Could China and India go to war over Tibet?

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 16 Aug 2009 23:32

I sincerely hope that such a turn of events is not around the corner. We need some lead time for preparing for that eventuality. The current Dalai Lama is only in his early 70's, there is a good twenty some years for that to happen. Plenty of time to prepare for those events, if one starts now. Till then hold the line and keep barking back without covering in our dhotis.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 16 Aug 2009 23:38

Bade ji, i am inclined to think that things ma be happening faster than we envison. There might be method in MMS's madness in SeS. Keeping Paki's on the backfoot, making all the 'right' conciliatory noises..MMS is not the type to rankle China by sending divisions into AP and Sukhoi frontline fighter jets right across the borders without very good reason..

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 16 Aug 2009 23:40

Didn't the chinese abduct the five-six year old Panchan Lama in the nineties? Whats to stop them from 'appointing' the new Dalai and saying all's well? Although it sounds absolutely "yuck" to even think about it, what is to say that the PRC hasn't brainwashed the young lama and turned him into a puppet who would do their bidding when crowned?

The PRC can then carry on its facade of calling tibetans in India and the current Dalai Lama's followers and govt in exile as sprittists and not recognise them. How exactly would such a situation cause a loss of face for them? In fact this way, they can get away with it, given that even the current Dalai Lama won't be around to lead the opposition to this.

The PRC can boldly do something as drastic and so blatantly false and still claim no loss of face and stick to its guns. Nobody can do much about it, unless the tibetans decide enough is enough and start an insurgency esp given that the Dalai Lamas influence would no longer be there to keep it peaceful.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 16 Aug 2009 23:55

More on the paranoid republic that kidnaps Children here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedhun_Choekyi_Nyima

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 17 Aug 2009 00:03

Even the chinese moves on Nepal have that new dalai lama angle to it too amongst other intentions.
China just can't allow any tibetian spiritual leader to be anyone other than a tibetian-chinese passport holder. Massive loss of echendee. Clear leverage to massa and others to show that china is merely in occupation of Tibet and illegally. Calls for tibetean independence can't then be far off.
The CCP's been burning midnight oil for sure.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Aug 2009 01:29

Much ado about nothing:

Mar, 2009 :: Dalai Lama says he is in top health but won't seek rebirth

Please read the article before commenting.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 17 Aug 2009 01:39

Its sad that HH Dalilama thinks he can make a choice to take rebirth or not, it is destined a Dalilama will be born.

{or is he giving signal to Tibetians time to take up arms that there wont be any more peace at any cost, or is he pre emting a Chinese born surrogate to be appointed by PRC?)

xposting.

It might be instructive to dust off and thumb through

Himalian Blunder Brig JP Dalvi
The Untold Story Lt. Gen BM Kaul
India's China War by Max Villian
and other books on NEFA Operations

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Aug 2009 02:18

Umm! he may not seek - but the theory says, it is not in his hands. He may be forced to, if he has "unfinished business". Even the "Buddha" is supposed to be born again (in spite of getting ultimate "liberation" from the cycle itself) as Mayitreya. But is est that there is a gap between the two lives on the earth. So that the actual unpleasantries of Tibetan liberation can be carried out - and he can start his "peaceful" reign again.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Aug 2009 02:27

the Dalai Lama said it would be up to the Tibetan people to decide if there should be a reincarnation after his death.

Not His decision.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Aug 2009 02:32

However, I have so far been unable to find that one article where He stated that He could be a pain for Chicom - by taking a birth outside Chicoms territories.

It seems to me that not only taking birth is in the hands of the Tibetians, but potentially where the Dalai Lama takes birth could be influenced by them too.

For what it is worth He has been saying that things have been happening without His instigation - democratic government, etc. Which is also the "will" of the people of Tibet.

Whatever, Chicom must be very busy collecting all possible info to figure out what the people of Tibet are thinking - and this where the DL may decide to take birth.

Bijji Huns.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Aug 2009 02:33

NRao wrote:
the Dalai Lama said it would be up to the Tibetan people to decide if there should be a reincarnation after his death.
Not His decision.

They will be making the decision before he dies. They will probably decide for Tawang.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Aug 2009 02:45

RA, try:

Nov 2007 :: Dalai Lama offers his flock a vote on whether he should be reincarnated

Please keep a track of the dates these articles were published. Interesting take.

Never thought it would come to an Indo-China "war", else I would have preserved the articles.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 17 Aug 2009 02:57

The Untold Story Lt. Gen BM Kaul

My father had both these. Never let me read it (or convinced me that it was full of it, and written by self-serving bozos..)

Somehow in reading accounts of Indian military history, I get the feeling that these are written by people who are completely detached from ground realities. Sort of a View From the Bungalow Through the Brown Sahib's Binoculars, What-What. The reality of the battlefield is totally missing, and it makes it appear that all that matters is the careers of the Senior Officers. Also missing is any account of the writers actually trying to anticipate events and doing something to control them (within their limits of course) and look out for their men, instead of merely recounting what memos they received or sent.

Maybe this is related to the outcome of these episodes. This was greatly strengthened on reading of how the "Brass" dealt with reports of Paki antics prior to and through the first months of the Kargil War.

The PRC or Stalin would have sent a great many of the Decorated Top Aphsars to decorate lampposts.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 17 Aug 2009 04:29

BTW, I had not seen the full text of this anywhere so far.
http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=15 ... isp=vah&zw

Don't know if it will work reliably.

August 10, 2009, retiring Naval Chief and Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, Admiral Sureesh Mehta, delivered a landmark speech on ’India’s National Security Challenges’ under the aegis of the National Maritime Foundation.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Aug 2009 06:21

narayanan wrote:BTW, I had not seen the full text of this anywhere so far.
http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=15 ... isp=vah&zw

Don't know if it will work reliably.

August 10, 2009, retiring Naval Chief and Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, Admiral Sureesh Mehta, delivered a landmark speech on ’India’s National Security Challenges’ under the aegis of the National Maritime Foundation.

K.Subrahmanyam's comments on that speech, recd on email

FROM DAINIK JAGRAN – August 16, 2009 (English version )

Coping with China

By K.Subrahmanyam

Admiral Sureesh Mehta, Chief of Naval Staff and Chairman of the
Chiefs
of Staff Committee who is due to retire at the end of this month
delivered an address on national security under the aegis of the
National Maritime Foundation on the 10th of August. It was a fairly
comprehensive overview of our national security perspective. Though
delivered by the senior most Service Officer, the lecture was
remarkable as it went beyond the military realm and focused on a
broad strategic and political vision in the currently evolving
international situation.

In a sense this address by Admiral Mehta signified the arrival of
senior service officers at the top rung of national grand strategy
formulation. His eminently pragmatic, strategic vision has been
misinterpreted in certain sections of the media as a cry of despair
that India will not be able to catch up with China militarily. He has

made it clear that India has no intention to do so. At the same time
he has formulated the most viable strategy to cope with this
situation. Whether India - with a population likely to exceed China’s

in the next two decades ; the advantage of a much younger age profile

of that population; its post September 2008 integration with the
rest of the world ; and being a democracy along with the all other
major powers as also English-speaking - will ultimately catch up
with China it is too early to predict. China today has the advantage
of a decade and half of head start in economic reforms and
globalization and very close industrial cooperation with US and other

multinational firms. Admiral Mehta has detailed the lead China has
gained on this account over India. That is an inexorable reality
which
Indian strategists have to accept and factor in coping with China.
The
word Admiral Mehta has chosen to use is ‘coping with China’, not
confronting or competing with it.

While China by switching sides in the Cold War and
repudiating the Maoist legacy broke out of its isolation in the
seventies, India could do so only in 2008 with the waiver of NSG
guidelines. While China was a tacit but active strategic partner of
the US and NATO during the Cold War and an established permanent
member of the Security Council and an accepted nuclear power of the
Nonproliferation Treaty, India’s recognition as one of the rising
powers and a balancer in the international system began less than a
decade ago.

India presently has strategic partnerships with all great powers
including China. Today India’s largest trading partner is China. Yet
as Admiral Mehta pointed out, in China’s case India has a trust
deficit because of the long standing territorial dispute and among
other issues, the China-Pakistan connection. Unlike in India’s case
where its emergence as a power does not cause concern in the world,
that is not the case with China. Its propensity for intervention in
space ,both on earth and in outer space and cyber warfare have been
cited as causing concern to other nations.

Addressing those who entertain expectations that 1962 can
be repeated, Admiral Mehta highlighted that the economic penalties
resulting from a potential Sino-Indian military conflict would have
grave consequences for both sides. Unlike in 1962, China has today
multiple vulnerabilities and has to consider seriously the effect of
a war on its energy supply lines. In such circumstances mutual
cooperation is to the benefit of both countries. Therefore Admiral
Mehta’s advocacy is for India reducing its military gap with China
and
countering the growing Chinese footprint in the Indian Ocean region
He does not favor the traditional bean-counting or division for
division approach. in closing the gap. Instead , he wants to rely on
harnessing modern technology for developing high situational
awareness
and creating a reliable standoff deterrent. The recent launch of the
nuclear submarine, Arihant is a step in that direction. Admiral Mehta

further adds, that in order to minimize the chances of conflict,
India should proactively engage China diplomatically, economically,
culturally and in people to people contacts. At the same time India
should nurture its relations with US, Russia, Japan and other East
Asian countries to leverage towards this end . In his view our
growing relations with South East and East Asian countries would increase
opportunities for cooperative engagement with China as well.

What Admiral Mehta does not say in his speech is as important as what
he has said. China is looking forward to emerging as the foremost
power of the world. Its GDP is expected to overtake the US in the
next two decades. The recent economic recession has narrowed the gap
between the two and made China the second largest economy of the
world. While US and China have some mutuality of interest in ensuring

the stability of the dollar, as otherwise China will lose heavily on
its large dollar holdings, in the period beyond the recovery the US
will be keen to sustain its preeminence as the foremost military,
economic and technological power of the world. There will be radical
changes in the US-China economic relationship so far anchored on
China
selling enormous quantities of consumer goods to US and running huge
balance of payments surpluses. Those were saved and lent back to the
US to enable American consumers to spend more.

This world order is unsustainable and is bound to change. As US
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, India is seen as one of the
key partners for the US to reshape the 21st century. The US has
agreed to sell high technology defense equipment to India while it is
not likely to sell them to China , its main rival in the coming
decades. Therefore Admiral Mehta’s reference to the innovative use of

technology by India to close the military gap with China.

Besides focusing on this core subject , the lecture also dealt with
nonstate actors, shaping our immediate neighborhood, securing our
maritime borders, internal security, intelligence ,cyber warfare,
higher defence integration and jointness among the three services,
nuclear issues , reducing dependence on other countries for
equipment,
trends in defence expenditure and adequacy of our defense outlays,
delays in our procurement procedures, governance and culture of
strategic thinking. His ideas are thought-provoking and deserve to be
objectively debated by the Indian strategic community.

In a sense this address breaks new ground. A service chief has put on
record his views on a whole host of national security issues just a
few weeks before demitting office. Many of these issues have been
under consideration for ages without solutions. In today’ security
environment these need to be debated openly in the country - to
generate public pressure for early decision-making in the Government.

Regrettably, in our Parliament national security issues do not
receive the attention they merit and therefore greater the need for informed
public debate.

Note the last para

Regrettably, in our Parliament national security issues do not receive the attention they merit and therefore greater the need for informed public debate.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 17 Aug 2009 07:28

The very same KS was extremely luke warm and inarticulate on Vishnu Som show, when it came to strategies of containing China. He almost shied away but just mumbled we have to work with international community blah blah...
( This was from a video clip of INS Arihant launch discussion). He himself was not sure what our short term or longterm strategy was ....

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 17 Aug 2009 07:33

IMO, China is very likely to start war with India because China sees Indian Military and Indian Military-Industrial complex as weak. No fault of soldiers, but Indian Military and Military-Industrial complex *are* very very weak. The blame goes PM, Ministers, MPs we has since 1985-today and people who support such leaders, but fact is that Indian Military and Military-Industrial complex are weak.

The ONLY way to avoid a war is to go for a massive strengthening of Military and Military-Industrial complex, along with nukes and creating a violent and rouge posture that "we will use nukes", that too only densely populated areas. Mao once threatened Western world or nuke attack, and it worked.

Now if goal is to improve Indian Military and Indian Military-Industrial complex , then we are on wrong track also walking in wrong direction.

---

And here is a much worse scenario : Pakistan and China may attack India at the same time. And the BDites in Asam will see that as opportunity to take Asam into BD. IOW, everything that can go wrong will go wrong on the same day.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 17 Aug 2009 07:33

Some articles on the issue of China/Tibet by Shourie, earlier in the year. Also a must read is "Are we deceiving ourselves again?".

At least some parliamentarians are fully aware!

Partial Excerpt.

Everyone seems to agree on five facts:

- Tibet’s cause is just;

- Tibetans have given no cause for offence;

- China has already reduced Tibetans to a minority, even in Lhasa. It is systematically obliterating the Tibetan culture and the identity of the Tibetan people;

- It has not succeeded as yet, but nor has it loosened its vice;

- People across the world feel intensely about this injustice and oppression, but governments are silent.

India’s policy towards Tibet has to be assessed on the touchstone: how does it address the danger that these facts pose for India?

Digging our head deeper in the sand

We must bear in mind that China has a clear view of what it wants to be — the dominant power in Asia and one of the two major powers in the world. It regards India as a potential nuisance, a nuisance that must be confined within South Asia. All its policies, including its policy of conquering and suppressing Tibet, its policy of militarising Tibet and stationing air and nuclear bases in Tibet, are part of this larger policy.
....

It is weakness that lies at the root. The rest, accepting Chinese “suzerainty” one day, “sovereignty” the next; accepting Tibet as an autonomous region within China one day and as an internal affair of China the next — these are just successive steps to “operationalise” that weakness, so to say. Unless we acquire strength comparable to that of China; unless we build up an alliance system with other countries that are concerned about Chinese intentions and might, we will be left with hope as our only policy: the hope that “ultimately truth triumphs,” that “ultimately tyrannies dissolve,” the hope that like all else “ultimately China too will evolve towards freedom and democracy.”

(Concluded)

Facing down the neighbourhood bully

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 17 Aug 2009 07:36

Can anyone get that link to the Admiral's speech to work? I can't. The commentary on it is, well... no comments. It is quite true that there is little useful discussion in the LS or RS on national security issues, beyond the usual:

Leader of Oppn: Poojya Pee Emji! U r the biggest traitor in the nation!
Spokesman for Ruling Party: NO, ! We will give BEFITTING REPLY to ANY enemy! But U R the biggest traitor in the nation!
Speaker: Order! Order! Both of u r forgetting that I AM sitting here!

When have you heard any intelligent discussion on needs for weapon systems, production capabilities, planning for the future etc?

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 17 Aug 2009 08:11

The emphasis on high technology by CNS Mehta and the explanation by K Subrahmanyam seems to indicate that they are providing the rationale to buy US arms which are perceived to higher tech than those of other vendors.

Following is from KS's article.

The US has
agreed to sell high technology defense equipment to India while it is
not likely to sell them to China , its main rival in the coming
decades. Therefore Admiral Mehta’s reference to the innovative use of

technology by India to close the military gap with China.

It is amply clear that he is linking high tech weapons to US weapon sales to India. So this speech by CNS Mehta was probably meant to create public opinion in favor of buying hi tech weaponry from the US.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 17 Aug 2009 09:26

Some background on Dan (Daniel) Twining.

1) Daniel Twining is Senior Fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF). During the Bush administration, he served as a member of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's policy planning staff, with responsibility for South Asia and regional issues in East Asia. He previously worked for over a decade for Senator John McCain, including as his Foreign Policy Advisor in the United States Senate. Dan has also been the Fulbright/Oxford Scholar at Oxford University, a Transatlantic Fellow and director of foreign policy at GMF, and a staff member of the United States Trade Representative. His work on South and East Asia and U.S. foreign policy has been published in newspapers, magazines, and peer-reviewed academic journals in the United States, Europe, and Asia.

2) He has donated $1000.00 to John McCain's campaign - according to Huffington Post.

3) He lived in Indian between 2006-2007; and also in Benin, Thaliand, Cameroon, Great Britain ithyadi.

4) List of publications: http://www.gmfus.org/template/bio_pubs.cfm?id=3307

Based on his publications and association, Dan appears to be in the camp that would like to bolster India to check-mate China. It is tough to say if he is a Neo-Con, considering his past we could put him in the hawkish camp of Unkilland. Hawkish in the sense hawks who consider Unkilland's interests. He has observed Indians and probably has an assessment of our fears and desires.

It is not that China and India do not have problems. Ambers of distrust keep glowing, but opportunistic folks could stoke them into a full blown fire. Dan also quotes C.Raja Mohan; isn't he an Unkilland camper?

We should take on Pandabhoomi or run away from Pandabhoomi based on our interests, needs and terms. We ought to get prepared, looks like we are not. Let us get armed to the teeth. Hopefully, we also exhibit some shrewd diplomacy and wisdom in befriending Pandabhoomi. Pandas might not consider us their equals, but if we continue to make progress and strengthen they will at least recognize. We should get into a war, because we want to. Not because Unkil wants to. I agree India will not initiate the war, Unkil knows that. Unkil will stoke Pandabhoomi to do that. Hopefully the land of Tsun Zu and Confucius have some wise leaders to recognize the great game. Since we can not rest on hopes, we have to get ready quickly.

This is how I am calling the siutation. Pandhabhoomi has legitimate (from their perspective) reasons (as enumerated by gurus) to initiate some kind of war. Maatrbhoomi will just wait it out. But Unkil will provide more oxygen to the glowing ambers.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 17 Aug 2009 09:32

Yes it is preparing public opinion for a closer US relationship perhaps including naval presence on Indian territory.

bala · Post by **bala** » 17 Aug 2009 10:46

With India flexing its muscle and wanting to be in the big boy's club, the situation for China is looking rather grim. Prior to the entry of India they were battling the US and USSR/Russia. The US with their munna boy UK were ganging up against the rest. China, USSR and France opposed the US. Eventually the Chinese realized that the real battle was the US vs USSR and decided to play a middle role sometimes tilting one way and sometimes the other. Now with India in the picture things are very dicey. The US loves to play mediator in any fracas it can create and the India-China rivalry is fertile ground. However with Russia - India potential for banding together they have to be doubly careful. China's rise is a destabilizing event and the game is much more complex. China finds itself dealing with 3 monsters simultaneously - US, Russia and India. India is the monkey wrench in the previous 3 player dynamics. China will do everything to thwart India joining the big boy's club. TSP is looking more like an exclusive whorehouse for the US. Some in the US want to beef up India militarily against China in the oncoming showdown. Either India benefits from the move or is badly wounded by an irate panda, wanting to burn down the bamboo forest.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 17 Aug 2009 10:52

sanjaykumar>> Sorry I mis read your post and thought IOR not India as you mentioned.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Aug 2009 11:19

csharma wrote:The emphasis on high technology by CNS Mehta and the explanation by K Subrahmanyam seems to indicate that they are providing the rationale to buy US arms which are perceived to higher tech than those of other vendors.

Following is from KS's article.

The US has
agreed to sell high technology defense equipment to India while it is
not likely to sell them to China , its main rival in the coming
decades. Therefore Admiral Mehta’s reference to the innovative use of

technology by India to close the military gap with China.
It is amply clear that he is linking high tech weapons to US weapon sales to India. So this speech by CNS Mehta was probably meant to create public opinion in favor of buying hi tech weaponry from the US.

This plan was done long back. When US went on a economic relationship with China(1980) but isolated China from western weapons; they had India and Japan in mind to keep China under check. Chinese mentality for belligerence has been studied by the US and to keep it in check they has setup few states to contain it.
India provides the large fodder for campaign across asia to keep the stability and will get western weapon system to keep the edge with the lower level asian military.

This can also explain the past 2 decades of dependence by Indian mil on foreign weapons than on the Indian developed large systems. Most of the key components have been under embargo until the nuclear deal(2006). The nuclear deal is done just in time to keep PRC under containment.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 17 Aug 2009 16:55

NRao wrote:
the Dalai Lama said it would be up to the Tibetan people to decide if there should be a reincarnation after his death.
Not His decision.

HH Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of Avlokiteshwara, the Bodhiswatta of compassion, who has deliberately not chosen Moksha because he feels it is duty to reincarnate and help humanity till such time it suffers. So despite being eligible for it as one of the leading Bodhisatwaa's he does not become Buddha.

I do not think the current Dalai Lama or his people would go against the core of their belief system.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 17 Aug 2009 17:20

Doesn't humanity need him now (or upon his passing) more than ever?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 17 Aug 2009 18:11

HH is important to the Tibetans.

Rishi · Post by **Rishi** » 17 Aug 2009 19:10

Reposting (discussed by gerad et al on 5th Aug) This article may make things clearer:

China's Hydra-Headed Hydropolitics

The Sino-Indian Divide Over Water
Brahma Chellaney

As its power grows, China seems determined to choke off Asian competitors, a tendency reflected in its hardening stance toward India. This includes aggressive patrolling of the disputed Himalayan frontier by the People's Liberation Army, many violations of the line of control separating the two giants, new assertiveness concerning India's northeastern Arunachal Pradesh state — which China claims as its own — and vituperative attacks on India in the state-controlled Chinese media.

The issues that divide India and China, however, extend beyond territorial disputes. Water is becoming a key security issue in Sino-Indian relations and a potential source of enduring discord.

...

Even though India has more arable land than China — 160.5 million hectares compared to 137.1 million hectares — Tibet is the source of most major Indian rivers. The Tibetan plateau’s vast glaciers, huge underground springs and high altitude make Tibet the world's largest freshwater repository after the polar icecaps. Indeed, all of Asia's major rivers, except the Ganges, originate in the Tibetan plateau. Even the Ganges’ two main tributaries flow in from Tibet.

But China is now pursuing major inter-basin and inter-river water transfer projects on the Tibetan plateau, which threatens to diminish international-river flows into India and other co-riparian states. Before such hydro-engineering projects sow the seeds of water conflict, China ought to build institutionalized, cooperative river-basin arrangements with downstream states.

Upstream dams, barrages, canals, and irrigation systems can help fashion water into a political weapon that can be wielded overtly in a war, or subtly in peacetime to signal dissatisfaction with a co-riparian state. Even denial of hydrological data in a critically important season can amount to the use of water as a political tool. Flash floods in recent years in two Indian frontier states — Himachal Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh — served as an ugly reminder of China’s lack of information-sharing on its upstream projects. Such leverage could in turn prompt a downstream state to build up its military capacity to help counterbalance this disadvantage.

In fact, China has been damming most international rivers flowing out of Tibet, whose fragile ecosystem is already threatened by global warming. The only rivers on which no hydro-engineering works have been undertaken so far are the Indus, whose basin falls mostly in India and Pakistan, and the Salween, which flows into Burma and Thailand. Local authorities in Yunnan province, however, are considering damming the Salween in the quake-prone upstream region.

India’s government has been pressing China for transparency, greater hydrological data-sharing, and a commitment not to redirect the natural flow of any river or diminish cross-border water flows. But even a joint expert-level mechanism — set up in 2007 merely for "interaction and cooperation" on hydrological data — has proven of little value.

The most-dangerous idea China is contemplating is the northward rerouting of the Brahmaputra river, known as Yarlung Tsangpo to Tibetans, but which China has renamed Yaluzangbu. It is the world's highest river, and also one of the fastest-flowing. Diversion of the Brahmaputra's water to the parched Yellow river is an idea that China does not discuss in public, because the project implies environmental devastation of India's northeastern plains and eastern Bangladesh, and would thus be akin to a declaration of water war on India and Bangladesh.

Nevertheless, an officially blessed book published in 2005, Tibet’s Waters Will Save China, openly championed the northward rerouting of the Brahmaputra. Moreover, the Chinese desire to divert the Brahmaputra by employing "peaceful nuclear explosions" to build an underground tunnel through the Himalayas found expression in the international negotiations in Geneva in the mid-1990s on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). China sought unsuccessfully to exempt PNEs from the CTBT, a pact still not in force.

The issue now is not whether China will reroute the Brahmaputra, but when. Once authorities complete their feasibility studies and the diversion scheme begins, the project will be presented as a fait accompli. China already has identified the bend where the Brahmaputra forms the world’s longest and deepest canyon — just before entering India — as the diversion point.

China's ambitions to channel Tibetan waters northward have been whetted by two factors: the completion of the Three Gorges Dam, which, despite the project's glaring environmental pitfalls, China trumpets as the greatest engineering feat since the construction of the Great Wall; and the power of President Hu Jintao, whose background fuses two key elements — water and Tibet. Hu, a hydrologist by training, owes his swift rise in the Communist Party hierarchy to the brutal martial-law crackdown he carried out in Tibet in 1989.
...

Rishi · Post by **Rishi** » 17 Aug 2009 19:26

http://thesnowlionblog.blogspot.com/200 ... flict.html

"The Chinese refer to this project as the South-North water diversion which got its start some time in 1989. Delegates produced 16 proposals supporting the project in 1999. An official survey covered 13,600km and calculated that 600B m3 per year of the Brahmaputra waters were being wasted in Tibet.in 1999 Jiang Zemin announced the "xibu da kaifa" (Great Western Extraction) that would transfer huge volumes of water from Tibet into the Yellow River."

"It was now fully supported by 118 generals, and the Politburo. It inspired Li Ling's book How Tibet's Water Will Save China, detailing Guo Kai's "Shuo-tian" (reverse flow) canal as the solution to chronic water shortages in China's dry north and northwest. Li Guoying director, Yellow River Water Conservancy Committee said "the project was essential because the Yellow River's current flow is being exhausted by development demands in western China."

"In November 2005, a strategy manual named "Save China Through Water From Tibet" adopted by the PLA, detailed relevant ministries and directorates. By the end of 2005 the China Hydropower Engineering Consulting Group began analysing hydro potential on specific sectors of the Yalung Tsangpo region. In February 2006 the detailed planning for the "Tsangpo Project" was approved by the State Council with the full support of Hu Jintao. The Chief planner is Professor Chen Chuanyu. In June 2006, further studies concluded that the potential of the lower reaches of the Yalung Tsangpo.August 2006: Li Guoying, director, Yellow River Water Conservancy Committee."

"the (Yalung) project was essential because the Yellow River's current flow is being exhausted by development demands in western China ?The route isn't especially long, but it's technologically challenging, and it's a matter of resolving the engineering and environmental questions. This project will be launched once the economic and social development of the NW reaches a certain level and the potential of water saving measures is exhausted. The Western Route is a firm plan and will go ahead ... CCP's leaders and nearly all engineers, claim the W Route will fulfil promise to use the rising economic and technological might of the project to lift the less developed west."

"Hydro projects now in the planning stages include the Tsangpo Project as one of eight in Nyingchi. In October 2006, Beijing denied any support or approval for the "Tsangpo Project" but referred to Tibet as "an inexhaustible source of water". In October, 2007: General Zhao Nanqi said, "Even if we do not begin this water diversion project, the next generation will. Sooner or later it will be done".

"Construction was already scheduled to commence 2010 as part of the 100B Yuan Tibet capital works program. Discussion and on ground work has been ratcheted up since early 2003 with reports of intensive activity in the main gorge that Beijing claims to be mineral exploration."

"Google Earth viewers will find this area blanked out by China. "It is the largest river on the Tibetan plateau, originating from a glacier near Mt. Kailash. It is considered to be the highest river on earth with an average altitude of 4,000 meters."

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 17 Aug 2009 19:29

Rishi wrote:Reposting (discussed by gerad et al on 5th Aug) This article may make things clearer:

China's Hydra-Headed Hydropolitics

The Sino-Indian Divide Over Water
Brahma Chellaney

As its power grows, China seems determined to choke off Asian competitors, a tendency reflected in its hardening stance toward India. This includes aggressive patrolling of the disputed Himalayan frontier by the People's Liberation Army, many violations of the line of control separating the two giants, new assertiveness concerning India's northeastern Arunachal Pradesh state — which China claims as its own — and vituperative attacks on India in the state-controlled Chinese media.

The issues that divide India and China, however, extend beyond territorial disputes. Water is becoming a key security issue in Sino-Indian relations and a potential source of enduring discord.

...

Even though India has more arable land than China — 160.5 million hectares compared to 137.1 million hectares — Tibet is the source of most major Indian rivers. The Tibetan plateau’s vast glaciers, huge underground springs and high altitude make Tibet the world's largest freshwater repository after the polar icecaps. Indeed, all of Asia's major rivers, except the Ganges, originate in the Tibetan plateau. Even the Ganges’ two main tributaries flow in from Tibet.

But China is now pursuing major inter-basin and inter-river water transfer projects on the Tibetan plateau, which threatens to diminish international-river flows into India and other co-riparian states. Before such hydro-engineering projects sow the seeds of water conflict, China ought to build institutionalized, cooperative river-basin arrangements with downstream states.

Upstream dams, barrages, canals, and irrigation systems can help fashion water into a political weapon that can be wielded overtly in a war, or subtly in peacetime to signal dissatisfaction with a co-riparian state. Even denial of hydrological data in a critically important season can amount to the use of water as a political tool. Flash floods in recent years in two Indian frontier states — Himachal Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh — served as an ugly reminder of China’s lack of information-sharing on its upstream projects. Such leverage could in turn prompt a downstream state to build up its military capacity to help counterbalance this disadvantage.

In fact, China has been damming most international rivers flowing out of Tibet, whose fragile ecosystem is already threatened by global warming. The only rivers on which no hydro-engineering works have been undertaken so far are the Indus, whose basin falls mostly in India and Pakistan, and the Salween, which flows into Burma and Thailand. Local authorities in Yunnan province, however, are considering damming the Salween in the quake-prone upstream region.

India’s government has been pressing China for transparency, greater hydrological data-sharing, and a commitment not to redirect the natural flow of any river or diminish cross-border water flows. But even a joint expert-level mechanism — set up in 2007 merely for "interaction and cooperation" on hydrological data — has proven of little value.

The most-dangerous idea China is contemplating is the northward rerouting of the Brahmaputra river, known as Yarlung Tsangpo to Tibetans, but which China has renamed Yaluzangbu. It is the world's highest river, and also one of the fastest-flowing. Diversion of the Brahmaputra's water to the parched Yellow river is an idea that China does not discuss in public, because the project implies environmental devastation of India's northeastern plains and eastern Bangladesh, and would thus be akin to a declaration of water war on India and Bangladesh.

Nevertheless, an officially blessed book published in 2005, Tibet’s Waters Will Save China, openly championed the northward rerouting of the Brahmaputra. Moreover, the Chinese desire to divert the Brahmaputra by employing "peaceful nuclear explosions" to build an underground tunnel through the Himalayas found expression in the international negotiations in Geneva in the mid-1990s on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). China sought unsuccessfully to exempt PNEs from the CTBT, a pact still not in force.

The issue now is not whether China will reroute the Brahmaputra, but when. Once authorities complete their feasibility studies and the diversion scheme begins, the project will be presented as a fait accompli. China already has identified the bend where the Brahmaputra forms the world’s longest and deepest canyon — just before entering India — as the diversion point.

China's ambitions to channel Tibetan waters northward have been whetted by two factors: the completion of the Three Gorges Dam, which, despite the project's glaring environmental pitfalls, China trumpets as the greatest engineering feat since the construction of the Great Wall; and the power of President Hu Jintao, whose background fuses two key elements — water and Tibet. Hu, a hydrologist by training, owes his swift rise in the Communist Party hierarchy to the brutal martial-law crackdown he carried out in Tibet in 1989.
...

the project got discussed when my father was till a M-school student.

the discussion of the projects has lasted at least 4 decades and will last on..

before we retire, it is not feasible to start the project.

negi · Post by **negi** » 17 Aug 2009 20:03

I believe any re-routing of river/river system by an upper-riparian nation which adversely affects the downstream riparian nation is illegal as per International water law . PRC of course reserves rights to build dams or even water reservoirs as long as it does take Indian concerns into consideration.

Any development of hostility over water between PRC and India is in no one's interest and I am afraid PRC leadership is pushing the threshold every passing day. Btw what are the chances of some Tibetian freedom fighter or an Uighur separatist walking into the dam with a rucksack of cordite/rdx ?

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 17 Aug 2009 20:04

before we retire, it is not feasible to start the project.

Agreed, but even if it was feasible, do you think it would be a good thing to do?

Rishi · Post by **Rishi** » 17 Aug 2009 20:12

negi wrote:I believe any re-routing of river/river system by an upper-riparian nation which adversely affects the downstream riparian nation is illegal as per International water law . PRC of course reserves rights to build dams or even water reservoirs as long as it does take Indian concerns into consideration.

Since when has China ever upheld any international laws or treaties?

Those are just to buy time. Chipkali bahut harami hai...

Any development of hostility over water between PRC and India is in no one's interest and I am afraid PRC leadership is pushing the threshold every passing day. Btw what are the chances of some Tibetian freedom fighter or an Uighur separatist walking into the dam with a rucksack of cordite/rdx ?

I think someone like that would have to be 400% Paki onlee. Itne se kuch nahi hoga.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 17 Aug 2009 22:35

I believe any re-routing of river/river system by an upper-riparian nation which adversely affects the downstream riparian nation is illegal as per International water law . PRC of course reserves rights to build dams or even water reservoirs as long as it does take Indian concerns into consideration

More than India, it is a Bangladeshi concern.

Let's see how China handles this.

Bangladesh will be up a gum tree!!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 18 Aug 2009 00:52

Rishi wrote: Chipkali bahut harami hai...

rishi, at least give a warning or something.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 18 Aug 2009 01:34

Reposting (discussed by gerad et al on 5th Aug) This article may make things clearer:
China's Hydra-Headed Hydropolitics

As was pointed out then, you need to look at the entire drainage basin.

The source of the Nile lies in Uganda but if you go block that stream, lower Egypt will not dry up.

Similarly, with most of the drainage basins lying outside Chinese control, they can only reduce the flow. As RayC pointed out, the lower-lower riparians have the problem (Bangladesh/Pakistan).

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 18 Aug 2009 09:19

I agree with the very logical observations of Narayanan. I wish India's leaders will read his posts. If the Chinese could cross 5000 m mountains to defeat India in AP nearly half-a-century ago, the mountains are not going to stop them.

I believe that the main reason that they have not attacked India in recent years has been the US. The US is unlikely to 'allow' China to defeat India and become the pre-eminent power in Asia. This was definitely true (in my opinion) under George Bush but maybe less so under Obama. (Obama's policies seem unclear in this regard.)

Let us not forget that the West has used a (relatively minor incident - Tienamen) to stop military sales to China for 20 years. At the same time they are expanding military sales to India. The US is looking the other way while Russia helps India with the ATV and is going to lease nuclear subs. Each time the West refers to India as the 'world's largest democracy' - that is meant to snub China (the intent is not to praise India). I am sure the Chinese hate this phrase every time the leaders around the world use it!

So I believe that during G Bush's 8 years, India should have rapidly expanded its military forces facing China. But India did not. India had 10 mountain divisions 40 years ago. India still has the same 10! Now there are plans for 2 more.

The recent Chinese hardline towards India may coinicide with India's belated moves to re-open air bases, 2 new divisions, ATV, lease Russian subs etc. This may also coincide with the departure of G Bush and importantly the arrival of Barak Obama - who has seems to have a desire - paraphrasing - to re-define the world order in his personal style. He is 'unconventional' in his thinking and does not appear pro-India.

Are the Chinese testing B Obama's responses as they ratchet up pressure on India? If they decide that the US will not vigorously react to a Chinese invasion, the worst fears might come true - namely a Chinese invasion. Then all India can do is to stop them (like the Vietnamese did 3 decades ago). The Indian navy will have no role - except to prevent Pak from entering the fray -with the threat of a debilitating blockade. The political price will be very high for China, but then the political gain of humiliating a rising India for another 50 years may be tempting to the Chinese.

I think, a visit to India by B Obama early in his first tenure will be a clear signal (warning) to China to leave India alone! Simultaneously if Inda re-arms rapidly, then China would have missed a chance to 'teach India a lesson' for a long time!

Raj

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Aug 2009 09:56

Let me start with an off topic post.

In a program on TV Arnab Goswami had Marshal of the AF Arjan Singh a couple of days ago. Arjan Singh also pointed out that India has fallen behind in keeping its forces up to date. So I agree that the Indian Government needs to wake up sooner.

I spent some time trying to find out information about this "diversion of Brahmaputra" issue.

The Brahmaputra river fows East through Tibet until it reaches the area North of Arunachal Pradesh, where it takes a bend (called the great bend or Yarlung Tsangpo) and flows into India. The canyons here are said to be the deepest in the world

It is very difficult to actually follow this on Haraam Google, but I did find it and got what appears to be a fairly dramatic image of the elevation of the river versus elevation of the surrounding mountains and the distances. Here it is:

In order to take water from here to the Yangtze - water will have to be tunneled through the mountains for a distance of several hundred Km. Apparently this is not feasible using conventional methods but apparently some Chinese engrs have said it is possible using nuclear bombs.
So that sets up an interesting situation for the entire world.

There will be no way in which anyone can distinguish Chinese "Peacefur Nucreal exprosions to divelt watel" from resumed nuclear testing.

As Gerard pointed out above re sources - note multiple rivulets feeding the river with snow melt from above. Here is an overview of the same area shown above showing the relaionship between India and the Yarlung Tsangpo

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 18 Aug 2009 10:00

rajrang wrote:I believe that the main reason that they have not attacked India in recent years has been the US. The US is unlikely to 'allow' China to defeat India and become the pre-eminent power in Asia. ......Let us not forget that the West has used a (relatively minor incident - Tienamen) to stop military sales to China for 20 years. At the same time they are expanding military sales to India. The US is looking the other way while Russia helps India with the ATV and is going to lease nuclear subs.

Rajji,
with all due respects, it is not the job of the US to look after India's interests or to protect. That is the function of India's elected leaders. US is happy to look after its own interests all the time. US may not want India to be defeated completely, but in its wisdom may want India to be cut to size. It may decide it is ok if China gets "South Tibet" and the NE. This will make the rest of India more controllable and anti-China and pro-US. Remember all US allies have been betrayed in the end. Pakistan is an example. For a country of this size it is up to India to protect India's borders, no one else will do it.
Gautam