PMO clarifies on Modi's remarks on Galwan face off, says "attempts being made to give a mischievous interpretation"
The clarification states that the Prime Minister was clear that no transgression at the Line of Actual Control (LAC) would be allowed and it would be firmly dealt with.
Hours after China made a formal claim over all of Galwan Valley, the Prime Minister's Office has now iussed a clarification on Prime Minister Modi's remarks during the All-Party Meeting (APM) on Friday.
Through the Press Information Bureau (PIB), the PMO claimed that "attempts are being made in some quarters to give a mischievous interpretation to remarks by the Prime Minister at the All-Party Meeting."
This comes after several people including Congress MP Shashi Tharoor criticised the PM's statements and said that he is "perturbed by our PM's statement that unwittingly provides ammunition to the Chinese side to claim that the fighting occurred on their territory, not ours."
1/2 I am perturbed by our PM's statement that unwittingly provides ammunition to the Chinese side to claim that the fighting occurred on their territory, not ours. This desire to put short-term domestic political messaging ahead of long-term strategic considerations is NOT [cntd]— Shashi Tharoor (@ShashiTharoor) June 20, 2020
"This desire to put short-term domestic political messaging ahead of long-term strategic considerations is NOT is not in our national interest. If the PM does not know better, he should be better advised. Twenty jawans died fighting to protect our borders. The least that political leaders can do to honour their memory is to stand up for the cause for which they gave their lives," he added.
“No outsider was inside #Indian territory in #Ladakh.” said Prime Minister Narendra Modi @PMOIndia on an all- party meet called by him on Friday.— Shen Shiwei沈诗伟 (@shen_shiwei) June 20, 2020
The statement illustrates that the incidents were happened in Chinese territory. #IndiaChinaFaceOff ???????????????? #China #India pic.twitter.com/391IFxCTa0
PM said there is no foreigner (meaning Chinese) in Indian territory. If this is true, what was the fuss about May 5-6? Why was there a fight between troops on June 16-17? Why did India lose 20 lives?— P. Chidambaram (@PChidambaram_IN) June 20, 2020
Now the PMO has said that the "Prime Minister was clear that India would respond firmly to any attempts to transgress the Line of Actual Control (LAC). In fact, he specifically emphasized that in contrast to the past neglect of such challenges, Indian forces now decisively counter any violations of LAC (“unhe rokte hain, unhe tokte hain”)."
Attempts are being made in some quarters to give a mischievous interpretation to remarks by the PM @narendramodi at All-Party Meeting yesterday— PIB India (@PIB_India) June 20, 2020
PM was clear that India would respond firmly to any attempts to transgress the Line of Actual Control
The statement mentions that regarding the transgression of LAC, "it was clearly stated that the violence in Galwan on 15 June arose because Chinese side was seeking to erect structures just across the LAC and refused to desist from such actions."
However, the note from PMO did not clarify as to which side of the LAC it meant. Earlier, a statement by the Ministry of External Affairs had said that the "Chinese side sought to erect a structure in Galwan valley on our side of the LAC."
The note also stated that it is "it is unfortunate that an unnecessary controversy is being created to lower their (soldiers defencing the borders) morale.
It also said that "the Prime Minister’s observations that there was no Chinese presence on our side of the LAC pertained to the situation as a consequence of the bravery of our armed forces."
"The sacrifices of the soldiers of the 16 Bihar Regiment foiled the attempt of the Chinese side to erect structures and also cleared the attempted transgression at this point of the LAC on that day," the PMO added.
Calling the alleged misterpretation "motivated propaganda", PMO mentioned that the "predominant sentiment at the All Party Meeting was of unequivocal support to the Government and the armed forces at a time of national crisis."