An army truck moving towards LAC, in Leh

‘Some graziers were on Indian side of LAC in the region but Chinese People’s Liberation Army objected to their presence claiming the area to be on their side’

New Delhi: Indian graziers were stopped by Chinese troops from moving ahead near the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the Demchok region of eastern Ladakh over a week ago, people familiar with the development said on Monday.

There was no face-off or confrontation between the Indian and Chinese forces in view of the incident as such objections by both sides happen routinely, they said.

The people said some Indian graziers were on the Indian side of the LAC in the region but the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) objected to their presence claiming the area to be on their side. The incident is understood to have taken place on August 21.

“Such incidents happen in those areas because of differing perceptions about the LAC by both sides,” said one of the people cited above, adding the incident figured in subsequent talks between area commanders of the two armies.

The incident took place amid the prolonged military standoff between the two sides at a number of friction points in eastern Ladakh.

India has been consistently maintaining that peace and tranquillity along the LAC is key for the overall development of Sino-India bilateral ties.

The Indian and Chinese militaries have held 16 rounds of talks to resolve the eastern Ladakh border standoff that erupted on May 5, 2020, following a violent clash in the Pangong lake areas.

Both sides gradually enhanced their deployment by rushing in tens of thousands of soldiers as well as heavy weaponry.

As a result of a series of military and diplomatic talks, the two sides completed the disengagement process last year on the north and south banks of the Pangong lake and in the Gogra area.

Meanwhile, Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge, referring to a report on the incident, took to Twitter to claim that the government is in “complete denial while China challenges our territorial sovereignty.”