‘Enough clean chits to China’: Mallikarjun Kharge, Congress questions PM Modi over security, trade

Kharge and Congress questioned the government because two concerns appeared to be worsening together: reported military face-offs along the Arunachal Pradesh border and a growing economic imbalance with China. They argued that national security and economic security both required clearer explanations from Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The immediate trigger was ITBP director general Shatrujeet Singh Kapoor’s statement that face-offs with Chinese PLA troops continued at multiple locations. Kharge also cited reports of Chinese incursions near Taksing, possible loss of patrolling access, and the risk of another serious crisis after Galwan. On trade, he said Chinese imports rose 102 per cent and the deficit reached $112.16 billion.

Congress also criticised Modi’s meeting with Xi Jinping at the BRICS summit while border tensions were reportedly continuing. It questioned proposed investment relaxations and possible PLI benefits for China-linked ventures. The government has rejected allegations of weakness, while BJP functionaries accused Congress of politicising national security.

The Line of Actual Control, or LAC, is the practical military boundary between areas controlled by India and China, although the two countries do not fully agree on where that line lies. This definition uses established geographic and diplomatic knowledge; the article refers to tensions and talks along the LAC but does not define it in detail.

When each side follows its own understanding of the boundary, patrols may enter areas claimed or monitored by the other side. Soldiers can then meet face to face without either side accepting that it crossed its own line. Such encounters may remain non-firearm confrontations, but they can still become tense and lead to military talks.

The article reports continuing face-offs at multiple Arunachal Pradesh locations, including the Taksing area. It also mentions Corps Commander-level talks at Wacha-Damai and existing diplomatic and military mechanisms intended to avoid misunderstanding and miscalculation. Continued disagreement therefore keeps local patrol encounters connected to wider India-China relations.

India’s reported trade imbalance with China was $112.16 billion, meaning India’s purchases from China exceeded its sales to China by that amount. The figure matters because a large gap can signal heavy dependence on one trading partner and can become an economic-security concern when political or border relations are strained.

Kharge said Chinese imports had surged 102 per cent. He also said India’s trade deficit with China had ballooned 155 per cent. A trade deficit grows when the value of imports rises faster than the value of exports, when exports fall, or through a combination of both. The article does not provide the starting values or time period behind these percentages.

The political debate focuses on whether policies designed to attract investment and expand manufacturing could also enable more China-linked participation. Kharge asked whether “Make in India” was becoming “Import from China.” The article also notes that Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman has acknowledged China obstructs Indian exports.

Patrolling access refers to whether Indian forces can reach, move through, and monitor areas they previously patrolled along the border. The article presents this as a security and sovereignty issue. If access is reduced, India may have less ability to observe activity, demonstrate its presence, or maintain its understanding of the ground situation.

Kharge referred to reports of Chinese incursions near Taksing and asked whether India’s patrolling access had been compromised. He also asked whether pre-May 2020 patrolling rights had been fully restored. In practical terms, restoring access would mean Indian forces could resume earlier routes or areas, subject to whatever arrangements both sides accept.

The article does not independently establish whether access was lost or restored. It records the question as part of Congress’s criticism. India and China have used diplomatic and military mechanisms after the Ladakh standoff, and their reported arrangements are meant to reduce miscalculation. The issue remains tied to wider border talks and accountability demands.

The Galwan clash was a serious India-China border confrontation in June 2020. The article states that 20 Indian Army personnel were killed. Kharge invoked it as a warning while asking whether current face-offs near Arunachal Pradesh could develop into another major border crisis.

The clash matters because it turned an already disputed border into a much deeper political and military crisis. The article links the post-2020 period to a military standoff in Ladakh that lasted more than four years. It also says the standoff pushed India-China relations to their lowest point in six decades.

India and China later attempted to rebuild ties. The article says they reached an understanding in October 2024 to end the Ladakh standoff. Xi Jinping then visited India for the BRICS Summit on September 12-13 and met Modi. However, reported face-offs in Arunachal Pradesh kept questions about border security and restored patrolling rights active.

If border tensions continue while dependence on Chinese imports grows, India could face linked security and economic pressures. Military tensions may require sustained deployments, closer surveillance, and more diplomatic effort. Economic dependence could make disruptions, export barriers, or political disagreements more costly. These are possible consequences; the article mainly presents them through Congress’s concerns rather than reporting that they have already occurred.

The article gives two concrete warning signs. ITBP chief Shatrujeet Singh Kapoor said face-offs continued at multiple Arunachal Pradesh locations. Kharge also said Chinese imports rose 102 per cent and the trade deficit reached $112.16 billion. He questioned investment relaxations and possible PLI benefits for China-linked ventures, asking whether manufacturing policy might increase import dependence.

The forward risk is that unresolved border disputes and an expanding trade gap could reinforce each other. India may need to protect its borders while reducing vulnerability in trade. The article records diplomatic and military mechanisms, political debate, and efforts to rebuild ties, but it does not report a final solution.

A trade deficit is the amount by which a country’s imports exceed its exports over a stated period. In bilateral trade, it measures the gap with one partner. It does not necessarily mean all trade is harmful, but a persistent, large deficit can raise concerns about dependence, competitiveness, or access to foreign markets.

For example, if India buys goods worth $150 billion from China but sells goods worth $37.84 billion, the difference is $112.16 billion. That is the basic mechanism behind the figure cited by Kharge. The article does not provide those component values; they simply illustrate how the reported gap could be calculated. The deficit can widen if imports increase, exports decline, or both occur.

Kharge said Chinese imports had risen 102 per cent and the deficit had expanded 155 per cent to $112.16 billion. He also said Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman acknowledged that China obstructs Indian exports. The article presents this imbalance as part of a wider debate about economic security and “Make in India.”