India no longer a weak country

It was hardly required to be made known that India should never be taken rather mistaken as a weak country. If Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh made these observations very recently, we feel the same are in context with the disadvantageous position we had to face in 1962 with China which launched attack against India on North Eastern sector including Aksai Chin, Assam etc and declared a cease fire too after over a month. It felt triumphant and as a result thereof, announced withdrawal to its claimed “Line of Actual Control”. There are several factors , political, military and leadership related that resulted in India’s debacle in 1962 aggression. In fact, not to speak of in 1962, China had gradually started “nibbling” our territories right from 1954 as the country, bugged by the ambition of expansionism “claimed” 140000 sq. km of our territory. Not only that, even in 2013, China is reported to have made some type of encroachments without the then Government admitting it or resisting it. This prelude throws light on the purpose and the basis of the Union Defence Minister asserting that India was no longer a weak country and would never compromise on its national pride.
We reiterate that China got the sense of a “different India” in respect of Doklam standoff in 2017 when China’s People’s Liberation Army saw Indian victory perhaps of the sorts for the first time in the sense that both the armies had to withdraw simultaneously and significantly, China had to halt its road construction. Earlier, it used to be the opposite and therefore, strong political leadership is what matters. Even amidst standoff with China on Ladakh border, conveying in unequivocal terms that India’s security capabilities had risen was indirect communication to China that if push came to shove or an aggression was committed on the LAC, India would resist and repulse with all the might. We, however, also need not to emerge somewhat soft while conveying that we had increased our strength to secure our country and “not frighten anyone” in a scenario when China leaves no opportunity to overawe, if not tangibly threaten, us as its policy .
Although what we call “disengaging” process which is yet to start in a concrete form by both the armies in eastern Ladakh in respect of five weeks’ standoff following intrusion by China’s troops, still the ongoing dialogue between the military officers of both the countries needed to be fructified into concrete resolution of the impasse. It would be better not only for our country to have the situation on eastern Ladakh improved to return to normal or the status quo ante that existed before the present position, but also for China. In that context, most decidedly, the Union Defence Minister tried to bring home to the belligerent neighbour that India was no longer weak and nor would it compromise in any way on national pride. Message is clear and straight.
Since some opposition parties do not hesitate in trying to settle political scores even when it was the issue of threats of aggression looming large against the country amidst a standoff, Union Defence Minister was right in saying that the Government would not keep the Parliament or ‘anyone’ in the dark about the developments on the border. However, such information reminiscent of utter sensitivity, needed to be shared at an appropriate and opportune time, all dictated by national interests. It, however, needs to be perused deeply as to why China amidst the standoff, declared that it wanted to resolve the ‘dispute’ with India through talks. Diplomatic levels and other means are definitely needed to be invested to see the ultimate thing – that of return to normal positions. Since the ‘situation’ along the borders with China was under control, let it be hoped that perceived differences were put to rest. In the meantime, unlike the pitiable scenario in 1962, what was needed is perpetual increase of our military strength and in particular, still better improvement in our air firepower, Rafale like innovative decisions were the dire need of not the hour but of the moments.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here