Read on Twitter
A brief analysis of India China understanding on de-escalation on the #LAC based on a call between Special Representatives Ajit Doval of India n Wang Yi of China.
It follows within 48 hrs of a call between Pak n China. #GalwanValley #IndiaChinaFaceOff #ChinaIndiaStandoff
It follows within 48 hrs of a call between Pak n China. #GalwanValley #IndiaChinaFaceOff #ChinaIndiaStandoff
Fri, 3 July Pak Foreign Min Shah M Qureshi n China’s Wang Yi https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1795010.shtml
Sun, 5 July Indian NSA, Ajit Doval n Wang Yi https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1795280.shtml
India’s official statement on Doval-Wang Yi call. https://mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/32811/Conversation_between_Special_Representatives_of_India_and_China_on_recent_developments_on_the_IndiaChina_border_areas
Just compare. Quite revealing. This time India is
Sun, 5 July Indian NSA, Ajit Doval n Wang Yi https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1795280.shtml
India’s official statement on Doval-Wang Yi call. https://mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/32811/Conversation_between_Special_Representatives_of_India_and_China_on_recent_developments_on_the_IndiaChina_border_areas
Just compare. Quite revealing. This time India is
short on details, while China has more to say, including this intriguing line: “The right and wrong of what recently happened at the Galwan Valley in the western sector of the China-India boundary is very clear.”
India says, “The two SRs had a frank and in-depth exchange of
India says, “The two SRs had a frank and in-depth exchange of
views on the recent developments in the Western Sector of the India-China border areas.”
India’s silence on Galwan is deafening.
Why? Did India admit to some mistakes, n if so, what were they?
The Chinese claim the in-depth discussions were only “over EASING the current border
India’s silence on Galwan is deafening.
Why? Did India admit to some mistakes, n if so, what were they?
The Chinese claim the in-depth discussions were only “over EASING the current border
situation and reached positive common understandings.”
There is also Chinese concern about public opinion in India: “We hope India can work with China to guide public opinion in the right direction...”
India expresses no concern beyond border peace. But here is the crucial
There is also Chinese concern about public opinion in India: “We hope India can work with China to guide public opinion in the right direction...”
India expresses no concern beyond border peace. But here is the crucial
difference.
India says, “that two sides should NOT ALLOW differences to become disputes.”
China notes, “that an escalation from differences to disputes should BE AVOIDED.”
That’s a huge difference right there.
Why didn’t the two release a joint statement? That would have
India says, “that two sides should NOT ALLOW differences to become disputes.”
China notes, “that an escalation from differences to disputes should BE AVOIDED.”
That’s a huge difference right there.
Why didn’t the two release a joint statement? That would have
decisively clinched it. (All emphasis added in this tweet thread.)
Assuming the de-escalation goes as agreed, is “status quo ante” to be restored? India had insisted on it in all its statements but it is singularly absent in the Ajit Doval-Wang Yi call.
So, China hides its
Assuming the de-escalation goes as agreed, is “status quo ante” to be restored? India had insisted on it in all its statements but it is singularly absent in the Ajit Doval-Wang Yi call.
So, China hides its
deaths n injuries from its own people.
India hides whether it has conceded territory to China n so not mentioned ‘restoring status quo ante’ in the Doval-Wang Yi call read out.
Then what have China n India agreed to? A make-believe brittle peace?
N what did Pak’s Qureshi n
India hides whether it has conceded territory to China n so not mentioned ‘restoring status quo ante’ in the Doval-Wang Yi call read out.
Then what have China n India agreed to? A make-believe brittle peace?
N what did Pak’s Qureshi n
China’s Wang Yi discuss? The Doval-Wang Yi call followed in 48 hours.
Here’s a delicious thought... did Qureshi encourage Wang Yi to de-escalate with India? Or didn’t he? My guess is, he did.
Could Wang Yi have said as much to Doval? My guess is he must have indicated it.
Here’s a delicious thought... did Qureshi encourage Wang Yi to de-escalate with India? Or didn’t he? My guess is, he did.
Could Wang Yi have said as much to Doval? My guess is he must have indicated it.
Just read all their statements n come to your own conclusions.
May peace prevail.
#IndiaChinaBackOff #ChinaIndiaTalkPeace
May peace prevail.
#IndiaChinaBackOff #ChinaIndiaTalkPeace
Addendum: Just checked as I had a doubt. The Indian @MEAIndia statements themselves do not carry the phrase ‘status quo ante’, but it is there in the media reports on what the government wants/means n, of course, in ‘expert’ comments.
The charge that India is hiding whether it has conceded territory to China, remains.
25 June, Indian @MEAIndia presser portion on China is the source of the reporting on the need for ‘status quo ante’ to be restored.
“In mid-May, the Chinese side sought to change the status quo in other areas of the Western Sector. We had registered our protest on the Chinese
“In mid-May, the Chinese side sought to change the status quo in other areas of the Western Sector. We had registered our protest on the Chinese
actions through both the Diplomatic and Military channels, and made it clear that any such change was unacceptable to us.”
In the Senior Commanders’ meeting on 6 June “Both sides had agreed to respect and abide by the LAC and not undertake any activity to alter the status quo.”
In the Senior Commanders’ meeting on 6 June “Both sides had agreed to respect and abide by the LAC and not undertake any activity to alter the status quo.”
“The Indian side has never undertaken any actions across the LAC and has never attempted to unilaterally change the status quo. However, that has not been reciprocated by the Chinese side...”
Is this now an agreement to restore ‘status quo ante’ between China n India, or not?
Is this now an agreement to restore ‘status quo ante’ between China n India, or not?
The Indian @MEAIndia statement of 20 June https://mea.gov.in/response-to-queries.htm?dtl/32770/Official_Spokespersons_response_to_media_queries_seeking_comments_on_the_statement_issued_on_19_June_by_the_Chinese_Spokesperson_on_the_events_in_the_ also virtually makes a demand for ‘status quo ante’ to be restored.
It says @DrSJaishankar “firmly rejected the unfounded allegations made by the Chinese side and the misrepresentation of the understandings
It says @DrSJaishankar “firmly rejected the unfounded allegations made by the Chinese side and the misrepresentation of the understandings
reached between the Senior Commanders. He also underlined that it was for China to REASSESS ITS ACTIONS AND TAKE CORRECTIVE STEPS.”
If this is not a demand for restoring ‘status quo ante’, I don’t know what is.
Did Wang Yi agree with Doval to restore LAC’s ‘status quo ante’?
If this is not a demand for restoring ‘status quo ante’, I don’t know what is.
Did Wang Yi agree with Doval to restore LAC’s ‘status quo ante’?
Wang Yi has certainly dropped the demand for India to investigate how Indian troops entered the Chinese side of the LAC n reprimand them.
Is that now a private demand not to be made public? Is this what the Chinese mean asking India to help it manage the public narrative?
Is that now a private demand not to be made public? Is this what the Chinese mean asking India to help it manage the public narrative?
