Neutering & Defanging Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
g.sarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1597
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby g.sarkar » 10 Jul 2017 01:45

Suraj wrote:... but what is the potential for the Indian state creating a one nation two systems political structure as an offer for Nepal and Bhutan ? They both get the deal Nepal gets, i.e. unlimited right to residence and work in India (but not the reverse, i.e. Indians have unlimited freedom to visit but not reside and do business), and they retain all political independence except that India conducts all aspects of foreign policy and defense. Might be a hard sell to Nepal with their current polity, but may be feasible with Bhutan. It'll essentially end the security concerns in the northeast, pushing India to the Chinese border everywhere there.

Surajji,
One nation, two systems type of political structure is possible only in a totalitarian system like China. This is in reality just one system run by/from Beijing. Hong Kong does not have a different system. It just appears to have a different system. During the entire period Hong Kong was under the British rule, it did not have political independence; it does not have it today. To understand why this happened, you have to look at the history of Hong Kong. If Taiwan is incorporated into China, it too will have just one system. In a democratic set up, its citizens are allowed to live, work and own property anywhere in that country. This is a basic tenet. Take for example the USA or UK or the European countries, no such restriction is ever placed. This is the trusted model and makes the people have a stake in the fortune of the country. Imagine the US passing a law that says that to protect the uniqueness of Hawaii or Guam, no US mainland citizen can buy property and settle there. The article 370 was an aberration placed by a novice government that did not think the policy through, and perpetuated the problems that we have today, where a tiny minority controlled by Pak has a veto on the whole nation. We will need a great deal of effort to negate 370 at this stage. We do need buffer states and we will not gain much by this action. Both Nepal and Bhutan are independent states with a homogeneous population that is non-Indian. They are members of the UN and if forcibly incorporated will have a hostile population. The middle class and the ruling class in both these countries enjoy privileges that will be lost if they are ruled by Delhi. This is certainly going to be resisted by that group. China will encourage them to rebel. Both countries are poor and will be a direct financial burden that we have to bear for a long time. Without getting into all these problems, India can make them toe the line against China.
Gautam

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2166
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby VinodTK » 10 Jul 2017 01:57

Suraj wrote:I hope IA can hire Chinese speakers to create audio tapes to blare out of their positions 24/7 . The tapes should ask why the soldiers are there, thousands of kms from Han heartland, in the middle of freezing mountains ? Why are they separated from their loved ones and sweethearts , letting party princelings have free access to their women safe in Shanghai, Beijing and elsewhere ? Don't they realize that their sex ratio is 1.2:1 ? The party wants them dead so they can fix the gender imbalances.

Play that nonstop and it'll do wonders for PLA border sentry morale.


To solve the problem of women shortage in China, China should be allowed to pick and ship Pakistani women to China as part of Pakistani debt repayment

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11834
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Suraj » 10 Jul 2017 02:16

You don't get it . We aren't trying to solve any problem . This is simply propaganda to remind those grunts that they're thousands of km away from their proper homes, sitting around surrounded by an enemy close to their own spiritual homeland, while their women are being taken by the princelings of the corrupt PLA , because they've ~50 million excess males. No need to expect immediate results . Keep playing it full time until it's subconscious .

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11834
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Suraj » 10 Jul 2017 02:21

g.sarkar: I said nothing about forcible occupation . Nepal already has a 'special agreement' with India that effectively makes the two countries one economy for the purposes of freedom of labour (for them). They're free to move to and work in India and even populate many army regiments. Likewise, Sikkim has essentially the same protectorate like deal I mentioned, until 1975. Nothing in the constitution claiming we can't do it . We've already done it . And nothing to do with democracy vs totalitarianism either .

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Bade » 10 Jul 2017 02:38

Bhutan may be ready for such a tighter arrangement, similar to Sikkim. It is just a function of the threat level they perceive from China. It still needs to be remembered that they did send out Nepalis living in Bhutan out of their country. So it may not be as smooth as Sikkim. West Sikkim has a substantial Nepali population, which also helped in its accession to India.

That is why I believe the Gorkhaland movement, though it looks destabilizing to Bengal and maybe to rest of India, it might work favorably for India in the long run to include Nepal within India. This will give us enough depth at some point to liberate Tibet.

SriKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1607
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby SriKumar » 10 Jul 2017 02:45

China media has picked up on act of unfurling of Tibetian flag at Lake Pagong Tso (which may have been a GOI response to China media comments on Sikkim).
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/621 ... enter.html

Original article from 'Global Times' a .cn website. delete the 'yy' in the link below to access.
http://www.yy-globaltimes.cn/content/1055633.shtml

I've never seen so many statements from Chinese govt (through its media). The one about 'panchsheel' was really funny. From them to talk about Panchsheel, they must be scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Bade » 10 Jul 2017 02:54

The population of Bhutan is almost half of that of Dharavi in Mumbai. So by taking it over not much of poverty addition to what exists in India already. If India is already spending in providing for security and integrity of Bhutan the additional expenses are minor compared to strategic gains. Nepal story is also similar to some extent, though its population is 25 million and the denser districts are largely in the plains and similar ethnic mix to UP-Bihar area.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Bade » 10 Jul 2017 03:55

Beijing cannot find support even among its diaspora in the western media on its ranting and raving. No one seems to view the issue from their point of view alone. They must feel isolated, so sad.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchan ... 7224606214


Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Bade » 10 Jul 2017 05:12

On the pak front India already engages its enemy forces with firepower in encounters, Chinese PLA is welcome to become targets if they volunteer as mercenaries.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby nirav » 10 Jul 2017 05:24

Bade wrote:On the pak front India already engages its enemy forces with firepower in encounters, Chinese PLA is welcome to become targets if they volunteer as mercenaries.


Yes.
Last time those merciless Injuns fired upon UNMOGIP too.
Chinese kya cheez hai !? :evil:

g.sarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1597
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby g.sarkar » 10 Jul 2017 05:40

Suraj wrote:g.sarkar: I said nothing about forcible occupation . Nepal already has a 'special agreement' with India that effectively makes the two countries one economy for the purposes of freedom of labour (for them). They're free to move to and work in India and even populate many army regiments. Likewise, Sikkim has essentially the same protectorate like deal I mentioned, until 1975. Nothing in the constitution claiming we can't do it . We've already done it . And nothing to do with democracy vs totalitarianism either .


No, I too do not see a democratic India forcibly occupying Nepal or Bhutan. Sikkim is an Indian state now. But to absorb them into India there must be acquiescence from the other side. There is no chance of that in Nepal for sure, and I am sure that the same is the case with Bhutan. The ruling class in both the countries will loose the privileges that they have now. On the other hand, see the case of East Germany re-uniting with West Germany, the common people desired it. That was not the case of Bangladesh, which was a part of India before 1947. If there is a lack of will, it can not be done voluntarily.
Gautam

sudarshan
BRFite
Posts: 1665
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby sudarshan » 10 Jul 2017 05:54

I thought the southern part of Nepal, Madhesis et. al., were pretty pro-India, and had problems with their compatriots to the north. It's a wedge to use against Nepal. The way to go with Bhutan would be to increase economic cooperation and bring in a security umbrella. The Indian market is already pretty open to Bhutan for trade (Druk fruit preserve, anybody?), but further access to the vast Indian hinterland would be a sweetener.

The acquiescence could come once they see the economic benefits. The Mysore maharaja and other assorted maharajas too gave up their royal privileges to become part of democratic India. They still commanded great respect among the local populace as ex-maharajas, and IIRC, every Dusshera, the Mysore maharaja still rode his elephant in royal style among the adoring populace. Acquiescence (from the populace, not the ruling class, see edit below) doesn't have to be immediate, it can be gradual, and if it never comes, then so be it, India is not going to force Bhutan into the Indian union in that case. But there is no reason not to pave the way for it.

Edit: I'd like to point out that there wasn't much acquiescence from the Nizam of Hyderabad for union with India. But the populace was willing. So acquiescence of the ruling classes is different from that of the populace, which means, the acquiescence of the ruling classes can be disregarded if the populace is of a different mindset than the ruling class. So no need to worry about the ruling class being resistant because of "loss of privileges."
Last edited by sudarshan on 10 Jul 2017 06:09, edited 1 time in total.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Bade » 10 Jul 2017 05:56

In one of the blogs from Bhutan, they seem to be willing to let go of the Doklam plateau area at least, just as they forfeited their rights to the peaks in the Northern borders, to either India or China. This is the crux of the issue and China wants it now. Either way Bhutan will lose its sovereignty, the only question is which of the lesser evils will they want to chose to go with in the long run. Besides, giving it up to India may help keep the peace for them in the rest of Bhutan, giving it away to China means it no more gets the same level of security from India and leaves it open for an invasion, in a fight between India and China for the remaining spoils. If they were wise they would know which way to go.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Bade » 10 Jul 2017 06:07

Bangladesh case is peculiar, and I find it quite odd the reluctance in Bengal to part with the hills, but at the same time not wanting to get back Bangladesh, which is more closer ethnically and linguistically with the rest of Bengal. It is religious bigotry driving the divide there which again could change with time.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20873
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Prem » 10 Jul 2017 06:15

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/07/ ... ons-china/
Nikki Haley: If China Does Not Stop North Korea, We Will ‘Start Looking at Trade Relations With China’

Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” when asked about North Korea recently successfully testing an intercontinental ballistic missile that could potentially reach Alaska, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said if China did not help stop North Korea’s aggressive behavior President Donald Trump has said he would “start looking at trade relations with China.”Haley said, “I think there are a lot of options on the table when it comes to dealing with China. The ball is in their court. They’re either going to go along with us and the rest of the international community and say, yes, we think that what North Korea did was wrong or they’re not. The president knows what all his options are. All the options are on the table, as always with President Trump. And I think we’ll handle it accordingly. Ammunition comes in multiple forms. And I think we always have to look at what those options are ahead of what the actions are going to be by China.”She added, “I think there will be a response if they don’t go along with that. The president has made it clear that he will start looking at trade relations with China.”

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11834
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Suraj » 10 Jul 2017 06:28

g.sarkar wrote:No, I too do not see a democratic India forcibly occupying Nepal or Bhutan. Sikkim is an Indian state now. But to absorb them into India there must be acquiescence from the other side. There is no chance of that in Nepal for sure, and I am sure that the same is the case with Bhutan. The ruling class in both the countries will loose the privileges that they have now. On the other hand, see the case of East Germany re-uniting with West Germany, the common people desired it. That was not the case of Bangladesh, which was a part of India before 1947. If there is a lack of will, it can not be done voluntarily.
Gautam

But I wasn't speaking of any sort of political union. I stated that they'd keep their political systems, and simply defer foreign policy and defense to India . They'd also have free economic access i.e. capital, goods and labor . Nepal already has this, and Sikkim previously had the same suzerainty arrangement before all out merger. Until 1975 , Sikkim was independent but India controlled defense, foreign policy and communication.

It's more crucial to convince Bhutan to hand defense and foreign policy to India in exchange for unfettered access to India for their capital, good and labor (but not vice versa as that would threaten them) and also investment in their hydel resources . Nepal is already enjoying a fabulous arrangement i.e. every Nepalese is a de facto Indian resident as well, from birth.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50374
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby ramana » 10 Jul 2017 09:08

Suraj, That is the deal that J&K got. India takes over foreign policy and defence. I dont think anyone wants to repeat that blunder by Nehruji.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9252
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Yagnasri » 10 Jul 2017 09:41

The comparison is not correct Ramana sir.

I do not favour Bhutan coming into India or the Nepal for that matter. Bhutan has its own culture etc and I do not like EJs going there doing their scum activities. I have no doubt that is what is going happen. Further, they may not be willing to join India in the first place.

That being said we are forgetting that their Royal family is close to Thailand which is close to China. So can they be trusted to keep Indian interests at heart? I am not sure. On the other hand, they have a treaty with us and that will continue and they do not what to go Sikkim way. They also will not be willing to be part of the great Han peoples republic.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50374
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby ramana » 10 Jul 2017 09:47

Varoon Shekhar wrote:^^
The Chinese writers and spokesmen sound like pompous asses, not to mention liars.


Add former Indian MEA diplomats to the mix.

Then there is the Lootyens Chatteratti givng agnan.

We will soon see the Congress spokesmen join the fray.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50374
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby ramana » 10 Jul 2017 09:53

Yagnasri wrote:The comparison is not correct Ramana sir.

I do not favour Bhutan coming into India or the Nepal for that matter. Bhutan has its own culture etc and I do not like EJs going there doing their scum activities. I have no doubt that is what is going happen. Further, they may not be willing to join India in the first place.

That being said we are forgetting that their Royal family is close to Thailand which is close to China. So can they be trusted to keep Indian interests at heart? I am not sure. On the other hand, they have a treaty with us and that will continue and they do not what to go Sikkim way. They also will not be willing to be part of the great Han peoples republic.



YES. India has treaty obligations which are being enforced.

Bhutan King is an officer in Indian Army.

Why bring Thailand here? Thailand had a awful time during the Vietnam war. They were under threat of Mao's China.

They even had to send a Royal Princess as hostage to that monster.

g.sarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1597
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby g.sarkar » 10 Jul 2017 09:56

Bade wrote:Bangladesh case is peculiar, and I find it quite odd the reluctance in Bengal to part with the hills, but at the same time not wanting to get back Bangladesh, which is more closer ethnically and linguistically with the rest of Bengal. It is religious bigotry driving the divide there which again could change with time.

1. No one wants to merge with a country that is 98% Muslim. If WB joins with BD, all Hindus will leave almost immediately. There is also no desire of BDs to merge with WB. BDs hate India and want to keep their state, which is poor, but offers positions like rear admiral, general or ambassador to a small elite class. It is impossible for low caliber persons in India to get such positions. I remember a BD military officer say after 71, "I refuse to drink Indian Whisky, I drink only scotch!" For him maintaining such a standard of life was more important than improving the lot of their population.
2. WB is small, if you take out Darjeeling hills, not much is left. As it is, if you take out Calcutta the rest of the state is mismanaged and backward and is going to stay that way. India offers a safety valve in offering the better educated to get well paying jobs outside in Mumbai and Bangalore. I visited Calcutta recently after 8 years to find it flooded with Indian citizens from NE, which is good, and BD citizens which is bad. Most families I know have members working outside the state. WB did not offer many jobs for them.
Gautam

TKiran
BRFite
Posts: 854
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 00:22

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby TKiran » 10 Jul 2017 10:04

ramana wrote:
Varoon Shekhar wrote:^^
The Chinese writers and spokesmen sound like pompous asses, not to mention liars.


Add former Indian MEA diplomats to the mix.

Then there is the Lootyens Chatteratti givng agnan.

We will soon see the Congress spokesmen join the fray.



http://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/india-china-standoff-narendra-modi-xi-jinping-rahul-gandhi-meets-chinese-ambassador-new-delhi-beijing-sikkim-doklam-bhutan/756558/?google_editors_picks=true

Rahul Gandhi meets Chinese Ambassador

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9252
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Yagnasri » 10 Jul 2017 10:05

ramana wrote:Why bring Thailand here? Thailand had a awful time during the Vietnam war. They were under threat of Mao's China.

They even had to send a Royal Princess as hostage to that monster.


From all the reports they are quite close to China now. More than any ASEAN area nations. They may not like it, but they may be doing it out of fear all the same. In fact, none of the nations bordering China like her but all most all fear the middle kingdom. In fact, that is what China wants. Barbarians to respect her out of fear.

AlapArya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 03 Jul 2017 21:14

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby AlapArya » 10 Jul 2017 10:54

vasu raya wrote:The Han also want to fight alongside the Jihadis across the LoC in PoK :-)


Yeah I just read this today. No doubt that Emperor Eleven Gin Pegs is trying to not just resurrect the glory of the Han dynasty, but now he wants the expanse of the Mongol Empire. Until the Hans have set their Commie flag atop the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, they will not stop. Pakistan is but the conduit to be used and then thrown away (much like the US did...the Hans are smart...they copy from the best!) of fulfilling the desires of Emperor Elven.

Anyways, India should just ignore these Dragon breaths and focus on resetting the status quo with Emperor Eleven. Emperor Eleven is already busy with the South China Sea, North Korea, and an unpredictable Trump and with the Politburo due to increase his power after the elections, he is using Bhutan and India as punching bags so he can generate cheap headlines for the Global Times. Unfortunately for Eleven, we have an iron-willed general who is ready to give an appropriate response to the Dragon if tested, something Eleven has not thought through.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9252
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Yagnasri » 10 Jul 2017 10:58

In all this the Cheif of IA proving to be a critical and most suitable person.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Philip » 10 Jul 2017 11:40

The stinking sh*tworms now threaten occupying Kashmir,Indian controlled Kashmir,not just POK,if we consider territory as being "disputed".A leading Chinese "sh*pot" has suggested this in its latest diatribe against Indai. The GOI should simialrly announce that not only Tibet,but the entire territory of China is disputed as there are "two Chinas",PRC and Taiwan.It is past time to take off the diplomatic gloves at least.

Here is a piece in the Chindu,giving the views of a RUSI (leading Brit think tank)Sr.Fellow.India no longer squeaks like a mouse,afraid of annoying the Chinese cat,but is becoming bolder and refusing to accept Chinese hegemony over Asia.

Power games at the tri-junction

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/po ... 245716.ece
Shashank Joshi JULY 10, 2017 00:02 IST

The current border stand-off suggests India is likely to become bolder in resisting the idea of power disparity

We should by now be accustomed to Sino-Indian summits occurring with the backdrop of border trouble, and Friday’s G20 meeting between a smiling Prime Minister Narendra Modi and a less enthused Chinese President Xi Jinping was no exception. But the Doka La stand-off, at the southern tip of the Chumbi Valley where India, Bhutan, and China meet, is perhaps the most significant of all the border confrontations that have roiled the India-China relationship in recent years. This is not because of its size, dwarfed by the Sumdorong Chu crisis of 1986-87, or duration, still only a few days longer than the Daulat Beg Oldi stand-off of 2013. Rather, the importance of the incident is threefold.

What it implies


One factor is the unique position of the Chumbi Valley, which is at once a dangerous conduit into the slender Siliguri Corridor and a dangerous choke point, exposed on both sides, for Chinese forces. A second factor is that this tussle is formally over the interests and rights of a third country, Bhutan, echoing the wider competition for influence in smaller countries — Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and elsewhere — across the Indo-Pacific region. Third, the stand-off comes in a period when it is clear that the wheels are coming off the India-China wagon, with Indian trust in Chinese intentions collapsing steadily and Beijing taking an ever-more strident tone.

At the military level, India has good reason to prevent Chinese road building near Doka La. Chinese activity has steadily increased in the area beneath Bhutan’s claim-line, pushing the area under its de facto control about 5 km southwards, towards a crucial ridge-line. This has a number of implications. It would widen the area of Chinese control in an otherwise very narrow valley, from around 8-9 km (Batang La to the Amo Chu river) to 12-13 km (Gamochen to the river), thereby easing the logistics of moving large numbers of troops. Control of the dominating ridgeline would also give China a strong position, by some accounts even domination, over Indian posts to the west, and Bhutanese ones to the south and east.

India is still well short of matching the impressive infrastructure development in Tibet over the past decade, with two-thirds of sanctioned roads on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) still un-built. But Chinese forces moving through the Chumbi Valley — 90 km from top to bottom — would have long, exposed flanks. India has a formidable set of forces arrayed to the west, with mountain divisions in Gangtok (17th), Kalimpong (27th), and Binaguri (20th) further to the south, all of which are part of the Siliguri-based 33 Corps. Furthermore, the 59th division of 17 Corps, India’s first mountain strike corps, raised for the purpose of offensive operations into Tibet, is headquartered in Panagarh and will reportedly be operational this year. It’s worth noting that former National Security Advisor (NSA) Shivshankar Menon has argued, in his 2016 book Choices, that Beijing backed down in the 2013 Depsang incident “to a great extent because of India’s improved capabilities, which left the Chinese in no doubt that India could embarrass them”.

The Bhutan advantage

Another of India’s military advantages is its privileged relationship with Bhutan. This allows it to bring to bear large forces from the east. A sizeable Indian Military Training Team (IMTRAT) is permanently based in western Bhutan, while other units regularly cooperate with the Royal Bhutan Army. Bhutan’s involvement highlights the way in which Sino-Indian competition is increasingly channelled through third countries, as China relentlessly expands into India’s periphery through strategic investments, trading relationships and arms sales. India’s willingness to intervene forcefully in a bilateral Bhutan-China dispute is a reflection both of India’s own vital interests in the Chumbi Valley and of its commanding position in Bhutan, which might otherwise have ceded the Doklam plateau to China in a territorial swap many years ago. The India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty, though revised in 2007 to give Thimpu more autonomy, still notes that the two countries “shall cooperate closely with each other on issues relating to their national interests”. In this sense, Bhutan is a special case. But in stepping across an international border and defying Chinese expectations, India has also signalled a degree of confidence that will resonate more widely. [b]This in part explains the especially vituperative rhetoric that has seeped out of hyper-nationalist outlets like the Global Times in recent days, such as lurid promises to “liberate” Sikkim and Bhutan, as well as subtler steps such as this week’s travel advisory for Chinese citizens in India.
[/b]
There is a reasonable chance that this stand-off will end within weeks, with China quietly halting road construction and Indian troops returning westward to their posts. The risk of escalation appears low. More broadly, the thicket of border agreements accumulated over the past 30 years — in 1988, 1993, 1996, 2003, and 2013 — serve as an important cushion whose value is still not fully appreciated.

But the wider context is one of relentlessly hardening attitudes, on both sides. Beijing is aggrieved by the Dalai Lama’s visit to Tawang in April, India’s aggressive repudiation of the Belt and Road Initiative in May, and India’s forward-leaning posture in the South China Sea — the latter underscored by Vietnam’s two-year extension of a 2006 oil concession to ONGC Videsh last week. India’s complaints are too numerous and familiar to elaborate, but they span international institutions (membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group), terrorism (Masood Azhar), sovereignty (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor) and, in a more inchoate way, questions of the basic security order in Asia.

Relationship in a flux

“India-China relations are undergoing a change,” wrote former Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran on July 3. “China believes that India should acknowledge the power disparity between the two sides and show appropriate deference to China.” India has always repudiated this idea. But it is likely to become bolder in doing so. This is evident in last month’s U.S.-India joint statement, where China was unmentioned but all pervasive in areas from North Korea, to trade, to freedom of navigation. It is on display in the Bay of Bengal, where one of the largest-ever iterations of the Malabar exercise series is getting underway with aircraft carriers/helicopter carrier from India, the U.S., and Japan. We see it also in this weekend’s news, reported in this newspaper, that the government is conducting a national security review of Chinese investment in South Asia. Perhaps, in the coming weeks, 17 Corps will suddenly find that the purse strings have become looser too.

Shashank Joshi is a Senior Research Fellow of the Royal United Services Institute in London

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11834
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Suraj » 10 Jul 2017 11:43

ramana wrote:Suraj, That is the deal that J&K got. India takes over foreign policy and defence. I dont think anyone wants to repeat that blunder by Nehruji.

Not quite ramana, J&K was a state of India from the outset, as defined by the accession treaty signed by the Maharaja. Sikkim voted against accession to India, and therefore did not have Art 370 or any other article, and was literally another country, except in a tributary relationship with India (not a constitutionally defined one) through a 1950 treaty agreement. Post 1975, the relationship was in Article 371F; Article 371 deals with several states in this manner.

Art 370 was a mess, and that's another topic. But the Sikkim process was pretty straightforward. That's not to say we didn't push them to accede to India as the chogyal's hold fell apart, but that's not strictly a wrongdoing on our part, since we did in fact handle the responsibility of their defence, and therefore got to decide what served their best defence interests, considering PRC was trying to annex Sikkim then.

Mukesh.Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 769
Joined: 06 Dec 2009 14:09

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby Mukesh.Kumar » 10 Jul 2017 13:48

Philosophical Wondering Alert On

I have been sitting on the sides and following the discussion on BRF and around among my acquaintances. Hell i keep coming back to BRF for a dose of sanity every time I feel overwhelmed by the dhoti-shivering of people around. Just wanted to put up some thoughts that I was planning to use against the doom sayers outside. As usual feedback to refine this is appreciated.

Altogether it is not so bad. In all my experience, I believe the biggest impediment to progress is indecision. Till now GoI seems to have handled the Dlagon really well. I am not advocating precipitation of action, but if an opportunity presents itself we need to take advantage and do a land creep also. Till now whether it be C or P, we have most of the times feared escalating. Our mindset has been fear of the undefined What-If...

A few months ago, Shiv, among others initiated a conversation in the Deterrence Thread, which was an eye opener. P's N weapons used against India would be a bad situation, but it is not the end all. Sometimes we forget that even our enemies have fears, and however irrational, they may appear to be, they too will be rational when faced with hard choices. It is this analytical mind set which we sometimes miss out in discussions (less on BRF, more on Indian media). We get scared of the 12 ft tall, 350 lb Han superwarriors in our minds. Probably the best way to deal with this irrational fear is to sit out and define the worst possible cases. Once you know what worse will come you can go ahead.

Let's take case in hand:
  1. We back down--> We lose our standing in front of even the smallest neighbours. Not that it in itself is a major loss, but then it weakens us diplomatically. We embark on the slippery slope of being dominated by the Han, everywhere. Not what we want.
  2. We stand our ground--> It forks two ways:
    1. China backs down after a few rounds of sabre rattling--> Win for India. Boosts our morale, we become a pole for people fed up with Han doninance.
    2. China escalates--> Again, two forks to this. Local, or, extension to PoK:
      1. Local-->--> We either win locally or lose. either we have conclusive proof that we can get the better of the Han if we play our cards well, or we know we have miles to go. So here is how I would look at it:
        1. We win the local conflict--> We do ourselves a great favour. We stop the unnecessary dhoti-shivering. We emerge as an alternative to the Han. But teh biggest victory will be in minds of people.
        2. We lose locally.--> Not too much. We would have already lost what would have happened over a few years. No delaying would have given us a different result. The flip side gain of this would be strengthening resolve of the Indian politicos and people, much like after 1962. I am drawing from Harry Summers's interpretation of Clausewitz--> Victory in war is impossible without the Trinity- people, king (sic) and army acting as of one mind. To my mind this is the biggest weakness of India, while the army maybe ready for war, its people and the political establishment which has been dithering.
      2. Conflict gets escalated to PoK--> Two forks again:
        1. We win fighting a war from PoK, Ladakh too the N-East--> A unlikely situation, maybe a stalemate, but if this happens, this would herald big changes Not only internally with a boost in morale, but it will change dynamics of trade, India's entry into exclusive clubs around, open up options in PoK. Bigger than 1971.
        2. We lose land in PoK, in J&K--> Bad as this seems, I see a silver lining to this. This will be redux of '62. But then this again is also not different. The Dlagon has already indicated its interest in Kashmir. If we do nothing, we would still lose land, day by day, like the frog sitting in a pot of water which is being slowly heated up. Maybe this is the jolt that is needed for India to wake up and take things seriously. Again taking recourse to Clausewitz's trinity. Maybe this will be the moment that India is going to wake from its 500 year slumber. Only fear I have in this situation is that if we take the easy way out and become a YouEss lackey.

Philosophical Wondering Alert Off
Sorry for the long slightly OT post, but I needed to put this up to clear my head. I have had enough of the dhoti-shivering lunch conversations with my fellow mates.

sudhan
BRFite
Posts: 800
Joined: 01 Jul 2009 17:53
Location: Timbuktoo..

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby sudhan » 10 Jul 2017 14:06

Something's fishy.. Pappu seems to have met with the Chinese ambassador, The Chinese embassy put out the tweet. Congoons, claimed this was a plant by MEA and that this was fake news.. The tweet gets promptly pulled by the cheen embassy..

anchal
BRFite
Posts: 227
Joined: 01 Aug 2009 16:41

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby anchal » 10 Jul 2017 14:20

Treasonous behaviour by Gandhi turd colluding with an enemy state. Long time GoI pulls plus on his foreign "travels". This party deserves to be eliminated from the political map of India

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10394
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby pankajs » 10 Jul 2017 14:34

CON has called it a fake news.

/OT

In any case, letting pappu stew in his own propaganda is better than GOI going on the offensive against him. He is in no position to bargain *away* India's interest but he is in a position to expose himself in front of the mangos. Better than him inciting the farmers and dalits. Give him the long rope.

We need to step back from the instinctive knee jerk response of trying to *stop* every criticism of GOI/BJP/Modi even if it sounds outlandish to us. Again, give them the long rope and let them self destruct. Modi understands this dynamic better than most on this forum and even within BJP. He has proved it with demo, with Intolerance debate, with award wapsi, etc. After all the sound and fury all the issues have fallen flat as proven by the failure to ignite the latest round of award wapsi. So why should Modi interfere? "Show of force" has to be used sparingly and strategically where there is no other option left but frontal attack like at JNU.

As Mamta bano-jee once astutely observed pappu is the best advertisement for Modi.

g.sarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1597
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby g.sarkar » 10 Jul 2017 15:13


http://www.news18.com/news/india/china- ... 56331.html
China Says Rahul Gandhi 'Met' Ambassador, Later Deletes Post
Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi had last week questioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi over his “silence” on the current standoff between the Indian and Chinese militaries in Doklam area in the Sikkim sector.
New Delhi: China's embassy on Monday claimed that Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi met Ambassador Luo Zhaohui to "exchange views on the current bilateral relations" and then, hours later, deleted the post from their website.
The post in Mandarin on the official website http://in.china-embassy.org was removed around noon after the news was denied by the Congress party.
The link on the Mandarin section of the website later took users to a 404 error page.
The statement, however, was still available on the embassy’s WeChat account. It said, “On July 8, Ambassador Luo Zhaohui met with Rahul Gandhi, vice chairman of the Congress Party, and exchanged views on the current Sino-Indian relations.”
Hitting back at reports of the meeting, Congress spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala questioned the visit by "three Union minsters to China" and the "bonhomie" at G20 Summit, a reference to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
....

Gautam

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2683
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby chola » 10 Jul 2017 15:17

g.sarkar wrote:

http://www.news18.com/news/india/china- ... 56331.html
China Says Rahul Gandhi 'Met' Ambassador, Later Deletes Post
Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi had last week questioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi over his “silence” on the current standoff between the Indian and Chinese militaries in Doklam area in the Sikkim sector.
New Delhi: China's embassy on Monday claimed that Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi met Ambassador Luo Zhaohui to "exchange views on the current bilateral relations" and then, hours later, deleted the post from their website.
The post in Mandarin on the official website http://in.china-embassy.org was removed around noon after the news was denied by the Congress party.
The link on the Mandarin section of the website later took users to a 404 error page.
The statement, however, was still available on the embassy’s WeChat account. It said, “On July 8, Ambassador Luo Zhaohui met with Rahul Gandhi, vice chairman of the Congress Party, and exchanged views on the current Sino-Indian relations.”
Hitting back at reports of the meeting, Congress spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala questioned the visit by "three Union minsters to China" and the "bonhomie" at G20 Summit, a reference to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
....

Gautam


Lol. The chinis outed their own plant in the Indian political structure.

The Nehru/Gandhi clan have never failed to impress as complete f--k ups.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby nirav » 10 Jul 2017 15:33

The clown prince has no bearing or say in Indo-China matters. Perfect opportunity to blast him and congoon.
Newsx retd army panelists tearing into the clown princes act.

g.sarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1597
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby g.sarkar » 10 Jul 2017 15:48

Poor Pappu. He thought that he would come across as a PM type of figure. He came across as a Mir Jafar. Nothing he does works for him.
Gautam

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 942
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby yensoy » 10 Jul 2017 15:56

Philip wrote:The stinking sh*tworms now threaten occupying Kashmir,Indian controlled Kashmir,not just POK,if we consider territory as being "disputed".A leading Chinese "sh*pot" has suggested this in its latest diatribe against Indai. The GOI should simialrly announce that not only Tibet,but the entire territory of China is disputed as there are "two Chinas",PRC and Taiwan.It is past time to take off the diplomatic gloves at least.


They are provoking us and want GoI to say exactly that. So don't give them that pleasure. Just put out a vague statement discrediting GlobalTimes and all the other Chinese junk media and say that we will not yield to speculation, however we have several excellent options to pick from if there is any official change in Chinese position. Also say that these will have civilizational level impacts due to fundamental changes in our definitions of the neighbourhood, so we will not take this decision in haste and bring about a national consensus on the matter. This kind of verbiage will keep them on edge for some time waiting for the other shoe to drop, while they keep goading their CPI/M proxies to find out more.

TKiran
BRFite
Posts: 854
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 00:22

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby TKiran » 10 Jul 2017 16:20

rNDTV confirms RaGa met Chinese Ambassador

Rahul Gandhi Met Chinese Envoy Amid Sikkim Stand-Off, Congress Confirms.

http://m.ndtv.com/india-news/chinese-embassy-claims-then-deletes-that-rahul-gandhi-met-ambassador-1722875
Last edited by TKiran on 10 Jul 2017 16:23, edited 1 time in total.

IndraD
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6719
Joined: 26 Dec 2008 15:38
Location: भारत का निश्चेत गगन

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby IndraD » 10 Jul 2017 16:23

after initial flip flop Congress has accepted Rahul met Chinese envoy.
Why? What was he going to discuss? In what capacity?
BJP should roast him alive on this...and people will happily support them.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7870
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)

Postby anupmisra » 10 Jul 2017 16:33



Just saw this article. Interesting! Pakis will have to consider the strategic implications of this chinese "suggestion". As a first step I hope the Indian MEA takes notice of this clear chini threat to meddle in J&K. I know I am alerting my Congressman.

Since the dialog is mostly through the media, the Indian press can always counter by suggesting that a third country (US?) can be invited to station its listening posts in Ladakh and Sikkim, a move which will surely be unwelcome for the chinese.

Two can play at this game.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests