+91-8595390705

Line of Actual Control(LAC)

16 Dec 2022 Line of Actual Control(LAC)

Posted at 10:49h in Daily current-affairs by
0 Likes

Significance for Prelims: Difference between LAC and LOC.

Significance for Mains: Boundary dispute between India and China

News: On December 9, Chinese soldiers came to an Indian post on the LAC in Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh’s Yangtse region. After that Defence Minister Rajnath Singh briefed the parliament that they intended to alter the status quo in the region.

About Line of Actual Control(LAC):

  • It separates Indian-controlled territory from Chinese-controlled territory. 
  • Bone of Contention between India& China: India considers the LAC to be 3,488 km long, while the Chinese consider it around 2,000 km. 
  • LAC is divided into three sectors: the eastern sector spanning  Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim, the middle sector in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, and the western sector in Ladakh.
  • LAC is aligned in the eastern sector along the 1914 McMahon Line. 
  • Maps released by the Survey of India show India’s claim line and its official boundary includes Aksai Chin and Gilgit-Baltistan. 
  • For China LAC corresponds mostly to its claim line, but it claims the entire Arunachal Pradesh as South Tibet in the eastern sector. 

Major disagreements between India and China:

  • Due to the principle of the high Himalayan watershed there are minor disputes about the positions of LAC  on the ground.
  • In certain areas such as Longju and Asaphila, the line in the middle sector is the least controversial but precise alignment to be followed in the Barahoti plains.
  • Major disagreements are in the western sector based on two letters written by Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai to PM Jawaharlal Nehru in 1959. Zhou, in his letter, said that  LAC is “the so-called McMahon Line in the east and the line up to which each side exercises actual control in the west”. 
  • According to Shivshankar Menon ‘s book Choices: Inside the Making of India’s Foreign Policy, Chinese described the  LAC only in general terms on maps not to scale. 
  • Impact of the 1962 war: According to the Chinese claim, after 1962 war they had withdrawn to 20 km behind the LAC of November 1959.
  • Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson urged India during the Doklam crisis in 2017, to abide by the “1959 LAC”.

India’s response to China’s designation of the LAC:

  • Chinese  concept of LAC in both 1959 and 1962 was rejected by India. Nehru was unequivocal even during the war and refused the  Chinese offer to withdraw twenty kilometres from what Chinese call ‘line of actual control’.
  • Reason for India’s objection of the Chinese line: Chinese line can be joined in many ways as it  was a disconnected series of points on a map. (b) Chinese gained from aggression in 1962, but new line should omit gains of 1962 and it should be based on the actual position on September 8, 1962 before the Chinese attack. (c) Vagueness of the Chinese definition can make it possible for  China to change facts on the ground by military force.

India accept the LAC:

  • During Chinese Premier Li Peng’s 1991 visit to India,LAC was discussed between PM P V Narasimha Rao and Li.Both India and China  reached an understanding to maintain peace and tranquillity at the LAC. 
  • When  Rao paid a return visit to Beijing in 1993, India formally accepted the concept of the LAC and two sides signed the Agreement to Maintain Peace and Tranquillity at the LAC. 
  • When the agreement was signed in 1993, it referred to the LAC of the time when it was signed not to the LAC of 1959 or 1962.
  • Formation of Joint Working Group on the border issue to reconcile the differences about some areas along LAC.  

Reasons for change in India’s stance on the Line of Actual Control:

  • During the mid-1980s, Indian and Chinese patrols were coming in more frequent contact,
  • Formation of  China Study Group in 1976 by the government of India that revised the patrolling limits, rules of engagement and pattern of Indian presence along the border. Hence, more conflict between Indian and Chinese soldiers. 
  • During Sumdorongchu standoff, Rajiv Gandhi visited Beijing in 1988, and the two sides agreed to negotiate pending border settlement.
  • India and China exchanged their maps of the LAC for the middle sector. Further, Maps were “shared” for the western sector but never formally exchanged. There is no publicly available map depicting India’s version of the LAC.

Recent Chinese incursions: Approximately  in between 200 to 600 Chinese soldiers crossed over into the Indian side at 3 am reflecting the serious intent leading to fierce clash. Both sides used sticks, canes and clubs wrapped with barbed wire. Report said that some 40 soldiers were injured on the Indian side. 

  • After the stand-off in eastern Ladakh,there was anticipation of trouble in Eastern sector, specially in Arunachal Pradesh as China virtually claims the entire state,particularly Tawang due to its importance in Tibetan Buddhism.
  • Appropriate word to describe the situation at the LAC is “unpredictable” as we can anticipate the situation, but its nearly impossible to to know exactly where the PLA might precipitate a situation. 
  • Situation is different from Ladakh, as in Ladakh incursions took place in 2020 i.e.  Gogra, Hot Springs and Galwan where there had been no overlapping Chinese claims, while the  trouble in Tawang(western-most district of Arunachal)  erupted at an “agreed” disputed point.
  • After Ladakh standoff, there is  a “marginal increase” in patrolling by the PLA in some areas also  Chinese were building housing infrastructure close to the LAC on their side. 

Countermeasures taken by India:

  • Sela Pass tunnel project by Border Road Organisation for all-weather connectivity between Tezpur in Assam and Tawang.
  • Infrastructure expansion in Arunachal along five “verticals”: habitat, aviation, road infrastructure, operational logistics and security infrastructure.
  • Increase in surveillance on the Chinese side, “both close to the LAC as well as depth areas” through niche technologies such as ground-based cameras with night vision ability, surveillance drones, long-distance surveillance UAVs, and better communication systems. 
Difference between LAC and  Line of Control with Pakistan: 

  • It is a legal agreement having international sanctity signed by DGMOs of both armies and delineated on the map. 
  • Concept of LoC emerged after the 1948 ceasefire line negotiated by the UN after the Kashmir War.
  • Following the Shimla Agreement between India and Pakistan in 1972, it was designated as the LoC. I
  • In contrast, the LAC is only a concept and not agreed upon by the two countries, further it is not delineated on a map or demarcated on the ground.

Prelims:

Q. Shimla Agreement is signed between

(a) India-Pakistan

(b) India -China

(c) India -Bangladesh

(d) India- Sri Lanka

Mains:

Q. Analyse internal security threats and transborder crimes along Myanmar, Bangladesh and Pakistan borders including Line of Actual Control(LAC). Also, discuss the role played by various security forces in this regard.

Source: The Indian Express

Article: Line of Actual Control: Past tense, present uncertain; Line of Actual Control (LAC): Where it is located, and where India and China differ

Article Link: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/india-china-border-crisis-tawang-face-off-lac-history-past-tense-present-uncertain-8327155/

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/line-of-actual-control-where-it-is-located-and-where-india-and-china-differ-6436436/

No Comments

Post A Comment