Will go on engaging with China through diplomatic channels
Q The move to sanction Azhar Masood has once again been stalled. How does India look at this?
External Affairs Spokesperson Gopal Baglay: Well, you are aware of our position regarding Azhar and the terrible acts of terrorism he and his outfit, Jaish-e-Mohammad, has been involved in, of which he continues to be the leader. They have perpetrated terrorist attacks on our soil against Indians, but they have also been involved in fomenting terrorism in other countries, in other parts of the region. So, we can only hope that all those countries, which share our concern regarding the menace of international terrorism, will cooperate in fighting all forms of terrorism.
Q This is with regard to the stand-off between India and China over Doklam. External affairs ministry has in the Rajya Sabha once again stressed that diplomacy is the only way out to resolve this issue. So in that sense has there been any sort of suggestion from the ministry for a pull-back of troops or to replace the troops with Bhutanese troops to create an environment where diplomacy can work?
Q China has claimed that India was informed of the road-building plans in Doklam on May 18 and again on June 8. Would you confirm it and what was India’s response to those intimations by China?
Q The 15-page document, which has been released by the Chinese government, says that India has reduced its troops from 400 to 40 something. So, did we really reduce the troops and what is the situation?
Q Is there any indication that China is reducing its troops or has any plans to withdraw and why is their rhetoric escalating, if so?
Q Lisa Curtis, deputy assistant to the US President, was in the city and she met the foreign secretary and Ajit Doval. Was this issue discussed with the Americans?
Q The Chinese embassy DCM has said that specifically they have counted that there are 48 Indian soldiers present there. Can you tell us what is the number, if it is correct or incorrect?
Baglay: For the benefit of our colleagues who do not understand Hindi, the question was, what is the position of the US and Russia on the Doklam issue. My answer is, it’s better perhaps to ask those countries.
Let me start with the question about diplomacy and the channels being used and whether this is being used to reduce deployment and de-escalate the situation. You very rightly referred to the external affairs minister’s statement in the Rajya Sabha. It was part of the debate on foreign policy, foreign affairs and all those issues. It was a very long debate and the minister’s reply was very comprehensive.
So, frankly I do not have much to add to it except to point out that what she mentioned is that we will continue to engage with the Chinese side through diplomatic channels to find a mutually acceptable solution on the basis of the Astana consensus between our leaders. We have, on earlier occasions, referred to these elements that diplomatic channels remain available, they are available. We have referred to the approach of the government of India in this regard that is based on the Astana consensus, both the elements, and we have referred to them time and again.
As far as the questions regarding deployment are concerned, these are operational matters, whether on our side or the other side, and I would not like to specifically go into them in this forum.
There was a question related to both deployment and road construction and I would say that the government remains prepared. It’s the government’s responsibility to ensure the security of its citizens and territory and we remain prepared but the external affairs minister also said that war is not an answer.
As far as the construction of road is concerned, the development of the border areas — in fact, any part of India — is a legitimate matter for the government as well as its responsibility.
I would like to also mention that there were some questions asked about the specific statements from China or Chinese officials; I would mention two things in this regard. First, that we have already issued a statement about the document issued by the Chinese authorities — what you describe as the 15-page document. In that statement we had said that our position has been mentioned in great detail in the statement of June 30 and we also said that the peace and tranquillity in the border areas we consider as a prerequisite for smooth development of bilateral relations between India and China. So, that was our response to what was put out and that remains our response to any subsequent statements coming from China or Chinese officials as well.
The second thing, which I was going to mention, is that the external affairs minister in her statement also pointed out, and I am sure all of you have seen that the Chinese foreign ministry also has expressed its commitment in maintaining peace and tranquility on India-China border areas.
There was one more question regarding the meeting of two US officials: They are ranking officials of the US administration; they had come to India in the context of the US-India Forum, which is a track one point five event that was held earlier this month. So, they met their counterpart in our ministry and they also had a meeting with the foreign secretary. So, I think it will not be proper for me to characterise the discussions that they had with the government officials.
Again, I think it is not correct for me to characterise the contents of diplomatic interactions and again our approach and what we had to say in this regard had been contained in great detail in the press release issued on June 30. Our concerns emanate from Chinese action on the ground being in close proximity to the trijunction between India, Bhutan and China. QCan you tell us something about Chinese incursion in Uttarakhand?
Baglay: I think we have already issued a statement in that regard. We have basically said that sometimes these situations arise because of different perception of the boundary on the ground and there are mechanisms to address them bilaterally, locally; these are local incidents and they should not be given undue importance, I think we have said something to this effect.
Let me again mention here what is being stated about the Chinese notifying us, I should clarify and I am not confirming, I am not denying, I am merely saying that I am not prepared to go into that aspect in this forum.