New Delhi: The Indian Army troops who were attacked and suffered huge casualties on Monday night were indeed carrying weapons, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has clarified. However, they did not fire on their adversaries, he has pointed out, as they are expected to maintain utmost restraint even in a violent stand-off, as per agreements between the two sides. One of these agreements says that neither side will open fire or use explosives within 2 km of the Line of Actual Control and avoid escalation. ''All troops on border duty always carry arms, especially when leaving the post. Those at Galwan on June 15 also did so.
But there is a long-standing practice (as per 1996 & 2005 agreements) not to use firearms during face-offs,” Jaishankar tweeted in response to questions raised by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi as to why soldiers were sent unarmed to their martyrdom. Military experts, however, feel something is amiss here, as the Commanding Officer is expected to take a decision to defend his troops in a situation of life and death. More so when the Chinese had already breached the agreement by arming themselves with lethal sticks that had nails sticking out.
Also, it is surprising that when the Commanding officer fell prey to the Chinese treachery, why did the soldiers not open fire? Among those who have raised this question is Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh. Dr Rakesh Datta, Professor, Department of Defence and National Security, Punjab University and former member, National Security Advisory Board, says India needs to have a relook at its non possumus attitude towards China and give up its fear psychoses.
He said, “Agreements are signed in an ideal situation but they cannot be binding at the cost of sacrificing our men. If a face off leads to violence, then obviously the violator needs to be dealt with. A soldier cannot use firearms unless directed. Agreement does not say that we allow our soldiers to be sacrificed. The agreement is binding on both parties. We cannot be seen as succumbing to them. We cannot afford to have a situation where our soldiers get killed. Soldiers are at the LAC to defend our interest, not to be sacrificed by our adversary.”
He emphasised that these significant casualties call for rules of engagement between India and China to be reviewed. “The earlier rule of engagement said ‘No provocation’. If there is a provocation by the adversary that has taken place, rules of engagement should be reviewed.” Datta added, “We should not look at 1962 which is still embedded in our mind. We should rather look at 1967 when we had inflicted heavy casualties on them at Nathu-la Pass.
We should not be obsessed with their tanks and missiles and yield to them simply because of their military strength and their military might. We are equally strong.” Other security experts point out that the agreements restraining the two sides from opening fire notwithstanding, the Commanding Officer has to factor in a situation where physical force is used to inflict grievous injuries, as had happened on Monday night. In another development, the Indian Army clarified on Thursday that no soldiers are "missing in action" following the violent clash in Galwan Valley in eastern Ladakh.
There were reports that 10 Indian soldiers were missing since Monday night and continue to be in the custody of the Chinese Army. (Some Indian soldiers are still recovering at a hospital in Ladakh but more information on this is not forthcoming.) The clarification came even as Major General-level dialogue took place at the site of the attack at Point 14 in Galwan valley on Thursday. Inciden - tally, both sides have redeployed troops at the site of the clash. On Wednesday also, top Indian and Chinese military commanders had held discussions but the three-hour dialogue remained inconclusive. Major Gen. Abhijit Bapat, who is the Commander of the Indian Army's 3 Division, has raised several points with the Chinese officers with regard to the incident on the intervening night of June 15/16. (INPUT TRIPTI NATH)
