New Delhi - India warned China on Friday that construction of a road near their common border would have serious security implications, as China's Foreign Ministry denied its troops had violated the territory of India's ally, Bhutan.

The stand-off on a plateau next to the mountainous Indian state of Sikkim, which borders China, has ratcheted up tension between the two neighboring giants, who share a 3,500 km frontier, parts of which are disputed.

According to the Chinese interpretation of events, Indian guards crossed into China's Donglang region early in June and obstructed work on a road on a plateau.

Troops from the two sides then confronted each other close to a strategic valley controlled by China that separates India from Bhutan and gives China access to the so-called Chicken's Neck, a thin strip of land that connects India to its remote northeastern regions.

Bhutan said on Thursday that the road was being built inside its territory.

Indian media have reported that the dispute began when China removed an old Indian bunker.

"India is deeply concerned at the recent Chinese actions and has conveyed to the Chinese Government that such construction would represent a significant change of status quo with serious security implications for India," India's ministry of external affairs said in a statement.

"It is essential that all parties concerned display utmost restraint and abide by their respective bilateral understandings not to change the status quo unilaterally," the ministry said.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said the road work was going on in an area that was on the Chinese not Bhutanese side.

China and Bhutan have yet to reach a final agreement on demarking their border.</s>A tense environment is reeling round the Sikkim border where Indian and Chinese troops are locked in a standoff. While Beijing jumped into the matter and demanded the withdrawal of Indian troops from the Sikkim sector as a precondition for “meaningful dialogue” to resolve the situation, India expressed its deep concern over China constructing a road in the disputed Doklam area near Sikkim. In a message to Beijing, the Government said that any such would represent a significant change of status quo with “serious” security implications for India. Meanwhile, Sikkim government has prepared and sent a report to the central government giving details of the situation along the border following the standoff, say PTI reports. Here are the ten latest development in the face-off between Indian and Chinese troops in the area:

– China has removed an old bunker of the Indian Army located at the tri-junction of India, China and Bhutan in Sikkim by using a bulldozer after the Indian side refused to accede to its request, reported PTI quoting its officials.

– India on Friday hit back at China for making veiled threats with Defence Minister Arun Jaitley asserting that India of 2017 is different from what it was in 1962, even as New Delhi told Beijing its actions near Sikkim have “serious” security implications for this country.

– India also treats the June 26 statement by the Chinese foreign ministry that Indian border troops crossed the boundary line in the Sikkim sector of the China-India boundary and entered Chinese territory as factually incorrect. India has always maintained that there is no China between the Sikkim and Bhutan border.

– A high-level meeting on Friday reviewed the situation in the Sikkim sector where tensions have flared up between Indian troops and Chinese military over the construction of a road by China in a strategically key area near the Sino-India border, as per PTI report.

– The first batch of Kailash Mansarovar pilgrims, a shrine dedicated to Lord Shiva, comprising about 50 people returned from the Nathu La border post as a result of the standoff between India and China. The second batch of pilgrims did not move from Gangtok and pilgrims were told to go home as the Kailash Mansarovar pilgrimage is unlikely to continue this year via Nathu La.

– Amid the ongoing tension between the troops of the neighboring country, Bhutan had earlier accused China of directly violating the agreement between them by constructing a road inside its territory. It asked China to stop constructing the motorable road from Dokola in the Doklam area towards the Bhutan Army camp at Zompelri as it will affect the process of demarcating the boundary between the two countries.

– China took no time to reject the claim of Bhutan on the issue of road construction arguing that the Doklam area in the Sikkim sector has been a traditional pasture for Chinese cattle grazers over which it has historically exercised “complete and comprehensive” control.

– In Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang indicated that the point of friction was in the Donglong (Doklam) region, which he stressed belonged to China indisputably.

– India’s army chief Bipin Rawat had on Thursday visited the mountainous state of Sikkim bordering China, where tensions have flared after Beijing accused New Delhi of sending troops into its territory and obstructing the construction of a road. Small incursions and troop stand-offs are common along with other parts of China and India’s contested 3,500 km (2175 miles) frontier, but a flare-up near strategically positioned Sikkim is rare.

– China seemed unhappy with Indian Army Chief as it warned General Bipin Rawat to “stop clamouring for war”, calling it as “extremely irresponsible” of his recent statement saying India was ready for a “two-and-a-half front war”, said The Indian Express report. Speaking to reporters, Chinese People’s Liberation Army spokesperson Col Wu Qian, said China hoped “particular person in the Indian Army could learn from historical lessons and stop such clamouring for war.”</s>India on Friday said that it has conveyed to the Chinese government that the latter’s construction of road in the disputed Doklam area ‘would represent a significant change of status quo with serious security implications for India.’

“India is deeply concerned at the recent Chinese actions,” the Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement.

“Where the boundary in the Sikkim sector is concerned, India and China had reached an understanding also in 2012 reconfirming their mutual agreement on the basis of alignment. Further discussions regarding finalisation of the boundary have been taking place under the Special Representatives framework,” India said.

“It is essential that all parties concerned display utmost restraint and abide by the respective bilateral understandings not to change the status quo unilaterally. It is also important that the consensus reached between India and China through the Special Representatives process in scrupulously respected by both sides,” it added.

“India cherishes peace and tranquility in the India-China border areas. It has not come easily. Both sides have worked hard to establish institutional framework to discuss all issues to ensure peace and tranquility in the India-China border areas. India is committed to working with China to find peaceful resolution of all issues in the border areas through dialogue,” the Ministry said.

Beijing had earlier alleged that Indian border troops had crossed the boundary line in the Sikkim sector of the China-India boundary and entered Chinese territory.

As India and China faced off over the road construction dispute, Beijing Thursday said withdrawal of Indian troops from the Doklam plateau was a prerequisite for any dialogue between the two countries, and to prevent any escalation.

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) also warned Army chief General Bipin Rawat to “stop clamouring for war”, dismissing as “extremely irresponsible” his recent remarks that India was ready for a “two-and-a-half front war”.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App</s>NEW DELHI: India condemned a new road that China is building on the rivals’ Himalayan border on Friday, saying it raises “serious security” concerns.

The two sides are trading increasingly stern diplomatic warnings over the new hotspot, a remote scrap of territory where the frontiers of China, India and Bhutan meet.

Beijing made a formal protest this week, accusing Indian border guards of crossing from the northeastern state of Sikkim into its Tibetan territory to stop the road building.

India’s foreign ministry said Friday that China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops entered the area to “unilaterally” construct the road.

“India is deeply concerned at the recent Chinese actions and has conveyed to the Chinese government that such construction would represent a significant change of status quo with serious security implications for India,” a ministry statement said.

“India cherishes peace and tranquillity in the India-China border areas. It has not come easily,” it said, urging Beijing to resolve the skirmish through dialogue.

India and China have long disputed parts of their Himalayan border, and regularly accuse each other of making illegal troop encroachments.

Bhutan has also lodged a formal protest to China, saying the road violated a bilateral agreement.

Bhutan, which does not have diplomatic relations with China, still disputes sovereignty of the land. And the showdown is part of a wider friction between India and China over the 4,057 kilometer (2,520 mile) border.

China has insisted several times this week that India withdraw troops who are “trespassing” on its side of the frontier.

It insists that it has every right to build the road and that it controls the territory under an 1890 accord made with Britain when it was colonial power in the region.

“We can tell you that the Chinese people hold a friendly and goodwill relations to the Bhutan people but our determination to uphold our territorial integrity and sovereignty is unwavering,” a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said Friday.

“The nature of this standoff is quite clear, it’s a trespass by the Indian side to the Chinese border. So the obvious thing is their withdrawal from the Chinese side.”

India and China’s ties have been dogged by mistrust stemming from a brief war in 1962 over the northeastern state of Arunachal Pradesh which has a large ethnic Tibetan population.

Flare-ups around Sikkim are rare. It is the least populous and second smallest of India’s states, but its location gives it strategic importance.

India’s seven remote northeastern states are connected to the rest of the country by a narrow sliver of land known as the “chicken’s neck”. Sikkim is wedged between Nepal, Bhutan and China.

“The Chinese have realised that India is vulnerable at the ‘chicken neck’ so it could be a way to test the reaction of the Indian establishment,” said Sameer Patil, a defence and security analyst at the Mumbai-based Gateway House think-tank.

Tensions along the frontier rose in 2014 when Chinese soldiers moved into territory on the Sikkim-Tibet border claimed by India, sparking a two-week stand-off.

Hundreds of Indian and Chinese troops faced off on the de facto border, overshadowing a visit by China’s President Xi Jinping.

The latest border “scuffle” was triggered after PLA soldiers damaged two old Indian bunkers, according to Indian media.

China has reportedly since stopped pilgrims crossing into Tibet to visit a mountain shrine to the revered Hindu god Shiva because of the showdown.

India has a number of disputes with China. It is angry at China for proposing to finance Pakistan infrastructure in disputed Kashmir, which India also claims.

It also blames China for blocking its efforts to become a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the international club that controls the global nuclear trade. – AFP</s>“Our robust strategic partnership is such that it touches upon almost all areas of human endeavor….We consider the USA as our primary partner for India’s social and economic transformation in all our flagship programs and schemes,” proclaimed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on June 26.

The venue was the joint press conference with President Donald Trump following their lengthy meeting at the White House. This is a sentiment that America must strengthen and build upon to contain the expanding ambitions of China.

Of course, diplomatic niceties prevented any actual public mention of the Communist regime as a common threat to the world’s two largest democracies. Nor was China’s ally Pakistan mentioned, even as the two leaders talked about defeating terrorism in the region.

President Trump noted “Both our nations have been struck by the evils of terrorism, and we are both determined to destroy terrorist organizations and the radical ideology that drives them. We will destroy radical Islamic terrorism.”

In the case of India, terrorism has been linked directly to Pakistan which has been supporting an insurgency in Kashmir ever since that Muslim province was incorporated into India when the British Raj was partitioned in 1947.

Pakistan was founded as an Islamic state with the mission to unite all Muslims in the region.

India was founded on a more tolerant, multicultural democratic standard and counts 175 million Muslims among its 1.3 billion citizens. In must be remembered that it was Pakistan that blocked a UN plebiscite on Kashmir’s fate because it feared too many Muslims would vote to live in the more attractive society of India than in a militant regime. Pakistan failed in its bid to seize control of Kashmir but has continued to stir up jihadist movements in the province.

Vice President Mike Pence, speaking to the U.S.-India Business Council on June 27, mentioned how “barbarians have struck on Indian soil too many times over the decades, including the horrific attacks in Mumbai nearly a decade ago, claiming the lives of more than 160 innocents, including six Americans.” That attack was traced to Pakistan. Hours before Modi’s arrival, the State Department imposed sanctions on Syed Salahuddin, the Pakistan-based leader of Hizbul Mujahideen, the main Kashmir terrorist group.

PM Modi stated, “Fighting terrorism and doing away with the safe shelters, sanctuaries, and safe havens will be an important part of our cooperation,” clearly with Pakistan in mind; not only regarding Kashmir, but also Afghanistan. The U.S. and its coalition (which includes India, for whose contributions President Trump thanked Modi) cannot end the war in Afghanistan as long as the Taliban (and now ISIS) can lick their wounds and rebuild their forces in Pakistan; free to cross the border at times of their own choosing.

The threat from China was alluded to when President Trump mentioned how Indian forces “will join together with the Japanese navy to take part in the largest maritime exercise ever conducted in the vast Indian Ocean.” What links Japan and India is concern over Beijing’s expansion across the Pacific Rim and into the Indian Ocean. Beijing’s ambitious “Belt and Road” development initiative which is designed to impose a “common destiny” on Eurasia is opposed by both India and Japan. The Chinese plan will build on programs hat have already been underway in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, posing direct threats to Indian security.

The U.S. and Japan can and must counter the Chinese initiative by increasing their role in developing the Indian economy, which can truly be a “win-win” relationship.

China’s rise has been fueled by short-sighted American business firms willfully ignorant of the true nature of the Beijing regime. They have transferred technology and production capacity to a strategic rival of their home country. The pursuit of private profit without adequate supervision by a Washington establishment blinded by naive liberal hopes and corrupted by corporate cash has helped to create a threat Americans will have to face for decades to come.

It would be a much better world if all the Western capital sent to China had gone to India instead. Trade is properly conducted among friends, not adversaries where the “gains from trade” are used to create menacing capabilities.

With the world’s largest population, India presents a massive market for American goods of all kinds. President Trump, however, concentrated his remarks on energy and security. We are “looking forward to exporting more American energy to India as your economy grows, including major long-term contracts to purchase American natural gas.”

To the extent that imported gas replaces Indian coal, it will help New Delhi clean up the air pollution that makes its cities look as bad at those in China. VP Pence added nuclear power and clean coal to the list of energy sources the U.S. could help New Delhi develop.

President Barack Obama had carried his “war on coal” overseas with a ban on any U.S. aid to the Indian coal industry. But India is not going to abandon its massive coal reserves; their use can, however, be improved.

Modernizing India’s military is central to the strategic alignment. VP Pence mentioned to the USIBC that “the United States will sell Sea Guardian UAVs, Apache attack helicopters, and C-17 transports to India.” A larger program on the table is the sale of 126 fighter jets to India. The Lockheed F-16 “Viper” is the leading candidate, but the Saab JAS-39 “Gripen” is also in the running, though a strategic link to Sweden makes little sense in an Asian setting.

India, however, is moving from being a consumer of military hardware to a producer, as any Great Power must do. Modi has a “make it in India” policy and Lockheed is willing to set up an F-16 production line there. The question is whether this will be considered “outsourcing” by the Trump administration. It should not be as long as the production is for Indian service and does not replace jobs in U.S. industry supplying the Pentagon. The F-16 is long out of production for the USAF. The new F-35 “Lightning II” is coming into service (also built by Lockheed).

Indian production should be seen as “market extension” which will create additional work for American factories and maintenance services, not only for this order of warplanes but for future orders of military equipment of many kinds as the strategic relationship deepens. It should be noted that the first European production line for the F-16 opened in 1978; so India is not asking for anything novel.

The need to offer “co-production” to win military contracts is a subject not often discussed in public debates over arms sales, but it is a part of many transactions. Offset arrangements can also involve local purchasing, subcontracting, investment, and technology-transfer requirements on U.S. exporters that benefit foreign firms in the purchasing country. The U.S. defense industry is the world’s leader, but its comparative advantage does not yield the full returns economic textbooks promise because of real world practices like offsets. These are negotiated between foreign governments and corporations in virtually every deal. The state authorities have the greater leverage, as it is generally a buyer’s market; but strategic considerations also play their part. Our officials must keep a close eye on such deals to keep a proper balance between risks and rewards to the U.S. defense industrial base.

India’s offset requirements have been at the low end of the international scale. Caught between two allied nuclear powers, China and Pakistan, New Delhi needs to modernize its forces; but it also needs a domestic industrial infrastructure to support its armed services. This is why offsets, though generally banned in the commercial sector under the World Trade Organization, are allowed for national security reasons. What is truly important cannot be left to the “invisible hand”— which means the hands of others.

President Trump and Prime Minister Modi are both nationalists in a dangerous world. As Modi put it, “I am sure that the convergence between my vision for a ‘new India’ and President Trump’s vision for ‘making America great again’ will add new dimensions to our cooperation.”

Login To Your FaceBook to Make Comments</s>China has made a formal protest after accusing Indian border guards of crossing from Sikkim state into its Tibetan territory, China s foreign ministry said Tuesday. “Our position to uphold our territorial sovereignty is unwavering,” spokesman Lu Kang told a regular briefing, adding China has lodged “solemn representations” with India. “We hope that the Indian side can work with China in the same direction and take actions to withdraw the personnel who have overstepped and trespassed into Chinese borders.” A statement posted on the Chinese defence ministry’s social media account said it had “seriously endangered peace and tranquility in the border areas”. The Indian military has “unilaterally stirred up trouble” by obstructing road building activities on the Chinese side of the border separating Sikkim and the Tibetan region, it said.

 Indian media said China had turned back 50 pilgrims trying to cross into Tibet to visit a mountain revered as the home of the Hindu god Shiva. Authorities there normally allow the annual pilgrimage to go ahead.

 In an earlier statement, China s foreign ministry called on India to “immediately withdraw their border troops that have crossed the boundary, conduct a thorough investigation into this and safeguard peace and tranquility of the Sikkim section”.</s>India national badminton coach Pullela Gopichand has said that the India are far away from being one of the dominant forces in the world and he further went on to say that India need to perform well in World Championships, Olympics and All England.

“I think we are still far away from China. I don’t think it is a fair comparison. We have done well but I would want them to do well in World Championships, Olympics and All England, playing consistently and only then we can say those things,” Gopichand was quoted as saying by PTI.

Talking about the government structure and policies, Gopichand suggested that some improvement is required to enhance the performances.

“What we need to do is, when every country does well, it has its athletics going up and together they should also have the coaches and support staff going up, and also government structure and policy going up. “Here, by just our sheer push of energy we have our players going up there but our coaches, support staff, managers they are not of the same level,” said the 2001 All England champion.

Mentioning the importance about the domestic tournaments, the former Indian player insisted upon the change in structure.

“Our tournaments and administration is not world class. We still have domestic tournaments which were built in 1991. So for 25 years we have same domestic structure, same nationals, same major ranking, same thinking,” he added.

“When we were state level we were producing the same quality coaches, today even though we are now world class, we are producing same quality,” Gopichand further said.

The national coach even went on to criticise the structure and added that despite getting support from government and sports authority, the support system hasn’t grown much.

“Our structure is not sustainable. We have got a lot of support from government and sports authority of India but organisationally we haven’t grown enough to support the system,” he said. “We haven’t done our planning and restructuring, our thinking is not still world class, our thinking doesn’t even know what is world class. It is time to address those issues,” said the 43-year-old.

For all the latest Sports News, download Indian Express App</s>Central to India’s foreign policy since the Cold War has been a growing strategic tilt towards the US out of a desire to balance a rising China. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s interactions with President Donald Trump suggest that New Delhi will have to do a foreign policy rethink, particularly on relations with the US and China as they have developed since 2014.

India’s relations with the US have gone through three phases. From 1947 to 1971, India tilted towards the US even as it insisted on non-alignment. Jawaharlal Nehru disdained communism and was on record stating that, at the limit, in a fight, India would side with the Anglo-American democracies. In the second phase of the relationship, from 1971 to 1989, India tilted the other way, siding with the Soviet Union and against the Anglo-Americans while remaining formally non-aligned.

We are now in the third phase of India-US relations. What is striking about the last 27 years is that India has increasingly tilted towards the US in global strategic terms. The tilt began with P.V. Narasimha Rao’s prime ministership, was accentuated by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, became even more acute under Manmohan Singh, and has inclined still further towards Washington in Modi’s time. At the heart of the steadily increasing strategic tilt towards the US has been India’s worry over the dramatic rise of China. In 1990, the GDP of India and China was roughly equal in nominal and purchasing power parity (PPP) terms. In 2017, China’s economy is nearly five times India’s size in nominal terms and two-and-a-half times larger in PPP terms. This growing power imbalance largely accounts for India’s tilt towards the US under successive prime ministers.

Trump’s coming to power has raised questions about India’s tilt. During his campaign and in the early weeks in office, it appeared that the new president had China in his gunsights. However, the Mar-a-Lago summit with President Xi Jinping and subsequent interactions with Beijing have seemingly reversed the US’s initial orientation towards China. China is now regarded as a valued partner in dealing with the US’s trade deficit and in containing North Korea.

On the other hand, India’s relations with China are worse than they have been in many years, going back to the late 1980s. Relations with Pakistan too have hit rock bottom. Not surprisingly, the China-Pakistan relationship is stronger than ever, bolstered by Pakistan’s role in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Nor can India count on Russia to help with China or Pakistan. Moscow has a quasi-alliance with Beijing and is mending fences with Islamabad.

It is in this context that Modi went to Washington to assess the health of the India-US relationship. What can we conclude from the prime minister’s visit? First, it comes six months into Trump’s presidency, after the president has met the leaders of virtually all his key partners and interlocutors in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. This tardiness in meeting Modi suggests that India is not particularly high on Trump’s to-do list. Second, Trump is unwilling to alienate China beyond a point. In 2014 and 2015, with Obama in the White House, India and the US committed to a strategic partnership in the Asia Pacific and Indian Ocean. The Modi-Trump joint statement of 2017 has visibly softened those commitments. That Trump must be careful not to alienate China is realistic given Beijing’s importance for America’s economic health and its policies towards North Korea.

Third, Trump is transactional and demands reciprocity in economic terms, above all. So, allies must pay a bigger share of common defence, and major trade partners must take steps to reduce US deficits and to invest in America to create jobs. India is not an ally, but it does have a trade surplus with the US: It must therefore deliver on “fairer” trade and on job creation. If New Delhi cannot deliver here, Trump will lose interest in India, if not turn hostile. India has therefore put in a request for over $2 billion worth of US maritime surveillance drones. It is close to an agreement with Lockheed Martin to produce F-16 fighters in India, and Spice Jet is likely to buy 100 aircraft from Boeing. India will also continue to buy liquified natural gas (LNG) from America. The LNG deal has been in existence for over two years, but Trump is angling to raise the price, and New Delhi could well decide to meet his demands.

What are the implications for Indian foreign policy going forward? India’s demotion strategically in Washington suggests that New Delhi must renew and deepen relationships elsewhere, particularly in Europe, which has stabilised since the spate of recent elections and will stabilise further when, as appears likely, Angela Merkel is re-elected. Cultivating Japan further and resetting India’s relations with Moscow is another priority.

Clearly, New Delhi had tilted too far towards the US and been too aggressive with China including on the border, Masood Azhar, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and BRI. Trump’s softer line on China should tip New Delhi over into being more circumspect. With yet another border confrontation brewing, this time in Sikkim-Bhutan, it is time for the prime minister to change tack before India finds itself in dangerous conflict with its powerful neighbour — a conflict in which it will find itself alone, with little or no hope of American help. Modi began well with China, emphasising economic ties. It is time to return to that approach.

Most importantly, India’s “Trump card” must be economic. India’s defence industry remains unable to produce major weapons systems, and its armed forces are critically short as a result. The US could be India’s main supplier of automatic weapons, artillery, aircraft, naval boats, and other vital systems. Outright purchases and co-production agreements with the US would help meet India’s yawning military needs — and will have the happy effect of generating employment in the US. In short, the future must be business, not business as usual.

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App</s>Troops from China’s People’s Liberation Army continue to deploy construction equipment in an effort to drive a dirt track through the strategic Doklam plateau despite a three week stand-off with the Indian Army and the Royal Bhutan Army, senior Indian government officials said on Friday. The PLA’s road works, the officials said, are aimed at bringing a road close to Doka La, India’s last military post on the junction of its boundary with Bhutan and China.

Both sides have reinforced their positions amidst a continuing war of words between Beijing and New Delhi. Indian military officials rejected claims that there were signs of imminent conflict in the region — the site of intense skirmishes in 1967, provoked by similar disputes over border works.

In first official comments on the crisis, New Delhi admitted that its troops had blocked PLA road works inside Bhutan territory claimed by China, saying “such construction would represent a significant change of status quo with serious security implications for India”.

India and Bhutan, the government said, have been in “continuous contact” over the Doklam developments. “In coordination with the Bhutanese government, Indian personnel, who were present at general area Doka La, approached the Chinese construction party and urged them to desist from changing the status quo… these efforts continue,” a government statement said.

It said the matter has been “under discussion” at the diplomatic level, both in New Delhi and Beijing. Sources said that Indian ambassador Vijay Gokhale had conveyed India’s concerns in Beijing, while senior officials in the Ministry of External Affairs have reached out to their Chinese counterparts. “It was also the subject of a Border Personnel Meeting at Nathu La on 20 June,” the government said.

The Indian side has underlined that the two governments had agreed in 2012 that the tri-junction boundary points between India, China and third countries will be finalised in consultation with the countries concerned. “Any attempt, therefore, to unilaterally determine tri-junction points is in violation of this understanding,” it said.

In Beijing, Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Lu Kang said diplomatic channels with India were “unimpeded” for “meaningful talks” over the military stand-off but maintained that Indian troops must first withdraw from the Doklam area over which Beijing has “indisputable sovereignty”. He said Indian troops “trespassed” the recognised delineated boundary between China and India on June 18.

Donglong (the name China uses for Doklam), he said, had been a traditional pasture for Tibetan residents. “We have exercised good administration over the area and before the 1960s, people from Bhutan required consent from China for cattle grazing and the Tibetan archives still have receipts of the same,” Lu said.

“Frankly, this crisis has surprised the government”, a senior Indian diplomatic official said, “coming after what New Delhi had seen as a willingness on China’s part to iron out problems in the relationship. During their recent summit meeting in Astana, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had told President Xi Jinping that we did not want differences to want disputes, and he agreed”.

Bhutan’s Army, Indian military sources said, has remained in close touch with their Indian counterparts, but has not operationally deployed in the effort to push back Chinese road-building in Doklam. “Bhutan is in a very uncomfortable position,” a diplomat said. “It is acutely sensitive about the intrusion on its sovereignty, but also does not want a crisis to break out”.

The Doklam plateau was first claimed by China in the late 1950s, in the build-up to its 1962 war with India. Ever since 1988, PLA patrols have regularly cut past Bhutan’s claim line, the Sinche La ridge, using a network of dirt tracks which lead up to Chele La post, the country’s permanent position on the Zompelri ridge, which leads westward from India’s Doka La post.

Indian government sources said the ongoing crisis began on June 16, when the PLA moved a substantial earthmoving unit on to the Doklam plateau, and began building a road leading towards Doka La. Royal Bhutan Army soldiers from the Zompelri ridge, the sources said, attempted to intervene, but were pushed back on to the ridge.

However, in response to a request from the beleaguered Bhutanese troops, Indian soldiers on Doka La moved down the ridge, and obstructed the border works, leading to a stand-off.

Indian Army sources said this confrontation had been preceded by a scuffle between a PLA road construction unit and Indian troops on the night June 4-5, which had resulted in minor injuries to two Chinese personnel. China then used earthmoving equipment to demolish a two-decade-old earth-and-rock bunker near Doka La, at a position Indian soldiers refer to as Laltain.

Troops, military sources said, are now located on either side of a position in Chinese-claimed Bhutanese territory below Doka La, called Turning Point, in a face-to-face position, using banners and loud-hailers to assert their claims.

“No pushing and shoving is taking place”, a government official insisted. “The video that has been doing the rounds is archival, not from the current crisis, and completely misrepresents the situation.”

New Delhi, an Indian diplomat said, has told Beijing that its construction works mark an effort to unilaterally determine a three-country junction marked a violation of written accords arrived at between special representatives of the two governments.

In addition, New Delhi has rejected Beijing’s claims, made in statements by its Foreign Ministry, that the India-China boundary in Sikkim is settled, noting that the two countries have yet to agree to demarcation of their borders.

Beijing’s growing assertiveness in the region, experts say, could be aimed at pushing Bhutan to agree to swap Doklam — a springboard for potential Indian strikes on China’s road and future rail links north to Lhasa — for other territory it has asserted claims to in the north.

Though both sides appear committed to avoid any escalation of the stand-off, the history of the 1967 crisis in the Chumbi Valley — the same territory now at stake — shows disputes over border construction can have serious outcomes. In that case, India responded to Chinese trench construction on its side of the boundary by laying a barbed-wire fence, leading the PLA to open fire with machine guns.

Indian Army units, well positioned on high ground above the Sebu La pass, were able to bring down accurate artillery fire, destroying several bunkers and inflicting large numbers of casualties. Later that year, a scuffle on the Cho La pass again led to clashes, in which the PLA was pushed back three kilometres. The initial attack, scholar Taylor Fravel recorded, was not authorised by China’s all-powerful Central Military Commission, and then Premier Zhou Enlai subsequently ordered the PLA not to open fire unless fired upon.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App</s>China yesterday said the diplomatic channels with India are "unimpeded" for "meaningful talks" over the military stand-off in the Sikkim sector but maintained that Indian troops must first withdraw from the Doklam area over which Beijing has "indisputable sovereignty".

"The diplomatic channels for the communication between Chinese and Indian sides remained unimpeded," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a media briefing.

He said the Indian troops "trespassed" the recognised delineated boundary between China and India on June 18. This is the first time China came out the with precise date about Indian troops entering the disputed Doklam area (referred by China as Donglong) near Sikkim allegedly to stop Chinese troops from constructing a road. "So the most pressing issue should be the withdrawal of troops into the Indian territory. So it is the pre-condition for any meaningful dialogue," he said when asked whether any talks were going on between the two countries over the issue.

Meeting over issue

A high-level meeting yesterday reviewed the situation in the Sikkim sector. The meeting was attended by Army Chief Gen. Bipin Rawat, National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar among others.
China informs India that it must withdraw its troops for any dialogue to occur as tensions rise between China and India and Bhutan over the disputed territory of Doklam.