Managing Chinese Threat

[Philip]

Cheating Chinaman caught with "monkey" hand in jarr! (X-posted in mil thread).

The attempt to steal the details of the S-400 missile by a Chinese agent posing as a translator is bound to further infuriate the Russians who are deeply concerned about Chinese espionage and illegal reverse-engineering of their weapon systems.Caught in the act,it is going to be hard going for the PRC mandarins to extricae themselves form this one and as SIPRI has obsrved in the report,Sino-Russian defence relations are going steadily going downhill.The disclosure by the Russians just one week before his state visit to Beijing is a deliberate move by Moscow to tell the PRC to stop such acts in future or get stuffed.
Good news for India!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oc ... tor-spying

Russia arrests Chinese 'spy' in row over defence weaponsMan accused of seeking details of anti-aircraft missile system which experts say the Chinese are trying to copy.

Miriam Elder in Moscow and Tania Branigan in Beijing guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 5 October 2011 18.34 BST Article history

The S-400 defence system, an update from the S-300 which Russia accuses China of trying to copy. Photograph: Andrey Smirnov/AFP/Getty Images

Russia's security service has revealed that it arrested a suspected Chinese spy who posed as a translator while seeking sensitive information on an anti-aircraft system.

The man, identified as Tun Sheniyun, was arrested on 28 October last year, the federal security service (FSB) said in a statement cited by RIA-Novosti news agency.

It was unclear why the FSB disclosed the arrest on Wednesday, less than one week before the prime minister, Vladimir Putin, travels to China on an official visit.

The alleged spy was acting "under the guise of a translator of official delegations", the statement said.

He had "attempted to obtain technological and maintenance documents on the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system from Russian citizens for money", it added. That information is a state secret, it said.

[Christopher Sidor]

Train to Leh via Kullu-Manali not feasible – Scientists --- Hill Post Dated 4-Oct-2011

The odds just keeping on getting stacked against the present alignment.

Bilapur Leh railway line via Kullu and Manali – may run into rough weather with scientists of the IIT Roorkee opining that the project would be more feasible and quicker to make, if the railway line is laid from Bilaspur to Leh via Kishtwar.
....
....
Prof Kamal Jain of IIT Roorkee was of the view that the railway line if laid along the present alignment would not only create technical problems but the costs would also escalate very high, to the extent of making it non-feasible. “Taking the railway tracks along the heights as visioned along the Kullu-Manali stretch and then on to Leh, would put it far away from meeting the target of completing the line on schedule and also cost wise” Jain felt.

Kishtwar is in J&K and laying a railway line between Bilaspur-Kishtwar-Leh would mean a complete bypass of the Keylong, Manali, etc. I certainly hope that IR learns from the bridge across Chenab fiasco on the Kashmir Railway Line. Let us not repeat the same mistake with this railway line.

[rohitvats]

One good thing which the Kullu-Manali-Leh rail link would have done is that the entire central and southern section of LAC in Ladakh could have been served.

Having said that, we need to wait and see the proposed alignment. If the idea is get via Kishtwar, then there are two options of reaching Kishtwar - (a) across the Rohtan La and then instead of going towards Leh, take left before Keylong at Tandi and move along the Chenab and one reaches Kishtwar. There is a proper road along this alignment (b) Second option is through the Chamba district in Himachal. A land route is under construction which meets the road coming up from Tandi. When this route is done, it will permit movement between Pathankot-Chamba-Kisthwar-Srinagar, completely bye-passing the NH-1A.

In both the options above, one thing is common - the Pir Panjal range needs to be crossed. It runs in NW-SE direction and seperates northern parts of HP from J&K. The Rohtan La also lies in this range. Towards north of this range is the Chenab valley while towards south is the Ravi valley.

Interesting question is - how do you reach Leh from Kishtwar? The traditional route crosses over from Kishtwar to upper Suru Valley drained by the Suru River. It lies SW to the town of Kargil and there is a road link between Kargil and the town in the upper Suru Valley. The distance is between Kargil and this area should be ~60kms. The river flows next to the town of Kargil and then moves into Northern Areas. From Kargil, one can follow the general alignment of NH-1A to Leh.

Other more direct, and tenous route is to move further east from the Suru river Valley, across the Pensi La and into the Zanskar Valley. One can move along the Zankar river which then meets Indus some distance to west of Leh. But this has been a 'winter route' - used by people in winter as Zanskar river freezes. Not used in summers as the gorge is very narrow and steep.

In case of option (a), then also we will need a tunnels to pass below the Rohtang La and another to cross over from Kishtwar across the Great Himalayan Range.

Please see the map here:

http://maps.google.co.in/maps?hl=en&cp= ... CDkQ8gEwAg

Kishtwar can be seen in top left corner. South of the center one can make out Dumare - if you scroll towards SE from here, you can make out Tandi (short of Keylong). That is where the road bifurcates and moves along the Chenab river to Kishtwar. Now, if you scroll couple of times towards north of Kishtwar, on the left edge of the map you can make out Mul Warwan and towards north, Suru. Just follow the alignment of river from Suru, one reached the town of Kargil. There is a pass at the head of Warwan Valley which allows for crossing over to Suru River Valley. Towards west of Suru River Valley lies the Zanskar River Valley.

General Zorawar Singh from the court of Gulab Singh, had used the Kishtwar-Warwan Valley-Bhot Khol Pass-Suru Valley-Kargil-Leh route to capture Ladakh. The expeditions by this man is the reason that Ladakh and Baltistan became part of India.

[chaanakya]

Train to Leh via Kullu-Manali not feasible – Scientists --- Hill Post Dated 4-Oct-2011

The odds just keeping on getting stacked against the present alignment.

Bilapur Leh railway line via Kullu and Manali – may run into rough weather with scientists of the IIT Roorkee opining that the project would be more feasible and quicker to make, if the railway line is laid from Bilaspur to Leh via Kishtwar.
....
....
Prof Kamal Jain of IIT Roorkee was of the view that the railway line if laid along the present alignment would not only create technical problems but the costs would also escalate very high, to the extent of making it non-feasible. “Taking the railway tracks along the heights as visioned along the Kullu-Manali stretch and then on to Leh, would put it far away from meeting the target of completing the line on schedule and also cost wise” Jain felt.

Kishtwar is in J&K and laying a railway line between Bilaspur-Kishtwar-Leh would mean a complete bypass of the Keylong, Manali, etc. I certainly hope that IR learns from the bridge across Chenab fiasco on the Kashmir Railway Line. Let us not repeat the same mistake with this railway line.

From the same report (news item)

The team undertook several studies of the topography of the terrain and the prevailing geological conditions and reached the conclusion that the railway line could be laid along the proposed route, but the Railways would have to use advanced technology to complete the track, specially as the conditions prevailing in the Himalayas range are far different from those in the Shiwalik ranges.

“Most of the region in the Himalayan ranges is under snow for quite long periods of time, which is not so in the case of the Shiwalik ranges, and as such the first priority of the Railways while laying down the railway line would be to strike a coordination between the two, which is why it is being felt that taking the track via Kishtwar would be a better and more practical proposal”, the team opined.

IIT Roorkee is very good yet they should study Tibet Railway Line. Kishtwar Alignment would have different problem-terrorist strike. However later that could also be connected so that two routes would be available. The present alignment would be strategically more important. I hope there is no politics involved in it as HP is non Congress Govt and they are pressing for it.

[ramana]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... ina_policy

FOREIGN POLICY MAGAZINE
The Top 10 Unicorns of China Policy
BY DANIEL BLUMENTHAL | OCTOBER 3, 2011

Unicorns are beautiful, make-believe creatures. But despite overwhelming evidence of their fantastical nature, many people still believe in them. Much of America's China policy is also underpinned by belief in the fantastical: in this case, soothing but logically inconsistent ideas. But unlike with unicorns, the United States' China-policy excursions into the realm of make-believe could be dangerous. Crafting a better China policy requires us to identify what is imaginary in U.S. thinking about China. Author James Mann captures some in his book, The China Fantasy.

Here are my own top 10 China-policy unicorns:

1. The self-fulfilling prophecy. This is the argument that has the most purchase over the United States' China policy. Treat China like an enemy, the belief goes, and it will become an enemy. Conversely, treat China like a friend, and it will become a friend. But three decades of U.S.-China relations should at least cast doubt on this belief. Since the normalization of relations with China, the aim of U.S. policy has been to bring China "into the family of nations." Other than China itself, no nation has done more than the United States to improve the lot of the Chinese people and welcome China's rise peacefully. And, rather than increase its deterrence of China -- a natural move given the uncertainty attendant to the rise of any great power -- the United States has let its Pacific forces erode and will do so further. The United States may soon go through its third round of defense cuts in as many years. Here is just one example of how unserious the United States is about China: As China continues to build up its strategic forces, the United States has signed a deal with Russia to cap its strategic forces without so much as mentioning China. Unless Beijing was insulted by this neglect, surely it could take great comfort in an anachronistic U.S. focus on arms control with Russia. But despite U.S. demonstrations of benevolence, China still views the United States as its enemy or, on better days, its rival. Its military programs are designed to fight the United States. The self-fulfilling prophecy is far and away the most fantastical claim about China policy and thus the No. 1 unicorn.

2. Abandoning Taiwan will remove the biggest obstacle to Sino-American relations. Since 2003, when President George W. Bush publicly chided then-Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian on the White House lawn with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao at his side, the United States has been gradually severing its close links with Taiwan. President Barack Obama's Taiwan policy has been the logical denouement. Arms sales have been stalled, no cabinet members have visited Taiwan since Bill Clinton's administration, and trade talks are nonexistent. There is essentially nothing on the U.S.-Taiwan policy agenda. The reaction from China? Indeed, it has moved on. But rather than bask in the recent warming of its relationship with Taiwan, China has picked fights with Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, and India. It does not matter what "obstacles" the United States removes; China's foreign policy has its own internal logic that is hard for the United States to "shape." Abandoning Taiwan for the sake of better relations is yet another dangerous fantasy.

3. China will inevitably overtake America, and America must manage its decline elegantly. This is a new China-policy unicorn. Until a few years ago, most analysts were certain there was no need to worry about China. The new intellectual fad tells us there is nothing we can do about China. Its rise and America's decline are inevitable. But inevitability in international affairs should remain the preserve of rigid ideological theorists who still cannot explain why a unified Europe has not posed a problem for the United States, why postwar Japan never really challenged U.S. primacy, or why the rising United States and the declining Britain have not gone to war since 1812. The fact is, China has tremendous, seemingly insurmountable problems. It has badly misallocated its capital thanks to a distorted financial system characterized by capital controls and a non-market based currency. It may have a debt-to-GDP ratio as high as 80 percent, thanks again to a badly distorted economy. And it has created a demographic nightmare with a shrinking productive population, a senior tsunami, and millions of males who will be unmarriageable (see the pioneering work of my colleague Nick Eberstadt).

The United States also has big problems. But Americans are debating them vigorously, know what they are, and are now looking to elect the leaders to fix them. China's political structure does not yet allow for fixing big problems.

4 (related to 3). China is America's banker. America cannot anger its banker. In fact, China is more like a depositor. It deposits money in U.S. Treasurys because its economy does not allow investors to put money elsewhere. There is nothing else it can do with its surpluses unless it changes its financial system radically (see above). It makes a pittance on its deposits. If the United States starts to bring down its debts and deficits, China will have even fewer options. China is desperate for U.S. investment, U.S. Treasurys, and the U.S. market. The balance of leverage leans toward the United States.

5. America is engaging China. This is a surprising policy unicorn. After all, the United States does have an engagement policy with China. But it is only engaging a small slice of China: the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The party may be large -- the largest in the world (it could have some 70 million members). The United States does need to engage party leaders on matters of high politics and high finance, but China has at least 1 billion other people. Many are decidedly not part of the CCP. They are lawyers, activists, religious leaders, artists, intellectuals, and entrepreneurs. Most would rather the CCP go quietly into the night. America does not engage them. U.S. presidents tend to avoid making their Chinese counterparts uncomfortable by insisting on speaking to a real cross-section of Chinese society. Engagement seen through the prism of government-to-government relations keeps the United States from engaging with the broader Chinese public. Chinese officials come to the United States and meet with whomever they want (usually in carefully controlled settings and often with groups that are critical of the U.S. government and very friendly to the Chinese government). U.S. leaders are far more cautious in choosing with whom to meet in China. The United States does not demand reciprocity in meeting with real civil society -- underground church leaders, political reformers, and so on. China has a successful engagement policy. America does not.

6. America's greatest challenge is managing China's rise. Actually, America's greatest challenge will probably be managing China's long decline. Unless it enacts substantial reforms, China's growth model may sputter out soon. There is little if nothing it can do about its demographic disaster (will it enact a pro-immigration policy?). And its political system is too risk averse and calcified to make any real reforms.

7. China's decline will make our lives easier. China's decline may make the challenge for the United States more difficult for at least a generation. It could play out for a long time, even as China grows more aggressive with more lethal weaponry (e.g., what to do with surplus males?). Arguably, both Germany and imperial Japan declined beginning after World War I and continuing through the disaster of World War II. Russia is in decline by all useful metrics. Even so, it invaded a neighbor not too long ago. A declining, nuclear-armed nation with a powerful military can be more problematic than a rising, confident nation.

8. America needs to extricate itself from the "distractions" of the Middle East and South Asia to focus on China. This is a very popular unicorn among the cognoscenti. But how would this work? As Middle Easterners go through a historic revolution that could lead to the flowering of democracy or the turmoil of more extremism, how does America turn its attention elsewhere? Is it supposed to leave Afghanistan to the not-so-tender mercies of the Taliban and Pakistani intelligence? This view is particularly ironic given China's increased interests in the Middle East and the U.S. need for a partnership with India to deal with China. The United States has no way of creating the kind of order it wishes to see in Asia without exerting a great amount of influence over the oil-producing states in the Middle East and by allowing India to become tied down in a struggle in South Asia. America is the sole superpower; its foreign policy is interconnected. "Getting Asia right" means "getting the Middle East and South Asia right."

9. America needs China's help to solve global problems. This is further down on my list because it is not really a fantastical unicorn. It is true. What is a fantasy is that China will be helpful. The United States does need China to disarm North Korea. It does not want to, and North Korea is now a nuclear power. The same may soon be true with Iran. The best the United States can get in its diplomacy with China is to stop Beijing from being less helpful. It is a fact that global problems would be easier to manage with Chinese help. However, China actually contributing to global order is a unicorn.

10. Conflict with China is inevitable. A fair reading of the nine "unicorns" above may lead to the conclusion that America is destined to go to war with China. It may be a fair reading, but it is also an inaccurate one. Sino-American relations will be determined by two main drivers -- one the United States can control, one it cannot. The first is the U.S. ability to deter aggressive Chinese behavior. The second is how politics develop in China. The strategic prize for Washington is democratic reform in China. Democracy will not solve all Sino-American problems. China may be very prickly about sovereignty and very nationalistic. But a true liberal democracy in China in which people are fairly represented is the best hope for peace. The disenfranchised could force their government to focus resources on their manifold problems (corruption, misallocated resources, lack of a social safety net). The United States and the rest of Asia will certainly trust an open, transparent China more, and ties would blossom at the level of civil society. Historically, the United States has almost always been on China's side. It is waiting patiently to do so again.

Daniel Blumenthal is a current commissioner and former vice chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. He writes for Foreign Policy's Shadow Government blog.

[Christopher Sidor]

Train to Leh via Kullu-Manali not feasible – Scientists --- Hill Post Dated 4-Oct-2011

From the same report (news item)

The team undertook several studies of the topography of the terrain and the prevailing geological conditions and reached the conclusion that the railway line could be laid along the proposed route, but the Railways would have to use advanced technology to complete the track, specially as the conditions prevailing in the Himalayas range are far different from those in the Shiwalik ranges.

“Most of the region in the Himalayan ranges is under snow for quite long periods of time, which is not so in the case of the Shiwalik ranges, and as such the first priority of the Railways while laying down the railway line would be to strike a coordination between the two, which is why it is being felt that taking the track via Kishtwar would be a better and more practical proposal”, the team opined.

IIT Roorkee is very good yet they should study Tibet Railway Line. Kishtwar Alignment would have different problem-terrorist strike. However later that could also be connected so that two routes would be available. The present alignment would be strategically more important. I hope there is no politics involved in it as HP is non Congress Govt and they are pressing for it.

The problem with using advanced technology is that India would have to call in Swiss or other european engineers and companies for their techniques. This increases the cost of building the railway line significantly. Let us not forget, this railway line will not be remunerative, possibly ever. Add to the cost of maintaining this line in face of land-slides, snow fall, etc and the operation costs of the line just jack up. The railway line to Kashmir is not complete only because of the Chenab bridge fiasco. It is also incomplete, because in many places water has seeped inside the tunnels thus rendering them unusable.

The existing railway to Lhasa, goes over permafrost. It is rumored that Chinese have put chemicals inside permafrost to keep it from giving away. The problem is that this chemical is unknown. Its after effects, as it will seep through the ground and enter the underground water system, are unknown. In other words Chinese might have an ecological disaster at their hands. If we really want to compete with the railway line to Tibet, it would be better that we create a railway line which does not harm the ecology. Or which does not become a white elephant.

Moreover we can strengthen our hand in J&K and Ladakh by actually building the Kargil-Suru-Kushol-Padum-Hinsa-Mandi-Chandigarh 2 lane all weather metallic road which goes between Kisthwar and Hemis National Park and is parallel to the NH21. Also we should plan for an Anantnag-Lamayuru 2 lane all weather metallic road, which will give us a east-west connectivity. Unless we get our road infrastructure, especially between J&K and Himachal upto mark, we cannot effectively defend our north-western regions.

[chaanakya]

Railway to Leh , via either of the two routes, would not be economically viable. It is important primarily for strategic purposes. Ditto for all weather metaled road.The second alignment would need to be defended heavily while Manali Leh would be relatively simpler to defend in peacetime.

In any case with good access tourist inflow would increase and so the eco-problems.

I think Chinese used NH4 in vertical tubes over the permafrost terrain to maintain the permafrost in good shape. Don't know if ecological disaster is in the making and yet to read reports on its failure.

In this particular situation other considerations are more important than the cost itself. With either routes we would have a while elephant but the one that Army truly needs.

btw anyone has idea about Rohtang Tunnel , if it would be used for this line?

[abhishek_sharma]

India to deploy T-72 tanks on border

[Pratyush]

^^^

Is this news different from the news of the armored brigade being stationed in Ladhak which came out some time ago.

[ShauryaT]

India to deploy T-72 tanks on border

The last such news that I know of is a deployment to Tawang. If it is Ladakh, it might be new but the above report is classic TOIlet.

[Jarita]

Is it true that no mans land has completely disappeared

[svinayak]

It is still there but in space above

[RajeshA]

5-Point program to bring about a PRC crash!

a) Steal Manufacturing Jobs

Get Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, Singaporean, Gulf investment into manufacturing industry and infrastructure. Get Americans to shift their production base to India. That is the ultimate show of "partnership". Get the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor up and running! Let the Chinese lose their hold over low-cost manufacturing, as well as over manufacturing jobs for its millions!

b) Push small-arms into China

Chinese CCP's power is based on Mandate of Heaven! If the jobs dry up, more of its people are going to revolt against the party's hold on power. It would help if there is an overflow of arms in the hands of the common people to succeed in revolt.

c) Rekindle Maoism in China

Chinese economic system today is a far cry from what Maoism had thought of! All the revolts should carry the banner of Mao, and they should consider the present generation of CCP as traitors to the cause of Mao! In the name of Mao, people would be willing to burn down everything that smells of treason to his ideals - everything that is in the hands of rich. India should give support to all such Maoist groups that spring up! Anarchy, as much as possible!

d) Proliferate Nukes to China's Neighbors

Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea and ultimately Japan should all go nuclear! India should help through Vietnam! Improve Indian strategic deterrent against China!

e) Incite Ethnic Secessionism

AfPak should remain a factory for Jihadization of Uyghurs! The Tibetans too need to be energized and trained. In fact, the Mountain Divisions that we raise, a couple of them should be manned by Tibetans themselves! Also other minorities within China need to be wrested away from Han domination, perhaps through use of some Brahmi-based scripts to capture their literature, etc. thus underlining a different identity for themselves.

[rajrang]

ranting:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 374427.cms

[ramana]

Can be X-posted in many threads.

Nightwatch comments on Indian increase in military forces:

Nightwatch 17 Oct 2011

India-China: Prime Minister Singh has approved the second phase of military expansion along the "China front," and on Indian islands in the Indian Ocean. The government has given the go-ahead to deploy Brahmos cruise missiles in Arunachal Pradesh. This will be India's first offensive tactical missile regiment targeted against China, according to an account in the Indian Express.


The three Brahmos missile regiments raised thus far have been deployed in the western sector to counter the Pakistan threat. The regiment to be based opposite China will be the fourth regiment. The basing of the new cruise missile regiment is consistent with India's second phase expansion plan for defense forces opposite China, but is being fast-tracked because of an urgent request by the armed forces.

Brahmos is a joint Russian-Indian supersonic cruise missile that can carry nuclear and conventional warheads and has a range of 290 km. The missiles are being based in order to extend India's military reach into the Tibet Autonomous Region and counter China's missile bases along the Sino-Indian border.

The second Indian Army expansion on the China border will include setting up a new corps headquarter in Panagarh, West Bengal, which will command two more divisions. An independent armored brigade along with an artillery division will be organic to the corps.

The government also has decided to focus on the security of Indian islands in the Indian Ocean in order to improve security of the maritime routes that cross the Indian Ocean. Two Army brigades are being prepared for basing in the Andamans, at the northwest outlet of the Malacca Strait. A battalion-strength force is being considered for Lakshadweep to support the Navy in the Laccadive Islands, some 400 kms off southwestern India. Air Force assets are also being increased in these island territories.


Comment: The second phase expansion will add 89,000 soldiers and 400 officers to the Indian Army. It will raise the number of army corps to 14 and the number of divisions to 37.


Prime Minister Singh has approved and overseen the largest expansion of the Indian armed forces in peacetime. Earlier expansions were against Pakistan in anticipation of or during war. Under Singh, the expansions are designed to prepare the Indian armed forces to fight a three-front ground war against China by the middle of the next decade, including against Pakistani forces acting as proxies for China, as well as to defeat Chinese naval and air forces.

As I said before Singh is now king! On way to becoming Maharaja

[ramana]

http://www.newsinsight.net/archivedebat ... recno=2206

Better alone...
The PM spoke truly for India to stand on its "own feet", says N.V.Subramanian.

12 October 2011: Finally, prime minister Manmohan Singh has awoken to the reality of the international situation. Addressing armed forces commanders, he said "most major powers" were preoccupied with their internal problems. This made the task of international governance difficult. Therefore, India had to strengthen its own capabilities and stand on its "own feet".

This statement accepts some facts without highlighting them. America is in decline. While remaining a military superpower, it cannot influence the world. Pax Americana is shredding. At the same time, America's principal challenger, China, is beset with internal problems. Those problems and its anxiety to quickly occupy the strategic space ceded by America are making it belligerent with its neighbours, including India. India has to respond.

India has known from the time of independence that it has to fight its own battles and make a special space in the world. This philosophy was imperfectly contained in Jawaharlal Nehru's vision of non-alignment. For example, he sued for US help following the 1962 Chinese aggression. But help was late in coming and conditioned on India settling the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan. That narrative has remained with India unfortunately to this day.

Then Indira Gandhi with her peace and friendship pact with Soviet Russia abandoned non-alignment temporarily to gain security against the deepening US-China-Pakistan axis. She needed the Soviets specially to prosecute the Bangladesh War without US interference. It still came. Who can forget Henry Kissinger nudging the Chinese to attack India on a second front? Or Richard Nixon ordering a nuclear carrier taskforce into the Bay of Bengal to intimidate India?

Barring such aberrations, India has remained non-aligned. Its rise through the nineties up to now has also come without explicit external assistance in the form of, say, a Marshall Plan. The tragedy is that Indian governments, especially the two regimes of Manmohan Singh, refused to credit India's internal strengths and the genius of its entrepreneurs for what it is today.

The Indo-US nuclear deal was one of the worst expressions of lack of pride at things Indian. The deal had been preceded by a decades-long undermining of India's three-stage programme, largely under Manmohan Singh's watch. The deal itself was cleverly designed to "cap, rollback and eliminate" India's nuclear programme while bringing a bonanza to struggling US reactor-makers.

A chance re-eruption of the Bhopal gas tragedy controversy prevented a dilution of nuclear liability laws. This has made the US nuclear industry rethink about India. Plus other parts of the deal have fallen through, including promised ENR technology transfers. In other words, India's independent spirit has prevented the US from walking all over us.

In another sphere too, India's fierce independence has prevailed. This relates to Af-Pak. The US tolerated Pakistani terrorism against India till it hoped to get Pakistan's assistance in Afghanistan. Knowing about the terrorist, David Coleman Headley's actions, the US was in a position to prevent 26/11. It did not. It won't extradite Headley to India or his partner in terrorism, Tahawwur Rana. Thus, the US has been complicit in Pak terrorism against India.

But strangely, the Manmohan Singh government refused to confront the US with this charge. Rather, it acted under US pressure to engage Pakistan repeatedly. Manmohan Singh likes to own that engagement policy. But it was reckless and dangerous and came under US pressure. Because of internal resistance, the PM was prevented from proceeding the whole way with Pakistan.

For the US, India did not matter. If Pakistan benefitted, the US gained in Afghanistan. Ultimately, Pakistani terrorism was deployed against the US in Afghanistan. Relations between the two countries have since gone downhill. Suddenly, the US came alive to the reality of the Pakistani terror state and significantly tilted in favour of India. In earlier times, the Manmohan Singh government would be ecstatic. No more.

Till some days ago, India exhorted the US to remain in Afghanistan. That is bad policy. This writer has opposed it for some years now. It shows India's pusillanimity in dealing with the Afghan situation when there is no call to be fearful. India has stood up to mujahideen and Taliban Afghanistan and has the capacity to do so again. In the calls to the US not to withdraw, India displayed lack of political will to confront the Afghan crisis head-on. That has finally changed.

Hamid Karzai's recent visit and the Indo-Afghan strategic pact signed during that visit mark India's decision to go alone in Afghanistan. Earlier to that, India made a foray in another direction, jointly exploring for hydrocarbons in the South China Sea that China claims. China is cross with India. It has threatened an Indian Navy vessel in the region. India has not backed down. India is firming relations with China's worried East Asian neighbours.

That should tell that India has finally decided to stand on its "own feet" as the PM described at the commanders' conference. He also laid out the broad grid for strategic self-reliance, particularly in the area of weaponry. But these and other things need prioritization as well for India to succeed alone.

Pakistani terrorism abetted by China is a perpetual threat for India. While it cannot unravel India, it can impede its growth and internal development. To contain and ultimately neutralize Pakistani terrorism, both internal and external intelligence-gathering have to be significantly resourced, deepened, modernized and expanded. Pakistan is a dying state. It represents a bigger threat to India.

Deterring China is of equal priority as containing Pakistani terrorism and the fallouts of its imminent collapse. China will want to teach India a "second lesson" after 1962 for keeping alive the Tibet issue by granting asylum to the Dalai Lama and by its insertion into the South China Sea dispute. China may attack India on the land border or in the Indian Ocean with the added aim to warn its perceived ally, the US.

For tactical threats, Indian forces presumably know what to do. But China will only be strategically deterred when its principal cities fall in the shadows of Indian nukes. An Indian sea-based thermonuclear deterrent is a sine qua non in the circumstances complimented with surface and aerial options. China solely understands the logic of force.

Next, India must build capacity to pressure so-called friends to act against Indian enemies. If India can't get Headley or Rana extradited, it is bad for its image and terrible for its nationhood. Terrorists will be emboldened that India has limited means to punish them abroad.

It is a joke that Iqbal Mirchi is luxuriously resident in the UK for fifteen years without India getting him for the 1993 Bombay blasts. This has to change. India must exert its economic and political muscles to nab its enemies anywhere, anytime.

More substantively, India must be able to leverage its rise to create a favourable foreign political, economic, strategic and security environment. This would include getting permanent membership and veto power in the UN Security Council, joining the NPT and NSG as a fully empowered nuclear power state, gaining untrammeled access to dual-use technologies, and so forth.

At its farthest, such leverage should allow India to impress its benign, peaceful and non-expansionist worldview on the globe.

[Manny]

Pakistan and China deserve one another. Same culture..same values


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/1 ... 16187.html

And then we have this...Character and values

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sOw3mCz4Oc

[menon s]

Shyam Saran: The myth of Chinese invincibility
http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... ty/452967/

The key drivers of this growth have been the consistently high rates of fixed investment and rapidly rising exports. From 1979 to 2009, China’s fixed investment grew from 35 per cent of GDP to 45 per cent, while export turnover grew from five per cent of GDP to 30 per cent. Consumption, on the other hand, declined from 60 per cent of GDP to less than 40 per cent. Currently, it is even lower, at 33.8 per cent, according to the latest China Year Book. The spectacular rise in China’s exports was possible only because consumption grew both in the US as well as western Europe, much beyond the trend line, fuelled by rising housing prices in the US and by the growing sovereign debts of prodigal governments in Europe. For example, in the US the normal consumption levels were around 66 per cent of GDP around the last quarter of the 20th century. By 2007 they had reached 75 per cent, unsupported by the income-generating capacity of the US economy.

A reversal to trend line would require massive and painful rebalancing, which cannot but impact China’s main export market. The speedier the relative decline in China’s exports, the greater the pressure to compensate through seeking alternative markets in emerging economies and simultaneously raising domestic consumption. How feasible is this?

There is no way that rising demand in China and India could offset a significant fall in consumption levels in the West and Japan for several years to come, even if they were to grow at double-digit rates. In any event, to expect China to reverse course in a short time frame and raise its consumption level from the current 34 per cent of GDP to the more normal level of 50 to 55 per cent in Asian countries is unrealistic. Maintaining high growth rates would, therefore, require the continuance of the current investment-oriented strategy, to compensate for declining level of exports and stagnant consumption. This will further exacerbate the already serious problem of over-capacity, particularly in the important construction sector and compound the associated issue of rising non-performing assets in the Chinese banking sector. Housing investment in China is about 25 per cent of all fixed investment and, therefore, a critical driver of growth. Any retrenchment in this sector would not only drag the economy down but also generate spread effects on the supply industries such as steel.

in short
Key growth drivers for Chinese economy: A. High Fixed Investment (45 % of GDP) B. High Exports (30% of GDP) C. Low Internal consumption (33.8% of GDP) D. Artificially supported currency.

Low tech exports are any way going to come down, boosting growth through high fixed investment means more NPRs in banks, raising the internal consumption through higher wages means, inflation and price pressures on low tech manufacturing.

The only way out is that, China needs to move into the next trajectory of high tech manufacturing and services fast. But there is no denial that, China will face an economic crisis, sooner than later.

[devesh]

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/eo20111019bc.html

China's unparalleled rise as a hydro-hegemon

By BRAHMA CHELLANEY

NEW DELHI — International discussion about China's rise has focused on its increasing trade muscle, growing maritime ambitions and expanding capacity to project military power. One critical issue, however, usually escapes attention: China's rise as a hydro-hegemon with no modern historical parallel.

No other country has ever managed to assume such unchallenged riparian preeminence on a continent by controlling the headwaters of multiple international rivers and manipulating their cross-border flows. China, the world's biggest dam builder — with slightly more than half of the approximately 50,000 large dams on the planet — is rapidly accumulating leverage against its neighbors by undertaking massive hydro-engineering projects on transnational rivers.

Asia's water map fundamentally changed after the 1949 communist victory in China. Most of Asia's important international rivers originate in territories that were forcibly annexed to the People's Republic of China. The Tibetan Plateau, for example, is the world's largest freshwater repository and the source of Asia's greatest rivers, including those that are the lifeblood for China, and South and Southeast Asia. Other such Chinese territories contain the headwaters of rivers like the Irtysh, Illy, and Amur, which flow to Russia and Central Asia.

This makes China the source of cross-border water flows to the largest number of countries in the world. Yet China rejects the very notion of water sharing or institutionalized cooperation with down-river countries.

Whereas riparian neighbors in Southeast and South Asia are bound by water pacts that they have negotiated between themselves, China does not have a single water treaty with any co-riparian country. Indeed, having its cake and eating it, China is a dialogue partner but not a member of the Mekong River Commission, underscoring its intent not to abide by the Mekong basin community's rules or take on any legal obligations.

Worse, while promoting multilateralism on the world stage, China has given the cold shoulder to multilateral cooperation among river-basin states. The lower Mekong countries, for example, view China's strategy as an attempt to "divide and conquer."

Although China publicly favors bilateral initiatives over multilateral institutions in addressing water issues, it has not shown any real enthusiasm for meaningful bilateral action. As a result, water has increasingly become a new political divide in the country's relations with neighbors like India, Russia, Kazakhstan and Nepal.

China deflects attention from its refusal to share water, or to enter into institutionalized cooperation to manage common rivers sustainably, by flaunting the accords that it has signed on sharing flow statistics with riparian neighbors. These are not agreements to cooperate on shared resources, but rather commercial accords to sell hydrological data that other upstream countries provide free to down-river states.

In fact, by shifting its frenzied dam building from internal rivers to international rivers, China is now locked in water disputes with almost all co-riparian states. Those disputes are bound to worsen, given China's new focus on erecting mega-dams, best symbolized by its latest addition on the Mekong — the 4,200-megawatt Xiaowan Dam, which dwarfs Paris's Eiffel Tower in height — and a 38,000-megawatt dam planned on the Brahmaputra at Metog, close to the disputed border with India. The Metog Dam will be twice as large as the 18,300-megawatt Three Gorges Dam -currently the world's largest — the construction of which uprooted at least 1.7 million Chinese.

In addition, China has identified another mega-dam site on the Brahmaputra at Daduqia, which, like Metog, is to harness the force of a nearly 3,000-meter drop in the river's height as it takes a sharp southerly turn from the Himalayan range into India, forming the world's longest and steepest canyon. The Brahmaputra Canyon — twice as deep as the Grand Canyon in the United States — holds Asia's greatest untapped water reserves.

The countries likely to bear the brunt of such massive diversion of waters are those located farthest downstream on rivers like the Brahmaputra and Mekong — Bangladesh, whose very future is threatened by climate and environmental change, and Vietnam, a rice bowl of Asia. China's water appropriations from the Illy River threaten to turn Kazakhstan's Lake Balkhash into another Aral Sea, which has shrunk to less than half its original size.

In addition, China has planned the "Great Western Route," the proposed third leg of the Great South-North Water Diversion Project — the most ambitious inter-river and inter-basin transfer program ever conceived — whose first two legs, involving internal rivers in China's ethnic Han heartland, are scheduled to be completed within three years. The Great Western Route, centered on the Tibetan Plateau, is designed to divert waters, including from international rivers, to the Yellow River, the main river of water-stressed northern China, which also originates in Tibet.

With its industry now dominating the global hydropower-equipment market, China has also emerged as the largest dam builder overseas. From Pakistani-held Kashmir to Burma's troubled Kachin and Shan states, China has widened its dam building to disputed or insurgency-torn areas, despite local backlashes.

For example, units of the People's Liberation Army are engaged in dam and other strategic projects in the restive, Shiite-majority region of Gilgit-Baltistan in Pakistan-held Kashmir. And China's dam building inside Burma to generate power for export to Chinese provinces has contributed to renewed bloody fighting recently, ending a 17-year ceasefire between the Kachin Independence Army and the government.

As with its territorial and maritime disputes with India, Vietnam, Japan and others, China is seeking to disrupt the status quo on flows of international rivers. Persuading it to halt further unilateral appropriation of shared waters has thus become pivotal to Asian peace and stability. Otherwise, China is likely to emerge as the master of Asia's water taps, thereby acquiring tremendous leverage over its neighbors' behavior.

[Varoon Shekhar]

^^^
The more I read stuff like that, the more anger I feel against Nehru for not doing something when Tibet was still independent. Patel was aware of the situation and wanted something done. An independent, democratic, open, pluralistic, Buddhist oriented, Tibet was so obviously in India's interests, and the interests of the Tibetan people. Instead, Nehru forsook Tibet in preference for Hindi-Chini bhai bhai, which had such disastrous consequences later.

[svinayak]

This period 1947-1950 was controlled by the UK and US. India had less choice on the geo politics in the Eurasian heartland.
The Soviet ability to absorb nations after WWII in Asia was shocking for the British and the Americans.
They had to create an alternate which would act like their puppet.

When ever there is a power vacuum it will invite outside power.

[svinayak]

BRAHMA CHELLANEY
Why China isn't fit to lead Asia
BRAHMA CHELLANEY
From Monday's Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Oct. 04, 2010 5:00AM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opi ... le1738923/

Japan may have created the impression that it buckled under China’s pressure by releasing a Chinese fishing boat captain involved in a collision near islands that both countries claim. But the Japanese action has helped move the spotlight back to China, whose rapidly accumulating power has emboldened it to aggressively assert territorial and maritime claims against neighbours stretching from Japan to India.

Having earlier preached the gospel of its “peaceful rise,” China is no longer shy about showcasing its military capabilities. While Chinese leaders may gloat over Tokyo’s back-pedalling, the episode – far from shifting the Asian balance of power in Beijing’s favour – has only shown that China is at the centre of Asia’s political divides.

China’s new stridency in its disputes with its neighbours has helped highlight Asia’s central challenge to come to terms with existing boundaries by getting rid of the baggage of history that weighs down all important interstate relationships. Even as Asia is becoming more interdependent economically, it’s getting more divided politically.

China has been involved in the largest number of military conflicts in Asia since 1950, the year both the Korean War and the annexation of Tibet began. According to a recent Pentagon report, “China’s leaders have claimed military pre-emption as a strategically defensive act. For example, China refers to its intervention in the Korean War (1950-1953) as the ‘war to resist the United States and aid Korea.’ Similarly, authoritative texts refer to border conflicts against India (1962), the Soviet Union (1969) and Vietnam (1979) as ‘self-defence counterattacks.’ ” All these cases of pre-emption occurred when China was weak, poor and internally torn. So, today, China’s growing power naturally raises legitimate concerns.

Several developments this year alone underline Beijing’s more muscular foreign policy – from its inclusion of the South China Sea in its “core” national interests, an action that makes its claims to the disputed Spratly Islands non-negotiable, to its reference to the Yellow Sea as an exclusive Chinese military zone where Washington and Seoul, respecting the new Chinese power, should discontinue joint naval exercises.

China also has become more insistent in pressing its territorial claims to the Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands, with Chinese warships making more frequent forays into Japanese waters, and to India’s northeastern Arunachal Pradesh state, with Indian defence officials reporting a sharp spurt in Chinese incursions across the disputed Himalayan frontier and in aggressive patrolling. Beijing also has started questioning New Delhi’s sovereignty over the state of Jammu and Kashmir, one-fifth of which it occupies.

Against that background, China’s increasingly assertive territorial and maritime claims threaten Asian peace and stability. In fact, the largest piece of real estate China covets is not in the South or East China Seas but in India: Arunachal Pradesh is almost three times larger than Taiwan.

Respect for boundaries is a prerequisite to peace and stability on any continent. Europe has built its peace on that principle, with a number of European states learning to live with borders they don’t like. But the Chinese Communist Party still harps on old grievances to reinforce its claim to legitimacy and monopolize power – that only it can fully restore China’s “dignity” after a century of humiliation at the hands of foreign powers.

And through its refusal to accept the territorial status quo, Beijing highlights the futility of political negotiations. Whether it’s Arunachal Pradesh or Taiwan or the Senkaku Islands or even the Spratlys, China is dangling the threat of force to assert its claims. In doing so, it’s helping to reinforce the spectre of a threatening China. By picking territorial fights with its neighbours, Beijing is also threatening Asia’s economic renaissance. More important, China is showing that it isn’t a credible candidate to lead Asia.

It’s important for other Asian states and the U.S. – a “resident power” in Asia, in the words of Defence Secretary Robert Gates – to convey a clear message to Beijing: After six long decades, China’s redrawing of frontiers must end.

Brahma Chellaney, a professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi, is the author of Asian Juggernaut: The Rise of China, India and Japan.

[shyamd]

A NATO like Alliance is in the making - SL, Maldives, Bhutan, Myanmar, Nepal, Vietnam, Singapore, Japan.
Aus, Indonesia, Thailand, Bangladesh possibly.

Its just a question of time before the hand is revealed. India is working over time to set up the Dharmic alliance.

Kalaikunda will be the place where the joint Air HQ will probably be based.

A&N is being developed into a major base with tanks,artillery units being based there. Why? To air lift eqpt, personnel to any of the alliance members when requested.

Today you see Singaporeans have ammunition dumps, training - army AF Navy in India.

India and Vietnam signed a deal to install hydrophones in the SCS, this should give us early warning on PRC sub deployment. However, this is probably in response to PRC's planned oceanagraphic activity in IOR.

it will still be some time before everything is fully declared - still lots to be done. What is the end aim of all this? We can all spend money on development and increases our security and makes PRC spend more money on defending more borders therefore less on development.

We are treating PRC like the FSU/Iran, they have an expansionist/nazi ideology.

Its important to note that this capability is purely defensive not meant for aggression.

[kittoo]

^I would be so happy if this is true. Just one question sir, is it your hunch or do you know it from somewhere (not asking for source, of course).

[shyamd]

Tidbits have been released, then just add it all up and look at the bigger picture. What I have said is based purely on facts. What I have written is not the whole story. India will be playing the anchor role. There will be bases in SE Asia soon. Only a matter of time.

Note this is only for our defence. We are simultaneously increasing our economic relations with PRC and we won't let go of defence until we receive comprehensive security.

There is a reason why we invite everyone to exercise in Kalaikunda.

[abhischekcc]

First point, I am glad that Indian foreign/defence policy has turned proactive and future oriented, rather than the reactive and backward looking paki-focused.

Second, several countries in that large alliance are not likely to have come because India called - such as Aussie, Japan, and perhaps Indonesia as well. But they WOULD join if USA asked them. IOW, although unkil is missing from the view, it is really its presence.

Third, if unkil is setting up this alliance, then it is clear that they have actually decided to withdraw from Asia and leave Asian defence in the hands of pro American countries. This means that the Asian cold war has finally started.

Fourth, the alliance does not seem to be limiting its war fighting capabilities to defence alone - tanks and artillery do not constitute defensive weapons.

The inclusion of Myanmar is a master stroke. In one shot, PRC is deprived of a land access to IOR.

[devesh]

Massa might be hoping to make temporary withdrawal and come back once they set their house in order. it is up to India to make use of this window, if it is happening. we need to utilize this window and displace the Massa supported networks at home and the near periphery. such an opportunity is rare to come by.

[shyamd]

First point, I am glad that Indian foreign/defence policy has turned proactive and future oriented, rather than the reactive and backward looking paki-focused.

Boss, it always was, some times it is unclear. We intervened in Nepal, SL, Smiling Buddha etc.

Second, several countries in that large alliance are not likely to have come because India called - such as Aussie, Japan, and perhaps Indonesia as well. But they WOULD join if USA asked them. IOW, although unkil is missing from the view, it is really its presence.

Lets not kid ourselves, US has an economic crisis. So, its ability to intervene in a significant way is strained despite the fact that it has the capability to do so.

But all the nations have one thing in common - they all have problems with PRC and PRC is bullying them more. Jap - Ind relations only kicked off when they had serious conflaguration a year or so ago. Aus - Jap have a PRC centric deal on training the JDF SF with Aus SAS and pooling of intel. Ind Jap have been cooperating on PRC for a long time - mainly SIGINT.

US will definitely encourage this given their situation.

Third, if unkil is setting up this alliance, then it is clear that they have actually decided to withdraw from Asia and leave Asian defence in the hands of pro American countries. This means that the Asian cold war has finally started.

PRC can't even take an island off its coast. No one really thinks PRC has much capability at the moment. But these alliances are about the future.

Fourth, the alliance does not seem to be limiting its war fighting capabilities to defence alone - tanks and artillery do not constitute defensive weapons.

No, what I mean is if any of the alliance nations come under extensive threat from PRC aggression, we will contribute and support that nation with whatever means available.

The inclusion of Myanmar is a master stroke. In one shot, PRC is deprived of a land access to IOR.

There is still a lot of work to be done, but the bones/skeletons are being put into place. Its still early days yet, lets just hope it all comes together. We are still struggling to build ports in Myanmar, India has to kick start investment there to really mean business.

The reason why India is showing this hand is because of aggressive behaviour by PRC to us and other nations in the neighbourhood. But also, US is weak at the moment and PRCwill be heavily affected with the upcoming economic crisis (so much that its internal troubles will grow further) and eventually they will have to divert attention of the local population/economic failures on a war with a neighbour. This is why India is ramping up infra/def etc double fast in the NE region.

Keeping the pot boiling in Afghanistan by supporting groups against ISI/TSP backed Taliban will keep J&K safer. We have enjoyed more success because of this war. It is imperative that Af-Pak stays on the boil. This allows us to focus more on our navy and NE border.

[Samudragupta]

A NATO like Alliance is in the making - SL, Maldives, Bhutan, Myanmar, Nepal, Vietnam, Singapore, Japan.
Aus, Indonesia, Thailand, Bangladesh possibly.

Its just a question of time before the hand is revealed. India is working over time to set up the Dharmic alliance.

Kalaikunda will be the place where the joint Air HQ will probably be based.

A&N is being developed into a major base with tanks,artillery units being based there. Why? To air lift eqpt, personnel to any of the alliance members when requested.

Today you see Singaporeans have ammunition dumps, training - army AF Navy in India.

India and Vietnam signed a deal to install hydrophones in the SCS, this should give us early warning on PRC sub deployment. However, this is probably in response to PRC's planned oceanagraphic activity in IOR.

it will still be some time before everything is fully declared - still lots to be done. What is the end aim of all this? We can all spend money on development and increases our security and makes PRC spend more money on defending more borders therefore less on development.

We are treating PRC like the FSU/Iran, they have an expansionist/nazi ideology.

Its important to note that this capability is purely defensive not meant for aggression.

Who is Driving this ?

[shyamd]

GoI encouraged by the US.

[rajrang]

GoI encouraged by the US.

I hope the US has not outrsourced this work to the GoI. The US needs to be at the focal point of this effort. For this I am afraid we will need to wait for an aggressive US president in the Oval office.

[Pratyush]

^^^

The news may be heartwarming.

But in the absence of India's ability to replenish its war stock through domestic suppliers. The talk of an Asian Nato may be premature in the extreme.

[abhishek_sharma]

China on mind, R&AW chief to meet Bhutan King today

Asia’s Giants Colliding at Sea?: Jaswant Singh

[Virendra]

The inclusion of Myanmar is a master stroke. In one shot, PRC is deprived of a land access to IOR.

I would not count the chicken before the eggs hatch. If it happens, well nothing better.
But presently Myanmar is under tight noose from China on economic and diplomatic aid. It would be long rope walk for them to switch over anywhere else. Of all the names mentioned, I'm least optimistic of SL and Myanmar because of their track record till now.
Although Vitenam and Japs are surely in. Australia; depends on how and when the west winks to them.
Times have changed, first religion and muscle power used to define what would happen and how. Then came the turn of nationalism and other socio-political phenomenon. Now is the day of economics.
If China would still be strong, I don't see how Myanmar can bluntly refuse sea access, atleast for non-military purpose.
They're neighbors and Myanmar don't have a very arch rival kind of past as Vietnamis/Japs have with PRC.
Anyways, lets hope something concrete transpires by the end of this decade.

Regards,
Virendra

[Christopher Sidor]

Happy Diwali to all of you.

I hope we continue our fruitful discussion on this and other forums.

[RajeshA]

Published on Oct 26, 2011
Vietnam, Philippines eye alliance in Spratlys row: PhilStar

MANILA, Philippines (AP) — The Philippine and Vietnamese presidents met Wednesday to oversee the signing of agreements that would allow their navies and coast guards to better monitor and respond to emergencies in and near the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.

President Benigno Aquino III and President Truong Tan Sang, who arrived for a three-day state visit, were also to discuss proposals to involve other countries, and possibly the United Nations, in seeking a solution to the disputes over the islands, which they claim along with four other countries, including China.

"We're trying to see if a common, united approach can be had between our two countries in terms of the claims that we both have in the West Philippines Sea," Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario said, referring to the new name Manila uses for the South China Sea.

China wants bilateral negotiations with other claimant countries in trying to resolve the dispute over the potentially resource-rich Spratlys and has rejected any role by non-claimant countries like the United States.

Aquino was to propose that the Philippines and Vietnam work together to raise the territorial conflicts in international forums, including at an annual summit next month of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations in Indonesia, according to Philippine documents listing topics the leaders would tackle. That event will also be attended by the United States, Russia, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. {India somehow does not find any mention}

Both sides would also sign an accord to intensify information-sharing between the two countries' navies to allow them to better respond to natural calamities and carry out "maritime security operations," according to the Philippine documents.

Another agreement would set up a hotline between the countries' coast guards and marine police to strengthen their capability to monitor "maritime incidents," protect their marine resources, prevent smuggling, drug trafficking, illegal immigration and piracy, the documents said.

The Philippines and Vietnam have accused Chinese vessels of repeatedly intruding this year into Spratlys areas that they claim and of disrupting oil explorations well within their territorial waters. China has denied the accusations and reiterated its claim to the entire South China Sea.

[RajeshA]

India should raise two further mountain divisions consisting of mostly Tibetans refugees in India. The aim should be to have a permanent mountain division of say 30,000 Tibetan troops and another 30,000 Tibetans who are at any given time receiving training in mountain combat, the training lasting for say 3 years.

Tibetans should come from Tibet itself to get their training in the Indian Army. During the training, the needs of them and their families should be catered to.

In fact, it should become a normal practice for all Tibetans that they receive 3 years training in the Indian Army in mountain warfare, etc. regardless of whether they live in India as refugees or whether they return to Tibet and work there.

And no matter what that should become the resolve of the Indian state and the Chinese threats should not be allowed to waiver us in our determination and policy.

[rohitvats]

If it any consolation, we have about 10 battalions of Vikas Regiment aka SFF. IMO, should be 800-1,000 men each.

[RajeshA]

rohitvats ji,

I was aware of Vikas Regiment, though had no idea of its size! Thanks!

Basically I would urge ambition in increasing their size. Every Tibetan male should learn to identify himself with the Indian Army, become trained in warfare, and learn how to interface smoothly with the forces. We are a growing economy, and a Tibetan populace fully trained in warfare against the Chinese is a great investment for India.

[rajrang]

India should raise two further mountain divisions consisting of mostly Tibetans refugees in India. The aim should be to have a permanent mountain division of say 30,000 Tibetan troops and another 30,000 Tibetans who are at any given time receiving training in mountain combat, the training lasting for say 3 years.

Tibetans should come from Tibet itself to get their training in the Indian Army. During the training, the needs of them and their families should be catered to.

In fact, it should become a normal practice for all Tibetans that they receive 3 years training in the Indian Army in mountain warfare, etc. regardless of whether they live in India as refugees or whether they return to Tibet and work there.

And no matter what that should become the resolve of the Indian state and the Chinese threats should not be allowed to waiver us in our determination and policy.

The total Tibetan population in India has been quoted in the press (for decades) to be 100,000. It will be difficult to recruit 30,000 able bodied men out of this figure.

Assuming a birth rate of 30 per thousand per year, this works out 3000 Tibetan babies born every year. Assuming half are girls then 1500 Tibetan boy babies are born every year. If all Tibetan male babies upon reaching adulthood are recruited into the army, for a service term of 20 years, then it adds up to 30,000 (= 1500 x 20). As you can see from these estimates that would imply all mals Tibetans within the age group are fit for and are willing for military service.

The above estimates will change if the Tibetan population in India is much greater than 100,000.