Many claims are being made on the back of this but I hope people understand that it merely shows a *correlation* between Ladakh becoming UT and Sept 11, 2019 event. It doesn't even show correlation, forget causation, b/w May 2020 events and the UT status https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-china-lac-first-signs-of-trouble-in-pangong-was-last-september-days-after-ladakh-became-ut-6479516/

Now let's come to the morality of the issue. The people of Ladakh had been demanding UT status for a very long time. In a *democracy*, people's demands are considered seriously and, if possible, they are granted. China doesn't get it but scholars/analysts should. Stop justifying.

Tomorrow, the people of Arunachal might demand a UT status. One cannot rule that out given the problems of political defections in Arunachal. When that demand is made, we should think about the people of Arunachal 100 times more than what China would think/do.So, stop justifying.

Now let's come to Amit Shah's statement in the Parliament. He said:"Whenever I've said J&K in Parliament, it includes PoK and Aksai Chin.This is exactly per the boundary of J&K as laid out in the Indian and J&K constitutions." What exactly is the problem?

Final point: Conquests happen because they can happen. Five causes of war according to van Evera:first-move advantage, window for preventive attack, resource cumulativity, easy conquest opportunity & false optimism. The UT status made no change to any of the 5. Road building did.

Okay this is final. The best way to settle causation: Can we say that China would have stayed completely quiet on India's border right now when it is doing so much elsewhere (South China Sea, with Australia, with Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan and the US), had India not made Ladakh a UT?