The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
China conducted flight take-offs and landings on its Liaoning aircraft carrier over nearly a month of exercises, the first such drills on the vessel as the country modernizes its military arsenal and extends its reach at sea. The Liaoning returned to Qingdao port July 3 after the training mission that involved J-15 fighter jets, the People’s Daily newspaper said in a front-page article. The exercises were the latest step in a carrier-development program that has dovetailed with a Chinese push to assert its sovereignty more aggressively in disputes with Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam in the East and South China seas. The Communist Party plans to boost military spending by 10.7 percent this year as it responds to a concurrent U.S. push for more influence in the Asia-Pacific. “It’s all part of a long-term training program,” Richard Bitzinger, senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, said by phone. “We are getting indicators of a long-term intention, decisive intention, on the part of the Chinese to build up a carrier-based navy. That’s pretty much irrefutable.” The program has moved quickly since the Liaoning, built with the hull of an unfinished Soviet-era ship that China bought in 1998 from Ukraine, was commissioned in September. In November, a J-15 jet landed on the carrier for the first time. Five months later, Rear Admiral Song Xue said China will build new aircraft carriers bigger than its first. China and Russia started their largest-ever joint naval drills today in the Sea of Japan, the Associated Press reported. Eighteen surface ships, one submarine, three airplanes, five ship-launched helicopters and two commando units are taking part in the exercise that runs through July 12, according to the AP. Japan expressed “grave concern” to China about the apparent construction of a gas platform about 26 kilometers (16 miles) west of a line marking the two countries’ exclusive economic zones, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga told reporters in Tokyo July 3. China has never accepted the “so-called median line,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said at a briefing yesterday. “It’s justified for China to carry out development activities in waters under China’s jurisdiction,” Hua said. The Japan Coast Guard said in an e-mail today it had observed a Chinese marine survey ship trailing cables through waters it considers part of its exclusive economic zone around the southernmost Okinotorishima islets on July 3 and 4. A coastguard plane attempted to contact the ship via radio but received no response, it said. These were the first sightings in that area since 2004, the Sankei newspaper said in a separate report. China now has the second-biggest military budget in the world after the U.S. The country will need several more years before the Liaoning is fully operational and it learns how to build its own carriers, according to Bitzinger. “One carrier is symbolic but if you really want to have an effective carrier-based force you’ve really got to have two, three or four,” Bitzinger said. “And building a carrier is going to be very challenging for them.”
More worrisome is China's bomber force of 120 elderly bombers ,which China intends replacing with new aircraft and even a stealth bomber type.India has no bombers whatsoever,barring about 4 serviceable Bear LRMP aircraft meant for maritime missions,but if equipped with LR cruise missiles,can be used for the same purpose. Equipped similarly with stand-off missiles,China's elderly bomber fleet can have devastating effect in any conflict.
The large number of Chinese subs are the most dangerous threat to the IN in the IOR and Indo-China Sea,as can be found from the reports of multiple PLAN subs being detected in the IOR around the Lankan and Indian coastlines.While China will have between 60-80 new subs by 2020,the IN will barely have a dozen,while even Pak will have around 8-10 new AIP subs of both French and Chinese origin.
The Americans & the Japanese are equally anxious to know in real time the locations of the subs. Hope that helps too apart from the P-8Is and the ageing Tu-142s
India may not place any major component of the proposed mountain strike corps in Arunachal Pradesh as part of an effort not to further aggravate the tenuous ties with China. Army sources, however, also point out that militarily too it won't be a wise strategy to place any key component of the offensive arm close to the line of actual control (LAC).
The proposed corps would be India's first offensive corps with mountain warfare capabilities and the fourth strike corps. However, by no means would it match China's aggressive military capabilities and infrastructure across the LAC.{This single vague sentence becomes the headline !}
The proposal for raising the strike corps has been hanging fire for the past several years, and had been delayed primarily because of financial considerations. Simultaneously, India is also trying to create a modern infrastructure close to the border, both for improving civilian connectivity and military movement.
The CCS, headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, on Wednesday approved the long-pending proposal of the Army to create its first mountain strike corps, meant for offensive operations across China border, at a budget of over Rs 64,000 crore in about seven years.
Terming as "pragmatic" the government's decision to raise a mountain strike corps along the Chinese border, external affairs minister Salman Khurshid on Thursday said the country prepares for peace as much as for "tough" times.
"In national interest, we will do whatever needs to be done at the appropriate level. We work for peace as much as for tough times," he said, adding that the government takes "steps whenever necessary".
Speaking on the sidelines of an art exhibition, he added, "We live in a world which combines principles with pragmatism ... we also maintain a rational, decent balance in our policies."
According to available indications, the government is not inclined to place any major component of the strike corps in Arunachal Pradesh, which China claims to be southern Tibet and a disputed territory. Indian activities in Arunachal have been touchy for China for long, and New Delhi wouldn't want to create any further damage to its already tenuous ties with Beijing.
The tricky Arunachal issue could also be avoided because the Army wouldn't be inclined to place any major component of the strike corps so close to the border. Formations of the corps would likely be based in West Bengal, Assam, Odisha and Jharkhand. In some of these states fresh land may have to be acquired, in other places the Army already has enough land to accommodate the new formations, sources said.
As of now the plan is to headquarter the corps at Panagarh in West Bengal, but a final decision would be taken after the government sanction comes through.
The corps would have two infantry divisions trained in mountain warfare, one air defence brigade, two artillery brigades, one each engineering and aviation brigades. While the artillery brigades could be looking at inducting ultra light howitzers, the aviation brigade could boast of attack helicopters and Boeing's heavy lift helicopter Chinooks.
In recent years, India has been making steady efforts to improve its military capability along the LAC. Indian Army has already raised two new infantry divisions at Lekhapani and Missamari in Assam in recent times.
China on Friday indicated that India’s move to raise a mountain strike corps along the border would not have a negative impact on bilateral ties, with officials reiterating that they were “willing to join hands” with India to maintain peace and stability in border areas.
The measured reaction from the Chinese Foreign Ministry, analysts said, reflected the renewed keenness, on both sides of the border, to ensure that bilateral ties were better insulated from boundary issues in the wake of the Depsang border stand-off in April.
The Foreign Ministry here on Friday played down the significance of the move – the Cabinet Committee on Security had on Wednesday granted in-principle approval to set up a strike corps of 45,000 soldiers — saying both sides already had agreements in place to ensure border stability.
The Ministry added, in a statement to The Hindu issued in response to questions, that it was “willing to join hands with India to safeguard peace and tranquillity of the border areas”.
“China and India have signed several agreements on maintaining peace and tranquillity of border areas and on establishing confidence-building measures in the military field,” the Foreign Ministry said, adding that “the overall situation” in the border areas was “peaceful and stable.”
Chinese strategic analysts have also played down the move, in part because the official approval was long-expected and overdue, mired in bureaucratic delays, and hence hardly seen as a surprise.
Analysts were of the view that while the decision would likely generate media attention in both countries – China’s nationalistic tabloid newspapers are yet to react to the move, although it has sparked some discussion on online military forums – it would have little impact on bilateral relations.
“This plan has been mulled over for quite some years in the Indian side,” Hu Shisheng, a prominent South Asia strategic scholar at the State-run China Institutes for Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), told The Hindu .
“Although this development could add more spice in the media hype, I don’t think this will have any tangible negative impact upon Sino-India relations,” he said.
Analysts here are also aware that China still enjoys a favourable asymmetry across the border both in terms of infrastructure and terrain, having completed a modernisation of road, rail and air networks in Tibet and Xinjiang that allows Beijing to mobilise its forces rapidly.
The strike corps will now give India the capability to launch an offensive into Tibet in the eventuality of a Chinese attack, serving as an additional deterrent. The Army also proposed raising two infantry brigades and armoured brigades to plug gaps along the border.
Mr. Hu said “China will not have much concern about this latest development.” “The two countries cannot afford to fight a war over their disputed border issue. They have much more important issues to tackle,” he said.
He was also of the view that the recently concluded 16th round of talks between Special Representatives Shivshankar Menon and Yang Jiechi had seen both sides “committing to make further progress in the settlement of border issues, like making some tangible progress in the middle section and the Sikkim section of border.”
“My personal view,” Mr. Hu added, “is that with more troops from both sides to plug the loopholes (man those grey areas) in the boundary region, there will be clearer and clearer understanding about the locations of each other’s claimed [Line of Actual Control]. This will definitely reduce the face-off eventualities.”
Earlier this month, both sides agreed to increase the frequency and number of locations of border personnel meetings in an effort to increase communication across the border. The agreement, announced in a joint statement issued following Defence Minister A.K. Antony’s visit to Beijing, was aimed at beefing up the mechanisms in place in order to prevent the recurrence of an incident such as the Depsang stand-off.
On April 15, four People’s Liberation Army (PLA) soldiers set up a tent in eastern Ladakh, sparking a stand-off that took as long as three weeks to resolve. While both sides had in the past carried out patrols in disputed areas where their perceptions of the LAC were overlapping, neither side had taken the step of putting up a tent, a move seen by some Indian officials as an unexpected provocation.
Border defence pact
India and China are also discussing a Border Defence Cooperation Agreement to consolidate and enhance their existing confidence-building measures. Both sides are expected to discuss this agreement when officials from the foreign ministries and militaries who comprise the boundary consultation and coordination mechanism meet in New Delhi for talks scheduled for next week.
Mr. Hu said it was a “normal development” for both sides to carry out development in border areas. “I personally take the upgrading of their infrastructure as a normal development of each other’s economic and social development strategy,” he said.
“In fact, if two countries have no trust, any development in any area could be regarded as a source of concern. But the development of infrastructures of each other’s frontier regions will finally also provide a solid base for both countries, and peoples, to carry forward cooperation and communication, when the time is ripe.”
Times Now is reporting that 100 Chinese soldiers intruded into Ladakh region. I am not sure if it is an old one or a new one. Last time around, Manoj Joshi said that we should not exaggerate the intrusion because there were hardly 7 Chinese soldiers and a Chinese dog in those 7 tents. Now, the strength of the intruders has gone up significantly. The targetting of Ladakh and frequent intrusions are not because of 'differing perceptions of the LAC'. GoI can no longer keep offering this lame excuse. More worrying would be if it begins to believe its own lie.
LEH: Security agencies have recommended to the home ministry prosecution of three Chinese intruders on the grounds that they had prior knowledge about Indian defence posts and routes taken by troops during patrolling in the higher reaches of Ladakh.
The trio were questioned at a stretch by interrogators and there were contradictions in their statements about the route taken by them to enter into India, sources said.
The three - Salamo, Abdul Khaliq and Adil Thorsong - were detained on June 12 near Sultanchku in north of Ladakh and were kept separately at Margo post in the area.
Their questioning led the interrogators to the conclusion that the three were lying about the route taken by them to enter India, the sources said.
According to interrogators from security agencies, the three had knowledge about Indian posts and routes taken by the patrols to higher reaches along the China-India border but feigned ignorance about any Chinese camps across the Line of Actual Control (LAC), they said.
While recommending prosecution of the three to the Union home ministry, the interrogation report said that the trio, who speak only in Yarkandi and Uyghur languages, could not give any basic details about Kargalilik of Xianjang province in which they claimed to have been living.
The small political maps seized from the three were torn from local school books, the sources said.
The agencies have expressed apprehension that the three could have been headed towards Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir which is barely 20 kms up north of the area where they were nabbed.
The area where they were detained was in news as Indian and Chinese troops had a face-off for nearly 21 days from April 15 to May five, this year.
Their claim that they entered India as they were mesmerised by Bollywood superstars Shahrukh Khan and Hrithik Roshan was seen as their diversionary tactics. The three, of whom one person is one-eyed, had also said earlier that they wanted to enter India to earn money as they were facing acute poverty in their region, the sources said.
The trio said they wanted to come to India because they believed it was a land of prosperity, the sources said, but added that each of them gave a different version about their family background.
Both summer and winter road links to this post were disconnected due to bad weather in Ladakh region this year and the authorities had to fly interrogators along with a translator to the Margo post.
They were carrying improvised swords and knives, tinned food including egg powder (useful in higher region), Chinese currency of over 900 Yuan and Chinese leather jackets.
The three claimed that the jackets, discarded by the Chinese troops, were picked up by them en route.
According to the laid down procedure along the LAC, the custody of any accused apprehended in the area has to be with the Indo-Tibetan Border Police and interrogation can be carried out by central security agencies.
SSridhar wrote:Times Now is reporting that 100 Chinese soldiers intruded into Ladakh region. I am not sure if it is an old one or a new one. Last time around, Manoj Joshi said that we should not exaggerate the intrusion because there were hardly 7 Chinese soldiers and a Chinese dog in those 7 tents. Now, the strength of the intruders has gone up significantly. The targetting of Ladakh and frequent intrusions are not because of 'differing perceptions of the LAC'. GoI can no longer keep offering this lame excuse. More worrying would be if it begins to believe its own lie.
I hope Defense Minister AKA will target the Western sector for additional mountain forces. This will give China a (long term) logical consequence.
Last edited by rajrang on 21 Jul 2013 22:17, edited 1 time in total.
Hats off to Mr. A K Anthony for his tireless efforts to raise India's military strength.
I am afraid locating these forces in West Bengal, Assam, Odisha and Jharkhand will reduce "mountain experience" at altitudes for these men. If the task of these forces is to fight fateful battles in mountainous terrain, then, should they not live their service lives in the mountains?
LEH: Security agencies have recommended to the home ministry prosecution of three Chinese intruders on the grounds that they had prior knowledge about Indian defence posts and routes taken by troops during patrolling in the higher reaches of Ladakh.
<SNIP>
This is really intriguing.
You cannot survive in these areas as a small group without proper training. There is practically nothing to support anyone in these areas unless you are part of a caravan.
Also, there is nothing on Chinese side in terms of settlements from where these guys could have come in - and that too, so far inside. They would have bypassed the DBO sector to reach the Sultan Chusku area in India.
Could be spies to to target India or even, Uighur planning to cross over to POK because Chinese and TSPA control the movement strictly.
If these mountain strike corps are to be deployed in the eastern part of India and not in the north-eastern part then it follows that this corps will see action in sikkim and the chickens neck. And this extra sensitivity being shown towards the chinese and not placing this corps in the north east and especially in arunachal or in the foothills of arunachal is going to cost us dear. This reminds me of the some diffidence that we showed the intruders in kargil by not crossing the LoC and IB.
We need three more strike corps. One exclusively devoted to and stationed in and around Arunachal. One for the middle sector i.e. Uttaranchal and Himachal. And finally one for Ladakh. Each of these needs to be over 1 lakh strong. Initially these strike corps should be capable of fighting 100 kms from McMohan Line inside Tibet. This range of 100 kms being expended every year to gradually cover the entire Tibetan plateau and East Turkestan by 2020 at the max. This should be complemented by a growth of IAF to at least 55-60 squadron force with some additional 400 medium+heavy lift aircrafts and helicopters. Then only truly will we be able to dominate the himalayas and our destiny.
It appears that A K Anthony's only aim has been to position himself for post Manmohan Singh Era of Congess. Nothing wrong in a man aiming for the highest and the most powerful post in the country. But it certainly would have been appreciated if he had done more than what he has done till date.
rajrang wrote:.......
Hats off to Mr. A K Anthony for his tireless efforts to raise India's military strength.
Surely you jest for he has done the opposite in his tenure so far!
Sorry, I am serious.
Since the aftermath of 1962 India had "10 mountain divisions" for decades until, during his tenure of almost 7 years, Mr. A.K. Anthony has pushed through the addition of 2 divisions and has now influenced the addition of an MSC with 2 more divisions plus some brigades. Agreed that the MSC will take some years to be fully implemented. The Eastern Command forces facing China would have gone from some 7 divisions to nearly 12 including the MSC - which is a 2/3 increase in manpower. Which previous DM has increased India's strength facing China by such a significant amount - and that too without the motivation of a 1962 type disaster? Besides, he is self-driven, person, with a track record of honesty.
Sorry. After 26/11 terrorist attack it came known to the Cabinet that more forces are needed to get rid of the perpetual six month advance notice needed by the services. Hence a gradual build up was put in place despite the hue and cry from Finance Ministry which kept putting objections constantly. Looks like they are on some hidden CBM with IMF and USA.
Also the non-responsible politicians in ruling party were also putting up delays as it takes away excuses for inaction.
ramana wrote:Sorry. After 26/11 terrorist attack it came known to the Cabinet that more forces are needed to get rid of the perpetual six month advance notice needed by the services. Hence a gradual build up was put in place despite the hue and cry from Finance Ministry which kept putting objections constantly. Looks like they are on some hidden CBM with IMF and USA.
Also the non-responsible politicians in ruling party were also putting up delays as it takes away excuses for inaction.
If too many approvals are needed, then there will be delays especially when the signatories are less sensitive to military matters compared to their own turf-related matters for which they are responsible. Perhaps the PM (especially Mr. MMS with economics background) should have intervened and over-ruled the finance ministry and asked them to speed up. This may be difficult in the Indian political set-up.
I hope in the next several months, Mr. AK Anthony will jump start some re-armament ideas for the Western sector facing China. The intrusions into India seem to be escalating in this sector.
A commentary issued by China’s official Xinhua news agency on Tuesday hit out at the Indian media for “hyping” the situation along the disputed border, following reports in recent days of new incursions by Chinese troops.
The commentary said “sensational reports” were “harmful to the China-India relationship,” and it accused media reports of “sour[ing] to some extent the atmosphere” of May’s visit by Premier Li Keqiang to India.
Media reports, the commentary added, “have only served to further sow misunderstandings between Indians and Chinese even at a time when their leaders are working hard to manage their differences and to build a constructive relationship that can benefit both sides.”{Does Xinhua believe that China's troubles with Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia etc are all simply 'media hype' and not due to aggressive behaviour of a 'peacefully rising China' ?}
The commentary did not, however, provide any information or details to counter any of the recent reports of incursions by Chinese troops.
Only on Monday, media reports said around 50 Chinese soldiers riding on horses had intruded into the Chumar area on July 16. In April, relations were strained following a three-week stand-off in Depsang, also in the western section of the disputed border, after Chinese troops put up a tent.
Officials in both countries have publicly played down the incidents, pointing out that as perceptions of the disputed Line of Actual Control (LAC) were differing, patrols by both sides would be seen as incursions by the other in areas where claims were overlapping. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has maintained that its troops did not venture beyond what it saw as the LAC. However, in recent months, changes in the patterns of Chinese patrols, in part enabled by improvements in infrastructure, have led to a number of increasingly frequent reports of incursions into what India sees as its territory and what is seen as aggressive patrolling.
Before the Depsang incident, for instance, Chinese troops had only carried out patrols up to their claim-lines and returned to their bases, and had not, in the recent past, set up a tent in a disputed area to assert their claims.
On Tuesday, officials from India and China met in New Delhi as part of a border consultation and coordination mechanism meeting to improve communication and trust. Earlier this month, during the visit of Defence Minister A.K. Antony to China, both sides agreed to increase the frequency and number of locations of border personnel meetings in order to prevent the recurrence of incidents such as the Depsang stand-off.
Without directly referring to either Chumar or Depsang, the Xinhua commentary on Tuesday said it was “unwise to let isolated incidents along the border to negatively affect the promising China-India relationship.”{We do not want the wretched 'promising relationship' if this is the way China behaves}
sanjaykumar wrote:Yes and the CIA and US military used to routinely overstate the Soviet threat.
Sometimes I wonder if something similar isn't taking place.
Similarly the British may have overstated the Russian threat to British-India via Afghanistan, simply because, in retrospect, such an invasion never materialized. (I wish they had overstated a potential Chinese threat to India via Tibet and intervened into Tibet, when China was relatively weak, and done something about it.)
In any case, assuming that in the above examples the US and Britain may have overstated respective threats, then one explanation could be that in democracies you need to do precisely that in order to generate support to fund a military build-up. There are always conflicting demands for spending tax money. This may seem like "dhoti shivering" to some, but there could be the hidden agenda.
Even in India's case, the MSC ran into opposition from the Finance Ministry from a cost benefit standpoint.
If any news regarding borders or disputes pertaining neighbouring country comes in media, then either it is open hostility between the 2 and issues can no longer be controlled at diplomatic level. In which case troops & reinforcements are rushed to that part of border.
Or it could be that Army frustrated with long bureaucratic delay in clearing the additional force level for China border is pushing FM by giving out such news just when files are doing the rounds of ministries.
^^^Some learned commentators have expressed the opinion that the news item(s) about Chinese incursions in the media came about because IA was frustrated with the government directive is hiding the issue and brushing it under the carpet.
Come to think of it, unless an official briefing is given by the MOD/IA/Respective Service, such news item cannot reach the media. Only sources are Services, MOD and Intelligence Agencies. Given the response of GOI even after such news items became public, someone might well have decided to let the cat amongst the pigeon and force policy correction (to whatever extent) on part of GOI.
Another charitable explanation is that GOI itself uses the media and attendant public outrage to create pressure on the Chinese and show them that GOI is acting under domestic pressure - otherwise it 'understands' that Chinese mean no harm. The repeated finger pointing by the Chinese towards Indian media may be an indicator for this strategy. It could be our version of 'rogue elements in ISI' or 'non-state actors'.
rohitvats wrote:Another charitable explanation is that GOI itself uses the media and attendant public outrage to create pressure on the Chinese and show them that GOI is acting under domestic pressure - otherwise it 'understands' that Chinese mean no harm. The repeated finger pointing by the Chinese towards Indian media may be an indicator for this strategy. It could be our version of 'rogue elements in ISI' or 'non-state actors'.
rohitvats, the 'charitable explanation', if true, undermines the credibility of the nation-state of India which is represented by the GoI, in the eyes of Chinese decision-makers at the highest level. I hope that in such a serious matter as the sovereignty of this land which encompasses within itself one-sixth of humanity, GoI does not resort to dubious tactics rather than the credible, honest and straight-forward approach with the aggressor country. It will be slap on Indian dignity if GoI has to take recourse to 'public pressure' to defend its own frontiers. It may also lead to miscalculations on the part of China, with serious consequences for everyone.
A commentary issued by China’s official Xinhua news agency on Tuesday hit out at the Indian media for “hyping” the situation along the disputed border, following reports in recent days of new incursions by Chinese troops.
The commentary said “sensational reports” were “harmful to the China-India relationship,” and it accused media reports of “sour[ing] to some extent the atmosphere” of May’s visit by Premier Li Keqiang to India.
Media reports, the commentary added, “have only served to further sow misunderstandings between Indians and Chinese even at a time when their leaders are working hard to manage their differences and to build a constructive relationship that can benefit both sides.”{Does Xinhua believe that China's troubles with Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia etc are all simply 'media hype' and not due to aggressive behaviour of a 'peacefully rising China' ?}
The commentary did not, however, provide any information or details to counter any of the recent reports of incursions by Chinese troops.
Only on Monday, media reports said around 50 Chinese soldiers riding on horses had intruded into the Chumar area on July 16. In April, relations were strained following a three-week stand-off in Depsang, also in the western section of the disputed border, after Chinese troops put up a tent.
Officials in both countries have publicly played down the incidents, pointing out that as perceptions of the disputed Line of Actual Control (LAC) were differing, patrols by both sides would be seen as incursions by the other in areas where claims were overlapping. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has maintained that its troops did not venture beyond what it saw as the LAC. However, in recent months, changes in the patterns of Chinese patrols, in part enabled by improvements in infrastructure, have led to a number of increasingly frequent reports of incursions into what India sees as its territory and what is seen as aggressive patrolling.
Before the Depsang incident, for instance, Chinese troops had only carried out patrols up to their claim-lines and returned to their bases, and had not, in the recent past, set up a tent in a disputed area to assert their claims.
On Tuesday, officials from India and China met in New Delhi as part of a border consultation and coordination mechanism meeting to improve communication and trust. Earlier this month, during the visit of Defence Minister A.K. Antony to China, both sides agreed to increase the frequency and number of locations of border personnel meetings in order to prevent the recurrence of incidents such as the Depsang stand-off.
Without directly referring to either Chumar or Depsang, the Xinhua commentary on Tuesday said it was “unwise to let isolated incidents along the border to negatively affect the promising China-India relationship.”{We do not want the wretched 'promising relationship' if this is the way China behaves}
That is exactly how the free press operates in democracies - and is one of three core elements of democracies, the remaining two being free judiciary and free elections. (Agreed the word "free" is relative but that is beside the point.) The Chinese are trying to confuse and divide Indian public opinion and the Government.
Will the Chinese dare to say such things at the Western Press? They won't because they will become a laughing stock and look like fools who do not know what democracy is.
They are hoping that even though India is truly a liberal democracy and the world's largest one at that, perhaps Indian (Asian?) cultural view of democracy could be sympathetic to Chinese allegations.
They are hoping that a confused Indian Government (confused in a geopolitics sense) will choose to go along with the Chinese opinion on where the India-China border should be instead of India's public opinion (i.e. the press articles) on the same.
Last edited by rajrang on 24 Jul 2013 22:47, edited 3 times in total.
chaanakya wrote:Or it could be that Army frustrated with long bureaucratic delay in clearing the additional force level for China border is pushing FM by giving out such news just when files are doing the rounds of ministries.
So long as someone is not breaking the law, this would be the normal dynamics of a democracy. Everyone has the right AND DUTY to lobby for their case within the limits of the law.
rohitvats wrote:^^^Some learned commentators have expressed the opinion that the news item(s) about Chinese incursions in the media came about because IA was frustrated with the government directive is hiding the issue and brushing it under the carpet.
Come to think of it, unless an official briefing is given by the MOD/IA/Respective Service, such news item cannot reach the media. Only sources are Services, MOD and Intelligence Agencies. Given the response of GOI even after such news items became public, someone might well have decided to let the cat amongst the pigeon and force policy correction (to whatever extent) on part of GOI.
Another charitable explanation is that GOI itself uses the media and attendant public outrage to create pressure on the Chinese and show them that GOI is acting under domestic pressure - otherwise it 'understands' that Chinese mean no harm. The repeated finger pointing by the Chinese towards Indian media may be an indicator for this strategy. It could be our version of 'rogue elements in ISI' or 'non-state actors'.
The dynamics within India so long as they do not break the law is LEGITIMATE and I am surprised at the comparison with "rogue elements in ISI" who are precisely "rogues" that because they operate outside the law. The difference is as big as the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship.
rohitvats wrote:Another charitable explanation is that GOI itself uses the media and attendant public outrage to create pressure on the Chinese and show them that GOI is acting under domestic pressure - otherwise it 'understands' that Chinese mean no harm. The repeated finger pointing by the Chinese towards Indian media may be an indicator for this strategy. It could be our version of 'rogue elements in ISI' or 'non-state actors'.
rohitvats, the 'charitable explanation', if true, undermines the credibility of the nation-state of India which is represented by the GoI, in the eyes of Chinese decision-makers at the highest level. I hope that in such a serious matter as the sovereignty of this land which encompasses within itself one-sixth of humanity, GoI does not resort to dubious tactics rather than the credible, honest and straight-forward approach with the aggressor country. It will be slap on Indian dignity if GoI has to take recourse to 'public pressure' to defend its own frontiers. It may also lead to miscalculations on the part of China, with serious consequences for everyone.
I agree with some of your arguments. The Government should not depend upon public pressure to act. But then it is not at all uncommon for democracies to behave in this manner. Elections are held every few years. In the interim, it is also the duty and good sense for a Government to keep track of and take public opinion into account. The free press is one of the critical sources of what the people of India feel about issues. Arguably this can also be the foundation strength of a democracy.
Regarding being straight-forward with an adversary, there can be an alternative viewpoint. Using deception to defeat adversaries has been practiced by democracies in the past - both during the world wars and the cold war. The Indian epics have numerous instances when to defeat formidable evil, sometimes you have to use trickery.
In fact it was leaked that the Chinese are sensitive to Indian media reports of their activities on the border. Of course this is one way the GOI puts pressure on the Chinese.
rajrang wrote:The Government should not depend upon public pressure to act.
I am not saying that 'the Govt should not*never* depend upon public pressure to act'. You extrapolated and then talked about the importance of press etc. The press is not present in these forward areas at these heights of 10k feet or more. Mostly, these are even uninhabited places as well. So, the source of the news is those who are directly involved in these matters. The Chinese would know it too. There are so many diplomatic issues, sitiations where the Govt. cannot wait for public pressure to build up to act. GoI has a bounden duty and that *MUST* be performed even if public pressure were to be adverse or the public were unaware of what was happening and the pressure was therefore absent. Sovereignty is one such issue. GoI cannot fool China by claiming to act under 'public pressure'. The credibility of the government would be lost in Chinese eyes who already have nothing but contempt for us. GoI has to look them in their eyes rather then being apologetic about their reactions and attributing 'media and public pressure' to their reactions. The Chinese would conclude that GoI was amenable to conceding the land in question in negotiations.
Regarding being straight-forward with an adversary . . .
Again, out of context. That was in this particular situation. Not a generalized statement. The 'straight-forwardness' was in the context of not giving an impression to the Chinese that GoI was acting *only* under media/public pressure.
Abe has pledged to take a firm stance in the territorial dispute, but said in his news conference following the upper house election win that Japan's door was open to dialogue.
In a move aimed at protecting domestic power equipment manufacturers from the onslaught of cheap Chinese imports funded by low-cost yuan credit, the Government has decided to withdraw the External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) in Chinese currency for power plants.
Currently, Indian companies are allowed to raise such loans up to a limit of $1 billion.
“The Reserve Bank of India will soon issue a notification to this effect,” a senior Government official told Business Line. He also disclosed that RBI Governor D. Subbarao had informed about this move in his reply to a letter from Heavy Industries Minister Praful Patel’s letter, written in May, demanding such a step.
However, the move may not immediately solve the domestic power equipment sector’s woes. The official also disclosed that so far, there has not been even a single proposal for ECB in yuan received by the Government. That is why it was reviewed in a recent meeting of high level committee, which accordingly decided to discontinue it.
Although the Government has always maintained that such borrowings were meant for all purposes, there was a widespread belief that this facility was introduced mainly for the power sector.
In fact, the original decision to allow yuan ECBs was taken considering the huge shortage of power in the country.
“Since power is a basic necessity and a national priority, it was considered important to support ECB in Chinese currency route for the import of capital goods for the power sector,” the official added.
ECB refers to commercial loans from overseas lenders. It can be in the form of bank loans, buyers’ credit, suppliers’ credit or securitized instruments (e.g. floating rate notes and fixed rate bonds, non-convertible, optionally convertible or partially convertible preference shares). The minimum average maturity of such loans is three years. ECB is usually considered cheaper compared with domestic loans.
In his letter to Subbarao, Patel had said, “It is apprehended that availability of long-term, low interest export credit from China will further distort the status in favour of Chinese manufacturers, who have already gained almost 50 per cent share in the Indian power generating equipment market.”
He further mentioned that this matter had already been taken up with the Finance Minister.
“I am bringing this to your notice, as the Master Circular No. 12/2012-13, dated July 2, 2012 on this subject has been issued by the Reserve Bank of India. I would request you kindly to look into the matter and consider withdrawal of the aforesaid circular for power plants with immediate effect,” he said.
Patel’s Ministry is the nodal one for the capital goods industry, which includes power generating equipment companies. Industry sources feel that cheaper imports, funded by cheaper finance for Chinese companies, are adversely affecting domestic manufacturing companies.
Meanwhile, domestic companies got some relief last year, when import duty was raised on imported equipment.
A simple ban on all cheap Chinese goods that has emasculated local small and medium scale industry,which is generally located in smaller towns and cities,is an absolute neccessity.For white goods and heavy machinery,further duties have to be slapped so that local industry is given a fair chance to compete.Goods from China that have flooded the market especially in the construction industry,need to be similarly made unaffordable,as it is this sector of industry which reflects growth.By stemming the outflow of forex to China alone,the balance of payment situ will be considerably eased and result in a rise in the value of the rupee.The trade balance is currently heavily in favour of China.Why the heck should we reward China for its aggression on our borders?
China-Japan: Chinese coast guard ships approached disputed islands in the East China Sea for the first time Wednesday. A Chinese military aircraft made an unprecedented flight between Okinawan islands, Japanese officials said. Japan scrambled fighter jets on Wednesday after a Chinese Y-8 maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft flew for the first time through international airspace near Japan's southern islands. Japan's Defense Ministry said the Chinese aircraft flew through airspace between Okinawa prefecture's main island and the smaller Miyako Island in southern Japan out over the Pacific at around noon and later took the same route back over the East China Sea. "I believe this indicates China's move toward further maritime expansion,", Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera told reporters, in comments carried on public broadcaster NHK. NHK and RBC reported that the Japan Coast Guard on 24 July spotted four China Coast Guard ships entering the contiguous zone for the first time near the Senkaku Islands. NHK said that the Chinese Government recently established the China Coast Guard by combining its marine patrol operations.
Comment: The timing of the incursions could hardly be more poignant, just three days after the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) won a sweeping electoral victory in the upper house of the Diet that gives the party control of both houses. If sound economics policies are the upside of the LDP Diet victory, the more controversial issues are the LDP's intention to amend the constitution's provisions on self-defense, its encouragement of nationalism and its support for stronger Japanese military capabilities. Various Chinese media have cautioned the Abe government against stoking Japanese nationalism and amending the constitution.{Is this not the same 'media hype' that China accuses India of ?} The overflights of Okinawa prefecture and the incursions near the Senkakus punctuate those warnings. One knowledgeable American expert has proposed that the Abe government will concentrate on economic issues over international affairs and changing the constitution. That judgment probably accurately reflects Abe's preference, but he is not in control of international events. The Chinese actions suggest the Chinese leaders are testing the Abe government to determine whether the focus on economics will result in a less confrontational approach to island disputes. In so doing, China risks forcing Abe to adjust his preferences. Prime Minister Abe shows no inclination to allow Chinese challenges to Japanese sovereignty to go unanswered. NightWatch judges there will be a clash between Chinese and Japanese forces. Chinese aggressiveness is increasing and makes an encounter at sea or an air incident almost unavoidable. Either could occur with no further warning at any time. The likelihood of tension with China poses a significant risk to an otherwise positive investment outlook. China has no interest in a stronger Japanese economy.{Just as China has no interest in growing Indian influence} More and more frequent Chinese air and naval incursions may be expected.
China-India: Update. Riding on horses and ponies, some 50 Chinese soldiers intruded into the Indian territory of Chumar in Ladakh region in northwestern India on 16 July. They re-asserted the Chinese claim to the area and returned to China. Since then two additional Chinese incursions were reported on 18 and 20 July. The incursions are the backdrop of for two days of high level talks in New Delhi between senior diplomats. The talks are aimed at ensuring peace and tranquility, according to press releases.
Comment: The incursions are occurring in the same area in which Chinese incursions and a three-week standoff took place in April. Indian analysts note the Chinese consider the Chumar area strategically important for access to the Line of Actual Control that separates the two claimants. The Chinese incursions began a day before 17 July, the date India announced its plan to raise a 50,000-strong Mountain Strike Corps along the border with China plus two independent armored brigades to boost Army capabilities along the China border. This formation will take years to achieve operational capability, but is part of a long term Indian strategy to be able to fight on multiple fronts in a future war with China. India has been executing this for most of Prime Minister Singh's tenure. India says China occupies 38,000 square kilometers (14,700 square miles) of its Himalayan territory, while Beijing claims all of India's Arunachal Pradesh State, in northeastern India, which is 90,000 square kilometers. Localized clashes always are a possibility, but escalation is unlikely. Neither side wants a war just yet. Both are willing to discuss ways to keep the peace without surrendering territorial claims. In that respect, the Chinese assertions of sovereignty along the land border with India parallel Chinese practices in claiming sea areas also claimed by Japan, South Korea or Southeast Asian states. Like Japan, India is not backing down.
sanjaykumar wrote:In fact it was leaked that the Chinese are sensitive to Indian media reports of their activities on the border. Of course this is one way the GOI puts pressure on the Chinese.
I do not see how these represent GoI pressure tactics.
We have to understand that India is not alone as a victim of consistent, but "sub-critical" probes, by the Chinese military. Japan is a victim (the Chinese Navy sailed through the La Perouse Strait last week for the first time, there was an air confrontation today), as is the Philippines (there is a naval confrontation underway as we speak). The Chinese are also probing the Vietnamese in similar ways.
The Japanese, Vietnamese and Filipinos are not being reticent about reporting these. We should not be either.
rajrang wrote:The Government should not depend upon public pressure to act.
I am not saying that 'the Govt should not*never* depend upon public pressure to act'. You extrapolated and then talked about the importance of press etc. The press is not present in these forward areas at these heights of 10k feet or more. Mostly, these are even uninhabited places as well. So, the source of the news is those who are directly involved in these matters. The Chinese would know it too. There are so many diplomatic issues, sitiations where the Govt. cannot wait for public pressure to build up to act. GoI has a bounden duty and that *MUST* be performed even if public pressure were to be adverse or the public were unaware of what was happening and the pressure was therefore absent. Sovereignty is one such issue. GoI cannot fool China by claiming to act under 'public pressure'. The credibility of the government would be lost in Chinese eyes who already have nothing but contempt for us. GoI has to look them in their eyes rather then being apologetic about their reactions and attributing 'media and public pressure' to their reactions. The Chinese would conclude that GoI was amenable to conceding the land in question in negotiations.
Regarding being straight-forward with an adversary . . .
Again, out of context. That was in this particular situation. Not a generalized statement. The 'straight-forwardness' was in the context of not giving an impression to the Chinese that GoI was acting *only* under media/public pressure.
Yes I was extrapolating starting with your train of thought in order to make a related observation. Sorry while doing so, I was not paying close attention to "not" versus "never."
Regarding China having nothing but contempt for us, let me extrapolate a bit. All major nations in the world are democracies with China being a glaring exception. They have been misbehaving with their neighbors. They have invaded their neighbors (India, Vietnam, Tibet). They have proliferated nuclear weapons. Therefore, I submit that the rest of the world has contempt for China's dictatorship though they may watch China's rapid economic growth in awe and fear. There was only a brief period during the cold war that the western world cultivated them. This was between Mr. Nixon's visit to China in 1972 until the end of the cold war about 15 years later (which conveniently coincided with T-square). Barring Russia no one will sell them arms because no one trusts them. Everyone will sell arms to India. That China and India are at the opposite ends of the moral spectrum is well known. China is simply putting on a show of contempt for India but I doubt anybody buys it except TSP. This is equivalent to a neighborhood (i.e. Asian) goonda who walks around with a swagger and singles out the second biggest guy in the neighborhood (i.e. India) for contempt. This may be China's "dhoti shivering" at India's acknowledged moral superiority.
sanjaykumar wrote:In fact it was leaked that the Chinese are sensitive to Indian media reports of their activities on the border. Of course this is one way the GOI puts pressure on the Chinese.
I do not see how these represent GoI pressure tactics.
We have to understand that India is not alone as a victim of consistent, but "sub-critical" probes, by the Chinese military. Japan is a victim (the Chinese Navy sailed through the La Perouse Strait last week for the first time, there was an air confrontation today), as is the Philippines (there is a naval confrontation underway as we speak). The Chinese are also probing the Vietnamese in similar ways.
The Japanese, Vietnamese and Filipinos are not being reticent about reporting these. We should not be either.
To add to your comments, it will also be illegal for anyone in India to try to muzzle India's press. This is what the Chinese Government would love for India to do.
Tokyo expressed concern today over recent Chinese military and maritime activity near disputed islands that Japan controls, including the flight of a Chinese fighter jet near Japanese airspace.
Japan’s Defence Ministry scrambled fighter jets yesterday to keep watch on a Chinese early warning plane flying over international waters between Japan’s main Okinawa island and an outer island relatively close to the disputed area in the East China Sea.
Around the same time, Japan spotted four Chinese coast guard vessels near the disputed islands for the first time following Beijing’s reorganisation of the service to boost its ability to enforce its maritime claims.
“It was an unusual action that we have never seen before. We’ll keep monitoring with great interest,” Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said of the Chinese flight before leaving for Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines, where he planned to discuss ways to cooperate and check China’s maritime activity in the region.
“I would like to share an understanding that we need to observe a rule of law, not a rule by force.”
Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera said late yesterday that the flight of the Chinese Y-8 early warning plane was “a sign of China’s escalating maritime advance.”
Japan is also considering introducing drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles like Global Hawk used by US military, and beefing up the role of self-defence troops in southwestern Japan to step up defence against China’s increased activity around the disputed islands, Japanese media reported.
Those plans are expected to be included in an interim defence policy report that Japan’s Defence Ministry is set to release tomorrow.
Japan’s coast guard said the four Chinese craft were seen early yesterday just outside Japanese territorial waters around the tiny uninhabited islands called Diaoyu by China and Senkaku by Japan.
Chinese websites ran photos reportedly taken by the Japanese coast guard showing a ship painted in the service’s new red, white and blue striped Chinese coast guard livery.
Along with its claims in the East China Sea, China has also frequently sparred with the Philippines and Vietnam over overlapping claims to parts of the South China Sea, another area to which the new coast guard is being deployed.