India expresses 'deep concern' over Chinese activity in Sikkim sector, says it has 'serious security implications'

New Delhi: India on Friday expressed "deep concern" over China's plans to construct a road in the Doklam area in Sikkim sector, saying that such a move "represent a significant change of status quo with security implications for India".

On 16 June, the Chinese soldiers had entered the Doklam area and attempted to construct a road. Doklam is located close to the tri-junction between India, China and Bhutan.

However, the Indian security personnel, who were present in the area, in consultation with the Bhutanese government urged the Chinese construction party to desist from “changing the status quo”, the MEA said in a statement.

The matter has since been under discussion between India and China at the diplomatic level. It was also the subject of a border personnel meeting at Nathu La on 20th June.

The MEA further said, “It is essential that all parties concerned display utmost restraint and abide by their respective bilateral understandings not to change the status quo unilaterally.

“It is also important that the consensus reached between India and China through the Special Representatives process is scrupulously respected by both sides.”

Bhutan has also lodged a strong protest with the Chinese government through its embassy in New Delhi on the same day. Both India and Bhutan have been in constant touch over the issue.

On Thursday, the Bhutan's Foreign Ministry has also issued a statement underlining that the construction of the road inside Bhutanese territory is a direct violation of the agreements between Bhutan and China.

It said that the construction activity affects the process of demarcating the boundary between these two countries.

New Delhi and Beijing in 2012 reached an agreement that the tri-junction boundary points between India, China and third countries will be finalized in consultation with the concerned countries. And any attempt, therefore, to unilaterally determine tri-junction points is in violation of this understanding.