Despite past conflicts, India and China have maintained relative peace through dialogue and cooperation, recognizing their shared responsibility for regional and global stability.Since 2023, the China India border that is fiercely contested region of Asia have maintained relative peace and stability, a state of affairs that should not be taken for granted. For the time being the peace and tranquility have returned to that region of Ladakh and that Tawang region, but it does not mean that peace is final or a war-like situation will never return again. This peace is a hard-won achievement that has been forced through restrained and relentless dialogues between two giants of Asia as two major neighboring powers and key members of global south. They know that preserving this peace is not just a bilateral obligation, but a contribution to regional and global stability. The foundation of this peace is built with the sacrifices of Indian and Chinese soldiers who defended their national sovereignty. The Galwan Valley incident in June 2020 remains a poignant reminder of the price paid for border peace.That incident should not have happened.It could have been avoided when Indian troops and Chinese troops were fighting with bare hands and it violated bilateral agreements and both sides suffered heavy casualties. Officially India lost 20 soldiers and the Indian troops do not armed were led by Colonel Santosh Babu who sacrificed his life and same number of Chinese troops also lost their lives.We must always sacrifice for nation's pride. At the same time, we must acknowledge our soldiers sacrifice and we have nothing against Chinese soldiers.They simply obeyed their commander's orders.So, I'm not going to say who were right or wrong.We all know what happened on that day.But I strongly believe that this incident could have been avoided had the commanders of the both side had shown some maturity.Here I'm not blaming Santosh Babu, rather I'm talking about the top-level commanders.So, recently I have come to know that Bollywood is going to make a film on that Galwan Valley incident. But I strongly believe that a film should not be made on such incident.Even if Bollywood is going to make a film and I am sure that they will earn crores of profits and if they are really patriotic, then they should distribute those profits amongst the family members of our slain soldiers as well as injured soldiers. That will be a perfect tribute from Bollywood to our soldiers.We must also acknowledge that both India and China are world two most populous countries. At present, India is world's most populous country which over more than 1.4 billion peoples and Chinese people are may be less than 1.4 billion. So both countries contribute to the world population and that is high nearly 2.8 billion people may be more of this world are either Chinese or Indians. So both nations are decided to choose dialogue over escalation adhering to the principle that disputes should be resolved through peaceful means. And since that military build-up in 2020 from April both nations have been engaging in multiple rounds of military channel talks, border affairs consultation and top leadership have been interacting to de-escalate that tension. So according to our informations that heavy military build-up from the Chinese side was first noticed in April 2020 when the entire nation was reeling under the threat of that covid pandemic. So a small Indian patrolling team discovered that several thousand Chinese troops supported by heavy military hardwares were amassing on their side of border.And we all know that Indo-China border in the Ladakh region from that Karakoram pass to Pangong Tso south is based on perceptions. Both side claims and believes that this part of that territory belongs to their and other side always contested. It is impossible to mark a permanent structure on that region.So border dispute can be solved only through dialogues and acceptance by the both side that this is the border. We all know that Indo-China border in Ladakh region is known as the line of actual control. This is not an international border.Definitely there are disputes.So when the Chinese were amassing their troops and that sign was ominous in military terms when your adversary is moving and mobilizing troops anything can happen.So India had quickly responded by mirror deployment.That means India deployed same numbers of troops and military hardwares to counter them.Then the result was the stalemate.Both India and China were not interested in wars or battles.Rather they decided to show restraint and to settle their differences at least in that border region or to de-escalate that tension through dialogues.That is going on now.Both sides have agreed to reduce their troops and slowly both India and China are heading towards normalcy.Though complete disengagement has not happened yet, still we have relatively calm in that region.By 2024, the 24th round of the talks between the special representative of India and China on the boundary question yielded 10 key consensus including establishing new military dialogue mechanisms and reopening traditional border trade markets. So restraint of both India and China must not be interpreted as a sign of weaknesses but it it is a demonstration of maturity recognizing that prolonged conflict serve neither nation's interest and that diplomatic engagement is the only viable path to lasting stability. The Chinese leaders have been emphasizing on multiple occasion that two countries should not allow the boundary question to define the overall India-China relations. This wisdom underscores a critical truth according to Chinese that the border disputes while significant are only one aspect of a multi-faceted relationship between two nations with a combined population of over 2.8 billion.Trade development, climate change, public health and global governance are all areas where cooperation is the only possible but also necessary.Bilaterally both sides must double down on existing dialogue mechanism enhancing transparency and building mutual trust step by step.What is known as confidence building measures.Multilaterally on platform such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and in addressing global challenges from climate change to the sustainable development both India and China have vast space for constructive collaboration finding synergy in multilateral forums will create a positive momentum in turn will foster a more amenable atmosphere for resolving bilateral issues. Therefore the peace along the India-China border region is not merely the absence of conflict. It is the presence of restraint memory dialogue cooperation and respect for international law. Honoring those who sacrifice their lives learning from past crisis and committing to peaceful engagement are essential step towards ensuring that peace achieve is not temporary but it is enduring.The responsibilities mutual the stakes are monumental and future can be one of the shared promise. If both India and China have become friends, then we can call it is the century of Asia.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Judicial Conundrum in India

Recently one fire incident in the official resident of Justice Yashwanta Varma led to recovery of crores of burnt notes not only  shocking but also shook people's confidence in higher Judiciary as an infallible institution .One store room of justice Yashwanta Sinha was caught fire while he was not in his resident,and fire brigade came to extinguish fire and crores of burnt notes were recovered.Justice Varma was not in Delhi for any kind of comments at that time.Once he was a contacted ,he immediately denied his involvement in that incident rather he alleged that it was a conspiracy to tarnish his image.The Chief Justice Of India constituted a high powered committe ,consisting of two Chief Justices of High Courts and one sitting judge of a High Court.to enquire the alleged recovery of money.The Supreme Court Collegium recommended his immediate  transfer to Allahabad High Court ,which triggered a hugh protest initiated by Allahabad Bar Association against that transfer,that Alla...
Read more

Hungarian revolution of 1956Is Revolution was also known as the Hungarian uprising, an attempted Rebellion against the communist government , that came into existence after the World War II. Hungry was an axis ally of Nazi Germany. The USSR occupied Hungary and April 28 government was established. Hungary became a satellite state of USSR. Soviet government was actually a totalitarian government. Hungarian people are descendants of Slavic and Huns. In disrespect remember the cruel rule Attila the Hun. The Hungerian revolution of lasted for l 15 days, until it was crushed by Soviet tanks. Several thousands hungarians lost their lives m several hundred Russians also lost their lives.On 23rd of October 1956, some University students appealed to the civilian population to protest against Russian authoritarian rule the domination of USSR in its geopolitical interest. At that time, Hungary was ruled by a Stalinist government. The students demanded reform on 16 points, but all the students were detained by security guards. The Hungarian people rose against the Communist Party and the secret police of Hungary. And the local communists and secret policemen were executed. A new government was formed under Imrey Negi, who was the liberal man. Under his leadership hungry had withdrawn from Warshaw pact. The new government agreed to hold new election, hungry was heading towards democracy.Initially the USSR agreed negotiate with the new government and accordingly delete Army withdrew. Russians apprehended Hungary embrace the Western block live by USA would be a big threat two dog communist block. So the Russians betrayed the hungarians and hungry was invaded by several Russian divisions. The Hungarian Army was no match before the might of Russian army and after Fierce resistance the hungarians were defeated. The free hungarians were expecting Western help but that did not come. Finally the new government was rendered useless the leaders were arrested and executive latter. The communist government again was installed in Hungary and hungry again became is satellite state of USSR . The Communist rule finally collapse in 1989 after destruction of Berlin Wall. Now Hungary is a Democratic state.

Read more

[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: A K Gopalan v The State(1950,S.C.R.88) was a momentous case in the Constitutional history of India.Any discussion/ lecture on the Constitutional law is incomplete without first examining this case, whether critically or analytically.This case was decided at a time When the Country got independence from British rule and The Constitution of India had come into force,and more than it , for the first timea chapter on Fundamental Rights had been incorporated in the Constitution .The Supreme Court got a golden opportunity to interpret the Article 19,21 and 22 expansively against Executive or legislative power of the state.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: Brief Fact of the case-A K Gopalan,a radical leftist of the Madras Province was detained under the Preventive Detention Act ,1950,and in fact he was detained for several times under the Act.Under Entry 9 of Union list ,the Parliament has the power to enact law on Preventive Detention.Though Preventive Detention is an anathema in modern time,it was justified as a necessary evil to protect the unity and integrity of the state.Even in Britain and America it was used only during the war time ,that too against suspected enemy aliens[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: A K Gopalan filed a habeas Corpus writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and challenged the detention ordering a wide ground that the Detention Act ,under which he was detained was void for violating Articles 19 and 21 and also on a narrow ground that it did comply with the requirements of Article 22.Article 22 prescribes certain procedural safeguards against it.Learned Counsel M K Nambiyar on behalf of Gopalan contended that the Detention Act 1959 violated Article 21 and was void on following grounds1.Personal liberty included the freedoms conferred by Article 19(1)(a) to (e) and (g) and the impunged act ( detention act) did not satisfy the test of Article 19(2) to (6).2.The Preventive Detention Act directly violated Gopalans right to move freely , because the freedom of movement is of essence of personal liberty.3.Article 19 (1) and 21 should be read together because Article 19 dealt with substantive rights and Article 21 dealt with procedural rights.4.The reference in Article 21 to Procedure established by law meant due process of law and the Act did not satisfy the requirements of due process of law.5.The word law in Article 21 meant not the state made law but jus naturale ,of the principles of natural justice.The law did not comply with the requirements of Natural justice[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: It will be seen that from 1 to 5 that the proposition that Article 21 applied to the Preventive Detention ,was the foundation of all the reasons,and learned Attorney General M C Seetlevad countered by contending that Article 22 was a complete code and Article 21 didnot apply to Preventive Detention law.All the questions raised some points of immense Constitutional importance and a Six Judge Bench comprising CJI H L J Kania ,Justices P .Shastri ,M C Mahajan,B K Mukherjee ,SS Das and Fazl Ali S was constituted to hear the matters .All the six judges delivered separate judgments after a lengthy hearings .Five learned judges( Fazl Ali dissenting) held that Article 19 did not apply to Preventive Detention thought the freedoms as a result of detention freedoms may be curtailed.Fazl Ali dissented and held that Preventive Detention was a direct infringement of Article 19 and was subject to Judicial review even it was narrowly construed The majority judges did not hold that Article 22 was a complete code ,so they disagreed with learned Attorney General contention and only M C Mahajan alone held Article 22 was a complete code on Preventive Detention.Fazl Ali dissented by holding that " No calamitous or untoward result would follow even if the Provisions of Penal code became justiciable".CJI Kania, and Justices Shastri, Mukherjee and SS Das held the concept of right to move freely throughout the territory of India was entirely different from the Concept of the right to personal liberty.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: Except Justice M C Mahajan who held that Article 22 was a complete code, majority held that Articles 19 (1) and Article 21 did not operate in the same field, because Article 18 conferred rights only one citizens, article 21 conferred rights on all persons. Again if article 21 conferred only procedural rights then the most precious right the Right to life was nowhere found in our Constitution. Therefore the majority held that Article 21 also conferred substanrive rights also. It may be observed that far from holding that fundamental rights were mutually exclusive, Mukherjee held that a substantive law authorizing the deprivation of life must conform to the requirements of Article 20.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: CJI Kania, Justices Mukherjee and SR Das held that law in Article 21 had been used in the sense of State made law and not in the embodying the Principle of Natural Justice, and Procedure established by law meant a law made by Union Parliament or by State legislatures. Justice Shastri held that the law meant Positive or state made law and did not mean jus naturale, but the procedure meant well established criminal procedure. Justice Fazl Ali dissented by holding that whatever Procedure established by law may mean, and must include 1 . Notice 2.opportunity to be heard 3.impartial tribunal 4.orderly procedure. So according to fazl Ali a positive law must include jus naturale.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: The majority judges held that the Procedure established by law didnot mean due process of law as understood in United States of America. The report of Drafting Committe showed that the words Procedure established by law were substituted for the words without due process of law. Our founding fathers were well aware of its abuse by American judges during the New Deal period.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: So in this case, different views were expressed by different judges, so no common points emerged on the correlation of articles 19 to 20,21 and 22 or the meaning of the expression personal liberty.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: But Justice Fazl Ali dissenting points are regarded as one of the greatest dissents of all time. Justice R Nariman paid a rich tribute to Fazl Ali foresight by saying "simply takes our breath away".

Read more