easy to counter