Congress Poses Four Questions On EAM Jaishankar’s India-China Statement

The Indian National Congress (INC) has raised pressing concerns regarding External Affairs Minister (EAM) Dr. S. Jaishankar’s recent statement in Parliament addressing the state of India-China relations. In a detailed critique issued by Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, the party has questioned the government’s handling of the sensitive border dispute and highlighted inconsistencies in official narratives. The Congress, in particular, expressed disappointment over the lack of opportunity for MPs to seek clarifications, terming it a continuation of the Modi government’s dismissive approach towards parliamentary discourse.

The Congress statement took issue with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s June 2020 assertion following the Galwan Valley clashes. The Prime Minister had declared that “no one has intruded into our territory, nor is anyone present.” Congress described this as a premature and inaccurate remark that insulted the memory of soldiers who died in the clashes and weakened India’s negotiating position with China. Jairam Ramesh demanded to know what prompted the Prime Minister to make such a statement when the situation on the ground suggested otherwise.

Another major point of contention was the apparent contradiction between the positions of India’s Army Chief and the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). In October 2024, Chief of Army Staff General Upendra Dwivedi reaffirmed India’s long-standing stance, stating that a return to the status quo of April 2020 along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) was essential before pursuing de-escalation. However, the MEA’s statement following recent disengagement talks suggested that the 2020 issues had been resolved through diplomatic agreements. Congress argued that this divergence pointed to a shift in the government’s position and sought clarity on whether India had accepted the new status quo created by Chinese incursions.

The establishment of buffer zones along the LAC, where Indian troops and herders are restricted from accessing areas they previously controlled, also drew strong criticism. Congress alleged that these zones reflect the government’s tacit acceptance of China’s unilateral actions that altered the LAC in 2020. The party accused the Modi administration of failing to secure a full return to the pre-2020 status quo and questioned whether the buffer zones signify a willingness to live with a “new normal” in border management.

Furthermore, Congress highlighted the lack of corroboration from the Chinese government regarding disengagement at critical points like Demchok and Depsang. While the Indian government claims that disengagement agreements are in place, Congress asked whether traditional grazing rights and patrolling access had been fully restored for Indian forces and local populations. These unanswered questions, according to Congress, raise serious doubts about the efficacy of the government’s negotiations with Beijing.

In his parliamentary statement, Dr. Jaishankar provided a detailed account of India-China relations since the 2020 border crisis. He noted that ties between the two nations remain abnormal due to disruptions in peace and tranquillity along the LAC. The minister acknowledged China’s illegal occupation of Indian territory in Aksai Chin and emphasised India’s commitment to resolving the boundary dispute through bilateral discussions. Jaishankar described the government’s response to the 2020 crisis as a combination of firm military counter-deployments and intensive diplomatic efforts, resulting in disengagement at multiple friction points.

Jaishankar further outlined the historical context of the border dispute, citing agreements and confidence-building measures between the two countries since 1988. He highlighted the government’s principles of strict respect for the LAC, non-alteration of the status quo, and adherence to past agreements. The minister defended the disengagement process, stating that it was conducted in phases and included mechanisms for the resumption of patrolling and grazing rights. He assured Parliament that disengagement at Demchok and Depsang had been achieved and that discussions on de-escalation and further border management were ongoing.

The Congress, however, has maintained its scepticism. The party reiterated its demand for a full parliamentary debate on India-China relations to ensure transparency and collective national resolve. It pointed out the paradox of rising economic dependence on China even as border tensions remain unresolved. Congress called for a strategic review of India’s economic and diplomatic engagement with China, particularly in light of the increasing complexities along the border.

Four Key Questions Raised by the Congress:

Prime Minister’s Statement on Galwan (June 2020):

Congress criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement in June 2020, where he reportedly claimed, “Na koi hamari seema mein ghus aaya hai, na hi koi ghusa hua hai” (No one has intruded into our territory, nor is anyone present). The INC argued this public assertion weakened India’s position in negotiations and questioned why such a declaration was made when it contradicted the ground reality and the sacrifice of soldiers in the Galwan Valley clashes.

Shift in Official Position on LAC Status Quo:

Referring to recent statements by the Chief of Army Staff and the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), Congress noted contradictions. While General Upendra Dwivedi reiterated India’s aim to revert to the pre-April 2020 status quo, the MEA suggested that current disengagement agreements marked a resolution of the 2020 issues. Congress questioned if this indicated a shift from India’s official stance.

Buffer Zones and the “New Normal”:

Congress expressed concern over the establishment of buffer zones along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), which deny access to Indian troops and herders in areas previously under India’s control. They argued these zones reflect an acceptance of the altered status quo imposed by China post-2020, asking if the Modi government had conceded to a “new normal.”

Lack of Chinese Confirmation on Disengagement:

Questioning the disengagement agreements at Demchok and Depsang, Congress criticised the absence of corroboration from the Chinese government. They demanded clarity on whether Indian grazing rights, patrolling points, and buffer zones had been fully restored.