Tensions are growing along the border between India and China and allegations and counter-allegations are being made in this case.
There is a two-way challenge in front of the Modi government of the Center. The first challenge is to improve relations with China and the second challenge is political. On the issue of China, the opposition is constantly targeting the government and seeking answers from the government.
After two weeks of violent clashes between the soldiers of the two countries in the Galvan Valley, no concrete statement has come from the government. There is no coordination between the government's words. Apart from this, after the statement of the Indian Ambassador to China, the situation seems to get a bit more complicated.
According to the news agency PTI, the Indian Ambassador to China has said that India hopes that China will go back towards the Actual Line of Control (LAC), assuming its responsibility to reduce tension.
In a statement to PTI, India's Ambassador Vikram Misri said that "India has always worked on its side in the LAC. The steps taken by the Chinese troops at the ground level have reduced the trust between the two countries."
However, the statement of the Indian Ambassador was completely different from the statement of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in the all-party meeting on June 19 that neither one has entered our territory nor has occupied any post. However, he believed that 20 Indian soldiers died during tensions on the border.
Questions raised by different answers
The difference between the statement of the Indian Ambassador in China and the statement of Prime Minister Modi has now raised the question of whether the Modi government has failed in its strategy ahead of China and the opposition has increased its problems by continuously questioning the government. The government is now giving answers to the opposition, but the answers seem to be less and more than that.
In an interview with the news agency ANI, Union Home Minister Amit Shah said that India will win in both battles on the border with China and against the Coronavirus under the leadership of Prime Minister Modi.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi also said in the 'Mann Ki Baat' program on Sunday that those who had turned their eyes towards India in Ladakh have been given a cursory reply.
But due to the questions raised by the opposition, the difficulties of the government appear to be increasing. One reason for this is that a section is running a movement for boycott of Chinese goods in the country. But it is not easy for India from the diplomatic and economic point of view that it should boycott Chinese goods completely.
What the government is not able to defend?
Now the question arises that is Narendra Modi and Amit Shah having trouble politically defending the recent conflict with China? The opposition is repeatedly seeking answers. After all, what kind of pressure is on the government, and to what extent?
Senior journalist Radhika Ramasation says that the way the government's statements have come out, it is clear that they are having problems. One statement is contrary to the other states and because of not being able to sit in harmony, the problem has increased in front of the government.
Speaking to the BBC, he said, "If Pakistan had done something like this in place of China, then perhaps India's strategy and its retaliation would have been different." But here in front of China, and looking at the kind of relationship with China, the government is entangled somewhere. Amit Shah says that he will defeat China in both the fight against the virus and the fight on the border. But if we look at the statistics, the reality is something else. Looking at South Asia, India has the highest infection statistics. Where are we winning that battle? As far as the border fight is concerned, it is not at all clear what action China has taken. How much possession. Where have you taken possession? Did India send the Chinese soldiers back? This picture is not clear.
She says that if Prime Minister Modi wanted, in 'Mann Ki Baat', he could have told in a clear way what state India is in.
However, senior journalist and political analyst Pradeep Singh differs from this. He says that India's relations with China are similar at present, but the role of the opposition is bound to be questioned.
He said, "If the Congress and the left parties are left now, the whole opposition is seen standing with the government. It is not good to raise such questions from the government on the issue of national security. If you see, Sharad Pawar has also warned Rahul Gandhi in a way in his statement. The issue of national security is not a joke, it is a serious issue and goes above party politics. This is not the time for politics. If they have to question the government, then a separate time will come for them.
The aggressive attitude of the opposition has also troubled the government. This is evident in the statements of the spokespersons of the government or the BJP. Home Minister Amit Shah also said that if the Congress is raising questions on this issue, then he should come to Parliament and discuss. From 62 to today, there should be two hands-on every issue.
'If I talk about China, 1962 will be mentioned'
On this statement of Amit Shah, Radhika Ramasation says that the situation in 1962 was different. What happened at that time is recorded in history. Then the fight took place and India was defeated. Then-Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru did not deny it, he did not run and openly admitted defeat. But the question will arise if the boundary issue is not resolved after so many years.
She says, "Relations with China are not good but we cannot treat them as completely enemies. It seems from the incident that just happened that somewhere the government is being completely aggressive on the Congress to hide its failure or say the failure of intelligence and the Congress is also stuck in this game. She is also entangled in the government's web. The role of the Congress as the opposition is not in a very right position. ''
At the same time, on this question, Pradeep Singh says that whenever there is talk of China, the issue of 1962 will also come. Talking about Pakistan, 1947, 1965, 1971 and Kargil will be mentioned. All these issues will come up whenever there is a matter related to security or border-related to these countries. The agreements that were signed will also be mentioned. This situation has not come suddenly today. It has been going on for many years.
He says, "In 1962, we lost a lot of our land. So that issue will remain. If a place like Aksai Chin left our hands, then this thing will continue to come. Right now the issue is of intrusion. It is not that the 10 years of UPA rule did not infiltrate or such conditions did not arise. Rahul Gandhi should keep all those things in mind. China does not stick to one thing. Therefore, such situations continue.
What are the options to make up for the losses?
India can neither declare war against China nor open any front regarding trade because there is a huge dependence of India on China somewhere. In such a situation, how will the government compensate for the loss and political loss of what happened?
On this question, Pradeep Singh says that if there are circumstances like this, if we talk about them, not only India but China will also suffer loss. China will suffer more because India has been its biggest market so far.
He says, "India will also have to think about how will it be replenished if we stop imports. what are the options? There is so much stuff that we can make here. What can be imported from other countries? So there is no need to increase this issue. A small country like Vietnam fought America for years. But he would have thought that Vietnam would have ended if we had suffered a loss. In every situation, the harm is not thought of. No country compromises its sovereignty. The circumstances of the assessment of losses and benefits vary.
On this issue, Radhika Ramasation says that to compensate for the political loss, the government directly has propaganda tools that they will use and there are constant voices about the boycott of Chinese goods. But the reality is that the demand for a boycott of Chinese goods is meaningless. There is a presence of Chinese goods in our daily life and it cannot be ignored.
She says, "BJP has a nationalism issue." She will take him only. If Pakistan were in place of China, then the story would have been different. But if China is here then the government is firm and it is looking for ways to deal with this challenge.
He also said that the statement of the Indian ambassador, which allowed the opposition to attack the government and the government appeared on the backfoot, then Foreign Minister S.K. Jaishankar should have immediately put the government's side on the issue through a press conference or interview. He would either refute the statement of the Indian ambassador or tell whether China has entered the Indian border and whether the Indian Army has managed to send them back across the border. The Foreign Minister needs to answer this.
Officials of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the Cricket Association of Beng
Lok Sabha elections are going on across the country. All political parties are campaigning vigoro
The Election Commission has called a press conference at 3 pm on Friday. In this, the Election Co
PM Narendra Modi's special plane reached Warsaw, the capital of Poland, around 6 pm Indian time.
After buying this phone, there will be no need to buy a camera, know the features and deal price
Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra On Amazon: If you are fond of expensive phones, then buy Samsung Galaxy
During a program at Shivaji Park, Uddhav Thackeray targeted Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and his
The study of higher education will no longer be just for collecting degrees, diplomas, and certif
Where digitization has become a dealer for the benefit of the people, then its disadvantages are
Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi is on a visit to America these
A case of a lapse in the security of US President Joe Biden has come to the fore. A small private
