China Strategy: Lay false claim to much then concede most

The following background report, dated June 23, is behind events because the Chinese are no longer laying claim to parts of the Galwan Valley in India's Ladkah; they're claiming the entire valley as theirs. ET has caught up; a June 26 headline reads, China once again claims sovereignty over Galwan Valley. But the 23rd report is an instructive introduction to how the Chinese operate. Where they have to, they will take tiny bites. 

The report shows why it's folly for India to get entangled in squabbles with China over coordinates and a few square kilometers.  The entire "Line of Actual Control" is a farce, a fraud.  

India digs up old coordinates: China’s Galwan claim of 1960 stopped short of faceoff point

China’s claim on parts of the Galwan river valley was first made in the boundary talks of 1960. 

By Pranab Dhal Samanta
June 23, 2010
Economic Times [India]

NEW DELHI: China’s claim on parts of the Galwan river valley was first made in the boundary talks of 1960 but the coordinates it gave did not include the site of the current faceoff. It, in fact, stopped well short of the point where River Galwan meets the River Shyok, referred to as the ‘estuary’ in Chinese statement of June 19 — better known as Y-Nala or Y-junction to Indian forces.

The coordinates given by the Chinese side in 1960 of the point where it believed its claim line crossed the River Galwan was: Longitude 78° 13’ E, Latitude 34. 46’ N. This was after the Indian delegation led by then Joint Secretary (East) Jagat Singh Mehta and supported by head of history division Dr S Gopal specifically asked the question on the coordinates of where the new claim line passed.

This claim was later opposed by the Indian side as valleys of Galwan and Chip Chap river, among other areas, were not part of the claim line presented in 1956. This was recorded by the Indian team in the joint India-China report:

“The Indian side noted that the Chinese side were unable to explain the discrepancies between the alignment shown in this Sector on the 1956 map and authoritatively confirmed by Premier Chou En-lai in 1959, and that shown in the map provided by the Chinese side at these meetings. The latter map showed an alignment which ran due east from the Karakoram Pass rather than southeast as in the 1956 map, and then, making a sudden turn southward, it cut across the Upper Shyok or Chip Chap river, the Galwan river, and the Changlung river to reach the Kongka Pass.”

The talks were a failure and in the war that ensued in 1962, the Chinese side captured territory up to its claim line of 1960, which in this area effectively became the Line of Actual Control as determined by the conflict.

However, as per that line and the coordinates stated in the 1960 talks, India has control of an area extending a few kilometres east of the of the Y-Nala or the Galwan estuary. These are ridges that include PP14, 15 and 17. And India has been patrolling up to these points without any controversy post-1962. In fact, the differences have been pronounced in Pangong Tso and Depsang, said sources.

The Indian contention, based on recent statements of the Ministry of External Affairs, is that it’s the Chinese who have altered their normal patrolling pattern and challenged Indian patrols. This, followed by a massive standoff, an unprecedented violent skirmish and a claim over the entire Galwan river valley has the Indian side concerned whether China is pushing its claim in a manner to make Y-Nala the new boundary.

This would be unacceptable to India as the 255 km DSDBO road runs on an alignment east of the River Shyok. India, in fact, also rejected the notion that its patrols will not cross the Galwan estuary as claimed by the Chinese side on June 19, where it even alleged that it was agreed to in June 6 Corps Commander meeting.

India has made it clear that it will continue to patrol up to the area east of the Galwan estuary as it has done regularly in the past. It’s in this context that the Chinese claim on Galwan River Valley becomes controversial because it’s unclear if the coordinates meant are the same as 1960 which is also the point its forces roughly came up to in 1962.

[END REPORT]

********