PM’s Narendra Modi's remark on LAC intrusions raises more questions

The Narendra Modi government did well to hold an all-party meeting on Friday on the crisis on the India-China border in the Ladakh sector arising from the violation of the Line of Actual Control (LAC) by Chinese soldiers and the brutal killing of 20 Indian soldiers, including an officer. It was the worst violence on the border in the last 45 years and the nation had to be taken into confidence on the situation, which continues to be grave and is even now building up. It concerned not just the government but the country as such. Most political parties were represented at the meeting and they extended full support to the government in handling the situation. There were questions about when and how the crisis developed, and some criticism of the government. But the parties refrained from taking partisan political positions on the matter.

But Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s concluding remarks at the meeting created avoidable confusion and raised questions about what actually happened at the LAC. These have not been clearly answered even now. The prime minister said that "no one has intruded, nor is anyone intruding, nor has any post been captured by someone”. This did not serve as words of assurance to the nation, if they were meant to be so, because they contradicted the facts in the public domain and the government's own claims and statements about the situation. If there was no intrusion what was the escalating situation about, and why and where were the soldiers killed? What were the talks of the senior army officers of the two sides about in the past few weeks? The External Affairs Ministry had said last week that the Chinese side "tried to erect a structure in the Galwan Valley on our side of the LAC’’. The prime minister’s statement apparently contradicted this.

The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) issued a clarification on Saturday which did not clear the confusion. It said the focus of the prime minister's remarks was about the incidents on June 15 which led to the loss of lives of soldiers, but this has not shed any new light on the matter. The PMO also said that a "mischievous interpretation’’ has been given to the Prime Minister’s remarks. But did all the retired senior army officers who commented on the situation misread it? It needs to be noted that confusing and contradictory statements from responsible authorities on the Indian side would undermine the country’s position and help to strengthen China’s claims. It is unfortunate that the prime minister’s statement has created such a situation.