'LAC Agreement Doesn't Mean Everything Is Solved': EAM Jaishankar Explains India-China Ties

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar on Saturday said the breakthrough agreement with China on patrolling along the LAC does not mean that issues between the two countries have been resolved, however, the disengagement allows us to look at the next step.

Jaishankar was interacting with students during an even in Pune where he said that it is still a bit early for normalisation of relations which will naturally take time to rebuild a degree of trust and willingness to work together.

He mentioned that it was decided that the foreign ministers and national security advisors of the two countries would meet to see how to move forward when PM Narendra Modi met Chinese President Xi Jinping in Kazan, Russia, for the BRICS summit.

Earlier this week, India announced it had reached an agreement with China on patrolling along the LAC in eastern Ladakh, a major breakthrough in ending the over four-year-long military standoff.

Following the agreement, the two countries have begun troop disengagement at the two friction points at Demchok and Depsang Plains in eastern Ladakh and this process is likely to be completed by October 28-29.

S Jaishankar Explains Where India-China Relations Stand | Top Points

• Speaking at an event in Pune, EAM Jaishankar explained that the latest step (of disengagement) was the October 21 understanding that patrolling will take place in Depsang and Demchok. He said, "This will allow us now to look at the next step. It is not like everything has been resolved but the disengagement which is the first phase we have managed to reach that level."

• Jaishankar believes that this point of agreement was arrived at due to several reasons including, "the very determined effort on our part to stand our ground and make our point. The military was there (at LAC) in very very unimaginable conditions to defend the country, and the military did its part and diplomacy did its part."

• Over the decade, India improved its infrastructure, he said, adding that part of the problem is that in the earlier years, the border infrastructure was really neglected.

• "Today we have put in five times more resources annually than there used to be a decade ago which is showing results and enabling the military to actually be effectively deployed. The combination of these (factors) has led to where it is," he said.

• Since 2020, the situation on the border has been very disturbed which understandably negatively impacted the overall relationship. Since September 2020, India has been negotiating with the Chinese to find a solution, he said.

• The EAM said there were different aspects of this solution.The pressing one is disengagement because troops are very very close to each other and the possibility of something happening existed. Then there is de-escalation because of troop buildup on both sides, he added.

• "There is a larger issue of how you manage the border and negotiate the boundary settlement. Right now everything that's going on is concerning the first part which is disengagement," he added.

• He said India and China came to an understanding at some places after 2020 on how troops return to their bases but a significant segment was related to patrolling.

• "There was blocking of patrolling and that is what we had been trying to negotiate for the last two years. So what happened on October 21 was that in those particular areas Depsang and Demchok, we reached an understanding that patrolling would resume how it used to be before," Jaishankar added.

• On "string of pearls", a chain of civilian/naval ports perceived as a strategy for encircling India, Jaishankar said the development has to be viewed seriously, and India needs to be ready to compete.

• The term refers to the network of Chinese military and commercial facilities and relationships along its sea lines of communication.

• "Unfortunately when it was happening, people (did not see it seriously). Frankly, we are paying the price for it. We did not respond the way we had to. It was done for ideological reasons. The view of China was very different in the political circles of the government," the EAM added.