I did see this interesting debate.
The problem with Ajay Shukla is That there is lot of rhetoric in his arguments than substance. His sole focus is to win a point for the family and then secuere their confidence, From that angle he is more of a politician than a military expert,
1.
The Focal Point of "Ajaya Shukla Yajurveda" is "Rajnath Uvach" - thus spake Rajanath Singh. He is wrongly being ascribed to have admitted that there are large number of troops in the Indian territory. What Rajnath said was about movement of large number of Chinese troops.
2.
Is there a line in Galwan and Sikkim - Galwan absolutely not. Sikkim also gray areas exist. Doklam is the result of the treaty describing boundary as "...and then follows the ridge to the junction of Tibet Bhutan border ..." an inadequate description. Similarly, North Sikkim watershed is not demarcated and open to interpretation as to where is watershed at a plateau. At Galwan - there is no question of an agreed line of LAC - Chinese claim lines of 1959 or 1962 are not recognized. There is no subsequent agreement that fixed the LC anywhere here. So our area and there are as agreed upon does not actually exist in Galwan.
3.
Satellite Interpretation. Both speakers have a point. Ajay Shukla is right in saying that it is not a job for a novice but Ayer is absolutely right that movement of such a large body of troops can not be easily hidden in such dissolute, open and barren topography.
4.
On the Point of What is the Talk about, congress line as that of Ajay Shukla is Childish and rubbish on this issue. India and China so far have signed four agreements between them since 1962. The focus of all four is the maintenance of Peace and Tranquility along the LAC areas. Hence anything that happens around perceived LAC such as troop buildup, construction buildup, air activities alleged intrusion, border trade, yatras , other exchanges, differences and disagreements are all subject to talks and negotiation. If Chinese or Indians have taken troop build-up and construction of infrastructure etc near the LAC, those are supposed to be resolved through talk and established mechanism -
5. The mechanism is Border Personnel Meeting at different levels, hot lines, diplomatic channels and summit-level talks. I am sure Congress loudmouths and their conies like Ajay Shukla do not mean to convey that talks mean Chinese have captured Indian territory. Well, that is the impression they are trying to convey.
6.
Galwan -Shyok River Confluence Shoulders if occupied by Chinese troops as claimed by Ajay Shukla is a worrying factor but it remains unverified.
What Actually is the Problem. A military professional in media constitutes a big threat to a host of pseudo-journalists, writers, and academia who consider military affairs as their imagined domain, can manipulate it, spread disinformation, call a Maj Gen as Major Sahab and do not know which side the gun faces. Like good old Mankekar, Malhotra or Nayyar or present-day Shekhar Gupta they wish to remain acknowledged authority on the subject which they actually are not but are in business as weapon sellers. We have so far not produced even a single journalist or academician of the caliber of Ken Follet or Israeli generalist writing on Yom Kippur War or an academician of the caliber of Allen Clark or Liddle Hart. A military professional turned journalist who knows his beans is also a big threat to politicians and bureaucracy including Army bureaucracy who consider him as an impediment in the way of their regime of misinformation. inefficiencies, failures and lapses.
On the other hand, if a military professional turned journalist is indiscreet or prejudiced like Swamy. in his writings on matters military, he can cause a lot of harm to the issue of Military Affairs and National Security.