As the details of the violent confrontation that led to the officially-stated elimination of 20 Indian Army soldiers and officers gradually emerge, the question that keeps haunting is why it had to happen and was it completely unavoidable. It has been the ‘talk of the nation’ since the macabre incident took place in Galwan Valley and along with deep anguish, there is the query- which is paramount, life or protocol? It is a debate which needs serious attention and talks and a time has come to make a final settlement over the issue.

That the incident preceded a carefully and professionally crafted planning by the Chinese is evident from the hour-to-hour details that thankfully have not been ‘compressed or suppressed’, the way it had been so during the 7-week long standoff. It has now been officially confirmed that Patrolling Point 14 within the Indian territory has been the epicentre of trouble where the Chinese reportedly erected a makeshift tent, obviously to take the confrontation to their premeditated levels. The Indian side, in an effort to make sure that status quo is not diluted, had to intervene and as per protocol, did it absolutely verbally. But anyhow, since the Chinese were only seeking a prelude to incite violent means, the altercation very soon took turn for the worse and the Indian brigade was outnumbered in no time and were butchered with clubs, rocks and barbed-wire sticks for at least six continuous hours at a stretch.

There was a great confusion whether the Indian soldiers were armed or unarmed. If the Foreign Minister’s statement is taken as final, then a conclusion can be reached that the slain soldiers were armed. After this, the question that now arises is what terribly important protocol might be there that desisted from the use of arms, whatever nature they be, by the Indian side. The country has been informed that it was because of the 1996 and 2005 agreements with China, the protocol is that whatever the ‘circumstances’ might be, usage of arms, firearms in particular, is a strict no-no during any face-off. Besides the overflowing angst over this silly rule by the citizens, various war veterans have also questioned the logic behind these protocols  and many have gone to categorically state that no agreement can be applicable when circumstances foretell or at the instant convey that lives are under threat.

China has succeeded in what it wanted- to torment India anyhow and by any means. And caught in the wrangles of certain impractical and diplomatic jargon-laded protocols, the country has lost 20 precious lives. 6-hour was a reasonable time during when the ‘non-violent’ decision could have been altered.

When ‘surgical strikes’ were needed, meaningless restraint was shown. Isn’t it the high time to review these protocols? 

---

Kenter Joya Riba

(Managing Editor)
      She is a graduate in Science with post graduation in Sociology from University of Pune. She has been in the media industry for nearly a decade. Before turning to print business, she has been associated with radio and television.
Email: kenterjoyaz@easternsentinel.in / editoreasternsentinel@gmail.com
Phone: 0360-2212313

<< Back to News List