Rahul Ghandy – A La India’s Goebbels

Most importantly, Rahul Ghandy is the biggest “Fraud Master” for using “Gandhi” surname/suffix instead of “Ghandy” surname/suffix, that is, the inherited lineage of his Grandfather Feroze Jahangir Ghandy.

Rahul Ghandy made a valiant attempt prior to the 2019 elections by vociferously raising the “Rafael” issue against Modi; but failed miserably to make an impact on the electoral outcomes. Now, Rahul Ghandy is raking up the issue of Modi-Adani linkage to derive an electoral advantage in the forthcoming elections.

Recently, Rahul Ghandy repeatedly targeted Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the Press Conferences before and after the 3rd I.N.D.I.A conference in Mumbai: "The Chinese have walked in and taken our territory in Ladakh. Meanwhile, the PM is absolutely silent and has vanished from the scene."

All the inner coterie or cronies of Rahul Ghandy have been in the forefront targeting the government repeatedly over reports of Chinese incursion and border skirmishes in eastern Ladakh.

Can Rahul Ghandy and his cronies rebut Ladakh lawmaker Jamyang Tsering Namgyal statement giving details of loss of Territory to China to include: 1) Aksai Chin (37,244 square km) prior to 1962 during Nehru’s Congress regime; 2) Zorawar Fort in Demjok was destroyed by PLA in 2008 and setup PLA's Observing Point in 2012 during UPA regime and also created Chinese/new Demjok/Colony with 13 cemented houses; 3) Tia Pangnak and Chabji Valley (250m length) in Chumur area till 2008 during UPA time; and Doom Cheley (ancient trade point) between Dungti and Demjok in 2008-2009 during UPA regime.

De Jure, Rahul Ghandy's propaganda against loss of territory to China mercilessly exposes his oft-repeated propaganda.

In retrospect, the current disputed areas include: 1) 1963 - Trans-Karakoram Tract (Shaksgam) - Ladakh (Leh district); 2) Demchok sector Ladakh (Leh district); 3) Chumur (2 separate noncontiguous Chumur North & Chumur South subsectors) Ladakh (Leh district): 4) Shipki La Himachal Pradesh (Kinnaur district); 5) Kaurik Himachal Pradesh (Lahaul and Spiti district; 6) Sang-Nelang-Pulam Sumda, Uttarakhand (Uttarkashi district); 7) Barahoti Uttarakhand (Chamoli district); and 8) Arunachal Pradesh.

Add to the above data, the ongoing dispute in Depsang Valley/Plain, the Gogra patrolling points following the Galwan Clash in 2020 and the Pangong Tso Lake stand-off among others.

As per information available in the public domain, the total area presently in occupation of China is nearly 40,000 sq. km out of which the Akshai Chin alone constitutes (37,244 square km).

Some of the other facts include: 4 states viz., Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh and a Union Territories of Ladakh (erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir) share a border with China. And, the Sino-Indian border is generally divided into three sectors namely: Western sector, Middle sector, and Eastern sector.

In the Western sector, there is an inherited territorial dispute over Aksai Chin. India claims it as part of erstwhile Kashmir, while China claims it is part of Xinjiang.

In the Middle Sector, India shares about a 625 km long boundary with China which runs along the watershed from Ladakh to Nepal with Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand touching this border. China claims the Kaurik region of Lahaul & Spiti districts as part of its Tibet province and the Tashigang-Shipki La region of Kinnaur district is also claimed by China as its own part of its Tibet province.

In the Eastern Sector, India shares a 1,140 km long boundary with China. The McMahon Line denotes the border. China considers the McMahon Line illegal and unacceptable claiming that Tibetan representatives who had signed the 1914 Convention held in Shimla which delineated the McMahon line on the map were not having rights to do so.

Sino-India border disputes are complex historical issues. India’s claim to the area is largely based on the “Johnson Line” in Ladakh and the MacMohan Line in Arunachal Pradesh. China contests both India’s claims.

The first border dispute occurred in the middle sector in 1954 when India occupied several posts. In 1958 China’s ambassador to India at the time sent two memos to the Foreign Ministry of India calling for an immediate withdrawal of Indian troops from the disputed areas and the resumption of negotiations.

Next, the Sino-Indian military clashed at Longju in August 1959. Add to it the military standoff at the Sumdorong Chu Valley in Arunachal Pradesh in 1987.

Despite military clashes, bilateral negotiations on border issues continues even till date starting with Chou En Lai’s offer in late 1960’s, Deng’s offer in 1980s to Rajiv Gandhi, India’s formal acceptance of the Chinese claims on Tibet and the opening of the Nathu-La for trade, as well as the start of meetings between special representatives of China and India on the Boundary Issue during Vajpayee visit to China in late June 2003.

However, no breakthrough on border disputes has been made through negotiations yet.

Let me highlight that a significant breakthrough in resolving border disputes is highly unlikely considering in the overall geopolitics of the region and also on the global scale. Xi Jinping's end objective is clear: to reclaim all territories lost when China was weak. His military strategy policy is based on “Creeping Incrementalism and extended coercions’.

Neither Rahul Ghandy supported by his coterie nor the I.N.D.I.A combine can resolve the border dispute concerning China’s hegemonic goals – no space for two tigers atop a Hill. So, instead of berating Modi for the loss of territory to China, the opposition must realistically approach the problem to reach a consensus to counter China’s hegemonic claims.

Nehru, Rahul Ghandy’s Great Grandfather, Indira Ghandy, Rahul Ghandy’s Grandmother and Rajiv Ghandy, Rahul’s father have all contributed to a large measure of the present stand-off with China on political and military confrontation.

If Rahul Ghandy's tirade or propaganda is out of ignorance of history, then he and his coterie must go back to Colleges/schools to learn from the lessons of history. Otherwise, he will only anoint himself as a la India’s modern Goebbels.