Analysis of the Standoff in Sikkim

The drums of war may not have been beaten as yet. However, the standoff on the Sikkim border has continued since early June of this year. A peaceful resolution does not appear to be in sight with both sides locked in an eyeball to eyeball confrontation.

Genesis of the Confrontation

The Indian defence establishment is opposed to China's attempts to construct a road on the Doklam plateau leading right up to the Sikkim-Bhutan-Tibet tri-junction, which has emerged as the major flashpoint in the ongoing face-off between the two armies in the remote border region. 

 Source: https://thewire.in/153189/construction-doklam-will-harm-security-interests-india-tells-china/

The Doklam plateau is Bhutanese territory but China, which calls it Donglang, regularly sends its patrols to the area to lay claim to it. Beijing is anxious to integrate the plateau in its adjoining Chumbi Valley. China is desperate to incorporate the plateau in its adjoining Chumbi Valley, which is shaped like a dagger jutting into India, separating Sikkim from Bhutan for geo-strategic reasons. 

China claims a total of about 764 square kilometers of Bhutanese territory – in the North West about 269 square kilometers constituting Doklam, Sinchulung, Dramana and Shakhatoe in Samste, Haa and Paro districts; and in the Central parts about 495 square kilometers constituting the Pasamlung and the Jakarlung valley in the Wangdue Phodrang district.

In 1996, China offered Bhutan a “resolution package deal” proposing an exchange of Pasamlung and Jakarlung valleys aggregating an area of 495 square kilometers in Central Bhutan with the pasture land of Doklam, Sinchulung, Dramana and Shakhatoe, amounting to 269 square kilometers in North Western Bhutan. However, Bhutan rejected it. In 1998, Bhutan and China signed a peace agreement promising to maintain peace and tranquility on the Bhutan-China Border Areas. 

China violated this peace agreement by trying to construct roads in Doklam. According to Bhutanese ambassador to India, Doklam is a disputed territory and there is a written agreement between the two countries that pending the final resolution of the boundary issue, peace and tranquility should be maintained in the area. China thus cannot describe the area as a part of its territory.

Strategic Dimensions

Chumbi Valley is only 500 kilometres from Siliguri corridor – a place called the Chicken’s Neck which connects India to North East India and Nepal to Bhutan. 

This explains the rationale behind the aforesaid package deal that China has offered to Bhutan – Central areas for Bhutan in exchange the North-Western areas, which lie next to the Chumbi Valley tri-junction, for China.

The Chumbi Valley has enormous strategic importance for India in the sense that dominance here by China will adversely affect the stability in the Siliguri corridor, vital not only for the linkage between Indian mainland and the north-eastern Indian states but also to ensure security for Kolkata and the north Bihar plains.

And this is all the more important after China opened a railway network in August 2014 connecting Lhasa with Shigatse, a small town near the Indian border in Sikkim. China now wants to extend this line up to Yadong, situated at the mouth of the Chumbi valley. And once this is done, potential threats to the Siliguri corridor from China will take a menacing proportion.

India-Bhutan relations are guided by the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, signed in 1949 and renewed in 2007. Bhutan and India are supposed to consult each other closely on foreign affairs and defence matters.

The Indian Army has always been present in Bhutan and is posted on many China-Bhutan border posts. The Indian Army maintains a training mission in Bhutan, known as the Indian Military Training Team (IMTRAT), not to speak of the exemplary work done in that country by the Border Roads Organisation (BRO), a subdivision of the Indian Army Corps of Engineers.

Besides, the Royal Bhutan Army relies on the Eastern Command of the Indian Air Force for air support during emergencies. In 1958, the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had declared in the Indian Parliament that any aggression against Bhutan would be seen as aggression against India.

In order to get a bigger hold on the area and a wider depth in the event of a military deployment are attempting to shift down the tri-junction point in the Chumbi valley by almost 12 kilometres. China thus claims Gyemochen is the tri-junction between India, China (Tibet) and Bhutan whereas the Survey of India maps of 1956 show Batang La, north of Gyemochan, as the tri-junction.

The difference of 18 kms would affect the claims of both countries regarding the border with reference to the McMahon Line, which Beijing describes as 'illegal' beyond Myanmar.

They intend building a road which they want to extend further so that it will bring them as close as possible to Chicken's Neck.

'The Chinese troops have even been patrolling areas up to a place called Gemochin, where the Royal Bhutanese Army has its posts and PLA troops marched to their positions and reportedly even confronted them for being in their territory,' the sources said.

From the Chinese Army's point of view, the Chumbi valley has to be widened as they want to move closer to the strategically important Chicken's Neck corridor in Siliguri - which is under the watch of Army's 33 Corps headquarters situated in Sukna in West Bengal.

The Indian establishment is obviously concerned about Chinese incursions into the Bhutanese territory. For one, India will lose its "strategic advantage" in the region if the road is constructed. 

According to a source, "Though our troops don't hold the plateau, the watershed they hold dominates it. The Dhok La, in which we are present, opens into the Chumbi Valley."

Moreover, China can militarily threaten the strategically-vulnerable and narrow Siliguri Corridor just about 50-km away in West Bengal — the so-called "Chicken's Neck" that connects the rest of India with the north-east states — if China manages to extend the road up to the tri-junction.

"China already has a couple of roads coming up to a certain point in the Chumbi Valley. If one of them is extended till the tri-junction, through what we consider is Bhutanese territory, it will help the PLA in military logistics and maneuverability, like rapidly moving artillery and other equipment, in the case of a conflict with India," said the source. 

Cartographic Aggression

The Chinese have adopted one strategy – embark on a cartographic aggression, followed by a physical aggression on the ground. This is the reason why the Chinese are reluctant to share their final official Claim Line of 1960 of their perception of LAC, as this gives them the freedom to engage in further cartographic aggression leading to physical confrontation. 

 Source: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/china-releases-new-map-territorial-claims-stand-off-site/1/991733.html

Stepping up its claims that India had "trespassed", China has now released a map showing the site of the stand-off as well as China's territorial claims at the India-China-Bhutan tri-junction that are in conflict with India's and Bhutan's claims.

The map claims the Indian Army crossed the border at Doka La pass, depicted with a blue arrow, into the Doklam plateau which India and Bhutan see as Bhutanese territory but is claimed by China.

The map, released on Friday, also reveals China's substantial territorial claims at the tri-junction that are conflicting with India's and Bhutan's. It shows that China fixes the tri-junction far south of where India and Bhutan do, which explains the current stand-off.

WHAT THE MAP SHOWS

The Chinese tri-junction, marked by an arrow that claims it is under the 1890 Britain-China treaty, is at the Mount Gipmochi. This is far south of where India and Bhutan mark the tri-junction, which the map acknowledged with a dotted line.

The area on the Doklam plateau south of the dotted line is claimed by China, and it is here that Beijing was building a road into what Bhutan sees as its territory, triggering the stand-off with Bhutan and India.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry said on Friday: "The line commences at Mount Gipmochi on the Bhutan frontier, and follows the above-mentioned water-parting to the point where it meets Nepal territory. It is without any doubt that the spot where the Indian border troops trespassed is on the Chinese side of the boundary."

Indian Reaction

 

India, however, on 30^th June 2017, reminded China that building a road in this disputed area was a violation. "India is deeply concerned at the recent Chinese actions and has conveyed to the Chinese Government that such construction would represent a significant change of status quo with serious security implications for India," the Ministry of External Affairs said.

"In this context, the Indian side has underlined that the two Governments had in 2012 reached agreement that the tri-junction boundary points between India, China and third countries will be finalized in consultation with the concerned countries. Any attempt, therefore, to unilaterally determine tri-junction points is in violation of this understanding. Where the boundary in the Sikkim sector is concerned, India and China had reached an understanding also in 2012 reconfirming their mutual agreement on the "basis of the alignment". Further discussions regarding finalization of the boundary have been taking place under the Special Representatives framework." 

Conclusion

India needs to call China’s bluff. India through diplomatic channels and other outlets must expose China’s cartographic aggression and must thwart the physical land grabbing carried out by the Chinese (where it invariably uses civilian resources like herders to settle on disputed territory and then follow it up with PLA control). And if minimum use of force is required to be used, India must not hesitate to use it, more so as a message than as a strategy.  Beijing understands the language of force and bullet than of words.

Chinese Needling in Sikkim

Note: This post must be read in conjunction with the following posts on the subject:
http://kumar-theloneranger.blogspot.in/2008/05/chinese-hand-in-finger-area-flashpoint.html

http://kumar-theloneranger.blogspot.in/2008/05/finger-area-indian-response.html

China’s recent aggressive move on the Sikkim border is nothing short of provocative. Destroying bunkers and suspending the Kailash Mansorovar yatra are hostile acts and need to be dealt with in befitting manner.

China is at it again; doing what it knows best – a blend of restrained aggression by carrying out “innocuous incursions into Indian territory” along with psychological warfare and propaganda.

In 2007 and 2008 PLA troops made incursions in the small tract of land referred to as the Finger Area  frequently — in 2008 itself about 50 Chinese transgressions had been reported in this area — and then started building a road that crossed this tract of land. It is in this context, the present standoff in the Sikkim- Bhutan-Tibet tri-junction in Sikkim between the Indian troops and the Chinese troops must be viewed.

While the media focus was on the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi’s visit to Washington, tension was brewing in Sikkim along the Tibet border with China. A highly questionable version of the events put out by the Chinese Foreign Ministry claimed that Indian border guards (probably referring to the Indo Tibetan Border Police or the ITBP) had crossed the boundary and entered “Chinese territory” and obstructed what was “normal activities” of the Chinese frontier forces in Donglang area and that the Chinese had taken counter measures. And the Chinese Defence Ministry accused Indian troops of objecting to the building of a road in what it claimed to be Chinese territory. According to the PTI, the Chinese troops were reported to have destroyed two make shift bunkers of the Indian Army in the Lalten area of Doka La. (It needs to be mentioned that the PLA had destroyed a make shift bunker in the same area of Doka La in 2008). While what is being claimed as a counter measure may have occurred as part of the time-tested tactic adopted by the Chinese, it is extremely unlikely that the ITBP personnel (who do not carry arms in that area) would have carried out any transgressions across the border. This again is part of the nefarious Chinese propaganda.

In order to exert pressure on the Indians, the Chinese shut down the Nathu La pass entry for Indian pilgrims travelling to Kailash Mansarovar (a pilgrim site revered by Hindus, Buddhists and Jains) and called for the “withdrawal of the Indian personnel who had overstepped and trespassed into Chinese border." It is unclear whether the Chinese want a complete withdrawal of Indian troops from the Indian side or only those whom the Chinese have accused of crossing the border.

The Chinese provocation may be attributed to the following factors: One, China perceives a growing threat because of the close relations between India and the US and the mutual defence cooperation which it finds unsettling; two India in no uncertain terms snubbed Beijing on the ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) because of its objections to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) that is slated to go through Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK); third; India is going ahead with a Afghan air corridor bypassing Pakistan which the state-owned Global Times referred to as Indian stubbornness; fourth, India ignoring Chinese objections allowed the Dalai Lama to visit Tawang in April 2017, which it foolishly has been claiming to be part of Southern Tibet. Lastly, according to Subir Bhowmick, a veteran journalist Sikkim is the only sector along the border where India has a tactical and terrain advantage. India’s decision of raising the mountain strike corps, though mired in financial uncertainties, has upped the ante. And hence the coercive tactics adopted by the PLA.

China is also concerned about the proposed purchase of 22 drones by India from the US. These drones will greatly enhance India’s surveillance capability in the Indian Ocean where China has been making significant inroads in the past few years.

Indian policy makers must understand one irrefutable fact that China is an aggrandizing power, a state that would use any means possible to grab territory. China has done it in 1962 and it virtually claims more than eighty percent of the South China Sea through the means of a dubious historical nine-dash line. According to the strategic affairs expert, China has been eating away at India’s Himalayan borderlands. This is a fact, howsoever bitter it may seem. China’s Global Times in its OP-ED has stated: China avoids making an issue of border disputes, which has indulged India's unruly provocations. This time the Indian side needs to be taught the rules.  

India cannot afford a showdown with China on border issues. It lags far behind China in terms of national strength and the so-called strategic support for it from the US is superficial. China has no desire to confront India. Maintaining friendly ties with New Delhi is Beijing's basic policy. But this must be based on mutual respect. It's not time for India to display arrogance toward China. India's GDP is only one-quarter of China's and its annual defense budget is just one-third. Having a friendly relationship and cautiously handling border issues with China is its best choice. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1053801.shtml

This piece can be interpreted as nothing but a warning exhorting the PLA to teach India a lesson. China needs to be cautioned that it can ill-afford a confrontation of any sort with India at a time when it is unveiling the B&RI and more importantly 1962 is history and China cannot expect India to commit the same blunders it committed at that time to be repeated. Diplomatic niceties do not work with a bully like China. It is time for India to bare its fangs in order to deter China from carrying out its incursions.

London Bridge and Borough Market Terror Attacks

The United Kingdom is facing the brunt of jihadi terrorism. Instead of being in denial, the government needs to introduce radical measures which may not be entirely in consonance with Western values of freedom and rule of law.

(Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4570082/SAS-Blue-Thunder-unit-lands-helicopter-London-Bridge.html)

Attackers drove a van at high speed into pedestrians on London Bridge before going on a stabbing spree in the nearby Borough Market area on Saturday 3^rd June 2017 at about 2210 hrs in what British authorities described as terrorist incidents. The attack lasted only about eight minutes before which the jihadis were neutralized. Authorities urged the people on Twitter to “run, hide, tell” if they were caught in an attack. Latest reports suggested that about seven people were killed and several injured and three attackers were also shot dead by the police.

The attacks come days ahead of a June 8 election and less than two weeks after a suicide bomber killed 22 people at a pop concert by U.S. singer Ariana Grande in Manchester in northern England. Though there was no immediate claim of responsibility, it does not require a rocket scientist to determine who the attackers were.

The BBC showed a photograph of two possible London attackers shot by police, one of whom had canisters strapped to his body.

A Reuters reporter said some time after the attack began that he had heard loud bangs near the Borough Market area.

Witnesses described a white van veering into pedestrians near London Bridge and knocking over several people.

“A van came from London Bridge itself, went between the traffic light system and rammed it towards the steps,” a taxi driver told the BBC. “It knocked loads of people down.

“Then three men got out with hunting knives, 12 inches long and shouting "this is for Allah" went randomly along Borough High Street stabbing people at random.”

Islamic State earlier on Saturday sent out a call on instant messaging service Telegram urging its followers to launch attacks with trucks, knives and guns against “Crusaders” during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

An elite Special Air Service - SAS - unit nick named 'Blue Thunder' is believed to have landed on London Bridge following the attack. Blue Thunder, who act on orders from the Home Secretary, are a 70-man strong unit formed after the 2015 Paris attacks and trained in tackling domestic terror scenarios.

Blue Thunder’s name comes from the unmarked blue Eurocopter Dauphin helicopter in which they travel. Photographs appeared to capture two of the aircraft landing on London Bridge shortly after the vehicle and stabbing rampage.

The civilian style helicopter is used to transport Special Forces troops around the country quickly and covertly. 

Similar attacks, in Berlin, Nice, Brussels and Paris, have been carried out by militants over the past couple of years.

“Following updates from police and security officials, I can confirm that the terrible incident in London is being treated as a potential act of terrorism,” Prime Minister Theresa May said.

London’s river Thames police said it was working with the lifeboat rescue service to help evacuate people caught up in the attack, described by police as a terrorist incident.

U.S. President Donald Trump took to Twitter to offer U.S. help to Britain. The White House said he had been briefed on the incidents by his national security team.

One woman told Reuters she saw what appeared to be three people with knife wounds and possibly their throats cut at London Bridge at the Thames river. Reuters was unable to immediately verify her account.

STABBINGS ON THE STREET

Police said they fired shots after reports of stabbings in the nearby Borough Market area. They also responded to an incident in the Vauxhall area further west, but later said it was unconnected to the van and knife attacks.

Streets around London Bridge and Borough Market, fashionable districts packed with bars and restaurants, would have been busy with people on a Saturday night out. BBC showed dozens of people, evidently caught up in the attack, being escorted through a police cordon with their hands on their heads.

BBC radio said witnesses saw people throwing tables and chairs at the perpetrators of the attack to protect themselves.

According to one witness, she saw a speeding white van veering into pedestrians at London Bridge. That witness told the BBC that the van hit five to six people. Reuters television footage showed dozens of emergency vehicles in the area around London Bridge. There were unconfirmed reports that it was a B&Q and Hertz van.

The incident bore similarities to a March 2017 attack on Westminster Bridge, west of London Bridge, in which a Muslim man Khalid Masood killed five people after driving into a crowd of pedestrians before stabbing a police officer in the grounds of Parliament.

Instead of being in denial, the government needs to introduce radical measures which may not be entirely democratic. These measures may include but may not be limited to deporting hate preachers, closing down places of worship where radicalism is fostered, curbing entry of so-called refugees/migrants and eliminating jihadis who have participated in the conflict in Syria/Iraq and returned to the UK. It is better to eliminate the terrorists before they cause mayhem than after carnage has taken place as it happened in the Borough market.