Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (15-11-2017)

[shiv]

the new analysts are saying we can bury our heads in sands, there's no need to take any action.

Please provide a quote from a new analysis that says this to show that you are not bluffing or accept that you are building a strawman..

[Arjun]

Seems to me that Modi is preparing to give China one last chance to see if they behave. I fully support that initiative....if they do not respond as expected and rollback their various anti-India initiatives like Modi will ask of them - we will then go back to taking leadership role in the anti-China coalition.

My money will be on China not responding as expected.

[pankajs]

^^^RD sir, there are apparent contradictions in the new analyses.

The earlier analysis was that China has never been a neighbour to India. Tibet has been the buffer state between China and India and that India had very good influence in Tibet, Tibet which is almost 75% of landmass of India but with a population of 6 million, and Lhasa is all that is there atleast hospitable. It's about 300 km from India either from Doklam or from Tawang and about 2000km away from China. Tibet was illegally occupied by China, so China is an enemy of India and it's India's Dharma to liberate Tibet.

Has anything changed in that narrative?

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 327130.cms
Tibet can exist with China like 'European Union': Dalai Lama

BEIJING: Tibet can exist within China in the same spirit as the European Union sticks together, the territory's spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, considered a dangerous separatist by Beijing, said.

The Dalai Lama fled to India in 1959 after an abortive uprising against Chinese rule and set up a government in exile in the foothills of Dharamsala. Chinese troops had seized control of Tibet nine years earlier.

He says he only seeks autonomy for his homeland, not outright independence. He has also expressed a desire to return to Tibet.

"I always, you see, admire the spirit of (the) European Union," the Dalai Lama said in a video message to the International Campaign for Tibet on the Washington D.C.-based group's 30th anniversary on Thursday.

"Common interest (is) more important rather than one's own national interest. With that kind of concept, I am very much willing to remain within the People's Republic of China. The Chinese word, "gongheguo" (republic), shows some kind of union is there."

This was in the news very recently and might have been missed but this is not the first time Dalai Lama has expressed this "Tibet within China" view.

[TKiran]

^^^ taming Himalayas for China is invading India. That was not the aim of "Zhong nanhai" as Himalayas were never a border of China. He had a duty to establish Han superiority in yellow races. As that has been already established, the new goal is to subjugate India and make it a vassal state. The tactics is through CPEC, IOR, economic dependence of India on China, provide fresh water to Han core of China from Tibet.

All these things can't be achieved as long as India has military advantage on Himalayas. First defend Tibet (Lhasa), then fortify doklam and Tawang, colonize Tibet with Han.

Every action of China to tame Himalayas has to be countered by India, in the bud itself, even if it means a war.

[pankajs]

Seems to me that Modi is preparing to give China one last chance to see if they behave. I fully support that initiative....if they do not respond as expected and rollback their various anti-India initiatives like Modi will ask of them - we will then go back to taking leadership role in the anti-China coalition.

My money will be on China not responding as expected.

I don't think Modi is giving Xina "one last chance" but I agree with you Xina is not going to roll back its anti-India initiatives.

From my understanding, Modi is trying to engage with all countries who he thinks can help with his agenda for India and that includes Xina too. So while Xina might keep pushing anti-India initiatives in the strategic spheres it might co-operate in financial/developmental/WTO/Climate change/etc. related concerns. Modi will co-operate with Xina wherever our agenda match and will resist wherever our agenda clash.

Modi/India will never take a leadership role in the anti-Xian coalition. He will *try* to play both sides to the best of his abilities and try extracting gains from all sides even if the such expectation is misguided. Same with Bakistan. Same between US and Xina. Co-operate where you can and resist where you must.

[Arjun]

If China is not going to roll back its anti-India initiatives, it would be quite stupid to cooperate with China on trade. You have got to use all possible measures to ensure China cooperates. I am sure Modi will be conveying this in quite blunt terms.

And - of course India will take part a leadership role in the anti-China coalition if China refuses to play ball!

[pankajs]

Then we should be resigned to the *stupid* strategy from Modi. We will see India and China compete and co-operate at the same time. I am not saying anything new here. This has been the trend between India and Xina even during the last 3 years of Modi sarkar. I expect more of the same going forward.

[Arjun]

Obviously we will always cooperate with China on climate change, and other such areas which are not core to foreign policy!

As far as core areas of strategic concern go - conflict and cooperation with China will continue, but will be largely driven by how China behaves in response to Indian concerns.

[SSridhar]

. . . it's India's Dharma to liberate Tibet. Has anything changed in that narrative?

TK sir, the above should be used for playing 'realpolitik'. But, frankly, beyond that, Tibet is a part of China for all purposes. We have accepted that. India does not have the mind or the wherewithal to liberate it. It is a 'core interest' which China can be expected to protect with all its means. It is like the unanimous resolution on 'taking back the entire state of J&K'. That will also not happen.

[SSridhar]

NPC 2018: China's Parliament unanimously re-elects Xi Jinping as president - Straits Times

Chinese President Xi Jinping was elected to a second term with 100 per cent of the vote on Saturday (March 17), days after the lifting of presidential term limits allowed him to stay in office indefinitely.

He was also unanimously re-elected chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC).

His political allies Wang Qishan, 69 [the former Secretary of the CCDI or the Central Committee on Discipline Inspection which is nothing but an anti-corruption apparatus following the strange naming convention of the Chinese communists] , and Li Zhanshu, 67, were elected Vice-President[He was widely expected to become VP and it has happened. The and chairman of the National People's Congress, or Parliament, with 99.9 per cent and 100 per cent of the vote respectively [Li Zhanshu was the former Secretary to President Xi. So, once again, important posts have been filled by Xi's confidantes].

Mr Xi's 100-per-cent vote equals the 100-per-cent vote won by Mr Wang Yang on Wednesday when the latter was elected as chairman of the top political advisory body, the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.

If it fell short of 100 per cent, it would have shown that "there are a few very courageous individuals", said Professor Steve Tsang of the School of Oriental and African Studies in London.

Mr Xi has chosen as his vice-president Mr Wang Qishan, hitherto his anti-corruption czar, at a time when the external environment is becoming more difficult for China, noted observers.

Mr Wang Qishan, a trusted ally of Mr Xi, is expected to handle China's foreign policy and in particular its relationship with the United States.

Not only will he have to deal with a looming trade war with the US, but Washington has also named China a strategic competitor that seeks to "challenge American power, influence and interests" and "to erode American security and prosperity".

As for what Mr Xi might be focusing on domestically over the next few years, Professor Zheng Yongnian, director of the East Asian Institute in Singapore, believes he will be working on institutional reforms that will integrate the party with the state.[This is a point that the staunch party-loyalist that he is, Xi himself has repeatedly said]

[shiv]

I think Nehruvian ideas and Competition Success/GK knowledge gives the impression that "Tibet" is that part that is north of India across the Himalayas. Just like Brahm Chellaney has not looked at a map to point out where on the Brahmaputra dams are being build, no one seems to see that Tibetans extended across "greater Tibet" Here is a map of Greater Tibet. Hilariously the idea of Tibet being a buffer state between India and Chia was a British Empire idea which we have swallowed entirely with GK/CSR knowledge. Half of Tibetans live outside what we call "Tibet" - but in greater Tibet
Greater Tibet

[shiv]

Here is some information about Tibet
http://www.scmp.com/article/672872/doub ... ater-tibet

scmp.com
The double-edged sword of 'Greater Tibet'
Josephine Ma
5-7 minutes

A major sticking point in the talks between the Dalai Lama and Beijing has been the exiles' demand for a 'Greater Tibet' - an attempt to unite all Tibetan-populated areas into one single political entity comprising up to a quarter of the mainland's territory.

Today's Tibet Autonomous Region largely corresponds to the area ruled by the 13th Dalai Lama in the 18th century. Greater Tibet, on the other hand, refers to Tibet plus Amdo and Kham, which are culturally and religious under heavy Tibetan influence.

So-called Greater Tibet covers the autonomous region itself, Qinghai, a fifth of the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, a third of Gansu province, two-thirds of Sichuan province and a quarter of Yunnan.

In all, it would encompass about 2.4 million sq km where a large number of other ethnic groups have lived together with the Tibetans for centuries.

Only half of the 6 million existing Tibetans live in the autonomous region, while others live in the bordering provinces. Many live in Nepal or India.

Tibet expert Melvyn Goldstein points out in his book The Snow Lion and the Dragon that a politically united Greater Tibet has never existed. Historically, the Dalai Lama seldom extended his administrative control beyond the boundaries of the Tibet Autonomous Region.

In 1728, the Qing government had finalised Tibet's administrative border, placing the large ethnic Tibetan areas in Kham and Amdo under the jurisdiction of other provinces. The idea of a united Greater Tibet was raised by the 13th Dalai Lama, who tried to push for it after the collapse of the Qing dynasty.

In 1913, Britain, which wanted to create a buffer state in Tibet, put pressure on the newly formed Chinese republican government to attend a meeting with British representatives and delegates of the Dalai Lama in Simla, northern India. The 13th Dalai Lama raised the question of Greater Tibet at the conference but it was angrily rejected by Beijing.

Britain itself did not want to see a fully independent Tibet. The final draft of the Simla Convention was a compromise, which declared that Tibet would be autonomous but also acknowledged China's sovereignty over the region, according to Professor Goldstein.

But because of the 13th Dalai Lama's insistence that the autonomous region cover all areas populated by Tibetans, Beijing refused to ratify the convention, and it was left unsigned.

It has become the thorniest part of the Tibet issue ever since.

Tibetans championing the idea argue that people in the areas share a similar culture and religion. Designated Tibetan autonomous areas - where an ethnic minority comprises half the population - account for half of Sichuan, 10 per cent of Gansu and 10 per cent of Yunnan. In Qinghai, a quarter of the population is Tibetan.

Beijing refuses even to contemplate such an idea. The areas in question, it argues, were never dominated by a single ethnic group. Apart from Tibetans, Mongolians, Hui Muslims, Han Chinese, Qiang people and many other ethnic groups have settled in the areas for generations.

Xinhua has likened the Greater Tibet proposal to a 'racial cleansing policy' and cited it as evidence of the Dalai Lama's 'splittist intentions'.

Just last week, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi blasted the 14th Dalai Lama for holding on to the idea.

'The Dalai side still insists on establishing a so-called Greater Tibet on a quarter of China's territory,' Mr Yang said on the sidelines of the annual meeting of the National People's Congress in Beijing.

'They want to drive away the Chinese armed forces on Chinese territory and ask all non-Tibetans to relocate themselves, people who have long spent their lives in that part of Chinese territory. You call this person a religious figure?'

While the demand for the creation of a Greater Tibet may be politically unrealistic, the vision of a Tibet uniting Tibetans living in different areas has brought exiles together. It would be politically impossible for the Tibetan government-in-exile to give up on the proposal, especially given that many of its key members come from Tibetan-populated areas outside the Tibet Autonomous Region.

Professor Goldstein, in The Snow Lion and the Dragon, writes: 'Tibet had not ruled most of these areas for a century or more, and it is difficult to see how China could have handed over large areas in Sichuan, Qinghai, Gansu and Yunnan, many of which included [Han] Chinese and Chinese Muslim [Hui] populations that had migrated there well before the Communists came to power in 1949.

'However, if Dharamsala [the seat of the exiled government] decided not to pursue a demand for a Greater Tibet, it would be breaking faith with the eastern Tibetans in exile. Like the forsaking of independence, this issue was highly contentious and if it became known that the Dalai Lama was willing to consider it, the unity of the exile community could be permanently split.'

But while the concept of Greater Tibet looks near-impossible politically, it is hard not to include these bordering areas outside the Tibet Autonomous Region when addressing the Tibet issue. Much of the unrest that has gripped western China over the past decade first fomented in such areas. In March last year, many rioters in Lhasa were Tibetans from nearby provinces.

[Philip]

Good info! We should insist on thd " Greater Tibetan state" just as thd Chins talk aboot Southern Tibet.
But I don't think any flea flying along in the MEA entourage
accompanying the PM on his visit to Beijing has the gumption to tell the Chinese just that.

[TKiran]

. . . it's India's Dharma to liberate Tibet. Has anything changed in that narrative?

TK sir, the above should be used for playing 'realpolitik'. But, frankly, beyond that, Tibet is a part of China for all purposes. We have accepted that. India does not have the mind or the wherewithal to liberate it. It is a 'core interest' which China can be expected to protect with all its means. It is like the unanimous resolution on 'taking back the entire state of J&K'. That will also not happen.

I believe eleven is the last emporer of Han. Atleast open up Tibet issue so that when China collapses we can liberate Tibet. Just play the "realpolitic" puhlease.

[shiv]

"Greater Tibet" has been under Han influence for centuries, and as the SCMP article points out the Dalai Lama is in a fix:

Quoting from the above article - it is important to understand this before we demand unrealistic stuff that neither politics not the armed forces can achieve.

Just last week, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi blasted the 14th Dalai Lama for holding on to the idea.

'The Dalai side still insists on establishing a so-called Greater Tibet on a quarter of China's territory,' Mr Yang said on the sidelines of the annual meeting of the National People's Congress in Beijing.

'They want to drive away the Chinese armed forces on Chinese territory and ask all non-Tibetans to relocate themselves, people who have long spent their lives in that part of Chinese territory. You call this person a religious figure?'

While the demand for the creation of a Greater Tibet may be politically unrealistic, the vision of a Tibet uniting Tibetans living in different areas has brought exiles together. It would be politically impossible for the Tibetan government-in-exile to give up on the proposal, especially given that many of its key members come from Tibetan-populated areas outside the Tibet Autonomous Region.

Professor Goldstein, in The Snow Lion and the Dragon, writes: 'Tibet had not ruled most of these areas for a century or more, and it is difficult to see how China could have handed over large areas in Sichuan, Qinghai, Gansu and Yunnan, many of which included [Han] Chinese and Chinese Muslim [Hui] populations that had migrated there well before the Communists came to power in 1949.

'However, if Dharamsala [the seat of the exiled government] decided not to pursue a demand for a Greater Tibet, it would be breaking faith with the eastern Tibetans in exile. Like the forsaking of independence, this issue was highly contentious and if it became known that the Dalai Lama was willing to consider it, the unity of the exile community could be permanently split.'

But while the concept of Greater Tibet looks near-impossible politically, it is hard not to include these bordering areas outside the Tibet Autonomous Region when addressing the Tibet issue. Much of the unrest that has gripped western China over the past decade first fomented in such areas. In March last year, many rioters in Lhasa were Tibetans from nearby provinces.

[Neshant]

NPC 2018: China's Parliament unanimously re-elects Xi Jinping as president - Straits Times

I knew there was a reason why they kept having large military parades with "Emperor Xi" riding around in a motorcade in a military uniform.

It was meant dissuade any opposition within the country from challenging his soon-to-be appointment as President for life. There were at least 3 large military parades with him at the helm in the months prior to the announcement and I had an inkling that some news was about to drop.

[shiv]

There is a colonial hangover in both India and Pakistan that has not done us well. I will come to Pakistan in a bit.

Britain was a superpower at least until World War 2. They spoke and behaved like a nation who could force events in various parts of the world. Tibet was preserved as a "buffer state" by the British, and China could do little about it. When British power went - China under Mao realized just how weak India was.

In the same way looking at Nepal, Burma, Sri Lanka and the Maldives as small states under Indian influence is nonsense. they were under a British umbrella. the British had coercive power if they "misbehaved". It is high time both we the mango peepal and diplomats understood that unless we use military power to threaten these small nations they are never going to be "under Indian influence". Those days are long gone and we need to adjust to the new reality - which is not new - it is 60-70 years old now. It is our mentality and attitude that makes us think that Qyoon Victoria is ruling via her quisling in Delhi and we have all that influence. Nothing could be further from the truth. The British did not keep Nepal, Burma, etc under control by love and kisses. It was the sword that helped those nations sign on the dotted line. No sword and we get, to use a colloquialism "lauda". After Pakistan split away and China took Aksai Chin we have, to an extent understood our own weakness and we need to hold what we have rather than talking about "liberating" Tibet. Heck the possibility of getting back PoK itself is daunting given that PoK became POK because of Nehru initially but stayed that way because of British and US support for Pakistan. Unless we split our minds away from the nonsensical colonial constructs we will keep thinking that we are some sort of global superpower with small nations under our control. We need to get out of this delusion sooner rather than later.

Since I mentioned Pakistan - they too have operated their governance on a Britsh style "far border" and "near border" - the far border being the Durand line and the near one being Pakjab. But that is a digression

[chola]

^^^ Doctor Shiv, we do not see eye to eye often but that is a great f-ing post.

That colonial mentality allowed us to accept our position in the world’s hierarchy as long as the gora was on top. The white man on top, ourselves second and the rest of the “colonials” must be underneath us. For decades we accepted this hierarchy and never once thought to overturn it.

Then came China and when they began their assault on the White Man’s G7, leaving one gora nation after next in their wake, we woke up.

The PRC put the hierarchy on its head and, as much as despise the lizard, they have broken the colonial world we slumbered in. Because of them we left the “Indian” rate of growth and we are now vaulting the same gora powers year after year.

So I thank the PRC. I truly do. Without them we would have been content in a post-colonial world dominating the weakest and poorest region on earth save sub Saharan Africa. I thank them for being the one competent state in our neighborhood.

So I like having them as a foe. I believe our rivalry with them will drive us to achieve greater and greater things.

I say approach them like the chinis themselves approached the US or Japan — a strategic enemy but also economic partner to up our own power. Bide your time and build but strike when the stage is set. It was set at Doklam when we had 10 divisions to their three brigades. But no matter, history is long and we’ll have another chance.

[Pulikeshi]

. . . it's India's Dharma to liberate Tibet. Has anything changed in that narrative?

TK sir, the above should be used for playing 'realpolitik'. But, frankly, beyond that, Tibet is a part of China for all purposes. We have accepted that. India does not have the mind or the wherewithal to liberate it.

There are good economic/military and geopolitical reasons for India’s ‘acceptance’ of Beijing’s view for the time being,
but to assume that is set in stone - Even the Chinese do not make such assumptions about India’s intentions.

Ideally, the region outside the TAR in the GTR are better as buffer states between India and China.
In order to enable that will require quite a bit of economic heft, logistic miracles and tact in managing Tibetan concerns and so on...

Finally, there is a lot of mythology, the Daactar Sahab has taken on colonialism above, but there are others that India/Indians seem stuck on.
The question is not what it was and what was sustainable in history, it is what is now and what will be sustainable in the future.
If POK or Tibet improve the surface area of the Indian nation-state and enable Indian transformation and rise, then they must be made viable.
Need to move on from myth regurgitating to myth making...

[Pulikeshi]

Seems to me that Modi is preparing to give China one last chance to see if they behave. I fully support that initiative......

I don't think Modi is giving Xina "one last chance" but I agree with you Xina is not going to roll back its anti-India initiatives.

South East Asia increasingly turns to India instead of the US or China

This one last chance or Xina roll back anti-India behavior, etc. are very naive thinking in strategic analysis...
There is plenty of anti-China activities India does as well, which China similarly cannot claim binary veto rights on.
Modi & Eleven have much to discuss - in fact strategically, it is in China’s best interest to have a powerful India (but that is a different topic!)

Let’s make sure we are on the same page on assumptions:

1. China is here to stay - either in its current form or post Emperor Eleven a transformed semi-democratic state whatever its form...
2. The US and China are attached at the hip economically - they are both too big to fail - cyclical G2 vs multilateralism confusion in US.
3. Asia has a power vacuum till the middle of next decade - this gives India an opportunity both to the East, as well as the West of IOR.

You need not agree with me on my assumptions, but consider what this means. India has to continue to engage US and China.
India has to cooperate on issues when possible and oppose issues when needed. The economic transformation of India is the tactical steps to...
On 3. Both India and China are not strong enough to claim Asia and will not be so for one decade or so. All three US, China & India will hedge.
The only question that India has not answered....

Britain was a superpower at least until World War 2. They spoke and behaved like a nation who could force events in various parts of the world. Tibet was preserved as a "buffer state" by the British, and China could do little about it. When British power went - China under Mao realized just how weak India was.......

Unless we split our minds away from the nonsensical colonial constructs we will keep thinking that we are some sort of global superpower with small nations under our control. We need to get out of this delusion sooner rather than later.

Does India, inherited most of the geographic heft of the British super-power state in Asia, have the will and wherewithal to play the role?
The one shade I’d add to Shiv’s excellent post is - most of the babucrazy suspect that the first and necessary step is India’s transformation.
Akin to.. if I make a ton of money and become independently wealthy, then I will indulge in great philanthropic activity
These binaries and causalities are also myths. In fact, they are more dangerous that those we now readily identify with colonial hangovers...
So its not just the will to act with boots on the ground, etc. it is also the desire to rewrite the myths...

India needs to find a way out of this mythological paralysis!

[kiranA]

There is a colonial hangover in both India and Pakistan that has not done us well. I will come to Pakistan in a bit.

Britain was a superpower at least until World War 2. They spoke and behaved like a nation who could force events in various parts of the world. Tibet was preserved as a "buffer state" by the British, and China could do little about it. When British power went - China under Mao realized just how weak India was.

In the same way looking at Nepal, Burma, Sri Lanka and the Maldives as small states under Indian influence is nonsense. they were under a British umbrella. the British had coercive power if they "misbehaved". It is high time both we the mango peepal and diplomats understood that unless we use military power to threaten these small nations they are never going to be "under Indian influence". Those days are long gone and we need to adjust to the new reality - which is not new - it is 60-70 years old now. It is our mentality and attitude that makes us think that Qyoon Victoria is ruling via her quisling in Delhi and we have all that influence. Nothing could be further from the truth. The British did not keep Nepal, Burma, etc under control by love and kisses. It was the sword that helped those nations sign on the dotted line. No sword and we get, to use a colloquialism "lauda". After Pakistan split away and China took Aksai Chin we have, to an extent understood our own weakness and we need to hold what we have rather than talking about "liberating" Tibet. Heck the possibility of getting back PoK itself is daunting given that PoK became POK because of Nehru initially but stayed that way because of British and US support for Pakistan. Unless we split our minds away from the nonsensical colonial constructs we will keep thinking that we are some sort of global superpower with small nations under our control. We need to get out of this delusion sooner rather than later.

Since I mentioned Pakistan - they too have operated their governance on a Britsh style "far border" and "near border" - the far border being the Durand line and the near one being Pakjab. But that is a digression

Very well let said. Let me extend and say that babucracy in Delhi showed, at times, the imperial attitude not only to neighbours but to indians themselves who are in the margins - north easterners, even south indians. There is no backyard or frontyard lets fix the house first.

[Rudradev]

There is a colonial hangover in both India and Pakistan that has not done us well. I will come to Pakistan in a bit.
....

Since I mentioned Pakistan - they too have operated their governance on a Britsh style "far border" and "near border" - the far border being the Durand line and the near one being Pakjab. But that is a digression

Thanks Shiv. Brand new insights from you yet again.

We are all too happy to explain away Pakistan's "Ghazwa e Hind" as a purely Islam-envisioned and Islam-driven project... but in reality it has as much, if not more, to do with the legacy of British Imperial hubris.

The very same attitudinal inheritance that makes us think we can "control" Nepal, Sri Lanka or Maldives with a mere ominous clearing of our throats in New Delhi, is equally responsible for the Paki notion that they (a "martial race") can quickly set things right across the "near border", old chap... give the beastly effette Hindoos what for, whack them into line double quick, and then get on with the serious business of colonizing the "far frontier" where men are men and "never the twain shall meet" etc.

Going OT but Kipling lives in the heads of these establishments in India AND Shitistan many many generations after his corporeal existence ended. Competition Success Review and Class VIII Poetry syllabus ensures that his worthless colonial doggerel is forever enshrined in our psyches.

[TKiran]

"no sword and we get 'Lauda' " is nonsense. China has not used sword for the last 40+ years to gain influence. They used finance as a weapon, coercion through diplomacy and propaganda. And their influence has grown in the last 5 years, not from 60-70 ago.

Whatever verbal calisthenics you have been using to justify the inaction of the present goi, your analysis is similar to the Chinese point of view that India has been the result of colonial construction, whereas the truth is India has been 'akhanda Bharat' from times immemorial, and whatever colonialists did was to reduce the unit of India to it's current form.

Still it was acceptable to India, but the current changing of status quo is detrimental to India. Even a feeble protest is better than saying "we are thankful for whatever we got, let's not annoy the Chinese, let's co-operate with China" is pusillanimous.

I agree that the current goi has been much better than previous 10 years, that doesn't mean pvnr's strategic foundation has been useless, "we have been ruled by the Dynasty all these years" is not based on truth. Asking the current dispensation to consider China as it's enemy no.1 in all it's dealings with China, economic, political and defence and all areas is not too much to ask for.

While appreciate your penchant to give a new analysis, it's flawed.

Why go upto millennia history, even colonial hubris of nehruvian type of 1962, eventhough resulted in defeat, it's much more honorable to fight and loose than to wear bangles and say, "don't kill our soldiers, take what you want".

In Tamil ஔவையார் says "ஆன்மை தவரேல்"

[TKiran]

Brahma Chellaney
@Chellaney

If summits or visits could by themselves transform bilateral relations, Indian diplomacy would be in better shape. One example is Nepal, despite Modi's visit. The more times Modi has met Xi, the greater has been China's bellicosity. Good luck with this!

Government looks to reset China ties with a Modi-Xi summit
hindustantimes.com

[pankajs]

Brahma Chellaney
@Chellaney

If summits or visits could by themselves transform bilateral relations, Indian diplomacy would be in better shape. One example is Nepal, despite Modi's visit. The more times Modi has met Xi, the greater has been China's bellicosity. Good luck with this!

Government looks to reset China ties with a Modi-Xi summit
hindustantimes.com

I completely agree with him on the highlighted part. Imagine getting the perfect body by just buying a Gym pass and sitting at home. It is laughable to say the least. So to that extent Chellaney saab is right on the dot! Summits or visits by themselves don't transform bilateral relations but they are part of the process. Carry on Modi ji.

[pankajs]

Why go upto millennia history, even colonial hubris of nehruvian type of 1962, eventhough resulted in defeat, it's much more honorable to fight and loose than to wear bangles and say, "don't kill our soldiers, take what you want".

If Xina is great then why not follow it? If *wearing bangles* made Xina what it is today it should also work for India.

Many many times I have advocated learning from Xina and I guess am confident we can learn from them too on how to advance the country while *wearing bangles*. I am all for it. Note I said *learning* not *copying* because each situation is different exact copying may not be appropriate.

BTW Folks : When someone makes an emotional appeal you know they have lost the argument in their own mind. Talking of *ahkand bharat*, 1962 defeat, tibet as dharma is all fine but when someone tries to steamroll you by making an emotional push like "wear bangles" you know they have no argument left even if they keep throwing some fact and mixing it with some fiction to come up with some narrative. That *emotional pitch* is a dead giveaway.

[shiv]

Whatever verbal calisthenics you have been using to justify the inaction of the present goi, your analysis is similar to the Chinese point of view that India has been the result of colonial construction, whereas the truth is India has been 'akhanda Bharat' from times immemorial, and whatever colonialists did was to reduce the unit of India to it's current form.

No India ia not the result of colonial constructs but some viewpoints that you yourself stated like losing the Maldives or that Tibet is a buffer state is a colonial construct. We did not ever "have" the Maldives and the buffer state lasted for the British as long as they were here. You are simply stating what you have been taught and you have been taught the same rubbish as our diplomats and "strategic analysts" who blurt out the same thing. Your mind is a colonial construct. And this mindset has not changed for 70 years, You are yourself an example.

As for China not using its military power the Korean war and 1962 were enough to put the fear in American and Indian hearts. And we are still afraid without bothering to look at a map or at facts. India is not being subjugated by Chinese wealth - that is a 5 year old construct that you are simply making up. In fact it is China that is now discovering that they cannot stomp all over the border or the Indian ocean without facing opposition - and in every case it is hard Indian power - Indian troops or the Indian navy that they face - so hard power works. We are of course going to disagree and I will point out errors in your colonial constructs every time I see them

You also said "Liberation" of Tibet is an Indian duty. I suggest that the idea indicates unachievable pipe dreams given that you attribute so much power to China's money - let alone its armed forces. What might be your thought process that praises Chinese coercion by economic power and then demands that we liberate Tibet form China while simultaneously asserting that hard power is not required. Your statements are a jumble of contradicting assertions. You don't have to agree with my analysis but when you misquote me you will hear about it in a reply.

[SSridhar]

In Tamil ஔவையார் says "ஆன்ண்மை தவரேறேல்"

Corrected two minor spelling errors. Besides, what you have quoted doesn't figure in Avvaiyar's Aathichudi, the above is from Mahakavi Bharathiar's Pudhiya Aathichudi. FWIW.

[kiranA]

Akhand Bharat is a cultural construct never a state forget a nation-state. The modern Indian state is clearly a colonial creation. Therefore when India got independence in 1947 the only statecraft Indians were exposed to was british. They had no Akhand Bharat statecraft to draw wisdom from. And that is why as Shiv correctly says the babucarcy foolishly followed british customs and practices.

The thing I have with TKiran is despite being resourceful and having practical knowledge he derives his theories from mythology like panchatantra or concepts like Akhand Bharat or colonial constructs.

Also this frequently expressed sentiment that Han cant or wont fight is another colonial "martial races" theory hangover. People who express that thoughts here do so with any self reflection and perhaps because it just sounds nice. Hans fight and fight like some tough mofos. The defeated US in several battles in Koreas war and held them to 38 th parrallel. They completely defeated US through proxies in Viet war. The stared down the nuclear Russian bear during border disputes. They had a tough neighborhood as a communist country with US army bases all around breathing down their neck- south korea, japan, philippines, singapore. The original and the actual string of pearls was usa against china. Not to mention the 1962 war.

One cant become a super power on basis of hearsay or mythologies.

[TKiran]

Shiv sir, based on your logic, Tibet is a colonial construction, so is Bangladesh. We never had a Dharma to liberate Bangladesh. It's colonial hubris of Indira Gandhi.

Now I understand your bhakti.

[shiv]

Shiv sir, based on your logic, Tibet is a colonial construction, so is Bangladesh. We never had a Dharma to liberate Bangladesh. It's colonial hubris of Indira Gandhi.

Now I understand your bhakti.

Sure - you can say what you like. Give the rubbish you have been saying I can hardly expect you to show any honesty while quoting what I said. Basically you are misquoting me to the extent that you are trolling.

I will ask you to point out where I said Tibet is a colonial construct or that Bangladesh is a colonial construct. If you cannot find a quote of me saying that then you ARE trolling and I am now going to mark you for trolling me. I think you will have to start being careful about what you claim that I have said. This was never funny - but it is now time to call you out.

[Rudradev]

We never had a Dharma to liberate Bangladesh. It's colonial hubris of Indira Gandhi.

What?

Just FYI, Bangladesh liberation was not motivated by any ideas of dharma-sharma. Just by a mixture of pressures (refugee crisis) and opportunities (Mujib's election, Yahya's genocidal repression) we saw at the time.

The chief policy architect of the Bangladesh liberation was IG's top aide PN Haskar. He was an ideological communist who could not care less about dharma.

It was only after the fact that some Congress toady tried to manufacture political capital, depicting Indira Gandhi as a Ma Durga figure riding a tiger and whatnot, and painting the liberation in "dharmic" colors for electoral propaganda purposes.

Only the gullible and poorly-informed would accept this propaganda version as the actual motivation for the Bangladesh liberation. Policy has never been made on the grounds of "we have a dharma to do XYZ" alone. It is childish to think so.

[kiranA]

Shiv sir, based on your logic, Tibet is a colonial construction, so is Bangladesh. We never had a Dharma to liberate Bangladesh. It's colonial hubris of Indira Gandhi.

Now I understand your bhakti.

Tibet and BD are certainly not Colonial constructions. Indian state is colonial creation but not India as a civilization. But we did inherit Indian state from British as a transfer of power and we need to outgrow British forms and assert ourselves as our own state. Akhand bharat is a simple grievance and a case against partition and nothing more.

And BD was never liberated as part of Dharma but as realpolitik and a sense of fight against injustice.

As a fellow Telugu I understand TKiran but not excuse him. Many Telugu people grow up in rich panchatantra style literature and forge a strange understanding of India with a combination of myths and power pumping colonial hangovers. They do lead to beautiful movies like Bahubali but one has to throw them out at a certain age and understand world based on actual knowledge.

[Pulikeshi]

My theory of mythological paralysis - established real time in full form on this thread.
What that Zhongguo does all this have to do with this thread?
Injuns seem to be more interested in neutering and defanging themselves as always - mythological paralysis continues!

[SSridhar]

Delhi & Dhaka go into huddle as boat carrying ‘Chinese Arms’ seized in Bangladesh - Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury, Economic Times

In a sensational development, top Bangladeshi military officials have come under scanner of the Sheikh Hasina government after Chinese boats carrying arms entered Bangladesh waters and arms were smuggled into the country allegedly for local extremist groups and insurgent outfits in northeast India.

ET has learnt that no less than top leadership of the coast guard has come under scanner of Bangladesh government for its role in the alleged smuggling case. Dhaka has apprised Delhi of the latest development and is investigating the role of foreign powers in creating disturbance ahead of elections in Bangladesh. Security establishments of both sides are coordinating closely in this case.

It is understood that the smuggled arms had reached Dhaka and may be used to create unrest ahead of elections towards the end of the year. The first cache of arms was allegedly smuggled in December 2016 through Chittagong port. This is reminiscent of the 2004 incident when 10 trucks of Chinese arms meant for ULFA & other terror groups were nabbed in Chittagong. Tareque Zia, son of then-PM Khaleda Zia, was later found to be involved in the smuggling case.

In the new cases, when arms were smuggled or tried to be smuggled, coast guard ships were curiously missing from the coastal waters, raising suspicion of role of senior officers, hinted persons familiar with the matter.

Bangladeshi officials suspect that these arms are also meant to disturb India’s northeastern states which have witnessed peace since the Sheikh Hasina government handed over all insurgent leaders hiding in her country to Delhi in 2009. The Coast Guard has not yet ordered enquiry into the smuggling incidents and this have raised suspicion about role of its leadership in the episode.

[ShauryaT]

^The case for India to be a guarantor of security for SAARC and avoid any Foreign Interference could not be more clear. If New Delhi can articulate a shared concern on foreing interference for the region based on our shared colonial experience without New Delhi impeding on the internal workings of each state, then it will be a game changer to our standing and a win:win for the region and India.

At a practical level, in our interest, for the IN/CG to patrol the waters of BD, at least till elections in BD are over. Will state again, how i wish we had our own MIC to provide BD coastal patrol with more effective assets.

[Vadivel]

For a brief moment, the China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (CSIC), put online China's next big naval projects (but quickly pulled them down). The revelation, of which screenshots were taken before censors intervened, provided a picture of China's ambitions for a world class navy.

https://www.popsci.com/china-nuclear-su ... rrier-leak

[IndraD]

China quietly & cleverly finds a new route to S. Doklam, 7 months after India stopped it [images enclosed]
https://theprint.in/security/china-quie ... -it/43070/

[yensoy]

^^^^ It was very clear that we were able to block road construction only because it came so close to the Indian border as it did. They always had the option to build a road further inside their territory and we could do nothing about it (at least nothing without Bhutanese invitation/lead on defending their own territory).

The road is a pointless exercise by the Chinese since even the altitude-and-weather-hardened Bhutanese don't consider Doklam worth inhabiting. As others have said, Chinese will be sitting ducks. Even digging in on the "reverse slope" is not going to help. We did enough damage to the Pakis in Kargil entrenched on the "reverse slope", without overflying their territory.

[shiv]

China quietly & cleverly finds a new route to S. Doklam, 7 months after India stopped it [images enclosed]
https://theprint.in/security/china-quie ... -it/43070/

I had mentioned "other routes" in my video - as expected - going down into the valley: Start from here
https://youtu.be/y15iiyIbIus?t=194