A CIA map of Kashmir with red circles marking the rough locations of the conflicts near the Galwan Valley (top), Spanggur Tso and Pangong Tso (bottom). One section of the Pangong Tso-Chushul skirmish area along the LAC via NASA WorldWind.
Date
5 May 2020 (2020-05-05) – 20 January 2021 (2021-01-20) (8 months, 2 weeks and 1 day)
In late May, Chinese forces objected to Indian road construction in the Galwan river valley.[45][46] According to Indian sources, melee fighting on 15–16 June 2020 resulted in the deaths of Chinese and Indian soldiers.[47][48][36] Media reports stated that soldiers were taken captive on both sides and released in the coming few days while official sources on both sides went on to deny this.[25][38][49] On 7 September, for the first time in 45 years, shots were fired along the LAC, with both sides blaming each other for the firing.[50][51] Indian media also reported that Indian troops fired warning shots at the PLA on 30 August.[52]
Partial disengagement from Galwan, Hot Springs, and Gogra occurred in June–July 2020 while complete disengagement from Pangong Lake north and south bank took place in February 2021.[53][54] Following disengagement at Gogra in August 2021, Indian analysts pointed out that the LAC has shifted westwards at patrol point 17A (PP 17A).[55][56]
Amid the standoff, India reinforced the region with approximately 12,000 additional workers, who would assist India's Border Roads Organisation in completing the development of Indian infrastructure along the Sino-Indian border.[57][58][59] Experts have postulated that the standoffs are Chinese pre-emptive measures in responding to the Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road infrastructure project in Ladakh.[60] China has also extensively developed its infrastructure in these disputed border regions and is continuing to do so.[61][62] The revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, in August 2019, by the Indian government has also troubled China.[63] However, India and China have both maintained that there are enough bilateral mechanisms to resolve the situation.[64][65] This includes multiple rounds of colonel, brigadier, and major general rank dialogue, special representatives' meetings,[b][67][68] meetings of the 'Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on China-India Border Affairs' (WMCC),[c][70] and meetings and communication between their respective foreign and defense ministers.[71] On 12 January 2022, the 14th corps-commander-level meeting at Chushul-Moldo Border Personnel Meeting (BPM) point took place.[72] Following the Galwan Valley skirmish on 15 June, some Indian campaigns about boycotting Chinese products were started.[73][74] Action on the economic front included cancellation and additional scrutiny of certain contracts with Chinese firms, and calls were also made to stop the entry of Chinese companies into strategic markets in India.[75][76][77] By November 2020, the Indian government had banned over 200 Chinese apps, including apps owned by Alibaba, Tencent, Baidu, Sina, and Bytedance.[78]
The border between China and India is disputed at multiple locations. There is "no publicly available map depicting the Indian version of the LAC," and the Survey of India maps are the only evidence of the official border for India.[79] The Chinese version of the LAC mostly consists of claims in the Ladakh region, but China also claims Arunachal Pradesh in northeast India.[79]
China and India previously fought over the border in 1962 and 1967 with China gaining victory in the former and India gaining victory in the latter.[80][81]
Since the 1980s, there have been over 50 rounds of talks between the two countries related to these border issues.[82] Only 1 to 2 percent of border incidents between 2010 and 2014 had received any form of media coverage.[82][83] In 2019, India reported over 660 LAC violations and 108 aerial violations by the People's Liberation Army which were significantly higher than the number of incidents in 2018.[84] Despite the disputes, skirmishes, and standoffs, no incidence of gunshots being fired had been reported between the two countries along the border for over 50 years, due an agreement by both sides that guns were not to be used;[85] however this changed on 7 September 2020, when warning shots were fired.[50]
During Xi Jinping's[86] visit to New Delhi in September 2014, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi discussed the boundary question and urged his counterpart for a solution.[87] Since Modi became Prime Minister in 2014 until the 2020 standoff, Modi and Xi met 18 times, including those on the sidelines of summits and five visits to China.[88] However, in 2017, China and India were involved in a major standoff in Doklam that lasted 73 days.[89][90] On 3 January 2018, Xi Jinping, as Chairman of the Central Military Commission, issued the first Training Mobilisation Order. This was the first time that military training instructions had been given directly by the Chairman of the Central Military Commission. Following this, PLA forces have been mobilising training on the basis of the order.[91]
A retired PLA major general explained that, "...improving combat readiness is now a strategic mission for the Chinese military... China can't copy the US' measure to improve combat capability through actual combat overseas since our national defence policy is defensive rather than offensive. Therefore, military training becomes extremely important for China."[91] China has since increased its military presence in the Tibetan Plateau.[92] China has also been increasing its footprint with India's neighbours – Nepal, Sri Lanka and Pakistan; so from India having a monopoly in the region, China is now posing a direct challenge to New Delhi's influence in South Asia.[93]
Multiple reasons have been cited as the trigger for these skirmishes. According to Mitch McConnell, US Senate Minority Leader, and Ashley Tellis, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, one reason is China's territory grabbing technique, also referred to as 'salami slicing', which involves encroaching upon small parts of enemy territory over a large period of time.[95][96] In mid-June 2020, chairperson Urgain Chodon of Koyul–Demchok, stated that successive Indian governments (including the current Narendra Modi government) have neglected the border areas for decades and turned a "blind eye" to Chinese land grabbing in the region. According to her, India had failed in the protection of its borders, and even in 2020, all along the LAC, India had lost land.[97][98] Other local Ladakhi leaders also acknowledged similar incursions by Chinese forces in the region.[99] Also in mid-June 2020, BJP member of Parliament from Arunachal Pradesh Tapir Gao acknowledged the presence of regular Chinese patrols inside north-east India as well.[100]
MIT professor, Taylor Fravel, said that the skirmishes were a response from China to the development of Indian infrastructure in Ladakh, particularly along the Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road. He added that it was a show of strength for China amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, which had damaged the Chinese economy and its international reputation.[101] According to Yun Sun, a China specialist at the Stimson Center, China perceived India's road-building as a threat to its "territorial integrity" which it will not sacrifice for the sake of good relations with India.[102]
Wang Shida of China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations linked the current border tensions to India's decision to abrogate Article 370 and change the status of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019.[63] Although, Pravin Sawhney agreed with Wang, he postulated that a parliamentary speech by Amit Shah, the Minister of Home Affairs, also could have irked China. In the speech, Shah had declared that Aksai Chin, a disputed region administered by China, was part of the Indian-administered Ladakh Union Territory.[106] Furthermore, the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019 prompted multiple senior Bharatiya Janata Party ministers, most recently in May 2020, to claim that all that now remained was for India to regain Gilgit-Baltistan.[107] Indian diplomat Gautam Bambawale also agreed that New Delhi's moves related to Jammu and Kashmir irked Beijing.[107]
Other analysts linked the skirmishes to India's growing alliance with the United States. Liu Zongyi, a South Asia specialist at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies told the Financial Times that "India has been active in many of US plans that target China". Tanvi Madan, author of Fateful Triangle (a book about the international relations between the US, India and China) stated that India thought that this was "signal from Beijing" to "limit" its relations with the US.[108]Phunchok Stobdan, a former diplomat of India, stated that "smaller powers like India and Australia, who have aligned with the US, are witnessing a more aggressive China".[109]
India's former ambassador to China, Ashok Kantha said that these skirmishes were part of a growing Chinese assertiveness in both the Indo-China border and the South China sea.[101]Raja Mohan, Director of the Institute of South Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore, writes that the growing power imbalance between China and India is the main cause of the dispute, with everything else such as the location of the dispute or international ties of India, being mere detail.[110] These skirmishes have also been linked by multiple people with the Chinese strategy of Five Fingers of Tibet.[111][112][113][114]
April 2020 onwards divisions from the Western Theatre Command of PLA's Ground Force, the 4th (Highland) Motorised Infantry and 6th (Highland) Mechanised Infantry Divisions, moved units towards the LAC in eastern Ladakh reinforcing the existing deployment. The divisions stayed in eastern Ladakh from May 2020 to February 2021 following which they rotated with the 8th and the 11th Motorised Divisions.[115][116] PLA Air Force and PLA Rocket Force deployed in support.[116]
Post Galwan, there has been an overall increase in India's deployment against China in all three sectors— the northern, central and eastern sectors.[117] Prior deployment by India directed towards China included 14 Corps based in Leh, 17 Corps and 33 Corps in Sikkim, and 3 Corps and 4 Corps in the eastern sector.[118] Additions and changes have been made to this such as a proposed reorganising of the 14 Division, earmarked for fighting against Pakistan in the plains, into a mountain division for deployment in Himachal and Uttarakhand against China.[118] India's paramilitary such as the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) is deployed closer to the border at most locations, with the army holding line some kilometers behind them.[119]
During late July and early August, reports emerged of PLA strengthening positions and accumulating troops at more locations other than Ladakh such as Uttarakhand's Lipulekh Pass, parts of north Sikkim, and Arunachal Pradesh.[124] Following the Galwan valley clash, India deployed a warship to the South China Sea.[125][126] The first border clash reported in 2021 was on 20 January, referred to as a minor border clash in Sikkim.[127]
Pangong Tso
3km 2miles
Bridge
Traditional customary boundary of China declared 1960
Ane La Boundary of China declared 1960
Changlung Lungpa
Spangmik
19
Merak
18
Traditional customary boundary of China declared 1960
Khurnak Fort
13
Sirijap
Chinese post on Sirijap
11
Indian post
10
Traditional customary boundary of China declared 1960
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Northern shore of the Pangong Lake[128] with "fingers" – mountain spurs jutting into the lake[129][f]
LAC on the southern shore of the Pangong Lake; the line marked by the US Office of Geographer in blue, the line marked by OpenStreetMap in green.Fingers 1 to 8 visible on the north bank of Pangong Tso. On the south bank is Gurung Hill with features Helmet, Black Top, Table Top, Camel's Top. Chushul, Chushul/Maldo BPM point and airstrip, Magar Hill, Rechin La, Rezang La, Rezangla War Memorial, Spanggur Gap and Spanggur Tso, visible. Chinese and Indian claim lines (updated to 1992) marked.[g][130][131][132]
On 5 May, the first standoff began as a clash between Indian[h] and Chinese soldiers at a beach of Pangong Tso, a lake shared between India and Tibet, China, with the Line of Actual Control (LAC) passing through it.[134][135] A video showed soldiers from both nations engaging in fistfights and stone-pelting along the LAC.[136] On 10/11 May, another clash took place.[137] A number of soldiers on both sides had sustained injuries. Indian media reported that around 72 Indian soldiers were injured in the confrontation at Pangong Tso, and some had to be flown to hospitals in Leh, Chandi Mandir and Delhi.[138] According to The Daily Telegraph and other sources, China captured 60 square kilometres (23 sq mi) of Indian-patrolled territory between May and June 2020.[139][140][141] By the end of August it was reported that, according to the intelligence inputs given to the Indian Central Government, China has occupied 65 square kilometres (25 sq mi) in this area.[142]
By 27 June, China was reported to have increased military presence on both the northern and southern banks of Pangong Tso, strengthened their positions near Finger 4 (contrary to what the status quo was in April), and had even started construction of a helipad, bunkers and pillboxes.[143] Satellite imagery from between 12 and 26 June, by Planet Labs shows that the Chinese army increased infrastructure between Finger 4 and 5 on a massive scale, which includes tents, trenches, water tanks and stationed equipment and vehicles along with some camouflaged structures. The Planet Labs imagery also showed terrain inscribed with the Mandarin Chinese name of China, Zhongguo, along with the present-day map of China on the shore of the lake between Finger 4 and 5.[144][145]
Both countries have multiple high powered boats for patrolling the Pangong Lake which is 13,900 feet above sea level. While the Indian Army already had multiple boat patrolling teams stationed, the Indian Navy, in July 2020, was called in to match the presence of the Chinese Type 928 B vessels at the lake.[146][147] In the first week of September, according to Indian media reports citing a government official, "100 to 200 shots" were fired by both sides as "warning shots" on the north bank of Pangong Lake.[148][149]
Chushul sector
On 29–30 August, the skirmishes expanded to the southern shore of Pangong Tso near the Ladakhi village of Chushul.[150] An Indian Army spokesperson said that the PLA had made provocative military movements on the night of 29/30 August along the southern bank of Pangong Tso and that they were pre-empted by an Indian response which quickly moved to occupy higher terrain in a defensive move without any violence occurring.[i][156][157][158] The Indian Army repositioned its troops in the area as a precaution to prevent any future intrusion by the PLA.[159] The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian denied any intrusion by PLA into Indian territory. Zhang Shuili, the Western Theater Command spokesman, accused Indian military of provocation and violating China's territorial sovereignty.[160]
A brigade commander-level flag meeting was called to resolve issues.[161] By 3 September 2020, Indian media reported that Indian troops had occupied many heights on the south bank of Pangong Tso. The heights mentioned include Rezang La, Reqin La, Black Top, Hanan, Helmet, Gurung Hill, Gorkha Hill and Magar Hill.[162] Some of these heights are in the grey zone of the LAC and overlook Chinese camps.[163]
On 4 September 2020, during the high-level meeting between China and India in Moscow, aggressive posturing was reported from Rechin La in the Chushul sector. PLA troops were also seen to be moving an anti-aircraft gun to Black Top.[71] On 7 September 2020 at around 6:15 pm PLA troops tried approaching Indian positions at Mukhpari, as per Indian reports.[164] Photos of PLA soldiers carrying spears, machete and rifles were released; this was the first publicly released photographic evidence of Chinese troops using such weapons.[165] Indian soldiers who controlled the heights here used floodlights and megaphones to dissuade approaching PLA troops. Indian reports stated that it was then that PLA troops fired 10 – 15 rounds. However a spokesperson of the PLA claimed that Indian troops fired warning shots at the Chinese troops. The PLA Western Theatre Command spokesperson also claimed the Indian Army had crossed the LAC to enter the "Shenpao mountain region".[166][167][168]
On 8 September both India and China blamed each other for firing warning shots.[169][170][171][172] This is the first time in 45 years, since 1975 when Chinese opened fire on an Assam Rifles patrol in Tulung La in Arunachal Pradesh, that shots have been fired between India and China.[51] Indian media also reported that Indian troops fired warning shots at the PLA on 30 August to prevent them from changing the status quo on the southern bank on Pangong Tso.[52][173] Indian troops have put up barbed wire obstacles around positions.[174]
Indian government sources denied occupying the features Helmet Top and Black Top. They stated that "any trajectory" was possible in going forward.[175]
Sikkim
According to Indian media reports, on 10 May, there was a minor skirmish between Indian and Chinese troops in Muguthang, Naku La, Sikkim. The incident involved a brawl between scores of soldiers, with opposing sides also throwing stones at one another.[89][176] A few soldiers from both sides were injured.[j][33][177] A spokesperson from Indian Army's Eastern Command said that the matter had been "resolved after 'dialogue and interaction' at a local level" and that "temporary and short-duration face-offs between border guards do occur as boundaries are not resolved. Troops usually resolve such issues by using mutually established protocols".[89][90] China did not share details about the incident, and the Chinese Ministry of Defense did not comment on the incident.[178] However, the foreign ministry said that the "Chinese soldiers had always upheld peace and tranquility along the border".[178]
Eastern Ladakh
45km 30miles
Karakash
Chip Chap River
Raki Nala
Jeong Nala
Galwan River
Chang Chenmo
Shyok River
River
Depsang
Hot Springs
DBO
Qizil Langar
Burtsa Gongma
Murgo
Sultan Chhushku
Mandaltang
Mundro
Chhumed
Shyok
Darbuk
Locations along the DS-DBO Road (and the "traditional customary boundary" declared by China in 1960).[179]
On 21 May, the Indian Express reported that Chinese troops had entered the Indian territory in the Galwan River valley and objected to the road construction by India within the (undisputed) Indian territory. The road under construction is a branch of the Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road (DSDBO) which leads into the Galwan valley.[k] The report also stated that "the Chinese pitched 70–80 tents in the area and then reinforced the area with troops, heavy vehicles, and monitoring equipment."[180] On 24 May, another report said that the Chinese soldiers invaded India at three different places: Hot Springs, Patrol Point 14, and Patrol Point 15.[45][46]
At each of these places, around 800–1,000 Chinese soldiers reportedly crossed the LAC and settled at a place about 2–3 km (1–2 mi) from the border, pitching tents and deploying heavy vehicles and monitoring equipment. The report added that India also deployed troops in the area and stationed them 300–500 metres (984–1,640 ft) from the Chinese troops.[45][46] The EurAsian Times stated that the Chinese forces "have a huge build-up including military-style bunkers, new permanent structures, military trucks, and road-building equipment".[181] On 30 May, Ajai Shukla reported that thousands of Chinese soldiers were "consolidating their positions," and that there were 18 guns at Pangong Tso and about 12 guns in the Galwan valley. Indian troops had taken up positions to block any further advance by the PLA towards the DSDBO Road.[182]
On 27 May 2020, the Chinese Ambassador to India as well as a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman stated that the overall situation was stable.[183] However, news reports continued stating that thousands of Chinese soldiers were moving into the disputed regions in Ladakh. This move prompted India to deploy more troops.[184][185] Chinese infrastructure development was also reported in Gogra–Hot Springs. Tracks in satellite imagery suggest that PLA troops make forays into Indian territory here.[186]
Galwan Valley clash
3km 2miles
Karakash River
Galwan Kangri
Traditional customary boundary of China declared 1960
On 15 June, at patrolling point 14, Indian[l] and Chinese troops clashed for six hours in a steep section of a mountainous region in the Galwan Valley. The immediate cause of the incident is unknown, with both sides releasing contradictory official statements in the aftermath.[187][188] Beijing said that Indian troops had attacked Chinese troops first,[189] while on 18 June The Hindu quoted a "senior government official" in the Ministry of External Affairs of India who said their troops were ambushed with dammed rivulets being released and boulders being thrown by Chinese troops.[190] The statement said this happened while they were patrolling a disputed area where Colonel Santosh Babu had destroyed a Chinese tent two days earlier.[190]
While soldiers carry firearms, due to decades of tradition designed to reduce the possibility of an escalation, agreements disallowed usage of firearms, but the Chinese side was reported to possess iron rods, clubs and batons wrapped in barbed wire and clubs embedded with nails.[191][192] Hand-to-hand combat broke out, and the Indian soldiers called for reinforcements from a post about 3.2 kilometres (2 mi) away. Eventually, up to 600 men were engaged in combat using stones, batons, iron rods, and other makeshift weapons. The fighting, which took place in near-total darkness, lasted for up to six hours.[193] The Defence Ministry of India said in its 2020 year end review that China used "unorthodox weapons".[194]
The site of Galwan clash at the river bend. Also seen are the LAC claimed by China June 2020 in green, and the prevailing LAC marked by the US Office of the Geographer in redThe site of the Galwan clash via NASA WorldWind
The fighting resulted in the deaths of 20 Indian soldiers, including 16th Bihar Regiment commanding officer Colonel Santosh Babu[195][196] and Junior Commissioned OfficerNuduram SorenVrC[197][m] While three Indian soldiers died on the spot, others died later due to injuries and hypothermia.[199] Most of the soldiers who were killed fell to their deaths after losing their footing or being pushed off a ridge.[193] The clash took place near the fast-flowing Galwan River, and some soldiers from both sides fell into a rivulet and were killed or injured.[199] Bodies were later recovered from the Shyok River.[196] Several Indian news outlets stated that at least 10 Indian soldiers, including 4 officers, were taken captive and then released by the Chinese military on 18 June.[25]
According to Gen VK Singh, an unconfirmed number of Chinese soldiers were also captured and later released by India.[38] Some Indian soldiers had also been momentarily taken captive.[199] According to Indian media sources, the mêlée resulted in 43 Chinese casualties.[47][200] Per media reports based on sources, the Chinese side accepted a de-escalation meeting following the incident; a Chinese commanding officer was also killed in the mêlée.[48] The Chinese defence ministry confirmed the existence of Chinese casualties but refused to share the number.[201] Reports emerged on Chinese internet that five Chinese soldiers died on 16 June,[202][203] but the report was subsequently censored by the Chinese government.[204] On 22 June, when asked about an Indian minister's assertion about the number of Chinese casualties, China declined to comment.[205]
Two days later on 24 June a Chinese spokesperson responded and called the remark from the Indian minister 'misinformation'.[206] US intelligence reported that the PLA suffered 35 casualties.[n] Indian media reported that 10 Indian soldiers were released from Chinese custody on 17 June, including four officers.[25][208] Responding to the reports, the Indian Army and the Chinese Foreign Ministry have both denied that any Indian personnel was taken into custody.[209] On 19 February 2021, the Central Military Commission of China stated that four of its soldiers were posthumously awarded for their actions during the June 2020 clash with India at Galwan.[210]
On 16 June, Chinese Colonel Zhang Shuili, spokesperson for the PLA's Western Command, said that the Indian military violated bilateral consensus causing "fierce physical confrontations and casualties",[211] and that "the sovereignty over the Galwan Valley area had always belonged to China".[196][212][213] On 18 June, India's Minister of External Affairs made a statement saying that China had "unilaterally tried to change the status quo" and that the violence was "premeditated and planned".[214][215] The same day, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs said that the Chinese PLA had "invaded" the "contested area" between India and China.[216]
On 19 June, however, Prime Minister Modi declared that "neither have [China] intruded into our border, nor has any post been taken over by them", contradicting multiple previous statements by the Indian government.[187][217] Later the Prime Minister's Office clarified that the Indian Prime Minister wanted to indicate the bravery of 16 Bihar Regiment who had foiled the attempt of the Chinese side.[218][219] On 22 June, U.S. News & World Report reported that US intelligence agencies have assessed that the chief of China's Western Theater Command, Gen. Zhao Zongqi, had sanctioned the skirmish.[220] In the aftermath of the incident at Galwan, the Indian Army decided to equip soldiers along the border with lightweight riot gear as well as spiked clubs.[221][222]
On 20 June, India removed restriction on usage of firearms for Indian soldiers along the LAC.[223] Satellite images analysed by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute show that China increased construction in the Galwan valley since the 15 June skirmish.[70] The Chinese post that was destroyed by Indian troops on 15 June was reconstructed by 22 June, with an expansion in size and with more military movement. Other new defensive positions by both Indian and Chinese forces have also been built in the valley.[224]
Depsang area
The LAC across the Depsang Bulge; the prevailing LAC in red and the Chinese claims in green
India–China tension in the Depsang area started months before the May 2020 standoff.[225] Chinese presence, 18 km (11 mi) inside the Indian perception of the LAC, near the Y-junction or Bottleneck on Burtsa Nala valley,[o] was reported by Indian media on 25 June 2020. The reports described movement of troops, heavy vehicles and military equipment. The Chinese claim lines are 5 km further west of bottleneck.[226] Indian Patrol Points (PP) 10, 11, 11A, 12 have been blocked by PLA movement and construction at the Y-junction since March–April 2020.[227][228] Intelligence inputs on 31 August 2020 put the Chinese control of territory within the India's perception of the LAC at about 900 square kilometres (350 sq mi).[142][229]
China and India have both been constructing infrastructure along the borders aimed at augmenting strategic capabilities. This includes infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific region.[230] Following Chinese announcements of more dam construction on the Brahmaputra River, India said that it would need to build a dam along the river to mitigate the negative effects of the Chinese dam construction.[231][232][233] This construction has continued throughout 2020 and 2021.[234]
Amid the standoff, India decided to move approximately 12,000 additional workers to border regions to help complete Indian road projects.[57][58] Around 8,000 workers would help Border Roads Organisation's (BRO) infrastructure project, Project Vijayak, in Ladakh while some workers would also be allocated to other nearby border areas.[235] The workers would reach Ladakh between 15 June and 5 July.[59] The first train with over 1,600 workers left Jharkhand on 14 June 2020 for Udhampur, and from there the workers went on to assist BRO at the Sino-Indian border.[59][236] Apart from completing the DS–DBO Road the workers would also be assisting the BRO in the construction of other border roads.[237]
Starting from June, the government announced up to 170% increase in minimum wages for those working along the India-China border, with the highest increase in wages going to employees in Ladakh.[238] Experts state that the development of Indian infrastructure along the border was one of the causes for the standoffs.[60]Livemint reports "that while such asset creation might be adding to India's strategic capital, it is not furthering its human capital the same way."[239] India has also installed surveillance equipment along the LAC.[240] In October 2021, environmental clearance was given for the construction of new border outposts, including at locations where tensions with China have increased.[241] At the end of 2021, India inaugurated a number of border roads and bridges, including the Umling La section of the Chisumle-Demchok road.[242]
China
1
1
New bridge
Throughout the standoff China continued to build infrastructure near the LAC.[243] Infrastructure includes roads, bridges, helipads and other military infrastructure such as camps. Optical fibre cables are being laid for its frontline troops at the faceoff sites in Pangong Tso and Gogra-Hot Springs area.[244] Two new marinas at Pangong Tso have also been built.[150] China has installed cameras, motion sensors and other surveillance equipment along the LAC.[245] Airbases in Xinjiang and Tibet are being further developed; this includes airbases at Hotan, Kashgar, Gargunsa, Lhasa-Gonggar and Shigatse.[244]
At Kailash-Mansarovar, near the Lipulekh pass, China is building a surface-to-air missile site.[246][247] China is also developing a 5G network for its troops along the LAC.[248][249] Reports of China deploying satellite jammers along the border was also reported.[250] In July, Stratfor reported that the Chinese military had built 26 new temporary barracks and 22 new bases along the Indian border; "a mix of permanent and semi-permanent positions".[251][252] In September, Stratfor reported that since the beginning of the standoff, the construction of four new heliports has started. The report by Sim Tack notes that this buildup by China in the Himalayas is similar to Chinese strategy in the South China Sea, a strategy that considerably increases the cost for those trying to oppose China's claims.[253][254]
In November, China reportedly constructed Pangda village 2 km within Bhutan's territory and 9 km from the 2017 Doklam standoff site,[255] to which the Bhutanese ambassador to India responded with "there is no Chinese village inside Bhutan."[256][257][258] New Chinese ammunition bunkers were also reported 7 km from the 2017 site.[259] A few weeks later, reports emerged of China having constructed three villages near Bum La pass. Lying within Chinese territory, the villages were reportedly being constructed while Chinese and Indian soldiers face off in eastern Ladakh.[260] This was followed by reports in January 2021 of the construction of another village in disputed territory along the border in Upper Subansiri district.[261][262] Another new Chinese enclave (supposedly) in Arunachal's Shi Yomi district was reported in November 2021.[263] During the standoff, China started building a bridge across the Pangong lake.[264]
15km 10miles
New Chinese village
Migyitun
Gelensiniak
Longju
Xingqiangpu Zhang
Mosing
Maja
Taksing
Tame Chung Chung
Limeking
The new village is located between Longju and Maja.[p][265][266] Longju is in Indian territory according to Indian claims, occupied by the Chinese since 1959.[267][268] (Borders present/missing as per OSM editors)
Logistics
Following unsuccessful diplomatic talks and stalled military disengagement and de-escalation process, China and India prepared themselves to maintain sustained deployment in Ladakh throughout the winter.[q][270][271][272][273] Temperatures in parts of Aksai Chin and Ladakh, a high altitude cold desert, drops as low as -40 °C. While some areas of the region see heavy snowfall, eastern Ladakh sees winds of up to 60 kmph. Shyok River in Pangong Tso freezes, as does water in pipes.[274]
A large part of the logistical requirements on the Indian side is in the form of fuel, oil and lubricants (FOLs). Oil is used for firing bukharis and cooking food as well as melting snow for drinking water and for barracks with heating systems. Arctic tents and winter clothing have been stocked. Nutritional requirements are met through provisions including 22 types of rice, pulses and wheat, 65 necessary food items, perishables such as vegetables; and high-calorie foods for deployment of 18,000 feet (5,500 m) and above. A single soldier requires approximately 800 kg of provisions to last through winter. Arms and ammunition have been stockpiled.[274][275][276]
Local resources in Ladakh are limited, so everything comes from the plains.[277] Extra engineering forces have been tasked with providing additional barracks for the troops;[278] by mid–November it was reported that the army has completed the construction of "habitat facilities" in Ladakh.[279] According to former Army Deputy Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General J.P. Singh, winter deployment along the LAC will financially bleed India by forcing construction of new infrastructure, recurring expenses such as additional truck and aircraft movement, and purchase of off-the-shelf winter equipment; in turn affecting other expenses such as modernisation plans.[r][269][271]
Amidst the standoff, India completed military logistics sharing agreements with partners in the Quad— Japan, Australia and United States.[283] DRDO has developed a number of products for troops in Ladakh such as a new buhkari called Him Tapaak.[284] There has been considerable delays of several years in construction of border outposts for the ITBP.[285]
The People's Daily reported that the PLA has been constructing new infrastructure for the winter, such as pre-fabricated shelters, and conducting drills using drones to deliver hot meals to frontline troops.[286] China is also seeking to set up military logistics facilities in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Myanmar.[287]
War of attrition
Reports citing Indian army sources point to the daily attrition due to the heights and cold.[288] This attrition is "within the expected ratio"[s] and those who recover are redeployed. The Chinese side faces similar situations.[288] Commentators are pointing out that this is becoming or has already become a war of attrition;[289] this includes Yun Sun, a China specialist at the Stimson Center,[290] and Srikanth Kondapalli, a professor of Chinese studies at JNU.[291] Other border forces such as the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) also face attrition related challenges.[292]
Cyber attacks
Following escalation in 2020, reports of cyber attacks increased.[293][294][295] The Maharashtra cyber department suspected that a severe blackout in Mumbai on 13 October 2020 was caused by a malware attack.[296] A February 2021 study by cybersecurity firm Recorded Future found that Chinese malware flowed into Indian electricity supply control systems after the skirmishes in 2020, though it did not validate a link between the malware and Mumbai power outage.[297] At least 12 government organisations, mainly power utilities, were reported to have been attacked.[298]
45 killed (per TASS, Russian state news agency, in an initial report, citing Indian sources)[43] At least 45 killed (per TASS, Russian state news agency, in a later report)[43]
At least 41 fatalities[t] (per The Klaxon, Australian investigative newspaper)[44]
India's prime minister Narendra Modi holding a meeting with political parties via video conferencing to discuss the situation in Sino-Indian border areas on 19 June.
After the first melee took place, on 5–6 May 2020 at Pangong Tso, Foreign Secretary of India Harsh Vardhan Shringla called Sun Weidong, the Chinese ambassador to India.[300] Then, Ajit Doval reportedly talked to a top Chinese diplomat Yang Jiechi.[300] On 28 May, in a press conference, Indian spokesperson for the Ministry of External Affairs, Anurag Srivastava, maintained that there were enough bilateral mechanisms to solve border disputes diplomatically.[301][64] (However, some critics say that these agreements are "deeply flawed".[302]) The Border Personnel Meeting (BPM) points had rounds of military talks in May–June. First between colonels, then between brigadiers, and on 2 June, more than three rounds between major generals.[68][303]
All these talks were unsuccessful. Some Indian military sources said that India was still unclear with China's demands. "When one wants to stall a process, one makes absurd demands... they purposefully made some unreasonable demands", said the sources.[68] On 6 June, commanders' talks took place at Chushul-Moldo BPM. The talks involved the Indian commander of Leh-headquartered XIV Corps, Lt Gen Harinder Singh, and the Chinese commander of the Tibet Military District (South Xinjiang Military Region) Maj Gen Liu Lin.[304]
On 17 June 2020, Prime Minister Modi addressed the nation regarding the Galwan skirmish, giving a firm message directed at China over the deaths of Indian soldiers.[305][306] The first communication since the start of the border dispute between the foreign ministers of China, Wang Yi and of India, S Jaishankar also happened after the Galwan skirmish.[305] Jaishankar accused the Chinese actions in Galwan to be "pre-meditated and planned".[305] On 20 June, Chinese social media platform WeChat removed the Indian Prime Minister's remarks on the Galwan skirmish,[307] which was uploaded by the Indian Embassy in China. The official statements of the Ministry of External Affairs were also removed. WeChat said that it removed the speech and statements because they divulged in state secrets and endangered national security.[308]
The MEA spokesperson's statement on the incident was also removed from Weibo. Upon seeing that the page said that the content had been deleted by the author, the Indian embassy in China issued a clarification that the post wasn't removed by them, and re-published a screenshot of the statement in Chinese.[309][310] On 1 July, Prime Minister Modi quit the Chinese social media platform Weibo.[311][312] On 3 July, during a surprise visit to military posts in Ladakh, Prime Minister Modi, said in a speech that the "age of expansionism" is over and history has revealed that "expansionist forces have either lost or were forced to turn back"; the media noted that this was in reference to Beijing.[313]
As of 4 February 2022[update]. C = Chushul (Indian side); M = Moldo (Chinese side).
The second round of commanders' meeting was on 22 June. In an 11-hour meeting, the commanders worked out a disengagement outline. On 24 June, this disengagement was then diplomatically acknowledged by both sides during the virtual meeting of the WMCC.[70] Chinese spokesperson, Zhao Lijian said that India "agreed to and withdrew its cross-border personnel in the Galwan Valley and dismantled the crossing facilities in accordance with China's request".[70][338]
The third round of commanders' talks were held on 30 June;[315][316] India reiterated its demand for the pullback of the Chinese troops from all key areas including Pangong Tso, Galwan Valley and the Depsang plains and the restoration of status quo ante in April whereas China emphasised that the military buildup in the region should be reduced.[339] Following the talks, it was reported that Chinese vehicles were seen withdrawing from the Galwan clash point, as well as from Hot Springs and Gogra.[340]
Disengagement and de-escalation efforts
After earlier unsuccessful attempts at complete disengagement, a discussion scheduled for 5 July, was held between special representatives National Security Advisor of India, Ajit Doval and Foreign Minister of China, Wang Yi, where it was decided that both Indian and Chinese troops would move back 1.8 km from the patrolling point PP 14, the 15 June clash site in the Galwan valley.[341] It was reported that both the troops moved back around 1.5 to 2 km from the PP 14 to create a buffer zone, which would be off-limits for foot patrolling by them for the next 30 days. Chinese troop fully moved out of the clash site, along with thinning down of troops at Hot Springs and Gogra.[342][343] The Chinese troops did not withdraw from the Pangong Tso, where they entered 8 km inside Indian patrolling territory.[344][345]
On 25 July, Indian media reported a completion of disengagement at Galwan, Hot Springs and Gogra.[346][53] On 30 July, shortly after the Chinese Defence Ministry claimed that gradual disengagement and de-escalation was taking place; India told China that the disengagement process is not as yet complete,[347] with Indian Army sources saying that "there has been no positive movement on the ground for more than two weeks now" and that disengagement at Gogra and Pangong Tso was remaining.[348][349]
On 30 July, the Chinese ambassador Sun Weidong claimed the process of clarifying the LAC could not continue because unilateral delimitations of the LAC cause more disputes.[350] The fourth round of corps-commander talks took place on 14 July,[317] while the fifth round of talks were on 2 August.[351] On 24 July diplomatic talks were held between the two countries with regard to disengagement.[352] Following the fifth round of talks, the China Study Group convened and found China's "mutual and equal" disengagement proposal at Pangong Tso unacceptable.[353][354]
On day 100 of the border tensions The Week reported a statement from a defence official based in the Secretariat Building in New Delhi, "Indian military planners believe that things seem to be out of their control. Now, only a political intervention can resolve the issue. Military side has done enough with repeated marathon discussions."[67] On 27 August, former Foreign Secretary of India, Shyam Saran said "India needs to be patient... citing the example of Somdorong Chu in 1987 which took seven years to resolve".[355]
China and India hold talks on 4 September 2020. Visible are the Defence Ministers from both countries, Rajnath Singh and General Wei Fenghe.
Chinese General Wei Fenghe and his Indian counterpart Rajnath Singh held a talk, on 4 September in Moscow, on the sidelines of a Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meeting.[71] On 10 September, the foreign affairs ministers of China and India met in Moscow. Five points were agreed upon in a joint statement, including new CBMs between the two countries.[356]
On 21 September, the sixth commander-level meeting took place at Chushul-Moldo BPM.[357] The Indian delegation consisted of Lt Gen Harinder Singh, Lt Gen P G K Menon, two major generals, four brigadiers and other officers, the chief of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police and for the first time, a Ministry of External Affairs representative.[320][358] Following the 14-hour talks, a joint statement was released, which included both sides having agreed to "stop sending more troops to the frontline".[321][359] On 30 September, the fifth round of diplomatic talks took place; this was the 19th meeting of the WMCC.[360]
On 13 October, the seventh round of military commanders talks in Chushul took place; while the talks were called positive, on ground issues and tensions remain.[322] On 15 October, Jaishankar said that the talks between India and China to resolve the standoff are "confidential" and shouldn't be "prejudged".[361] During the eighth round of corps-commander-level talks on 6 November the Chinese side put forward a proposal for de-escalation, disengagement and de-induction.[323][362] The ninth round of talks were in January 2021,[363][324] the tenth in February 2021,[327][326] and the eleventh in April 2021.[364] In February 2021, disengagement from Pangong Tso was reported.[365] On 1 August 2021 a new military hotline was set up.[366]
Linkage of border tension and bilateral relations
In an interview on 2 August 2020, the Indian External Affairs Minister said to the Times of India, "the state of the border and the future of our ties cannot be separated".[367] On 4 August, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said that the two countries should "make sure differences do not escalate into disputes" and that China hopes India will work with them in maintaining the "overall interests of bilateral relations."[368] On 26 August, Chinese Ambassador Weidong said that China hoped India would not mix the functioning of Confucius Institutes[369] with the border tensions — but a "brief moment" in history. However India maintained that the border tensions and normal relations between the two countries are linked.[370][371]European Foundation for South Asian Studies (EFSAS) states that while China has tried to delink the border issue and other bilateral relations, "India has now been bitten enough times to realize the futility, even counter-productivity, of dealing with the border issue in isolation."[372]
India's statements about transgressions, incursions, intrusions and infiltration
On 19 June 2020, during the all-party meet, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was translated as saying, "No one has entered Indian territory or captured any military post".[187][218] In the Upper House of the Indian Parliament, on 16 September 2020, the Minister of State for Home Affairs, in response to a question from a BJP MP about infiltrations, said in a written reply that "since February there had been 47 cases of attempted infiltration along the India-Pakistan border" and "no infiltration has been reported along India-China border during the last six months."[373][374] On 15 September 2020, in the Parliament of India, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said "China made transgression attempts on Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the western sector. This includes the Kongka Pass, Gogra, and the north bank of Pangong Lake."[375]
Official statements on territorial sovereignty
On 29 September 2020, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said that China does not recognize the "illegal" Union Territory of Ladakh.[376] In other diplomatic statements, on 8 September and then again on 13 October,[377] China repeated that they have never recognized the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh.[378][379] China has routinely objected to Indian leaders visiting Arunachal Pradesh over the years.[380] Before the national day of Taiwan on 10 October 2020, Chinese embassy in New Delhi issued guidelines for the Indian media over coverage of the national day.[381]
On 15 October India told China not to comment on India's internal matters, referring to China's repeated insistence on commenting upon its infrastructure as being the cause for border tensions.[382] At a political as well as an individual level, statements and actions related to the territorial sovereignty of Tibet, Gilgit, Baltistan, Aksai Chin and Shaksgam Valley have also been made.[383][384][385] With regard to a new Chinese village near Longju in disputed territory Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson stated in January 2021 "...China's normal construction on its own territory is entirely a matter of sovereignty".[262]
Complete disengagement from Pangong Lake north and south bank took place in February 2021.[53][54] Part of the disengagement deal at Pangong Lake was the withdrawal of Indian troops from positions they had taken control of 29 and 30 August in the Chushul sector and Kailash Range overlooking Chinese fixtures at Spanggur Gap and Spanggur Tso.[319][157][158][162]
Gogra-Hot Springs
India reported a change in status quo in early May 2020.[389] From May into early June, disengagement efforts at areas including Gogra and Hot Springs was underway.[389] On 9 June 2020, PLA moved back 2 km at Hot Springs.[390] However further de-escalation did not continue following skirmishes in other areas, including the 15/16 June skirmish which caused tensions.[391] On 24 June 2020, disengagement in general was again agreed upon.[391] Through early July 2020, disengagement was underway,[340][342] and on 25 July 2020, India Today and ANI wrote of the completion of disengagement at locations in Hot Springs and Gogra.[346][53] In February 2021, India Today, as per sources and officials, disengagement at other locations of Hot Springs and Gogra was yet to be discussed.[392][54]
Following the twelfth military commanders talks, disengagement at Gogra post (PP 17A) took place on 4 and 5 August 2021.[388][330] Indian analysts have postulated that the buffer zone created at PP 17A has resulted in the LAC shifting westwards.[55][56] While the joint statement stated that "All temporary structures and other allied infrastructure created in the area by both sides have been dismantled and mutually verified", analysts pointed out that Chinese structures are still visible through satellite imagery.[393]
India's territorial loss
After the partial disengagement by both sides following the ministry-level discussion in July 2020, several Indian defence analysts pointed out the agreement is a failure of status quo ante bellum that existed until April 2020 and that return to status quo was unlikely.[394] Furthermore, Indian sources have pointed out that the Chinese reluctance of disengagement from the bottleneck 'Y' junction in Depsang plains and finger 4 of Pangong Tso where Chinese forces further advanced inside of Indian claimed territory and constructed military establishments is an impediment to returning to the status quo ante.[395][396][397]
As part of the disengagement process, buffer zones have largely been established inside Indian areas.[398] In the buffer zone on the north bank of Pangong Tso, for instance, Indian troops can no longer patrol an around 10-km stretch from 'Finger-2' to 'Finger-8' now, though Indian maps show the Line of Actual Control at 'Finger-8'.[398] A councilor of the LAHDC in Ladakh said that Indian territory has been turned into a "buffer zone" after Indian and Chinese troops completed disengagement from Gogra-Hot Springs in eastern Ladakh. He said "Our troops have gone back from not only PP-15 but also PP-16, which we had for the last 50 years or so. (...) Our grazing grounds have now become a buffer zone".[2][4] He said that India's Krugang Valley could become a disputed area.[3] Former Rajya Sabha MP from the BJP, Subramaniam Swamy said in a tweet that India had withdrawn from its own territory.[3][399] Indian military veterans said that the buffer zones represent a “new status quo” and that the creation of these zones amounted to “ceding further Indian territory” to the Chinese.[400] Colonel Ajai Shukla said that in all the disengagements since April 2020 the buffer zones that have come into existence are entirely on territory both claimed and previously patrolled by India but now, as a result, India is denied the right to patrol up to where it previously could. On the other hand, China's buffer zones are not on territory claimed and previously patrolled by China and, therefore, China can continue to patrol up to the point where it previously did.[401] He gave the example of Gogra, where the Chinese intruded 4 km into Indian territory and pulled back 2 km while the other 2 km have become a buffer zone. Therefore, this buffer zone is entirely on Indian claimed territory.[401] Col. Shukla and other Indian veterans strongly criticised the Indian Prime Minister's statement of June 2020 when Narendra Modi said that there are no Chinese on Indian territory and never have been. This was an endorsement of the position of the Chinese government, and allowed Beijing to dismiss the allegations of border transgressions and claim ownership of all the positions it held.[400][401] In 2020, India had rejected the proposal of equidistant disengagement as it would mean "loss of territory for its own side",[402] but ended up agreeing to the same proposal in 2022. Experts had warned in advance that a 'mutual pullback agreement' would result in further loss of territory for India, a buffer zone entirely in Indian territory.[403]
As of 2023, about 2,000 sq km of Indian land has been ceded to China since June 2020.[1] Modi has been criticized for maintaining silence over the territorial loss.[404][405] In January 2023, a paper presented to the Ministry of Home Affairs, with inputs from Ladakh Police, stated that India had lost access to 26 out of 65 Patrolling Points in eastern Ladakh since June 2020.[406]
Reactions
India
Following the Galwan clash, Chinese flags and effigies of paramount leader Xi Jinping were burned in various places across India and various groups registered their protests in different ways.[407][408] On 3 October 2020, the Indian Army revealed a memorial to commemorate the Indian soldiers who died in Galwan on 15 June during Operation Snow Leopard. The inscription on the memorial reads:[409][410]
On June 15, 2020 at Galwan Valley, Col B Santosh Babu Commanding Officer, 16 Bihar led the Quick Reaction Force of 16 Bihar and attached troops tasked to evict the PLA OP from Gen AY Nala and move further to Patrolling Point 14. The column successfully evicted the PLA OP from Y Nala and reached PP 14 where a fierce skirmish broke out between the IA and PLA troops. Col B Santosh Babu led from the front and his troops fought gallantly in hand-to-hand combat, causing heavy casualties to the PLA. In the ensuing fight twenty "Gallants of Galwan" achieved martyrdom.
The memorial has been built at KM-120 post on the DSDBO Road.[410] The names of those killed in the Galwan Valley clash have been inscribed on the National War Memorial in New Delhi.[411]Special Frontier Force company leader Nyima Tenzin was given a public funeral with a 21-gun salute in Ladakh on 7 September 2020.[412] Nyima Tenzin had died after stepping on a 1962 war mine.[413] Tenzin's body was wrapped in both the Indian and Tibetan flags.[414] In October 2021, 20 soldiers of the ITBP were awarded medals for gallantry along the LAC.[415]
Amidst the standoff, during September and October, DRDO tested "10 missiles in 35 days", with Indian media reporting a total of at least 12 missiles or systems being fired. This included the Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle and Rudram-1, an air-to-surface anti-radiation missile. The Indian media reported that the DRDO missile testing was considered significant by senior DRDO officials as it was undertaken against the backdrop of the standoff with China. However, it was also noted that COVID-19 had caused delays in previous tests, which were being conducted now.[416][417] Amidst the standoff India decided to expand the scope for the teaching of Tibetology to its military officers.[418]
Reactionary military procurement
The skirmishes and standoff has caused reactionary purchases by India.[419] This includes the Indian Air Force starting the process for emergency procurement of 12 Sukhoi-30 MKI and 21 Mikoyan MiG-29 from Russia.[420][421] In July, ThePrint reported that post Galwan, the Indian Armed Forces were working on over 100 emergency procurement contracts.[422] In July it was reported that India was looking for lightweight tanks that could be used in Ladakh.[423] While lightweights tanks for Ladakh has been noted since 2009, the 2020 China tensions created a sense of urgency.[423][424] Despite Russia's offer for its Sprut light tank, India blacklisted the import of light tanks and started working on an indigenous tank (code name "Zorawar"), which is being designed in collaboration with DRDO and Larsen & Toubro. The tank is expected to be in production by 2023.[425][426] On 28 September 2020, the Defence Acquisition Council, Ministry of Defence, under fast-tracked procurement, ordered an additional 72,400 SIG 716 for troops in Ladakh; the first batch of SIGs had been ordered in 2019 and have already been delivered to the army.[427][428][429] Emergency purchases also included DRDO Smart Anti Airfield Weapons under the Indigenously Designed Developed and Manufactured (IDDM) category.[430]
Initially, India's economic response to China was mainly restricted to patriotic programs on news channels and social media publicity appeals, with very little actual impact on businesses and sales.[431] In May, in response to the border skirmishes, Sonam Wangchuk appealed to Indians to use "wallet power" and boycott Chinese products.[432] This appeal was covered by major media houses and supported by various celebrities.[432][433]
Following the Galwan Valley clash on 15 June 2020, there were calls across India to boycott Chinese goods.[74][434] The Indian Railways cancelled a contract with a Chinese firm, while the Department of Telecommunication notified BSNL not to use any Chinese made product in upgradations.[77] Mumbai cancelled a monorail contract where the only bidders were Chinese companies; and alternatively said it would focus on finding an Indian technological partner instead.[435] Numerous Chinese contractors and firms were under enhanced scrutiny following the 2020 border friction. Chinese imports began undergoing thorough additional checks at Indian customs.[436] In retaliation, customs in China and Hong Kong held up Indian exports.[437] There were also calls for making sure Chinese companies do not have access to strategic markets in India.[75]Swadeshi Jagaran Manch said that if the government was serious about making India self-reliant, Chinese companies should not be given projects such as the Delhi-Meerut RRTS.[76][438] (However, in the first week of 2021, reports emerged that a Chinese firm had been awarded a contract for construction of 5.6 km of the Delhi-Meerut RRTS.[439]) Days later, the Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari announced that Chinese firms would be banned from road projects in India.[440][441] The Haryana government cancelled a tender related to a power project in which Chinese firms had put in bid.[442] The Uttar Pradesh government Special Task Force personnel were given orders to delete 52 apps including TikTok and WeChat for security reasons while officials in Madhya Pradesh Police were given an advisory for the same.[443][444]
Numerous Indian government officials said that border tensions would have no impact on trade between the two countries.[73] Amid the increased visibility of calls for boycotting Chinese goods in the aftermath of the Galwan incidents, numerous industry analysts warned that a boycott would be counter-productive for India, would send out the wrong message to trade partners, and would have very limited impact on China, since both bilaterally as well as globally India is comparatively a much smaller trade power.[445][446][447][448] Experts also stated that while the boycott campaign was a good initiative, replacement products should be available in the immediate future too.[449] An example taken was the pharmaceutical industry in India which meets 70% of its active pharmaceutical ingredient requirements from China. Dumping in this sector is being scrutinized.[450][451] By the end of June, some analysts agreed that the border tensions between India and China would give the Make in India campaign a boost and increase the pace of achieving self-reliance in some sectors.[449]
The issue of Chinese materials in Indian Army bulletproof vests was again raised in June after the Galwan incidents.[452]V. K. Saraswat, a NITI Aayog member and former DRDO chief, said that it was due to the quality and the pricing that Chinese material was being used instead of Indian products.[453] Bullet-proof vests ordered by the government in 2019 had up to 40% Chinese material. On 20 June, it was reported that development of an Indian bulletproof vest, the "Sarvatra Kavach", that is 100% made in India, is near completion.[454] The Maharashtra government put ₹5,000 crore (equivalent to ₹59 billion or US$740 million in 2023) worth of Chinese projects on hold.[455] The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade brought out a list of over a 1000 Made in China goods on which the Government of India has sought comments for imposing import restrictions. Previously, the Department had asked private companies to submit a list of Chinese imports.[456][457] Incidents in Ladakh are also being taken as additional reasons to keep India away from the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership in which China has a big role.[458]
Sales of Chinese smartphones in India were not affected in the immediate aftermath of the skirmishes, despite calls for a boycott. The latest model of Chinese smartphone company OnePlus sold out within minutes in India on 18 June, two days after the Galwan clash.[459][460]Xiaomi India's managing director said that the social media backlash would not affect sales, adding that Xiaomi handsets are "more Indian than Indian handset companies" and that even many non-Chinese phones, people including American handsets, are made in and imported from China.[461][462] Following this, the Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT), a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh associated traders' organisation,[463] made a statement claiming that Xiaomi's managing director was "trying to please his Chinese masters by downplaying the mood of the nation".[464][465]TTK Prestige, India's largest kitchen appliances maker, said it would stop all imports from China from 30 September onwards.[466] On 23 June, the government had ordered all e-commerce companies to show the 'country of origin' for products.[467][468] In July, Hero Cycles cancelled ₹900 crore (equivalent to ₹11 billion or US$130 million in 2023) worth of projects with China as part of their "commitment to boycott Chinese products".[469] Amidst the border situation in early August, the premier cricket league in India, Indian Premier League (IPL), decided to retain Chinese sponsors including the title sponsor VIVO.[470][471] After facing a lot of criticism for this on various fronts, VIVO pulled out itself, supposedly also due to finance issues as well as the border tensions.[472][473][474] The sponsorship deal was worth $293 million.[475] By 15 October, the Indian government had put restrictions on more imports from China including television sets, tyres and air conditioners.[476]
On 29 June, the Indian government banned 59 Chinese mobile applications including TikTok, WeChat, UC Browser, SHAREit and Baidu Maps.[477][478] PRC responded with blocking Indian newspapers and websites in mainland China.[479] Following the initial ban, in September, the Government of India further banned 118 more Chinese apps including popular gaming app, PUBG Mobile, citing the sovereignty and integrity of the country.[480] In November, the fourth ban list was released, listing 43 more apps including Alibaba Group's AliExpress, Alipay Cashier and Alibaba Workbench.[481] Following the fourth ban list, 200 plus Chinese apps had been banned by the Indian government, including apps owned by Alibaba, Tencent, Baidu, Sina and Bytedance.[78] Various initiatives were taken across the country to stop the sale of Chinese goods during the festive season, and in turn replace it with Indian products.[482][483]
Return of Chinese companies
By March 2021, Huawei was back into the Indian market with another deal worth ₹300 crore (equivalent to ₹353 crore or US$44 million in 2023) from Bharti Airtel.[484] Supposedly Bharti Airtel decided to go ahead since Huawei was already looking after Airtel's long-distance networks.[485] By August 2021, Chinese apps, including those from companies that had been banned, were back in the Indian cyberspace.[486][487]
China India trade
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
India – China Trade at a Glance (USD Billion) India imports from ChinaIndia exports to China Sources:Trademap, ET
On 8 August, the Business Today reported that mainland China's exports to India since January 2020, amidst the boycott calls, had fallen 24.7 per cent year-on-year according to the Government of India's customs data.[488] It was also reported that the share of Chinese smartphones companies in the Indian market fell to 72 per cent during the June quarter 2020 from 81 per cent in the March quarter 2020."[488][489]
However, an article in The Hindu attributed the decline largely to the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in India, with imports from China rising back to nearly pre-lockdown levels in July.[490] On 9 September, the Financial Express reported that the "Border clash fails to dampen India-China trade" and that there was a "surge in exports" from India to China.[491] Total trade between the countries in 2021 crossed USD 125 billion.[492]
In February 2022, India banned 54 more Chinese apps over the border clashes.[493]
In 2022, India's imports from China reached record high, while trade deficit increased over $100 billion.[494]
Kashmir, Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh
India's prime minister visits Ladakh on 3 July 2020 where he interacted with Indian military personnel deployed at forward positions.[495]
On 6 September, the Hindustan Times reported that social media posts were being shared of how locals from Chushul and Merak villages are helping to supply water and other essential to the Indian Army, including front-line areas such as Black Top.[496]
On 17 June, following the Galwan clash, former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Omar Abdullahtweeted, "Those Kashmiris tempted to look towards China as some sort of saviour need only google the plight of Uighur Muslims. Be careful what you wish for...".[497] He deactivated his Twitter account following the tweet.[497] Khalid Shah, an Associate fellow at ORF, writes that at large the Kashmiri population has "left no stone unturned to mock the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the Chinese belligerence."[498]
Stone pelters in Srinagar used slogans such as "cheen aya, cheen aya" (transl. China has arrived, China has arrived) to make fun of the Indian security forces while a joke going around is "cheen kot woat?" (transl. where has China reached?). Memes show Xi Jinping dressed in Kashmiri attire with others showing him cooking wazwan. Khalid writes that while China has become a part of many conversations, online and offline, India should be worried that "Chinese bullying is compared to the actions of the Government of India".[498] Following the tensions with China, communication lines were cut in Ladakh in places along the border causing a communication blackout, resulting in local councillors requesting the government for the lines to be restored.[499]
Following the Galwan clash former Arunachal Pradesh chief minister Nabam Tuki told The Economic Times that "After the ugly face-off in Ladakh on Monday night, it is only natural that the residents of the border villages of Arunachal Pradesh will have some worries".[500]Prem Das Rai, a former member of Parliament, says that it is but natural that those along the borders will be concerned.[500]
Wartime gallantry awards to members of Indian military
In January 2021, the Indian government decorated six Indian Army personnel for bravery during the Galwan clash ("Operation Snow Leopard"). One posthumous Maha Vir Chakra, the second-highest wartime gallantry decoration, and five Vir Chakras (four posthumous decorations) were awarded.[501][502]
Diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics
After it was revealed that People's Liberation Army regimental commander Qi Fabao was chosen as a torchbearer for the 2022 Winter Olympics, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Arindam Bagchi stated in a media briefing that "It is indeed regrettable that the Chinese side has chosen to politicise an event like the Olympics". Bagchi also stated that the chargé d'affaires of the Embassy of India in Beijing will not attend the opening or closing ceremony of the Winter Olympics, thus resulting in India effectively announcing a diplomatic boycott of the Olympics.[503][504] The CEO of Prasar Bharati, India's public broadcaster, announced that they will not air the 2022 Winter Olympics opening and closing ceremony.[505]
China
June 2020 to 2021
Chinese Communist Party (CCP) general secretaryXi Jinping was reported to be under no public pressure to respond to the border tensions with India, even after the Galwan incident.[506]Reuters reported that "Beijing's response also points to its interest in de-escalating a crisis over a stretch of border that is less politically important than other territorial priorities, such as claims to Taiwan and the South China Sea".[506] Long Xingchun, a senior research fellow at the Beijing Foreign Studies University, wrote on 25 May that "unlike previous standoffs, the latest border friction was not caused by accident, but was a planned move of New Delhi. India has been clearly and definitely aware that the Galwan Valley region is Chinese territory."[507]
On 26 May, Xi Jinping,[86] during an annual meeting of PLA representatives urged the military "to prepare for the worst-case scenarios" and "to scale up battle preparedness." He had mentioned "battle preparedness" during his meeting with the PLA in 2019 as well. He said that the COVID-19 pandemic had brought a profound change on the global landscape about China's security and development.[507]
Following the Galwan clash, on 20 June, the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi posted a written diplomatic protest "demanding India to carry out a thorough investigation into the incident... [and] strictly discipline Indian front-line troops..."[508] On 25 June 2020, in an interview to the Press Trust of India, Ambassador Sun Weidong said that "the incident was completely instigated by the Indian side and the responsibility does not lie with the Chinese side."[509] Concerning the number of Chinese casualties in the Galwan clash, Hu Xijin, the editor of the CCP-owned daily tabloid Global Times, tweeted "Based on what I know, Chinese side also suffered casualties in the Galwan Valley physical clash" but attached no numbers with it.[510]
In August, China arrested a netizen for spreading "rumours" related to the Galwan clash and PLA deaths. He was arrested for writing that poor quality military vehicles manufactured by Dongfeng Off-road Company resulted in the deaths of the PLA soldiers.[511] His arrest was noted in Chinamil.com, a Chinese Ministry of Defence website.[512] A News18 report said that a number of voices, a growing "murmur", from the Chinese diaspora, showing dissent online has grown. The article mentions Deng Yuwen, Hu Ping and Wang Qianqian's comments about the border dispute, the strength of China's alliance with Russia, and infighting.[513] In an interview to The Guardian, Cai Xia, expelled from the CCP on 17 August 2020, said that the recent India-China border clash and "provoking conflict" elsewhere was part of Xi's way to "divert the attention of the Chinese public" from "domestic economic and social tensions" as well as "to consolidate his own position and authority".[514][515] On completion of 100 days of the tensions Ambassador Sun Weidong said that the "onus [is] 'not on China' to resolve [the] border standoff".[516]
Liu Zongyi, the secretary-general of the Research Centre for China-South Asia Cooperation at Shanghai Institute of International Studies, in an interview on 21 September 2020, said that the Indian Army is nibbling away at Chinese land. He gave the example of Hot Springs near Dêmqog as being Chinese territory and said that it was under Indian control as China did not respond fast enough to "India's nibbling".[u] Zongyi also accused India of having "secretly built roads during the night and at times [developing] roads at a speed of one to two kilometres per day." Zongyi called it an implementation of a "forward policy" or "offensive-defensive" policy. He linked the border tension to Hindu nationalism and added that India was becoming a "leading anti-China force", even more than the United States.[517][518] Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin, on 29 September, once again said that China does not recognise India's union territory of Ladakh, objects to Indian infrastructure construction and that reports of new military bases being built by China were false and motivated.[519][520]
Following the first ban on Chinese apps, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian as well as the spokesperson of the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi, Ji Rong, made statements raising concern over the ban.[521] Further, China warned India on 31 July 2020 that a "forced decoupling" of the economies of both countries will only result in both economies getting hurt, a lose—lose situation.[522][523] Following the Indian governments fourth ban list in November, the Chinese Embassy in India stated, "...These moves in glaring violation of market principles and WTO rules severely harm the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies,"[524] while Zhao Lijian said that "the Indian government has the responsibility to... protect the lawful rights and interests of international investors including Chinese companies."[525]
On 19 February 2021 and onwards Chinese state media portrayed the deaths of four soldiers.[526][527][528] On 31 May 2021, a Chinese blogger Qiu Ziming, was sentenced to eight months imprisonment for questioning PLA losses in Galwan.[529][530] The portrayal of the four deaths as well as appearances on state-media by the regimental commander Qi Fabiao continued to the first anniversary of the event.[529] On 3 August 2021, China released two short videos on the social media in relation to clashes in 2020.[531]
In an end-year speech, Wang Yi, State Councilor and Minister of Foreign Affairs, took reference to India once, "China and India have maintained dialogue through diplomatic and military channels, and effectively managed and controlled frictions in certain border areas, under a shared commitment to improving and developing the bilateral relations".[532][533]
Wartime gallantry awards to Chinese soldiers
On 19 February 2021, Chinese revealed that 4 PLA soldiers who had been killed in the Galwan clash as well as the regimental commander were honoured.[534]
Small-scale protests against China's actions along the Indo-China border were held in Canada, the United States and Japan.[537][538] Tibetan-American, Taiwanese-American, and Indian-American held a rally at Times Square in New York raising placards with slogans such as 'Boycott China', 'Tibet stands with India' and 'Stop Chinese Aggression'.[539][540] On 10 August 2020, a small scale protest against Chinese aggression was held by Indian-Americans at National Mall facing the United States Capitol in Washington. The protesters also praised India's move to ban Chinese apps and highlighted the plight of the Uyghurs.[541]
Governments
Australia: On 1 June, Australia's High Commissioner to India, Barry O'Farrell said that the border issue should be solved bilaterally. He also expressed concern about Chinese presence in the South China Sea.[542]
France: In the aftermath of the Galwan skirmish, the envoy of France tweeted condolences and concern for the Indian lives lost at Galwan valley.[543] On 29 June, the French Defence Minister Florence Parly wrote to the Indian Defence Minister, extending condolences for the deaths of 20 soldiers, and also extended support over the LAC tensions, "I wish to express my steadfast and friendly support, along with that of the French Armed Forces". Parley also reiterated France's "deep unity" with India.[544][545] With this France became the first country to extend the support of its military to India.[545][546]
Germany: Following the Galwan clash, the envoy for Germany tweeted, "Our heartfelt condolences to the families and loved ones of the soldiers who lost their lives in Galwan".[543] Furthermore, the German Minister for Foreign AffairsHeiko Maas urged China and India to de-escalate tensions to avoid a major conflict.[547] On 4 September, German Ambassador to India, Walter J. Lindner, made comments regarding the standoff, saying that the situation was "highly dangerous" for everyone and that both the "elephant" and "dragon" should ease tensions.[548] He added that Germany was feeling the "repercussions" of the tensions in the indo-pacific region.[548]
Indonesia: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia called for India and China to both reduce tensions in the aftermath of Galwan.[549]
Italy: The Ambassador of Italy to India, Vincenzo de Luca expressed deepest sympathies following Galwan, adding "India and China are both very important partners not only for Italy, but also for the European Union as a whole." Both countries are crucial actors for regional and global stability".[543]
Japan: In response to the Galwan skirmish, Japanese envoy to India Satoshi Suzuki tweeted condolences for the Indian lives lost following Galwan.[543] On 18 June the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs called for a peaceful resolution to the situation.[550] Japanese Ambassador to India Satoshi Suzuki, after a meeting with the Indian Foreign Secretary on 3 July, said that "Japan opposes any 'unilateral attempt to change status quo' on LAC."[551][552]
Maldives: In response to the Galwan clash, the Foreign Minister of the Maldives, Abdulla Shahid, tweeted, "Maldives extends deepest condolences to the people of India for the lives lost in recent clashes on the border. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families, loved ones, and communities of the soldiers."[543]
Pakistan: Following the Galwan clash, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Shah Mahmood Qureshi said that Pakistan was closely watching the situation and "held India responsible for the conflict."[553] Pakistan officially backed China's position in Ladakh.[554] Amid the India-China standoff, in early July, Indian media reported that Pakistan had moved 20,000 troops to the LoC in Gilgit-Baltistan.[555]
Russia: Roman Babushkin, the Russian Deputy Chief of Mission in Delhi, stated on 1 June that Russia maintains that the issue should be solved bilaterally between India and China.[556][557] On 2 June, the Foreign Secretary of India updated and discussed the situation with the Russian Ambassador to India, Nikolay R. Kudashev.[558] Following Galwan, on 17 June, the Ambassador of India in Russia spoke to the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister about the situation.[559]Dmitry Peskov, Press Secretary for the President of Russia, said that the situation was being closely watched.[560]
Russia initiated virtual talks with India and China on 22 June.[561][300] Russia had scheduled the RIC trilateral for March but delayed it due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[561] About the border situation between India and China, Foreign Minister of Russia, Sergey Lavrov said that the topics for the meeting were already agreed upon and "the RIC agenda does not involve discussing issues that are related to bilateral relations of a country with another member."[562] During the trilateral meeting India reminded Russia and China of India's selfless involvement in the Russian and Chinese interests during the World War II, where India helped both the countries by keeping supply lines opened in the Persian Corridor and over the Himalayan Hump.[563]
Russia argued that a Sino-Indian confrontation would be a "bad idea" for both the countries, for the Eurasian region and the international system. Russia said such a confrontation will damage the Chinese legitimacy in the international system and will reduce the existing limited Chinese soft power. It had advised both the countries that it would be a winnable situation for both the countries with no confrontation while giving the example of zero confrontation of the Soviet Union and the US during the Cold War.[564] Russia also proposed to hold the first meeting of the defence chiefs of the three countries which China and India also agreed during the meeting. However, Russia reiterated that China and India can sort out their differences through bilateral means without the involvement of a third party including Russia.[563]
United Kingdom: The British High Commissioner to India was deeply concerned over the Galwan skirmish and said India and China must resolve this through dialogue.[565] Prime Minister Boris Johnson also expressed concerns and the UK was closely monitoring the situation in the valley.[565]
United States: US President Donald Trump, on 27 May 2020, offered to mediate between China and India. This offer was rejected by both countries. The US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo also raised the issue in a podcast, and referring to China said that these were the kind of actions that authoritarian regimes took and that they can have a real impact.[566][567]Eliot Engel, chief of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, also expressed concern with the situation. He said that "China was demonstrating once again that it was willing to bully its neighbors".[568] On 2 June, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Donald Trump discussed the Sino-Indian border situation.[569] In the aftermath of Galwan, the US Secretary of State tweeted condolences to the people of India for the lives lost;[570] while the US Department of State said that the situation was being closely watched.[543] On 18 June Mitch McConnell stated that "for the sake of grabbing territory, the PLA appears to have instigated the most violent clash between China and India since those nations went to war in 1962".[96]
On 20 June, US President Donald Trump said that the US is in touch with both China and India to assist them in resolving the tensions.[571] On 25 June, Mike Pompeo stated that American troops were being moved out of Germany and are being redeployed in India and other American allied South East Asian countries because of the recent actions by the Chinese Communist Party and to be appropriately positioned to act as a counter to the PLA.[572]
On 1 July, following India's ban on 59 Chinese mobile apps, Mike Pompeo welcomed the decision and said that the move would boost India's 'sovereignty, integrity and national security'.[573] On 24 September 2020, US President Donald Trump once again offered to mediate between China and India.[574]During the 2+2 Dialogue in late October both India and United States made references to the border tensions with China.[575][576]The US Secretary of Defense and Indian Minister of Defense in New Delhi, March 2021. US Secretary of Defense stated "...we had never considered that India and China were on the threshold of war...".[577][578]In December, the annual report of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission pointed to China having planned the Galwan incident,[579] "Some evidence suggested the Chinese government had planned the incident, potentially including the possibility for fatalities."[580][581] On 23 March 2021, Admiral John C. Aquilino told the Senate Armed Services Committee that India-China trust was at an all-time low.[582]
Government-in-exile
Tibet: President Lobsang Sangay made statements related to the border clashes, saying that "what happened to Tibet could happen to India" and that "the Indian government should make Tibet one of the key issues in its policies on China".[583][584][585]
Organisations
European Union: Following the Galwan skirmish on 15 June, the spokesperson for the European Union, Virginie Battu-Henriksson, called for de-escalation and a peaceful resolution.[586]
United Nations: Following the Galwan skirmish, the United Nations called for de-escalation and a peaceful resolution.[586][372]
Commentary
An editorial was published in the Taipei Times titled, "Taiwan must stand with India" on 19 June 2020. The article analysed the India China border clashes; and ended by saying "Taiwan should deepen ties with India, in particular economic, military and intelligence ties, to contain Chinese expansionism and put Xi back into his box."[587]
The European Foundation for South Asian Studies (EFSAS) wrote on 7 August 2020 that India's reaction to Chinese aggression has "surprised China".[588] In a previous commentary in early July, EFSAS stated that China should realise that if it forces India into a corner, India will join "the ever-growing comity of nations that seek to compel China to adhere to the norms of the international order and abide by the rule of law", irrespective of India wanting or not wanting to walk down that path.[589] In early September, EFSAS stated that India's tactical responses in Ladakh left "China stuck in quicksand of its own making."[590]
On 19 September 2020, an article in the Nikkei Asian Review and the Hindustan Times noted that in 2020 while the world was busy watching the US and China conduct military exercises in the South China Sea from July through September, a distraction, "Beijing was engaged in a real-life standoff with India in the Himalayas".[591][592]
A survey of over 1,000 Americans (reported on 1 September 2020) found that "over 63 per cent of Americans support neither China nor India if they were to engage in a military conflict. In the case of an economic conflict, 60.6 per cent of respondents supported no interference."[593]
Quadrilateral Security Dialogue
On 9 September 2020, Japan and India signed the Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement. Australia and India signed a similar Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (MLSA) on 4 June 2020. With this, India has military logistics sharing pacts with all partners of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad).[283]
In media
Information war
In June, media reports started emerging of India losing the information and perception war to China.[594][595][596] China's information warfare focused on trying to portray India as the aggressor and at the same time used the state media to repeatedly emphasize China's economic and military power.[597][598] An article in the New Indian Express on 17 July 2020 stated that Indian soldiers felt that "India, with its muted approach, allowed China to dominate the narrative."[596] Pakistan has helped China in the information war against India.[599]
Tara Kartha, a former director in the National Security Council Secretariat of India, in August 2020, wrote on China's psy–ops and propaganda during the skirmishes. She noted China's use of "strong media messaging" such as videos of "the swift mobilization of troops by air and train from Hubei province to the Indian borders". She points out that the troops were from the Wuhan area (a sub-provincial city of Hubei), the original epicentre of the coronavirus and that the "swift mobilization" would also mean the troops weren't acclimatized for the high altitude battleground of eastern Ladakh. Another video was of the deployment of Z-10 attack helicopters. Kartha notes that the original Z-10 has "underpowered engines (which make) it unsuitable for high altitudes" and that even Pakistan preferred American and Turkish aircraft rather than the Chinese variants.[600]
Kartha mentions other attempts of propaganda by China, including reports of deploying karate fighters, capabilities of is naval prowess, 'power messaging' by Xi such as his directive to PLA to get ready for war, the usage of "wolf warriors" such as Hou Yanqi, the Chinese Ambassador to Nepal; while statements directed at keeping friendly relations, especially with the business community of the world are made by other senior officials such as China's Foreign Minister.[600] The Hindustan Times noted that most of the psy-ops tactics utilised by the PLA during the Doklam stand-off are being seen here again.[601]India Today noted that the PLA have also conducted firing drills at locations from where the Indian troops can hear the sounds.[602]
News media
Chinese state media have given little to no attention to the dispute and have downplayed the clashes. In the first month of the standoff, there was only a single editorial piece in the China Daily and the People's Daily.[603] The People's Daily and the PLA Daily did not cover the Galwan clash while the CCP-owned tabloid Global Times (Chinese) carried it on page 16.[604] The state broadcaster China Central Television (CCTV) carried the official military statement on social media with no further coverage.[604] The Global Times ran a number of opinion pieces and one editorial which questioned why China did not disclose its death toll publicly.[604][603][605]
China analyst Yun Sun explained that while there may be very little information in the English media of China about the border dispute, there is much more analysis in the Chinese language media.[606] Chinese state media however welcomed Prime Minister Modi's 19 June statement.[187] The Global Times quoted Lin Minwang, a professor at Fudan University's Center for South Asian Studies in Shanghai, as saying that "Modi's remarks will be very helpful to ease the tensions because as the Prime Minister of India, he has removed the moral basis for hardliners to further accuse China".[607] In late June China blocked access to all Indian media and newspaper websites.[608][609]
In India, before the 15 June clash, some Indian media persons and defence analysts downplayed the extent of the Chinese incursions.[610] However following the 15 June clash at Galwan nearly all mainstream newspapers carried front-page stories as well as multi-page stories of the Galwan incident.[611] Following the clash, Times Now published a list that it said contained the names of the Chinese soldiers who were killed in the clash but cautioned that the information "could be a fake forward"; multiple sources subsequently said that it was fake news.[612][613][614] Another list reported by Indian media that was said to also show Chinese soldiers who were killed in action was described by Chinese spokesperson Zhao Lijian as fake news.[615]
Ahead of the commanders' meeting on 6 June, disinformation campaigns were reportedly run by Chinese state-controlled media as well as corporations. The Chinese broadcasters showed military manoeuvres along the border, reportedly designed to frighten India.[616] Following the Galwan clash, international coverage in The New York Times[617] and The Guardian commented on the "nationalistic" character of the leaders of both countries and the "dangers posed by expansionist nationalism".[618] The BBC described the situation in Galwan as "an extraordinary escalation with rocks and clubs".[619][620]
Social media
There was a large extent of fake news in relation to border events from both Indian and Chinese handles.[621] In the social media space, Chinese users used Pakistani memes against India.[621] It was reported that Indian users had difficulty in understanding Chinese language memes meant to attack India.[621] A Taiwanese image of Rama slaying a dragon was viral in the Indian social media sphere.[621]TikTok was reported to have given "shadow bans" to videos related to the border tension. Statements from India were removed from Chinese social media companies such as Weibo and WeChat.[622][623][624]
38 drowned, including Junior Sergeant Wang Zhuoran.
3; PLA Battalion Commander Major Chen Hongjun, Private Chen Xiangrong and Junior Sergeant Xiao Siyuan; killed by Indian forces.
Unknown number of soldiers, claimed to be numerous, who were pushed or fell to their deaths over steep cliff edges.[44]
^In 2003, during Prime Minister Vajpayee's visit to China, the Special Representatives mechanism for boundary dispute resolution was set up. Since then, the Special Representatives have had 22 rounds of talks till December 2019.[66]
^According to ThePrint, "The WMCC is a joint secretary-level platform established in 2012 for border management between the countries and to share views on strengthening communication and cooperation, including between border security personnel."[69]
^Reports suggest that India's Special Frontier Force were part of the events; the SFF consisted of Tibetan resistance fighters, and now Tibetans refugees and Gorkhas.[151][152] The circumstances surrounding the death of the SFF Company leader Nyima Tenzin are unknown.[153] Some reports suggest he was killed by a landmine with one other jawan also being injured.[154][155]
^Indian media, The Quint, reported that "one junior officer of Indian Army punched a Chinese PLA major and flattened him", according to "senior military officers in 33rd corps at Sikna covering Sikkim"[137]
^The Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road (DSDBO) is the first border road constructed by India in the Shyok River valley. Starting in 2000, it was completed recently in April 2019. China already has numerous roads crisscrossing Aksai Chin. In addition to the national highway G210, there is S519 that connects Kongka La to G210, S520 that connects Kongka La to Rutog via Pangong Tso, Tianwendian Highway that connects the Tianwendian post G210, a "Tiankong" Highway between Tianwendian and Kongka La, and a new Galwan Highway that connects Tiankong to the Galwan Valley right up to the Line of Actual Control.
^"The June 15 clash involved personnel from 16 Bihar, 3 Punjab, 3 Medium Regiment and 81 Field Regiment."[133]
^Soren was posthumously awarded India's third highest war-time military decoration, Vir Chakra.[198]
^Sources disagree. Most sources list 35 casualties while one source claimed 35 death.[41][40][207]
^The Burtsa Nala originates in Aksai Chin plains and flows west into Ladakh, where it is joined by the Depasng Nala near Burtsa. Its valley was also the site of the 2013 Depsang standoff.
^The border is the Line of Actual Control between China and India as marked by the contributors to the OpenStreetMap.
^"...since 1984 till late 2019, some 869 soldiers had died on the Siachen Glacier spread across 76 km at heights above 17,700 feet due to climatic conditions, analogous to portions of the LAC stretch..."[269]
^An hour long flight to the LAC costs ₹24 lakh (equivalent to ₹28 lakh or US$35,000 in 2023) while 45 minutes of helicopter movement in the border areas costs around ₹4 lakh (equivalent to ₹4.7 lakh or US$5,900 in 2023).[280][281] Major General A P Singh, former head of logistics of XIV Corps, says that for one year the minimum cost of maintaining one soldier along the LAC is ₹10 lakh (equivalent to ₹12 lakh or US$15,000 in 2023).[282]
^Till the 2010s, the attrition rate was around 20%. In the 1962 war there were "nearly equal number of casualties suffered by the Indians were weather casualties".[288]
^ abSiddiqui, Imran Ahmed (16 June 2023). "'Subjugation and surrender': Military veterans slam Modi government's continuing silence on Galwan". Telegraph India.
^ ab"Video | "Territory Gone, Grazing Ground Now Buffer Zone": Ladakh Leader On Troops Pull-Back". Retrieved 9 October 2022.
^ abcBhaumik, Anirban; Ray, Kalyan (14 September 2022). "LAC pullback ends amid buzz that India lost ground". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 9 October 2022.
^ abSingh, Vijaita (20 September 2022). "Grazing lands turning into buffer zones, says chief of village bordering LAC". The Hindu. Retrieved 22 November 2022.
^"China Gained Ground on India During Bloody Summer in Himalayas". Bloomberg.com. 1 November 2020. Retrieved 22 November 2022.
^Bommakanti, Kartik. "China is yet to restore status quo ante on the India-China border". ORF. Retrieved 22 November 2022.
^"Return to status quo ante needed for situation to become normal in Eastern Ladakh: IAF chief". www.telegraphindia.com. Retrieved 22 November 2022.
^ abc"Indian Navy to move MiG-29K fighter jets to north amid border row with China". Hindustan Times. 21 July 2020. Retrieved 21 July 2020.
^"Air Marshal Vivek Ram Chaudhari to take charge of Western Air Command amid tension at LAC". Hindustan Times. 24 July 2020. Retrieved 1 August 2020.
^ ab"Galwan Valley face-off: Indian, Chinese military officials meet to defuse tension". Hindustan Times. 18 June 2020. Retrieved 18 June 2020.
^Negi, Manjeet Singh (13 October 2020). "Lt General PGK Menon takes over as commander of Fire & Fury Corps". India Today. Retrieved 24 October 2020.
^Bhaumik, Anirban (18 June 2020). "Galwan Valley: Indian, Chinese diplomats to hold video-conference soon". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 18 June 2020.
^"Rear Admiral Philipose George Pynumootil, NM Assumes Charge as Flag Officer Naval Aviation (FONA)". 26 February 2019. Retrieved 21 July 2020.
^"IGP Ladakh reviews security arrangements". Daily Excelsior. 9 April 2020. Retrieved 19 June 2020.
^Kakar, Maj Gen Harsha (16 January 2022). "India-China standoff: How possibility of escalation has reduced but that of continued stalemate increased". Firstpost. Retrieved 7 February 2022.
^Swami, Praveen (23 June 2020). "PLA Attacked Indian Troops in Galwan Valley Violating Border Agreements and Protocols". News18 India. Retrieved 7 February 2022.
^. Asia News. 16 June 2020. Archived from the original on 16 June 2020. Retrieved 17 June 2020.
^ abcd"The Chinese generals involved in Ladakh standoff". Rediff.com. 13 June 2020. Retrieved 19 June 2020.
^"Xi presents orders to promote military, armed police officers". Xinhuanet. 18 December 2021. Retrieved 14 June 2021.
^"PLA modernises Xinjiang's military units in 'reaction' to India-China LAC row". Hindustan Times. 17 May 2021. Retrieved 14 June 2021.
^"In historic move, India deploys 50,000 more troops along China border". The New Indian Express. 28 June 2021. Retrieved 7 February 2022.
^"India-China border standoff: China constructs bridge on Pangong lake in Ladakh". Livemint. 4 January 2022. Retrieved 7 February 2022. ...deployed around 60,000 troops...
^ ab"India, China skirmishes in Ladakh, Sikkim; many hurt". The Tribune. India. 10 May 2020.
^ abMichael Safi and Hannah Ellis-Petersen (16 June 2020). "India says 20 soldiers killed on disputed Himalayan border with China". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 June 2020.
^ abcdeHaidar, Suhasini; Peri, Dinakar (18 June 2020). "Ladakh face-off | Days after clash, China frees 10 Indian soldiers". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. from the original on 19 June 2020. Retrieved 19 June 2020.
^ abcd"76 Soldiers Brutally Injured in Ladakh Face-off Stable And Recovering, Say Army Officials". Outlook. 19 June 2020. Retrieved 19 June 2020.
^ ab"China denies detaining Indian soldiers after reports say 10 freed". Al Jazeera. 19 June 2020. Retrieved 21 June 2020.
^ abRoy, Rajesh (19 June 2020). "China Returns Indian Troops Captured in Deadly Clash". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 19 June 2020.
^ abMeyers, Steven Lee; Abi-Habib, Maria; Gettlemen, Jeffrey (17 June 2020). "In China-India Clash, Two Nationalist Leaders With Little Room to Give". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 June 2020.
^ abShrivastava, Rahul (25 January 2021). "Indian soldiers thrash, push back Chinese soldiers at Naku La in Sikkim; Army issues statement". India Today. Retrieved 7 February 2022.
^ abLee Myers, Steven (19 February 2021). "China Acknowledges 4 Deaths in Last Year's Border Clash With India". NY Times. Retrieved 19 February 2021.: "The article [in PLA Daily] did not present the four deaths as an exhaustive count."
^ abChina reveals four soldiers killed in June 2020 border clash with India, Reuters, 19 February 2021. 'Asked if this means no other Chinese soldiers died during the whole standoff that stretched for eight months after the June clash, Hua [Chunying] said: "Yes, I understand that's the case."'
^ abcSud, Vedika; Westcott, Ben (11 May 2020). "Chinese and Indian soldiers engage in 'aggressive' cross-border skirmish". CNN. Retrieved 12 May 2020.
^ abPhilip, Snehish Alex (1 March 2021). "4, 9 or 14? Even China 'isn't sure' how many PLA soldiers died in Galwan Valley". ThePrint. Retrieved 1 March 2021.
^ abKrishnan, Ananth (19 February 2021). "China says four of its soldiers died in Galwan clash". The Hindu. The report, however, did not say how many injuries the PLA suffered in total, only mentioning the regimental commander's injury. The PLA likely suffered a far higher number of injured, with Indian officials saying they counted around 60 Chinese soldiers being carried on stretchers after the clash.
^ abc"China suffered 43 casualties during face-off with India in Ladakh: Report". India Today. 16 June 2020. Retrieved 17 June 2020.
^Banerjee, Aritra (12 October 2021). "200 PLA Soldiers Were Detained By Indian Army; China Released Galwan Clash Pics In Retaliation –". Eurasian Times.
^ abcdBali, Pawan (20 June 2020). "India also released captured Chinese soldiers in Galwan Valley, claims Gen VK Singh". Deccan Chronicle.
^ abcd"Chinese soldier captured in Ladakh's Chushul sector, to be returned". India today. 9 January 2021.
^ abcShinkman, Paul D. (16 June 2020). "India, China Face Off in First Deadly Clash in Decades". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 16 June 2020.
^ abc"Ladakh face-off | Govt sources cite U.S. intelligence to claim China suffered 35 casualties". The Hindu. PTI. 17 June 2020. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 27 July 2020. as per U.S. intelligence reports, the Chinese Army suffered 35 casualties... The figure could be a combination of total number of soldiers killed and seriously wounded
^ abLee Myers, Steven (19 February 2021). "China Acknowledges 4 Deaths in Last Year's Border Clash With India". NY Times. Retrieved 19 February 2021.: "An American intelligence official said last summer that China had deliberately concealed its soldiers' deaths, suggesting that between 20 and 30 had perished."
^ abc"China, India commence withdrawal of forces from shared border – Chinese Defense Ministry". TASS News Agency.
^ abcdKlan, Anthony (2 February 2022). . The Klaxon. Archived from the original on 3 February 2022. Retrieved 3 February 2022.
^ abcPhilip, Snehesh Alex (24 May 2020). "Chinese troops challenge India at multiple locations in eastern Ladakh, standoff continues". The Print. Retrieved 24 May 2020.
^ abcSingh, Sushant (24 May 2020). "Chinese intrusions at 3 places in Ladakh, Army chief takes stock". The Indian Express. Retrieved 24 May 2020.
^ ab"India soldiers killed in clash with Chinese forces". BBC News. 16 June 2020. Retrieved 16 June 2020.
^ abSom, Vishnu (22 June 2020). Ghosh, Deepshikha (ed.). "At Talks, China Confirms Commanding Officer Was Killed in Ladakh: Sources". NDTV.com. Retrieved 22 June 2020.
^"China denies detaining Indian soldiers after reports say 10 freed". Al Jazeera. 19 June 2020. Retrieved 26 August 2020.
^ abGettleman, Jeffrey (8 September 2020). "Shots Fired Along India-China Border for First Time in Years". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
^ abKaushik, Krishn (9 September 2020). "First time in 45 years, shots fired along LAC as troops foil China's bid to take a key height". The Indian Express. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
^ abSingh, Vijaita (11 September 2020). "LAC standoff | Officials confirm two incidents of firing at south bank of Pangong Tso". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. from the original on 13 September 2020. Retrieved 11 September 2020.
^ abcdefRai, Arpan (25 July 2020). "India, China complete troop disengagement at three friction points, focus now on Finger area". Hindustan Times. ANI. Retrieved 26 July 2020.
^ abcdefBhalla, Abhishek (19 February 2021). "India, China complete disengagement in Pangong Tso, next round of military talks on Saturday". India Today. from the original on 19 February 2021. Retrieved 27 March 2021.
^ abSingh, Sushant (11 August 2021). "Gogra Disengagement Raises More Questions About the Situation in Ladakh". The Wire. from the original on 11 August 2021. Retrieved 24 August 2021.
^ abPanag, Harcharanjit Singh (12 August 2021). "Modi government's politics with China is evolving. Gogra disengagement is proof". The Print. Retrieved 24 August 2021.
^ abSingh, Rahul; Choudhury, Sunetra (31 May 2020). "Amid Ladakh standoff, 12,000 workers to be moved to complete projects near China border". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 4 June 2020.
^ abRay, Kalyan; Bhaumik, Anirban (1 June 2020). "Amid border tension, India sends out a strong message to China". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 4 June 2020.
^ abcKumar, Rajesh (14 June 2020). "CM flags off train with 1,600 workers for border projects". The Times of India. Ranchi. Retrieved 15 June 2020.
^ abSingh, Sushant (26 May 2020). "Indian border infrastructure or Chinese assertiveness? Experts dissect what triggered China border moves". The Indian Express. Retrieved 26 May 2020.
^Jaiswal, Mansi (27 May 2020). "China starts construction activities near Pangong Lake amid border tensions with India". Business Today (India). from the original on 5 June 2020. Retrieved 5 June 2020.
^Desai, Shweta (3 June 2020). "Beyond Ladakh: Here's how China is scaling up its assets along the India-Tibet frontier". Newslaundry. Retrieved 5 June 2020.
^ abKrishnan, Ananth (12 June 2020). "Beijing think-tank links scrapping of Article 370 to LAC tensions". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. from the original on 12 June 2020. Retrieved 15 June 2020.
^ abChaudhury, Dipanjan Roy (29 May 2020). "India-China activate 5 pacts to defuse LAC tensions". The Economic Times. Retrieved 3 June 2020.
^Roche, Elizabeth (8 June 2020). "India, China to continue quiet diplomacy on border dispute". LiveMint.com. Retrieved 9 June 2020.
^Sandhu, P.J.S. (21 July 2020). "It Is Time to Accept How Badly India Misread Chinese Intentions in 1962 – and 2020". The Wire. Retrieved 14 October 2020.
^ abSagar, Pradip R (13 August 2020). "100 days on, India-China border in Ladakh still remains tense". The Week. Retrieved 30 August 2020.
^ abcMitra, Devirupa (6 June 2020). . The Wire (India). Archived from the original on 6 June 2020. Retrieved 6 June 2020. On Saturday, Indian and Chinese military officials of Lieutenant General-rank are likely to meet at a border personnel meeting (BPM)... The various BPM meetings – led first by colonels, then brigadiers and then finally over three rounds by major general-rank officers – have until now yielded no results.
^Philip, Snehesh Alex (12 August 2020). "No progress made in India-China major general-level talks, all eyes now on diplomatic parleys". ThePrint. Retrieved 28 August 2020.
^ abcdefg"China Ups Rhetoric, Warns India of 'Severe Consequences' for Violent Clash". The Wire. 25 June 2020. Retrieved 25 June 2020.
^ abcSarkar, Shankhyaneel (5 September 2020). "At SCO meet, Rajnath Singh tells China to restore status quo at LAC". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 5 September 2020.
^ abcKaushik, Krishn (14 January 2022). "No breakthrough in 14th round of India-China military talks, but two sides agree to 'meet soon'". The Indian Express. Retrieved 4 February 2022.
^ abSuneja, Kirtika; Agarwal, Surabhi (17 June 2020). "Is This Hindi-Chini Bye Bye on Trade Front? Maybe Not: No immediate impact likely on business relations, say govt officials". The Economic Times. Retrieved 4 July 2020 – via Pressreader.com.
^ abPandey, Neelam (16 June 2020). "Traders' body calls for boycott of 3,000 Chinese products over 'continued' border clashes". ThePrint. Retrieved 17 June 2020.
^ abNinan, T. N. (20 June 2020). "To hit China, aim carefully. Don't shoot yourself in the foot". ThePrint. Retrieved 20 June 2020.
^ abArnimesh, Shanker (15 June 2020). "RSS affiliate wants Modi govt to cancel Chinese firm's bid for Delhi-Meerut RRTS project". ThePrint. Retrieved 18 June 2020.
^ abDastidar, Avishek G; Tiwari, Ravish (18 June 2020). "Chinese firms to lose India business in Railways, telecom". The Indian Express. Retrieved 20 June 2020.
^ abKrishnan, Ananth (25 November 2020). "China slams India's ban on 43 more apps". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. from the original on 30 November 2020. Retrieved 26 November 2020.
^ abSingh, Sushant (2 June 2020). "Line of Actual Control: Where it is located, and where India and China differ". The Indian Express. from the original on 1 June 2020. Retrieved 3 June 2020.
^"Arunachal Pradesh: Villagers get Rs 38 crore land compensation 56 years after Indo-China war". 21 October 2018.
^Garver, John W. (2011). Protracted Contest: Sino-Indian Rivalry in the Twentieth Century. University of Washington Press. p. 171. ISBN9780295801209.
^ abLadwig, Walter (21 May 2020). "Not the 'Spirit of Wuhan': Skirmishes Between India and China". Royal United Services Institute. from the original on 28 May 2020. Retrieved 26 May 2020.
^Bhonsale, Mihir (12 February 2018). "Understanding Sino-Indian border issues: An analysis of incidents reported in the Indian media". Observer Research Foundation. from the original on 3 June 2020. Retrieved 26 May 2020.
^Smith, Jeff M. (13 June 2020). "The Simmering Boundary: A "new normal" at the India–China border? | Part 1". ORF. Retrieved 15 June 2020.
January 01, 1970
2020, 2021, china, india, skirmishes, beginning, 2020, chinese, indian, troops, engaged, aggressive, melee, face, offs, skirmishes, locations, along, sino, indian, border, including, near, disputed, pangong, lake, ladakh, tibet, autonomous, region, near, borde. Beginning on 5 May 2020 Chinese and Indian troops engaged in aggressive melee face offs and skirmishes at locations along the Sino Indian border including near the disputed Pangong Lake in Ladakh and the Tibet Autonomous Region and near the border between Sikkim and the Tibet Autonomous Region Additional clashes also took place at locations in eastern Ladakh along the Line of Actual Control LAC 2020 2021 China India skirmishesPart of the Sino Indian border disputeA CIA map of Kashmir with red circles marking the rough locations of the conflicts near the Galwan Valley top Spanggur Tso and Pangong Tso bottom One section of the Pangong Tso Chushul skirmish area along the LAC via NASA WorldWind Date5 May 2020 2020 05 05 20 January 2021 2021 01 20 8 months 2 weeks and 1 day LocationLine of Actual Control LAC Sino Indian borderResult2 000 sq km of Indian territory lost to China since June 2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Belligerents India ChinaCommanders and leadersRam Nath Kovind Narendra Modi Rajnath Singh Bipin Rawat Manoj Mukund Naravane Karambir Singh R K S Bhadauria Yogesh Kumar Joshi Ajit Kumar P 8 Balakrishnan Suresh Vivek Ram Chaudhari 9 Harinder Singh 10 P G K Menon 11 Abhijit Bapat 12 P G Pynumootil 8 13 Subroto Kundu 14 Vijay Rana WIA 15 16 Santosh Babu 17 Xi Jinping Li Keqiang Wei Fenghe Xu Qiliang Zhang Youxia Li Zuocheng Han Weiguo Ding Laihang Zhao Zongqi 18 Zhang Xudong 19 20 Wang Qiang 18 Xu Qiling 18 Liu Lin 18 10 Chen Hongjun Units involved Indian Armed Forces Indian Army Northern Command Western Command Central Command Eastern Command Indian Air Force Indian Navy 8 Western Naval Command Indo Tibetan Border Police Special Frontier Force Indian order of battle People s Liberation Army People s Liberation Army Ground Force People s Liberation Army Air Force Western Theater Command People s Liberation Army Navy Chinese order of battleStrengthLine of Actual Control 250 000 29 June 2021 21 Eastern Ladakh 60 000 3 January 2022 22 Casualties and lossesPer India 10 May 2020 4 injured 23 15 June 2020 20 killed 24 25 76 injured 18 serious 58 minor 26 10 captured released on 18 June 27 26 28 29 20 January 2021 4 injured 30 Per China 15 June 2020 4 killed 1 injured 31 32 Per India 10 May 2020 7 injured 33 15 June 2020 25 40 killed 60 casualties 34 35 36 lt 200 captured later released 37 38 19 October 2020 1 captured later released 39 9 January 2021 1 captured later released 39 20 January 2021 20 injured 30 Other sources 15 June 2020 20 35 killed U S Intel 40 41 42 45 killed Russian sources 43 41 fatalities a The Klaxon 44 In late May Chinese forces objected to Indian road construction in the Galwan river valley 45 46 According to Indian sources melee fighting on 15 16 June 2020 resulted in the deaths of Chinese and Indian soldiers 47 48 36 Media reports stated that soldiers were taken captive on both sides and released in the coming few days while official sources on both sides went on to deny this 25 38 49 On 7 September for the first time in 45 years shots were fired along the LAC with both sides blaming each other for the firing 50 51 Indian media also reported that Indian troops fired warning shots at the PLA on 30 August 52 Partial disengagement from Galwan Hot Springs and Gogra occurred in June July 2020 while complete disengagement from Pangong Lake north and south bank took place in February 2021 53 54 Following disengagement at Gogra in August 2021 Indian analysts pointed out that the LAC has shifted westwards at patrol point 17A PP 17A 55 56 Amid the standoff India reinforced the region with approximately 12 000 additional workers who would assist India s Border Roads Organisation in completing the development of Indian infrastructure along the Sino Indian border 57 58 59 Experts have postulated that the standoffs are Chinese pre emptive measures in responding to the Darbuk Shyok DBO Road infrastructure project in Ladakh 60 China has also extensively developed its infrastructure in these disputed border regions and is continuing to do so 61 62 The revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019 by the Indian government has also troubled China 63 However India and China have both maintained that there are enough bilateral mechanisms to resolve the situation 64 65 This includes multiple rounds of colonel brigadier and major general rank dialogue special representatives meetings b 67 68 meetings of the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on China India Border Affairs WMCC c 70 and meetings and communication between their respective foreign and defense ministers 71 On 12 January 2022 the 14th corps commander level meeting at Chushul Moldo Border Personnel Meeting BPM point took place 72 Following the Galwan Valley skirmish on 15 June some Indian campaigns about boycotting Chinese products were started 73 74 Action on the economic front included cancellation and additional scrutiny of certain contracts with Chinese firms and calls were also made to stop the entry of Chinese companies into strategic markets in India 75 76 77 By November 2020 the Indian government had banned over 200 Chinese apps including apps owned by Alibaba Tencent Baidu Sina and Bytedance 78 Contents 1 Background 2 Causes 3 Order of battle 4 Incidents 4 1 Pangong Tso 4 2 Chushul sector 4 3 Sikkim 4 4 Eastern Ladakh 4 4 1 Galwan Valley clash 4 4 2 Depsang area 4 5 Ongoing construction of infrastructure 4 6 Logistics 4 7 War of attrition 4 8 Cyber attacks 5 Casualties and losses 6 Diplomatic response 6 1 Disengagement and de escalation efforts 6 2 Linkage of border tension and bilateral relations 6 3 India s statements about transgressions incursions intrusions and infiltration 6 4 Official statements on territorial sovereignty 7 Status of standoff and skirmishes 7 1 Pangong Tso 7 2 Gogra Hot Springs 8 India s territorial loss 9 Reactions 9 1 India 9 1 1 Reactionary military procurement 9 1 2 Economic sanctions 9 1 2 1 Return of Chinese companies 9 1 2 2 China India trade 9 1 3 Kashmir Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh 9 1 4 Wartime gallantry awards to members of Indian military 9 1 5 Diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics 9 2 China 9 2 1 June 2020 to 2021 9 2 2 Wartime gallantry awards to Chinese soldiers 10 International 10 1 Protests 10 1 1 Governments 10 1 2 Organisations 10 1 3 Commentary 10 1 4 Quadrilateral Security Dialogue 11 In media 11 1 Information war 11 2 News media 11 3 Social media 12 See also 13 Notes 14 References 14 1 Citations 14 2 Bibliography 15 Further reading 15 1 Books 15 2 Journals 15 3 Reports 15 4 News articles 16 External linksBackgroundMain article Sino Indian border dispute The border between China and India is disputed at multiple locations There is no publicly available map depicting the Indian version of the LAC and the Survey of India maps are the only evidence of the official border for India 79 The Chinese version of the LAC mostly consists of claims in the Ladakh region but China also claims Arunachal Pradesh in northeast India 79 China and India previously fought over the border in 1962 and 1967 with China gaining victory in the former and India gaining victory in the latter 80 81 Since the 1980s there have been over 50 rounds of talks between the two countries related to these border issues 82 Only 1 to 2 percent of border incidents between 2010 and 2014 had received any form of media coverage 82 83 In 2019 India reported over 660 LAC violations and 108 aerial violations by the People s Liberation Army which were significantly higher than the number of incidents in 2018 84 Despite the disputes skirmishes and standoffs no incidence of gunshots being fired had been reported between the two countries along the border for over 50 years due an agreement by both sides that guns were not to be used 85 however this changed on 7 September 2020 when warning shots were fired 50 During Xi Jinping s 86 visit to New Delhi in September 2014 Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi discussed the boundary question and urged his counterpart for a solution 87 Since Modi became Prime Minister in 2014 until the 2020 standoff Modi and Xi met 18 times including those on the sidelines of summits and five visits to China 88 However in 2017 China and India were involved in a major standoff in Doklam that lasted 73 days 89 90 On 3 January 2018 Xi Jinping as Chairman of the Central Military Commission issued the first Training Mobilisation Order This was the first time that military training instructions had been given directly by the Chairman of the Central Military Commission Following this PLA forces have been mobilising training on the basis of the order 91 A retired PLA major general explained that improving combat readiness is now a strategic mission for the Chinese military China can t copy the US measure to improve combat capability through actual combat overseas since our national defence policy is defensive rather than offensive Therefore military training becomes extremely important for China 91 China has since increased its military presence in the Tibetan Plateau 92 China has also been increasing its footprint with India s neighbours Nepal Sri Lanka and Pakistan so from India having a monopoly in the region China is now posing a direct challenge to New Delhi s influence in South Asia 93 Causes nbsp A 1947 map of Republic of China All the clashes of the 2020 21 skirmishes have taken place outside these boundaries in Indian territory d nbsp The disputed territory of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir is administered by Pakistan green India blue and China yellow Multiple reasons have been cited as the trigger for these skirmishes According to Mitch McConnell US Senate Minority Leader and Ashley Tellis senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace one reason is China s territory grabbing technique also referred to as salami slicing which involves encroaching upon small parts of enemy territory over a large period of time 95 96 In mid June 2020 chairperson Urgain Chodon of Koyul Demchok stated that successive Indian governments including the current Narendra Modi government have neglected the border areas for decades and turned a blind eye to Chinese land grabbing in the region According to her India had failed in the protection of its borders and even in 2020 all along the LAC India had lost land 97 98 Other local Ladakhi leaders also acknowledged similar incursions by Chinese forces in the region 99 Also in mid June 2020 BJP member of Parliament from Arunachal Pradesh Tapir Gao acknowledged the presence of regular Chinese patrols inside north east India as well 100 MIT professor Taylor Fravel said that the skirmishes were a response from China to the development of Indian infrastructure in Ladakh particularly along the Darbuk Shyok DBO Road He added that it was a show of strength for China amidst the COVID 19 pandemic which had damaged the Chinese economy and its international reputation 101 According to Yun Sun a China specialist at the Stimson Center China perceived India s road building as a threat to its territorial integrity which it will not sacrifice for the sake of good relations with India 102 Lobsang Sangay President of the Tibetan government in exile stated that China is raising border issues due to internal problems within China and the international pressure being exerted on China over COVID 19 103 104 Jayadeva Ranade former National Security Advisory Board member posited that China s current aggression in the region is to protect its assets and future plans in Ladakh and adjoining regions such as the China Pakistan Economic Corridor 105 Wang Shida of China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations linked the current border tensions to India s decision to abrogate Article 370 and change the status of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019 63 Although Pravin Sawhney agreed with Wang he postulated that a parliamentary speech by Amit Shah the Minister of Home Affairs also could have irked China In the speech Shah had declared that Aksai Chin a disputed region administered by China was part of the Indian administered Ladakh Union Territory 106 Furthermore the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019 prompted multiple senior Bharatiya Janata Party ministers most recently in May 2020 to claim that all that now remained was for India to regain Gilgit Baltistan 107 Indian diplomat Gautam Bambawale also agreed that New Delhi s moves related to Jammu and Kashmir irked Beijing 107 Other analysts linked the skirmishes to India s growing alliance with the United States Liu Zongyi a South Asia specialist at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies told the Financial Times that India has been active in many of US plans that target China Tanvi Madan author of Fateful Triangle a book about the international relations between the US India and China stated that India thought that this was signal from Beijing to limit its relations with the US 108 Phunchok Stobdan a former diplomat of India stated that smaller powers like India and Australia who have aligned with the US are witnessing a more aggressive China 109 India s former ambassador to China Ashok Kantha said that these skirmishes were part of a growing Chinese assertiveness in both the Indo China border and the South China sea 101 Raja Mohan Director of the Institute of South Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore writes that the growing power imbalance between China and India is the main cause of the dispute with everything else such as the location of the dispute or international ties of India being mere detail 110 These skirmishes have also been linked by multiple people with the Chinese strategy of Five Fingers of Tibet 111 112 113 114 Order of battleSee also Chinese order of battle in the 2020 2021 China India skirmishes and Indian order of battle in the 2020 2021 China India skirmishes April 2020 onwards divisions from the Western Theatre Command of PLA s Ground Force the 4th Highland Motorised Infantry and 6th Highland Mechanised Infantry Divisions moved units towards the LAC in eastern Ladakh reinforcing the existing deployment The divisions stayed in eastern Ladakh from May 2020 to February 2021 following which they rotated with the 8th and the 11th Motorised Divisions 115 116 PLA Air Force and PLA Rocket Force deployed in support 116 Post Galwan there has been an overall increase in India s deployment against China in all three sectors the northern central and eastern sectors 117 Prior deployment by India directed towards China included 14 Corps based in Leh 17 Corps and 33 Corps in Sikkim and 3 Corps and 4 Corps in the eastern sector 118 Additions and changes have been made to this such as a proposed reorganising of the 14 Division earmarked for fighting against Pakistan in the plains into a mountain division for deployment in Himachal and Uttarakhand against China 118 India s paramilitary such as the Indo Tibetan Border Police ITBP is deployed closer to the border at most locations with the army holding line some kilometers behind them 119 IncidentsA June 2020 report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said that there have been simultaneous efforts by China to occupy land at multiple locations along the Sino Indian border 120 Standoffs skirmishes and transgressions have taken place at Pangong Tso Kugrang Valley referred to as Hot Springs and Gogra Galwan Valley the Depsang Bulge area Gurung Hill and Reqin La in Ladakh and at one location in Sikkim 120 121 Amid de escalatory talks in Ladakh on 29 June 2020 China opened a new front in the border dispute by claiming for the first time that Sakteng Wildlife Sanctuary is located in the disputed territory of Bhutan s Trashigang District e 122 123 During late July and early August reports emerged of PLA strengthening positions and accumulating troops at more locations other than Ladakh such as Uttarakhand s Lipulekh Pass parts of north Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh 124 Following the Galwan valley clash India deployed a warship to the South China Sea 125 126 The first border clash reported in 2021 was on 20 January referred to as a minor border clash in Sikkim 127 Pangong Tso nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp 3km2miles nbsp BridgeTraditional customaryboundary of Chinadeclared 1960Ane LaBoundary of Chinadeclared 1960ChanglungLungpaSpangmik19Merak18Traditional customaryboundary of Chinadeclared 1960Khurnak Fort13 nbsp SirijapChinese poston Sirijap11Indian post10 nbsp Traditional customaryboundary of Chinadeclared 1960876543 2 1 Northern shore of the Pangong Lake 128 with fingers mountain spurs jutting into the lake 129 f nbsp LAC on the southern shore of the Pangong Lake the line marked by the US Office of Geographer in blue the line marked by OpenStreetMap in green nbsp Fingers 1 to 8 visible on the north bank of Pangong Tso On the south bank is Gurung Hill with features Helmet Black Top Table Top Camel s Top Chushul Chushul Maldo BPM point and airstrip Magar Hill Rechin La Rezang La Rezangla War Memorial Spanggur Gap and Spanggur Tso visible Chinese and Indian claim lines updated to 1992 marked g 130 131 132 On 5 May the first standoff began as a clash between Indian h and Chinese soldiers at a beach of Pangong Tso a lake shared between India and Tibet China with the Line of Actual Control LAC passing through it 134 135 A video showed soldiers from both nations engaging in fistfights and stone pelting along the LAC 136 On 10 11 May another clash took place 137 A number of soldiers on both sides had sustained injuries Indian media reported that around 72 Indian soldiers were injured in the confrontation at Pangong Tso and some had to be flown to hospitals in Leh Chandi Mandir and Delhi 138 According to The Daily Telegraph and other sources China captured 60 square kilometres 23 sq mi of Indian patrolled territory between May and June 2020 139 140 141 By the end of August it was reported that according to the intelligence inputs given to the Indian Central Government China has occupied 65 square kilometres 25 sq mi in this area 142 By 27 June China was reported to have increased military presence on both the northern and southern banks of Pangong Tso strengthened their positions near Finger 4 contrary to what the status quo was in April and had even started construction of a helipad bunkers and pillboxes 143 Satellite imagery from between 12 and 26 June by Planet Labs shows that the Chinese army increased infrastructure between Finger 4 and 5 on a massive scale which includes tents trenches water tanks and stationed equipment and vehicles along with some camouflaged structures The Planet Labs imagery also showed terrain inscribed with the Mandarin Chinese name of China Zhongguo along with the present day map of China on the shore of the lake between Finger 4 and 5 144 145 Both countries have multiple high powered boats for patrolling the Pangong Lake which is 13 900 feet above sea level While the Indian Army already had multiple boat patrolling teams stationed the Indian Navy in July 2020 was called in to match the presence of the Chinese Type 928 B vessels at the lake 146 147 In the first week of September according to Indian media reports citing a government official 100 to 200 shots were fired by both sides as warning shots on the north bank of Pangong Lake 148 149 Chushul sector On 29 30 August the skirmishes expanded to the southern shore of Pangong Tso near the Ladakhi village of Chushul 150 An Indian Army spokesperson said that the PLA had made provocative military movements on the night of 29 30 August along the southern bank of Pangong Tso and that they were pre empted by an Indian response which quickly moved to occupy higher terrain in a defensive move without any violence occurring i 156 157 158 The Indian Army repositioned its troops in the area as a precaution to prevent any future intrusion by the PLA 159 The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian denied any intrusion by PLA into Indian territory Zhang Shuili the Western Theater Command spokesman accused Indian military of provocation and violating China s territorial sovereignty 160 A brigade commander level flag meeting was called to resolve issues 161 By 3 September 2020 Indian media reported that Indian troops had occupied many heights on the south bank of Pangong Tso The heights mentioned include Rezang La Reqin La Black Top Hanan Helmet Gurung Hill Gorkha Hill and Magar Hill 162 Some of these heights are in the grey zone of the LAC and overlook Chinese camps 163 On 4 September 2020 during the high level meeting between China and India in Moscow aggressive posturing was reported from Rechin La in the Chushul sector PLA troops were also seen to be moving an anti aircraft gun to Black Top 71 On 7 September 2020 at around 6 15 pm PLA troops tried approaching Indian positions at Mukhpari as per Indian reports 164 Photos of PLA soldiers carrying spears machete and rifles were released this was the first publicly released photographic evidence of Chinese troops using such weapons 165 Indian soldiers who controlled the heights here used floodlights and megaphones to dissuade approaching PLA troops Indian reports stated that it was then that PLA troops fired 10 15 rounds However a spokesperson of the PLA claimed that Indian troops fired warning shots at the Chinese troops The PLA Western Theatre Command spokesperson also claimed the Indian Army had crossed the LAC to enter the Shenpao mountain region 166 167 168 On 8 September both India and China blamed each other for firing warning shots 169 170 171 172 This is the first time in 45 years since 1975 when Chinese opened fire on an Assam Rifles patrol in Tulung La in Arunachal Pradesh that shots have been fired between India and China 51 Indian media also reported that Indian troops fired warning shots at the PLA on 30 August to prevent them from changing the status quo on the southern bank on Pangong Tso 52 173 Indian troops have put up barbed wire obstacles around positions 174 Indian government sources denied occupying the features Helmet Top and Black Top They stated that any trajectory was possible in going forward 175 Sikkim According to Indian media reports on 10 May there was a minor skirmish between Indian and Chinese troops in Muguthang Naku La Sikkim The incident involved a brawl between scores of soldiers with opposing sides also throwing stones at one another 89 176 A few soldiers from both sides were injured j 33 177 A spokesperson from Indian Army s Eastern Command said that the matter had been resolved after dialogue and interaction at a local level and that temporary and short duration face offs between border guards do occur as boundaries are not resolved Troops usually resolve such issues by using mutually established protocols 89 90 China did not share details about the incident and the Chinese Ministry of Defense did not comment on the incident 178 However the foreign ministry said that the Chinese soldiers had always upheld peace and tranquility along the border 178 Eastern Ladakh nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp 45km30miles nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp Karakash nbsp nbsp Chip ChapRiver nbsp nbsp Raki Nala nbsp Jeong Nala nbsp GalwanRiver nbsp nbsp Chang Chenmo nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp ShyokRiver nbsp nbsp River nbsp nbsp Depsang nbsp Hot Springs nbsp nbsp DBO nbsp nbsp QizilLangar nbsp BurtsaGongma nbsp Murgo nbsp nbsp SultanChhushku nbsp Mandaltang nbsp Mundro nbsp Chhumed nbsp Shyok nbsp Darbuk nbsp Locations along the DS DBO Road and the traditional customary boundary declared by China in 1960 179 On 21 May the Indian Express reported that Chinese troops had entered the Indian territory in the Galwan River valley and objected to the road construction by India within the undisputed Indian territory The road under construction is a branch of the Darbuk Shyok DBO Road DSDBO which leads into the Galwan valley k The report also stated that the Chinese pitched 70 80 tents in the area and then reinforced the area with troops heavy vehicles and monitoring equipment 180 On 24 May another report said that the Chinese soldiers invaded India at three different places Hot Springs Patrol Point 14 and Patrol Point 15 45 46 At each of these places around 800 1 000 Chinese soldiers reportedly crossed the LAC and settled at a place about 2 3 km 1 2 mi from the border pitching tents and deploying heavy vehicles and monitoring equipment The report added that India also deployed troops in the area and stationed them 300 500 metres 984 1 640 ft from the Chinese troops 45 46 The EurAsian Times stated that the Chinese forces have a huge build up including military style bunkers new permanent structures military trucks and road building equipment 181 On 30 May Ajai Shukla reported that thousands of Chinese soldiers were consolidating their positions and that there were 18 guns at Pangong Tso and about 12 guns in the Galwan valley Indian troops had taken up positions to block any further advance by the PLA towards the DSDBO Road 182 On 27 May 2020 the Chinese Ambassador to India as well as a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman stated that the overall situation was stable 183 However news reports continued stating that thousands of Chinese soldiers were moving into the disputed regions in Ladakh This move prompted India to deploy more troops 184 185 Chinese infrastructure development was also reported in Gogra Hot Springs Tracks in satellite imagery suggest that PLA troops make forays into Indian territory here 186 Galwan Valley clash nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp 3km2miles nbsp nbsp Karakash River nbsp GalwanKangri nbsp Traditional customaryboundary of Chinadeclared 1960 nbsp stream nbsp Galwan nbsp Galwan nbsp DS DBORoad nbsp nbsp Indianpost nbsp Shyokbed nbsp Samzungling nbsp Source of Galwan Galwan River at the Line of Actual Control 179 On 15 June at patrolling point 14 Indian l and Chinese troops clashed for six hours in a steep section of a mountainous region in the Galwan Valley The immediate cause of the incident is unknown with both sides releasing contradictory official statements in the aftermath 187 188 Beijing said that Indian troops had attacked Chinese troops first 189 while on 18 June The Hindu quoted a senior government official in the Ministry of External Affairs of India who said their troops were ambushed with dammed rivulets being released and boulders being thrown by Chinese troops 190 The statement said this happened while they were patrolling a disputed area where Colonel Santosh Babu had destroyed a Chinese tent two days earlier 190 While soldiers carry firearms due to decades of tradition designed to reduce the possibility of an escalation agreements disallowed usage of firearms but the Chinese side was reported to possess iron rods clubs and batons wrapped in barbed wire and clubs embedded with nails 191 192 Hand to hand combat broke out and the Indian soldiers called for reinforcements from a post about 3 2 kilometres 2 mi away Eventually up to 600 men were engaged in combat using stones batons iron rods and other makeshift weapons The fighting which took place in near total darkness lasted for up to six hours 193 The Defence Ministry of India said in its 2020 year end review that China used unorthodox weapons 194 nbsp The site of Galwan clash at the river bend Also seen are the LAC claimed by China June 2020 in green and the prevailing LAC marked by the US Office of the Geographer in red nbsp The site of the Galwan clash via NASA WorldWind The fighting resulted in the deaths of 20 Indian soldiers including 16th Bihar Regiment commanding officer Colonel Santosh Babu 195 196 and Junior Commissioned Officer Nuduram Soren VrC 197 m While three Indian soldiers died on the spot others died later due to injuries and hypothermia 199 Most of the soldiers who were killed fell to their deaths after losing their footing or being pushed off a ridge 193 The clash took place near the fast flowing Galwan River and some soldiers from both sides fell into a rivulet and were killed or injured 199 Bodies were later recovered from the Shyok River 196 Several Indian news outlets stated that at least 10 Indian soldiers including 4 officers were taken captive and then released by the Chinese military on 18 June 25 According to Gen VK Singh an unconfirmed number of Chinese soldiers were also captured and later released by India 38 Some Indian soldiers had also been momentarily taken captive 199 According to Indian media sources the melee resulted in 43 Chinese casualties 47 200 Per media reports based on sources the Chinese side accepted a de escalation meeting following the incident a Chinese commanding officer was also killed in the melee 48 The Chinese defence ministry confirmed the existence of Chinese casualties but refused to share the number 201 Reports emerged on Chinese internet that five Chinese soldiers died on 16 June 202 203 but the report was subsequently censored by the Chinese government 204 On 22 June when asked about an Indian minister s assertion about the number of Chinese casualties China declined to comment 205 Two days later on 24 June a Chinese spokesperson responded and called the remark from the Indian minister misinformation 206 US intelligence reported that the PLA suffered 35 casualties n Indian media reported that 10 Indian soldiers were released from Chinese custody on 17 June including four officers 25 208 Responding to the reports the Indian Army and the Chinese Foreign Ministry have both denied that any Indian personnel was taken into custody 209 On 19 February 2021 the Central Military Commission of China stated that four of its soldiers were posthumously awarded for their actions during the June 2020 clash with India at Galwan 210 On 16 June Chinese Colonel Zhang Shuili spokesperson for the PLA s Western Command said that the Indian military violated bilateral consensus causing fierce physical confrontations and casualties 211 and that the sovereignty over the Galwan Valley area had always belonged to China 196 212 213 On 18 June India s Minister of External Affairs made a statement saying that China had unilaterally tried to change the status quo and that the violence was premeditated and planned 214 215 The same day the United States Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs said that the Chinese PLA had invaded the contested area between India and China 216 On 19 June however Prime Minister Modi declared that neither have China intruded into our border nor has any post been taken over by them contradicting multiple previous statements by the Indian government 187 217 Later the Prime Minister s Office clarified that the Indian Prime Minister wanted to indicate the bravery of 16 Bihar Regiment who had foiled the attempt of the Chinese side 218 219 On 22 June U S News amp World Report reported that US intelligence agencies have assessed that the chief of China s Western Theater Command Gen Zhao Zongqi had sanctioned the skirmish 220 In the aftermath of the incident at Galwan the Indian Army decided to equip soldiers along the border with lightweight riot gear as well as spiked clubs 221 222 On 20 June India removed restriction on usage of firearms for Indian soldiers along the LAC 223 Satellite images analysed by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute show that China increased construction in the Galwan valley since the 15 June skirmish 70 The Chinese post that was destroyed by Indian troops on 15 June was reconstructed by 22 June with an expansion in size and with more military movement Other new defensive positions by both Indian and Chinese forces have also been built in the valley 224 Depsang area nbsp The LAC across the Depsang Bulge the prevailing LAC in red and the Chinese claims in green India China tension in the Depsang area started months before the May 2020 standoff 225 Chinese presence 18 km 11 mi inside the Indian perception of the LAC near the Y junction or Bottleneck on Burtsa Nala valley o was reported by Indian media on 25 June 2020 The reports described movement of troops heavy vehicles and military equipment The Chinese claim lines are 5 km further west of bottleneck 226 Indian Patrol Points PP 10 11 11A 12 have been blocked by PLA movement and construction at the Y junction since March April 2020 227 228 Intelligence inputs on 31 August 2020 put the Chinese control of territory within the India s perception of the LAC at about 900 square kilometres 350 sq mi 142 229 Ongoing construction of infrastructure Further information India China border infrastructure and List of hydro infrastructure on the Brahmaputra River China and India have both been constructing infrastructure along the borders aimed at augmenting strategic capabilities This includes infrastructure in the Indo Pacific region 230 Following Chinese announcements of more dam construction on the Brahmaputra River India said that it would need to build a dam along the river to mitigate the negative effects of the Chinese dam construction 231 232 233 This construction has continued throughout 2020 and 2021 234 India See also India China Border Roads Amid the standoff India decided to move approximately 12 000 additional workers to border regions to help complete Indian road projects 57 58 Around 8 000 workers would help Border Roads Organisation s BRO infrastructure project Project Vijayak in Ladakh while some workers would also be allocated to other nearby border areas 235 The workers would reach Ladakh between 15 June and 5 July 59 The first train with over 1 600 workers left Jharkhand on 14 June 2020 for Udhampur and from there the workers went on to assist BRO at the Sino Indian border 59 236 Apart from completing the DS DBO Road the workers would also be assisting the BRO in the construction of other border roads 237 Starting from June the government announced up to 170 increase in minimum wages for those working along the India China border with the highest increase in wages going to employees in Ladakh 238 Experts state that the development of Indian infrastructure along the border was one of the causes for the standoffs 60 Livemint reports that while such asset creation might be adding to India s strategic capital it is not furthering its human capital the same way 239 India has also installed surveillance equipment along the LAC 240 In October 2021 environmental clearance was given for the construction of new border outposts including at locations where tensions with China have increased 241 At the end of 2021 India inaugurated a number of border roads and bridges including the Umling La section of the Chisumle Demchok road 242 China nbsp 11New bridge Throughout the standoff China continued to build infrastructure near the LAC 243 Infrastructure includes roads bridges helipads and other military infrastructure such as camps Optical fibre cables are being laid for its frontline troops at the faceoff sites in Pangong Tso and Gogra Hot Springs area 244 Two new marinas at Pangong Tso have also been built 150 China has installed cameras motion sensors and other surveillance equipment along the LAC 245 Airbases in Xinjiang and Tibet are being further developed this includes airbases at Hotan Kashgar Gargunsa Lhasa Gonggar and Shigatse 244 At Kailash Mansarovar near the Lipulekh pass China is building a surface to air missile site 246 247 China is also developing a 5G network for its troops along the LAC 248 249 Reports of China deploying satellite jammers along the border was also reported 250 In July Stratfor reported that the Chinese military had built 26 new temporary barracks and 22 new bases along the Indian border a mix of permanent and semi permanent positions 251 252 In September Stratfor reported that since the beginning of the standoff the construction of four new heliports has started The report by Sim Tack notes that this buildup by China in the Himalayas is similar to Chinese strategy in the South China Sea a strategy that considerably increases the cost for those trying to oppose China s claims 253 254 In November China reportedly constructed Pangda village 2 km within Bhutan s territory and 9 km from the 2017 Doklam standoff site 255 to which the Bhutanese ambassador to India responded with there is no Chinese village inside Bhutan 256 257 258 New Chinese ammunition bunkers were also reported 7 km from the 2017 site 259 A few weeks later reports emerged of China having constructed three villages near Bum La pass Lying within Chinese territory the villages were reportedly being constructed while Chinese and Indian soldiers face off in eastern Ladakh 260 This was followed by reports in January 2021 of the construction of another village in disputed territory along the border in Upper Subansiri district 261 262 Another new Chinese enclave supposedly in Arunachal s Shi Yomi district was reported in November 2021 263 During the standoff China started building a bridge across the Pangong lake 264 nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp 15km10miles nbsp New Chinese village nbsp Migyitun nbsp Gelensiniak nbsp Longju nbsp Xingqiangpu Zhang nbsp Mosing nbsp Maja nbsp Taksing nbsp Tame Chung Chung nbsp Limeking The new village is located between Longju and Maja p 265 266 Longju is in Indian territory according to Indian claims occupied by the Chinese since 1959 267 268 Borders present missing as per OSM editors Logistics Following unsuccessful diplomatic talks and stalled military disengagement and de escalation process China and India prepared themselves to maintain sustained deployment in Ladakh throughout the winter q 270 271 272 273 Temperatures in parts of Aksai Chin and Ladakh a high altitude cold desert drops as low as 40 C While some areas of the region see heavy snowfall eastern Ladakh sees winds of up to 60 kmph Shyok River in Pangong Tso freezes as does water in pipes 274 A large part of the logistical requirements on the Indian side is in the form of fuel oil and lubricants FOLs Oil is used for firing bukharis and cooking food as well as melting snow for drinking water and for barracks with heating systems Arctic tents and winter clothing have been stocked Nutritional requirements are met through provisions including 22 types of rice pulses and wheat 65 necessary food items perishables such as vegetables and high calorie foods for deployment of 18 000 feet 5 500 m and above A single soldier requires approximately 800 kg of provisions to last through winter Arms and ammunition have been stockpiled 274 275 276 Local resources in Ladakh are limited so everything comes from the plains 277 Extra engineering forces have been tasked with providing additional barracks for the troops 278 by mid November it was reported that the army has completed the construction of habitat facilities in Ladakh 279 According to former Army Deputy Chief of Staff Lieutenant General J P Singh winter deployment along the LAC will financially bleed India by forcing construction of new infrastructure recurring expenses such as additional truck and aircraft movement and purchase of off the shelf winter equipment in turn affecting other expenses such as modernisation plans r 269 271 Amidst the standoff India completed military logistics sharing agreements with partners in the Quad Japan Australia and United States 283 DRDO has developed a number of products for troops in Ladakh such as a new buhkari called Him Tapaak 284 There has been considerable delays of several years in construction of border outposts for the ITBP 285 The People s Daily reported that the PLA has been constructing new infrastructure for the winter such as pre fabricated shelters and conducting drills using drones to deliver hot meals to frontline troops 286 China is also seeking to set up military logistics facilities in Pakistan Sri Lanka and Myanmar 287 War of attrition Reports citing Indian army sources point to the daily attrition due to the heights and cold 288 This attrition is within the expected ratio s and those who recover are redeployed The Chinese side faces similar situations 288 Commentators are pointing out that this is becoming or has already become a war of attrition 289 this includes Yun Sun a China specialist at the Stimson Center 290 and Srikanth Kondapalli a professor of Chinese studies at JNU 291 Other border forces such as the Indo Tibetan Border Police ITBP also face attrition related challenges 292 Cyber attacks Following escalation in 2020 reports of cyber attacks increased 293 294 295 The Maharashtra cyber department suspected that a severe blackout in Mumbai on 13 October 2020 was caused by a malware attack 296 A February 2021 study by cybersecurity firm Recorded Future found that Chinese malware flowed into Indian electricity supply control systems after the skirmishes in 2020 though it did not validate a link between the malware and Mumbai power outage 297 At least 12 government organisations mainly power utilities were reported to have been attacked 298 Casualties and lossesCasualties and losses including captured Date nbsp Indian casualties nbsp Chinese casualties Per India Per China Per India Other sources US Russia Australia 10 May 2020 4 injured 23 7 injured 33 15 June 2020 20 killed official statement 24 25 76 injured 18 serious 58 minor injuries 26 10 captured released on 18 June 27 26 28 29 4 killed and 1 injured official 31 32 25 40 killed 60 casualties 34 35 36 Unconfirmed captured later released 38 20 35 killed per US Intelligence 40 41 42 45 killed per TASS Russian state news agency in an initial report citing Indian sources 43 At least 45 killed per TASS Russian state news agency in a later report 43 At least 41 fatalities t per The Klaxon Australian investigative newspaper 44 19 October 2020 1 captured later released 39 9 January 2021 1 captured later released 39 20 January 2021 4 injured 299 20 injured 299 Diplomatic response nbsp India s prime minister Narendra Modi holding a meeting with political parties via video conferencing to discuss the situation in Sino Indian border areas on 19 June See also Timeline of 2020 China India border standoff and Sino Indian border dispute Dispute management and resolution mechanism After the first melee took place on 5 6 May 2020 at Pangong Tso Foreign Secretary of India Harsh Vardhan Shringla called Sun Weidong the Chinese ambassador to India 300 Then Ajit Doval reportedly talked to a top Chinese diplomat Yang Jiechi 300 On 28 May in a press conference Indian spokesperson for the Ministry of External Affairs Anurag Srivastava maintained that there were enough bilateral mechanisms to solve border disputes diplomatically 301 64 However some critics say that these agreements are deeply flawed 302 The Border Personnel Meeting BPM points had rounds of military talks in May June First between colonels then between brigadiers and on 2 June more than three rounds between major generals 68 303 All these talks were unsuccessful Some Indian military sources said that India was still unclear with China s demands When one wants to stall a process one makes absurd demands they purposefully made some unreasonable demands said the sources 68 On 6 June commanders talks took place at Chushul Moldo BPM The talks involved the Indian commander of Leh headquartered XIV Corps Lt Gen Harinder Singh and the Chinese commander of the Tibet Military District South Xinjiang Military Region Maj Gen Liu Lin 304 On 17 June 2020 Prime Minister Modi addressed the nation regarding the Galwan skirmish giving a firm message directed at China over the deaths of Indian soldiers 305 306 The first communication since the start of the border dispute between the foreign ministers of China Wang Yi and of India S Jaishankar also happened after the Galwan skirmish 305 Jaishankar accused the Chinese actions in Galwan to be pre meditated and planned 305 On 20 June Chinese social media platform WeChat removed the Indian Prime Minister s remarks on the Galwan skirmish 307 which was uploaded by the Indian Embassy in China The official statements of the Ministry of External Affairs were also removed WeChat said that it removed the speech and statements because they divulged in state secrets and endangered national security 308 The MEA spokesperson s statement on the incident was also removed from Weibo Upon seeing that the page said that the content had been deleted by the author the Indian embassy in China issued a clarification that the post wasn t removed by them and re published a screenshot of the statement in Chinese 309 310 On 1 July Prime Minister Modi quit the Chinese social media platform Weibo 311 312 On 3 July during a surprise visit to military posts in Ladakh Prime Minister Modi said in a speech that the age of expansionism is over and history has revealed that expansionist forces have either lost or were forced to turn back the media noted that this was in reference to Beijing 313 Corps Commanders level talksTimeline Year Date No BPM Hrs Summary 2020 6 June 1 M Following India s request de escalation talks begin at BPM point Moldo 304 15 16 June Galwan skirmish 314 22 June 2 M 11 Disengagement outline worked upon 70 Limited localised disengagement follows 70 30 June 3 C 12 No official comments 315 316 Limited localised disengagement continues 70 14 July 4 C 12 Disengagement reviewed further disengagement discussed 317 2 August 5 M 10 Disengagement talks for Pangong Tso continue India insists on a return to status quo 318 29 30 August India takes control of multiple locations on Kailash Range 319 21 September 6 M 14 MoE representative ITBP chief present 320 Post talk joint statement released 321 13 October 7 C 12 Post talk joint statement mentions positive and constructive talks 322 6 November 8 C 10 Chinese side put forward a proposal for de escalation disengagement and de induction 323 2021 24 January 9 M 11 Post talk joint statement mentions positive practical and constructive talks 324 325 21 22 February 10 M 16 Pangong Tso frontline disengagement acknowledged 326 Disengagement process taken forward 327 9 April 11 C 11 Talks continue 328 329 31 July 12 M 9 Talks continue 330 10 October 13 9 Friction during talks 331 332 Independent statements 72 2022 12 January 14 M 13 Joint statement issued Agree on another talk 72 333 26 January India China celebrate India s Republic Day at Chushul Moldo and DBO TWD 334 11 March 15 335 17 July 16 336 Nov Dec 17 planned 337 As of 4 February 2022 update C Chushul Indian side M Moldo Chinese side The second round of commanders meeting was on 22 June In an 11 hour meeting the commanders worked out a disengagement outline On 24 June this disengagement was then diplomatically acknowledged by both sides during the virtual meeting of the WMCC 70 Chinese spokesperson Zhao Lijian said that India agreed to and withdrew its cross border personnel in the Galwan Valley and dismantled the crossing facilities in accordance with China s request 70 338 The third round of commanders talks were held on 30 June 315 316 India reiterated its demand for the pullback of the Chinese troops from all key areas including Pangong Tso Galwan Valley and the Depsang plains and the restoration of status quo ante in April whereas China emphasised that the military buildup in the region should be reduced 339 Following the talks it was reported that Chinese vehicles were seen withdrawing from the Galwan clash point as well as from Hot Springs and Gogra 340 Disengagement and de escalation efforts After earlier unsuccessful attempts at complete disengagement a discussion scheduled for 5 July was held between special representatives National Security Advisor of India Ajit Doval and Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi where it was decided that both Indian and Chinese troops would move back 1 8 km from the patrolling point PP 14 the 15 June clash site in the Galwan valley 341 It was reported that both the troops moved back around 1 5 to 2 km from the PP 14 to create a buffer zone which would be off limits for foot patrolling by them for the next 30 days Chinese troop fully moved out of the clash site along with thinning down of troops at Hot Springs and Gogra 342 343 The Chinese troops did not withdraw from the Pangong Tso where they entered 8 km inside Indian patrolling territory 344 345 On 25 July Indian media reported a completion of disengagement at Galwan Hot Springs and Gogra 346 53 On 30 July shortly after the Chinese Defence Ministry claimed that gradual disengagement and de escalation was taking place India told China that the disengagement process is not as yet complete 347 with Indian Army sources saying that there has been no positive movement on the ground for more than two weeks now and that disengagement at Gogra and Pangong Tso was remaining 348 349 On 30 July the Chinese ambassador Sun Weidong claimed the process of clarifying the LAC could not continue because unilateral delimitations of the LAC cause more disputes 350 The fourth round of corps commander talks took place on 14 July 317 while the fifth round of talks were on 2 August 351 On 24 July diplomatic talks were held between the two countries with regard to disengagement 352 Following the fifth round of talks the China Study Group convened and found China s mutual and equal disengagement proposal at Pangong Tso unacceptable 353 354 On day 100 of the border tensions The Week reported a statement from a defence official based in the Secretariat Building in New Delhi Indian military planners believe that things seem to be out of their control Now only a political intervention can resolve the issue Military side has done enough with repeated marathon discussions 67 On 27 August former Foreign Secretary of India Shyam Saran said India needs to be patient citing the example of Somdorong Chu in 1987 which took seven years to resolve 355 nbsp China and India hold talks on 4 September 2020 Visible are the Defence Ministers from both countries Rajnath Singh and General Wei Fenghe Chinese General Wei Fenghe and his Indian counterpart Rajnath Singh held a talk on 4 September in Moscow on the sidelines of a Shanghai Cooperation Organisation SCO meeting 71 On 10 September the foreign affairs ministers of China and India met in Moscow Five points were agreed upon in a joint statement including new CBMs between the two countries 356 On 21 September the sixth commander level meeting took place at Chushul Moldo BPM 357 The Indian delegation consisted of Lt Gen Harinder Singh Lt Gen P G K Menon two major generals four brigadiers and other officers the chief of the Indo Tibetan Border Police and for the first time a Ministry of External Affairs representative 320 358 Following the 14 hour talks a joint statement was released which included both sides having agreed to stop sending more troops to the frontline 321 359 On 30 September the fifth round of diplomatic talks took place this was the 19th meeting of the WMCC 360 On 13 October the seventh round of military commanders talks in Chushul took place while the talks were called positive on ground issues and tensions remain 322 On 15 October Jaishankar said that the talks between India and China to resolve the standoff are confidential and shouldn t be prejudged 361 During the eighth round of corps commander level talks on 6 November the Chinese side put forward a proposal for de escalation disengagement and de induction 323 362 The ninth round of talks were in January 2021 363 324 the tenth in February 2021 327 326 and the eleventh in April 2021 364 In February 2021 disengagement from Pangong Tso was reported 365 On 1 August 2021 a new military hotline was set up 366 Linkage of border tension and bilateral relations In an interview on 2 August 2020 the Indian External Affairs Minister said to the Times of India the state of the border and the future of our ties cannot be separated 367 On 4 August the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said that the two countries should make sure differences do not escalate into disputes and that China hopes India will work with them in maintaining the overall interests of bilateral relations 368 On 26 August Chinese Ambassador Weidong said that China hoped India would not mix the functioning of Confucius Institutes 369 with the border tensions but a brief moment in history However India maintained that the border tensions and normal relations between the two countries are linked 370 371 European Foundation for South Asian Studies EFSAS states that while China has tried to delink the border issue and other bilateral relations India has now been bitten enough times to realize the futility even counter productivity of dealing with the border issue in isolation 372 India s statements about transgressions incursions intrusions and infiltration On 19 June 2020 during the all party meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi was translated as saying No one has entered Indian territory or captured any military post 187 218 In the Upper House of the Indian Parliament on 16 September 2020 the Minister of State for Home Affairs in response to a question from a BJP MP about infiltrations said in a written reply that since February there had been 47 cases of attempted infiltration along the India Pakistan border and no infiltration has been reported along India China border during the last six months 373 374 On 15 September 2020 in the Parliament of India Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said China made transgression attempts on Line of Actual Control LAC in the western sector This includes the Kongka Pass Gogra and the north bank of Pangong Lake 375 Official statements on territorial sovereignty On 29 September 2020 a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said that China does not recognize the illegal Union Territory of Ladakh 376 In other diplomatic statements on 8 September and then again on 13 October 377 China repeated that they have never recognized the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh 378 379 China has routinely objected to Indian leaders visiting Arunachal Pradesh over the years 380 Before the national day of Taiwan on 10 October 2020 Chinese embassy in New Delhi issued guidelines for the Indian media over coverage of the national day 381 On 15 October India told China not to comment on India s internal matters referring to China s repeated insistence on commenting upon its infrastructure as being the cause for border tensions 382 At a political as well as an individual level statements and actions related to the territorial sovereignty of Tibet Gilgit Baltistan Aksai Chin and Shaksgam Valley have also been made 383 384 385 With regard to a new Chinese village near Longju in disputed territory Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson stated in January 2021 China s normal construction on its own territory is entirely a matter of sovereignty 262 Status of standoff and skirmishesStatus along the LAC in Western Ladakh Location De escalation ladder 386 387 323 Delienation amp Demarcation Disengagement De escalation De induction De militarisation Ladakh Underway 386 Pangong Tso Frontline troops disengagement complete on 21 February 2021 326 Complete disengagement in March 2021 54 NA Galwan Limited localised disengagement in June July 2020 53 54 NA Hot Springs Limited disengagement complete at some locations starting June July 2020 53 54 351 NA Gogra Disengagement extends into August 2021 388 NA Pangong Tso Complete disengagement from Pangong Lake north and south bank took place in February 2021 53 54 Part of the disengagement deal at Pangong Lake was the withdrawal of Indian troops from positions they had taken control of 29 and 30 August in the Chushul sector and Kailash Range overlooking Chinese fixtures at Spanggur Gap and Spanggur Tso 319 157 158 162 Gogra Hot Springs India reported a change in status quo in early May 2020 389 From May into early June disengagement efforts at areas including Gogra and Hot Springs was underway 389 On 9 June 2020 PLA moved back 2 km at Hot Springs 390 However further de escalation did not continue following skirmishes in other areas including the 15 16 June skirmish which caused tensions 391 On 24 June 2020 disengagement in general was again agreed upon 391 Through early July 2020 disengagement was underway 340 342 and on 25 July 2020 India Today and ANI wrote of the completion of disengagement at locations in Hot Springs and Gogra 346 53 In February 2021 India Today as per sources and officials disengagement at other locations of Hot Springs and Gogra was yet to be discussed 392 54 Following the twelfth military commanders talks disengagement at Gogra post PP 17A took place on 4 and 5 August 2021 388 330 Indian analysts have postulated that the buffer zone created at PP 17A has resulted in the LAC shifting westwards 55 56 While the joint statement stated that All temporary structures and other allied infrastructure created in the area by both sides have been dismantled and mutually verified analysts pointed out that Chinese structures are still visible through satellite imagery 393 India s territorial lossAfter the partial disengagement by both sides following the ministry level discussion in July 2020 several Indian defence analysts pointed out the agreement is a failure of status quo ante bellum that existed until April 2020 and that return to status quo was unlikely 394 Furthermore Indian sources have pointed out that the Chinese reluctance of disengagement from the bottleneck Y junction in Depsang plains and finger 4 of Pangong Tso where Chinese forces further advanced inside of Indian claimed territory and constructed military establishments is an impediment to returning to the status quo ante 395 396 397 As part of the disengagement process buffer zones have largely been established inside Indian areas 398 In the buffer zone on the north bank of Pangong Tso for instance Indian troops can no longer patrol an around 10 km stretch from Finger 2 to Finger 8 now though Indian maps show the Line of Actual Control at Finger 8 398 A councilor of the LAHDC in Ladakh said that Indian territory has been turned into a buffer zone after Indian and Chinese troops completed disengagement from Gogra Hot Springs in eastern Ladakh He said Our troops have gone back from not only PP 15 but also PP 16 which we had for the last 50 years or so Our grazing grounds have now become a buffer zone 2 4 He said that India s Krugang Valley could become a disputed area 3 Former Rajya Sabha MP from the BJP Subramaniam Swamy said in a tweet that India had withdrawn from its own territory 3 399 Indian military veterans said that the buffer zones represent a new status quo and that the creation of these zones amounted to ceding further Indian territory to the Chinese 400 Colonel Ajai Shukla said that in all the disengagements since April 2020 the buffer zones that have come into existence are entirely on territory both claimed and previously patrolled by India but now as a result India is denied the right to patrol up to where it previously could On the other hand China s buffer zones are not on territory claimed and previously patrolled by China and therefore China can continue to patrol up to the point where it previously did 401 He gave the example of Gogra where the Chinese intruded 4 km into Indian territory and pulled back 2 km while the other 2 km have become a buffer zone Therefore this buffer zone is entirely on Indian claimed territory 401 Col Shukla and other Indian veterans strongly criticised the Indian Prime Minister s statement of June 2020 when Narendra Modi said that there are no Chinese on Indian territory and never have been This was an endorsement of the position of the Chinese government and allowed Beijing to dismiss the allegations of border transgressions and claim ownership of all the positions it held 400 401 In 2020 India had rejected the proposal of equidistant disengagement as it would mean loss of territory for its own side 402 but ended up agreeing to the same proposal in 2022 Experts had warned in advance that a mutual pullback agreement would result in further loss of territory for India a buffer zone entirely in Indian territory 403 As of 2023 about 2 000 sq km of Indian land has been ceded to China since June 2020 1 Modi has been criticized for maintaining silence over the territorial loss 404 405 In January 2023 a paper presented to the Ministry of Home Affairs with inputs from Ladakh Police stated that India had lost access to 26 out of 65 Patrolling Points in eastern Ladakh since June 2020 406 ReactionsIndia Following the Galwan clash Chinese flags and effigies of paramount leader Xi Jinping were burned in various places across India and various groups registered their protests in different ways 407 408 On 3 October 2020 the Indian Army revealed a memorial to commemorate the Indian soldiers who died in Galwan on 15 June during Operation Snow Leopard The inscription on the memorial reads 409 410 On June 15 2020 at Galwan Valley Col B Santosh Babu Commanding Officer 16 Bihar led the Quick Reaction Force of 16 Bihar and attached troops tasked to evict the PLA OP from Gen AY Nala and move further to Patrolling Point 14 The column successfully evicted the PLA OP from Y Nala and reached PP 14 where a fierce skirmish broke out between the IA and PLA troops Col B Santosh Babu led from the front and his troops fought gallantly in hand to hand combat causing heavy casualties to the PLA In the ensuing fight twenty Gallants of Galwan achieved martyrdom The memorial has been built at KM 120 post on the DSDBO Road 410 The names of those killed in the Galwan Valley clash have been inscribed on the National War Memorial in New Delhi 411 Special Frontier Force company leader Nyima Tenzin was given a public funeral with a 21 gun salute in Ladakh on 7 September 2020 412 Nyima Tenzin had died after stepping on a 1962 war mine 413 Tenzin s body was wrapped in both the Indian and Tibetan flags 414 In October 2021 20 soldiers of the ITBP were awarded medals for gallantry along the LAC 415 Amidst the standoff during September and October DRDO tested 10 missiles in 35 days with Indian media reporting a total of at least 12 missiles or systems being fired This included the Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle and Rudram 1 an air to surface anti radiation missile The Indian media reported that the DRDO missile testing was considered significant by senior DRDO officials as it was undertaken against the backdrop of the standoff with China However it was also noted that COVID 19 had caused delays in previous tests which were being conducted now 416 417 Amidst the standoff India decided to expand the scope for the teaching of Tibetology to its military officers 418 Reactionary military procurement The skirmishes and standoff has caused reactionary purchases by India 419 This includes the Indian Air Force starting the process for emergency procurement of 12 Sukhoi 30 MKI and 21 Mikoyan MiG 29 from Russia 420 421 In July ThePrint reported that post Galwan the Indian Armed Forces were working on over 100 emergency procurement contracts 422 In July it was reported that India was looking for lightweight tanks that could be used in Ladakh 423 While lightweights tanks for Ladakh has been noted since 2009 the 2020 China tensions created a sense of urgency 423 424 Despite Russia s offer for its Sprut light tank India blacklisted the import of light tanks and started working on an indigenous tank code name Zorawar which is being designed in collaboration with DRDO and Larsen amp Toubro The tank is expected to be in production by 2023 425 426 On 28 September 2020 the Defence Acquisition Council Ministry of Defence under fast tracked procurement ordered an additional 72 400 SIG 716 for troops in Ladakh the first batch of SIGs had been ordered in 2019 and have already been delivered to the army 427 428 429 Emergency purchases also included DRDO Smart Anti Airfield Weapons under the Indigenously Designed Developed and Manufactured IDDM category 430 Economic sanctions See also Boycotts of Chinese products Atmanirbhar Bharat and Make in India nbsp Sonam Wangchuk appealed to boycott Chinese products Initially India s economic response to China was mainly restricted to patriotic programs on news channels and social media publicity appeals with very little actual impact on businesses and sales 431 In May in response to the border skirmishes Sonam Wangchuk appealed to Indians to use wallet power and boycott Chinese products 432 This appeal was covered by major media houses and supported by various celebrities 432 433 Following the Galwan Valley clash on 15 June 2020 there were calls across India to boycott Chinese goods 74 434 The Indian Railways cancelled a contract with a Chinese firm while the Department of Telecommunication notified BSNL not to use any Chinese made product in upgradations 77 Mumbai cancelled a monorail contract where the only bidders were Chinese companies and alternatively said it would focus on finding an Indian technological partner instead 435 Numerous Chinese contractors and firms were under enhanced scrutiny following the 2020 border friction Chinese imports began undergoing thorough additional checks at Indian customs 436 In retaliation customs in China and Hong Kong held up Indian exports 437 There were also calls for making sure Chinese companies do not have access to strategic markets in India 75 Swadeshi Jagaran Manch said that if the government was serious about making India self reliant Chinese companies should not be given projects such as the Delhi Meerut RRTS 76 438 However in the first week of 2021 reports emerged that a Chinese firm had been awarded a contract for construction of 5 6 km of the Delhi Meerut RRTS 439 Days later the Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari announced that Chinese firms would be banned from road projects in India 440 441 The Haryana government cancelled a tender related to a power project in which Chinese firms had put in bid 442 The Uttar Pradesh government Special Task Force personnel were given orders to delete 52 apps including TikTok and WeChat for security reasons while officials in Madhya Pradesh Police were given an advisory for the same 443 444 Numerous Indian government officials said that border tensions would have no impact on trade between the two countries 73 Amid the increased visibility of calls for boycotting Chinese goods in the aftermath of the Galwan incidents numerous industry analysts warned that a boycott would be counter productive for India would send out the wrong message to trade partners and would have very limited impact on China since both bilaterally as well as globally India is comparatively a much smaller trade power 445 446 447 448 Experts also stated that while the boycott campaign was a good initiative replacement products should be available in the immediate future too 449 An example taken was the pharmaceutical industry in India which meets 70 of its active pharmaceutical ingredient requirements from China Dumping in this sector is being scrutinized 450 451 By the end of June some analysts agreed that the border tensions between India and China would give the Make in India campaign a boost and increase the pace of achieving self reliance in some sectors 449 The issue of Chinese materials in Indian Army bulletproof vests was again raised in June after the Galwan incidents 452 V K Saraswat a NITI Aayog member and former DRDO chief said that it was due to the quality and the pricing that Chinese material was being used instead of Indian products 453 Bullet proof vests ordered by the government in 2019 had up to 40 Chinese material On 20 June it was reported that development of an Indian bulletproof vest the Sarvatra Kavach that is 100 made in India is near completion 454 The Maharashtra government put 5 000 crore equivalent to 59 billion or US 740 million in 2023 worth of Chinese projects on hold 455 The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade brought out a list of over a 1000 Made in China goods on which the Government of India has sought comments for imposing import restrictions Previously the Department had asked private companies to submit a list of Chinese imports 456 457 Incidents in Ladakh are also being taken as additional reasons to keep India away from the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership in which China has a big role 458 Sales of Chinese smartphones in India were not affected in the immediate aftermath of the skirmishes despite calls for a boycott The latest model of Chinese smartphone company OnePlus sold out within minutes in India on 18 June two days after the Galwan clash 459 460 Xiaomi India s managing director said that the social media backlash would not affect sales adding that Xiaomi handsets are more Indian than Indian handset companies and that even many non Chinese phones people including American handsets are made in and imported from China 461 462 Following this the Confederation of All India Traders CAIT a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh associated traders organisation 463 made a statement claiming that Xiaomi s managing director was trying to please his Chinese masters by downplaying the mood of the nation 464 465 TTK Prestige India s largest kitchen appliances maker said it would stop all imports from China from 30 September onwards 466 On 23 June the government had ordered all e commerce companies to show the country of origin for products 467 468 In July Hero Cycles cancelled 900 crore equivalent to 11 billion or US 130 million in 2023 worth of projects with China as part of their commitment to boycott Chinese products 469 Amidst the border situation in early August the premier cricket league in India Indian Premier League IPL decided to retain Chinese sponsors including the title sponsor VIVO 470 471 After facing a lot of criticism for this on various fronts VIVO pulled out itself supposedly also due to finance issues as well as the border tensions 472 473 474 The sponsorship deal was worth 293 million 475 By 15 October the Indian government had put restrictions on more imports from China including television sets tyres and air conditioners 476 On 29 June the Indian government banned 59 Chinese mobile applications including TikTok WeChat UC Browser SHAREit and Baidu Maps 477 478 PRC responded with blocking Indian newspapers and websites in mainland China 479 Following the initial ban in September the Government of India further banned 118 more Chinese apps including popular gaming app PUBG Mobile citing the sovereignty and integrity of the country 480 In November the fourth ban list was released listing 43 more apps including Alibaba Group s AliExpress Alipay Cashier and Alibaba Workbench 481 Following the fourth ban list 200 plus Chinese apps had been banned by the Indian government including apps owned by Alibaba Tencent Baidu Sina and Bytedance 78 Various initiatives were taken across the country to stop the sale of Chinese goods during the festive season and in turn replace it with Indian products 482 483 Return of Chinese companies By March 2021 Huawei was back into the Indian market with another deal worth 300 crore equivalent to 353 crore or US 44 million in 2023 from Bharti Airtel 484 Supposedly Bharti Airtel decided to go ahead since Huawei was already looking after Airtel s long distance networks 485 By August 2021 Chinese apps including those from companies that had been banned were back in the Indian cyberspace 486 487 China India trade Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki org India China Trade at a Glance USD Billion India imports from China India exports to China Sources Trademap ET On 8 August the Business Today reported that mainland China s exports to India since January 2020 amidst the boycott calls had fallen 24 7 per cent year on year according to the Government of India s customs data 488 It was also reported that the share of Chinese smartphones companies in the Indian market fell to 72 per cent during the June quarter 2020 from 81 per cent in the March quarter 2020 488 489 However an article in The Hindu attributed the decline largely to the COVID 19 pandemic lockdown in India with imports from China rising back to nearly pre lockdown levels in July 490 On 9 September the Financial Express reported that the Border clash fails to dampen India China trade and that there was a surge in exports from India to China 491 Total trade between the countries in 2021 crossed USD 125 billion 492 In February 2022 India banned 54 more Chinese apps over the border clashes 493 In 2022 India s imports from China reached record high while trade deficit increased over 100 billion 494 Kashmir Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh nbsp India s prime minister visits Ladakh on 3 July 2020 where he interacted with Indian military personnel deployed at forward positions 495 On 6 September the Hindustan Times reported that social media posts were being shared of how locals from Chushul and Merak villages are helping to supply water and other essential to the Indian Army including front line areas such as Black Top 496 On 17 June following the Galwan clash former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir Omar Abdullah tweeted Those Kashmiris tempted to look towards China as some sort of saviour need only google the plight of Uighur Muslims Be careful what you wish for 497 He deactivated his Twitter account following the tweet 497 Khalid Shah an Associate fellow at ORF writes that at large the Kashmiri population has left no stone unturned to mock the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the Chinese belligerence 498 Stone pelters in Srinagar used slogans such as cheen aya cheen aya transl China has arrived China has arrived to make fun of the Indian security forces while a joke going around is cheen kot woat transl where has China reached Memes show Xi Jinping dressed in Kashmiri attire with others showing him cooking wazwan Khalid writes that while China has become a part of many conversations online and offline India should be worried that Chinese bullying is compared to the actions of the Government of India 498 Following the tensions with China communication lines were cut in Ladakh in places along the border causing a communication blackout resulting in local councillors requesting the government for the lines to be restored 499 Following the Galwan clash former Arunachal Pradesh chief minister Nabam Tuki told The Economic Times that After the ugly face off in Ladakh on Monday night it is only natural that the residents of the border villages of Arunachal Pradesh will have some worries 500 Prem Das Rai a former member of Parliament says that it is but natural that those along the borders will be concerned 500 Wartime gallantry awards to members of Indian military In January 2021 the Indian government decorated six Indian Army personnel for bravery during the Galwan clash Operation Snow Leopard One posthumous Maha Vir Chakra the second highest wartime gallantry decoration and five Vir Chakras four posthumous decorations were awarded 501 502 Key Indicates posthumous honour Award Rank Name Unit References Maha Vir Chakra Colonel B Santosh Babu 16 Bihar 502 501 Vir Chakra Naib Subedar Nuduram Soren 16 Bihar 502 501 Vir Chakra Havildar Kadukkaloor Palani 81 Field Regiment 502 501 Vir Chakra Havildar Tejinder Singh 3 Medium Regiment 502 501 Vir Chakra Naik Nursing Assistant Deepak Singh Indian Army Medical Corps 502 501 Vir Chakra Sepoy Gurtej Singh 3 Punjab 502 501 Diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics After it was revealed that People s Liberation Army regimental commander Qi Fabao was chosen as a torchbearer for the 2022 Winter Olympics the Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Arindam Bagchi stated in a media briefing that It is indeed regrettable that the Chinese side has chosen to politicise an event like the Olympics Bagchi also stated that the charge d affaires of the Embassy of India in Beijing will not attend the opening or closing ceremony of the Winter Olympics thus resulting in India effectively announcing a diplomatic boycott of the Olympics 503 504 The CEO of Prasar Bharati India s public broadcaster announced that they will not air the 2022 Winter Olympics opening and closing ceremony 505 China June 2020 to 2021 Chinese Communist Party CCP general secretary Xi Jinping was reported to be under no public pressure to respond to the border tensions with India even after the Galwan incident 506 Reuters reported that Beijing s response also points to its interest in de escalating a crisis over a stretch of border that is less politically important than other territorial priorities such as claims to Taiwan and the South China Sea 506 Long Xingchun a senior research fellow at the Beijing Foreign Studies University wrote on 25 May that unlike previous standoffs the latest border friction was not caused by accident but was a planned move of New Delhi India has been clearly and definitely aware that the Galwan Valley region is Chinese territory 507 On 26 May Xi Jinping 86 during an annual meeting of PLA representatives urged the military to prepare for the worst case scenarios and to scale up battle preparedness He had mentioned battle preparedness during his meeting with the PLA in 2019 as well He said that the COVID 19 pandemic had brought a profound change on the global landscape about China s security and development 507 Following the Galwan clash on 20 June the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi posted a written diplomatic protest demanding India to carry out a thorough investigation into the incident and strictly discipline Indian front line troops 508 On 25 June 2020 in an interview to the Press Trust of India Ambassador Sun Weidong said that the incident was completely instigated by the Indian side and the responsibility does not lie with the Chinese side 509 Concerning the number of Chinese casualties in the Galwan clash Hu Xijin the editor of the CCP owned daily tabloid Global Times tweeted Based on what I know Chinese side also suffered casualties in the Galwan Valley physical clash but attached no numbers with it 510 In August China arrested a netizen for spreading rumours related to the Galwan clash and PLA deaths He was arrested for writing that poor quality military vehicles manufactured by Dongfeng Off road Company resulted in the deaths of the PLA soldiers 511 His arrest was noted in Chinamil com a Chinese Ministry of Defence website 512 A News18 report said that a number of voices a growing murmur from the Chinese diaspora showing dissent online has grown The article mentions Deng Yuwen Hu Ping and Wang Qianqian s comments about the border dispute the strength of China s alliance with Russia and infighting 513 In an interview to The Guardian Cai Xia expelled from the CCP on 17 August 2020 said that the recent India China border clash and provoking conflict elsewhere was part of Xi s way to divert the attention of the Chinese public from domestic economic and social tensions as well as to consolidate his own position and authority 514 515 On completion of 100 days of the tensions Ambassador Sun Weidong said that the onus is not on China to resolve the border standoff 516 Liu Zongyi the secretary general of the Research Centre for China South Asia Cooperation at Shanghai Institute of International Studies in an interview on 21 September 2020 said that the Indian Army is nibbling away at Chinese land He gave the example of Hot Springs near Demqog as being Chinese territory and said that it was under Indian control as China did not respond fast enough to India s nibbling u Zongyi also accused India of having secretly built roads during the night and at times developing roads at a speed of one to two kilometres per day Zongyi called it an implementation of a forward policy or offensive defensive policy He linked the border tension to Hindu nationalism and added that India was becoming a leading anti China force even more than the United States 517 518 Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin on 29 September once again said that China does not recognise India s union territory of Ladakh objects to Indian infrastructure construction and that reports of new military bases being built by China were false and motivated 519 520 Following the first ban on Chinese apps Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian as well as the spokesperson of the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi Ji Rong made statements raising concern over the ban 521 Further China warned India on 31 July 2020 that a forced decoupling of the economies of both countries will only result in both economies getting hurt a lose lose situation 522 523 Following the Indian governments fourth ban list in November the Chinese Embassy in India stated These moves in glaring violation of market principles and WTO rules severely harm the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies 524 while Zhao Lijian said that the Indian government has the responsibility to protect the lawful rights and interests of international investors including Chinese companies 525 On 19 February 2021 and onwards Chinese state media portrayed the deaths of four soldiers 526 527 528 On 31 May 2021 a Chinese blogger Qiu Ziming was sentenced to eight months imprisonment for questioning PLA losses in Galwan 529 530 The portrayal of the four deaths as well as appearances on state media by the regimental commander Qi Fabiao continued to the first anniversary of the event 529 On 3 August 2021 China released two short videos on the social media in relation to clashes in 2020 531 In an end year speech Wang Yi State Councilor and Minister of Foreign Affairs took reference to India once China and India have maintained dialogue through diplomatic and military channels and effectively managed and controlled frictions in certain border areas under a shared commitment to improving and developing the bilateral relations 532 533 Wartime gallantry awards to Chinese soldiers On 19 February 2021 Chinese revealed that 4 PLA soldiers who had been killed in the Galwan clash as well as the regimental commander were honoured 534 Awards Citations Titles conferred Posthumous Name References Guardian of the Frontier Hero Order of July the First Yes Chen Hongjun 526 535 Hero of Defending China s Border Forces First class merit citation Yes Chen Xiangrong 536 528 Hero of Defending China s Border Forces First class merit citation Yes Xiao Siyuan 536 Hero of Defending China s Border Forces First class merit citation Yes Wang Zhuoran 536 Heroic Regimental Commander in Border Defense No Qi Fabao 526 InternationalProtests Small scale protests against China s actions along the Indo China border were held in Canada the United States and Japan 537 538 Tibetan American Taiwanese American and Indian American held a rally at Times Square in New York raising placards with slogans such as Boycott China Tibet stands with India and Stop Chinese Aggression 539 540 On 10 August 2020 a small scale protest against Chinese aggression was held by Indian Americans at National Mall facing the United States Capitol in Washington The protesters also praised India s move to ban Chinese apps and highlighted the plight of the Uyghurs 541 Governments nbsp Australia On 1 June Australia s High Commissioner to India Barry O Farrell said that the border issue should be solved bilaterally He also expressed concern about Chinese presence in the South China Sea 542 nbsp France In the aftermath of the Galwan skirmish the envoy of France tweeted condolences and concern for the Indian lives lost at Galwan valley 543 On 29 June the French Defence Minister Florence Parly wrote to the Indian Defence Minister extending condolences for the deaths of 20 soldiers and also extended support over the LAC tensions I wish to express my steadfast and friendly support along with that of the French Armed Forces Parley also reiterated France s deep unity with India 544 545 With this France became the first country to extend the support of its military to India 545 546 nbsp Germany Following the Galwan clash the envoy for Germany tweeted Our heartfelt condolences to the families and loved ones of the soldiers who lost their lives in Galwan 543 Furthermore the German Minister for Foreign Affairs Heiko Maas urged China and India to de escalate tensions to avoid a major conflict 547 On 4 September German Ambassador to India Walter J Lindner made comments regarding the standoff saying that the situation was highly dangerous for everyone and that both the elephant and dragon should ease tensions 548 He added that Germany was feeling the repercussions of the tensions in the indo pacific region 548 nbsp Indonesia The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia called for India and China to both reduce tensions in the aftermath of Galwan 549 nbsp Italy The Ambassador of Italy to India Vincenzo de Luca expressed deepest sympathies following Galwan adding India and China are both very important partners not only for Italy but also for the European Union as a whole Both countries are crucial actors for regional and global stability 543 nbsp Japan In response to the Galwan skirmish Japanese envoy to India Satoshi Suzuki tweeted condolences for the Indian lives lost following Galwan 543 On 18 June the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs called for a peaceful resolution to the situation 550 Japanese Ambassador to India Satoshi Suzuki after a meeting with the Indian Foreign Secretary on 3 July said that Japan opposes any unilateral attempt to change status quo on LAC 551 552 nbsp Maldives In response to the Galwan clash the Foreign Minister of the Maldives Abdulla Shahid tweeted Maldives extends deepest condolences to the people of India for the lives lost in recent clashes on the border Our thoughts and prayers are with the families loved ones and communities of the soldiers 543 nbsp Pakistan Following the Galwan clash the Foreign Minister of Pakistan Shah Mahmood Qureshi said that Pakistan was closely watching the situation and held India responsible for the conflict 553 Pakistan officially backed China s position in Ladakh 554 Amid the India China standoff in early July Indian media reported that Pakistan had moved 20 000 troops to the LoC in Gilgit Baltistan 555 nbsp Russia Roman Babushkin the Russian Deputy Chief of Mission in Delhi stated on 1 June that Russia maintains that the issue should be solved bilaterally between India and China 556 557 On 2 June the Foreign Secretary of India updated and discussed the situation with the Russian Ambassador to India Nikolay R Kudashev 558 Following Galwan on 17 June the Ambassador of India in Russia spoke to the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister about the situation 559 Dmitry Peskov Press Secretary for the President of Russia said that the situation was being closely watched 560 Russia initiated virtual talks with India and China on 22 June 561 300 Russia had scheduled the RIC trilateral for March but delayed it due to the COVID 19 pandemic 561 About the border situation between India and China Foreign Minister of Russia Sergey Lavrov said that the topics for the meeting were already agreed upon and the RIC agenda does not involve discussing issues that are related to bilateral relations of a country with another member 562 During the trilateral meeting India reminded Russia and China of India s selfless involvement in the Russian and Chinese interests during the World War II where India helped both the countries by keeping supply lines opened in the Persian Corridor and over the Himalayan Hump 563 Russia argued that a Sino Indian confrontation would be a bad idea for both the countries for the Eurasian region and the international system Russia said such a confrontation will damage the Chinese legitimacy in the international system and will reduce the existing limited Chinese soft power It had advised both the countries that it would be a winnable situation for both the countries with no confrontation while giving the example of zero confrontation of the Soviet Union and the US during the Cold War 564 Russia also proposed to hold the first meeting of the defence chiefs of the three countries which China and India also agreed during the meeting However Russia reiterated that China and India can sort out their differences through bilateral means without the involvement of a third party including Russia 563 nbsp United Kingdom The British High Commissioner to India was deeply concerned over the Galwan skirmish and said India and China must resolve this through dialogue 565 Prime Minister Boris Johnson also expressed concerns and the UK was closely monitoring the situation in the valley 565 nbsp United States US President Donald Trump on 27 May 2020 offered to mediate between China and India This offer was rejected by both countries The US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also raised the issue in a podcast and referring to China said that these were the kind of actions that authoritarian regimes took and that they can have a real impact 566 567 Eliot Engel chief of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee also expressed concern with the situation He said that China was demonstrating once again that it was willing to bully its neighbors 568 On 2 June Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Donald Trump discussed the Sino Indian border situation 569 In the aftermath of Galwan the US Secretary of State tweeted condolences to the people of India for the lives lost 570 while the US Department of State said that the situation was being closely watched 543 On 18 June Mitch McConnell stated that for the sake of grabbing territory the PLA appears to have instigated the most violent clash between China and India since those nations went to war in 1962 96 On 20 June US President Donald Trump said that the US is in touch with both China and India to assist them in resolving the tensions 571 On 25 June Mike Pompeo stated that American troops were being moved out of Germany and are being redeployed in India and other American allied South East Asian countries because of the recent actions by the Chinese Communist Party and to be appropriately positioned to act as a counter to the PLA 572 On 1 July following India s ban on 59 Chinese mobile apps Mike Pompeo welcomed the decision and said that the move would boost India s sovereignty integrity and national security 573 On 24 September 2020 US President Donald Trump once again offered to mediate between China and India 574 nbsp During the 2 2 Dialogue in late October both India and United States made references to the border tensions with China 575 576 nbsp The US Secretary of Defense and Indian Minister of Defense in New Delhi March 2021 US Secretary of Defense stated we had never considered that India and China were on the threshold of war 577 578 In December the annual report of the US China Economic and Security Review Commission pointed to China having planned the Galwan incident 579 Some evidence suggested the Chinese government had planned the incident potentially including the possibility for fatalities 580 581 On 23 March 2021 Admiral John C Aquilino told the Senate Armed Services Committee that India China trust was at an all time low 582 Government in exile nbsp Tibet President Lobsang Sangay made statements related to the border clashes saying that what happened to Tibet could happen to India and that the Indian government should make Tibet one of the key issues in its policies on China 583 584 585 Organisations nbsp European Union Following the Galwan skirmish on 15 June the spokesperson for the European Union Virginie Battu Henriksson called for de escalation and a peaceful resolution 586 nbsp United Nations Following the Galwan skirmish the United Nations called for de escalation and a peaceful resolution 586 372 Commentary An editorial was published in the Taipei Times titled Taiwan must stand with India on 19 June 2020 The article analysed the India China border clashes and ended by saying Taiwan should deepen ties with India in particular economic military and intelligence ties to contain Chinese expansionism and put Xi back into his box 587 The European Foundation for South Asian Studies EFSAS wrote on 7 August 2020 that India s reaction to Chinese aggression has surprised China 588 In a previous commentary in early July EFSAS stated that China should realise that if it forces India into a corner India will join the ever growing comity of nations that seek to compel China to adhere to the norms of the international order and abide by the rule of law irrespective of India wanting or not wanting to walk down that path 589 In early September EFSAS stated that India s tactical responses in Ladakh left China stuck in quicksand of its own making 590 On 19 September 2020 an article in the Nikkei Asian Review and the Hindustan Times noted that in 2020 while the world was busy watching the US and China conduct military exercises in the South China Sea from July through September a distraction Beijing was engaged in a real life standoff with India in the Himalayas 591 592 A survey of over 1 000 Americans reported on 1 September 2020 found that over 63 per cent of Americans support neither China nor India if they were to engage in a military conflict In the case of an economic conflict 60 6 per cent of respondents supported no interference 593 Quadrilateral Security Dialogue On 9 September 2020 Japan and India signed the Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement Australia and India signed a similar Mutual Logistics Support Agreement MLSA on 4 June 2020 With this India has military logistics sharing pacts with all partners of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue Quad 283 In mediaInformation war In June media reports started emerging of India losing the information and perception war to China 594 595 596 China s information warfare focused on trying to portray India as the aggressor and at the same time used the state media to repeatedly emphasize China s economic and military power 597 598 An article in the New Indian Express on 17 July 2020 stated that Indian soldiers felt that India with its muted approach allowed China to dominate the narrative 596 Pakistan has helped China in the information war against India 599 Tara Kartha a former director in the National Security Council Secretariat of India in August 2020 wrote on China s psy ops and propaganda during the skirmishes She noted China s use of strong media messaging such as videos of the swift mobilization of troops by air and train from Hubei province to the Indian borders She points out that the troops were from the Wuhan area a sub provincial city of Hubei the original epicentre of the coronavirus and that the swift mobilization would also mean the troops weren t acclimatized for the high altitude battleground of eastern Ladakh Another video was of the deployment of Z 10 attack helicopters Kartha notes that the original Z 10 has underpowered engines which make it unsuitable for high altitudes and that even Pakistan preferred American and Turkish aircraft rather than the Chinese variants 600 Kartha mentions other attempts of propaganda by China including reports of deploying karate fighters capabilities of is naval prowess power messaging by Xi such as his directive to PLA to get ready for war the usage of wolf warriors such as Hou Yanqi the Chinese Ambassador to Nepal while statements directed at keeping friendly relations especially with the business community of the world are made by other senior officials such as China s Foreign Minister 600 The Hindustan Times noted that most of the psy ops tactics utilised by the PLA during the Doklam stand off are being seen here again 601 India Today noted that the PLA have also conducted firing drills at locations from where the Indian troops can hear the sounds 602 News media Chinese state media have given little to no attention to the dispute and have downplayed the clashes In the first month of the standoff there was only a single editorial piece in the China Daily and the People s Daily 603 The People s Daily and the PLA Daily did not cover the Galwan clash while the CCP owned tabloid Global Times Chinese carried it on page 16 604 The state broadcaster China Central Television CCTV carried the official military statement on social media with no further coverage 604 The Global Times ran a number of opinion pieces and one editorial which questioned why China did not disclose its death toll publicly 604 603 605 China analyst Yun Sun explained that while there may be very little information in the English media of China about the border dispute there is much more analysis in the Chinese language media 606 Chinese state media however welcomed Prime Minister Modi s 19 June statement 187 The Global Times quoted Lin Minwang a professor at Fudan University s Center for South Asian Studies in Shanghai as saying that Modi s remarks will be very helpful to ease the tensions because as the Prime Minister of India he has removed the moral basis for hardliners to further accuse China 607 In late June China blocked access to all Indian media and newspaper websites 608 609 In India before the 15 June clash some Indian media persons and defence analysts downplayed the extent of the Chinese incursions 610 However following the 15 June clash at Galwan nearly all mainstream newspapers carried front page stories as well as multi page stories of the Galwan incident 611 Following the clash Times Now published a list that it said contained the names of the Chinese soldiers who were killed in the clash but cautioned that the information could be a fake forward multiple sources subsequently said that it was fake news 612 613 614 Another list reported by Indian media that was said to also show Chinese soldiers who were killed in action was described by Chinese spokesperson Zhao Lijian as fake news 615 Ahead of the commanders meeting on 6 June disinformation campaigns were reportedly run by Chinese state controlled media as well as corporations The Chinese broadcasters showed military manoeuvres along the border reportedly designed to frighten India 616 Following the Galwan clash international coverage in The New York Times 617 and The Guardian commented on the nationalistic character of the leaders of both countries and the dangers posed by expansionist nationalism 618 The BBC described the situation in Galwan as an extraordinary escalation with rocks and clubs 619 620 Social media There was a large extent of fake news in relation to border events from both Indian and Chinese handles 621 In the social media space Chinese users used Pakistani memes against India 621 It was reported that Indian users had difficulty in understanding Chinese language memes meant to attack India 621 A Taiwanese image of Rama slaying a dragon was viral in the Indian social media sphere 621 TikTok was reported to have given shadow bans to videos related to the border tension Statements from India were removed from Chinese social media companies such as Weibo and WeChat 622 623 624 See also nbsp China portal nbsp India portal Chinese salami slicing strategy Doklam 1967 Nathu La and Cho La clashes 1962 Sino Indian War 1987 Sino Indian skirmish 2017 China India border standoff Timeline of 2020 China India border standoffNotes 38 drowned including Junior Sergeant Wang Zhuoran 3 PLA Battalion Commander Major Chen Hongjun Private Chen Xiangrong and Junior Sergeant Xiao Siyuan killed by Indian forces Unknown number of soldiers claimed to be numerous who were pushed or fell to their deaths over steep cliff edges 44 In 2003 during Prime Minister Vajpayee s visit to China the Special Representatives mechanism for boundary dispute resolution was set up Since then the Special Representatives have had 22 rounds of talks till December 2019 66 According to ThePrint The WMCC is a joint secretary level platform established in 2012 for border management between the countries and to share views on strengthening communication and cooperation including between border security personnel 69 Even though the map is of very low resolution it is apparent that the Chip Chap River a headwater of the Shyok River is shown entirely within Ladakh as are the Depsang Bulge Galwan Valley Chang Chenmo Valley the western half of the Pangong Lake and the Spanggur Lake The Republic of China never claimed any of these territories The present day People s Republic of China expanded the territorial claims in 1960 and fought the 1962 war to enforce them 94 Sakteng does not have any contiguous border with China and is only accessible through Bhutanese or Indian territory previously claimed by China The LAC displayed is that marked by the OpenStreetMap editors said to reflect the Chinese maps From map Boundary representation is not necessarily authoritative Alignment of all boundaries is approximate The Indian soldiers involved in the clash were from 17 Kumaon Regiment 133 Reports suggest that India s Special Frontier Force were part of the events the SFF consisted of Tibetan resistance fighters and now Tibetans refugees and Gorkhas 151 152 The circumstances surrounding the death of the SFF Company leader Nyima Tenzin are unknown 153 Some reports suggest he was killed by a landmine with one other jawan also being injured 154 155 Indian media The Quint reported that one junior officer of Indian Army punched a Chinese PLA major and flattened him according to senior military officers in 33rd corps at Sikna covering Sikkim 137 The Darbuk Shyok DBO Road DSDBO is the first border road constructed by India in the Shyok River valley Starting in 2000 it was completed recently in April 2019 China already has numerous roads crisscrossing Aksai Chin In addition to the national highway G210 there is S519 that connects Kongka La to G210 S520 that connects Kongka La to Rutog via Pangong Tso Tianwendian Highway that connects the Tianwendian post G210 a Tiankong Highway between Tianwendian and Kongka La and a new Galwan Highway that connects Tiankong to the Galwan Valley right up to the Line of Actual Control The June 15 clash involved personnel from 16 Bihar 3 Punjab 3 Medium Regiment and 81 Field Regiment 133 Soren was posthumously awarded India s third highest war time military decoration Vir Chakra 198 Sources disagree Most sources list 35 casualties while one source claimed 35 death 41 40 207 The Burtsa Nala originates in Aksai Chin plains and flows west into Ladakh where it is joined by the Depasng Nala near Burtsa Its valley was also the site of the 2013 Depsang standoff The border is the Line of Actual Control between China and India as marked by the contributors to the OpenStreetMap since 1984 till late 2019 some 869 soldiers had died on the Siachen Glacier spread across 76 km at heights above 17 700 feet due to climatic conditions analogous to portions of the LAC stretch 269 An hour long flight to the LAC costs 24 lakh equivalent to 28 lakh or US 35 000 in 2023 while 45 minutes of helicopter movement in the border areas costs around 4 lakh equivalent to 4 7 lakh or US 5 900 in 2023 280 281 Major General A P Singh former head of logistics of XIV Corps says that for one year the minimum cost of maintaining one soldier along the LAC is 10 lakh equivalent to 12 lakh or US 15 000 in 2023 282 Till the 2010s the attrition rate was around 20 In the 1962 war there were nearly equal number of casualties suffered by the Indians were weather casualties 288 38 drowned including Junior Sergeant Wang Zhuoran 3 PLA Battalion Commander Major Chen Hongjun Private Chen Xiangrong and Junior Sergeant Xiao Siyuan killed by Indian forces Unknown number of soldiers claimed to be numerous who were pushed or fell to their deaths over steep cliff edges 44 Hot Springs is on the Indian side of the Charding Nullah the Line of Actual Control between Ladakh and Tibet in this region ReferencesCitations a b Siddiqui Imran Ahmed 16 June 2023 Subjugation and surrender Military veterans slam Modi government s continuing silence on Galwan Telegraph India a b Video Territory Gone Grazing Ground Now Buffer Zone Ladakh Leader On Troops Pull Back Retrieved 9 October 2022 a b c Bhaumik Anirban Ray Kalyan 14 September 2022 LAC pullback ends amid buzz that India lost ground Deccan Herald Retrieved 9 October 2022 a b Singh Vijaita 20 September 2022 Grazing lands turning into buffer zones says chief of village bordering LAC The Hindu Retrieved 22 November 2022 China Gained Ground on India During Bloody Summer in Himalayas Bloomberg com 1 November 2020 Retrieved 22 November 2022 Bommakanti Kartik China is yet to restore status quo ante on the India China border ORF Retrieved 22 November 2022 Return to status quo ante needed for situation to become normal in Eastern Ladakh IAF chief www telegraphindia com Retrieved 22 November 2022 a b c Indian Navy to move MiG 29K fighter jets to north amid border row with China Hindustan Times 21 July 2020 Retrieved 21 July 2020 Air Marshal Vivek Ram Chaudhari to take charge of Western Air Command amid tension at LAC Hindustan Times 24 July 2020 Retrieved 1 August 2020 a b Galwan Valley face off Indian Chinese military officials meet to defuse tension Hindustan Times 18 June 2020 Retrieved 18 June 2020 Negi Manjeet Singh 13 October 2020 Lt General PGK Menon takes over as commander of Fire amp Fury Corps India Today Retrieved 24 October 2020 Bhaumik Anirban 18 June 2020 Galwan Valley Indian Chinese diplomats to hold video conference soon Deccan Herald Retrieved 18 June 2020 Rear Admiral Philipose George Pynumootil NM Assumes Charge as Flag Officer Naval Aviation FONA 26 February 2019 Retrieved 21 July 2020 IGP Ladakh reviews security arrangements Daily Excelsior 9 April 2020 Retrieved 19 June 2020 Kakar Maj Gen Harsha 16 January 2022 India China standoff How possibility of escalation has reduced but that of continued stalemate increased Firstpost Retrieved 7 February 2022 Swami Praveen 23 June 2020 PLA Attacked Indian Troops in Galwan Valley Violating Border Agreements and Protocols News18 India Retrieved 7 February 2022 India Chinese troops face off at eastern Ladakh casualties on both sides Asia News 16 June 2020 Archived from the original on 16 June 2020 Retrieved 17 June 2020 a b c d The Chinese generals involved in Ladakh standoff Rediff com 13 June 2020 Retrieved 19 June 2020 Xi presents orders to promote military armed police officers Xinhuanet 18 December 2021 Retrieved 14 June 2021 PLA modernises Xinjiang s military units in reaction to India China LAC row Hindustan Times 17 May 2021 Retrieved 14 June 2021 In historic move India deploys 50 000 more troops along China border The New Indian Express 28 June 2021 Retrieved 7 February 2022 India China border standoff China constructs bridge on Pangong lake in Ladakh Livemint 4 January 2022 Retrieved 7 February 2022 deployed around 60 000 troops a b India China skirmishes in Ladakh Sikkim many hurt The Tribune India 10 May 2020 a b Michael Safi and Hannah Ellis Petersen 16 June 2020 India says 20 soldiers killed on disputed Himalayan border with China The Guardian Retrieved 16 June 2020 a b c d e Haidar Suhasini Peri Dinakar 18 June 2020 Ladakh face off Days after clash China frees 10 Indian soldiers The Hindu ISSN 0971 751X Archived from the original on 19 June 2020 Retrieved 19 June 2020 a b c d 76 Soldiers Brutally Injured in Ladakh Face off Stable And Recovering Say Army Officials Outlook 19 June 2020 Retrieved 19 June 2020 a b China denies detaining Indian soldiers after reports say 10 freed Al Jazeera 19 June 2020 Retrieved 21 June 2020 a b Roy Rajesh 19 June 2020 China Returns Indian Troops Captured in Deadly Clash The Wall Street Journal Retrieved 19 June 2020 a b Meyers Steven Lee Abi Habib Maria Gettlemen Jeffrey 17 June 2020 In China India Clash Two Nationalist Leaders With Little Room to Give The New York Times Retrieved 19 June 2020 a b Shrivastava Rahul 25 January 2021 Indian soldiers thrash push back Chinese soldiers at Naku La in Sikkim Army issues statement India Today Retrieved 7 February 2022 a b Lee Myers Steven 19 February 2021 China Acknowledges 4 Deaths in Last Year s Border Clash With India NY Times Retrieved 19 February 2021 The article in PLA Daily did not present the four deaths as an exhaustive count a b China reveals four soldiers killed in June 2020 border clash with India Reuters 19 February 2021 Asked if this means no other Chinese soldiers died during the whole standoff that stretched for eight months after the June clash Hua Chunying said Yes I understand that s the case a b c Sud Vedika Westcott Ben 11 May 2020 Chinese and Indian soldiers engage in aggressive cross border skirmish CNN Retrieved 12 May 2020 a b Philip Snehish Alex 1 March 2021 4 9 or 14 Even China isn t sure how many PLA soldiers died in Galwan Valley ThePrint Retrieved 1 March 2021 a b Krishnan Ananth 19 February 2021 China says four of its soldiers died in Galwan clash The Hindu The report however did not say how many injuries the PLA suffered in total only mentioning the regimental commander s injury The PLA likely suffered a far higher number of injured with Indian officials saying they counted around 60 Chinese soldiers being carried on stretchers after the clash a b c China suffered 43 casualties during face off with India in Ladakh Report India Today 16 June 2020 Retrieved 17 June 2020 Banerjee Aritra 12 October 2021 200 PLA Soldiers Were Detained By Indian Army China Released Galwan Clash Pics In Retaliation Eurasian Times a b c d Bali Pawan 20 June 2020 India also released captured Chinese soldiers in Galwan Valley claims Gen VK Singh Deccan Chronicle a b c d Chinese soldier captured in Ladakh s Chushul sector to be returned India today 9 January 2021 a b c Shinkman Paul D 16 June 2020 India China Face Off in First Deadly Clash in Decades U S News amp World Report Retrieved 16 June 2020 a b c Ladakh face off Govt sources cite U S intelligence to claim China suffered 35 casualties The Hindu PTI 17 June 2020 ISSN 0971 751X Retrieved 27 July 2020 as per U S intelligence reports the Chinese Army suffered 35 casualties The figure could be a combination of total number of soldiers killed and seriously wounded a b Lee Myers Steven 19 February 2021 China Acknowledges 4 Deaths in Last Year s Border Clash With India NY Times Retrieved 19 February 2021 An American intelligence official said last summer that China had deliberately concealed its soldiers deaths suggesting that between 20 and 30 had perished a b c China India commence withdrawal of forces from shared border Chinese Defense Ministry TASS News Agency a b c d Klan Anthony 2 February 2022 Major drowning of Chinese soldiers in India skirmish new claims The Klaxon Archived from the original on 3 February 2022 Retrieved 3 February 2022 a b c Philip Snehesh Alex 24 May 2020 Chinese troops challenge India at multiple locations in eastern Ladakh standoff continues The Print Retrieved 24 May 2020 a b c Singh Sushant 24 May 2020 Chinese intrusions at 3 places in Ladakh Army chief takes stock The Indian Express Retrieved 24 May 2020 a b India soldiers killed in clash with Chinese forces BBC News 16 June 2020 Retrieved 16 June 2020 a b Som Vishnu 22 June 2020 Ghosh Deepshikha ed At Talks China Confirms Commanding Officer Was Killed in Ladakh Sources NDTV com Retrieved 22 June 2020 China denies detaining Indian soldiers after reports say 10 freed Al Jazeera 19 June 2020 Retrieved 26 August 2020 a b Gettleman Jeffrey 8 September 2020 Shots Fired Along India China Border for First Time in Years The New York Times ISSN 0362 4331 Retrieved 9 September 2020 a b Kaushik Krishn 9 September 2020 First time in 45 years shots fired along LAC as troops foil China s bid to take a key height The Indian Express Retrieved 9 September 2020 a b Singh Vijaita 11 September 2020 LAC standoff Officials confirm two incidents of firing at south bank of Pangong Tso The Hindu ISSN 0971 751X Archived from the original on 13 September 2020 Retrieved 11 September 2020 a b c d e f Rai Arpan 25 July 2020 India China complete troop disengagement at three friction points focus now on Finger area Hindustan Times ANI Retrieved 26 July 2020 a b c d e f Bhalla Abhishek 19 February 2021 India China complete disengagement in Pangong Tso next round of military talks on Saturday India Today Archived from the original on 19 February 2021 Retrieved 27 March 2021 a b Singh Sushant 11 August 2021 Gogra Disengagement Raises More Questions About the Situation in Ladakh The Wire Archived from the original on 11 August 2021 Retrieved 24 August 2021 a b Panag Harcharanjit Singh 12 August 2021 Modi government s politics with China is evolving Gogra disengagement is proof The Print Retrieved 24 August 2021 a b Singh Rahul Choudhury Sunetra 31 May 2020 Amid Ladakh standoff 12 000 workers to be moved to complete projects near China border Hindustan Times Retrieved 4 June 2020 a b Ray Kalyan Bhaumik Anirban 1 June 2020 Amid border tension India sends out a strong message to China Deccan Herald Retrieved 4 June 2020 a b c Kumar Rajesh 14 June 2020 CM flags off train with 1 600 workers for border projects The Times of India Ranchi Retrieved 15 June 2020 a b Singh Sushant 26 May 2020 Indian border infrastructure or Chinese assertiveness Experts dissect what triggered China border moves The Indian Express Retrieved 26 May 2020 Jaiswal Mansi 27 May 2020 China starts construction activities near Pangong Lake amid border tensions with India Business Today India Archived from the original on 5 June 2020 Retrieved 5 June 2020 Desai Shweta 3 June 2020 Beyond Ladakh Here s how China is scaling up its assets along the India Tibet frontier Newslaundry Retrieved 5 June 2020 a b Krishnan Ananth 12 June 2020 Beijing think tank links scrapping of Article 370 to LAC tensions The Hindu ISSN 0971 751X Archived from the original on 12 June 2020 Retrieved 15 June 2020 a b Chaudhury Dipanjan Roy 29 May 2020 India China activate 5 pacts to defuse LAC tensions The Economic Times Retrieved 3 June 2020 Roche Elizabeth 8 June 2020 India China to continue quiet diplomacy on border dispute LiveMint com Retrieved 9 June 2020 Sandhu P J S 21 July 2020 It Is Time to Accept How Badly India Misread Chinese Intentions in 1962 and 2020 The Wire Retrieved 14 October 2020 a b Sagar Pradip R 13 August 2020 100 days on India China border in Ladakh still remains tense The Week Retrieved 30 August 2020 a b c Mitra Devirupa 6 June 2020 Ahead of Border Talks With China India Still Unclear of Reason Behind Troops Stand Off The Wire India Archived from the original on 6 June 2020 Retrieved 6 June 2020 On Saturday Indian and Chinese military officials of Lieutenant General rank are likely to meet at a border personnel meeting BPM The various BPM meetings led first by colonels then brigadiers and then finally over three rounds by major general rank officers have until now yielded no results Philip Snehesh Alex 12 August 2020 No progress made in India China major general level talks all eyes now on diplomatic parleys ThePrint Retrieved 28 August 2020 a b c d e f g China Ups Rhetoric Warns India of Severe Consequences for Violent Clash The Wire 25 June 2020 Retrieved 25 June 2020 a b c Sarkar Shankhyaneel 5 September 2020 At SCO meet Rajnath Singh tells China to restore status quo at LAC Hindustan Times Retrieved 5 September 2020 a b c Kaushik Krishn 14 January 2022 No breakthrough in 14th round of India China military talks but two sides agree to meet soon The Indian Express Retrieved 4 February 2022 a b Suneja Kirtika Agarwal Surabhi 17 June 2020 Is This Hindi Chini Bye Bye on Trade Front Maybe Not No immediate impact likely on business relations say govt officials The Economic Times Retrieved 4 July 2020 via Pressreader com a b Pandey Neelam 16 June 2020 Traders body calls for boycott of 3 000 Chinese products over continued border clashes ThePrint Retrieved 17 June 2020 a b Ninan T N 20 June 2020 To hit China aim carefully Don t shoot yourself in the foot ThePrint Retrieved 20 June 2020 a b Arnimesh Shanker 15 June 2020 RSS affiliate wants Modi govt to cancel Chinese firm s bid for Delhi Meerut RRTS project ThePrint Retrieved 18 June 2020 a b Dastidar Avishek G Tiwari Ravish 18 June 2020 Chinese firms to lose India business in Railways telecom The Indian Express Retrieved 20 June 2020 a b Krishnan Ananth 25 November 2020 China slams India s ban on 43 more apps The Hindu ISSN 0971 751X Archived from the original on 30 November 2020 Retrieved 26 November 2020 a b Singh Sushant 2 June 2020 Line of Actual Control Where it is located and where India and China differ The Indian Express Archived from the original on 1 June 2020 Retrieved 3 June 2020 Arunachal Pradesh Villagers get Rs 38 crore land compensation 56 years after Indo China war 21 October 2018 Garver John W 2011 Protracted Contest Sino Indian Rivalry in the Twentieth Century University of Washington Press p 171 ISBN 9780295801209 a b Ladwig Walter 21 May 2020 Not the Spirit of Wuhan Skirmishes Between India and China Royal United Services Institute Archived from the original on 28 May 2020 Retrieved 26 May 2020 Bhonsale Mihir 12 February 2018 Understanding Sino Indian border issues An analysis of incidents reported in the Indian media Observer Research Foundation Archived from the original on 3 June 2020 Retrieved 26 May 2020 Smith Jeff M 13 June 2020 The Simmering Boundary A new normal at the India China border Part 1 ORF Retrieved 15 June 2020 span c, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
