 |
|
The Indian Parliament’s Standing Committee on External Affairs, led by Congress leader Shashi Tharoor, summoned Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri on October 25, 2024, to provide clarity on the recent “disengagement” at the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in eastern Ladakh. The committee’s focus stemmed from the absence of a joint statement from both India and China regarding the agreement, despite announcements by the Indian government confirming the “disengagement” and “resolution of issues” that had arisen in 2020. While Mr. Misri had stated that diplomatic and military negotiators from both countries had reached an agreement on “patrolling arrangements” leading to the disengagement, the lack of a joint statement raised concerns among the MPs.
Mr. Misri defended the absence of a joint statement, arguing that such statements are not always customary in such situations. He assured the committee that both governments were committed to the agreement, seeking to alleviate concerns about potential “grey areas.” The members, however, remained keen to delve deeper into the specifics of the disengagement process and the implications of the agreement, indicating a level of skepticism and a desire for greater transparency.
Beyond the LAC disengagement, the parliamentary committee delved into other pressing foreign policy issues, including the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. Mr. Misri engaged in a detailed discussion on the subject, highlighting the implications of the Iran-Israel standoff for the large Indian diaspora residing in West Asia. The MPs, particularly concerned about India’s stance on Palestine, questioned Mr. Misri regarding India’s frequent abstentions from pro-Palestine resolutions at the UN. The issue of India’s arms exports to Israel also surfaced, with a member pointing out the indirect contribution of these exports to the conflict in Gaza. Mr. Misri responded by clarifying that Indian firms have joint ventures with Israeli defense manufacturers and that India primarily supplies arms components.
The meeting further addressed the escalating tensions between India and Canada. With the members expressing a desire for further information on the topic, Mr. Tharoor, the panel’s chairman, agreed to schedule another meeting dedicated to addressing these questions. Mr. Tharoor concluded the session by highlighting the comprehensive nature of the discussion, acknowledging the importance of addressing various foreign policy challenges and the need for ongoing dialogue within the parliamentary framework.
The parliamentary committee’s scrutiny of the LAC disengagement agreement, along with the broader discussion on regional conflicts and bilateral relations, underscores the importance of parliamentary oversight in foreign policy matters. The committee’s active engagement with the Foreign Secretary reflects the need for transparency and accountability in India’s dealings with other nations. The focus on the Israel-Palestine conflict and Indo-Canada tensions highlights the complex geopolitical landscape that India navigates and the role of diplomacy in managing these intricate relationships.
Source: Why no Indo-Chinese joint statement on LAC disengagement, Parliament panel asks Foreign Secretary