📰 Prime Minister hands over indigenous Arjun Mk-1A tank to Army
It showcases India’s united spirit, self-reliance, says Narendra Modi.
•Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Sunday handed over the indigenous main battle tank Arjun Mk-1A to the Army in a function at the Jawaharlal Nehru Indoor Stadium in Chennai. Chief of the Army Staff General Manoj Mukund Naravane received the model of the tank, designed and developed by Chennai-based Combat Vehicles Research & Development Establishment (CVRDE), a unit of the Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO).
•“A tank made in Tamil Nadu will be used in our northern borders to keep the nation safe. This showcases India’s united spirit — Bharat’s Ekta Darshan,” Mr. Modi said.
•“We will continue working to make our armed forces one of the most modern forces in the world. At the same time, the focus on making India aatmanirbhar (self-reliant) in the defence sector moves with full speed,” the Prime Minister said at the event attended by Tamil Nadu Governor Banwarilal Purohit, Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami, Deputy Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam and other dignitaries.
•Mr. Modi was on a flying visit to Chennai where he inaugurated a slew of development projects across several sectors, before flying to Kerala.
•He had a 15-minute conversation with Mr. Palaniswami at the venue, according to sources. The AIADMK is an ally of the BJP, and the BJP national president J.P. Nadda, during his visit to the State last month, announced that the alliance would continue.
•Mr. Modi posed for photographs with the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister, with the three of them raising their hands together in a show of solidarity.
•The Prime Minister spoke at length of how India’s armed forces signified the country’s ethos of courage.
•“They have shown, time and again, that they are fully capable of protecting our motherland. Time and again, they have shown India believes in peace. But, India will protect its sovereignty at all costs,” he said.
•The PM also recalled the martyrs, who lost their lives in a terrorist attack in Pulwama two years ago.
•”No Indian can forget this day. Two years ago, the Pulwama Attack happened. We pay homage to all the martyrs we lost in that attack. We are proud of our security forces. Their bravery will continue to inspire generations,” he said.
•Quoting from Tamil poet Subramaniya Bharathi, Mr. Modi said India has undertaken a massive effort to become self-reliant in the defence sector.
•“One of the two defence corridors is in Tamil Nadu. The corridor has already received investment commitments of over ₹8,100 crore. Today, I am proud to dedicate to the country one more warrior to protect our frontiers. I am proud to handover the indigenously designed and manufactured main battle tank Arjun Mk-1A. It also uses indigenous ammunition. Tamil Nadu is already the leading automobile manufacturing hub of India,” Mr. Modi said.
•The state-of-the-art indigenous main battle tank has been indigenously designed, developed and manufactured by CVRDE, DRDO along with 15 academic institutions, eight labs and several MSMEs.
•With modern battle tank technologies, it is distinct from the contemporary main battle tanks and is a dependable warfighting machine. The Arjun MBT Mk-1A is a weapon platform with superior firepower, high mobility, excellent protection and crew comfort with 14 major upgrades on Arjun MBT Mk-1, according to the CVRDE.
RTI data for 2015-2019 reveals poor acceptance rate for students from marginalised communities, with 25 of 26 departments not filling OBC, SC quotas either
•None of the 26 departments in IIT Bombay managed to fill seats reserved for Scheduled Tribe students in Ph.D. programmes between 2015 to 2019, according to data obtained through Right to Information queries.
•The data obtained by the Ambedkar Periyar Phule Study Circle, a student collective in IIT Bombay, showed that 25 of the 26 departments failed to fill Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Scheduled Castes (SC) quota as well. Eleven of the 26 departments did not admit a single student under ST category in the period under question.
•Of the 2,874 admissions for which data was provided by the institution, 71.6 % went to General Category (GC) students, which in terms of IITs predominantly constituted students from historically privileged communities; 19.2 % went to OBCs, 7.5 % to SCs and 1.6 % to STs. Reservation policy demands a minimum allocation of 27% to OBCs, 15% to SCs and 7.5% to STs.
Skewed entry
•In 13 of the 26 departments, more than 75% of the seats went to students under GC.
•The data showed the acceptance rate, which refers to the number of students selected for every 100 applicants, to be lower for students from reserved categories than those from GC. While the acceptance rate was 3.8% for GC, it was 3.1% for OBCs and STs and 2.5% for SCs.
•In 16 of the 26 departments, this skew in acceptance rate was more pronounced with SC and ST students having acceptance rates at half or lower those for GC applicants.
•For instance, Electrical Engineering (EE) and Mechanical Engineering (ME) departments had the highest number of ST applicants. While two of the 148 ST applicants got selected in EE with an acceptance rate of 1.4%, the acceptance rate was 3.8% for GC. In ME, not a single ST candidate from 110 applicants got selected whereas 168 students were selected from 4,590 applicants under GC with an acceptance rate of 3.7%.
•In the Energy Sciences and Engineering department, only 5 of the 610 SC applicants got selected with an acceptance rate of 0.8%. In contrast 82 from 3,902 GC applicants got selected with an acceptance rate of 2.1%.
•Computer Science was one of the few departments that recorded dismal acceptance rates across OBC, SC and ST categories. Only five from 797 OBC applicants, four from 495 SC applicants and one from 78 ST applicants were selected with an acceptance rate of 0.6%, 0.8% and 1.3% respectively. In contrast 69 applicants from 2,997 GC applicants were selected with an acceptance rate of 2.3%.
•The Centre for Studies in Resource Engineering (CSRE) and SJM School of Management (SJMSM) were the two departments that did not admit a single student from among SC and ST applicants. The two departments together selected 74 students from among 1,780 applicants under GC. However, none were selected from 313 SC and ST applicants.
•Environment Science and Engineering (ESE) and Centre for Policy Studies were the only departments to fill seats reserved for OBC and SC students. ESE and Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) came closer to filling seats reserved for STs. HSS also had marginally better acceptance rate for OBC, SC and ST applicants.
Interview
•The data also indicated that more students from marginalised communities were rejected at the interview stage.
•A comparison of the proportion of students from different categories showed that their proportion remained fairly the same at the application stage and the interview stage. Overall, around 12% of applicants got rejected; the remaining 88% made it to the interview stage.
•However, among those selected post the interviews, while the percentage of GC increased to 71.6%, the proportion of students from all other categories went down.
•GC candidates accounted for 64.8%, OBCs 22.2%, SCs 11.1% and STs 1.9% in both application and interview stages. However, among those selected post the interviews, while the percentage of GC increased to 71.6%, the proportion of students from all other categories went down.
‘Fair selection’
•In response to queries on the data, the IIT Bombay administration said that the selection process was fair and transparent.
•“Lower cut-offs and extra efforts are made to take candidates as per reservation categories to fill the seats,” a spokesperson for the Institute said.
•On the acceptance rate being different, the spokesperson said, “IITs have very high expectations of our student input, which is needed to carry out research towards a Ph.D.”
•“While we do get sufficient candidates in certain departments, in some other departments, students of the required calibre tend to take up industry jobs rather than join for a Ph.D which has extra uncertainties and lower income levels during Ph.D and in some areas even post Ph.D. It is possible that the family background and economic level may have an impact on such candidates applying for a Ph.D. This requires a proper socio-economic study,” the spokesperson added.
📰 Fossils of ‘Dickinsonia’ found at Bhimbetka
Discovery near Bhopal is of the earliest known animal about 550 million years old
•Researchers have discovered three fossils of the earliest known living animal — the 550-million-year-old ‘Dickinsonia’ — on the roof of the Bhimbetka Rock Shelters, about 40 km from Bhopal.
•One can identify the fossils from the white leaf-like patches with a central vertebra (central midrib) and connecting veins. While one fossil is 17 inches long, the other two are much smaller.
•The new discoveries, published in a journal, Gondwana Research, can be seen right at the beginning of the ‘Auditorium Cave’, the first of such caves at Bhimbetka, a UNESCO heritage site, located about 3.5 metres above the ground.
•Geological Survey of India’s Bhopal in-charge Tapan Pal, who had come to visit the site, told The Hindu that they were the only such fossils available in the country, and were similar to those seen in south Australia.
•“This is further proof of the similar paleoenvironments and confirms assembly of Gondwanaland by the 550 Ma (mega annum), but not reconstructions adjusted for true polar wander,” the article says.
📰 When Twitter was in the right
In not complying fully with the Indian government’s statutory orders, Twitter has acted with reason
•Twitter has not complied fully with the Indian government’s statutory orders under Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act to block hundreds of accounts for allegedly posting messages suggesting that the Prime Minister was planning a genocide against farmers. Twitter has said that the government’s blocking list had accounts of journalists, activists, and politicians whose accounts appear to be bonafide; that their posts are legitimate expression; and that it reasonably believes that keeping them blocked would be a disproportionate act contrary to both Indian law and the platform’s charter objectives. This apparent defiance has not gone down well with many, including the government. Independent verifications revealed that many such accounts (for example, the Kisan Ekta Morcha) did not post messages suggesting a genocide plan, although all of them had posted in favour of the farmer protests and against government measures to quell the protests.
Criticism against Twitter
•Criticism against Twitter’s stand seems to be three-fold. One, Twitter is an intermediary bound by statutory orders of the government under the Act, and its refusal shows a lack of respect for Indian law. Two, Twitter, as a private company, cannot adjudicate or sit in appeal over the government’s judgment on what is proportionate or lawful. It may challenge the order in a court, but cannot simply choose to comply partially or not at all. Three, Twitter’s blocking of Donald Trump’s account even while he was the sitting President of the U.S. and its refusal to block here shows it denying parity to India with the U.S. Four, its defiance indicates the increasing power and impunity of Big Tech, requiring a clear and unequivocal zero tolerance response.
•The first two arguments miss the vital detail that Twitter, or any person for that matter, is only bound by lawful orders of the state. Twitter being a private company or a foreign company does not change that. Once there is a blocking order, an intermediary is within its rights to take a considered view on whether the order is lawful; to what extent it is lawful; and to what extent it must comply to achieve substantial compliance acceptable in law. Lawfulness of an order is not merely about citing the statutory provision, being on a letterhead with the national emblem on it, and having the designated officer’s signature and seal. For an order to be lawful, it needs to demonstrate having satisfied all statutory conditions and conditions cumulatively evolved through judicial reasoning, which takes into account constitutional provisions and international human rights jurisprudence.
•In a polity in which the government is limited by a Constitution and laws, different kinds of state action entail varying consequences and command varying degrees of deference. A government order of the non-statutory type is not quite the same as a government order validly issued under a statute (where the government is acting as a delegate of Parliament). Neither of them commands as much deference as an express provision of law. Even an express provision of law differs from an order of a constitutional court in that respect. One may add, even compliance with orders of a constitutional court is subject to one’s own studied sense of constitutional reason.
•In this case, Twitter appears to have justifiably formed an informed opinion that the blocking orders, even if validly issued under Section 69A(1) of the IT Act, are partly not lawful and that it is confident of succeeding in a challenge to the orders should the government take any coercive action to enforce them.
Twitter’s actions desirable
•Quite apart from the social media giant being within its rights to defy government orders to the extent it views them as not being lawful, it is indeed desirable that it does so. It is undeniable that platforms such as Twitter have significant control over how people’s right to free and informed speech is fulfilled. Mechanically following government orders without regard to their lawfulness, necessity or proportionality will seriously impact their audience’s fundamental rights. The assumption of this responsibility to defy government orders is consistent with the power they wield. The tension between two powerful entities — the government and social media platforms — on questions of which speech to promote and whose speech to curtail is healthy and constructive. It acts as a check on the arbitrary power that would prevail if both were on the same side as a matter of routine. Therein also lies the response to the argument about the increasing power and impunity of Big Tech.
•This functional tension as demonstrated in this case, however, is no alternative to structural and institutional solutions that must be found to limit the power of both the government and Big Tech and to enforce their obligation to act rationally and responsibly. Big Tech has often sided with the government (and the political party in power), hurting its users’ rights. The Wall Street Journal report on Facebook India’s failure to act on the disinformation-laden and incendiary posts of a member of the BJP on the consideration of not wanting to be it loggerheads with the Central government is a case in point.
Red Fort is not Capitol Hill
•Kisan Ekta Morcha is not Donald Trump and Red Fort 26/01/2021 is not Capitol Hill 06/01/2021. Mr. Trump’s Twitter account was operational with no limits on reach throughout his tenure despite repeated calls for curtailment pointing to his messages being persistently incendiary, inciteful and promoting lies. Even leading up to the day of the Capitol Hill riot, his account had been spreading misinformation (or what Twitter reasonably concluded as misinformation) calling into question the election results to the office of the President. Twitter initially resorted to the less intrusive measure of flagging his content, followed by limiting its reach before suspending his account. His account’s permanent ban was the last step in the series of measures, after an appraisal of his Twitter posts’ effect on the Capitol Hill riots and the probability of further imminent lawlessness. All of these actions were suo motu and not under government orders.
•If anything, the present episode is arguably among the rare instances that Twitter has accorded parity to its Indian audience with that of its U.S.’s — choosing to take an independent view of the matter and not mechanically complying with the wishes of the national government. Social media platforms enjoy better immunity and warmer first amendment protection under U.S. law that help them better guard their users’ interests against government action. The attempt to extend similar safeguards to Indian users, who also in theory are guaranteed the same protection under a universal human rights regime, is welcome. That would also be consistent with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights endorsed by the UNHRC.
📰 Fuzzy law, unclear jurisprudence, trampled rights
The legal regime that enables the government to block websites needs urgent reform
•On February 1, 2021, in the wake of the intensification of the farmers’ protests and reports of violent incidents on January 26 – a number of Twitter accounts became inaccessible in India. These included (among many others) the accounts of The Caravan magazine, the actor Sushant Singh, and the Kisan Ekta Morcha handle, which was chronicling the protests. In the beginning, it was unclear whether this was Twitter’s decision, based on its belief that the accounts had violated its Terms of Service (the reason for its permanent suspension of Donald Trump from its platform, for example), or whether Twitter had been ordered to do so by the government, or by a court.
•As outrage mounted, the Government of India clarified that it had invoked Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, and ordered Twitter to block access to these accounts. The reason, it appeared, was the use of the hashtag #ModiPlanningFarmerGenocide, which was deemed a threat to public order. The merits of this argument aside, the government’s Section 69A order was clearly an overreach even on its own terms, as media outlets such as The Caravan had not used the hashtag.
Uneasy truce
•Soon after, Twitter restored access to many of the withheld accounts. This prompted a sharp reaction from the government, including a non-compliance notice and veiled threats that Twitter’s employees would be prosecuted for violating Section 69A. A meeting between Twitter officials and the government appears to have yielded for now an uneasy truce. On February 10, Twitter also published a blog post where it remarkably — and in my view correctly — argued that the government’s own actions in directing it to withhold access to the accounts of journalists, activists, and politicians, violated Indian law, and the constitutional guarantee of the freedom of speech.
•These events of the last few days throw into sharp relief the unsatisfactory state of Indian law and how it is interpreted and applied by censorship-happy governments. At present, the online free speech rights of Indian citizens depend entirely upon the extent to which multinational social-media platforms are able to stand up to the government’s censorship requests, how willing they are to risk legal prosecution, and how much confidence they have that their interpretation of Indian free speech law will stand up in court, even over the claims of the government. It should be clear that this is not a sustainable situation.
The root lies in the IT Act
•The root of the problem is Section 69A of the IT Act. Section 69A grants to the government the power to issue directions to intermediaries for blocking access to any information that it considers prejudicial to, among other things, the sovereignty and integrity of India, national security, or public order. Section 69A(3) envisages a jail sentence for up to seven years for intermediaries who fail to comply. In 2009, the government also issued “Blocking Rules”, which set up the procedure for blocking (including regular review by government committees), and also stated that all requests and complaints would remain strictly confidential.
Violation of rights
•There are a number of problems with this legal structure. The first is that it makes censorship an easy and almost completely costless option, for the government. Rather than having to go to court and prove a violation even prima facie of law, the government can simply direct intermediaries to block content, and place the burden of going to court upon the users. It stands to reason that the easier it is to censor speech, the more likely it is that a government — any government — will resort to that option. Furthermore, the confidentiality requirement means that the user will not even know why their account has been blocked and, therefore, will be in no position to challenge it. Third, there are no procedural safeguards — no opportunity for a hearing to affected parties, and no need for reasoned orders. This, then, violates both free speech rights, as well as the right to due process.
•In the famous Shreya Singhal case that is well known for the striking down of Section 66A of the IT Act, the scope of Section 69A and the Blocking Rules were also litigated before the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, however, the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to guide the law in a pro-free speech direction, as it had with Section 66A: without engaging in any detailed analysis, the Court largely endorsed the legal regime, as it stood. The Court only noted that every affected individual would retain the constitutional right to challenge a blocking order, through a writ petition before the High Court.
Need for transparency
•Now, it would appear to follow from this holding that the Shreya Singhal judgment made it mandatory for the government to furnish blocking orders along with reasons to affected parties; it is evidently impossible to challenge something that you cannot even see. However, as recent events show, in practice, that is not being followed (the lack of clarity in the Shreya Singhal judgment is no doubt a contributory factor). In a recent article in The Indian Express, Apar Gupta also pointed out that after the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Kashmir Internet Ban case, it is, at least now, an arguable position of law that any order restricting access to the Internet, or information on the Internet, must be made public. There is, at present, a pending case before the High Court of Delhi, which makes the same argument; until that is resolved, however, the present state of affairs is likely to continue.
•Consequently, a combination of bad law and unclear jurisprudence has created a situation where Twitter or the intermediary that might be caught in the government’s crosshairs is the only entity that is in a position to defend the free speech rights of Indian citizens. And there is little doubt that doing so entails a non-trivial risk: in particular, the record of the Indian judiciary in civil rights cases involving the government has been remarkably poor in recent times, and it would take considerable courage for any entity to bet on the proposition that its interpretation of Indian free speech law would be necessarily upheld by the courts. Thus, while it may still be possible for Twitter to stand up to the government in obvious cases of overreach and abuse, such as the suspension of The Caravan, there will be a host of borderline cases where it will simply be easier to back down; indeed, as MediaNama reported recently, the Twitter account of a Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament remains suspended even now.
Enable a fair hearing
•There is, thus, an urgent need for both legal and jurisprudential reform. Legally, the best case scenario would be to prohibit the government from being able to directly order intermediaries to block access to online information, except in narrowly-defined emergency cases, and to require it to go through court to do so, with an adequate opportunity for affected parties to defend themselves. Short of that, however, it is vitally important that blocking orders be made public, and that even under the current legal regime, affected parties be given the opportunity of a fair hearing before a blocking order is issued. This process will also ensure that the blocking order is a reasoned one, and can be effectively challenged before a court, if need be. Long term, however, the hard work of contesting governmental impunity in cases of censorship, both in courts and outside, remains to be done.
📰 Boosting confidence: On need for efficient use of COVID-19 vaccine stocks
The government should ensure that the available stocks of vaccine are used efficiently
•The downward trend in fresh coronavirus infections in India continues to inspire confidence that the pandemic is on the wane. The daily new cases fell below 10,000 for the third time this month. India’s tally is now 10.9 million cases and fresh reported fatalities were recorded below 100 for the eighth time this month, according to Health Ministry data. On January 1, there were around 20,000 fresh infections, which fell to about 11,000 by the month end. Should this sharp decline continue for this month too, then it would be a truly propitious turn of events. So far, around 8.2 million doses of vaccine have been administered to healthcare workers and some frontline workers, though this is still below the first lot of 16.5 million doses of Covishield and Covaxin that the government commissioned from their manufacturers. India has also managed to donate vaccines to neighbouring countries. For now, supply seems to far exceed demand, with only around half of those enrolled for vaccinations showing up for their doses. Saturday marked 28 days since the first doses of vaccine were administered and time for the first batch of those inoculated to show up for their second dose. The government is also considering administering vaccines to those above 50 and those younger with co-morbidities from March. India is also likely to get 97 million doses of Covishield by June — half of them by March.
•This is a far cry from many countries where demand far exceeds supply and experiments are under way to test if different vaccines can be administered as first and second doses, so that more people may get at least one dose. However, the disappearance of a pandemic does not equate to the vanishing of the virus. The results of the ongoing serology surveys from the ICMR, meant to estimate the prevalence of COVID-antibodies, say that only around 21% of the population has been exposed to the virus. That, combined with the fact that there is so far no reliable information on the kind of coronavirus variants prevalent in the population, means that India can ill-afford to be complacent. Though dreaded variants such as the South African one have not yet been identified in India, key mutations (E484K and N440K) that are known to help the coronavirus evade antibodies have been reported in India. In spite of a consortium of labs analysing variants since December, there is no firm indication from the Centre if the U.K. variant has been found outside of those with a history of international travel. However, the government’s message to not be complacent and continue to adhere to mask use is in the right scientific spirit, given the uncertainty about virus evolution. Considerable hesitancy continues to exist as evidenced in Chhattisgarh. The Centre should work on furnishing efficacy data on Covaxin as well as improving public confidence, in ways that the available stocks of vaccine can be efficiently used.
📰 A disengagement deal better than expected
But cautious diplomatic and military planning and hawk-like vigil by India will be needed in its implementation
•The year 2021 has begun on an optimistic note for reduction of military tensions between India and China. Both sides announced on February 11, the simultaneous disengagement of their massive forward deployments in the Pangong Lake area, cheek by jowl for the past 10 months in Eastern Ladakh. India’s Defence Minister Rajnath Singh delivered a carefully worded statement in Parliament about the breakthrough which envisages a pullback by both sides in “a phased, coordinated and verified manner”. The headway in the impasse, achieved after lengthy talks between the two sides, surprised the doubting Thomases who questioned India’s will and capacity for a military counterpoise that is essential for restoration of the situation as it prevailed before April 2020. It also caught off guard those who scoff at the notion of a peaceful resolution of territorial differences in keeping with the longer-term interests of both Asian giants.
Peaceful resolution
•Tracing the genesis of the problem since April-May 2020, when the Chinese side had suddenly positioned a large body of troops and armaments along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the Indian Defence Minister also paid rich tribute to the armed forces and lauded their valiant sacrifices. Indeed, the intentions of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) were thwarted by India’s robust military response guided by a resolute Indian government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
•Relations between India and China suffered a dramatic setback following the violation by China of the bilateral agreements and protocols, which ruptured peace and tranquillity. The bloody incident at Galwan on June 15, 2020, the first involving casualties since 1975, brought about the collapse of the prevailing consensus that bilateral ties could develop in parallel with efforts to resolve the boundary question and the maintenance of peace and tranquillity. Since June last year, India has consistently highlighted the view that peace is a fundamental prerequisite for the normal conduct of relations. The stand-off at the Pangong Lake was but one of several in Eastern Ladakh, but undoubtedly among the most significant. After China took steps to alter the ground situation between Fingers 4 and 8, the Indian Army had carried out daring manoeuvres to take up advantageous positions along the Kailash range on the southern bank, thereby dominating the key Chinese garrison at Moldo across the Spanggur Gap. Even on the northern bank, the Indian Army succeeded in offsetting any initial advantage that the PLA may have had along the spurs.
Message of endurance
•Having acquired powerful leverage, Indian troops dug in for the long haul and mirrored the PLA’s deployments. On its part, the government left no stone unturned to ensure that they were provided with the necessary wherewithal to deal with any real or perceived asymmetry. The message was unambiguous. India was not going to cave in and stood ready to impose a harsh penalty if China engaged in any act of adventurism. The endurance of the Indian Army through the harsh winter months has been extraordinary. China appears to have realised that a prolonged stand-off, hardly a part of its original calculus and of little avail militarily or politically, was permanently impairing bilateral relations. The uncertainty associated with the law of unintended consequences, the high reputational costs to itself, and the forward momentum in India-U.S. relations and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (India, the U.S., Japan and Australia), better known as the Quad, may also have proved to be factors for China.
•The disengagement at Pangong Lake is certainly a welcome development. This is an area in which the patrols of the two sides have been encountering one another for decades, whether on land or on the lake. The construction of a road by China from Finger 8 towards Fingers 5 and 4 many years ago had led to a spike in face-offs and gradually reduced access for Indian troops to their traditional patrolling point at Finger 8. Meanwhile, India too built better infrastructure all the way to its permanent presence at the Dhan Singh Thapa Post near Finger 3.
•The disengagement deal is perhaps better than one might have expected under the circumstances. The Chinese have agreed to pull back forward deployments to their permanent base at Sirijap, east of Finger 8, and to dismantle all infrastructure created after April 2020. India’s tough negotiators, both diplomatic and military, have ensured that our troops retain their presence at the permanent Indian post at Finger 3 even though China had earlier demanded that India fall back further. Moreover, all the Chinese posts atop the high spurs on the northern bank will also be dismantled, including those that overlooked the Dhan Singh Thapa Post. Of course, India will also fall back from its recently held positions along the Kailash range to earlier positions.
•With trust badly shattered after April 2020, one expects the Indian side to tread warily in implementing the deal at Pangong. Carrying out simultaneous disengagement in a phased and coordinated manner, with proper verification, is key to its success. There is little doubt that cautious diplomatic and military planning and hawk-like vigil will be called for throughout the implementation.
Faith in forces, negotiators
•The government of Prime Minister Modi has amply demonstrated its willingness to take tough calls on matters pertaining to sovereignty and territorial integrity. It has demonstrated boldness in the face of a major military challenge. It has shown equal courage in grasping the nettle of peace. More importantly, the government has reposed full faith in its armed forces and negotiators. Mr. Singh’s statement, containing just the right blend of steel and velvet, generously acknowledged the unity of purpose among all departments of the government and highlighted the consistency with which India’s unwavering position was put across. Both he and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar had engaged their Chinese counterparts last September and drawn the red lines. This no doubt strengthened the hand of the senior commanders and foreign ministry officials who hammered out the deal.
•The progress at Pangong notwithstanding, the doubting Thomases will continue to raise questions. They run the risk of doing so without sufficient familiarity with either the facts or the military complexities on the ground. The truth is that India’s tough military and diplomatic posture has paid off, resulting in an honourable disengagement. If tensions could be defused at Galwan, where much blood was shed, and at Pangong, it should be equally possible to fashion mutually acceptable terms for disengagement at Gogra/Hot Springs as well as the resolution of patrolling issues in Depsang.
•Over the next two to three weeks, both sides should be given a chance to implement the agreement. The temporary moratorium on military activities by both sides along the north bank, including on patrolling up to the traditional points, will improve the situation. That patrolling will be resumed only consequent to an agreement being reached in future diplomatic and military talks is also a step forward. Naturally, the pullback will prove to be a complex exercise involving meticulous planning of intricate details and scheduled withdrawals that must factor in the local terrain, the disposition of troops and a vast array of armaments. No doubt, one must also keep the powder dry.
