And travels to Japan, US? He is not a terrorist in the classical sense. Interpol alerts are dime a dozen. Also, do not believe the MEA excuse that they did not know.SSridhar wrote:CRS, this guy lives in Germany. Why hasn't the Germany acted on the RCN?
Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
OK, I see what you guys are saying. Then what explains India's climb down? I mean leaving aside the damage to India, Congoons et. al are going to have a filed day.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
If RCN is the cause, till when we have to behave like the good rules abiding kid, while other powers don't give a damm about it. If there was some other reason, the government should make it public or lose its face. Just few days back Modi slaps China was trending.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Problem with the way Indian democracy works is that PM does not have to directly take questions. Thus, this whole issue is now lingering and everybody will have their own theories depending on their prejudice. And ModiJi will keep a staunch silence which sometimes is golden because no matter what he says, his haters will twist and spin that.
Thus, questions on this climb down are plenty? Did China threaten to counter attack with something explosive forcing India to back off? Or could it be that there was some back room negotiation on TSP, i.e., some kind of a quid pro quo and hence both China and India backed off from their maximalist positions. If it is the latter as some in DDM are saying, this I see no harm.
But I cannot imagine Chincoms throwing their TSP munna under the bus just because India invited what their consider a terrorist. In other words, the terror that China faces from Uighurs is nothing compared to the terror India faces from TSP. So except for a little loss of PR, China would not have lost anything substantive if that Uighur had come to that conference. In contrast, putting a lid on TSP terror is a huge gain for India. So strictly in barter terms, I doubt China would have agreed to this deal. Perhaps they threw some lesser dog bone which India accepted and backed off.
Thus, questions on this climb down are plenty? Did China threaten to counter attack with something explosive forcing India to back off? Or could it be that there was some back room negotiation on TSP, i.e., some kind of a quid pro quo and hence both China and India backed off from their maximalist positions. If it is the latter as some in DDM are saying, this I see no harm.
But I cannot imagine Chincoms throwing their TSP munna under the bus just because India invited what their consider a terrorist. In other words, the terror that China faces from Uighurs is nothing compared to the terror India faces from TSP. So except for a little loss of PR, China would not have lost anything substantive if that Uighur had come to that conference. In contrast, putting a lid on TSP terror is a huge gain for India. So strictly in barter terms, I doubt China would have agreed to this deal. Perhaps they threw some lesser dog bone which India accepted and backed off.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Visited Bogibeel site today. 25% works still to be done. hopefully by end of the next year we can expect completion of the project. this bridge can be a decisive factor in the event of any Chinese aggression in to Arunachal. Got a picture of the superstructure, but I don't know how to share Photo on this site !
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Very interesting piece in the WSJ today. Unfortunately pay wall and I can only post an excerpt without getting BRF targeted by copy righters
"BEIJING—China’s stock market was swooning. Investors were panicking. Yet when Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke that first Monday in January, he didn’t address the global angst about the world’s second-largest economy.
Clad in an olive-green Mao suit, he was talking instead to Chinese troops about another challenge that consumes his time and political capital: the biggest restructuring of the People’s Liberation Army since the 1950s, a plan that unnerves America and its Asian allies and could upset the global balance of power.
"President Xi Jinping’s Most Dangerous Venture Yet: Remaking China’s Military"
“We must emancipate our minds and change with the times,” he told troops of the 13th Group Army on Jan. 4. They should not, he said, “wear new shoes to walk the old road.”
"Four days earlier, Mr. Xi had started to implement a plan to transform the Soviet-modelled military, long focused on defending China from invasion, into a smaller, modern force capable of projecting power far from its shores."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/president-x ... 1461608795
"BEIJING—China’s stock market was swooning. Investors were panicking. Yet when Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke that first Monday in January, he didn’t address the global angst about the world’s second-largest economy.
Clad in an olive-green Mao suit, he was talking instead to Chinese troops about another challenge that consumes his time and political capital: the biggest restructuring of the People’s Liberation Army since the 1950s, a plan that unnerves America and its Asian allies and could upset the global balance of power.
"President Xi Jinping’s Most Dangerous Venture Yet: Remaking China’s Military"
“We must emancipate our minds and change with the times,” he told troops of the 13th Group Army on Jan. 4. They should not, he said, “wear new shoes to walk the old road.”
"Four days earlier, Mr. Xi had started to implement a plan to transform the Soviet-modelled military, long focused on defending China from invasion, into a smaller, modern force capable of projecting power far from its shores."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/president-x ... 1461608795
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Visa cancellation of Uyghur leader: Kicking China in the shin won’t even the score for India
What Praveen Swami says appears logical. But then, the argument boils down to "Is India attacking Pakistan and hence losing crores of people justified in the wake of 26/11 where we lost about 250 people"?India’s official position is that Isa was never given a visa in the first place and therefore, the question of sending a signal to China never arose. Isa—who holds a German passport—applied for and obtained a tourist visa which isn’t valid thanks to the MEA’s Byzantine rules, for visitors who wish to attend conferences.
New Delhi’s explanation is entirely correct—and just as disingenuous.
It has long been public knowledge that a coalition of Chinese dissidents—including figures from Xinjiang, like Isa, along with leaders of the Falun Gong sect, and democratic rights activist Jianli Yang—were scheduled to meet with the Tibetan leadership in exile from April 28 to May 1.
Any meeting like this, with sensitive geopolitical ramifications, could only have been taking place with the Indian government’s consent so the question of whether Isa had the right kind of visa or not is, at most, of academic interest.
The bottom line is that, singed by the dragon’s breath, New Delhi backed off. On the other hand by acting on China’s complaints the government should not be reflexively condemned. Despite all the bad press China gets in India for backing Pakistan, there are many activities it does not indulge in – for instance, Kashmiri secessionists are not welcome in Beijing, and Naga separatists haven’t had a hearing in decades, either.
Put simply, Beijing doesn’t legitimise domestic separatists in India—and expects New Delhi to adhere to the same standard. Indeed, Beijing sees the political space New Delhi gives the Dalai Lama as something of a provocation, since it isn’t hosting any Indians challenging its sovereignty.
India could, of course, have stuck to its guns and insisted it had every right to let Isa visit the country. It could, alternately, have taken the principled position that as a democracy, it respects the rights of all to speak their minds.
But then, India would have had no grounds to complain if China, in turn, started to grant the legitimacy to Indian rebels or, if some of those rebels began to demand similar free speech rights at home.
There’s no doubt that India can—and must—find means to respond to China’s unprincipled refusal to allow action against Masood Azhar, against whom credible charges of terrorism have been made by successive Pakistani governments. Those actions could range from allowing pro-independence Tibetan groups greater free rein to mobilise in India, all the way to aggressively siding with China’s adversaries on issues it believes are key like the South China Sea.
Each of these actions will have some consequences though, and this is where it becomes important for India to carefully weigh its actions.
The benefits from sanctions against Masood Azhar are minimal: similar sanctions against the Lashkar-e-Taiba have brought India no benefits, after all. The stringent international regime that has operated against both the Taliban and al-Qaeda since 9/11, similarly, has done nothing to stop both from acquiring unprecedented reach and lethality in the years since.
Put simply, the question is this: how much is a bureaucratic win on Masood Azhar really worth to New Delhi?
For the government, there ought be some learning here—the most important of which is that diplomacy isn’t, and ought not, be conducted according to the moral code that governs soccer matches between pimply teenagers. Kicks to the shin, satisfying as they might be, don’t even the score—they just provoke brawls, and brawls end with bloodied noses and broken teeth.
That’s not an outcome two sane powers can allow themselves to drift into, no matter how serious their differences.{Similar reasoning with Pakistan as well. Isnt it?}
-
sanjaykumar
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 6112
- Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
India actually finessed this well. The point has been made. Eastern Turkestan can become another Pakistan.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
There fixed it!sanjaykumar wrote:India actually finessed this well. The point has been made. Eastern Turkestan can become another Eastern Pakistan.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Skanda, I don't find Praveen Swami logical here. In fact, he seems to suggest that India act like a piece of sponge absorbing the Chinese onslaught. That is the feeling one gets at the end of reading it because as per him, India has no options to retaliate. No country, not even Marshall Islands, is left with such an option.Skanda wrote:What Praveen Swami says appears logical. But then, the argument boils down to "Is India attacking Pakistan and hence losing crores of people justified in the wake of 26/11 where we lost about 250 people"?
He says, "Kashmiri secessionists are not welcome in Beijing, and Naga separatists haven’t had a hearing in decades, either." And, therefore, we must behave exactly like China. For one, China *IS* meddling with our terrorists in the North East still. May be not in Beijing, but in 2010 Mirwaiz Umar Farooq met with Chinese Foreign Affairs Director Ying Gang in Geneva. Naga/Manipuri/Assam/Mizo terrorists have been supported with arms, training and funds for decades by the Chinese. See my post a few days back. So, how can Swami say that "Beijing doesn’t legitimise domestic separatists in India"? For another, PLA is increasingly being present along LoC in J&K.
He also writes that reciprocally, China might have "started to grant the legitimacy to Indian rebels or, if some of those rebels began to demand similar free speech rights at home.". How pathetic? At various times, many countries have accorded 'legitimacy' to rebels in India. India cannot be afraid of such threats. If India had the capacity to deal with those situations when it was really in the dumps, it has much more capacity now (and will have much, much more so in the future) to deal with those situations. Praveen Swami is displaying a relic mindset. The Indian 'rebels' like even the more jihadi Hurriyat leaders like Geelani or the ones like Asiya Andrabi are already enjoying those freedoms that Praveen Swami wants us to believe they will demand 'only' in future, taking a cue somehow from Dolkun Isa's speeches in Dharmashala! Free speech is not restricted in this country as we have witnessed in the aftermath of JNU. If GoI has to take some action because free speech has become seditious, then GoI will surely take action and the courts will either approve or disapprove of the same. There can be and need be no fear on that account.
Inexplicably, he goes on to say, that India can retaliate through granting more freedom to pro-Independent Tibetans or even showing more aggression in the Indo-China Sea though there might be consequences! Isn't he confused? Is he suggesting or *not* suggesting those options. If he is not suggesting these options, why did he even mention them? Won't Beijing retaliate in such an event by "legitimising [Indian] separatists"? Does it mean that we are tied down for ever because we have to act "carefully and weigh all our options"?
I also do not see any merit in the argument that India must retaliate exactly in the same fashion that China does. For example, if China is not encouraging "Indian rebels", so should India not encourage "Chinese rebels". But, in an asymmetric relationship, such equivalences cannot work. China's permanent membership in the UNSC with veto rights, its dominant position in other international arrangements, along with its economic and military strength, and its disobedience of any agreement that it has signed whenever it suits it, allows it to behave in a particular way with us and we have to therefore choose methods that are available to us to retaliate.
And then, the usual argument to buttress the suggestion of 'inaction', namely that the 1267 sanctions aren't worth anything. Hence he questions, "how much is a bureaucratic win on Masood Azhar really worth to New Delhi?" That is not the point. We know Hafiz Saeed is freely roaming around, Lakhvi could not be detained, Pakistan doesn't care about the UN sanctions, the UN has no means to enforce its own words etc. So was the US foolish when it included OBL or Omar or Ayman Zawahiri and others? There is a legitimacy that such an inclusion gives and that would be a leverage for us. Ultimately, international relationship is a game of chess where we have to deny all openings to our opponent and create openings for ourselves, a conflicting requirement. Therefore, we cannot miss any chance and regret it later. India has had many such regrets in the past.
He goes on to offer the advice that diplomacy is not a "kick to the shin" game. This is his idea of diplomacy, not what prevails. Let's take two Chinese examples. How would one term, for example, the Chinese behaviour of rejecting every Indian move in the UNSC 1267 committee in the last nine years? How would one rate the extraordinary deception and fraud employed by China in in the Intergovernmental Negotiation Group (ING) on the ‘framework document’ for UNSC expansion? If they are not slaps across our face, forget about kicks to our shin, what else are? Why is it that only when India takes a rare retaliatory posture, the worms crawl out of the woodworks to caution and advice? In fact, China has done (and continues to do) much worse things to us than just the 1267 opposition and they do not figure at all in Swami's Malgudi day-dreaming?
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
A climbdown is a climbdown whichever way you put it. To all and sundry, GoI appears to have lost their nerve and chickened out.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
We do not know most of what has happened. The grant of the tourist visa is correct. As per the rules, he can not attend meets, etc. under that visa. Hence, the same is withdrawn. All as per law. Should Chindu gang which calls for the rule of law every other day say India did something wrong if GOI follows rules and procedures?
That being said, there are people still in MEA who are afraid of PRC. It takes some time for us to change these attitude which is is there for decades.
That being said, a message was sent to China that business will not be as usual from now onwards. A ladder of escalation will be there from now onwards. One can be sure PRC knows it.
That being said, there are people still in MEA who are afraid of PRC. It takes some time for us to change these attitude which is is there for decades.
That being said, a message was sent to China that business will not be as usual from now onwards. A ladder of escalation will be there from now onwards. One can be sure PRC knows it.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
So why was a tourist visa issued in the first place? Usually when one applies for a visa, they must state the purpose of visit. So either Isa applied for a tourist visa or he was granted one despite declaring that the purpose of visit was to attend a "meeting"/"conference". Which one is it, we do not know. Either way, we hardly come out of it smelling of roses.Yagnasri wrote:We do not know most of what has happened. The grant of the tourist visa is correct. As per the rules, he can not attend meets, etc. under that visa. Hence, the same is withdrawn. All as per law. Should Chindu gang which calls for the rule of law every other day say India did something wrong if GOI follows rules and procedures?
I am not buying that. If as you say, they are afraid of the PRC, they would happily forward such applications to the ministerial level and let them take the call while washing their hands off the matter. The same goes for voting against Israel at the UN (How's that Israel trip coming along by the way?). Someone high up in GoI, "messed up", it remains to be seen who. Even if it were a MEA mandarin (pun intended), what is topping SS or NaMo from overruling them?Yagnasri wrote:That being said, there are people still in MEA who are afraid of PRC. It takes some time for us to change these attitude which is is there for decades.
Show some effing spine for god sake. The Paki amb-ass-a-dor(k) can court terrorists right in the middle of the diplomatic enclave and forget about putting an end to it, the GoI is developing a cold feet in allowing a Chinese dissident into India? To put a spin on this would be skulduggery of Sanjay Jhaesque proportions.
The message sent to China is exactly the opposite. It WILL be business as usual. You can block our NSG memberships, shield our terrorists, stoke trouble in our North East and with Maoists and we'll continue to shy away from allowing your dissidents a voice in the Indian public space. Oh in a few fleeting righteous moments we may show wee bit of spine, but do not worry, it's transitory.Yagnasri wrote:That being said, a message was sent to China that business will not be as usual from now onwards. A ladder of escalation will be there from now onwards. One can be sure PRC knows it.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Here is an analogy. Like all analogy it is flawed. But go with the spirit of the analogy rather than losing oneself in the details.
How do you deal with a groper in a bus? You sometimes pull the needle out, give a quick stab and withdraw. The hope is that the groper has wisened up and will be careful in future. Of course if the misbehaviour continues than more than a quick stab of needle is needed. Since this can be escalated and once an escalatory ladder is climbed on., getting down will be difficult and both will be bloodied.
It is upto China to live to its positive & calming potential. Currently it is behaving like a petulant child and a warning has been issued across. Let us see what the future brings.
How do you deal with a groper in a bus? You sometimes pull the needle out, give a quick stab and withdraw. The hope is that the groper has wisened up and will be careful in future. Of course if the misbehaviour continues than more than a quick stab of needle is needed. Since this can be escalated and once an escalatory ladder is climbed on., getting down will be difficult and both will be bloodied.
It is upto China to live to its positive & calming potential. Currently it is behaving like a petulant child and a warning has been issued across. Let us see what the future brings.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
India, Pakistan should have direct talks on Masood Azhar: China - PTI
China is nobody to suggest this course of action. It has to vote for or against the request to include the name under the 1267 list based upon the information presented by India. China is trying to act as an implicit arbiter here between India & Pakistan. China has been given no such role by the UNSC and it is assuming that role forcefully with India willy-nilly accepting that.India and Pakistan should resolve the issue over Masood Azhar through "direct" and "serious consultations", China said on Tuesday, weeks after blocking India's bid in the UN to ban the JeM chief that generated negativity in bilateral ties.
"We encourage all parties related to the listing matter of Masood Azhar to have direct communication and work out a solution through serious consultations," Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said in a written communication to PTI here on the issue which drew serious protests from New Delhi over Beijing's last minute move to block its bid to slap a UN ban on Azhar.
Replying to a question about whether there is any change in China's stand on the issue after a number of top Indian officials conveyed India's strong concerns over the move, Hua said as per the rules of the UN Committee on counterterrorism, the relevant countries should have direct talks.
In addition to Hua's comments, Chinese officials expressed confidence that the issue will be resolved as Beijing is also in touch with Islamabad on the issue.
Her comments came as foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan held talks in New Delhi, in which India raised the Azhar issue.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
SSridhar, lets leave aside pedantic morons like Praveen Swami. My question is had ModiJi gone ahead and allowed that Uighur guy to attend the conf, what is the maximum China could have done in retaliation?
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Indeed, the Chincom statement is truly condescending. China is basically now assuming the role of US/UK telling India and TSP to be good boys. Such equal equal suits TSP just fine.SSridhar wrote:
China is nobody to suggest this course of action. It has to vote for or against the request to include the name under the 1267 list based upon the information presented by India. China is trying to act as an implicit arbiter here between India & Pakistan. China has been given no such role by the UNSC and it is assuming that role forcefully with India willy-nilly accepting that.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
X-post from TSP thread
Falijee wrote:Underworld don Dawood Ibrahim to visit a Beijing hospital for prosthetic limb in next one month: Sources
If true, China is going all out to protect all the "shady snakes" nurtured by Pakistan in its back yard; first Malauna Azhar, now Dawood Bhai ; whose next on the list ?
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
X-post from STFU-TSP thread.
India trying to defame Pak over Masood Azhar: Pak foreign secretary - Indrani Bagchi, ToI
It is not too late. Let Isa come here. After all, we can tell the Chinese to 'talk it over with the Uyghurs' too. We are not standing in the way. As a friend of China, "We encourage all parties related to the Uyghur issue to have direct communication and work out a solution through serious consultation". India can also offer its good offices to that process.
India trying to defame Pak over Masood Azhar: Pak foreign secretary - Indrani Bagchi, ToI
The China-Pakistan tag team in operation here. China holds up the case in 1267 Committee, when confronted by India it asks us to take up the issue with Pakistan, and Pakistan simply won't accept anything. China thinks it is clever and that it maintains equidistance between the two countries on this issue? China is tying itself into knots as it has done in the Indo-China Sea issue.Pakistan foreign secretary Aizaz Ahmed Chaudhry on Tuesday accused India of trying to defame Pakistan in international fora by persisting with the listing of Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Masood Azhar in the UN 1267 Sanctions Committee. The issue of Masood Azhar, being a big part of India's current diplomatic engagements, featured prominently in his discussions with foreign secretary S Jaishankar.
Pakistan's response appears to suggest there will be little 'give' from Islamabad on the listing of Azhar. China has placed a "technical hold" on Azhar's designation. After India protested, China asked India to "consult" Pakistan on the issue. This was reiterated to TOI by Chinese officials in Delh i. The Azhar issue has been flagged by foreign minister Sushma Swaraj with her Chinese counterpart Wang Yi, and NSA Ajit Doval with his counterpart Yang Jiechi.
In Beijing, the Chinese government clarified that status quo would prevail on the Azhar listing unless Pakistan allowed it. The foreign ministry spokesperson was quoted as saying that the Azhar block is "in line with Security Council resolutions and the 1267 committee's rules of procedure for China to place a technical hold on the listing ... the committee encourages communication between countries that ask for the listing and countries where individuals or entitities covered in the listing come from or live in. We encourage all parties related to the listing of Masood Azhar to have direct communication and work out a solution through serious consultation ."
It is not too late. Let Isa come here. After all, we can tell the Chinese to 'talk it over with the Uyghurs' too. We are not standing in the way. As a friend of China, "We encourage all parties related to the Uyghur issue to have direct communication and work out a solution through serious consultation". India can also offer its good offices to that process.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Sridhar ji, no one gave China the role, but if they want to assume that role, no one can stop them unless we are prepared squeeze their balls. But are we prepared to do it without force? On the Azhar and Dolkun Isa subject, sending the signals/messages is nice on a tactical basis, but the major problem is on the trade/economy side that no Azhar or Dolkun Isa can help fix. If I may, I would like to expand the trade deficit graph you posted on #51.SSridhar wrote:China is nobody to suggest this course of action. It has to vote for or against the request to include the name under the 1267 list based upon the information presented by India. China is trying to act as an implicit arbiter here between India & Pakistan. China has been given no such role by the UNSC and it is assuming that role forcefully with India willy-nilly accepting that.
If the trade data from the following website is correct http://commerce.nic.in/eidb/iecnttopnq.asp you see the magnitude of trade deficit and the implications are enormous from geopolitical perspective.
Period: Year: 2015-2016(Apr-Jan)
India exports to China: $7.5bn
India imports from China: $51.8bn
Difference: -$44.3bn
India exports to US: $33.7bn
India imports from US: $17.1bn
Difference: +$16.5n
** And, i'm not sure if this includes indirect export. Meaning if we had a $4bn of trade deficit with Japan or $9bn of trade deficit with Indonesia, how much does Chinese goods contribute to that.
Which means, from India's perspective all the $$ earned from the trade with US were sent to China to pay for 40% of all the dollars needed to import stuff Indians bought from the Chinese. And this trend seems to have gotten worse over the last 10 years. And the Chinese are smart enough not piss off Indians, who are willing to let Chinese have higher and higher claim on their assets every year. This is not a healthy trend that either Azhar, Dalai Lama or Isa can help fix. Hope the Isa distraction is out of the way so energy is spent on real threat.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
udaym ji,
That's why I said, " . . . and it is assuming that role forcefully with India willy-nilly accepting that".
On the question of economics, there is no doubt that our governments, over the last decade have not been able to address the trade deficit issue. But, that is a separate strategic issue. There will always be multiple threads of issues between any two nations and more especially when they are inimical. Of course, the larger strategic vision of a nation may fundamentally contribute to these various threads and in that sense they may all be treated as a manifestation of that single 'national ambition'. For example, India's ambition may be to eliminate poverty while China's may be to dominate the world. Nevertheless, the individual threads have to be tackled on their own merits.
The 1267 committee deliberations and the Chinese stance therein have to be treated independently of the fundamental Chinese ambition of world domination though we know that ultimately it is that ambition that drives China to subvert the Indian demand in the 1267 committee because it wants Pakistan to checkmate India as much as possible while it concentrates on other things etc.
While we work towards economic, diplomatic and military muscularity, we will have to douse the various tactical fires on the way to achieving our singular ambition. We have to fight at every stage using all our might, all the resources that we can marshal, all our leverages and then some more too.
That's why I said, " . . . and it is assuming that role forcefully with India willy-nilly accepting that".
On the question of economics, there is no doubt that our governments, over the last decade have not been able to address the trade deficit issue. But, that is a separate strategic issue. There will always be multiple threads of issues between any two nations and more especially when they are inimical. Of course, the larger strategic vision of a nation may fundamentally contribute to these various threads and in that sense they may all be treated as a manifestation of that single 'national ambition'. For example, India's ambition may be to eliminate poverty while China's may be to dominate the world. Nevertheless, the individual threads have to be tackled on their own merits.
The 1267 committee deliberations and the Chinese stance therein have to be treated independently of the fundamental Chinese ambition of world domination though we know that ultimately it is that ambition that drives China to subvert the Indian demand in the 1267 committee because it wants Pakistan to checkmate India as much as possible while it concentrates on other things etc.
While we work towards economic, diplomatic and military muscularity, we will have to douse the various tactical fires on the way to achieving our singular ambition. We have to fight at every stage using all our might, all the resources that we can marshal, all our leverages and then some more too.
-
member_23692
- BRFite
- Posts: 441
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
So what else is new.
A big Indian climb down, portrayed as a "Chankian" success. Poor Chanakya. He must be, if he is watching from heaven, appalled at the amazing and incredibly high bar for Indians to get embarrassed and ashamed.
And all kinds of convoluted "Indian" logic to support the "triumph" narrative. No difference between us and Pakistan. We both, never, ever lose. It is always a great victory.
And no one other than a few "in speaking" Indians believing it.
Doesnt it get tiresome after a while.
In the meantime, let us all celebrate the "10% growth", instead, certain in our belief, that "25" years of 10% growth year after year (during which period, all aging for Indians alive today, will be suspended), we will be a BIG superpower! And if that is not consolation enough, let us gloat over the fact that the Chinese so "lie" about their statistics and numbers........actually, I havent heard that one in a while........or just the "inevitable downward" spiral that the Chinese economy is right now, leading surely to a complete collapse. And if even that fails to lift our spirits......."at least we have........democracy".
And yes, yes. I am tying myself up in knots. I am peeing in my pants. I am dhoti shivering.........spare me.....or at least come up with something more creative and less boring.........
A big Indian climb down, portrayed as a "Chankian" success. Poor Chanakya. He must be, if he is watching from heaven, appalled at the amazing and incredibly high bar for Indians to get embarrassed and ashamed.
And all kinds of convoluted "Indian" logic to support the "triumph" narrative. No difference between us and Pakistan. We both, never, ever lose. It is always a great victory.
And no one other than a few "in speaking" Indians believing it.
Doesnt it get tiresome after a while.
In the meantime, let us all celebrate the "10% growth", instead, certain in our belief, that "25" years of 10% growth year after year (during which period, all aging for Indians alive today, will be suspended), we will be a BIG superpower! And if that is not consolation enough, let us gloat over the fact that the Chinese so "lie" about their statistics and numbers........actually, I havent heard that one in a while........or just the "inevitable downward" spiral that the Chinese economy is right now, leading surely to a complete collapse. And if even that fails to lift our spirits......."at least we have........democracy".
And yes, yes. I am tying myself up in knots. I am peeing in my pants. I am dhoti shivering.........spare me.....or at least come up with something more creative and less boring.........
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Crossposting from "India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II" thread
1) What part do we want to play in a Western-led process process of prickling China. This involves just maintaining a large number of "dissenters" and paying for various conferences. These "dissenters" are owned by the West, as the West pays for their livelihood, visas, stays, conferences, etc. This generates some hype in the press, and that is about it. While this is useful as a means to do a regime-change is smaller unstable countries, it does not help against one like China. All the "dissenters" manage to do is to nourish the Western appetite for moral superiority and to present itself as a "force for democracy and freedom". That is for West's internal consumption. It does not mean anything for China. Yes it does prickle China on the world stage to some extent, and so China would want to lash back at those who do it, but it has learned that this is part of Western way of interaction, especially when the West wants something from them. It is part of Western way of making deals. So for the H&D China issues a protest and makes some adjustments to the benefit of some Western country. There is nothing more to that.
2) We ourselves do not really have an Indian-owned process of destabilizing China. When we are willing to take that road and seriously then of course it would pay to indulge in these games.
What all this Uyghur visa giving means is whether India can buy shares into a Western-owned process of prickling China, that gives India with a similar level of advantage as it accrues to the West? I don't think so! India is not part of the West. China would simply see the Indian conference as yet another Western pinprick but this time using the Indian hand. So it would give a few bones to the West and slap India for being superficial and uppity.
What is needed however is an India-owned dissidence-sustaining process against China, which is deep and shows commitment and is serious unlike that of the West, which is simply a negotiation tool. At least then we would know that if China slaps India, we would be slapping it back just as hard.
Well there are two issues here:SSridhar wrote:The American tentacles are spreading all over. We are either too aloof or too close. Some call it playing realpolitik. In the end, all I care for is what benefits have accrued to us and at what cost.
1) What part do we want to play in a Western-led process process of prickling China. This involves just maintaining a large number of "dissenters" and paying for various conferences. These "dissenters" are owned by the West, as the West pays for their livelihood, visas, stays, conferences, etc. This generates some hype in the press, and that is about it. While this is useful as a means to do a regime-change is smaller unstable countries, it does not help against one like China. All the "dissenters" manage to do is to nourish the Western appetite for moral superiority and to present itself as a "force for democracy and freedom". That is for West's internal consumption. It does not mean anything for China. Yes it does prickle China on the world stage to some extent, and so China would want to lash back at those who do it, but it has learned that this is part of Western way of interaction, especially when the West wants something from them. It is part of Western way of making deals. So for the H&D China issues a protest and makes some adjustments to the benefit of some Western country. There is nothing more to that.
2) We ourselves do not really have an Indian-owned process of destabilizing China. When we are willing to take that road and seriously then of course it would pay to indulge in these games.
What all this Uyghur visa giving means is whether India can buy shares into a Western-owned process of prickling China, that gives India with a similar level of advantage as it accrues to the West? I don't think so! India is not part of the West. China would simply see the Indian conference as yet another Western pinprick but this time using the Indian hand. So it would give a few bones to the West and slap India for being superficial and uppity.
What is needed however is an India-owned dissidence-sustaining process against China, which is deep and shows commitment and is serious unlike that of the West, which is simply a negotiation tool. At least then we would know that if China slaps India, we would be slapping it back just as hard.
-
member_23692
- BRFite
- Posts: 441
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
RajeshA wrote:Crossposting from "India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II" thread
Well there are two issues here:SSridhar wrote:The American tentacles are spreading all over. We are either too aloof or too close. Some call it playing realpolitik. In the end, all I care for is what benefits have accrued to us and at what cost.
1) What part do we want to play in a Western-led process process of prickling China. This involves just maintaining a large number of "dissenters" and paying for various conferences. These "dissenters" are owned by the West, as the West pays for their livelihood, visas, stays, conferences, etc. This generates some hype in the press, and that is about it. While this is useful as a means to do a regime-change is smaller unstable countries, it does not help against one like China. All the "dissenters" manage to do is to nourish the Western appetite for moral superiority and to present itself as a "force for democracy and freedom". That is for West's internal consumption. It does not mean anything for China. Yes it does prickle China on the world stage to some extent, and so China would want to lash back at those who do it, but it has learned that this is part of Western way of interaction, especially when the West wants something from them. It is part of Western way of making deals. So for the H&D China issues a protest and makes some adjustments to the benefit of some Western country. There is nothing more to that.
2) We ourselves do not really have an Indian-owned process of destabilizing China. When we are willing to take that road and seriously then of course it would pay to indulge in these games.
What all this Uyghur visa giving means is whether India can buy shares into a Western-owned process of prickling China, that gives India with a similar level of advantage as it accrues to the West? I don't think so! India is not part of the West. China would simply see the Indian conference as yet another Western pinprick but this time using the Indian hand. So it would give a few bones to the West and slap India for being superficial and uppity.
What is needed however is an India-owned dissidence-sustaining process against China, which is deep and shows commitment and is serious unlike that of the West, which is simply a negotiation tool. At least then we would know that if China slaps India, we would be slapping it back just as hard.
Good post.
But creating an "Indian-owned dissidence-sustaining process against China", is a pipe dream right now, given the mindset and the state of mind of an average Indian today.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Well we have to start somewhere sometime.rsangram wrote:But creating an "Indian-owned dissidence-sustaining process against China", is a pipe dream right now, given the mindset and the state of mind of an average Indian today.
Actually we have so many Tibetans in India, that we can make a start.
However I do not believe that "rent-a-West-based-dissident for pin-pricking China" really can make China nervous.
On the other hand, it is easy for India to sustain an "Indian-owned dissidence-sustaining process against Pakistan" as we have got a better handle on Pakistan.
-
member_23692
- BRFite
- Posts: 441
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
So, where is the "Indian-owned dissidence-sustaining process against Pakistan" ? Non existent. We cant even sustain a dissidence process in Pak Occupied Kashmir. Hell, we cant even sustain a robust Pro-India movement in Indian Kashmir. Forget about sustaining a Pro-India movement in Indian Kashmir, we cant even prevent a genocide against Kashmiri Hindus. Forget about preventing a genocide, we cant even make this genocide a big International Human Rights issue. Unbelievable. And then we have delusions of grandeur, delusions, that we can be a super power or play a role in international stage.RajeshA wrote:Well we have to start somewhere sometime.rsangram wrote:But creating an "Indian-owned dissidence-sustaining process against China", is a pipe dream right now, given the mindset and the state of mind of an average Indian today.
Actually we have so many Tibetans in India, that we can make a start.
However I do not believe that "rent-a-West-based-dissident for pin-pricking China" really can make China nervous.
On the other hand, it is easy for India to sustain an "Indian-owned dissidence-sustaining process against Pakistan" as we have got a better handle on Pakistan.
When we cant sustain a pro-India movement in Indian Kashmir, Sri Lanka or even Nepal(in fact, our own state and these little countries sustain one against us), what makes you think that we can do it against China ?
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
I personally believe that it is generally possible that a nation can go from a "CAN'T DO" attitude to "CAN DO" attitude, but it will take time, time for purging the old Macaulayite-Mughalai system, for a Bharat-centric establishment to take root, for a Bharat-centric discourse to take place among the people.rsangram wrote:When we cant sustain a pro-India movement in Indian Kashmir, Sri Lanka or even Nepal(in fact, our own state and these little countries sustain one against us), what makes you think that we can do it against China?
Having got our independence less than 2 years ago, we are still a young nation.
-
member_23692
- BRFite
- Posts: 441
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
RajeshA wrote:
Having got our independence less than 2 years ago, we are still a young nation.
Ah........ I love your spoof on the "young nation" narrative scam......yeah, our political leaders and elites who have been selling our country and our people down the drain for the past 70 years, have been selling us this "young nation" snake oil, while robbing us blind. And pray tell, how an intelligent people like us have been buying this narrative hook line and slinker, that one of the, if not, the oldest nation and civilization on earth is a "young nation", is beyond me. So, if change in political dispensation is equivalent to the "death of a nation and then a birth of a nation", by that definition all the Western Democracies are only four or five year olds, at any given time, then..........rightSo, all this talk of being a young nation is a ploy by our political elite to buy time from our populace, while they bend us over and..........well.......
Then of course, we in India also suffer from what I call, the "around the corner" syndrome. Indian greatness is "just around the corner". It has been "just around the corner" since pre-historic days in India- thousands of years....Remember, when lord Rama returned back to Ayodhya, that was supposed to be the start of Indian greatness- Ram Rajya........but alas, we Indians took care of Lord Rama in pretty short order.......made his life so miserable, that even the avatar of Vishnu gave up on us. Lord Vishnu was not one to give up. A few centuries later, he tried again. Remember Mahabharata........with Lord Krishna. Indian greatness was supposed to be just around the corner after the battle of Mahabharata........the great victory of good over evil, dharma over adharma.....and Lord Krishna was supposed to usher in the era of Indian greatness..jsut around the corner...well, how did that turn out for us ? We Indians took care of Lord Krishna too......never let him live in peace.....Lord Vishnu gave up on us again......and then again..........and then again.........time after time, from Chanakya and Chandragupta to Gandhi......our Indian greatness was supposed to be "just around the corner"......only proving that Indian greatness is just a mirage. In 1992......Manmohan Singh.......Indian greatness is just around the corner.......we now have designer stores in shopping malls and Fords and Chevys on Indian roads........just around the corner......Rajivl Gandhi before that.........just around the corner.......Vajpayee..........just around the corner......7% growth and then 10% growth...........just around the corner........and then Modi...........just around the corner.........
Just around the corner my friend........for a young nation like ours............and China......it all lies........and we have democracy........of course.......maybe another 10 years of double digit growth......just around the corner.......
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
rsangram ji,
In my opinion, a Bharat-centric establishment ended with Vijayanagara Empire. After that it was only a fight back to regain lost ground and short periods of Bharatiya control. Till then we always had continuously a Bharat-centric establishment, even when parts of Indian Subcontinent was under Yavanas, Sakas or Hunas.
It is a question of when we can revive it, which means fixing our collective psyches.
In my opinion, a Bharat-centric establishment ended with Vijayanagara Empire. After that it was only a fight back to regain lost ground and short periods of Bharatiya control. Till then we always had continuously a Bharat-centric establishment, even when parts of Indian Subcontinent was under Yavanas, Sakas or Hunas.
It is a question of when we can revive it, which means fixing our collective psyches.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
They have figured out how to manage China:
Robot monk to spread Buddhist wisdom to the digital generation
Triputi:
Robot monk to spread Buddhist wisdom to the digital generation
Rest in peace. India invades China without sending a single soldier. Again.In an unexpected synthesis of ancient and modern, a Buddhist temple on the edge of Beijing has developed a robot monk who can chant mantras and and explain basic tenets of faith.
At 2ft high, Xian’er is encased in saffron-yellow robes and has a shaved head. Despite spending much of his time closeted in the spiritual calm of Longquan Temple, he wears an expression of permanent surprise.
Triputi:
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
NRao: Do not worry. The mandarins at CFR have claimed the US will still be on tops. Why?
- Economic growth no longer translates as directly into military power as it did in the past
- military superiority is not going anywhere, nor is the globe-spanning alliance structure
- slowing economy, polluted environment, widespread corruption, perilous financial markets, nonexistent social safety net, rapidly aging population, and restive middle class
- low level of technological expertise compared with the United States’
- Half of all Chinese exports consist of what economists call “processing trade,”
- received less than $1 billion in receipts in 2013 for the use of its intellectual property.
- Nobel Prizes: Since 1990, 114 have gone to U.S.-based researchers. China-based researchers have received two.
- China still cannot mass-produce high-performance aircraft engines
- China is poorly equipped for antisubmarine warfare and is doing very little to improve.
- nuclear-powered attack submarines that are comparable in quietness to the kinds that the U.S. Navy commissioned in the 1950s.
- Developing the necessary infrastructure to seek command of the commons would take any military a very long time. And since the task places a high premium on flexibility and delegation, China’s centralized and hierarchical forces are particularly ill suited for it.
- China will, for a long time, continue to hover somewhere between a great power and a superpower.
- weak incentives to make the sacrifices required.
- it is Russia that possesses the second-greatest military capability in the world.
- Most of the recent rising powers of note, including Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union, were stronger militarily than economically.
- By adopting its own area-denial strategy, the United States could still deter Chinese aggression and protect U.S. allies.
- these small, exposed islands arguably leave the overall military balance unchanged, since they would be all but impossible to defend in a conflict.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Now, India denies visa to Chinese dissident Lu Jinguh, activist Ra Wong - PTI
Increasingly becoming inexplicable & ridiculous, unless the following has any bearing.After cancelling Chinese dissident Dolkun Isa's visa, India has denied visas to another Chinese dissident Lu Jinguh and activist Ra Wong who were coming to attend a conference in Dharamshala on democracy and China.
"As fas as Lu Jinghua's visa is concerned, her documents were illegible and there was inconsistency with the purpose of her visit. Insofar as Ray Wong is concerned, there was data inconsistency in his documents. As such visas were not issued to both these individuals so question of revocation does not arise," a government source said here.
Lu is a well-known Tiananmen activist, while Ra is a Hong Kong-based activist.
According to reports, Lu claimed that she was told that her visa was cancelled and was stopped from boarding an Air India flight from New York. She also claimed that she had received am email confirmation for an electronic visa.
Earlier this week, the visa to Isa, a leader of World Uyghur Congress (WUC) who lives in Germany and had been invited for the conference this week being organised by US-based 'Initiatives for China', was cancelled. The Indian action was seen by many as buckling under Chinese pressure.
Meanwhile, India defended its decision to revoke the visa of Dolkun Isa, saying that he had "suppressed" facts while obtaining it but admitted that China had made its position clear to New Delhi that it should honour the Interpol Red Corner notice against him.
"Isa applied for a tourist visa under the electronic travel authorisation system. He was accordingly granted the visa. After obtaining the visa, Isa stated publicly that he was coming to attend a conference in India. A fact which was suppressed in the visa form and something that a tourist visa does not permit.
"Further more it came to the notice of authorities that Isa was subject of a Interpol Red Corner notice," external affairs ministry spokesperson Vikas Swarup said.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Want to resolve boundary dispute early, China tells India - PTI
China has conveyed to India that it wants to resolve its boundary dispute as early as possible, the way it claimed to have done with 12 of its other neighbours.
This was conveyed to National Security Advisor Ajit Doval by his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi when they met in Beijing last week during the annual 19th round of boundary talks.
The Chinese side has said that they have resolved their boundary dispute with 12 countries and they were keen to settle all differences with India once for all and as early as possible, sources privy to the discussion said.
The Chinese side was very assertive in their approach and they were very categorical in the meeting, the sources said.
After the April 20-21 meeting, the Chinese foreign ministry had said that China and India should "meet each other halfway" to reach a "fair and reasonable" political solution to the border dispute acceptable to both sides, an indication of Beijing's willingness to make concessions on the vexed issue.
China has rarely publicly talked about meeting India "half way" on the vexed boundary dispute.
The reference to both the countries to stay on track for a political settlement is seen as significant as officials on both side say negotiations have reached a stage for the political leadership on both sides to take a decision to reach a solution.
Doval and Yang had an "extensive, deep and candid" discussion on the 3,488 km-long Line of Actual Control (LAC), which remains undemarcated resulting in tensions between the two sides.
Doval's predecessor, Shivshankar Menon, who represented India in several rounds of the border talks, had said in 2014 that all the technical work has been done and it is for the leaders of both the countries to take a call.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
^^ Sir, if this were true, what is the probability that they will be willing to concede current pullout and future abstinence from POK presence in exchange for, let’s say, status quo in aksai chin. IMHO, from their POV aksai chin will not be as important as maintaining economic and military presence in POK to secure all they are trying to materialize there. We should be highly skeptical of this.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Atulya P, IMO, the sudden interest shown by China in settling the border dispute is a tactical one and will evaporate after a couple of months.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
‘India not competing with China in the Pacific’ - President - K.Venkataramanan, The Hindu
The first ever state visit by an Indian head of state to Papua New Guinea began on Thursday with remarks by President Pranab Mukherjee brushing aside a suggestion that India was in competition with China in the Pacific region. He also voiced the hope that his visit will be a precursor to intensified economic and security cooperation with the Pacific island nation.
In an interview to the Post Courier, a newspaper here, he said “India doesn’t see itself in competition with any other country in this regard”, after talking of maritime security, terrorism and piracy being major concerns to India and Papua New Guinea. He also said India was ready to cooperate with Pacific Island countries in protecting their Exclusive Economic Zones.
Mr. Mukherjee had a busy day with bilateral talks with Papua New Guinea’s Prime Minister, Peter O’Neill, and later spoke at a banquet hosted by the Governor-General, Sir Michael Ogio. Although building trade relations was high on the agenda, the larger message was that India is eager to deepen its engagement with all Pacific Island countries.
In a speech at a banquet hosted by the Governor-General, Mr. Mukherjee made a pointed reference to Papua New Guinea’s natural resources and said there were many opportunities waiting to be seized as both countries had prioritised sustainable use of ocean and marine resources. He also underscored that the untapped potential of India’s ties with Pacific nations was not limited to Papua New Guiena.
On Friday, India and Papua New Guinea are due to sign an MoU on cooperation in health and pharmaceuticals. Under the agreement, doctors and nurses from the island nation will be trained in India, and Indian physicians, nurses and trainers would be deputed to Papua New Guinea. India will also pledge support to establish a pharmaceutical production unit here to meet the demand for life-saving medicines.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
Visa denial to Chinese puts MEA in red corner - Narayan Lakshman, The Hindu
Even as India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) denied visas to two prospective participants in an anti-Beijing conference in Dharmasala, legal experts have questioned the idea that Interpol Red Notices (RNs) serve as undeniable warrants of arrests in countries that cooperate with the international criminal police organisation.
The denial of visas to Chinese activists Ray Wong and Lu Jinghua on Thursday came less than a week after an E-visa issued to Dolkun Isa, an exiled Uyghur wanted by China and having an RN against him, was cancelled post-issuance.
However senior New York-based lawyer Ravi Batra told The Hindu that while an RN was the closest thing to an international arrest warrant the fact that the U.S. permitted Dolkun Isa, also the head of World Uighur Congress, to visit and freely move in the U.S. during the recent Nuclear Security Summit time period spoke volumes about the mandatory-arrest nature of the RN.
RNs are the highest level of alert and are based on a national arrest warrant. The stated function of the RN is to “seek the location of a wanted person and his/her detention, arrest or restriction of movement for the purpose of extradition, surrender or similar lawful action.”
“Sovereign nations have both the right and obligation to conduct their affairs of state as best suits them, and honour their own national priorities, which they, not Interpol, set. Of course, the fundamental core obligation of every nation is to protect public safety,” Mr. Batra said.
Indeed in remarks made to The Hindu, Mr. Isa cited a study by the non-partisan Centre for Public Integrity (CPI) which noted that a five-month probe by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists showed a “little-known side to Interpol’s work: That in cases from countries such as Iran, Russia, Venezuela and Tunisia, Interpol Red Notices were not only being used for legitimate law enforcement purposes, but to round up political opponents. According to the CPI study, more than 2,200 of the published RNs were from countries listed as providing no political rights or civil liberties by the independent NGO Freedom House, and among the top 30 countries requesting public RNs were Azerbaijan, the United Arab Emirates, China, Rwanda, Vietnam, Tajikistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iraq and Iran.
Indeed in 2013, UK-based NGO Fair Trials International said that the credibility of RNs was being undermined as they were being misused by some of the 190 participating states to pursue exiled political opponents, and this was a problem particularly because under Article 3 of Interpol's constitution the agency was strictly forbidden from undertaking any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.
Mr. Isa, who confirmed that the RN against him at Beijing’s request was issued in 1997 and yet travelled to the U.S. many times since 2012, most recently in March this year, had strong words for how Beijing’s had sought to characterise him. He said China labelled him a terrorist “primarily as a means to delegitimise the human rights work that I do to support the Uyghur community… China tries to get the rest of the international community to see all Uyghurs as violent – a claim that clearly does not hold up to scrutiny if information is available.”
Oddly, a search by any criterion for Mr. Isa on Interpol’s RN web page does not pull up his record; however what he says about China’s case against him is true and Washington has also chose on multiple occasions to disregard the RN against Mr. Isa, it leaves a rather troubling question unanswered by India: Why did it choose to toe China’s line and revoke his E-visa when the American example makes the case for countries to ignore RN if the person was not known to be involved in violent crime or terrorism? {While, we need not take the US precedent, we need to look at China's precedent and that too against us. Interpol has issued a RCN against Paresh Barua and we know he lives in Ruili in Yunnan close to the Myanmar border. Yet, China did not arrest and extradite him!} Also if it is now New Delhi’s policy to appease China so meticulously then why permit such an anti-Beijing conference to take place on Indian soil at all?
If the MEA has answers to these questions, as well it might, then it should not come as a surprise if more such cases of visa denial based on RNs come up in the future, especially given the proposal to merge India’s internal “blacklist” with Interpol’s data.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
ITBP’s north-east HQ to be moved near China border - Vijaita Singh, The Hindu
The government has decided to shift the frontier headquarters of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) from Meghalaya to Arunachal Pradesh, closer to the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
The north-eastern headquarters, which is located at Shillong, will be shifted to Itanagar. “The area of operations of the ITBP is along the Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim border, so it is practical enough to shift the base to somewhere closer to the border.The headquarters in Meghalaya will not serve the purpose,” Kiren Rijiju, Minister of State for Home, told The Hindu . The ITBP has been based in Shillong since 2004.
Asked whether the shift was a message to China, Mr. Rijiju said: “It has been done only for operational reasons. There is nothing like that.”
It is to be seen how China will react to the decision to shift the office to Arunachal Pradesh {This is what happens when regular operational decisions are seen as provoking China when the government appears to concede to furious Chinese diplomacy. GoI might be talking tough to China (at least, one hopes so), but the citizens of this country must also feel that such is the case. Perception matters.}.
Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)
'India's self-contradictory actions may land it in trouble' - PTI
India's efforts to manoeuvre nimbly to forge closer ties with the US while stepping up dialogue with China and its "self-contradictory actions" in the foreign policy front may land it in a "difficult position", Chinese media warned today.
"While the lack of political leadership and ideological self-doubt regarding non-alignment hindered previous Indian governments, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is better positioned to manoeuvre nimbly and therefore take seemingly self-contradictory actions in his foreign policymaking," an article in the website of the state-run Global Times said.
"In mid-February, a US military official revealed that the Indian Navy would join the US in patrolling South China Sea. Although the Indian side soon denied such joint patrols, Modi's government has clearly taken a bolder stance on China- related issues in the region than its predecessors," it said.
"Not only did the Indian ambassador publicly articulate support for the Philippine's claims in the South China Sea arbitration case, Indian decision-makers also echoed the US, Japan, and Australia in hardening its position against China on the maritime disputes there," the article said.
While India announced plans to sign Logistic Supply Agreement (LSA) getting access to the US bases, it also ramped up contacts with China, it said.
"Against the backdrop of a series of preceding ominous events, the Modi administration's newly staged three-way dialogue with the Chinese leadership involving the foreign minister, defence minister and national security advisor is actually revealing," it said, referring to recent meetings of the top Indian officials with their Chinese counterparts.
"While the previous UPA government led by Manmohan Singh was bogged down by rampant internal divisions and unable to act decisively, the Modi administration can now nimbly manoeuvre and pursue a more dramatic policy vis-a-vis China, even though sometimes such policies may appear self-contradictory or even paradoxical," it said.
Despite the Indian government's dramatic postures concerning major power relations, Modi actually maintains the old-school "balance of power" strategy, the article said.
"That's why Sino-Indian relations have seen a cascade of of tensions that were unconventionally followed by another series of warm diplomatic exchanges," it added.
"In New Delhi's calculation vis-a-vis China, swinging back and forth may well create strategic leverage that can be more effective than simply deferring to China's presumed opposition against India's interaction with a third party on the sensitive issues.
"For example, India might use the unsigned draft LSA with the US to create some unconventional leverage in the three forthcoming meetings with Chinese leadership," it said.
"However, New Delhi also has to remember that such flip-flops on major power relations may also put itself in a difficult position. Considering that the low-hanging fruit, if there was any, has already been plucked, such strategy may amount to little at the end of the day," it said.