Experts question government statements, saying that no return to pre-2020 troop positions is possible as long as buffer zones remain; transparency is of the utmost importance, former diplomats say
Days after South Block announced a breakthrough in Indo-Chinese border talks, and as the disengagement process begins at the Line of Actual Control (LAC), doubts about the agreement have started to sprout up. Questions are being asked about whether the “buffer zones” set up in eastern Ladakh will be abolished, with experts and former diplomats calling for full “transparency” on the contours of the resolution.
Although the government has maintained that troops will now return to pre-2020 positions, at least two senior officials privy to the ground situation said that the “buffer zones” would not be included in the current patrolling arrangement, as that pertains only to the areas of Demchok and Depsang.
“It appears that the buffer zones created are not being revisited in the agreement. Therefore, the statement by the government that we will see a return to the situations prior to 2020 standoff is a contradiction,” said former Ambassador to China Ashok Kantha. “My concern is that we have lowered the bar in terms of disengagement, or at the very least the government is stating that disengagement has been completed, prematurely,” he added.
The Ministry of External Affairs did not respond to requests for a comment on whether the buffer zones would remain, but an official denied any “contradiction” in the statements.
‘Return to 2020 situation’
The confusion over the buffer zones, say experts, relates to the original statements made about the “breakthrough”, which was announced on October 21, two days ahead of a meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping. On the same day, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar had said that the two sides had been negotiating the standoff since 2020, when he met with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Moscow.
“We reached an agreement on patrolling and with that we have gone back to where the situation was in 2020,” Mr. Jaishankar told a TV channel, adding “We can say that the disengagement process with China has been completed”.
Striking a note of caution however, Army Chief Upendra Dwivedi said that the two sides “need to reassure each other that we are not creeping into buffer zones that are created,” and built trust before tackling disengagement, de-escalation, and de-induction phases.
A day later, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri then clarified that “as far as the disengagement agreements reached previously are concerned, those agreements were not reopened in these discussions”, clarifying that the patrolling arrangements and the return to a 2020 situation only referred to the new agreements on Depsang and Demchok.
Buffer zones
“There seems to be no clarity on whether the buffer zones will continue to exist or will be abolished,” said Manoj Joshi, Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation and author of the book, Understanding the India-China Border. “The emphasis is on patrolling arrangements agreed to, so we need to know whether the patrolling will be allowed in the buffer zones as well,” he added.
The “temporary demilitarised zones” (DMZ) or buffer zones were set up in order to stabilise the tense situation at five friction points on the LAC where India and China had agreed to disengagement between February 2021 and September 2022. These were in the Galwan valley, the northern bank of Pangong Tso, and the Kailash Range at the southern bank, where Indian troops gave up manning positions on the heights at patrolling point or PP 17A in Gogra, and PP15 in the Hot Springs area.
The first buffer zone was created after the Galwan clash in which 20 Indian soldiers were killed, while the Chinese forces accepted only four casualties on their side. In the aftermath of the brutal clash, and amidst serious tensions, military commanders on both sides had agreed to create a three-kilometre wide buffer zone (1.5 km on either side). Subsequent disengagements also saw the establishment of buffer zones which were several kilometres wide.
Losing access to territory
At the time, the buffer zones were criticised by Indian military analysts, who said that the zones would mean Indian soldiers would have to move further back into Indian territory, cutting off access for patrolling to an even larger area. In January 2023, a police paper said that as a result of Chinese transgressions and the disengagement process, Indian soldiers had lost access to “26 of 65” patrolling points.
Former diplomats welcomed the government’s move to re-engage diplomatically with China, but said that “transparency is of the utmost importance”.
“A return to ‘business as usual’ will be ill-advised at present because the structural problems remain unresolved,” Mr. Kantha told The Hindu. “Peace and tranquillity in border process remains incomplete. We shouldn’t let our guard down. This is not a reset,” he added.
“It’s a positive development but the two sides will have to continue to work hard on ensuring that peace and confidence building processes are further augmented,” said former Foreign Secretary and Ambassador to China Nirupama Rao, who authored the book India-China-Tibet 1949-1962. “Post-Galwan, popular perceptions of each other have plummeted and that will continue to be a restraining factor as far as people to people ties are concerned,” she added, stating that while the border situation must be verified step-by-step, direct flights, visas, and academic linkages could be eased with the current détente in place.
India-China disengagement begins, but doubts remain over whether LAC ‘buffer zones’ will be abolished
Experts question government statements, saying that no return to pre-2020 troop positions is possible as long as buffer zones remain; transparency is of the utmost importance, former diplomats say
Days after South Block announced a breakthrough in Indo-Chinese border talks, and as the disengagement process begins at the Line of Actual Control (LAC), doubts about the agreement have started to sprout up. Questions are being asked about whether the “buffer zones” set up in eastern Ladakh will be abolished, with experts and former diplomats calling for full “transparency” on the contours of the resolution.
Although the government has maintained that troops will now return to pre-2020 positions, at least two senior officials privy to the ground situation said that the “buffer zones” would not be included in the current patrolling arrangement, as that pertains only to the areas of Demchok and Depsang.
“It appears that the buffer zones created are not being revisited in the agreement. Therefore, the statement by the government that we will see a return to the situations prior to 2020 standoff is a contradiction,” said former Ambassador to China Ashok Kantha. “My concern is that we have lowered the bar in terms of disengagement, or at the very least the government is stating that disengagement has been completed, prematurely,” he added.
The Ministry of External Affairs did not respond to requests for a comment on whether the buffer zones would remain, but an official denied any “contradiction” in the statements.
‘Return to 2020 situation’
The confusion over the buffer zones, say experts, relates to the original statements made about the “breakthrough”, which was announced on October 21, two days ahead of a meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping. On the same day, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar had said that the two sides had been negotiating the standoff since 2020, when he met with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Moscow.
“We reached an agreement on patrolling and with that we have gone back to where the situation was in 2020,” Mr. Jaishankar told a TV channel, adding “We can say that the disengagement process with China has been completed”.
Striking a note of caution however, Army Chief Upendra Dwivedi said that the two sides “need to reassure each other that we are not creeping into buffer zones that are created,” and built trust before tackling disengagement, de-escalation, and de-induction phases.
A day later, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri then clarified that “as far as the disengagement agreements reached previously are concerned, those agreements were not reopened in these discussions”, clarifying that the patrolling arrangements and the return to a 2020 situation only referred to the new agreements on Depsang and Demchok.
Buffer zones
“There seems to be no clarity on whether the buffer zones will continue to exist or will be abolished,” said Manoj Joshi, Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation and author of the book, Understanding the India-China Border. “The emphasis is on patrolling arrangements agreed to, so we need to know whether the patrolling will be allowed in the buffer zones as well,” he added.
The “temporary demilitarised zones” (DMZ) or buffer zones were set up in order to stabilise the tense situation at five friction points on the LAC where India and China had agreed to disengagement between February 2021 and September 2022. These were in the Galwan valley, the northern bank of Pangong Tso, and the Kailash Range at the southern bank, where Indian troops gave up manning positions on the heights at patrolling point or PP 17A in Gogra, and PP15 in the Hot Springs area.
The first buffer zone was created after the Galwan clash in which 20 Indian soldiers were killed, while the Chinese forces accepted only four casualties on their side. In the aftermath of the brutal clash, and amidst serious tensions, military commanders on both sides had agreed to create a three-kilometre wide buffer zone (1.5 km on either side). Subsequent disengagements also saw the establishment of buffer zones which were several kilometres wide.
Losing access to territory
At the time, the buffer zones were criticised by Indian military analysts, who said that the zones would mean Indian soldiers would have to move further back into Indian territory, cutting off access for patrolling to an even larger area. In January 2023, a police paper said that as a result of Chinese transgressions and the disengagement process, Indian soldiers had lost access to “26 of 65” patrolling points.
Former diplomats welcomed the government’s move to re-engage diplomatically with China, but said that “transparency is of the utmost importance”.
“A return to ‘business as usual’ will be ill-advised at present because the structural problems remain unresolved,” Mr. Kantha told The Hindu. “Peace and tranquillity in border process remains incomplete. We shouldn’t let our guard down. This is not a reset,” he added.
“It’s a positive development but the two sides will have to continue to work hard on ensuring that peace and confidence building processes are further augmented,” said former Foreign Secretary and Ambassador to China Nirupama Rao, who authored the book India-China-Tibet 1949-1962. “Post-Galwan, popular perceptions of each other have plummeted and that will continue to be a restraining factor as far as people to people ties are concerned,” she added, stating that while the border situation must be verified step-by-step, direct flights, visas, and academic linkages could be eased with the current détente in place.
NO COMMENT