Could China and India go to war over Tibet?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Aug 2009 10:10

g.sarkar wrote: For a country of this size it is up to India to protect India's borders, no one else will do it.
Gautam

Interestingly I find on BRF that a lot of people when wrestling with geopolitical equations find that the "results" of conflicts are highly unpredictable depending on how much strength, resolve and capability is assigned to India. So most equations are simplified to assign the following strengths to various actors

1) US: Unlimited will and capability
2) India: Zero will and negligible capability
3) China: China is increasingly being assigned unlimited capability vis a vis India, but not versus the US.

Given these values - the results of any stand off in a game are predictable.

The difficulty is to assign variable values to all three and then see how things shape up.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 18 Aug 2009 10:17

Shiv saar. I posted the following but there was not much enthus in the diagram. But this what you are alluding to I think. (its not complete with out notes that I need to finish up).

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 18 Aug 2009 10:43

The passing away of Dalai Lama will be a big turning point for Tibetan liberation. It is very difficult to visualize a child (who inherits the Dalai Lama title) being able to serve as a figurehead mobilizing international opinion for the Tibetan cause as Dalai Lama has, over the course of almost half a century. So no matter what the nationality of that child is, the Tibetan cause will suffer.

But let's leave that aside for a moment. Karmapa Lama is an adult. He is among the top three lamas, and was supposedly pro-China. He escaped to India. What happened? Nothing. Why would next time be any different?

Bharat Rakshak has already devoted several threads to answering questions just like the one motivating this whole thread. What makes the Chinese tick? What make them see red? What issue would cause them to seek armed conflict with an adversary as big and unpredictable as India? After Kargil, why would anyone expect any loss of Indian territory to result in anything but a full blooded Indian assault, supported by the full weight of Indian opinion?

Indian elites would let it go? Really? Let's see. A group of Indians with advanced degrees. Many if not most operating with the detachment that comes from residing on the other side of the globe from the source of these problems. Sufficient resources to invest in broadband access. Sufficient financial security to spend time (not waste time, no way) pondering weighty matters of war and peace. They cannot be called an elite, no sir. Indian elites would behave very differently from such a group. They do not spend time here. That's why they are the elite. And of course, they would sell India away.

So what's the volume of trade transacted through Nathu La in the last month?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Aug 2009 10:53

The Chinese withdrew from NEFA in 1962 was not because of any high morality, but because it was a tactical necessity. Since there were no roads (Lines of Communication in military parlance), it impeded logistics support and moving up of artillery pieces, which are essential to support operations.

In contrast, the Chinese continue to hold on to the territories that they captured opposite Ladakh. This is because maintenance is not problematic and the guns having moved forward can support future operations.

Now that the lines of communication have improved in the Eastern sector, they are adopting an aggressive stance. The Tibetan railway has also boosted China mobilisation capabilities since it is believed that 12 trains can be sustained on these tracks per day. In 1962 and till the Tibetan railway came into being, China’s mobilisation profile was not adequate to maintain large scale operations.

Notwithstanding, China’s better mobilisation profile and stocking of war materiel and rations, in a conventional war, she cannot do a 1962. In 1962, the Chinese tactics was basically attack by infiltration. The IA troops, not being familiar with the Chinese modus operandi, were under the impression of being isolated and hence would be without support. Further, the total confusion of the political heads added to a lack of military direction. Much has changed since those days and the Indian Army is, in letter and spirit, capable of repulsing any Chinese overtures, big or small.

To sustain an operation, lines of communication are essential so that logistics and artillery can come forward and support the operation as it progresses. The lines of communication on the Indian side have been carefully progressed, wherein it is advantageous to India, but not to the Chinese in case they plan to invade. Therefore, it would be an alarmist thought that China can do a 1962. If they could, then they would have done it long ago.

Crossing 5000m heights or mountains is not problematic for any Army. But to capture such heights, when held, is a herculean problem and more so maintain such captured area if there is no lines of communications from the side of invader. In such a case, roads and tracks will have to be constructed and that takes time and effort even if the engineers and plant are catered for in the plans. Mountains or High Altitude favours the defender. Hence, in mountain warfare, one just cannot clamber on to mountain tops, and instead have to so plan the battle that lines of communications are available or can be constructed with least problem.

There is much discussion about the Chinese Airborne Corps. Paratroopers can operate behind enemy lines, but they have to have a link up to undertake sustained operations. Thus, one of the primary tasks for the Chinese airborne would be to capture an airfield and have an airhead so that air-landed operations can commence and sustenance is feasible. The issue is, such operation has to overcome the IAF gauntlet and the IAF is capable of thwarting such ingress. The PLAAF would be operating from High Altitude airfields of Tibet, while the IAF would be operating from the plains and hence would have the advantage of payloads.

The Chinese has also two distinct disadvantages – the unrest in Xingjian and Tibet. These people will act as great impediments to any Chinese misadventure against India.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 18 Aug 2009 11:02

thanks for obliging Yogi saar

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Aug 2009 11:12

Qing Zang Tie Lu (Tibetan Railway)

An issue that would be of immense importance in any war with China is that there are about 30 kilometers of tunnels and 286 bridges!

The 800 north most kilometers have nearly no inhabitants.

594 km are in Qinghai, 548km in Tibet.

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

RayC wrote

The Chinese has also two distinct disadvantages – the unrest in Xingjian and Tibet. These people will act as great impediments to any Chinese misadventure against India.

Iam not a strategist or a arm chair jernail. But here is my thought for whatever it is worth. India should actively cultivate links within Tibet (if it has not already) , so that such resources could be gainfully employed to disrupt chinese troop movement. As Pakis would say, a strategic asset.
Ofcourse china could do the same thing, but Indian security forces are pretty much accustomed to insurgency and the Jernails and Babus might have factored in the insurgency Issue in India (especially the red variety) in their planning hopefully. China on the other hand does not have such an experience, the insurgency should explode in such a way that atleast 100 to 150 thousand troops are committed to fight that in Tibet. Then they will wet their pants on the sight of an Indian soldier.
If they are not able to capture any territory then it will be a defeat for them. A draw is not what they want, but a draw is enough for us to gain our self confidence back. ofcourse it should not be limited to that if enough possibilities for a win exists. China will lose face in Asia. It will be tied in managing internal rebellions for a long time.

PS: When I say self confidence , it is with respect to China and the unfortunate 62 war. A draw or win for us will boost the national confidence to a very large extent

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Aug 2009 11:20

Issues involving trade through Nathu La

http://sikkimindustries.nic.in/report%2 ... 0trade.pdf

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Aug 2009 11:24

rkirankr wrote:India should actively cultivate links within Tibet (if it has not already) , so that such resources could be gainfully employed to disrupt chinese troop movement.

There was a lot of bad blood between the Shia of Iraq and President George Herbert Bush and the First Gulf War. The Americans encouraged the Shia to rise up against Saddam and then called it quits and let Saddam off the hook. Later on Saddam brought even more misery on the Shia.

If India wants to use the services of the Tibetans in Tibet to undermine the Chinese there, then the sole purpose of that help cannot be to contain China from conquering Indian territory alone. If we want their services, then we have to go the whole hog and get the Tibetans their freedom from Chinese rule. Is India willing to do that?

Tibetans should not be used for cannon-fodder!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Aug 2009 11:56

China knows better than to engage India in a full scale conventional war in the Himalayas.India is not he India of '62,which thanks to the Chinese allowed us to build up our meagre forces enabling us to deal with Pak in '65.In any future conflict with China,India would not hesitate to use its air force to defend its territory.The precedent is Kargil,thanks to Pak this time!

However,this is not to say that China will not use every means to try and destabilise India,preventing it from overtaking it as Asia's preferred country.It will use internal subversion,Naxalites and terrorists operating via out neighbours,in concert with Pak,to keep us off balance.There will also be attempts to "nibble" away at Indian territory,which if ill-defended,will allow China to legitimise its illegal occupation of Indian territory and Tibet too,as it is trying to do using the AP gambit.India should be firthright and tell China that unless it withdraws from occupied Indian soil and restores peace to Tibet,there can be NO meaningful friendship with India which will treat it as an enemy.India can use three cards now,Tibet,Taiwan and Xinjiang.To unsettle China,we should immediately send a high profile "poltiical and economic "(defence) team to Taiwan,support the Uighars in their efforts at freedom and begin training and building up a Tibetan army-in-exile which will launch a freedom struggle once the Dalai Lama departs to his heavenly abode.A million armed Tibetans will be able to give China a headache of monumental proportions.

But with Subedar "Surrender Singh" at the helm of affairs,"what China wollly for"!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Aug 2009 12:00

rkirankr is spot on!

There are many well meaning people who feel that we should capture POK, made a road through it and link up with CAR etc.

This is true if one just plans or imagines off the map. However, those who have been to these heights be it as tourists or as soldiers would realise that it is easier said than done.

While I am no fan of the Chinese, but Sun Tsu’s sayings –

1. All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.
2. Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat
3. The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

War is too expensive a hobby for a developing nation. The ideal example is how Pakistan is keeping India on its toes. Not only have they created issues in Kashmir, they have created chaos within hinterland India and has divided the Indian polity where they are more concerned in attacking each other than work in concert for the good of the nation. Today, an issue that can make no difference to India’s good is the talking point – Jinnah!

Therefore, to take on both Pakistan and China and retard their progress or divide them, it is important that instead of going to war, divide their people and encourage the sub nationalism that exists within their nations!

Xinjiang and Tibet are two ideal plums that will fall from the tree. China is more vulnerable than Pakistan to sub nationalism. Han Chinese, being historically ‘blessed’ with Han cultural arrogance cannot accept that in China there can be anything that is non Han.
Han Chinese Culturalism

The Han Chinese has historically demeaned non Hans and has forced them to change to Han Culture. The deliberate and systematic attempt to destroy Tibetan and Uighur culture, traditions, language and religion is another example of this arrogance. However, these people are not living in ancient times. They are aware of their distinctiveness and the modern world has brought education and awareness to all. Therefore, instead of being wimpish as is our Indian political thought, one should not hesitate to encourage such sub nationalism, as they have done to us.

Unlike China, where they want to clone all as Hans, India encourages singularity of the peoples of India. The only problem of India is that there are some arrogant communities, which feel that they are more Indians than others and this causes the problems. I saw a programme yesterday where a NE lady felt out of place in Delhi and where she felt that she was not taken as an Indian. Like it or not, it is a truism. Further, what irritates people from elsewhere in Delhi is the penchant of the locals to make a quick buck and fool the people (though there are good people too!). Too much of the refugee culture as one of my Sikh friend told me!

Therefore, to make us immune to Chinese overtures in the NE we must improve the NE and make it a thriving place beyond the realms of petty politicking!

Therefore, instead of talking of war, we should encourage sub-nationalism in China and Pakistan. It will be cheaper and more effective!!

Pakistan is already crumbling with Balochistan Liberation, Balwaristan, Jiyo Sindh, MQM, Serakai, Paktoonistan etc. Go for it!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Aug 2009 12:10

Just for those well-meaning people, who think that POK can be captured or 5000m scaled and won by the Chinese and India crumbles like dried biscuits, they should take into account that if building lines of communication (roads) were that easy, we surely would have a second NH1A linking Zoji La to Leh.

It is under construction. Why is it taking so long?

I can assure all that there can be no better and dedicated organisation as the GREF!

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 18 Aug 2009 12:31

RajeshA wrote:
rkirankr wrote:India should actively cultivate links within Tibet (if it has not already) , so that such resources could be gainfully employed to disrupt chinese troop movement.
There was a lot of bad blood between the Shia of Iraq and President George Herbert Bush and the First Gulf War. The Americans encouraged the Shia to rise up against Saddam and then called it quits and let Saddam off the hook. Later on Saddam brought even more misery on the Shia.

If India wants to use the services of the Tibetans in Tibet to undermine the Chinese there, then the sole purpose of that help cannot be to contain China from conquering Indian territory alone. If we want their services, then we have to go the whole hog and get the Tibetans their freedom from Chinese rule. Is India willing to do that?

Tibetans should not be used for cannon-fodder!

Noble thoughts and Ideal thoughts but not practical. China is no Pakistan and Tibet is no Bangladesh. Secondly we cannot burn our own house to provide light and warmth to entire town. Yes we have to go the whole hog, but are we confident of doing it? What is the cost to that? Is the public so much committed to Tibet's Independence.
Also in this issue we should have two goals long term and short term. Let us face it , the only way China is going to give up Tibet is when it starts collapsing under its own weight.
We have to aid forces to generate lot of deep cracks in its pillars for it to collapse. We cannot be the force who will destroy that pillar. At the moment our duty is the defence of mother land and we have to use all means to defend it. Remember a defeat to India will set back Tibet's Independence dreams by another 100 years. A draw or victory in the next war will definitely give a boost to Tibetian Independence movement

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Aug 2009 14:03

I very much agree that we should be supporting Tibetans as much as possible, most notably by giving military training. In fact I would suggest that India should provide directly or indirectly military training to every able Tibetan man and woman. Give them the military and language training and send them back to Tibet to sleep. This training can be provided in India by smuggling the Tibetans here for 6-12 months, or trained Trainers can do it in Tibet itself.

Secondly I am in favor of pushing arms and equipment into Tibet. The smuggling can be done through India, Nepal, Myanmar, Mongolia, Kirghizstan, Tajikistan, etc. These arms can be used for training but basically they should be stashed away safely.

The trained Tibetans should form themselves into compact units and train together. These units should look into chain of command and division of responsibility. Each unit should train their back-stories and alibis if the Chinese should wish to pry information from them. There also has to be sturdy communication mechanisms and protocols between Indian Army and the Tibetan Resistance.

One could put up a Tibetan Resistance together of around half a million men and women.

rkirankr ji,

My basic point was that we should not raise Tibetan expectations and then dash them. That is not good for trust. This Tibetan Resistance should be used for insurgency, propaganda and covert operations. However I am not in favor of the whole Tibetan Resistance to blow their cover, when the Indian Army needs to defend ourselves from Chinese aggression.

The Tibetan Resistance should be fully mobilized at a time of war between India and China only if India decides to take on the Chinese and drive them off the Tibetan plateau. It doesn't help us, if the Tibetans are subjected to a full Chinese retaliation for their indiscretion of helping Indian Army, and Indian Army adopts a hands-off attitude content with having pushed back the Chinese from Indian land. That would not be acceptable.

kumarn · Post by **kumarn** » 18 Aug 2009 14:14

I have a question: Let's say India and China trade places. China holds the macmohan line all the way to akshai chin with 10 mountain divisions(or whatever India has currently) and India sitting in Tibet wants to attack and take over arunachal pradesh (south tibet, if you will), how many troops will India require to accomplish that?

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 18 Aug 2009 14:30

RajeshA wrote:rkirankr ji,

My basic point was that we should not raise Tibetan expectations and then dash them. That is not good for trust. This Tibetan Resistance should be used for insurgency, propaganda and covert operations. However I am not in favor of the whole Tibetan Resistance to blow their cover, when the Indian Army needs to defend ourselves from Chinese aggression.

The Tibetan Resistance should be fully mobilized at a time of war between India and China only if India decides to take on the Chinese and drive them off the Tibetan plateau. It doesn't help us, if the Tibetans are subjected to a full Chinese retaliation for their indiscretion of helping Indian Army, and Indian Army adopts a hands-off attitude content with having pushed back the Chinese from Indian land. That would not be acceptable.

Yes agreed, Iam not saying we should be ditching them, but we should activate them when we are under attack. See if the Chinese are defeated , then definitely that would give a boost to the insurgency more and definitely Indian Intelligence would not give up what is gained. What I see is now two goals
1. Defeat of Chinese in the next war with India
2. Liberation of Tibet

2 might not happen without 1 at the moment. To achieve 1 we should use the resources striving for 2.
If there is a spectacular defeat of China then I bet many will raise their heads against the Hans. All we have to do is pick and chose whom we want to see as an Independent country. Definitely Tibet will be the number one on the list.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Aug 2009 15:31

kumarn wrote:I have a question: Let's say India and China trade places. China holds the macmohan line all the way to akshai chin with 10 mountain divisions(or whatever India has currently) and India sitting in Tibet wants to attack and take over arunachal pradesh (south tibet, if you will), how many troops will India require to accomplish that?

It is not the number of troops required to take it over. Any random number you pull out of a hat - say 250,000, might be enough. The problem is holding on to it. With supplies coming over 5000 meter mountains and a single railway line the requirement of feeding those troops, keeping them armed and keeping equipment fueled is the problem.

AFACT any army that moves any number of troops (eg: 2 troops, 200,000 troops) beyond a point at which they can be supplied loses those troops.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Aug 2009 15:37

RajeshA wrote: If India wants to use the services of the Tibetans in Tibet to undermine the Chinese there, then the sole purpose of that help cannot be to contain China from conquering Indian territory alone. If we want their services, then we have to go the whole hog and get the Tibetans their freedom from Chinese rule. Is India willing to do that?

Tibetans should not be used for cannon-fodder!

Rajesh, India has a huge population of Tibetan refugees living in India. I came face to face with this every day because my hospital has an agreement with the local Tibetan Buddhist organization to provide subsidized treatment for the young men in the school there. 100 percent of patients are young, strapping men in orange robes.

One of China headaches is this body of Tibetans living in India. I am certain there are mountain routes into Tibet into which people can go and come undercover. I know the existence of such routes for a fact so it is not unlikely that India has some human assets in Tibet. Uighurs - don't know.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Aug 2009 16:02

narayanan wrote:
Hello jingos-e-DOOs: This calls 4 action onlee.

Can u pls become Google Users and go on expeditions to Northern Arunachal Pradesh (wrongly marked as "Tibet" in Google) and put markers at the various Holy Places of yindoo lore? Show the temples, the idols, the pictures from legend. Pls learn from the Northern Neighbors that pictures can b placed anywhere that you can place pictures.

This is carred Caltoglaphic Squatting (CS). I don't c y v can't b as good at that as our deal fliends the rizalds r. V bt the Mao pajamas off them in the See Enn Enn Totally Honest Polls, hey? Where is abhishekcc, our resident Augmented Democracy Expert, I wonder?

Today I made a classic discovery of how right Narayanan is about "Cartographic squatting". I was looking at Haraam Google for Nathu La and found a seies pf pictures on the India side posted by Indian names of a bleak, barren area above the tree line. Five kilometers away - and even higher in the mountains on the Chinese side is a photograph that says "Nathu La form the Chinese side" And guess what it shows - a beautiful valley with grass and trees and distant snowcapped mountains.

Here - see for youlserf

This is a game that two can play. I need some mountain pics any of you guys have taken to mark mount Gopalankutty 5 km South of Lhasa in North Arunachal Pradesh.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Aug 2009 16:34

Khampa rebels

Fates Worse than Death:The Role Playing Game

Khampa 1950

This should indicate what can be done.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 18 Aug 2009 16:40

a beautiful valley with grass and trees and distant snowcapped mountains.

Yes, but another feature is needed. Look on Haraam Google. Everything in Northern Arunachal, Greater Jammu etc. is labeled "Tibet", "Xinjiang" etc. WITH NAMES IN MANDALIN. Now I don't know what bloody right the K. Hans have in these parts of the world. Their homeland is strictly east of the Yamunottari river (which they mangle into "Yangtse") and south of the Gopinath desert bordering the nation of Mangalya.

er.... how come there aren't any Sanskrit/ Hindi, or more properly, Malayalam and Tamil names there? Can't this be changed - with all these gazillions DOO jingos here? Hellooooooo!!!! All the Buddhist shrines in north Arunachal should be named in the proper Sinhalese script.

(shiv, I hiyar u... check email in a din or so).

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Aug 2009 16:47

Bidding process for Trans-Arunachal highway complete
Monday, 17 Aug, 2009

The technical and financial bidding for a 718 km stretch of the Rs 5,500 crore Trans-Arunachal highway to be constructed by the Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has been completed.

Out of the total length of the 1,559 km two-lane proposed highway from Tawang in the western part of Arunachal Pradesh to Kanubari in the east, the PWD is expected to construct the 418 km stretch for which DPRs were under preparation.

The remaining, Tawang-Nechipu and Pasighat-Mahadevpur sections are being developed by the Border Road Organisation.

The highway will run through the middle of the border state touching 11 of the existing district headquarters. The remaining five districts including Itanagar will be connected with the Trans-Arunachal Highway with links involving construction of another 848 km of two way roads. The projects are expected to be completed in five years.

Meanwhile, the Itanagar green field airport project is under process for sanction. Forest clearance for the land earmarked has already been given and environmental impact assessment is complete.

Projects Today

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 18 Aug 2009 16:52

India steps up defence along Arunachal border

The Indian Air Force has dispatched four Sukhoi Su-30MIK combat aircrafts to its base in Tezpur and pans to increase this to squadron strength of 18.

''India will now deploy two army divisions of around 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers each along its boundary with China in Arunachal Pradesh,'' said General J J Singh, governor of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh and former chief of army staff, during his recent visit to Delhi.

Simultaneously, it has accelerated work on construction of 27 link roads totalling 804 km in five States including Arunachal Pradesh, at an estimated cost of Rs 1937 crore.

The targeted date of completion of the roads in the States AP, Sikkim, Jammu and Kashmir, Uttrakhand and Himachal Pradesh is 2013.......................

Action in Hand

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Aug 2009 17:49

Along with freedom for Tibet,so should the task of independence for democratic Taiwan be pursued.For all practical purposes Taiwan is independent,but hasn't yet obtained international recognition as most nations are afraid of antagonising China.There is no harm whatsoever in India pursuing good relations with Taiwan in every sphere,just as China has an excellent relationship with Pak! Taiwan should become India's all-weather friend to counter Pak as well as rewarding the Taiwanese for their committment to democracy,unlike the PRC.We can easily ramp up relations with Taiwan just below full recognition as a warning to China.China wants to scare Taiwan into falling into its trap one day,without having to go to war with it.Any military move against Taiwan will earn it the reputation of an international warmongering pariah and it will suffer economically with sanctions from the west.Remember what happened with the Tian-Men massacre earlier.

No one can censure India from developing good unofficial relations with Taiwan.We could tell the Chines if they squeal in protest that we are working towards the future democratic unification of the two Chinas! That should send a bamboo stick up the nether end of the fossils of Zhongnanhai!

ashi · Post by **ashi** » 18 Aug 2009 21:23

Philip wrote:Along with freedom for Tibet,so should the task of independence for democratic Taiwan be pursued.For all practical purposes Taiwan is independent,but hasn't yet obtained international recognition as most nations are afraid of antagonising China.There is no harm whatsoever in India pursuing good relations with Taiwan in every sphere,just as China has an excellent relationship with Pak! Taiwan should become India's all-weather friend to counter Pak as well as rewarding the Taiwanese for their committment to democracy,unlike the PRC.We can easily ramp up relations with Taiwan just below full recognition as a warning to China.China wants to scare Taiwan into falling into its trap one day,without having to go to war with it.Any military move against Taiwan will earn it the reputation of an international warmongering pariah and it will suffer economically with sanctions from the west.Remember what happened with the Tian-Men massacre earlier.

No one can censure India from developing good unofficial relations with Taiwan.We could tell the Chines if they squeal in protest that we are working towards the future democratic unification of the two Chinas! That should send a bamboo stick up the nether end of the fossils of Zhongnanhai!

Very well said! This has been written and suggested over and over again in this forum for at least a thousand times, but what has prevented this to be implemented?

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 18 Aug 2009 22:09

Very well said! This has been written and suggested over and over again in this forum for at least a thousand times, but what has prevented this to be implemented?

This forum is not into implementation business, but creating awareness. Doing a good job at that..enlighten one young mind on strategic imperatives and he or she will likewise be an ambassador of sorts. Nevertheless I do feel there are people from media who quietl are looking at discussion and debate here and firming up their minds. Check out the EVM debate on for example..

Masaru · Post by **Masaru** » 18 Aug 2009 22:36

Philip wrote:Along with freedom for Tibet,so should the task of independence for democratic Taiwan be pursued.For all practical purposes Taiwan is independent,but hasn't yet obtained international recognition as most nations are afraid of antagonising China.There is no harm whatsoever in India pursuing good relations with Taiwan in every sphere,just as China has an excellent relationship with Pak! Taiwan should become India's all-weather friend to counter Pak as well as rewarding the Taiwanese for their committment to democracy,unlike the PRC.We can easily ramp up relations with Taiwan just below full recognition as a warning to China.!

Very valid point, which is not being pursued at all not only at the GoI level, but out of radar (barring some exceptions) even among the strategic think-tank community. To think of it when Koizumi and Abe where proposing an informal alliance of democracies in Asia (possibly as a hedge against Chipanda) it is the GoI babus who were least enthusiastic. We are nice and peaceful only

how can we think about such things as hedging against our birathers from north. Where is India's counter to the string of pearls? Any strategic or whatever relationship with Taiwan/Vietnam/Thailand/Philippines/Mongolia and Japan which could lead to basing rights for future platforms? There are significant cultural linkages from past with some of these countries which simply are left to rot used while these countries are being pulled closer into the vice like grip of chipanda through trade. These countries apparently don't even exist in the strategic consciousness of Indians while Chipanda is making merry with Bakis, SL, BD in our backyard, which the few drones posting here never forget to point out

. Honestly the romanticism with Fak-Ap, Iran, and assorted CAR/ME countries (not in BR but in the wider Indian consciousness) need to be stopped and redirected to the east if we are to have any realistic chance of countering Chipanda. The offshoot to this would be rapid increase in trade and commerce which would boost the economy which any way in the long run is the true defense against chipanda or bakistani aggression.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 18 Aug 2009 22:43

India should also seek reunification of Nepal with plenty of sops..give them some sort of special status and stuff, proectorate tpes at the minimum. Paki's and Chinese are becoming very strong in the area too..Nepal needs to be got into the fold in a big brotherly strongg hug...

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 18 Aug 2009 22:50

Sri Lanka and Nepal should be granted the pevilage to nominate few members in Upper House of parliament and then eventually same for Lok Sabha. Give them the stake in the economic prosperity and responsibilities of coming years.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Aug 2009 22:51

harbans wrote:India should also seek reunification of Nepal with plenty of sops..give them some sort of special status and stuff, proectorate tpes at the minimum. Paki's and Chinese are becoming very strong in the area too..Nepal needs to be got into the fold in a big brotherly strongg hug...

This is long overdue... another of Nehru's "log kya kahenge" follies.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 18 Aug 2009 23:05

I had with great caution mentioned giving Nepal a big hug earlier

since was not sure if I would get chased out by the guru-log here at this blasphemous statement. Now adding Lanka to that would make me even more happy. I am a maximalist as far as land accretion goes. I would not leave BDesh alone either, at least the northern half of it to expand the chicken neck for easier swallowing of the chipanda proxies in the Northeast. Nepal and Bhutan are prime targets by PRC. So we should be relentless there with our hugs.

As for Taiwan, sounds nice but do they really look up to India. If not we may be barking up the wrong tree. (ek hi khet ki mooli and all)

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 18 Aug 2009 23:22

Before Nepal or Sri Lanka.

Government of India needs to secure Sea Access to the North Eastern States through Chittagong hill tracts., which was awarded to Bangaldesh/naPakistan despite being non-muslim majority in 1947.

Our leaders could not think that Tripura, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland, Manipur, Arunachal and Assam needs a vital sea access for any type of development and were happy to have Calcutta.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 19 Aug 2009 02:00

shiv wrote: It is not the number of troops required to take it over. Any random number you pull out of a hat - say 250,000, might be enough. The problem is holding on to it. With supplies coming over 5000 meter mountains and a single railway line the requirement of feeding those troops, keeping them armed and keeping equipment fueled is the problem.

AFACT any army that moves any number of troops (eg: 2 troops, 200,000 troops) beyond a point at which they can be supplied loses those troops.

The IA will always be facing a numerically superior force when fighting the PLA. What I'm more worried about is the prospect of the IA being hopelessly outgunned in the Artillery department. Can we fight a prolonged ground war with the PLA with 400 ageing (though still awesome) Bofors guns? The IAF's ability to attack Chinese supply lines on their side of the border would also be curtailed by their new S-300 AD systems. Combine that with their numerical superiority and you have the recipe for disaster(for us that is).

PS: I'm no expert in military matters. Just a concerned layman. So please forgive some stupid fundamental mistake if I've made any in the above post.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 19 Aug 2009 02:55

nachiket wrote: The IA will always be facing a numerically superior force when fighting the PLA.

True, for the recent past and near term. India does have the capability to wield a larger force and has had a larger force in its history. it is the will that is missing. Let us not forget this little fact.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 19 Aug 2009 03:08

RayC wrote:
There are many well meaning people who feel that we should capture POK, made a road through it and link up with CAR etc.

I am one of those well meaning idiots! I have no illusions on the monumental nature of this job, but am willing to debate that it does make sense and India can acquire the means to execute such a mission and that it did be worth it. IMO, it is the strategic end of TSP. I will even go to the extent of saying, unless this is not done, India's rise is not guaranteed. The other pet theme of mine is an expanded Afghanistan, which is intricately linked with the mission of getting the NA back into Indian hands. It is probably OT for this thread, so some other day.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 19 Aug 2009 05:36

Posting in full.
The dragon’s rumble

Despite the commitment of Manmohan Singh and President Hu Jintao to keep the India-China relationship on track, there is a widespread acknowledgment in both countries that the relationship is becoming increasingly contentious. The border issue is unlikely to yield any significant breakthrough in the near future. The economic relationship is also fraught: the rising number of anti-dumping cases, charges of a Chinese conspiracy to falsely implicate Indian companies in a fake drugs scam and China’s attempts to block a loan to India at the ADB are adding fuel to anxieties in some quarters in India about how to deal with China. The level of vitriol in the public sphere in both countries is reaching unprecedented levels. In India great concern has been expressed about an editorial in the People’s Daily castigating India, and arguments emanating from a Chinese think tank about strategies to dismember it. The trust deficit seems to be widening.

It is important to contextualise public discourse. Even in China opinion is not as monolithic as we assume, and it is important not to over-interpret articles. Most China observers agree on three propositions. There seems to be a more general hardening of China’s posture towards most other powers in recent months, whether it is Canada or the European Union or other Asia-Pacific nations. India is not an exception to this trend. Second, a more hardline external posture is directly related to China’s sense of internal vulnerabilities. Paradoxically, the world probably has less to fear from a strong China than a weak one. China had witnessed, over the years, a relative degree of internal intellectual openness. There are signs that there might be greater clamping down on internal debate. The events in Xinjiang and Tibet have created a greater sense of vulnerability. It is very important for the self-identity of Chinese elites that the trigger for these events is always projected as emanating from abroad. There is often a belief that Xinjiang, Tibet, in addition to Taiwan, will be fishing ground for anti-China foreign powers. For all the immense power China has, including leverage over the United States, it still has not got over the idea that it remains a target for outsiders. Third, there is in all likelihood also more intra-elite uncertainty about the direction China should take. Chinese policy may not be as nimble as we often assume; certainly on Af-Pak and North Korea it is more likely that the Chinese persist with the status quo because they don’t know quite how to move, rather than because they have a supremely well-thought-out policy. Its hardline may be a default way of coping with hesitation.

But in the case of India there are three other complicating factors. The first, perhaps minor, one is simply that there is no incentive for China to settle the border issue quickly. But in part this is fuelled by a perception that the domestic political economy constraints on both sides will not allow for an easy settlement. Arguably, the Tibet issue is only likely to become more potent in coming months. As an aside, it will be interesting to see if President Obama grants the Dalai Lama an audience and what the consequences of that might be. China is certainly not going to give up any claims in a hurry.

But there is also a perception in China that no Indian leadership will be able to politically deliver on a border settlement. The dominant narrative of China as an aggressor in 1962 is still so ingrained that when it comes down to the wire no Indian government will be able to make a credible offer.

The second is that the Indo-US relationship is perceived to be explicitly some part of a design to contain China. India can argue with some justification that the China-US relationship is much closer and more consequential, that improving relations with the US and China is not a zero sum game, and the possibility of serious Sino-US conflict is remote. But this argument does not seem as compelling to many Chinese for two reasons. First, many of them rate the possibility of Sino-US tensions increasing higher than what Indians normally do. So whose side you are on matters to them. Second, while they are happy with bilateral relationships, placing the relationship with the US in a broader quadrilateral arrangement involving Japan and Australia has not exactly gone down well. It has fed into their encirclement syndrome.

But the final and perhaps most important issue is this. The simple fact of the matter is that India’s success poses a challenge for the Chinese regime. So far it was easy to sustain an argument that if you are a large developing democracy, you will end up in a pathetic position like India. India still has huge challenges, but there is a sense in which it now genuinely offers a different path to development. The interesting thing about the two pieces of anti-India writing quoted in the Indian press was not their belligerence. It was the fact that they spend so much time impugning the India story — India is economically weak and backward, it cannot cope with diversity, it is artificial and so forth. The message was more to throw cold water on the Indian model, than belligerence in a classical security sense. In a strange way this confirms what some Chinese academics have been saying informally: India may pose a threat to some sections of the regime, not by its power but by its success.

The India-China relationship was always complicated. Here are two civilisations trying to get all the trappings of a nation state, each dealing in its own way with colonial legacies on borders, and with little domestic room for manoeuvre. On top of that there is an overlay of differing perceptions of geo-politics, in part made more complicated by a China that is more edgy in the last few months than ever before. A robust economic relationship was supposed to be an antidote to these tensions. But that has its limitations. Although Indian industry is more confident, the fear of Chinese over-capacity and pricing mechanisms remains. Cooperation in other multilateral forums, while it has immense possibilities, will be hampered by bilateral suspicions. India and China’s discourses about each other are complicated, because they are tied to their complex processes of self-discovery. There is not going to be an easy way to allay the trust deficit. While vigilance is important, it is equally important to throw some cold water on the paranoia building up.

The writer is president, Centre for Policy Research, Delhi

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 19 Aug 2009 05:57

But the final and perhaps most important issue is this. The simple fact of the matter is that India’s success poses a challenge for the Chinese regime. So far it was easy to sustain an argument that if you are a large developing democracy, you will end up in a pathetic position like India. India still has huge challenges, but there is a sense in which it now genuinely offers a different path to development. The interesting thing about the two pieces of anti-India writing quoted in the Indian press was not their belligerence. It was the fact that they spend so much time impugning the India story — India is economically weak and backward, it cannot cope with diversity, it is artificial and so forth. The message was more to throw cold water on the Indian model, than belligerence in a classical security sense. In a strange way this confirms what some Chinese academics have been saying informally: India may pose a threat to some sections of the regime, not by its power but by its success.

Project India's development 5 years into the future when it will be wooed by Europe, Japan, China and the Middle East. When it will have some powerful cards of soft power, internal market, capital for investment and democrazy, when 100 million more people come out of abject poverty. The problem for China is that whilst its power grows its power relative tp India is actually decreasing, the delta power function being the greatest in the 15 years of rapprochment with the US and a subsequent 10 years when India was the sick man of Asia.

Nehru understood the meaning of the border war, he recognised it was not about some territory in the Himalyan wastes.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 19 Aug 2009 06:15

sanjaykumar wrote: Nehru understood the meaning of the border war, he recognised it was not about some territory in the Himalyan wastes.

Nehru's emphasis on peace and democracy are his legacies that we should be thankful of. Where he went wrong was with the idea that peace could be had for free!

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 19 Aug 2009 06:19

To take on China, build on our strengths

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 19 Aug 2009 07:36

N: A copy of Admiral Mehta's speech is available in the print edition of India Abroad, but if you are in desh, good luck!