Looking back at the previous U.S. presidential elections, each term can be described by the word "black miasma", whether it is political black material or private life, opposing parties can be picked up. The same is true for India.
(Prime Minister Modi)
Last month, Modi's BJP won local elections in three key Indian states, giving a crucial boost to the Modi government's re-election. But the opposition believes that any reversal before the election is expected, so 26 opposition parties, including India's main political party, the Congress Party, have formed a coalition to provoke Modi's thorn in the body before the election, and Modi's first lever is on the Sino-Indian border issue.
A few days ago, during the parliamentary session, a local councillor broke the news that the Modi government, after negotiating with China, agreed to the request for disengagement on the Sino-Indian border and demolished a "monument to heroes". Subsequently, the chairman of the Congress Party, Malikajon Haag, expressed his opinion on this, saying that the Modi government's move is an insult to the martyrs who died in India, and once again shows that it is a false patriotism.
In fact, the monument that the Congress Party is talking about is not a glorious thing for India. It was built on the Rechin Pass, an important border crossing between China and India. Although it is said to commemorate an Indian officer who died in the Sino-Indian War in 1962, it was actually built in 2020.
As we all know, the Sino-Indian border issue is a legacy of history, and in the late 1950s, Sino-Indian relations deteriorated, and the border issue gradually turned into a diplomatic dispute, until 1962, when tensions escalated into armed conflict. The war lasted about a month and ended with a complete victory for the Chinese on the battlefield over the Indian army. The monument built by the Indian side is to commemorate a major who died in this conflict.
(Monument built in India)
During this conflict, we dispatched four companies to take the Indian stronghold at Rechinding in one day, and killed 136 Indian troops stationed there, including Major Shatan Singh, who was in command. After Singh was hit by a bullet, his men hid him in a hiding place, which led to Singh's body not being found until three months later.
Such a record was really disgraceful to the Indian side, so the Indian side began to spread rumors about the number of Chinese casualties, and began to "deify" the commander Singh, posthumously awarded medals, and built monuments. After the 2020 conflict between China and India in the Galwan Valley, the Indian side also erected a monument to him.
But since that clash in the Galwan Valley, both China and India have actively sought to ease tensions on their border through diplomacy and politics toward China. According to the consensus reached by the two militaries in negotiations, China and India also agreed to disengage, that is, to withdraw from the front line of confrontation, to reduce the risk of conflict and avoid unnecessary confrontation caused by miscalculation. Specific actions include the withdrawal of troops to designated positions and the dismantling of temporary structures and defences, as well as the cessation of patrols in certain sensitive areas. Therefore, the demolition of the monument built in 2020 also belongs to the consensus reached by China and India.
The incident has been criticized by the opposition for the past three years, but the Modi government has never responded positively to whether the monument was demolished or not.
Now that the general election is imminent, and the Sino-Indian border issue is a major national security issue in India, the opposition parties will bring up the old matter again and use it as a breakthrough, which will not only give them reason to accuse Modi of not being able to properly deal with the contradictions with China, attract voters who are dissatisfied with the Modi government's handling of border affairs, but also improve their own political capital through this incident, so as to prove that their position is superior to that of the Modi government.
(Congress Party President Malikachon Haag)
However, instead of responding positively to these accusations of the Congress Party, the Modi government turned the finger to history and criticized Jawaharlal Nehru, the former leader of the Congress Party who served as India's prime minister.
A few days ago, Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar made a profound reflection on the historical China-India relations, and specifically named the first Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Jaishankar believes that Jawaharlal Nehru's China policy was not based on India's national interests, but was excessively influenced by Sino-US relations, resulting in a certain idealization of his policies and perspectives. Obviously, such a policy does not really take into account India's security and development needs, nor does it foresee possible differences and frictions between the two sides in the future.
Subsequently, Jaishankar further stressed that India must base its relations with China on its own actual situation and interests. In fact, Jaishankar's remarks also indicate from the side that the diplomatic line followed by the Modi government is the most in line with India's own situation.
Moreover, while Jaishankar did not directly address the recent Sino-Indian border issue, his words revealed a veiled criticism of the Congress Party's past policy toward China. This criticism seems to have a hint that the current government's policies are more in line with India's actual needs and national interests.
(India's Founding Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and India's Current Foreign Minister S Jaishankar)
However, for the Chinese side, we should always be vigilant before the Indian election, after all, the election is accompanied by a high degree of political strategy and foreign policy manipulation, so it is very likely that Modi will also express India's position on the Sino-Indian border issue more forcefully on various occasions during this period, or increase military deployment in the border area, so as to create a strong leader image for himself to defend sovereignty.