In the clash between Chinese PLA and Indian soldiers in the border area last year, the Indian media revealed at the Time that more than 20 soldiers and officers had died, but the Chinese side did not praise four of them until eight months later, on Friday, through the CCTV channel. The government delayed eight months before announcing the deaths of soldiers on the battlefield? It is unbelievable.
It was only this Friday that China finally made public the deaths of four of its PLA officers and soldiers in the fierce clashes between Chinese and Indian soldiers in the border area last year. In the morning of that day, CCTV suddenly announced a “martyr commendation order,” which reads, among other things, that in June 2020, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) clashed with Indian border guards in a deadly encounter on the Sino-Indian border, in the Garhwan Valley of the Himalayas. In the encounter, the Indian army confirmed at the first opportunity that 20 soldiers were killed in action, the deadliest violent clash between the two sides since the 1975 Sino-Indian border conflict; however, the Chinese side did not disclose the PLA casualties, citing “fears that the anger of the Chinese people would get out of hand.
In an interview with Radio Free Asia, Wu Qiang, a former lecturer in the political science department of Tsinghua University who is concerned about the situation in China and India, said that China’s failure to disclose the names of its fallen officers and soldiers in the first place is a sign of political opacity, just as its failure to announce the new Epidemic of the crown in the first place: “This kind of opacity is a sign that we can also see that China is The fact that China is still in a pre-modern democratic state while fanning nationalist sentiments reflects a very important reason and background for the border conflict with India. The Chinese side is now announcing it 8 months apart from last June, basically there are two considerations, one is that it was announced only after the Chinese New Year, traditionally a holiday of condolence to the military, in fact there is considerable pressure.”
The Chinese side did not even mention India by name, as the PLA Report reported this Friday, “In June 2020, foreign troops blatantly violated the consensus reached with us and crossed the line to set up tents. In accordance with the usual practice of handling border incidents and the agreement previously reached between the two sides, the chief Qi Fa Bao, in the spirit of sincerity to negotiate and solve the problem, went to negotiate with only a few officers and soldiers, wading through the waist-deep river.” But “during the negotiation process, the other side ignored our sincerity and premeditatedly hid and mobilized a large number of troops in an attempt to force us to back down by virtue of the large number of people.” The newspaper quoted PLA staff officer Chen Hongyu as recalling that at that time “their men emerged one after another from behind the cliffs, crowding the river bank in black ……”
China announced the deaths and injuries only after China-India relations eased
The People’s Liberation Army Daily reported that Qifa Bao became a key target for the Indians and suffered heavy head injuries. Battalion commander Chen Hongjun saw the situation and led his men to immediately break into the heavy siege to rescue Qifa Bao. In the clash, the PLA commander Qi Fabao was seriously wounded; battalion commander Chen Hongjun, soldiers Chen Xiangrong and Xiao Siyuan were killed in action. Another soldier, Wang Zhuo Ran, was on his way to cross the river to support him, but he drowned in the icy river to rescue his fellow soldiers who were scattered.
Wu Qiang said that after the clashes between the Chinese and Indian armies eight months ago, relations between the two sides have now eased: “And the military-level talks between the two sides have resulted in an agreement for both sides to pull back. This is the main background for the Chinese side to make this announcement now. To a greater extent it is still in opportunistic considerations, for example, to avoid stimulating nationalist sentiment among the Chinese public, which we actually see has been largely populist in China, rather than combined with the right to treatment of military personnel, the representation of national political parties.”
Earlier this month, China and India finally reached a “buffer consensus” after lengthy secret military talks, with each side moving a large number of permanent troops from the disputed garrison areas at Bangong Bug and the various frontlines, and verified through satellite photos of aerial photography. Perhaps for this reason, the Chinese military has announced a commendation order for fallen officers and soldiers. The military newspaper reported that the CPC Central Military Commission later awarded Qi Fabao the honorary title of “Heroic Leader of the Border Guard,” Chen Hongjun the honorary title of “Hero of the Border Guard,” and Chen Xiangrong, Xiao Siyuan, and Wang Zhuo Ran the posthumous first-class merit.
Scholar: The fundamental problem of the Sino-Indian border dispute remains unresolved
Wu Qiang said that although the situation on the Sino-Indian border has eased, the fundamental problem remains unresolved: “India is still in a strong position, as reflected in the announcement of this news in another context, the Munich Security Conference held this week and in these two days, the U.S., Japan, India and Australia, the four foreign ministers held their first meeting since this year, indicating that the political legacy of the Trump era is A political alliance in the Asia-Pacific region that is tough on China, the inheritance of the core alliance line. It is in this context that China made this announcement to instill a nationalist focus in the population.”
The incident in the Garhwan Valley, occurred between the late night of June 15 and early morning of June 16, 2020. At the time, friction between the Indian and Chinese armies had been erupting since late April over the construction and garrisoning of the border – a border where, in the past, both armies had “grabbed land” because of an undeclared tacit agreement to “avoid escalating conflict. In the past, because both sides had a tacit agreement to “avoid escalation,” the two armies “grabbed land and planted flags” at the border to raise prestige, and by convention, only stones could be thrown, not modern weapons.
Recent Comments