How much of Indian land is occupied by China? As Centre, Congress trade barbs, truth lies in Parliament records

Modi government’s claims and statements on the border standoff with China have come under strict scrutiny by the Opposition Congress and critics. On June 19, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in his remarks at the all-party meet that “neither has anyone intruded into our territory nor taken over any post.” Congress leaders immediately raised the red flag that either PM Modi is misleading the nation and under his watch China has shifted the LAC further towards the Indian side, or the Indian Army walked into Chinese territory to thwart the PLA’s advances. He said in a tweet, “On March 11, 2020, in Parliament, Minister of State for External Affairs V Muralitharan said that 38,000 square kilometers of Ladakh is under Chinese occupation.” Dissecting PM Modi’s statement, he said, “PMO’s clarification said that 43,000 sq km of Ladakh is under China's control. Replying to the question, junior minister V Muralidharan had informed the Upper House, “Indian territory under the occupation of China in the Union Territory of Ladakh is approximately 38,000 square kilometers.” What the Congress leader didn’t mention is the second part of the minister’s reply in which he stated that “under the so-called China-Pakistan ‘Boundary Agreement’ signed between China and Pakistan on 2nd March, 1963, Pakistan illegally ceded 5,180 square kilometers of Indian territory in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir to China.” The youth Congress leader who triggered the debate by citing a statement by a minister of the Modi government either missed the second part of the statement or withheld the element about land ceded by Pakistan to China in the Ladakh region. In addition, under the so-called Sino-Pakistan Boundary Agreement of 1963, Pakistan illegally ceded 5,180 square kilometres of Indian territory in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir to China.” On March 21, 2001 in reply to a question by MP CV Singh in Lok Sabha, Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s junior minister for external affairs had stated the same fact.