evidence: All commentators note that China prefers a ‘package deal’ rather than a ‘sector-by-sector’ settlement. In the 1990s, China offered to exchange 495 square kilometers area with an area of 269 square kilometers in north-west Bhutan.23 However, the north western area (Doklam/Gipmochi/Gyemochen) is perceived to be strategically relevant for India, and this is the crux of the Doklam situation as it has unfolded in recent years. Menon and Kanisetti (2018, italics original) write, ‘Yet the Indo-Bhutan friendship cannot, indeed must not, be taken for granted … Bhutan’s own silence on China’s occupation of Doklam can be explained by the fact that it has perceived Doklam as not being of vital interest to itself…Bhutan appears to now be striking out and dealing with China on its own’. The trust deficit can be glaring on such occasions, when there are fuming reports in the Indian media about any possible overtures or contacts between Bhutan and China, which serve a useful purpose for domestic political mobilization in India and further entrench strategies concerning China (cf. Christensen, 1996).