Affirming the Indian Army's adherence to protocol, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), on Thursday, stated that the Indian Army had not crossed the Line of Actual Control at the Indo-China border. It stated that the Chinese side have done activities not suitable to the agreement between both countries. MEA added that India is committed to maintain peace. It also requested Nepal to create a positive environment for border discussion.
"Indian Army has not crossed the LAC. All the activities are on the Indian side. Infact, the Chinese side has done certain activities which are not suitable to the agreement between the two counties. We have a mechanism to resolve the border issues. We are committed to maintain peace and tranquillity along border with China," stated the MEA.
Apart from two armies' standoff, the Air Force was forced to rush its fighter jet patrols in Ladakh after Chinese military choppers were found to be flying close to the Line of Actual Control on last Tuesday. "The Chinese military helicopters were flying very close to the Line of Actual Control. After their movement was picked up, the Indian Air Force fighter jets flew patrols in the area," government sources told news agency ANI.
Indian Army sources on Sunday morning stated that the defense forces were involved in a stand-off with their Chinese counterparts near the India-China border in north Sikkim. The confrontation is reported to have taken place near the Naku La Sector and was solved later after local-level talks between the authorities. Such kind of incident has taken place after some amount of time in the region, almost 2 years after the Dokalam stand-off.
Even as Nepal's foreign minister Pradeep Kumar Gyawali said that efforts were on to resolve the border issue with India through diplomatic initiatives, the country issued an official map showing Lipulekh, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura under its territory. Oli reiterated that Nepal will claim Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh, and Kalapanias through 'diplomatic efforts'. In response, the Ministry of External Affairs slammed this "unilateral act", stating that this was contrary to the understanding between the two countries to resolve boundary disputes through dialogue.