Indian soldiers have not taken up arms because of these agreements?

Indo-China border tension: Indian soldiers have not taken up arms because of these agreements?

On the night of 15–16 June, there were violent clashes between Indian and Chinese soldiers in the Galvan Valley, in which 20 soldiers were killed. According to the Indian Army, Chinese soldiers attacked with iron rods mounted with nails.

A video statement of Prime Minister Narendra Modi also came on this matter, in which he said, “Indian soldiers die by beating.”

But amidst all this a news has surprised everyone that Indian soldiers did not use weapons to respond to the Chinese attack.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi questioned this and asked who sent the Indian Army to the Chinese soldiers without arms?

In response, Foreign Minister S Jaishankar said that the Indian soldiers stationed on the Indo-China border in the Galvan Valley had weapons but they did not use the weapon under agreements with China.

He wrote on Twitter, “All the soldiers posted on the border carry weapons. Especially when leaving the post, they still have weapons. On June 15, soldiers posted in Galvan also had weapons.

India to enter into a military logistic pact with Japan, will compete with China in the Indian Ocean

But due to the Indo-China treaty in 1996 and 2005, this process has been going on for a long time that the soldiers do not use firearms (guns) during face-offs. ”

Foreign Minister is referring to which agreement?

The agreement signed by External Affairs Minister Jaishankar was signed by both the countries on 29 November 1996. The pact emphasizes that “both sides will not use any form of force against each other or threaten to use or seek military superiority.”

The first article of the agreement reads – “Neither of the two countries will use military capability against the other. No army deployed on both sides of the LAC, under its military capability, will attack the other side or take part in any such military activity, nor threaten to do so, leading to peace in the Indo-China border areas And threaten stability. “

India China Clashes on LAC: 20 Causalities on the Indian Side

The part of the agreement that Jaishankar is referring to is in Article 6. According to this, “No party within the radius of two kilometers of LAC shall resort to firing, biological weapons, use of harmful chemical, blast operation or attack with guns and explosives.”

Earlier, an agreement was also signed with China in 1993. According to the agreement, “Both sides believe that the border dispute between India and China will be resolved through peaceful and friendly negotiations. Neither party will use force or threaten to use it. “

Next year, in 2005 an agreement was reiterated several points of 1993 and agreements 1996.

Does the treaty completely prohibit the use of weapons?

It is clear from the agreements between the two countries that no country is allowed to use arms, but whether these rules are applicable even when the attack is from the front, as in this case, the Indian Army is claiming?

The BBC spoke to Retreat Major General Ashok K Mehta. According to him, “If you have been attacked, if someone is ambushed and is attacking you with stones, then you will not throw your security stones. 

America, India, Australia, and Japan have been mobilized against China

The commander present there has to decide whether the rules which are there should be broken in self-defense or not. If the commander is not left, the second-in-command should be ordered. You can use a weapon for self-defense. “

According to Mehta, the agreement that Jaishankar is talking about, China had already broken, “Banners are usually removed during border disputes. 

In this case, no banner was displayed, it was evening and they were sitting ambush, which means that the border agreement was already broken on their side. “

Mehta further adds, “But we don’t know what the circumstances were there. How many people were up, how many were down, how many had fallen into the water. We do not know whether those people were in the position of firing or not. The one who attacks has the advantage. “

SD Muni, an international affairs expert, says, “If a pole is also used, then there is a violation of the agreement. It is difficult to tell which type of force has been used on both sides, who has violated it more, until full details are found. 

Follow us on:

Facebook | Telegram | Twitter | Tumblr | Reddit | Quora

But it is not common for so many soldiers to die. It is true that weapons can be taken to save lives. International protocol says that if you want to save yourself, you can use weapons. “

What is the future of these agreements?

Muni says, “If the Indian government believes that the agreement is broken, then China should talk about these agreements again, the Indian government should ask China whether it wants to take steps to increase the trust between the two countries.”

Apart from this, Muni believes that India should raise other issues related to China in other international forums.