Ladakh, historically renowned as the “Land of Passes,” covers an area of 95,876 square kilometers. It was reconstituted as an Indian Union Territory under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act of 2019, having previously been part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Shortly thereafter, In June 2020, a violent clash erupted between Indian and Chinese forces at Galwan Valley of Ladakh, resulting in the deaths of 20 Indian soldiers, including a Commanding Officer, and an undisclosed number of deaths on the Chinese side.

For the first time since the 1962 Indo-China war, both sides suffered fatalities during the June 2020 clash. The details and reasons behind this deadliest confrontation are obscured by half-truths and speculations. Unfortunately, the Indian Government has been managing public perception by sharing half-truths while continuing never-ending negotiations with China at the border.

The Events:

• Partial disengagement was seen by both sides on 06^th June 2020 followed by Lt. General level talks with an aim to resolve month long standoff in Eastern Ladakh.
• Subsequently Chinese forces returned & erected a camp on the Indian side, which was quickly dismantled by Indian army and led to physical scuffle & injuries to both forces.
• Chinese soldiers went back only to return with bigger strength leading to stone pelting on 14^th June 2020.
• On 15^th June 2020 (Evening), soldiers from both sides clashed with each other and the fight escalated rapidly on a ridge line towards Galwan river.
• Seeing the Chinese forces not returning, A Colonel led unarmed patrol party from Indian army moved to initiate an urgent discussion with Chinese counterpart, only to encounter a fierce attack from Chinese soldiers by use of stones, boulders, barbed wires, wooden logs with nails.
• Indian Colonel & several soldiers suffered serious wounds and returned to avail medical treatment. Few Indian Soldiers were held captive by China.
• As a countermeasure, an Indian Major led a unit of soldiers & assaulted the Chinese post with vicious force and inflicted grievous injuries on Chinese Soldiers.
• By this time, 20+ Indian soldiers had died having fallen into Galwan river and a lot more unknown-unconfirmed numbers of soldiers died on Chinese side. Indian army revealed to have seriously injured nearly 60 Chinese soldiers.
• Indian PM Modi visits Ladakh army base & says “Age of Expansionism is Over”
• WMCC & Corps Commander Talks Continue.
• Partial disengagement by both sides takes Place, sequentially, by creation of buffer zone & continued negotiations.
• China says situation at LAC is “Generally Stable”.
• Indian PM Narendra Modi Says in all party meeting “No Chinese Incursions” & China endorses it.
• Indian Foreign Minister S Jayshankar Says “Situation in Eastern Ladakh remains Very Fragile & Quiet Dangerous”.
• 21 Rounds of Negotiations are completed at Ladakh between Indian Army & Chinese Army including Diplomatic & WMCC dialogues. Still No Clear Picture.
• India has lost Rights & Access to 26 out of 65 Patrolling Points along LAC-Leh Police Research Paper at Annual Police Meet
• Ladakhi People on Hunger Strike because Indian Govt. reneged on promise to include Ladakh in Sixth Schedule of Constitution.
• Ladakhi People Prevented by Indian & Chinese Army to graze their livestock in the “so called buffer zone”.
• Subramanian Swamy stated in media that India has lost patrolling rights in several posts due to creation of so-called buffer zones. He says that buffer zones are effectively land lost by India.

Why did they fight? The Hidden Struggle in Ladakh

As per reports, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) breached established agreements by installing structures on the Indian side of the Line of Actual Control (LAC). In response, the Indian army dismantled these installations, leading to a physical fight on a cold, freezing night, on 15^th June 2020.

They engaged in physical combat, used iron rods, clubs. Soldiers died, on both sides.

Following the deadly clash, high-level talks between Corps commanders, the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs (WMCC), and diplomatic efforts were swiftly initiated to ease tensions. Consequently, the process of disengagement between Indian and Chinese forces commenced at Galwan in July 2020, although several patrol points remained unresolved.

A series of strenuous military and diplomatic negotiations have persisted since then, aimed at reaching a mutual resolution to address Chinese incursions at Pangong Lake, Gogra, Hot Springs, and other points. The Government of India has maintained a tight lid on detailed information regarding these developments, sharing minimal updates with the public, supplemented with contradictory statements even from the Prime Minister of India.

Note from Ministry of Defense (Uploaded in Defense Ministry Website and Now Deleted)

Minister of External Affairs (India) Mr. S Jayshankar has time & again raised the issue in media, but without clear details, by using ambiguous diplomatic language, further creating a sense of partial knowledge of the matter in the Indian Public.

The series of ambiguous, half-information, unclear statements in media have been released by the Indian Government, leaving the Indian citizens & Media lacking the reality of the matter. Moreover, the political tug of war has been evident in the electoral politics in India.

Prominent Indian politician Dr. Subramanian Swamy has taken the matter to the Delhi High Court, seeking intervention due to the government’s failure to disclose data about Chinese encroachment under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Despite these efforts, specific information on the issue remains undisclosed.

The Myth of Buffer Zones:

Buffer Zones have been ostensibly created to prevent direct military confrontations without attending the crux of the conflict i.e. to mutually define the controversial border. These “buffer zones” or popularly known to be “No Patrol Zone” are now being scrutinized for their effectiveness and fairness. It is difficult to say or define whether they are really peace keeping measures or just temporary fix. Apparently, India has lost access to areas, which Indian forces usually patrolled. So, technically India has lost land.

In Summary, More Buffer Zones Mean More future risks.

Why limited release of information?

Government of India may be restricting the release of enough information due to following reasons:

• Ongoing Negotiations- While commander-level talks have been ongoing, they have primarily focused on creating buffer zones and temporary disengagement rather than defining the border.
• Sensitive Diplomacy- India might be attempting to manage the situation quietly to maintain overall diplomatic relations and keep negotiations low-profile. However, this approach seems to be faltering as China continues to downplay the LAC issues.
• Electoral Politics- The ruling party in India i.e. BJP might be avoiding any admission that India has lost access to previously patrolled land to avoid risking voter support in the 2024 general election or put a dent into Prime Minister Modi’s muscular image in defense matters. Prime Minister Modi’s approach to Pakistan may be muscular, but that is not a truth when it comes to dealing with China.

Hence it is not status quo, it is a temporary fix to avoid a military conflict or a full-fledged war, which is actually a dividend for China. The buffer zones or the so called no patrol zones are always open for China to restart an intentional conflict to put pressure on India.

One more confusing from the defense minister of India is as follows: No details, Only A Blanket sense of nationalism keeping elections in mind.

The Indian government should prioritize transparency by releasing detailed information to the public about the Chinese incursions in Ladakh. Simultaneously, Indian Government must adopt a dual strategy of military punitive action-oriented preparedness and robust diplomatic engagement to restore the status quo. Only then, India can aim to stabilize the situation and make substantial progress towards permanently defining the borders, ensuring long-term peace and security in the region.

To be precise, mutually defining the international border between India and China is more relevant than creating more & more buffer zones. Mutually accepted border demarcation finds more relevance when compared to merely generating buffer zones or no patrol zones. A Buffer zone is not capable to prevent accidental escalations, probably more serious confidence building measures are necessary, wherein India should be at a higher range at the mountains & not as a soft force.