In an all-party meeting called by the government on Friday to discuss the border dispute with China, Prime Minister Narendra Modi asserted that “no one has intruded into our territory.”
Prime Minister Modi said, “Neither have they [China] intruded into our border nor has any post been taken over by them.”
The statement by the Prime Minister stirred a controversy that drew flak from the opposition parties and the public.
Rahul Gandhi slammed Modi saying, “PM has surrendered Indian territory to Chinese aggression.”
On Saturday, the Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement to allay the doubts of the critics. PMO’s office clarified that there has been a “mischievous interpretation” by some circles in the public.
Here is how the global press reported the whole incident:
The Washington Post reported that Modi denied the assertion that any Indian territory has been held by the Chinese troops.
Ashok Sharma and Emily Schmall of the Washington Post wrote, “India’s prime minister said Friday that the entire country is “hurt and angry” at the killing of 20 soldiers by Chinese forces in a disputed Himalayan border region, while denying assertions that any Indian territory had been lost.”
Al Jazeera reported, “Nobody has intruded into our border, neither is anybody there now nor have our posts been captured, Narendra Modi said in a televised speech on Friday after he spent the day meeting representatives of parties from across the political spectrum in a bid to build consensus to tackle the rising tensions with China.”
Gulf News reporting on PM Modi’s statement highlighted, “In view of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement, following an all-party meeting on Friday night, wherein he said that neither has any part of Indian territory been intruded nor has any Indian border post been overrun, a fresh controversy has been triggered over the ongoing India-China standoff over conflicting territorial claims in Ladakh’s Galwan Valley.”
On the outpour of anger over PM Modi’s statement, Gulf News said, “Question arises that if the PLA indeed ‘sought to erect a structure … on our side of the LAC …’ then how could they have done so without crossing over to the Indian side of the LAC?”