Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 22 May 2013 22:13

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 566 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2010 00:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00
Posts: 4947
ramana wrote:
Ok.

:)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2010 01:05 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25
Posts: 10771
chetak wrote:
ramana wrote:
Ok.

:)

"warts and all"? even after the "priest" was allowed to be sacrificed? :P Okay - end of discussion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2010 07:39 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2231
Second installment of the interview

Pakistan's foundations are flawed

something curious in the last slide which reinforces what Badeji said about uranium in the himalayas

Quote:
The offices of a Chinese mining company in Gilgit. China has absolute control over local mining sites .The region is rich in copper, gold, uranium etc. Picture courtesy Senge Sering


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2010 16:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 11721
X-Posted from TIRP Thread
Dilbu wrote:
Gwadar Port may be given to China Special Report on Balochistan
Quote:
GWADAR: The news that Gwadar port is all set to be taken away from the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) and is likely to be given to the Chinese may have repercussions that go much beyond its white sand shores.

Official sources confirm that “an understanding to that effect has already developed at the highest levels but it will take a while before the legal and administrative constraints are removed.” The biggest constraint remains the agreement with the PSA, which was given the right to run the port for 40 years. However, official sources are confident that the PSA had given them sufficient grounds to revoke the agreement. Apart from its failure to bring a single commercial ship to the Gwadar docks, the PSA has not invested even a fraction of the $525 million it had committed to spend in five years.


Some more confirmation of the theories put forth here! The Freight and Gas Corridor between PoK and Gwadar is becoming a reality.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2010 16:34 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 9148
Location: Cave of the Saffron Bandits
PRC like Unkil is preparing for a balkanised paquistan
current tamasha in srinagar valley is a diversionary tactic by dragon via pet psychotic piggie with a deathwish (aka paquistan)
india has to stake out its claims now


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2010 17:12 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28
Posts: 1178
when TSP breaks up,

the G-2 intends to possibly retain baluchistan and Gilgit Baltistan respectively.

Yindoos "consolation" prize will be the lost brotheristans of pakjabidom and Sindh.

So G-2 will nicely try to keep the useful parts of the former TSP with low population density and "gift" us the majority of yahoos with some middle class.

Don't be surprised if a clamour by long lost WKK types talk about Punjabiyat and demand massive aid packages for West Punjab.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2010 17:28 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 9148
Location: Cave of the Saffron Bandits
yes - i think you are right about the G2

and despite punjabiyat... the pakjabis have drunk too oft of the poison well to retain any sanity
they will implode into a hideous mess
haris, christians and urban hindus will be slaughtered unless they can be saved by the UN (yeah right!)
in all cases the pakjabi military class/feudals and the talibs must must fight each other to the bitter end

possibly there may be a greater sindhustan and pashtunistan, need to see where the seraikis and hindkohs want to go, an ugly exchange of populations and a very sanguinary de-toxing of karachi awaits


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2010 17:38 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 11721
D Roy wrote:
when TSP breaks up,

the G-2 intends to possibly retain baluchistan and Gilgit Baltistan respectively.


Gwadar is being given to the Chinese, so is Gilgit Baltistan. Where does USA come in? Why do the Chinese need to share their bounty with the Americans?

Americans make grand plans, implement 15% of it, which ends up helping their rivals. That is all the Chanakyaness there is to it. They expend their energies, blood and treasury too readily and have only slick PR to show for it.

The only place USA plans ever worked were Europe, Japan, Demise of Soviet Union, and the Gulf countries (not including Iraq). All the rest were failures. Afghanistan is going to be one big failure. Pakistan is going to be one big failure. They should outsource some of their thinking.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2010 17:46 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 9148
Location: Cave of the Saffron Bandits
pak is giving baluchistan to chinese, in the event of balkanisation (palkanisation?) then unkil may well contest it, already has a foothold via the base


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2010 18:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 11721
Lalmohan wrote:
pak is giving baluchistan to chinese, in the event of balkanisation (palkanisation?) then unkil may well contest it, already has a foothold via the base


So if it is up for contest, then that means there is no G2 plan for Pakistan!

Then USA might as well go the whole hog and contest all aspects of the Chinese plans for PoK and Gwadar.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2010 18:12 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 9148
Location: Cave of the Saffron Bandits
(sorry, having a duh! moment)
no joint plan, but perhaps individual plans
unkil doesnt need gilgit-baltistan very much, unless its to deny dragon
would it not be better to outsource that to india?
(bangalore, kerala to be precise)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2010 18:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 11721
Lalmohan wrote:
would it not be better to outsource that to india?
(bangalore, kerala to be precise)

They should outsource that to India, AND cooperate to make the plan succeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2010 18:23 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 9148
Location: Cave of the Saffron Bandits
hence seligman's article?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2010 18:29 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 11721
Lalmohan wrote:
hence seligman's article?

Exactly!

However it is unclear from the article, whether USA wants to needle China using India to make some bargain on one thing or another, or whether they are really interested and willing to commit themselves to the idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2010 18:31 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 9148
Location: Cave of the Saffron Bandits
unkil may be biding his time, seeing which way the palkanisation cookie crumbles
afterall, this area is up against pakhtoon lands...
either way, its a shot across the bows of the dragon boat


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2010 20:01 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Posts: 12361
Location: Hindu Enclave, Narrow-Mind Street
D Roy wrote:
when TSP breaks up,

the G-2 intends to possibly retain baluchistan and Gilgit Baltistan respectively.

Yindoos "consolation" prize will be the lost brotheristans of pakjabidom and Sindh.

So G-2 will nicely try to keep the useful parts of the former TSP with low population density and "gift" us the majority of yahoos with some middle class.

Don't be surprised if a clamour by long lost WKK types talk about Punjabiyat and demand massive aid packages for West Punjab.


My prediction on TSP breaks up,

NWFP - will be united with southern Afghanistan to make a united Pakthunistan (This is wahabhi share)
Baluchistan - Independent but heavy US-PRC presence (US share)
Sindh - Independent under US/UK influence (US/UK share)
Pakjab - Independent Under US/PRC presense
NA - gifted to PRC (PRC share)

India will be left with nothing except development of northern-Afghanistan under UN charter.

The only area India can claim and fight for is POK. This will forever break US/PRC cabal in the sub-continent and speedup the process of Indian emergence.

I understand and agree with the heavy costs logic, but the benefits outweigh exponentially. without POK (which will create contunuous PRC influence zone in 3sides of India; east/north/west) India will become another Japan; an economic powerhouse at the mercey of PRC/USA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 15 Sep 2010 20:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28
Posts: 1178
Deshwasiyon,
By all indications the GWOT in Af Pak is being run from baluchistan.

Baluchistan is the point through which *most* NATO supplies transit into AF and the US operates quite a few predator/reaper flights out of there.
In fact the airbases in baluchistan are probably under joint control.

And just next door a phucking big US base is coming up in the Desert Of Death in Helmand province. I am of course talking about Camp Leatherneck.

Balochistan is priority number one for Unkil. And Chicom is happily building the ports needed for greater throughput.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Sep 2010 18:49 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 11721
surinder wrote:
shiv wrote:
Bade - the presence of Uranium has to go along with the cost of getting it.


It is not just U, it is about all possible materials that may be discovered in the entire future. There could be some very very rare earth metals there in future. One cannot foreclose that. NPR reported recently that there are some rare earth metals vital for touch screens, electric cars whose only supply is PRC, which has kept a tight leash on exports.

What did Russia think when it sold Alaska? Just a piece of snow covered junk. But now it produces Oil. Not to mention has bases and missiles overlooking the berring straight. I am not sure anyone would call that sale very wise today.


Bade wrote:
I will throw another wild guess reason for POK annexation. There was once upon a time the Tethys sea in that region before the collapse of the continents. I see from all that bio deposits over millions of years as oil deep inside the mountain ranges.


China's Stronghold on Rare Earth Metals - What's Got the Pentagon So Worried? by Ian Cooper: Energy & Capital
Quote:
China's got the Pentagon shaking in its boots — and for good reason.
With more than 97% of the world's rare earth metals produced in China, its recent announcement of a 72% reduction in exports could screw our military...
The Pentagon is scrambling for alternatives, but they don't really have time to scramble.
Rare earth resource demand must be met.
Without these metals, technological advancements are history. The world in which we have become accustomed to living in and the way in which we work, communicate, and progress will change drastically.
And not just for the military...

They may like to break China's grip on rare earth metals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Sep 2010 19:17 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 9148
Location: Cave of the Saffron Bandits
yes, the rare earth thingy has been kicking around for a few years
incidentally, unkil has cornered the world titanium market (for strategic reasons onlee)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Sep 2010 21:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25
Posts: 247
RamaY wrote:
D Roy wrote:
when TSP breaks up,

the G-2 intends to possibly retain baluchistan and Gilgit Baltistan respectively.

Yindoos "consolation" prize will be the lost brotheristans of pakjabidom and Sindh.

So G-2 will nicely try to keep the useful parts of the former TSP with low population density and "gift" us the majority of yahoos with some middle class.

Don't be surprised if a clamour by long lost WKK types talk about Punjabiyat and demand massive aid packages for West Punjab.


My prediction on TSP breaks up,

NWFP - will be united with southern Afghanistan to make a united Pakthunistan (This is wahabhi share)
Baluchistan - Independent but heavy US-PRC presence (US share)
Sindh - Independent under US/UK influence (US/UK share)
Pakjab - Independent Under US/PRC presense
NA - gifted to PRC (PRC share)

India will be left with nothing except development of northern-Afghanistan under UN charter.

The only area India can claim and fight for is POK. This will forever break US/PRC cabal in the sub-continent and speedup the process of Indian emergence.

I understand and agree with the heavy costs logic, but the benefits outweigh exponentially. without POK (which will create contunuous PRC influence zone in 3sides of India; east/north/west) India will become another Japan; an economic powerhouse at the mercey of PRC/USA.


in my opinion, we are dealing for peace at this point and will not get POK. we will have to deal with punjab/sindh in the aftermath and will have to bide our time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Sep 2010 22:07 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 30592
V_Raman, I suggest you walk us thru your conclusions. Thanks, ramana


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Sep 2010 00:10 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 30592
Hindusthan Times op-ed...

Breathing Down our Neck


Quote:
Breathing down our neck
G.D. Bakshi
September 16, 2010


Director of the Asia Programme at the Centre for International Policy Selig H. Harrison’s report on the recent deployment of Chinese troops in the Gilgit region of Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK) has caused concern in South Asia. By way of denial, Pakistan and China haven’t refuted the presence of the troops but their purpose. Pakistan claims they were there to assist in “flood control”. Zhao Gang Cheng of the Shanghai-based Institute of International Studies stated that the purpose was for considerations of economy and energy and not to pose a threat to anyone.

The Chinese are conscious of the vulnerability of their Sea Line of Communications (Sloc) to disruption by any hostile navy in the event of a conflict. China’s dependence on imported oil is now to the tune of 56 per cent. By 2015, it will go up to two-thirds of China’s energy needs and by 2030 it would touch four-fifth. Hence the Chinese paranoia over the vulnerability of its energy imports. To achieve a supply chain that is less vulnerable to disruption from outside factors, China has devised a ‘Malacca Bypass Strategy’ that seeks to re-route its oil inflows via overland routes and pipelines. A key component of this strategy hinges upon its investment in the Gwadar Port of Pakistan and the frenzied construction/upgradation of a triple-tier rail and road highway along with a gas pipeline that will carry Iranian gas to China’s Western Provinces. This will reduce a 16,500-km journey to just 2,500 km. This Chinese oil and gas artery via Pakistan and the Shia rebellious province of Gilgit in PoK has become a core Chinese interest.

But China has an ingrained habit of defining core interests and vital communications arteries. Over time it becomes prepared to launch ‘self defence’ counter attacks to ‘safeguard’ these arteries. For example, in the 1962 India-China war, a key Chinese concern was its perceived threat to the Aksai Chin highway that connects Tibet with Xinjiang. It perceived India’s ‘Forward Policy’ (of establishing its claims by token posts in disputed areas) a threat. If Pakistan persists with its terrorist provocations, a limited war between the two nations could erupt. China could view it as a threat to Gwadar–Karakoram energy lifeline and intervene militarily.

This is not mere conjecture. There has been an alarming shift in the Chinese stance over Kashmir. From complete neutrality in the Kargil war of 1999, China now assertively claims J&K as disputed territory. It’s even rejecting visas to Indian citizens from J&K. It has now deliberately escalated the level of provocation by denying a visa to Lt Gen. B.S. Jaswal (Army Commander Northern Command) on the plea that he commands troops in J&K. The same logic didn’t apply to the Eastern Army Commander, who commands our forces in Arunachal Pradesh. This is not a minor shift of stance or nuance. It’s a major, and deliberate, provocation.

The Chinese troops in Gilgit are reportedly involved in the upgradation of the existing Karakoram Highway to double-lane status and adding a new railroad and a gas pipeline. What’s most baffling is the construction of 22 tunnels to which even Pakistani troops are not allowed. One speculation is that these are designed to store the new aircraft carrier killer Dong Feng 21 anti-ship missiles, which can move down the Karakoram Highway to attack America or Indian aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. If true, then it would be a strange way for Pakistan to repay its American patrons for their generous aid. The positioning of the missiles will also have a significant impact on our naval operations in the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf.

China’s moves have long-term implications that we can’t afford to overlook. There is an urgent need to speed up our arms acquisition process. We can’t postpone them to a distant date in 2025, the date line being based on the presumption that we must complete our economic reconstruction first and then build up our military muscle by 2025. Will our adversaries patiently wait and watch till then? This decade could be critical in terms of sudden and non-linear changes. The reports of a sizeable Chinese military presence in Gilgit and its change in stance on the status of J&K are an ominous shift of pattern that is cause for serious disquiet.

G.D. Bakshi is a retired Major General of the Indian Army

The views expressed by the author are personal



This is the change in external environment driving policy, that Tellis was remarking about.

Interesting that Gen Bakshi doesnt see a threat to continental India from those missiles in tunnels.

Gagan can you plot the DF21, located in Gilgit area, range on Google maps and post please?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Sep 2010 00:56 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 30592
View from Sri Lanka....

Indo-China Cold War hots up

Quote:
India has apparently lost its cold war with China, or at least the current phase of it. What is disturbing to India is not only China's superior military power and stronger economy, but also China's intrusion into what was once regarded as India's backyard.
The development has rendered the so-called Indira doctrine ineffective or obsolete. The doctrine, formulated during the Indira Gandhi premiership, made it clear to regional countries that they should seek help from within the region — meaning India — before they approached any outside power. In terms of the doctrine, India opposed the presence of superpowers in the Indian Ocean which it regarded as its backyard. Small countries in the region were punished for defying the doctrine. It happened to Sri Lanka in the early 1980s. India armed, trained and financed the Sri Lanka's separatist rebellion. In the late 1980s Nepal tried to defy the doctrine and was punished. New Delhi economically suffocated the land-locked Himalayan nation by closing down almost all the trade routes.

Today India may be much stronger than what it was three decades ago. But its power is confined within its borders. In contrast, China has been increasing its soft and hard power and making its presence felt in South Asia and also throughout the world in so subtle a manner that India could do almost nothing except make belated remarks. Recent statements made by Indian leaders resemble the screams of a man who suddenly wakes up from his slumber under a tree and finds his belongings are gone.
Their statements, like a fiery storm, however, had blown away the cloth of diplomacy that had kept the disputes between the two countries covered. The disputes are now in the open.


The soft-spoken and usually philosophical Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was furious last week. The fire in his remarks made the rest of the world to stop and take note of what he said.

Though the remarks came against the backdrop of China's refusal to grant a visa to a top Indian military commander to visit Beijing, the real problem is more complex. It involves unresolved border issues — eg: Arunachel Pradesh — which led to a war between the two countries in 1962. It also involves Kashmir, the presence of Dalai Lama in India and New Delhi's perception that China is increasing its assertive presence in India's backyard.

India suspects China is interfering in Kashmir. A little known fact about Kashmir is that it is shared by not only India and Pakistan but also China. Kashmir's Aksai Chin region is with China. Though India has been making occasional noises about what it calls Chinese occupation of Kashmir, Pakistan goes along with China's claim of sovereignty over Aksai Chin. There is strong suspicion in New Delhi that not only Pakistan, but China also is stoking up trouble in Indian-administered Kashmir.

China last year started issuing a different kind of visas to the people of Kashmir, sending a strong message to India that Beijing did not recognize India's sovereignty over the disputed region. China's explanation to India in refusing the visa to the Indian military officer is that he was not welcome because of his role in Kashmir.

Premier Singh's remarks came days after India fired off a strongly-worded demarche — a diplomatic note — to China, saying it was calling off the defence exercises and exchange programmes between the two countries.

China responded to the Indian anger with cool diplomacy pointing to the thriving trade between the two countries and claiming that Beijing was committed to the Pancha-Sheela principles that define China's relations with India.

Singh charged that China was seeking to expand its influence in South Asia and gain a "foothold" in the region.

"China would like to have a foothold in South Asia and we have to reflect on this reality. We have to be aware of this," Singh said.

He said China's leadership would change in two years and there was a new assertiveness among the Chinese. "It is difficult to tell which way it will go. So it's important to be prepared," he said.
Hidden in Singh's statement is India's disappointment over its failure to check effectively China's intrusion into South Asia and the Indian Ocean region. India was a mere onlooker when China built ports in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Myanmar. Except for Pakistan, India has friendly relations with all its neighbours. But today China weighs heavier on the diplomatic scales of India's neighbours. China has become Sri Lanka's biggest aid giver. China's harbour project in Hambantota has raised the eyebrows of Indian defence analysts. However much both Sri Lanka and China insist that the harbour project is essentially a commercial venture and has no military intentions, these analysts say India could not prevent Sri Lanka from allowing China to have a strong foothold in Hambantota from which Beijing can, if it wants to or if the needs arises, control a vast area of the Indian Ocean extending up to Antarctica.

Myanmar has become a virtual Chinese protectorate. Last month, China and Myanmar conducted a series of naval exercises close to Indian waters, prompting India to put its naval troops on alert.

Premier Singh's statement is not the sole protest. Opposing China's assertiveness has become India's official policy. This week, India's Defence Minister A.K. Anthony addressing a combined commanders' conference in Delhi, said India could not ignore the fact that Beijing was fast improving its military and physical infrastructure on the border. He called on Indian military leaders to keep abreast of the military modernisation drive in the neighbourhood to ensure that the Indian armed forces held an edge in the region.

India's sudden awakening to the growing Chinese power has moved it to seek new strategic allies. It has found one such ally in Japan. In recent weeks, Japan and China have been trading charges and counter charges over the arrest of a Chinese fishing captain off some disputed islands in the East China Sea after his boat collided with Japanese coast guard craft. The uninhabited but believed-to-be oil-rich islands, known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, are controlled by Japan, but are also claimed by China and Taiwan. The incident has raised tempers in both countries.

When Japan's Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada held talks with his Indian counterpart S.M. Krishna in New Delhi last month, they shared concern over Beijing's growing military power and its military build-up in India's neighbourhood.

The Indian Express newspaper quoted sources as saying that the two sides had expressed "similar language" in describing Chinese actions.

India is also seeking to strengthen its defence relations with the United States. During the George W. Bush administration, the two countries had struck a strong bond in the fight against their common enemy — Islamic terrorism. The relations between them improved with the signing of a civilian nuclear deal and enhanced defence cooperation. But under President Barack Obama, the speed with which the relations improved has slowed down a little. This was largely because of the Obama administration's pressure on India to find a speedy solution to the Kashmiri problem. However, the visit of Obama to India in November, analysts say, will give the necessary impetus for relations between them to reach the level that was seen during the Bush era.

Of course, the rise of China's military power is a concern for the US as well. According to Indian media reports, US Pacific Forces' commander Admiral Robert Willard on a visit to India referred to China's 'naval assertiveness', which he said had 'complicated matters'.

Though Admiral Willard did not elaborate, he was probably referring to the US concern over the growing Chinese presence in South Asia, Central Asia and the Pacific. One reason why the US is unwilling to leave Afghanistan is its fear that the vacuum created by its departure would be filled by China. According to the latest Globalfirepower.com rankings, China is second only to the United States in terms of military power. India occupies the fourth place after Russia.

These moves and diplomatic contacts may indicate informal alliance formation. The problem with these informal alliance formations is that no bloc has advantage over the other, especially in view of the nuclear capabilities of the major players. The nuclear deterrent works and will avert a major war. China certainly knows this and quietly spreads its power far and wide, reaching even Africa and Latin America.



Also a good map of the situation in the article. My comments in the Managing China Thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Sep 2010 00:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 11842
Location: Holding Jannat Ki Chabbi
A naive question,
If Chinese deploy (ASM) Missles in POk, wont they be vulnerable to AMD measures by India or US in Balochistan /Afghanistan?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Sep 2010 07:34 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 20927
Location: Pakistan Painindabutt.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Breathing ... 01011.aspx
Quote:
But China has an ingrained habit of defining core interests and vital communications arteries. Over time it becomes prepared to launch ‘self defence’ counter attacks to ‘safeguard’ these arteries. For example, in the 1962 India-China war, a key Chinese concern was its perceived threat to the Aksai Chin highway that connects Tibet with Xinjiang. It perceived India’s ‘Forward Policy’ (of establishing its claims by token posts in disputed areas) a threat. If Pakistan persists with its terrorist provocations, a limited war between the two nations could erupt. China could view it as a threat to Gwadar–Karakoram energy lifeline and intervene militarily.


Interesting point. I think that India should have a publicly announced policy of cutting that highway (KKH) in case of war with Pakistan. That will be like inviting China to war. But if China picks up the invitation we have to be ready.

Having said that I think POK is a diversion from the main issue, Pakistan.

In an ideal world of friendly cooperation Chinese shipment and Chinese oil could go through India just as well as Pakistan or Myanmar. I is Pakistan's rivalry with India that puts J&K at the core of Pakistan's interests and has put POK in a special place for India.

POK per se and the Khunjerab pass and Karakoram Highway have been built as substitutes for historic trade routes that include the Karakoram pass (this has nothing to do with the Karakoram highway) and the Silk route that passes through Afghanistan.

If Pakistan is unstable the entire Chinese route to Gwadar from POK is put at risk unless the Pakis protect the road. In a war - it need not be POK we attack - but Pakjab - which just as surely gives us a handle on the road to Gwadar as well as the road to Peshawar and Afghanistan.

If Pakistan had friendly relations with India, then China and the US would not be able to leverage that rivalry. Pakistan's protection of the Chinese route to Gwadar would not be contested or threatened by India and in fact India would offer alternative routes for Chinese access to the Indian ocean via land links with the economically developed and populous eastern China. The one country that stands to gain the most from a triple rivalry between China, India and Pakistan is the US.

I would like to explain my thoughts as follows:

Pakistan has tried to increase its rivalry with India by telling the US and China :"Both of you will benefit if you support us against India. We will offer you your trade routes and other help"

What India has done is to put Pakistan's survival at risk as a return favor for Pakistan's aggression. In other words as long as Pakistan acts belligerent towards India, Pakistan will be forced to defend itself and involve its friends the US and China. China is more vulnerable than the US here if China wants to use Pakistan as a transit route. Any instability in Pakistan related to the Indian threat makes its trade route more risky. The US could benefit from this as sated above.

If Pakistan could be compelled to normalize relations with India it would change the entire equation
1) Pakistan would be less prone to prostituting itself to be used by the US in exchange for support for India
2) Its economy would benefit greatly from trade with India
3) A stable Pakistan would allow the Chinese route to Gwadar to function well
4) A Pakistan that is not leveraging China against India could allow India to normalize relations with China and as indicated above - provide additional access routes for Chinese goods.

But all this can happen only if Pakistan normalizes relations with India and stops aggression.

I think the ol cold war mindset clouds too many minds an prevents them from seeing what can be done by identifying and neutralizing the main element in Pakistan that stops normalization of relations with India. Both China and the US have this fossilized mindset.

Will cross post this elsewhere too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Sep 2010 08:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00
Posts: 2558
More on facts from B. Raman, posting in full, though lengthy..
----------------------------------------------------------------

http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/09/selig-harrisons-wake-up-call-my.html

B.RAMAN



On August 27,2010,the “New York Times” carried an article by Selig Harrison, former correspondent of the ”Washington Post” in New Delhi who now works in a Washington-based think tank, stating inter alia as follows: “While the world focuses on the flood-ravaged Indus River valley, a quiet geopolitical crisis is unfolding in the Himalayan borderlands of northern Pakistan, where Islamabad is handing over de facto control of the strategic Gilgit-Baltistan region in the northwest corner of disputed Kashmir to China. The entire Pakistan-occupied western portion of Kashmir stretching from Gilgit in the north to Azad (Free) Kashmir in the south is closed to the world, in contrast to the media access that India permits in the eastern part, where it is combating a Pakistan-backed insurgency. But reports from a variety of foreign intelligence sources, Pakistani journalists and Pakistani human rights workers reveal two important new developments in Gilgit-Baltistan: a simmering rebellion against Pakistani rule and the influx of an estimated 7,000 to 11,000 soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/op...20china&st=cse)


2.Selig’s wake-up call should not have been a surprise to intelligence sources and policy-makers in India and the US. They were aware of the high level of involvement of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of China and its nuclear establishment in the construction and maintenance of high-altitude roads in Gilgit-Baltistan (GB).The PLA was interested in infrastructure development and maintenance in GB because of its strategic importance for possible use by the PLA in the event of another military conflict with India. China’s nuclear establishment was interested because it wanted to use the PLA-constructed Karakoram Highway (KKH) as an overland route for the movement of missiles and spare parts to Pakistan.



3. The first wake-up call that China had been using the KKH for moving missile supplies to Pakistan was sounded by the National Security Agency (NSA) of the US, which managed to take satellite photographs of such movement. On August 6 and 7,2001, the “Washington Times” gave the following details:

* The China National Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corporation sent a dozen shipments of missile components to Pakistan since November,2000, and a US spy satellite detected the latest shipment as it arrived by truck at the mountainous Chinese-Pakistani border May 1,2001. The company supplied components for Pakistan's Shaheen-1 and Shaheen-2 missile programmes. The consignments were sent by ship and truck.

* The missile components are being used for production of the Shaheen-1, which has an estimated range of 465 miles, and the development of the Shaheen-2, which US intelligence agencies think will have a range of up to 1,240 miles.


4.Following the disclosure by the “Washington Times, Gen.Pervez Musharraf visited Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, including GB, for four days from August 27,2001. In an article of September 3,2001, titled MUSHARRAF'S VISIT TO POK & N.A. at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpap ... er307.html, I wrote as follows: “The US media reports that its intelligence agencies had detected the transport of 12 consignments of Chinese missile components by sea and land since China pledged to stop such supplies in November last. The consignments sent by trucks came via the Karakoram Highway through Xinjiang and the N.A. (Northern Areas). To avoid detection of transport by sea by US satellites or by the CIA's port-based sources, China and Pakistan had decided to move future consignments by road, which, they felt, would not be vulnerable to detection by the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA) of the US. Pakistan has also sought Chinese assistance for the movements of future consignments of missiles and components from North Korea by road through the same route. The military junta had taken considerable precautions to prevent detection of the truck movements by not associating any of the officials of the NA Administration, particularly the Shias, with the arrangements for the movement. In view of this, both Islamabad and Beijing were surprised and embarrassed by the US media reports that US intelligence had detected the truck movements. Pakistani officials claim that even if US satellites had detected the trucks, they could not have known that the consignments contained missile components. They, therefore, reportedly feel that there must have been leakage to the CIA from one of the Pakistani officials associated with the movement. Moreover, following past US detection of the storage of the earlier missiles/components in Sargoda, the military junta had drawn up alternate plans for storage in Gilgit in the hope that there would be less possibility of detection there by the CIA. Before Musharraf's arrival in the POK, Lt.Gen. Jamshed Gulzar, Corps Commander, 10 Corps based in Rawalpindi, had visited the N.A. to enquire into the leakage jointly with the Force Commander, NA, Lt-Gen Muhammad Safdar. Measures for tightening up security in N.A. was one of the subjects which figured during the discussions of Musharraf in Gilgit in which apart from senior military officers, Abbas Sarfaraz, Musharraf's Minister for Kashmir and NA Affairs, who is also the Chief Executive of the NA, also participated. “ In this connection, reference is also invited to my article of August 7,2001, titled GILGIT & BALTISTAN, CHINA & NORTH KOREA at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpap ... er289.html


5. When the KKH was constructed by Chinese engineers in the 1970s, China had no private construction company. All construction companies were State-owned. Only the Engineering units of the PLA had engineers with experience of construction at high altitudes. Right from the beginning, PLA engineers had been involved in the construction, maintenance and upgradation of the KKH. As a result, there had always been a sizable presence of engineers of the PLA in GB. This number has gone up since the beginning of this year following severe damages to the KKH by two natural disasters in January and August. Regular units of the PLA have always been deployed in the GB to provide security to the Chinese engineers and humanitarian workers. It has been difficult to estimate the total number of Chinese engineers, humanitarian workers and security personnel in GB. This number will go up further when China starts the construction of a railway line through GB.


6.While information has been coming from time to time about the role of PLA engineers in infrastructure development in GB, similar details are not available about the role of engineers of the North Korean Army. Nationalist sources from the area, who have been fighting against the Pakistan Army, have been saying that North Korean military engineers have good expertise in high-altitude tunnel construction and have been helping the Pakistan Army in the construction of roads which would facilitate all-weather road movements to the Chitral area. According to them, for part of the year, the Chitral area is cut off from the rest of Pakistan by landslides. The only way of reaching Chitral is via Afghanistan. Other sources say that the engineers involved in this are from South and not North Korea. It has not been possible to verify this.


7. Thus even before Selig sounded his wake-up call, considerable details were available for over a decade on the presence and activities of the PLA and possibly North Korean military engineers in GB. Considerable details came from GB when the Government of Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee was in power from 1998 to 2004. It was during that period that the PLA presence in GB increased. His Government failed to highlight this threat to our own population and to the international community. It is not known whether we have factored this into our plans for the protection of the Ladakh-Kargil sector. Infrastructure development in our territory in the areas bordering GB has remained neglected. It is time we sit up and pay more attention to this. If we do so, Selig’s wake-up call would have served a useful purpose. Chinese and North Korean activities in GB should also figure prominently in the talks during the visit of President Barack Obama to India in November. (15-9-10)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Sep 2010 08:34 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 20927
Location: Pakistan Painindabutt.
Kanson wrote:
More on facts from B. Raman, posting in full, though lengthy..
----------------------------------------------------------------

http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot. ... ll-my.html

B.RAMAN


Quote:
7. Thus even before Selig sounded his wake-up call, considerable details were available for over a decade on the presence and activities of the PLA and possibly North Korean military engineers in GB. Considerable details came from GB when the Government of Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee was in power from 1998 to 2004. It was during that period that the PLA presence in GB increased. His Government failed to highlight this threat to our own population and to the international community. It is not known whether we have factored this into our plans for the protection of the Ladakh-Kargil sector. Infrastructure development in our territory in the areas bordering GB has remained neglected.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Sep 2010 09:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57
Posts: 4915
Who is this Reva Bhalla at Stratfor?



She ridiculously claims that Pakistan prefers the US as a patron rather than China, which is nonsense. Of course Pakistan is more loyal to China than to USA.

I found her presentation to be significantly biased.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/reva-bhalla/10/111/6A8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Sep 2010 09:52 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 30592
B Raman is forgetting he was in intelligence and not in Intelligence Bureau.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Sep 2010 17:54 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 27 Mar 2008 02:50
Posts: 913
Location: India
ramana wrote:
B Raman is forgetting he was in intelligence and not in Intelligence Bureau.


Ramana Garu..I am not able to connect with what you've said. Please elaborate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Sep 2010 17:55 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 11721
The criticism of only ABV was uncalled for.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Sep 2010 19:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 11721
X-Posted from Managing Chinese Threat Thread

Published on Sept 7, 2010
CHINA DECLARES OPEN SEASON ON INDIA? by Bhaskar Roy: South Asia Analysis Group
Quote:
Now, this whole issue is about to change. Chinese territory makes a sharp bridge head into Northern Pakistan, going by the Siachen Glacier. Siachen is also covered by Pakistan and its military deployment on one side. This would put tremendous pressure on India’s position in Siachen, a critical enemy gateway to J&K.

It has now been revealed that the Chinese workers in Gilgit-Baltistan are no ordinary labourers. They are from the PLA Logistics Department, engineers and soldiers involved in construction. Technically, they belong to the PLA and the PLA is on active duty on foreign soil. Deployment for UN Peace Keeping forces is something totally different. The PLA activity in Gilgit-Baltistan lays bare the much touted deceptive proclamation that not a single Chinese soldier will be placed on foreign soil.

There is clearly a need to recognize the fact that when the Chinese make an official statement, its impact, prospects and consequences are very carefully weighed, looking to future strategy for which the blue print is already in place. They never make mistakes or slip-ups. When changing, they quote change in circumstances critical to their security.

In this context, it merits to revisit what is generally believed in India that China recognized Sikkim as an integral part of India in 2005. Visiting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao only showed a map to concerned Indian officials showing Sikkim as a part of India. China’s foreign ministry website showing Sikkim’s status in unreliable and can be changed at any time.

China can be nailed down to its words only if there is an official statement. More than that, there has to be written and signed agreements. The Sikkim issue is very much alive. After Wen Jiabao’s visit to India, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman in Beijing made it abundantly clear that the Sikkim issue will be resolved along with the border issue. This is the moot point.

As regards the boundary question, the Chinese never wanted to resolve it at this phase. They wanted stable and secure neighbourhood to secure economic and military development. Having achieved their objectives, the Beijing leaders appear to have embarked on the next stage of strategic domination in Asia.

The "Watch and Wait" approach by India, Japan and some of the South East Asian countries are fraught with serious danger. China’s territory hungry surge supported by military means, is becoming louder.

A point to note is the expanding designation of "core interest" territories. From Taiwan and Tibet it has expanded to the South China Sea and its island and the so-called first chain of islands, to Japanese territory emphatically, in the past months.

India may wake up sooner than later with China’s claims on Indian territories designated as "core interest" territories. This would mean that either submit to China’s claims or prepare for a war to protect them.

What exactly that territory would be is not known. Beijing has not agreed to exchange maps of the Western and Eastern Sectors, the most strategic sections, with the Indian interlocutors. Evidence exists with the Indian side that China is encroaching upon more Indian land surreptitiously, especially in the Western Sector.

India does not have the leeway to sweep more Chinese dirt under the carpet. The carpet is now too small to hide it all. It is now time not only to use quiet diplomatic channels with China, but show that India can also hurt China.

India may have signed in 2003 that Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) is Chinese territory. The operative part of this agreement in the "autonomy" of TAR. If autonomy of TAR as defined by several international treaties is addressed by Beijing, then the agreement stays. If not, the Agreement is dead, and India can revert to its original position on the entire Tibet issue, the true history of Tibet be brought out to demolish the history of Tibet concocted by China, and refuse to give visas to those Chinese officials including military officials who have served in TAR and Xinjiang Autonomous Region where Beijing has launched a scorched earth policy against pro-independent Uighurs.

Tibetans coming to India, whether on official duty or private visits, be given "paper", not "stapled" visas and their Chinese passports not recognized.

There are issues regarding Taiwan, the Dalai Lama, and Uighur leaders in exile like Rebiya Kadeer is still palpable around the world.

China need not think that it has drunk the elixir from the Cup of Life, and that it is invincible. The responsibility lies entirely on the Mandarins of Beijing. There is more to international behavior then a bag full of money, nuclear weapons and distortion of history.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Sep 2010 20:39 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 30592
IB job is to protect the people in power. RAW is to protect the nation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Sep 2010 21:11 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Posts: 7754
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar
Quote:
India may have signed in 2003 that Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) is Chinese territory. The operative part of this agreement in the "autonomy" of TAR. If autonomy of TAR as defined by several international treaties is addressed by Beijing, then the agreement stays. If not, the Agreement is dead, and India can revert to its original position on the entire Tibet issue, the true history of Tibet be brought out to demolish the history of Tibet concocted by China, and refuse to give visas to those Chinese officials including military officials who have served in TAR and Xinjiang Autonomous Region where Beijing has launched a scorched earth policy against pro-independent Uighurs.

Tibetans coming to India, whether on official duty or private visits, be given "paper", not "stapled" visas and their Chinese passports not recognized.

The number of article this concept of giving stapled visas to Tibetans etc is coming up, shouldn't be long before GoI makes it official policy given that GoI is already mighty pi$$ed with panda..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Sep 2010 21:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 11721
sum wrote:
The number of article this concept of giving stapled visas to Tibetans etc is coming up, shouldn't be long before GoI makes it official policy given that GoI is already mighty pi$$ed with panda..


"whine start"
Problem is GoI likes to show indignation by withholding cooperation and not talking. It just doesn't know how to hit back with something that hurts.

The fire of Independence is gone!
"whine end"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 17 Sep 2010 22:45 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 27 Mar 2008 02:50
Posts: 913
Location: India
Thanks Ramana.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Sep 2010 02:33 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30
Posts: 11721
Prem wrote:
It might be difficult to recover COK today but this also provide excuse and oppertunity in the future. Aint India Danda gonna increase in size ? If Indian leadership has the brain, balls and guts , they will test if PRC willing to loose 100 years of progress in exchange for GB/NA... in future not now. Once the bluff is called , the onus to save face will fall on PRC. 62 brought us to 71 and 2010 might do same as India has no choice but to erase Durnad line.


PoK is important for PRC for three reasons
  1. As conduit for Oil & Gas to 'Western China'
  2. As supply route to China's Navy Base in Gwadar, at the mouth of the Persian Gulf
  3. To support Pakistan to neutralize India

All three goals of PRC can be accomplished without having to fight it out with PRC in PoK. PoK would not help in securing the three goals. But we have to act with resolve, if India wants to put a stop to this.

It is time to take down Pakistan. India needs to align with two allies - the Pushtuns & the Baluchis and take Pakistan down.

India needs to get Baluchistan under non-Pakjabi, non-Chinese control, i.e. either Baluchi control or if that is not stable then to extend Indian protectorate umbrella over Baluchistan. Baluchi and Indian forces can throw Pakjab out of Baluchistan and Gwadar. With no border to Iran from Pakjab, China does not reach the Pars Gas Deposits, nor can it establish a Navy base in Gwadar. First two missions solved by hitting Pakistan in Baluchistan.

The third mission requires the fire of the Pushtuns. They can destabilize the whole area like hell. Pakjab will be of no use to the Chinese when Indians put pressure from one side, and the Pushtuns from the other. India has friends in Afghanistan, and those friends can buy the cooperation of the Pushtuns in Pakistan.

Who knows China may then just lose interest in PoK and go back to Beijing.

India CAN do this if we come to the realization that not all things can be solved by negotiations, and India does not belong in a straitjacket.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Sep 2010 15:32 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 25 Dec 2008 15:36
Posts: 675
Desperate times call for desperate measures....India should raise at least 8-10 more new mountain divisions from fresh recruits (this in addition to the new mountain divisions that are/have already being raised of late).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Sep 2010 16:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 4436
The problem is not that there is a lack of men to defend the boders. The problem is that the men tasked to lead the nation have no idea how the respond to the challanges represented by the PRC.

So even if 10 additional mountain divisions are raised and some how equiped by the IA. It will not make a diffrence to the stratagic situation on the ground. If the leadership has no clues how to handle the PRC.

If you look carefully, the Indian influence from its near abroad has all but disappeared.

Napal is gone
Bangladesh same story
Sri Lanka only a matter of time
Burma Depends on which faction of GOI is dominant
TSP $hit hole
Maldives Ready to be lost.

No good news in the near abroad. The GOIs reaction to the challanges are confused and discordent at best. On top of this we have leaders who are openly admiring the PRC leadership. What kind of state the GOI is leading no one knows.

Every one is speaking of the valley. But no one in the GOI is even open to the idea of dealing with the TSP regarding POK. At least not in public pronouncements. Why?

And the chataraty is busy blaiming BJP for this mess. Only in India.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Sep 2010 16:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 4436
RajeshA,

The issue is how to convince the Indian leadership that it doesnot belong in a straight jacket.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 566 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: shyamd, TurnitinBot [Bot], varunkumar and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group