Skakjung or Kokzhung is 45–kilometer long pasture land along the right bank of Indus River valley in Southern Ladakh . It is traditionally used by nomads of nearby villages such as Chushul and Nyoma as well as Rupshu . The Skakung pasture land can be used year-round because it rarely snows in the Indus Valley.
44-500: There have been several incursions by the China in this area. India has Patrol Points (PP) 35, 36 & 37 in this area, and China tries to block access to these. Due to the different perception of the border India and China and continuing Chinese incursions in Chushul , Chumur , Dungti , Phobrang , and Demchok has adversely affected the life of local Changpa nomadic herders. In January 2024,
88-664: A concept that had no historical validity nor represented the situation on the ground. During the Sino-Indian War (1962), Nehru again refused to recognise the line of control: "There is no sense or meaning in the Chinese offer to withdraw twenty kilometers from what they call 'line of actual control'. What is this 'line of control'? Is this the line they have created by aggression since the beginning of September? Advancing forty or sixty kilometers by blatant military aggression and offering to withdraw twenty kilometers provided both sides do this
132-561: A drawback of the process of exchanging maps as a starting point to clarify the LAC was that it gave both sides an "incentive to exaggerate their claims of where the LAC lay". On 30 July 2020, the Chinese Ambassador to India Sun Weidong stated that China was not in favour of clarifying the LAC anymore as it would create new disputes. Similar viewpoints have been aired in India that China will keep
176-483: A number of times. Former Army officers have said that patrolling points provide a better on-the-ground picture of India's limits of control. Based on location, the periodicity of visiting patrolling points can vary greatly from a few weeks to a couple of months. In some cases, the patrolling points are well-known landmarks such as mountain peaks or passes. In other cases, the pattrolling points are numbered, PP-1, PP-2 etc. There are over 65 patrolling points stretching from
220-547: A roughly 20 km-wide swath in this sector. Indian media first said that the Chinese encampment was 10 km on their side of where they view the LAC, later revising that to 19 km. Despite the disputed area being an "unpopulated and desolate wasteland", it is believed to be strategically important to China because of the presence of a highway . Since the late 1980s, border disputes between India and China have successfully been resolved through diplomacy. After large-scale Chinese infrastructure improvements adjacent to
264-545: A visit of the Indian Prime Minister to China in 1988, a visit of the Chinese Premier to India in 1992 and then a visit of Indian President to China in 1992 preceded the 1993 agreement. Prior to the 1993 agreement, a trade agreement was signed in 1984, followed by a cultural cooperation agreement in 1988. The 1993 agreement, signed on 7 September, was the first bilateral agreement between China and India to contain
308-665: Is a deceptive device which can fool nobody." Zhou responded that the LAC was "basically still the line of actual control as existed between the Chinese and Indian sides on 7 November 1959. To put it concretely, in the eastern sector it coincides in the main with the so-called McMahon Line, and in the western and middle sectors it coincides in the main with the traditional customary line which has consistently been pointed out by China." The term "LAC" gained legal recognition in Sino-Indian agreements signed in 1993 and 1996. The 1996 agreement states, "No activities of either side shall overstep
352-451: Is part of Xinjiang , while the Indians believe that this area is part of Jammu and Kashmir . China and India signed two agreements, in 1993 and 1996, in order to establish protocols to resolve potential disputes in the region. These protocols included the mutual recognition of a " Line of Actual Control " (LAC), but disagreements continue between the two governments about where the LAC lies over
396-880: The Karakoram to Chumar . The patrolling points within the LAC and the patrol routes that join them are known as ' limits of patrolling '. Some army officers call this the "LAC within the LAC" or the actual LAC . The various patrol routes to the limits of patrolling are called the ' lines of patrolling '. During the 2020 China–India skirmishes , the patrolling points under dispute included PPs 10 to 13, 14, 15, 17, and 17A. On 18 September 2020, an article in The Hindu wrote that "since April, Indian troops have been denied access to PPs numbered 9, 10, 11, 12, 12A, 13, 14, 15, 17, 17A." India has 65 patrolling points in Eastern Ladakh , from Karakoram Pass to Chumar . Patrolling points are not
440-519: The Narendra Modi -ruled government of India is covering up "territorial setbacks" in this area, while the ruling government has denied the charges as "politically motivated" . Listed by the mountain ranges. Glossary of border related terms: 2013 Daulat Beg Oldi incident [REDACTED] India [REDACTED] China The 2013 Depsang standoff , also called 2013 Depsang incursion , or 2013 Daulat Beg Oldi incident ,
484-468: The "line of actual control as of 7 November 1959" as published in November 1962 . Scholar Stephen Hoffmann states that the line represented not any position held by the Chinese on 7 November 1959, but rather incorporated the gains made by the Chinese army before and after the massive attack on 20 October 1962. In some cases, it went beyond the territory the Chinese army had reached. India's understanding of
SECTION 10
#1732869014890528-467: The "line of actual control of 1959". In December 1962, representatives of six African and Asian nations met in Colombo to develop peace proposals for India and China. Their proposals formalised the Chinese pledge of 20-kilometre withdrawal and the same line was used, labelled as "the line from which the Chinese forces will withdraw 20 km." This line was essentially forgotten by both sides till 2013, when
572-424: The 'Line of Actual Control' in a bilateral agreement, without demarcating the line itself. In a letter dated 7 November 1959, Zhou proposed to Nehru that the armed forces of the two sides should withdraw 20 kilometres from the so-called McMahon Line in the east and "the line up to which each side exercises actual control in the west". Nehru rejected the proposal stating that there was complete disagreement between
616-533: The 1959 line passed through Haji Langar, Shamal Lungpa and Kongka La (the red line shown on Map 2). Even though the Chinese-claimed line was not acceptable to India as the depiction of an actual position, it was apparently acceptable as the line from which the Chinese would undertake to withdraw 20 kilometres. Despite the non-acceptance by India of the Chinese proposals, the Chinese did withdraw 20 kilometres from this line, and henceforth continued to depict it as
660-411: The 1970s to optimize patrolling effectiveness and resource utilization along the disputed and non-demarcarted China-India border at a time when border infrastructure was weak. Instead of patrolling the entire border which was more than 3000 km long, troops would just be required to patrol up to the patrolling points. Over time, as infrastructure, resources and troop capability improved and increased,
704-600: The Chinese PLA revived it during its Depsang incursion as a new border claim. At the end of the 1962 war, India demanded that the Chinese withdraw to their positions on 8 September 1962 (the blue line in Map 2). Political relations following the 1962 war only saw signs of improvement towards the later 1970s and 80s. Ties had remained strained until then also because of Chinese attraction to Pakistan during India Pakistan wars in 1965 and 1971. Restored ambassadorial relations in 1976,
748-455: The Chinese perceived as threatening. In October 2013, India and China signed a border defence cooperation agreement to ensure that patrolling along the LAC does not escalate into armed conflict. In October 2024, India announced that it had reached an agreement over patrolling arrangements along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the border area, which would lead to disengagement and resolution of
792-501: The Chinese perceived as threatening. Other Chinese demands included the demolition of Indian listening and observation posts built along the border, and an end to the undocumented passage of nomadic shepherds into the Chinese side, but it was not clear to what degree India agreed to these demands. Following the resolution of the dispute, the Chinese military withdrew. The standoff ended on 5 May. The Chinese military in July 2014 acknowledged
836-579: The Chinese position was supplied by trucks and supported by helicopters. The dispute was resolved on 5 May with Chinese withdrawal. As part of the resolution, the Indian military agreed to refrain from constructing bunkers 250 km away in the Chumar sector, which the Chinese perceived as threatening. The territorial incident occurred within a 38,000 square kilometre area of disputed territory between India and China, Aksai Chin . The Chinese claim that this area
880-483: The Chinese troops tried to stop and pushed out the local Indian herders who were grazing their livestock in their traditional grazing area. The Indian herders challenged the Chinese petrol in the Tibetan language , "Why have you come here? Why have you brought your vehicles here. This is our ancestral land. We graze our livestock here" . Chushul Councillor Konchok Stanzin said, "Livelihoods of locals have been taken away in
924-420: The Chinese. The Chinese force was supplied by trucks and supported by helicopters. The Indian government considered this the most serious border incident in years. The Indian military followed a policy of restraint, attempting to keep the issue "localized" and "tactical", in order to give the Indian government the opportunity to resolve the issue through diplomacy. Throughout the incident no shots were fired and
SECTION 20
#1732869014890968-451: The Indian military did not attempt to outflank the Chinese. Minimal efforts were made by the Indian army to reinforce the position after its initial deployment, though the two sides did raise banners encouraging each other to withdraw. Much of the negotiations were conducted between officers present in the two camps. Western media largely interpreted China's actions as a show of force by the Chinese military, but some journalists speculated that
1012-416: The area hundreds of times every year, including aerial sightings and intrusions. In 2013, there was a three-week standoff ( 2013 Daulat Beg Oldi incident ) between Indian and Chinese troops 30 km southeast of Daulat Beg Oldi . It was resolved and both Chinese and Indian troops withdrew in exchange for an Indian agreement to destroy some military structures over 250 km to the south near Chumar that
1056-582: The boundary dispute alive for as long as it can be used against India. On the other hand, there have been voices which say that clarifying the LAC would be beneficial for both countries. In the 1970s, India's China Study Group identified patrol points to which Indian forces would patrol. This was a better representation of how far India could patrol towards its perceived LAC and delimited India's limits of actual control. These periodic patrols were performed by both sides, and often crisscrossed. Patrolling Points were identified by India's China Study Group in
1100-453: The boundary in the western sector after the 1962 Sino-Indian War , but during the 1990s came to refer to the entire de facto border. The term "line of actual control" is said to have been used by Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai in a 1959 note to Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru . The boundary existed only as an informal cease-fire line between India and China after the 1962 Sino-Indian War . In 1993, India and China agreed to respect of
1144-500: The boundary question". In article 10 of the 1996 border agreement, both sides agreed to the exchange of maps to help clarify the alignment of the LAC. It was only in 2001 when the first in-depth discussion would take place with regard to the central/middle sectors. Maps of Sikkim were exchanged, resulting in the "Memorandum on Expanding Border Trade". However the process of exchange of maps soon collapsed in 2002–2003 when other sectors were brought up. Shivshankar Menon writes that
1188-463: The context of the Sino-Indian border dispute , is a notional demarcation line that separates Indian-controlled territory from Chinese-controlled territory. The concept was introduced by Chinese premier Zhou Enlai in a 1959 letter to Jawaharlal Nehru as the "line up to which each side exercises actual control", but rejected by Nehru as being incoherent. Subsequently, the term came to refer to
1232-412: The incident was possibly conducted by the Chinese military as a way to protest the perceived existence of a "permanent facility" that the Indian army had built in a disputed area. China's military think tank later tried to suggest that the incident was "accidental" and "not deliberately staged". The Indian government protested diplomatically, asking the Chinese to withdraw their military and to recognise
1276-495: The initial thrust of the Chinese forces in the Sino-Indian War , the Chinese premier Zhou Enlai wrote to the heads of ten African and Asian nations outlining his proposals for peace, a fundamental tenet of which was that both sides should undertake not to cross the "line of actual control". This letter was accompanied by certain maps which again identified the "line of actual control as of 7 November 1959". Margaret Fisher calls it
1320-1130: The limits of Indian claim, because Indian claim extends beyond these patrolling points. These patrolling points were set by India as the patrolling limits for the Indian Army to patrol and avoid confrontation with the PLA to maintain peace on LAC with China, which had proved to be a superior military power in 1962 border war. According to a 2020 report by an Indian police officer, India lost access to 26 of 65 patrolling points (PP 5–17 in Depsang Plains & Depsang Bulge including Samar Lungpa & Galwan, 24-32 in Changchenmo basin, 37 in Skakjung pasture, 51 & 52 in Demchok & Chardhing Nala, 62 in Chumar) in Ladakh due to being restricted by China. India's opposition party Congress claims that
1364-465: The line formed after the 1962 Sino-Indian War . The LAC is different from the borders claimed by each country in the Sino-Indian border dispute. The Indian claims include the entire Aksai Chin region and the Chinese claims include Zangnan ( South Tibet )/ Arunachal Pradesh . These claims are not included in the concept of "actual control". The LAC is generally divided into three sectors: The term "line of actual control" originally referred only to
Skakjung - Misplaced Pages Continue
1408-557: The line of actual control." However, clause number 6 of the 1993 Agreement on the Maintenance of Peace and Tranquility along the Line of Actual Control in the India-China Border Areas mentions, "The two sides agree that references to the line of actual control in this Agreement do not prejudice their respective positions on the boundary question". The Indian government claims that Chinese troops continue to illegally enter
1452-499: The long-running conflict that began in 2020. The date of 7 November 1959, on which the Chinese premier Zhou Enlai alluded to the concept of "line of actual control", achieved a certain sanctity in Chinese nomenclature. But there was no line defined in 1959. Scholars state that Chinese maps had shown a steadily advancing line in the western sector of the Sino-Indian boundary, each of which was identified as "the line of actual control as of 7 November 1959". On 24 October 1962, after
1496-424: The name of buffer zones and patrolling points. Our nomads are struggling for their land" . According to Ladakhi Indian diplomat Phunchok Stobdan , Skakjung went from being an Indian-administered area until the mid-1980s to a completely Chinese-administered area by 2008. India's opposition party Congress claims that the Narendra Modi -ruled government of India is covering up "territorial setbacks" in this area, while
1540-462: The patrolling points were revised. The concept of patrol points came about well before India officially accepted the Line of Actual Control (LAC). Patrolling points give a more realistic on–ground guide of India's limits of actual control. Most patrolling points are close to the LAC. However, in the Depsang plains , the patrolling points are said to remain well inside in LAC, despite having been revised
1584-438: The phrase Line of Actual Control. The agreement covered force level, consultations as a way forward and the role of a Joint Working Group. The agreement made it clear that there was an "ultimate solution to the boundary question between the two countries" which remained pending. It was also agreed that "the two sides agree that references to the line of actual control in this Agreement do not prejudice their respective positions on
1628-455: The region, the Indian army began to develop the infrastructure on their side in the 2000s, which was perceived by the Chinese military as a potential threat. The Indian government claims that Chinese troops continue to illegally enter the area hundreds of times every year. Most of these occur without incident, but in 2011 Chinese military forces entered 18 km into the disputed area in order to dismantle "17 structures made up of loose stones in
1672-555: The ruling government has denied the charges as "politically motivated" . Traditionally, it was a grazing area. The Indus valley here is about four miles wide, and sandy with a thin layer of grass. That, coupled with the fact that there is no snow here in winter, makes it a most important winter grazing area for the Changpa nomads. This Ladakh, India location article is a stub . You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it . Patrol Point The Line of Actual Control ( LAC ), in
1716-601: The shape of bunkers". During the night of 15 April 2013, a platoon of 50 Chinese troops established an encampment in four tents in the dry river bed of Raki Nala in the Depsang Bulge , which represents the valley of Burtsa Nala or Tiannan River ( Chinese : 天南河 ; pinyin : Tiān nán hé ). The encampment was discovered the next day by the Indo-Tibetan Border Police , who then set up an encampment of their own consisting of eight tents 300 meters away from
1760-417: The status quo that existed before the incident. The Chinese responded by publicly denying that there was any border issue, stating that their forces did not cross what they perceived the LAC to be. On April 27, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told that, "We do have a plan. We do not want to accentuate the situation. We do believe that it is possible to resolve this problem. It is a localised problem. I think
1804-479: The talks are going on." India opted not to take military action and pressed on with a long-planned visit to China by its foreign minister, Salman Khurshid . Within the Indian Parliament , the government was heavily criticised by the opposition for its handling of the incident who compared it to India's defeat in the 1962 Sino-Indian War . On 3 May, shortly before the dispute was resolved, the Indian parliament
Skakjung - Misplaced Pages Continue
1848-406: The two governments over the facts of possession: It is obvious that there is complete disagreement between the two Governments even about the facts of possession. An agreement about the observance of the status quo would, therefore, be meaningless as the facts concerning the status quo are themselves disputed. Scholar Stephen Hoffmann states that Nehru was determined not to grant legitimacy to
1892-404: Was adjourned after opposition members became disruptive, shouting "get China out, save the country". The negotiations lasted nearly twenty days, during which the Chinese military increased their presence in the region. To resolve the issue, India agreed to a Chinese demand to demolish some live-in bunkers in the Chumar sector, 250 km to the south, and refrain from building more bunkers which
1936-565: Was an incursion and sit-in by a platoon -sized contingent of the Chinese PLA in the dry river bed of Raki Nala , in the Depsang Bulge area, 30 km south of Daulat Beg Oldi near the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the disputed Aksai Chin region. Indian forces responded to the Chinese presence by quickly establishing their own encampment 300 metres (980 ft) away. Negotiations between China and India lasted nearly three weeks, during which
#889110