China’s Construction of Bridge in Disputed Border Region Poses Military Threat to Ind

[Boats]

China’s Construction of a Bridge in the Disputed Border Region Poses a Military Threat to India!
By: Venus Upadhayaya - The Epoch Times News - 02-10-22
Re: https://www.theepochtimes.com/chinas...s_4263563.html

1st Photo link: https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets...gong-Lake.jpeg
The first view of the Pangong Tso lake, the point from where the strategic lake starts in India and goes 134 kilometers, more than half of which is in China where it ends. The lake has been a site of heavy military built-up on both sides. This picture was taken on June 22, 2021, a few miles away from the first tourist camp point. (Venus Upadhayaya/Epoch Times)

NEW DELHI—The Chinese military is nearing completion of a bridge on the Pangong Tso Lake in the disputed border area between India and China in the eastern Ladakh region. The Indian government said on Feb. 4 the construction was carried out in areas illegally occupied by China.

Pangong Tso is a high-altitude, trans-Himalayan lake that is over 83 miles long. Half of the lake is under Chinese occupation, 40 percent is under India’s control, and over six miles is claimed by both India and China.

Reports of China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) building a bridge to connect the north and the south banks of the lake to speed up the movement of troops and equipment emerged earlier this year.

“This bridge is being constructed in areas that have continued to be under the illegal occupation of China since 1962 … The government of India has never accepted this illegal occupation,” said the Indian government in a written reply to a question asked in the legislature’s lower house called the Lok Sabha.

Aksai Chin, where the bridge is located, is a territory administered by CCP under its regional authorities in Xinjiang and Tibet. The area is also claimed by India as part of Ladakh, in the eastern portion of the Kashmir region that is been the subject of a decades-long dispute between the two countries.

The area is largely unmanned then but militarily significant because of the only route linking the Tarim basin in far west China’s Xinjiang with Tibet. The CCP began building a road through Aksai Chin in 1956 and has occupied the region since 1962 after the first Indo-Sino war.

Strategic Value of the Bridge:

Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies told The Epoch Times that China has done a lot of construction within the Indian territory since 1962, and this was “ignored completely.” However, the construction of the bridge is concerning because it changes the “military balance,” he said.

2nd photo link: https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets...-12.09.35.jpeg

The white line is the international border. The blue line is the position to which the PLA ingressed in 1962 and the purple line is the point where Chinese presence and infrastructure development is constantly confirmed since 1998-99. The narrowest point within the pink circle is the location of the new bridge. (Google Maps)

The location of the bridge is south of the PLA’s position on the north bank of the lake and is being built where the two banks are only 1,600 feet apart. This cuts short the distance between the PLA’s north bank position and another important Chinese base by 93 miles.

“When they bridge the north and the south shores of the Pangong, they can essentially move tanks and armored vehicles and logistics, very quickly from one side to the other side and things like that. It gives a certain mobility advantage. That’s something which changes the fundamental balance of power; the localized balance of power out there,” said Mitra.

He said that the bridge construction was a longtime Chinese plan, adding the PLA would have spent billions of dollars to bring all the construction equipment up to the 14,000 feet location of the trans-Himalayan lake.

Srikanth Kondapalli, a professor of Chinese studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, said last year after the 10th round of military talks between India and China, both sides had decided to disengage their forward deployment of troops from the north and the south banks of Pangong Tso Lake.

“Now with the bridge, the PLA troops could be deployed swiftly. So that’s seen as a threat by India,” said Kondapalli.

Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh had told the Indian Parliament in February 2021 that as part of the military disengagement both countries will move back to their earlier positions in a “phased, coordinated and verifiable” way. With the construction of the bridge, China sends a clear message that it doesn’t want to disengage, said the experts.

The CCP’s goal is to create large permanent infrastructure in these high-altitude disputed regions to bolster its territorial claims against India, said Iyer-Mitra. By building more large structures, the idea is that “it then becomes irretrievably Chinese territory,” he said.

How Will India Respond?:

Iyer-Mitra said India’s answer to the Chinese bridge construction can’t be bridge construction on the Indian side.

India neglected infrastructure development along the Chinese border for the last seven decades and started to catch up only in 2019, according to him.

“If you start building railways and bridges and things like that—all ground forces get very panicked because they are like this is an imminent attack,” said Iyer-Mitra adding that India building military infrastructure on the ground would mean that it’s giving targets for the Chinese to attack.

India’s response should be focused on building air warfare capacities, he said, giving it the ability to bomb Chinese ground infrastructure if necessary. Meanwhile, India should continue building non-military infrastructure at a rapid pace on its side so that China’s “salami slicing” strategy—its incremental accretion of disputed land—can be stopped for one and for all, according to him.

Pathikrit Payne, a New Delhi-based research consultant on geopolitical affairs with a specialization in the management of defense technology, said along with the infrastructure upgrades and troop deployment, India should work towards intensifying its patrolling efforts along its entire boundary with China.

“India needs to augment the strength of ITBP [Indo-Tibetan Border Police] for more intensive patrolling along the entire belt from Ladakh to Arunachal,” he said, adding that last year the Indian government enhanced the strength of its armed police force, Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), by 12 additional battalions for more intensive patrolling of Indo-Nepal and Indo-Bhutan borders.

SSB is one of the five central armed police forces of India, set up in 1963 in the aftermath of the Indo-Sino war in 1962.

“Similar enhancement of ITBP strength is in pipeline but needs to be expedited given the rising possibility of Chinese intransigence, as part of its Five Fingers of Tibet policy, which is not going to go down any time soon,” said Payne.

The Five Fingers of Tibet is a foreign policy imperative attributed to CCP leader Mao Zedong that considers Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, and Arunachal Pradesh a part of Tibet’s traditional lands, and considers it the Party’s responsibility to “liberate” them.

About this writer: Venus Upadhayaya reports on wide range of issues. Her area of expertise is in Indian and South Asian geopolitics. She has reported from the very volatile India-Pakistan border and has contributed to mainstream print media in India for about a decade. Community media, sustainable development, and leadership remain her key areas of interest.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal note: It would be a good idea if the two sides trusted each
other. But - it hasn't been so far. China is agressive and it will take
some doing - to counter the bridge issue. If its only for trade that's
one thing - but it may also allows troops and/or weapons to be moved
in as well - as we know that's another issue to consider.
-
What you need is to "mine the bridge" (if its ever built) and if and when
issues get non-complianant - then blow the bridge - so much for that.
But haivng a bridge in tack only allows rapid movements of troops &
weapons for either side to use.
-
But with the bad blood between both sides for a very long time it
would not be advantageous - to either side - should one or the
other want to cross over - such as in an invasion.
-
Until they can work out their issues thats not going to happen
anytime soon - so the bridge should not be built. Also both the
Entry & Exit points will require full inspections of all materials
during the crossing - to and from one side to the other.
-
My personal thoughts are that those two sides will make the
choices - but to whose advantage? They've war amongst
themselves for decades - an easy passage for one or the other
will only make it "more tempting" should things go bad.
-
(I'd mine the bridge so that if things do go south - then either
side can blow the bridge!)