New Delhi: Amid a bitter stand-off between India and China over the Dokalam region, the Congress party on Monday rejected reports of party vice president Rahul Gandhi's meeting with Chinese Amabassador to India Luo Zhaohui.

No such meeting took place, the Congress said.

CNN News18 had earlier reported that Rahul met Zhaohui to discuss Sino-India relations in the wake of stand-off between armies of two nations in Doklam area of Sikkim.

However, sources in Rahul Gandhi's office denied any meeting with Chinese envoy Luo Zhaohui.

Sources in Rahul Gandhi's office deny any meeting with Chinese envoy Luo Zhaohui — ANI (@ANI_news) July 10, 2017

The fresh matter came to fore at a time when China has increased pressure on India to withdraw its troops from the Dokalam region as a precondition for any talks to resolve border issues between the two sides.

The Indian Army,meanwhile, is said to be ready for a long haul in holding onto its position in the Dokalam area near the Bhutan tri-junction, notwithstanding China ratcheting up rhetoric against India demanding pulling back of its troops.

The Indian soldiers deployed in the disputed area have pitched in tents, in an indication that they are unlikely to retreat unless there was reciprocity from China's PLA personnel in ending the face-off at an altitude of around 10,000 feet in the Sikkim section.

A steady line of supplies is being maintained for the soldiers at the site, official sources said, signalling that Indian Army is not going to wilt under any pressure from China.

At the same time they sounded confident of finding a diplomatic solution to the dispute, citing resolution of border skirmishes in the past through diplomacy.

Though China has been aggressively asserting that it was not ready for any "compromise" and that the "ball is in India's court", the view in the security establishment here is that there cannot be any unilateral approach in defusing the tension.

Both the countries had agreed to a mechanism in 2012 to resolve border flare ups through consultations at various levels.

The mechanism has not worked so far in the current case as the standoff near the Bhutan trijunction, triggered by China's attempt to build a road in the strategically important area, has dragged on for over three weeks.

New Delhi has already conveyed to China that such an action would represent a significant change of status quo with "serious" security implications for India. The road link could give China a major military advantage over India.

Doka La is the Indian name for the region which Bhutan recognises as Dokalam, while China claims it as part of its Donglang region.

China and Bhutan are engaged in talks over the resolution of the dispute in the area. India argues that since it is a tri-junction involving the three countries, it also has a say in the issue, specially in the backdrop of 2012 agreement between special representatives of the two countries, that have till now held 19 rounds of talks.

Bhutan has no diplomatic ties with China. As a close friend and neighbour, Bhutan enjoys diplomatic and military support from India.

Of the 3,488-km-long India-China border from Jammu and Kashmir to Arunachal Pradesh, a 220-km section falls in Sikkim.</s>As the stand-off between India and China continues on the border of north-eastern state Sikkim, social media is abuzz with the demand of boycotting Chinese-made products. It is believed that by boycotting Chinese goods, India can put pressure - economically - on China. And the belief is not entirely wrong as India in the latest financial year imported Chinese goods worth over USD 60 billion. 

 

This is the second time in just two year's time when calls for banning Chinese products are picking up on the social media. Last time when such demands were made the situation was different and India was looking for China's support to get Pakistan based Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Masood Azhar designated as terrorist by the United Nations.

China refused to accept Azhar as terrorist as it was not convinced - on technical point - by India's argument. China's double standard irked many Indians who later demanded India to teach China a lesson by cutting down the import. 

 

This time India is in a direct face-off with China. Whatever be the nature of conflict with China, people of the country have always reacted almost in a same way and demanded immediate ban of Chinese goods. However, social media campaign failed to elicit any response from the government or any other party functionary.

And, it is highly unlikely that the government would react on such demands as last year Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman while answering a question in the Rajya Sabha made it clear that it was not possible for India to put a 'blanket ban' on Chinese products due to WTO rules.

 

When faced with barrage of questions on the demand from the reporters, Sitharaman further said: "Just because we may not like certain things about a country is not reason enough to block imports from that country. We could impose anti-dumping duties, but there are established ways to go about it and dumping has to be proved." 

 

While the government thinks that it cannot ban the Chinese products because of World Trade Organization or WTO guidelines, well known Geostrategist and Professor of strategic studies at CPR Brahma Chellaney says that it is time that India should use its most powerful weapon against China which is - Trade. When Business Today - Digital asked Brahma Chellaney that government is bound by WTO regulations, he said if Beijing can punish South Korea and Mongolia why can't New Delhi.

 

Here's what Beijing did to punish South Korea, Norway and Mongolia

 

China banned South Korean cosmetics and retail giant Lotte: It was reported that when South Korea deployed the United States' Terminal High Altitude Area Defense or THAAD missile system, Beijing slapped a ban on Korean cosmetics and asked Chinese tour groups not to visit South Korea. China also banned South Korean retail giant Lotte from operating in the country to put pressure on Seoul. It wanted South Korea to abandon the THAAD system which it considered as a threat to its national security. However, China never acknowledged the bans on tourism but tour operators reportedly informed about how the Chinese government put the pressure on them. 

 

China banned Norwegian salmon fish exports: China also banned Norwegian salmon fish exports in 2010. The move came after Oslo-based Nobel Committee awarded the 2010 Peace Prize to the Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. The Independent reported that after the ban sales of fresh salmon dropped by 61.8 per cent. Norway opposed the ban and threatened to approach WTO but nothing happened. Finally, Oslo had to pledge that it would commit to the 'one-China policy and respect for China's territorial integrity'.

 

China blocked Mongolian Trucks after Dalai Lama visit: It was December 2016, when Mongolia became the next country to face the Chinese wrath. Beijing punished Mongolia for its welcome to Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama who visited the country despite China's repeated warnings. China blocked hundreds of Mongolian trucks carrying coal from crossing the Chinese border. Al Jazeera correspondent Adrian Brown wrote: "In a sense, Mongolia is paying a very heavy economic price for putting religious freedom ahead of economic necessity."



Go by Chinese playbook: Professor Brahma Chellaney in his article suggested that India should use trade as a political weapon against China. He said: "Beijing's annual trade surplus with India is large enough for it to finance one China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) every calendar year and still have a few billion dollars to spare. India's most powerful weapon against China is trade. Given China's proclivity to deploy trade as a political weapon, as against South Korea in the latest case, why doesn't India take a page out of the Chinese playbook?"

Should Prime Minister Modi follow Donald Trump on trade defecit with China? Professor Chellaneyreferred to US President Donald Trump's latest attempt of how he was trying to narrow the trade deficit with India. Chellaney argued: "Modi, for example, has allowed China's trade surplus with India to double on his watch to almost $60 billion. By comparison, India's trade surplus with the US is about half of that, yet Trump wants urgent Indian action to balance the two-way trade."</s>New Delhi: Amid the standoff between India and China at the border tri-junction with Bhutan, Congress on Monday said party vice-president Rahul Gandhi has met the ambassadors of the neighbouring countries.

The party downplayed the meeting and did not specify its venue or time.

Congress spokesperson Randeep Surjewala termed it a “courtesy call” and said envoys of G5 as well as neighbouring countries keep meeting Congress president Sonia Gandhi and the vice-president from time to time.

“Be it the Chinese ambassador (Luo Zhaohui) or Bhutanese ambassador (Vetsop Namgyel) or former national security Adviser Shiv Shankar Menon, Rahul Gandhi met all three of them. Nobody should try to sensationalise such normal courtesy calls to term them an event like the sources of the ministry of external affairs are attempting to do,” he said.

Surjewala said Rahul and other opposition leaders are “fully aware of our national interests” and are concerned about the “grave situation” on the Indo-Chinese border as well as “the situation arising in Bhutan as also in Sikkim”.

China and India have been engaged in the standoff in the Doklam area near the Bhutan tri-junction for the past three weeks after a Chinese Army’s construction party attempted to build a road. Doka La is the Indian name for the region which Bhutan recognises as Dokalam, while China claims it as part of its Donglang region.</s>India China standoff: Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi has met Chinese Ambassador, according to TV reports. This comes days after Gandhi had criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi asking why the latter was silent on the recent Chinese aggression on the border. New Delhi and Beijing have been engaged in a standoff in the Doklam area near the Bhutan tri-junction for the past three weeks after a Chinese Army’s construction party attempted to build a road. Doka La is the Indian name for the region which Bhutan recognises as Doklam, while China claims it as part of its Donglang region. The two neighbouring superpowers share 3,488-km-long border spreading from Jammu and Kashmir to Arunachal Pradesh. Of this a 220-km section falls in Sikkim.

On July 6, Chinese authorities ruled out one-ono-one meeting meeting between PM Modi and President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Hamburg citing that atmosphere was not right for such talk. The “atmosphere is not right” for a bilateral meeting between President Xi and Prime Minister Modi, Chinese Foreign Ministry officials had said.

Earlier, there were reports that PM Modi and Xi may meet on the sidelines of the G20 Summit to resolve the standoff. Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Geng Shuang expressed hope that “India can immediately withdraw the border troops to the Indian side of the boundary to uphold the peace tranquillity of the China and India border areas”. “I think this is the pre-condition for any meaningful peace talks between the two sides,” he told a media briefing here when asked about the meeting between Modi and Xi on the sidelines of the G20 summit.

China’s state-run media had quoted Chinese analysts as saying that Beijing would be forced to use a “military way” to end the standoff in the Sikkim sector if India refuses to listen to the “historical lessons” being offered by it, as per PTI report.</s>New Delhi: Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi’s alleged meeting with a Chinese envoy in the midst of a standoff between the armies of the two nations has created a row. Even as the Congress vehemently denied that the meeting ever took place only to reverse the position hours later, the Chinese embassy first issued a short press release stating that the meeting did in fact take place on July 8, but then removed it.

The Congress emphatically, denied such a meeting ever took place. Party spokesperson Randeep Surjewala took to Twitter and blamed the ‘bhakt’ channel for running ‘fake news’.

Before MEA & IB sources plant news with 'Bhakts', they should reverify that we still have diplomatic relations with all our neighbours.2/n — Randeep S Surjewala (@rssurjewala) July 10, 2017 However, only a few hours later, Surjewala did a flip flop on the issue as he claimed that "Envoys met Rahul Gandhi, not only Chinese envoy but also Bhutanese envoy and ex-NSA Shiv Shankar Menon." "Various ambassadors and envoys keep meeting Congress president and vice-president from time to time on courtesy basis," Surjewala told ANI. However, only a few hours later, Surjewala did a flip flop on the issue as he claimed that "Envoys met Rahul Gandhi, not only Chinese envoy but also Bhutanese envoy and ex-NSA Shiv Shankar Menon." "Various ambassadors and envoys keep meeting Congress president and vice-president from time to time on courtesy basis," Surjewala told ANI. A few reports emerged this morning stating that Gandhi met Zhaohui on July 8. They had exchanged views on the present bilateral relations between the neighbouring countries, a post on Chinese embassy website read, as per media reports. It has been learned that later the Chinese embassy had removed the post. A few days ago Gandhi had criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi asking why the latter was silent on the recent Chinese aggression on the border. New Delhi and Beijing have been engaged in a standoff in the Doklam area near the Bhutan tri-junction for the past three weeks after a Chinese Army’s construction party attempted to build a road. Doka La is the Indian name for the region which Bhutan recognises as Doklam, while China claims it as part of its Donglang region. The two neighbouring superpowers share 3,488-km-long border spreading from Jammu and Kashmir to Arunachal Pradesh. Of this a 220-km section falls in Sikkim.</s>Recent events on the plateau near the tri-junction of India, Bhutan, and China have resulted in plenty of discussion among Indian analysts. The better among these have pointed out Doklam’s limited tactical value to China and the latter’s clear contravention of prior agreements to preserve the territorial status quo with Bhutan. Why then have PLA troops and their political masters risked a potential conflict on such weak grounds? As Ajai Shukla notes , “Beijing’s wish to extend the Chumbi Valley southwards is incomprehensible.” Understanding how this episode fits with China’s rise and broader strategy in Asia can shed light on this question, as well as on the most effective Indian response.

Limited data in the public domain show that the number of Chinese troop incursions along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) with India has been increasing, from 228 in 2010 to 411 in 2013 (and 334 by August 2014). Major episodes in the last four years include incursions in Ladakh at Depsang, Burtse, Chumar, and Pangong Lake. This pattern fits with China’s increased assertiveness in Asia since the late 2000s. The puzzle is tied to the larger question of why Beijing has abandoned its “peaceful rise” approach and adopted a strategy that is likely to alienate neighbors and invite balancing coalitions such as the growing India-Japan partnership.

It is tempting to attribute Chinese assertiveness to non-intentional factors such as rising nationalism, the ruling party’s internal politics, or rogue elements in the military. A more accurate explanation, however, lies in Beijing’s considered response to an altered external environment. In the late 2000s, with the US economy in crisis, Washington’s emerging pivot to Asia, and maritime disputes surfacing with Vietnam and the Philippines, Chinese elites began to question the continued wisdom of Deng Xiaoping’s injunction of hiding capacities and biding time. The ensuing debate, according to Chinese public intellectual Yan Xuetong, led to a shift in China’s strategy from “keeping a low profile” to “striving for achievement,” famously outlined in a speech by Xi Jinping in October 2013.

Whereas keeping a low profile was focused on hunkering down for the sake of economic development, striving for achievement is designed to actively shape China’s external security environment. It is in line with China’s rapidly growing capabilities, and is the political concomitant of Beijing’s post-Cold War military strategy—termed “active defense” by Beijing and “anti-access/area denial” by Washington—of making it unacceptably costly for the US to militarily intervene against Chinese interests in Asia. As noted by American scholar Oriana Mastro, China’s assertiveness (striving for achievement) serves its active defence strategy by weakening the political bonds between the US and Asian countries and by raising the perceived cost of US intervention in a regional crisis. The same applies to China’s relationship with South Asian countries vis-à-vis India; hence the potentially escalatory tactics for little gain in and the strident war-talk emanating from Chinese officials, state media, and experts.

This tactic should be familiar to students of international conflict. Thomas Schelling, a leading American theorist of conflict during the Cold War, called it brinkmanship, or “the threat that leaves something to chance.” Chinese assertiveness is a form of coercive based on the power to credibly hurt the other party. Leaving something to chance makes Chinese threats credible, for if everything were under China’s control then the ball would be in China’s court, so to speak, to end the conflict. Instead, in the case China has acted in a way that hands the initiative to Delhi—the Chinese ambassador literally claimed that the ball is in India’s court—betting that the latter would choose capitulation over a potentially escalatory response.

By deliberately introducing the risk of military conflict into its relations with Asian countries, China is able to achieve three inter-related goals. The first is actual territorial or strategic concessions, as was evident in the demand in 2013—highlighted by Srinath Raghavan—that India dismantle its bunkers in Chumar in exchange for China withdrawing its troops following an incursion in Depsang. The second is to make any Asian country think twice about involving the US in a crisis with China, for fear of military escalation. The third is to systematically undermine the credibility of any potential challengers. Brinkmanship is a game of chicken, and the player that capitulates first begins to earn a reputation for lacking resolve.

Seen through this lens, Chinese soldiers pitching tents on the Indian side of the LAC are not very different from Chinese frigates harassing US surveillance ships in the South China Sea or Chinese fishing trawlers ramming into Japanese coast guard vessels in the East China Sea. The crisis is an instance of Chinese brinkmanship designed to weaken the political bond between India and Bhutan, raise the cost of Delhi coming to Thimpu’s aid, and undermine India’s reputation (if any) for acting resolutely in international crises.

How best can India respond to such a contingency? Locked in this particular game of chicken, the rational choice is to stay the course. Doing nothing is not an option—as Schelling noted, “If you are publicly invited to play chicken and say you would rather not, you have just played.” The entry of Indian troops into the Plateau in a defensive posture is thus a strategically sound move. But what next? India has two options: deter further incursion by China, or compel China to restore the status quo. Deterrence will require a credible threat of punishment if China continues its road-building activities in the plateau. The local balance of capabilities favours India in this regard. Compelling China to vacate the plateau without gaining any concessions requires a tactic to which Indian strategists are perhaps not yet accustomed: brinkmanship. Competitive risk-taking with China—for example, through aggressive patrolling of the plateau—is the surest way of communicating resolve but requires Indian political leaders and military planners to be willing (within limits) to risk escalation and absorb costs in the event of a military conflict.

In the longer term, India would do well to create the necessary mechanisms of commitment to deter Chinese adventurism in the region. Upgrading the 2007 India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty to an alliance with a clear and automatic commitment to Bhutan’s defense would serve this purpose. Just as American troops in Western Europe served as a trip-wire for US commitment to the region’s defense during the Cold War, more Indian troops in Bhutan—perhaps even an airbase—would act as both commitment device and means for securing the Chumbi Valley. India’s ongoing road-building activity in northern Bhutan is similarly a step in the right direction. Finally, India needs to think more boldly about credibly deterring China by focusing on the latter’s greatest vulnerability: the sea lanes south of the Andaman Islands. Without its own strategy of active defence in the northern reaches of the Indian Ocean, Delhi will continue to lack the instruments of coercive necessary to protect its interests in the face of a rising China.

Rohan Mukherjee is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yale-NUS College.</s>New Delhi: Congress Vice-President Rahul Gandhi defended his meeting with Chinese Ambassador Luo Zhaohui last week amid the border stand-off, saying it was his job to be informed of critical issues.

In a series of tweets, Gandhi on Monday attacked the BJP-led government, saying if it was so concerned about his meeting with the Chinese envoy, why were three union ministers availing Chinese hospitality amid the border stand-off at Doklam in the Sikkim sector.

"It is my job to be informed on critical issues. I met the Chinese Ambassador, Ex-NSA, Congress leaders from NE & the Bhutanese Ambassador," Gandhi said. "If the government is so concerned about me meeting an ambassador, they should explain why three ministers are availing Chinese hospitality while the border issue is on," he added. Gandhi also referred to an IANS report of 2014 about Chinese troops entering India during the official visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping and took a dig at Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who had hosted the visiting leader in Ahmedabad. The two leaders had also sat on a swing. "And for the record I am not the guy sitting on the swing while a thousand Chinese troops had physically entered India," Gandhi said.</s>Hours after denial and even terming it fake news, Congress on Monday conceded that Rahul Gandhi indeed met the Chinese envoy to India. However, in a bid to underplay the meeting, party spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala said the Congress vice-president also met a Bhutanese envoy and former NSA Shiv Shankar Menon. “Various ambassadors and envoys keep meeting Congress President and Vice President time to time on courtesy basis,” Surjewala told ANI.

“PM Modi met Chinese President Xi Jinping in G20 Summit at Hamburg but China still refused to have a discussion (on the Sikkim standoff),” he added.

Earlier in the day, Surjewala, in a series of tweets, had denied media reports about Rahul Gandhi meeting the Chinese envoy. He said news channels were running “fake news” on Gandhi’s alleged meeting with Chinese Ambassador to India Luo Zhaohui. “A wanting to be ‘Bhakt’ channel will not question 3 Union Ministers visiting China or PM’s bonhomie & praise at G20 yet run fake news,” he had tweeted.

Last week, Rahul had questioned the PM on Twitter about the latter’s silence on the Sikkim standoff. “Why is the PM silent on China?” he had tweeted. His remarks came in the wake of a face-off with Chinese troops in Doklam plateau, a disputed territory between China and Bhutan.

Earlier in the week, he had also called Modi a “weak prime minister”. He had taken to social media twice saying that PM Modi did not raise the H1-B visa issue during his talks with US President Donald Trump and that Modi accepted the term “India-administered Kashmir” by the US State Department in its order designating Hizbul-Mujahideen leader Syed Salahuddin a global terrorist.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App</s>THE CONGRESS on Monday tied itself up in knots over a meeting between party vice-president Rahul Gandhi and Chinese Ambassador to India Luo Zhaohui, amid the border standoff between New Delhi and Beijing.

At first, the party denied the meeting took place, but confirmed it hours later. It, however, did not specify at whose instance the meeting was held on July 8, saying those specifics were not relevant.

“It is my job to be informed on critical issues. I met the Chinese Ambassador, Ex-NSA, Congress leaders from NE and the Bhutanese Ambassador,” Rahul tweeted in the evening. Senior Congress leader Manish Tewari identified the ex-NSA as Shivshankar Menon.

But earlier in the day, the Congress had a different take. “A wanting to be Bhakt channel will not question 3 Union Ministers visiting China or PM’s bonhomie & praise at G20 yet run fake news,” Congress’s communication department head Randeep Surjewala tweeted in the morning.

“Media having meltdown over non-existent meeting b/w @OfficeOfRG & Ambassador but remains mum on PM praise for China,” tweeted the party’s national media panelist Jaiveer Shergill.

Speaking on the issue at the AICC briefing in the evening, Tewari said: “The Congress vice-president, in the course of his regular work schedule, meets with a broad spectrum of people including diplomats. He did meet with the Chinese Ambassador, he did meet with the Bhutanese Ambassador, he did meet with the former NSA Shivshankar Menon.

“And for all those people who have been getting very angsty about it since morning, I have some questions too. If so much of a brouhaha is being made about it, then why did the Prime Minister of India actually cross the Lake Alster and go to the Grand Elysée Hotel to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping, especially after the Chinese had made it known that a structured bilateral meeting is not possible… And may I ask what was HRD Minister Prakash Javadekar doing in Beijing? And what was Culture Minister Mahesh Sharma doing in Beijing? And this is all on July 6 and 7. What was the Union Minister for Health and Family Welfare J P Nadda also doing in China at the same time? And why is an India Foundation delegation… now in China after two of their researchers were refused a visa… So let’s get real about it… in the normal course of business, people meet other people, and people in public life do try and acquaint themselves with the facts.”

Rahul tweeted on similar lines. “If Govt is so concerned abt me meeting an Amb, they shld explain why 3 Ministers are availing Chinese hospitality while the border issue is on… And for the record I am not the guy sitting on the swing while a thousand Chinese troops had physically entered India,” he tweeted, with a 2014 photograph of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping on a swing on the Sabarmati riverfront in Ahmedabad.

Asked about the denials, senior Congress leader Anand Sharma said: “There may have been a communication gap or a glitch. Because those who were privy to it would not have done that. Maybe, it was an initial communication gap which was corrected soon after… I don’t think Rahul Gandhi ever denied. There was some initial misunderstanding and it was soon cleared.”

About the standoff with China, Tewari said the Congress is “extremely concerned because there seems to be almost a two-front situation developing, and it is unfortunate that in the last 38 months, for a substantive period of time, India has not had a full-time Defence Minister.”

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App</s>As a controversy erupted over his meetin with the Chinese envoy, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi described the instance as his "job" and denounced Prime Minister Narendra Modi over his conversation with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the BRICS informal gathering few days back.

 

Rahul on Monday posted an apparently sardonic tweet, along with a picture of Prime Minister Modi on a swing with the Chinese President: "And for the record I am not the guy sitting on the swing while a thousand Chinese troops had physically entered India," while quoting an article bearing the headline 'Nearly 1,000 Chinese soldiers enter India.'

Further clarifying his meeting with the Chinese envoy, Rahul tweeted, "It is my job to be informed on critical issues. I met the Chinese Ambassador, Ex-NSA, Congress leaders from NE & the Bhutanese Ambassador. If Govt is so concerned abt me meeting an Amb,they shld explain why 3Ministers are availing Chinese hospitality while the border issue is on."

Earlier, six hours after an assertive denial of meeting between Rahul Gandhi and the Chinese envoy, the Congress did a major flip-flop and said that not only did the party vice-president meet the latter, but the Bhutanese envoy as well.

 

"Various ambassadors and envoys keep meeting the Congress president and the vice-president from time to time on a courtesy basis, particularly those of G5 nations and also of the neighbouring countries - be it the Chinese Ambassador, or the Bhutanese Ambassador or the former national security advisor Shiv Shankar Menon," Congress spokerperson Randeep Singh Surjewala told ANI.



 "Rahul Gandhi met all of them. So, nobody should try to sensationalise such normal courtesy calls or term them as events, like the sources from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) are trying to do. Rahul Gandhi and other Opposition leaders are fully aware of or national interests and other concerns about the grave situation on the Indo-Chinese Border and Bhutan, including Sikkim," he added.



Surjewala also attacked Prime Minister Modi and said, "Despite having sour relations with the China, our Prime Minister met Chinese President Xi Jinping in Germany."

 

Following this, the Congress downplayed the furore and said that the meeting took place in the wake of his regular work schedule.

 

Asking the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to not get antsy about the meet, Congress leader Manish Tewari, while addressing a press conference said that if we in India are boycotting China, then Prime Minsiter Narendra Modi also should not have made an effort to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping.

 

"The Congress vice-president in the course of his regular work schedule meets with a broad spectrum of people including diplomats and in this particular instance, he did meet with the Chinese ambassador; he did meet with the Bhutanese Ambassador; he did meet with the former national security advisor Shiv Shankar Menon and for all these people who have been getting very antsy about it since morning I have some questions too. If so much of 'brouhaha' is being made about it, then why did the Prime Minister of India actually crossed lake Alster and go to the Grand Elysee hotel? To meet with the Chinese President Xi Jinping? Especially after the Chinese had made it known that a bilateral meeting because of the stand-off in Bhutan is not possible," said Tewari.

 

This comes amid a lengthy standoff between the Armies of the two countries on Line of Actual Control adjoining Sikkim on India's eastern border.

 

New Delhi has expressed its serious apprehensions over Beijing constructing a road in the Sikkim sector of the LAC.



 India claims Sikkim border as part of its territory, while China has said that the area falls on their side as per the 1890 treaty signed between British and China.



 Consequently, China suspended the annual Kailash Manasarovar yatra and conceded that the decision to suspend the pilgrimage was due to the border scuffle.

 

It also alleged that the Indian troops had crossed the Sikkim sector of the Indo-China border. Beijing has accused New Delhi of violating a convention signed in 1890 between Britain and China relating to Sikkim and Tibet.
Amid a stand-off between India and China over the disputed territory of Doklam which is claimed by Bhutan, the Indian National Congress denies the meeting of Rahul Gandhi with the Chinese ambassador to India.