Christopher Sidor wrote:
Many have suggested that we play the Tibet or Taiwan or Xinjiang card with China. But none of them have, have listed out what playing these cards will entail.
Some have even suggested that we do not recognize Tibet as part of China. Let us assume that we do that, then after this what? Will our problems with China evaporate? Will China drop its claims on AP and vacate northern ladakh territories (I refuse to call them Akash Chin) that it has occupied? Do we have sufficient power (armed forces and economic strength) to compel the Chinese to leave Tibet and not return back into Tibet? Will china stop aiding pakistan with weapons and other strategic items?
For all of these questions the answer is no.
No our problems with China would remain. They may even intensify. China will not drop its claims on Arunachal Pradesh either. We also do not have sufficient power to compel the Chinese to leave Tibet. China will continue to aid Pakistan with weapons and other strategic items, provided there is a Pakistan.
So the question is what does de-recognizing Tibet as part of China, or Tibetan merger with India, brings us?
Well consider two wrestlers, hands locked, each trying push the other out of the ring! If one is simply trying to hold his ground but not push back, he will inadvertently lose. He would have to exert an equal force to hold the other wrestler back. He would have to push back as well.
Why do we need to have the expectation to win back Tibet, right now? That depends on us becoming stronger than the Chinese, which can be a possibility some day, not necessarily today. So our pushing back is only for the purpose of holding our ground.
That is the primary purpose. We don't want to be on the back-foot.
Some people say, it suffices that we have our military there. In the end they will hold the fort. We need not worry.
The question is why can't we strengthen our claims on Arunachal Pradesh politically? The legitimacy of our rights to Arunachal Pradesh are based on some British time treaties with Tibet, which China just does not recognize. Just having British treaties as our sole savior, is in my opinion, extremely insufficient.
The Chinese have based their claims on their lands upon their civilization. We are basing our claims on basis of dealings of our one-time occupiers - the British. Even the basis of legitimacy reeks of inequality.
Chinese say Arunachal Pradesh is disputed, so Google shows it as disputed, and Apple shows it as Chinese territory. So the logical answer is that we say whole Tibet is disputed, which means the whole of Greater Tibet would be shown in a different color on the maps.
India should go for a symbolic merger of Tibet into India, only then can we claim that Tibet is disputed. Why fight with our hands tied behind our backs? This has been my refrain in the Should HH The Dalai Lama be elected India's next President? Thread
Christopher Sidor wrote:
Let us take the example of Taiwan. Taiwan itself has not sought independence from China. Some have said Taiwan has been threatened by China so it has not sought independence. China has in the recent past 5-7 years become strong enough to threaten Taiwan. Before that it was not strong enough. Post the Cold-war ended, Taiwan could have declared independence. It did not. So for some 12 odd years, i.e. 1989-2001, when its power (militarily and economic) was greater than China it did nothing. Taiwan could have declared independence post Tienanmen incident in 1989. Taiwan did not. Supporting Taiwan will not provide us with anything. Will Taiwan support India, if India were to play the Tibet card? The answer is no. India will not be able to help Taiwan with men and/or material, in case the push becomes a shove.
Most of the Taiwanese want either Independence or Status Quo. Those who want Status Quo want it just so as to not provoke China. They want it because of their fear of invasion or attack.
Let's consider a scenario, where Taiwan is a member of an anti-PRC security alliance (Asian Security Alliance, ASA) composed of an (independent) Japan, (independent) South Korea, Vietnam, India, Australia, Singapore and Indonesia. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Vietnam are all nuclear powers with enough missiles pointed at PRC. The Alliance's Navy ships frequently visit Navy bases in Taiwan. Taiwan is a hub where ASA troops train together and coordinate their security. Taiwan is by DPP Party, and not the pro-Chinese KMT.
Do you think, that those who consider them as Status-Quoist would still not dare to declare Independence?
They surely can be persuaded to, and China cannot do a thing about it.
India should create bridges to both DPP and KMT but should favor DPP for obvious reasons.
Christopher Sidor wrote:
There have been suggestions that we align with other countries like US or Japan or Vietnam. Barring Vietnam, the other two options are worse. US is a highly un-reliable partner. It is now trying to align India with itself because it is worried about China outpacing it. And it wants India's manpower and geopolitical capital just like the allies required it against Nazis and Nippon. Japan is a preaching country, which sitting under the umbrella of a nuclear power, see it fit to lecture and hector other countries about their nuclear weapons. Japan is in a mess with China due to its own reasons. Japan-China of East Asia will be like Pakistan-India of South Asia. One party is bigger in fact massively bigger than the other.
Let's not forget that 'Necessity is the mother of Invention'
. Now that China is pissing off everybody in the region, the Asian countries would start feeling the necessity to look for strength both in numbers and in coordination.
USA is unreliable. That is a fact. I think Asian countries should build a security alliance with only Asian countries in it. USA should retain their security relationships with the various countries - Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. but should stand outside the alliance, as a partner country. We can train together with the Americans, and if the situation gets difficult may be they might choose to come to our assistance. But the Asian countries should learn to stand politically and militarily independent of USA and coordinate amongst each other.
Another few sea and diplomatic skirmishes with China, and Japan would start singing a different tune, including on nukes.
Christopher Sidor wrote:
There is saying in hindi, which roughly translated means "The Dogs bark and the troop of elephants marches on regardless." (Kutaa Bhoka ta rahata hai, Hathiyon ki baarat chalte rahate hai). None of the actions of China, stapling Visas or AP map issue have in any way affected the reality. AP is a part of India. India has not given up its claim over northern ladakh. What we have to worry about is that we keep a capability to deter china from repeating a 1962 or doing a kargil on us. We will also need to have the capability to fight and win a two front war. US and Britain in world war showed that it is possible. But we need this capability on our own. Not by being dependent on others, especially not on US. If it is dependent on others, we will be at their mercy and will have to act after we have got their agreement to act.
I prize India's freedom and ability to act independent of anybody. Be it China, or US or Japan or Taiwan or any other tom-dick-and-harry country. And I hope there are others who prize the same and are not willing to sacrifice it on the altar of some deal or border agreement.
I don't like the fortress mentality. When the enemy puts up a siege all around us and keeps on strengthening it every year, it is short-sighted to say, we have not lost anything - We have lost our strategic freedom.
- If we want to send our air force to Ayni base in Tajikistan, how do you suppose we should do it?
- If we want to tap into Russian Gas pipelines, how do you suppose we should do it?
- If we want to interject Chinese delivery of nukes and weaponry to Pakistan, how do you suppose we do it?
- If we want to stop Nepali Maoists from supporting Indian Maoists, despite an open border, how do we exert influence over them?
- If we want to avoid Indian ships from being harassed by Chinese Navy ships hosted at Marao, Maldives Navy Base, would protests be enough?
- If we want to stop Rajapakse's men slaughtering Tamils some day, how do you suppose we should confront a Sri Lanka, which has a Defense Agreement for Mutual Security with China?
- If we want to stop ever more areas of India to be shown as disputed on multiple maps in the world, how do we go about it?
Let's not kid ourselves. The siege is real. The loss is real. And we need to get out of it.