Is India Accepting China’s 1959 Claim-Line As Formal Border?

This photograph provided by the Indian Army, shows Chinese troops dismantling their bunkers at Pangong Tso region, in Ladakh along the India-China border. (AP)
[Chinese troops dismantling their bunkers on the Pangong Tso]

This piece published in my ‘Realpolitik’ column in BloombergQuint, February 19, 2021, and available at


It is indicative of something that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has literally said not a word against China’s deliberately provocative behaviour and the aggressive military activity by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in eastern Ladakh since April last year. In the months since, the confrontation has sharpened with the Indian army – which’s traditionally focused on the minor foe, Pakistan, suddenly realizing it has another live border, this time with China, to contend with. It scrambled the best it could to pull together a credible force to the theatre in the higgledy-piggledy manner the usually unprepared Indian military behaves in a crisis. 

     Whether and how much of a worst case the Army assumed as its operational baseline for the purposes of filling the severely depleted WWR (war wastage reserve) of spares and petroleum, oil and lubricants and of war stock (ammunition of all kinds and chemical munitions), is unclear. But non-wartime shortfalls of around 60% are normal. The replenishment of these ‘voids’ was carried out frantically without the army really knowing whether the PLA would lurch into hostilities and then fight for how long. With the situation hotting up in the XIV Corps area, Modi maintained his public silence as did the Chinese President Xi Jinping at the other end of the redline telephone installed not too long ago between Delhi and Beijing. It was left to Defence Minister Rajnath Singh to mouth the traditional inanity about “not an inch of territory” being lost.

     It is another matter that on the ground some 1,000 sq kms of land in the Depsang Plains are actually lost to China. This has been achieved by the simple expedience of the PLA blocking the Y-Junction and hence the route Indian troops took to reach Indian posts. Any piece of your land on the border you are denied access to isn’t yours anymore. And because the Indian army failed to breach the blockade because, per news reports, it didn’t want to “open another front”, it has lost that entire area to China for good. Elsewhere, we may soon find that with the Special Frontier Force (SFF) troops vacating the high points on the Rezang La-Rechin La ridge in the Kailash Range as required by the “verifiable” mutual withdrawal agreement, the PLA, which neither respects the letter nor the spirit of any accord, will occupy them too. The SFF at these heights severely discomfited the PLA because the Indians overlooked its garrison at Moldo and, from that perch, monitored Chinese military activity in the extended Pangong Lake area.

     The most troubling aspect of the pullback accord, however, is how readily the Indian government accepted the Chinese offer to draw back its forces to the Sirijap expanse east of Finger 8 on the northern shore of the lake as some kind of concession by Beijing. This is a particularly surprising development considering the Indian claim line runs way east of Sirijap, even east of the landmark in that area, the dilapidated Khurnak Fort, which Indian and Chinese troops patrolled as late as 1958, and marks it as both the midpoint of the northern shore of the Pangong Tso and the mutually-recognized India-Tibet boundary. An Indian Brigade based in Chushul protected that entire territory and in 1962 1/8 Gorkha Rifles held the Khurnak post.

Indeed, India’s claims are really strong, bolstered by documents from as far back as 1863 showing the fertile Ote Plain featuring this fort as territory contested between the inhabitants of the Pangong area owing fealty to Ranbir Singh, the then Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir, and the Tibetan authorities in Lhasa. This entire sub-region, in other words, was never part of Tibet even if one assumes, for argument sake, that China now exercises lawful suzerainty over Tibet.

     In a November 1959 letter, Premier Zhouenlai first pitched to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru China’s extended claims not only in the Aksai Chin but also in eastern Ladakh – a sector well within the erstwhile Kashmir Maharaja’s domain and hence integrally part of India post-1947. Zhou did so to protect the highway the Chinese had surreptitiously built through northern Aksai Chin a year earlier connecting the mainland to the far western province of Xinjiang. In a tactic that Beijing has repeatedly used of annexing foreign territory, making extensive claims over it, and then offering to withdraw a small distance as a concession and demanding that the aggrieved country do the same, Zhou made just such an offer and was roundly rebuffed.

Recognizing the Chinese fait accompli for what it was, Nehru responded by saying “There is no sense or meaning in the Chinese offer to withdraw twenty kilometers from what they call ‘line of actual control’. What is this ‘line of control’? Is this the line they have created by aggression since the beginning of September? Advancing forty or sixty kilometers by blatant military aggression and offering to withdraw twenty kilometers provided both sides do this is a deceptive device which can fool nobody.” It is a line he never retreated from and, 50 years later, is proving a real problem for Modi.

     PLA’s build-up and aggressive manuevers along the LAC in the last nine months or so intimidated Delhi but were insufficient to get Modi to buckle under pressure as Beijing had hoped would happen. The next best option that both Modi and Xi concurred in was to stitch together an accord for both leaders to ‘save face’ and so the unsatisfactory mutual withdrawal accord materialized.

     Supposing this agreement is the basis for a final solution for the dispute along the lines of Zhouenlai’s 1959 claim line that bisects the area between mountainous terrain features Fingers 4 and Finger 5 on the northern Pangong shore and proceeds south across the lake to encompass the ridge heights from Helmet Top to Rezang La presently in Indian hands before slouching southeastwards to meet up with the Indian claim line, how will Modi get around the inconvenient fact that he will have surrendered an enormous amount of Indian territory here and in the Depsang, something Nehru – whom he, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, and its chief ideological influencer – Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh revile, never willingly did?


About Bharat Karnad

Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, he was Member of the (1st) National Security Advisory Board and the Nuclear Doctrine-drafting Group, and author, among other books of, 'Nuclear Weapons and Indian Security: The Realist Foundations of Strategy', 'India's Nuclear Policy' and most recently, 'Why India is Not a Great Power (Yet)'. Educated at the University of California (undergrad and grad), he was Visiting Scholar at Princeton University, University of Pennsylvania, the Shanghai Institutes of International Studies, and Henry L. Stimson Center, Washington, DC.
This entry was posted in arms exports, asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific, Asian geopolitics, Central Asia, China, China military, civil-military relations, Culture, Decision-making, Defence procurement, domestic politics, Geopolitics, geopolitics/geostrategy, Great Power imperatives, India's China Policy, India's Pakistan Policy, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Army, MEA/foreign policy, Military/military advice, Pakistan, SAARC, society, South Asia, Special Forces, Tibet. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Is India Accepting China’s 1959 Claim-Line As Formal Border?

  1. krishna soni says:

    Sir, not talking of the past ,is the disengagement fair for Indian side if we consider the April 2020 status,is the disengagement a success,neither failure or success, or a failure from you point of view considering the April 2020 status before the standoff.

    • A failure by any standard.

      • ARINDAM BORA says:

        Mr. Karnad sir, I remember you telling me some time back that owing to the defensive posture of the Indian Army in Ladakh some loss of territory to the Chinese is inevitable. I guess what you meant to say was that India’s stated position of defending every inch coupled with the Chinese ‘salami slicing’ strategy makes it possible for the later to gradually push the LAC westward by presenting us with fait accompli(s). That is what China tried to do in early May 2020. The Indian riposte was maybe more expansive and swift than they had expected.

        Did we lose any territory during this standoff? Unless of course you consider the buffer zones as lost territories the answer is no. The Northern Army commander is technically correct when he says that Depsang is a legacy issue. As per some reports Indian patrols have not been able to go beyond the Y bottleneck for 10-12 years now. However in a recent interview with ThePrint former Northern Army Commander General Hooda said that Indian troops had been patrolling beyond the Y bottleneck during his tenure. That’s until 2016. What is the truth? What was the 2013 Depsang Plains stand-off about then?

        Sir, even if the claimed Indian boundary passes through the Khurnak Fort there is no way that we could have arrived at any disengagement if the government had made such expansive claims. The GOI has demanded restoration of the ground situation to what it was in April 2020 not 1954. India places the LAC at Finger 8, not the international boundary. The issue of the Johnson Line/international boundary can only be raised during a final settlement of the boundary problem. The current talks were only about disengagement from the stand-off.

        Nehru did not accept Zhou Enlai’s offer. True. But in the end his resistance turned out to be only symbolic. Without the requisite military power it did not matter whether he accepted Chinese demands or not. They occupied the territories anyway. This government has nowhere said that they accept the 1959 claim line. If the current ground positions roughly co-incide with the 1959 claim line then it’s primarily due to the consistent nibbling away at Indian territory by the Chinese for decades and the failure of successive governments (until this one) to stand up to it.

      • It is nonpartisan history — India has lost whatever the regime in Delhi. And if Hooda says Indians patrolled the now blockaded Depsang area during his tenure at Udhampur till 2016, well, that’s a factual narration. Modi not buckling under recent Chinese pressure does not preclude his not instructing the army to vacate the blockade at whatever cost to show serious Indian intent.

      • Saldin N says:

        There is a paradox in what you claim. On one hand, this entire sorry situation from an Indian point-of-view is a “failure by any standard,” and on the other hand we have this;

        “PLA’s build-up and aggressive manuevers along the LAC in the last nine months or so intimidated Delhi but were insufficient to get Modi to buckle under pressure as Beijing had hoped would happen.”

        This statement portrays Modi as a “strong” leader. A “strong” leader who was responsible for losing 1000sqkm of Indian claimed land?

        I am sure you know that Beijing got just what it was after, nothing more, nothing less. There is much talk of the 1959 line, isn’t it? That is what they were after, and they mostly got it, yeah?

        The question of Modi “buckling under pressure,” does not even arise, because that was clearly never part of their plan. So, “buckle under” and do what?! Initiate a war, and get a good bi* slappin’?! Start crying on TV?! They had assessed Modi well, and they executed their plan perfectly.

        Much was made of the IA occupying the Kailash range. So what? What happened in the end? Indians did need to relinquish it, no? Beijing had probably game planned all of that anyway, and they knew exactly how to get back such strategic heights.

      • San Mann says:

        Sir, since all commentary in India occurs against a backdrop of political partisanship, then if I give Modi’s govt a “minus one” score on China border security, I must also give an obligatory score of “minus five” to Congress & Left parties. It’s only right and proper to do this, since so many on the Left are mocking the track record of Modi & nationalists in general, while of course never offering any better solutions from their side.

  2. Sankar says:

    An excellent summarization of what is going on in India’s statecraft in dealing with her external foes.

    Here is another brilliant strategic analysis by a retired general:

    A number of other (retd.) generals have also expressed their grave concern in similar lines. It has been pointed out that the withdrawal from Kailash range is an invitation to China to occupy Mount Kailash at a future date. Also, now India has played into the hands of Pakistan so far as Siachin is concerned – the Indian Army will come under pressure from PLA from the Karakoram side as China consolidates on Depsang.

    Thousand years of foreign subjugation has ingrained slavery in the Hindu mindset.

    • Saldin N says:

      Sankar@ — Yeah, so go on out, and lynch some poor helpless bugger, who can easily be identified by the clothes he wears. I am sure that will assuage your bruised nationalistic soul.

    • San Mann says:

      Sankar@ — More like thousands of years of Jaichand tradition, backbiting & backstabbing against those defending the land, to weaken us against external enemies. The enemy within is always more dangerous than the external enemy, because the enemy within shares the same goals as the external enemy, while having the audacity to reside among us. As dangerous as the Chinese are, I have more respect for them than I do for the Pakistanis.

  3. Gaurav Tyagi says:

    A brilliant analysis as usual by Professor Karnad.

    Modi toadies should also take note of the fact that Vivo, the Chinese mobile phone manufacturer is back as the main title sponsor for the IPL 2021.

    Talk about banning Chinese companies. At least Nehru fought a war against the Chinese unlike Modi, who just surrendered huge tracts of the Indian land to China.

    There is no shame in fighting and losing a war. Denying the truth and reluctance in retaliation constitute characteristics of a coward.

    What else can be expected from a man, who lies about his marital status, educational qualification besides every other single national/international issue.

    • Tom says:

      I agree with you, good idea

    • San Mann says:

      Gaurav Tyagi@ — Tyagi Karaabh-Dimaagi should look at the lousy alternatives offered by the Congress Party & Left. If I give Modi’s govt a score of “Minus One” on the border issue, then I’ll give Congress & Left a score of “Minus Ten”. I will always see Nationalism as the better ideological approach to dealing with issues in general, particularly external security threats. Some anti-national rats are so stubbornly in denial of their own lousy track record on national security, that they only feel schadenfreude when they see others come up short. In truth, they care nothing about the security of the nation, and generally only prioritize their own petty clan interests. The old saying that “Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels” refers to those who ordinarily never care about national security, opportunistically taking up the issue for their own political convenience. Nationalism will always be the better way, and will always be the higher ethic.

  4. PRATAP says:

    As per the statement of the northern army commander,the issue at Depsang is a legacy issue and predates this stand off in 2020.If that is true,we can take it that there has been significant loss of territory post the 2020 standoff. Do you agree with this assessment?

    • Not sure what the Northern Army cmdr means by Depsang being a “legacy” issue; the whole damn Chinese occupation of Tibet is legacy issue. And is he thus giving the Chinese a pass? And yes, as I said in my posts starting in June last year, absent Indian military action to remove PLA blocade of the Y-Junction and to restore patrolling in strength, the 1000 sq kms will stay lost.

  5. Sankar says:

    @Professor Karnad:

    I vaguely remember reading in the news that in the aftermath of the 1962 debacle, as Nehru woke up from his slumber vis-a-vis Chou-en-Lai, he had categorically stated, that had India had the military power, India would have liberated Tibet !

    Is there any documentation of all Nehru’s speech?

    Great that you have noted here Nehru’s bold position a propos “LAC”. I believe I have. come across it somewhere noted.

    • Don’t know about the Nehru’s speech about what he’d have done, etc. But suffice to say the British C-in-C at the time didn’t think Indian Army had the strength to pull it off.

  6. Raakesh Baskaran says:

    Does this mean India has all but accepted the 1959 Chinese Claim Line? What happens to the DSDBO Road? Or the Daulat Beg Oldie airstrip? Or the future of Ladakh’s security, whatever is left of it? Will the boundary get demarcated now? Or Sino Indian relations for the next 30 years?

    Many questions Prof. Karnad. Looking forward to your response. I came to this site a couple of times to read your article. Too much spin in the media sir. Makes one sick.

    • DSDBO is vulnerable because having built the road the Indian army did not preemptively occupy the heights as I mentioned in the first posts on this subject in June last year.

      • San Mann says:

        But Chinese are no longer occupying those heights, is that not correct? So the road is still quite useable for the time being. I feel like focus of competition has now shifted away from Himalayas to the region of Myanmar & Andaman Sea, where China has now turned Rangoon into its military client state, and meanwhile India is trying to build up A&N Islands. I’m wondering if there’s any danger of Myanmar’s military generals pulling an Oli, and somehow initiating some fresh border dispute with India, at China’s instigation.

  7. Gaurav Tyagi says:

    @San Mann- There is no denying that Congress also didn’t deal with the Chinese in an apt manner however, BJP’s plank of nationalism is just a sham.

    Modi is in power since the last seven years. He still keeps harping about the past governance of Congress for all of country’s shortcomings. What has he accomplished?

    Amit Shah has made his son the Secretary of cash rich BCCI. Doval’s son’s are running the most influential think tank in Delhi besides a hedge fund business from Cayman Islands.

    BJP is ready to take anyone from any opposition party into its fold. What right then do they have to point fingers at others?

    BJP’s only aim is to capture political power across all provinces of India and then use it to fill up its coffers. They have no interest in securing India’s borders.

    Pot calling kettle black is bereft of all logic. Talks of nationalism/patriotism without any meaningful action on the ground don’t count for anything.

    • San Mann says:

      Gaurav Tyagi@ — Even while seeing them as imperfect, I respect those who had the guts to remove Article 370, and are now pushing further with the Farm Bill in spite of mass agitations. I see them as an improvement over the depressing Congress stagnation-deterioration.

      “Perfect is the Enemy of the Good.”

    • San Mann says:

      Another thing I appreciate under Modi is the rise of a more nationalist media, which has helped to pull back the narrative away from the Left, and is acting as a strong tool in the Information Warfare domain. I see our new News Media as a natural progression of our existing expertise in “Information Technology”, and I see them as a prime tool for pushback against India’s enemies. The fact that our nationalist media provoke howls from our own domestic anti-nationals and our foreign enemies alike, tells me that we’re definitely on the right track in that regard.

      Sun Tzu of China said that kinetic war should be the last resort of war, and that other forms of warfare that can achieve victory short of resorting to kinetic war, are superior and preferable ways to fight. I think that our nationalist media and our longstanding command of the english language can gain us a lot.

      I wish we could find a way to take this strategy even further, by using our unique advantages in space technology to set up a globe-spanning satellite network for us to disseminate news and other information from an Indian viewpoint. I’m thinking this would do even more for India’s image than even Gaganyaan, Chandrayaan, Mangalyaan, and should be a higher priority for us. If ISRO can launch 103 satellites in a single launch, then we should have the capability to set up a large global satellite network.

      These types of things are the need of the hour, and the need of the future. They will help us to counteract all kinds of anti-India agitation campaigns internationally in an increasingly globalized world.

      • Gaurav Tyagi says:

        @San Mann- You sound like an insane man btw, it is my return compliment to you for this; “ Tyagi Karaabh-Dimaagi”

        Whatever Sun Tzu said is not the gospel truth. Those were different times compared to the present age.

        Godi Media portrays everything as per BJP’s demand. This is not nationalism but brain washing of the masses.

        How many Indians know the truth regarding India-China border stand off?

        Hardly a few, because people like Professor Karnad are a rarity in India, who possess the guts to show the mirror to the establishment.

        There are others, who inspite of all their professional achievements have no shame in toeing the line of pseudo nationalists for their two minutes of fame and proverbial piece of silver.

        The latest example of the aforesaid is the so called ‘Metro man’, who at the prime ‘young age of 88 years’ has suddenly developed vision for bringing ‘Ram-Rajya’ in Kerala.

        On one hand, BJP keeps harping about sending its party folks to the retirement home post 75 and here they have picked up an 88 year old as their CM candidate for Kerala.

        Removal of article 370 hasn’t stopped the violence in the valley. There are acts similar to this so called article 370 in the northeast as well. Why isn’t BJP repelling them?

        Governments cannot be bought down by a few tweets from foreign lands. There wasn’t any need for GOI to over-react on a few so called celebrities statements.

        Actors like Richard Gere mobilized Hollywood against China on the Tibet issue. Did it change anything on the ground in Tibet regarding Chinese control?

      • San Mann says:

        Mr Tyagi, nobody cares about your petty issues. We’re talking about India’s border integrity, and all you can do is whine about extraneous issues like metros and Kerala politics here? Absolutely ridiculous. When it’s a defense-related forum, try to keep your mind on the #1 issue at hand, which is national defense.

      • Gaurav Tyagi says:

        @San Mann- I am not discussing any petty issue. I am revealing the character of India’s current political establishment.

        National defense is the responsibility of the government of the day.

        How can they act in national interest when, all they care about is winning elections by raking up non sensical issues like Temple, love jihad, religious conversions etc.

  8. Ram says:

    @Prof Karnad,

    Would you agree China has again showed India its place or been forced to reiterate this point, thanks to the foreign policy blunders precipitated by the current leadership?

    The PLA first tested the waters during Xi’s visit to India in 2014 and our reaction – from the newly elected strong leader convinced him to push the envelope further.

    The 2016 ruling against China in the SCS gave a false hope to Modi that things would change. The point everyone missed was even the victorious party – Philippines gave up on “enforcing” those claims. Its been a flash in the pan event and Philippines has never raised the matter since in international forums since. The disputed islands have been fortified to serve as Chinese naval base.

    Doklam should have been a wakeup call. While we (the leadership and its friendly media) were gloating and trumpeting the feat that the Chinese were held back in defence of a third country, its widely believed that the message was to Bhutan to align with China’s interests on the BRI – the only other country in the neighborhood to have refused to join the BRI on India’s prodding.
    Xi played another masterstroke. The 1993 peace accord allowed both countries to maintain only a minimum force on the LAC. But by creating a tense situation, it managed to get lakhs of troops now permanently stationed on the entire 4000 km border. While we have thinned out since, they never went back. With live borders to the east as well, the Ladakh scenario was foretold.

    Perhaps the final straw came when India dropped its reluctance and openly embraced the “Indo-Pacific” strategy of the Trump administration to contain China. While Japan and Australia are wealthy countries, do not share a boundary with China and are treaty allies, we made the cardinal sin of joining the US bandwagon with no economic or military wherewithal to sustain these efforts for the years to come. Like the US forces bleeding in the Taiwan strait, our meagre resources will now be stretched out across the two land borders and far away in the South China Sea with no meaningful deterrence to avoid future Chinese aggressions.

    With the new leadership in the US deciding to go soft on China, should we not be asking ourselves:

    – Is it worthwhile to continue with the Quad and other such attempts to contain China instead of working to build a strong economy and technologically superior military?

    – That the US and Russia were not of much help for the recent crisis in Ladakh and Xi having achieved his objectives to startle the Indian leadership at the drop of a hat, shouldn’t there be an introspection and course correction?

    And finally, for all our loose talks and bombastic claims, our deteriorating Gross National Power (failing economy, rising unemployment and poverty and an attrition based, not technologically superior military) is perhaps a catalyst for the smaller neighbors to increasingly embrace the Chinese for their economic interests.

  9. Vikrant says:

    It was middle of the 17th century, Mughal and Adilshahi had divided the Nizamshahi between them. Swarajya was in its infancy, lacking wealth and weapons. Meanwhile Adilshahi was getting stronger and wealthier. Crucial to its wealth were the trade routes, connecting the hinterland to the ports on the western shore. Tariff collected from these routes were overflowing the Adilshahi treasury. Chatrapati understood the futility of getting into an open conflict with the Adilshahi, instead he chose to attack the Adilshahi coffers. Economic warfare, he concluded, would be the most effective way to strangle the wealthier opponent. Accordingly, Chatrapati took control of all the forts along the trade routes choking the Adilshahi treasury, which was so injurious to the Adilshahi treasury that it had to sent Afzal Khan to take out the Chatrapati.

    If India really wants to fight the hundred year war with China, then it has to get rid of its free market fetish and Hayekian theology which has taken deep roots in both the parties. This recent privatisation drive is the result of a decade long indoctrination into a hayekian theology. GOI has an opportunity to put us onto a track of economic realism. Atmanirbharta will not be achieved by the free market. It can only be delivered by the targeted massive investment into MIC, high technology (A.I, 5g, Microchip) and manufacturing.

    No longer can we afford to do business with the mercantalist power like China, We’re funding the PLA by doing business with them. It is high time we realize that we’re in a existential struggle with the CCP, and the only way to win this war is by launching our own economic, information and cyber war.

    We also have to protect our democracy from the Big tech, digital sovereignty has to be on the forefront of GOI agenda. Banning Twitter, Facebook and Google has to be the first step in establishing the digital sovereignty; GOI has to invest massively in the domestic alternatives.

  10. V.Ganesh says:

    @BharatKarnad Please clarify what you mean by chemical munitions. Do you means defoliants like Agent Orange which were napalm bombs used for chemical warfare in Vietnam by the United States of America? As a signatory to the Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW], India has already destroyed its chemical weapons arsenal.


    Dear Dr karnad

    Another wonderful article by your mighty pen. Most Indian strategists are talking about a permanent two-front war siege mentality involving Pakistan-India-China. But as a visionary, do you perceive any other potential problem areas for the Indian military like Bangladesh, Myanmar or similar things ?
    For e.g. The Indian army probably lost more soldiers in the jungles of Sri Lanka than we did in all the wars involving Pakistan and we hardly were ready for that type of scenario in the first place.

    Apart from Pakistan and China do you foresee any similar situations for the Indian military in future ?

    Thanks and regards with best wishes

  12. SHANAL SHEKHAR says:

    If pre April situation has [partially] been restored, how is it a loss of territory in Pangong Tso area specifically. And also doesn’t the 1959 line passes through Brutse in Depsang area??

  13. Sankar says:

    @Professor Karnad:
    What will be your insightful analysis of these latest disclosures:
    And also by MKB:

    Does it correlate to India surrendering her sovereignty in Ladakh to China regarding Kailash mountain range and Depsang? To my understanding of India’s past history, Baniyas have always sold out the nation to foreigners lock, stock and barrel – is history simply repeating now?

    It is really baffling how this menace of ‘investment policy for development’ goes on while the local population in border areas are robbed off their land and livelihood by invaders – Graziers losing their pastures, farmers could not go to their farmland and so on.

    • We have lately become suckers to anybody promising investment in Indian infrastructure, etc. About Bhadrakumar — a good man with a different viewpoint.

      • Sankar says:

        Thank you indeed. You have hit the nail on the head: “suckers”.
        Anyone with a bit of intelligence will draw that conclusion.

        To my mind, MKB is a hypocrite. He turns blind eye to the plight of the hapless people living in border areas – Ladakhis, Arunachalis etc, not to mention Tibetans, and India’s sovereignty.

  14. V.Ganesh says:

    @BharatKarnad I’m not ignorant nor am I am someone who served in India’s Armed Forces to know that ammunition and artillery shells have an explosive chemical charge.

    • So why raise a Q for the sake of doing so?

      • V.Ganesh says:

        BharatKarnad I don’t ask questions gir the sake of asking questions. Like I told you before, I am not someone who is ignorant nor someone who has served in India’s Armed Forces. Therefore, when you wrote about chemical munitions, I thought India was contradicting itself by having chemical munitions when it had signed the Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW] Treaty. Therefore, I asked you to please clarify what you meant by chemical munitions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.