All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
China Tears Down the Tibetan City in the Sky
At the eastern end of the vast Tibetan Plateau lies a sprawling monastery named Larung Gar, which is the largest Tibetan Buddhist institute in the world and a monumental landmark to Tibetan culture, religion, and history.
It is home to anywhere between 10,000 and 40,000 residents, including monks, nuns, and visiting students. Because Larung Gar sits at an elevation of over 13,000 feet (3,962m), it has become known as a “city in the sky.”
Last year around 3,730 residents were made to leave and 172 monks’ residences and 1,328 nuns’ residences were destroyed — a total of 1,500 residences demolished. Further demolitions began earlier this year.
“The entire process — from eviction through to demolition and finally to forced removal by bus — is opaque,” said a spokesperson for advocacy organization Free Tibet.
“The authorities within the area have shared no information on the plight of those who are removed, with people saying families are forced to house any relatives who have been bused out of Larung Gar.”
“I met a few Chinese tourists who wanted to go; I didn’t know them beforehand,” Chan said.
“We then joined one of a number of very small tours. Drivers take groups of maybe three to five in SUVs and you need the driver’s knowledge to reach Larung Gar. Without these groups it would have been very difficult to get there.
“It was a very long journey from Chengdu and as we traveled we all got to know one another. When I asked my companions about Tibet they gave me the state media’s account of things. I was told that Tibetan people are very prosperous, that the Chinese government takes good care of them, that they are given money by the government for their land, and that their livestock can be sold to the Chinese government at a very premium price, and they have large tax subsidies, many things like that.
“They told me that Tibetans had no reason to oppose the Chinese government because their lives were very good. They told me the ones who protest were just troublemakers.”
“I separated myself from the rest of the group by going to a narrow alley way and I must have tried to speak to at least 20 different people but none would talk to me. Then I recalled that in the Brad Pitt movie Seven Years in Tibet, two European mountaineers managed to get through to a Tibetan village chief because they showed them a picture of the Dalai Lama. So I got a picture of him on my phone. It was by this method that I finally met a nun who was willing to engage with me.
“This nun could converse in Mandarin. She told me that the devotees saw this problem [the demolitions] as one they could not stop because China was too powerful. She said that to say there was overcrowding was not right as they had been living fine on their own. I saw that if indeed overcrowding was a problem, then the government could easily just build more houses to the side of the mountain without demolishing anything. There is was so much land it would be so simple.”
Chan felt that this development work appeared to not only be detrimental to important historical and cultural sites in Tibet but, as a side effect, also threatened to gradually dilute Tibetan culture.
“I noticed that Serthar likely used to be very Tibetan but these hotels were being built by people who don’t speak Tibetan. And then you also find that there are stalls beginning to appear selling Chinese goods.
“I spoke to my driver about this and he said that the Chinese government will tell people go to Tibet, set up a life there, set up a farm, grow your own crops. It can be a fresh start away from the big cities and if you choose to live away from the cities you can have a good life.
“For example, there are now thousands and thousands of Han Chinese citizens living in Qinghai province. They go there, build a house and they settle there. Over time this leads to the place becoming more Han than Tibetan. Perhaps many years ago it was 10 percent Han but then it grows to 20 percent, 40 percent, 60 percent. I think the government wants to convert Eastern Tibet to make the Han population the majority. Not to eliminate the Tibetans but maybe make eastern Tibet 60 percent Han Chinese and 40 percent Tibetan.
“It is important that people care about this because the local Tibetans don’t seem to have a voice. Many don’t speak English or Mandarin and as the government does all these things it has very large impact on their lives. I can appreciate the intentions of the Chinese government in wanting to develop the area, but the huge and irreparable cost in terms of undermined cultural heritage seems to be something that the officials do not fully appreciate.
“Something very valuable is being lost here. But no one talks about it and nothing is being done about it.”
On Friday, with China’s defence ministry warning New Delhi that “restraint has its bottom line”, Indian Army officers participating in the Doklam faceoff have provided Business Standard the first detailed accounts of how the situation has evolved.
They say the Doklam bowl – which is disputed between China and Bhutan – currently has an extended, 200-metre-long line of Indian infantry soldiers confronting a smaller number of Chinese border guards. Just one metre separates the two lines.
At any time, there are about 40 Chinese border guards in the disputed valley, facing off against three times that number of Indian jawans.
Backing up the Chinese front line are 1,500 more troops, a mix of border guards and regular People’s Liberation Army (PLA) soldiers. These are positioned outside the disputed Doklam area, but cross in and out of the disputed area, relieving those on the front line at regular intervals.
Indian troops standing guard in Doklam are similarly relieved by a full infantry battalion (600 troops), located in the Indian territory to the west. Backing up this battalion is a full infantry brigade (2,000 troops), ready to respond to any military moves from China.
In addition, a second fully acclimatised infantry brigade, slightly further away, stands ready to respond to a crisis.
“We fortunately had two brigades training in high altitudes nearby, so we have plenty of acclimatised troops. If needed, we can muster far more forces than the Chinese in Sikkim. This would never be an area where they start something,” says a senior Indian commander.
According to these officers, tension began in early June, when Indian forces in the vicinity observed Chinese patrols reconnoitring the track in the disputed Doklam bowl. Intelligence assessments concluded that China was going to try and extend the road towards the Jampheri Ridge, at the farthest edge of China’s claim line.
Indian commanders strongly rejected yesterday’s statement by China’s foreign ministry, which claimed that India had been notified on May 18 and June 8, “out of goodwill through the border meeting mechanism”, that China would be building a road in Doklam.
They say, the Indian army reported to Delhi that road building seemed imminent, and were granted permission to cross into Bhutan-claimed territory to stop construction.
When India crossed into Doklam and confronted the Chinese construction parties, “they were taken completely by surprise and offered no resistance”, says an officer privy to events. “These are no soldiers; they are conscripted border guards, who live in heated barracks and periodically patrol the border in vehicles. They don’t walk much”, says an Indian commander.
“Our soldiers, in contrast, live a far tougher life. In Doklam, they stand guard without moving, while the Chinese keep breaking the line and going back for cigarette breaks. Indian morale is sky-high; soldiers know they are participating in something unprecedented – crossing a border to defend an Indian ally”, says the Indian officer.
Eventually, the Chinese had to send in a political commissar, recount Indian officers. “The commissar ordered up martial music and the hoisting of Chinese flags to stiffen resolve. They clearly had problems”, he says.
In the macho manner of militaries, the Indian Army is using a large number of Sikh and Jat soldiers to man the line in Doklam – in the expectation that their height and sturdiness would intimidate the smaller Chinese.
Army officers are elated also at having kept the confrontation out of the media for a full ten days, until Beijing was forced to make the incident public. “The Chinese have always complained that India’s media is too shrill and pro-active. This time, China had to mobilise their media, because we were there on the ground and nobody knew.”
Indian soldiers also point out that China has begun building bunkers and creating defences on the border. “That’s another first. They are recognising our capability to act decisively”, says an officer.
According to a senior Indian general: “The situation in Doklam has plateaued. Militarily, the Chinese know they can do nothing here. Eventually it will have to be a negotiated withdrawal, or the Chinese will have to open a front in another sector.”
With Beijing warning on Friday that “Chinese armed forces will resolutely protect the country's territorial sovereignty and security interests”, the PLA could choose its next move anywhere on a long, 3,500-kilometre border that stretches from Ladakh to Myanmar.
Two little known villages in Alwar and Pali districts will soon gain strategic importance as they have been selected by the Defence Ministry’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for setting up radars to track enemy missiles. The forest department has cleared the acquisition of 850 hectares of land in Khoa in Alwar district and 350 hectares in Roopnagar for installing ballistic missile defence grid that will protect the western and northern parts of the country.
This was done after the union ministry of environment and forest in 2014 cleared the DRDO proposal on the conditions laid down by the ministry. According to A K Singh, additional principle chief conservator of forest, the state government following the clearance given by the union ministry has allotted then land to to DRDO.
The ballistic missile defence grid will help guard New Delhi and Mumbai. The state government has also allotted 80 hectares of land in Pilani for setting up the Bramhos missile assembly line .
These two sites in the state have been strategically chosen by DRDO and has a stealth feature. The ballistic missile defence system can be put in place at short notice. To counter air-borne threats, DRDO will put a mixture of counter-attack missiles which will be able to shoot down enemy missiles both within the earth’s atmosphere (endo-atmospheric) and outside it (exo-atmospheric). The shield, developed by DRDO, has already undergone a series of successful tests and can destroy an incoming ballistic missile within the range of 2,000km. The Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) system will require minimum human intervention due to the complete automation of tracking devices and counter-measures. During the test stage, DRDO used variants of Prithvi missiles as simulated targets and successfully intercepted them in mid-air. All the necessary elements such as long-range radars and tracking devices, real-time data link and mission control system required for installing the BMD missile system have been also been successfully tested by the DRDO and was upgraded last year.
shiv wrote:The Chinese must be completely stupid to think that India is going to back down when they have never ever shown an iota of "goodwill" in terms of terrorists in Pakistan, nukes to Pakistan or NSG.
China, as shown by the wise people of the Chinese psyche thread shows only contempt for India and expects India to back down and retreat with tail between its legs and does not deserve the slightest bit of consideration. This is how the Chinese seem to think. Under the circumstances what we need is war. We need to send back dead Chinese bodies, glasses and all.
Since January this year, the Masood Azhar request under 1267 Committee is being sponsored by US-UK-France. This is the second time China has blocked this new round of requests.
With India, the US and China forming a "very combustible mixture right now", the fate of the ongoing Doklam standoff would largely depend upon events in the South China Sea, noted commentator on international affairs, Meghnad Desai has said.
If a war is to break out in the two theatres, which he predicted will begin very soon, it will see the US and India on one side and China on the other.
Desai, a Labour Peer in the British House of Lords, did not consider the Doklam standoff a mere India-China issue but rather equated it to the geo-political tensions across the globe, primarily in the South China Sea.
"Even today, nobody is contemplating that the whole Doklam thing could break anytime. We could be in a full scale war with China within a month. At that stage it will not be controllable. It may come as a surprise, but that is when the defence co-operation of India (with various countries) will bear fruit," Desai told IANS in an interview.
But is a war really likely to break out?
"I am not a jyotisi (astrologer). I cannot say what day or date but I think at this time it is very likely that we will be in a state of full-scale war with China very soon. And mind you, on several fronts, not just Doklam. It is just one frontier, they will start from all places, across the northern Himalayas," Desai, a recipient of the Padma Bhushan, India's third highest civilian honour, claimed.
He said that India and the US have an "implicit defence relationship" and that the two countries can safely rely on each other. When asked specifically on the expected reaction of the United States in case there is a war between India and China and whether Washington would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with India, Desai responded: "Absolutely".
"Ultimately, you have to understand that India cannot stand up to China without American help and support. America cannot stand up to China without Indian help. That is the symmetry in this relationship," he elaborated.
Desai maintained that "China is the central problem" in the way the American vision is constructed. When asked about the possibility of any backchannel discussions with the US on the Doklam standoff, Desai said that there were not just backchannel negotiations in play but it was being dealt with at the highest level by President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who talk directly to each other.
"All things that follow now will have a lot to do with what happens in the South China Sea. The US has sent out enough signals. If there is war, it will be a US-China war, with India on the US side, in the South China Sea and in the Himalayas. This trio is a very combustible mixture right now," he contended.
He said that it is important to understand the Chinese thought process because they are "much more nationalistic, militaristic and aggressive" this time.
"I am sure we are not told everything that is going on. But my worry is even though India will not openly become militaristic but have we got the preparedness for it? We may have things in place. I just wish and hope that we are prepared for a very tough war which may last for a long time," he predicted.
Desai also suggested that India should not make the mistake of equating the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) with the Pakistani Army.
"I think, from past experience, we always assume that we are well prepared but you will be fighting one of the finest armies in the world. It is a very powerful army and I think they also have (much) training in mountain warfare. So, according to me, it will be a very tough fight for India. Don't be mistaken that this will be easy. It is not Pakistan. The Pakistani Army is the same set of people. They come from the same army traditions and they have the same thinking but the Chinese are very different," he reiterated.
Desai also expressed his disappointment over "the lack of talent on the top" of the ruling NDA government. "Arun Jaitley is a very good friend of mine but you can't have a person handling both the finance and the defence ministries," he said and suggested that it is perhaps high time that the defence ministry was again made an exclusive portfolio, so that the concerned minister could focus entirely on it.
The Doklam stand-off began in mid-June near the tri-junction of India, China and Bhutan when Indian troops moved in to prevent China from constructing a road on Bhutanese territory on the Doklam plateau. China claims the Doklam plateau is a part of South Tibet.
Earlier this week, China claimed India had partially withdrawn its troops, which New Delhi firmly denied.
Last two pages are talking about trail balloons. My take
If we allow Chinese to deal with RBA directly ? That is their plan. They want to deal with Bhutan directly.
secondly:
This would then create an environment where mutual de-escalation can take place and a way out can be found through diplomatic engagement by both sides.More importantly, the National Congress of the Communist Party of China will be over by November which will then allow Chinese President Xi Jinping to bring down the rhetoric needed for political support in the Congress
Why XI started this in first place? Why we have to help him to come out of the mess he created? WTF is going on?
Singha wrote:>> Actually we should absolutely continue to import below-manufacturing-cost type of items like those related to nonconventional power generation. This is a productive use of our money.
how will domestic industry develop in such strategic sectors then?
It needs to be approached smartly, with some foresight. We need to invest and subsidize local production enough to keep them afloat, while we exhaust and fully make use of the Chinese government's free subsidies. Unlike with conventional power generation or transmission equipment the manufacturing of solar panels is not very labour intensive and doesn't represent a huge loss for us, so long as we ensure that the desi versions of Cree etc are invested in and continue R&D.
Singha wrote:some 58 telecom fraud suspects brought back from indonesia
OT, but this is strange and hilarious in a way. Why are those doofusses lining up to give the criminals a guard of honour? And why one cop for each criminal exiting the airplane? Wouldn't those black uniforms pick up some dust marks if they did any actual work and not just there to parade around?
This whole thing looks like the coronation scene from Bahubali actually, a military version of synchronized swimming
Some days ago I proposed a land-swap option between India and Bhutan. I didnt elaborate on it because many posters didnt read it properly and jumped in denouncing any land swap with China, which wasnt even an option I provided. The events and discussions of the past several days vindicate that the option proposed is worth considering. Well experienced commentators may be able to comment on its feasibility and timeline in addition to its necessity.
.............
The key issue here is that the doklam plateau which is of strategic significance to India is Bhutanese territory but disputed by China. Bhutan by itself does not have the will or might to continue to resist China's advances in this region. It is in India's interests to make Dokam a soverign Indian territory by either buying it or doing a landswap of an equivalent region in say AP or Gorkhaland that borders Bhutan and is of less strategic importance to India (compared to Doklam).
Currently it will be difficult for India to station its troops in a confrontational issue in another country however friendly that country may be. At some points, sections of the country will fear reprisals from China and will ask us to vacate. If not now, may be 10 years from now. What will happen if Bhutan gets a PM who in the future is bought off (or honey trapped) by Cheen and agress to make concessions on Doklam with China behind India's back?
It is important for India to work out a deal with Bhutan that provides souverign ownership over that Dolam plateau to India in exchange for generous monetary package or land.
When India crossed into Doklam and confronted the Chinese construction parties, “they were taken completely by surprise and offered no resistance”, says an officer privy to events. “These are no soldiers; they are conscripted border guards, who live in heated barracks and periodically patrol the border in vehicles. They don’t walk much”, says an Indian commander.
...
Very important and very good pointer to the fact that these are not fighting men on the border. They are not prepared.
SriKumar wrote:
On a different note , some one had posted about no missile tests being done in the aftermath of the road construction. A note from says that China informed India of the construction in May sometime. India tested a Prithvi on June 3rd or so. But I am not quite sure that it is related to the road incursion by China. There were several other missile tests earlier this year.
SriKumar - this has nothing to do with your post but I just want to comment on an opinion that is expressed very frequently on BRF. Many people say that whenever there is a crisis - it is time to test a missile (or a nuke). It appears to me that the people who make this suggestion see missile tests at crisis times as a "signal of strength". I have not understood the logic there
I fully agree. I still do not understand, for example, why Pakistan does a tit-for-tat missile 'test' when India would do a missile test. It just looks funny to me. (In fact, after India's recent Prithvi test, they tested a Hatf missile or something presumably in response). I dont think there is any reason to do any test to ward off China. As I was searching for recent missile tests, I found that India has been testing some missile or the other regularly for the past year, which is clearly based on pre-existing plans and not in response to any new threats.
In the macho manner of militaries, the Indian Army is using a large number of Sikh and Jat soldiers to man the line in Doklam – in the expectation that their height and sturdiness would intimidate the smaller Chinese.
This is how it is done. Even the smallest details are exploited to get psychological advantage over adversaries. Compare this to conclusion of great strategists here who are shivering in dhotis.
shiv wrote:The Chinese must be completely stupid to think that India is going to back down when they have never ever shown an iota of "goodwill" in terms of terrorists in Pakistan, nukes to Pakistan or NSG.
China, as shown by the wise people of the Chinese psyche thread shows only contempt for India and expects India to back down and retreat with tail between its legs and does not deserve the slightest bit of consideration. This is how the Chinese seem to think. Under the circumstances what we need is war. We need to send back dead Chinese bodies, glasses and all.
Hakim-ji,
Glad that you are calling out the need for war from India's perspective. Chola and I have been stating that it is in India's interest to administer a tight slap to the Chinese. It is not enough to be satisfied knowing that if war is thrusted on us, we are well prepared. Since we are well prepared and geography and logistics are helping us, it is time for us to have a brief encounter in multiple border areas and grab some territory in Ladakh and Akshai Chin areas as well.
Even if Cheena acts in a mature way, we need to provoke them to a fight. Here they are doing all the sabre rattling and we are not edging them to go beyond and fire the first bullet.
Until and unless a real confrontation happens in full glare of world media in more than one location (unless the localised 1967 Nathu La incident) and India gets back some of china occupied territory it lost in 1962, we cannot expect Chinese behaviour to change.
With Beijing warning on Friday that “Chinese armed forces will resolutely protect the country's territorial sovereignty and security interests”, the PLA could choose its next move anywhere on a long, 3,500-kilometre border that stretches from Ladakh to Myanmar.
Indeed, the Chinese can do it.
And indeed India can attack anywhere on the 3500 KM border. And throw the kitchen sink at the lot in the Chumbi valley and make sure none go back.
Singha wrote:>> Actually we should absolutely continue to import below-manufacturing-cost type of items like those related to nonconventional power generation. This is a productive use of our money.
how will domestic industry develop in such strategic sectors then?
It needs to be approached smartly, with some foresight. We need to invest and subsidize local production enough to keep them afloat, while we exhaust and fully make use of the Chinese government's free subsidies. Unlike with conventional power generation or transmission equipment the manufacturing of solar panels is not very labour intensive and doesn't represent a huge loss for us, so long as we ensure that the desi versions of Cree etc are invested in and continue R&D.
Singha wrote:some 58 telecom fraud suspects brought back from indonesia
OT, but this is strange and hilarious in a way. Why are those doofusses lining up to give the criminals a guard of honour? And why one cop for each criminal exiting the airplane? Wouldn't those black uniforms pick up some dust marks if they did any actual work and not just there to parade around?
This whole thing looks like the coronation scene from Bahubali actually, a military version of synchronized swimming
We ale wold powel. See how we tleat criminals (btw all small time Chinese thugs, sure Indonasia is happy to get rid of). Have you noticed white glows? So please please believe us and be afraid of us.
The chinese cannot even give a proper ultimatum, like "must vacate in 24 hours".. etc.. instead they make funny statements, like "chinese army cannot be moved at all, just like mountains" (mildly paraphrased).
what is all this prevarication about? silly fools.
With Beijing warning on Friday that “Chinese armed forces will resolutely protect the country's territorial sovereignty and security interests”, the PLA could choose its next move anywhere on a long, 3,500-kilometre border that stretches from Ladakh to Myanmar.
Indeed, the Chinese can do it.
And indeed India can attack anywhere on the 3500 KM border. And throw the kitchen sink at the lot in the Chumbi valley and make sure none go back.
I suspect we could also pour down the Indus river bed from Demchok in armoured vehicles
shiv wrote:The Chinese must be completely stupid to think that India is going to back down when they have never ever shown an iota of "goodwill" in terms of terrorists in Pakistan, nukes to Pakistan or NSG.
China, as shown by the wise people of the Chinese psyche thread shows only contempt for India and expects India to back down and retreat with tail between its legs and does not deserve the slightest bit of consideration. This is how the Chinese seem to think. Under the circumstances what we need is war. We need to send back dead Chinese bodies, glasses and all.
Hakim-ji,
Glad that you are calling out the need for war from India's perspective. Chola and I have been stating that it is in India's interest to administer a tight slap to the Chinese. It is not enough to be satisfied knowing that if war is thrusted on us, we are well prepared. Since we are well prepared and geography and logistics are helping us, it is time for us to have a brief encounter in multiple border areas and grab some territory in Ladakh and Akshai Chin areas as well.
Even if Cheena acts in a mature way, we need to provoke them to a fight. Here they are doing all the sabre rattling and we are not edging them to go beyond and fire the first bullet.
Until and unless a real confrontation happens in full glare of world media in more than one location (unless the localised 1967 Nathu La incident) and India gets back some of china occupied territory it lost in 1962, we cannot expect Chinese behaviour to change.
Yup and dead bodies mean nothing. The Vietnamese killed 30,000 of them but left the borders muddied so that did nothing in the long term.
What we need is a violent re-adjustment of the border that is clear and will be seen on maps for generations.
If a war, in one or across multiple locations breaks out in near future, it will decide India's strategic independence and ability to break out of the Nehruvian straight jacket for a generation to come.
Currently we do not have good options to modulate behavior of the rogues in the neighborhood. Systematic undercutting of defense forces and nationalistic thought has led us to hand wringing when ever a threat materializes.
Arm chair experts are left counting tanks and submarines and spare parts or lack thereof at every major threat.
What seems to be changing is a display of intent from Indian leadership, which was lacking for decades. If this is followed up with real action by India holding its own militarily or giving a bloody nose publicly, matching level of military escalation by Chinese to the bitter end, then we have a game changer.
A setback however should also be taken into account and gamed for.
Benefits of a win are huge, downside of loss/thrashing is we continue to dhoti shiver for the foreseeable future, put in our place by the lizard.
Plij to watch my video for 60 seconds from the point linked below. The Indus river bed is a flat plain that cuts into Tibet from Demchok and may be a good land-grab place
And indeed India can attack anywhere on the 3500 KM border. And throw the kitchen sink at the lot in the Chumbi valley and make sure none go back.
I suspect we could also pour down the Indus river bed from Demchok in armoured vehicles
And bomb the lot sitting on the top of Tawang and the juicy Early Warning Radar. And the best part all bombing marks will be visible in GE in few months.
ManishC wrote:If a war, in one or across multiple locations breaks out in near future, it will decide India's strategic independence and ability to break out of the Nehruvian straight jacket for a generation to come.
Currently we do not have good options to modulate behavior of the rogues in the neighborhood. Systematic undercutting of defense forces and nationalistic thought has led us to hand wringing when ever a threat materializes.
Arm chair experts are left counting tanks and submarines and spare parts or lack thereof at every major threat.
What seems to be changing is a display of intent from Indian leadership, which was lacking for decades. If this is followed up with real action by India holding its own militarily or giving a bloody nose publicly, matching level of military escalation by Chinese to the bitter end, then we have a game changer.
A setback however should also be taken into account and gamed for.
Benefits of a win are huge, downside of loss/thrashing is we continue to dhoti shiver for the foreseeable future, put in our place by the lizard.
The upside is top military power in Asia and the consensus number two globally. All but replacing the PRC. Without war, this would be impossible in our lifetime -- not with Cheen's economy being 5 times as large.
The downside is we remain where we are today.
And we are not taking a chance where the odds are against us. We are taking a chance where the odds are stacked OVERWHELMINGLY in OUR favor.
This is a slamdunk with tremendous upside and with limited downside in the rare chance it actually fails.
Sikkim standoff: Shiv Sena urges Centre to ban Chinese products http://www.firstpost.com/india/sikkim-s ... 94867.html
Phagwara: Shiv Sena's Punjab unit on Friday urged the Centre to ban the sale of Chinese products in Indian markets in view of the country's continued "threatening" standoff over the Doka La border issue
Talking to reporters in Phagwara, Sena's state vice-president Inderjit Karwal claimed that the public was already "wary of buying" China-made products and the central government should initiate measures to ban them to hit China's economy.
"On one hand, China is provoking Pakistan to foment trouble in India, while on the other hand, it was vetoing in the United Nations in the matter of declaring Masood Azhar a global terrorist. Now, it is having an evil eye on the India territory under its sinister expansionist designs and in indulging in intimidating tactics," he said.
Reminding the Narendra Modi-led Union government of "China's historical penchant for backstabbing India", the Shiv Sen said China and Pakistan "would never be friends with India".
"It was high time that China was taught a befitting lesson by banning its products and Pakistan too dealt with sternly", it added.
Published Date: Aug 04, 2017 07:37 pm | Updated Date: Aug 04, 2017 07:52 pm
1. An analysis of China’s propaganda effort and its state-owned media’s coverage between June 16 and August 1, 2017, during the ongoing face-off between Indian and Chinese troops on the Doklum Plateau, yields some interesting insights. Main features are that: (i) it showed little concern for the long-term damage it would do to the India-China relationship; (ii) China’s anti-India propaganda offensive diminished whatever little trust existed between the two countries; (iii) Beijing took a deliberate decision to reduce the room for negotiations by insisting that Doklum is Chinese territory and accusing India of “invading” China and launching a “surgical strike” against it; and (iv) there appears to have been a stiffening in China’s position in the past week. The Indian Establishment is likely to keep these in mind while proceeding with the relationship with China in the future.
2. Noticeably, while the face-off commenced around June 16, 2017, Beijing went public with the incident only on June 26, or almost 10 days after the face-off began, with a statement by its Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) spokesman at a press briefing. In the interim, two border flag meetings including one on June 20 failed to ease the tension. During this period China would have weighed its options before deciding to confront India. Undoubtedly the seriously strained India-China relationship and India declining to attend the ‘One Belt, One Road’.Forum in April 2017, have been factors and this was corroborated in the subsequent ‘warnings’ and ‘threats’ issued by China’s propaganda apparatus.
3. On the ground though, Commanders of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA)’s Western Theatre Command who planned and approved the road building activity were clearly caught unawares and unprepared. They had not anticipated India’s swift and robust response. They would have been expecting that in view of the already strained India-China relationship, New Delhi’s desire to persuade Beijing to relax its opposition to India’s entry to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), India’s past responses etc., India would restrict itself to nudging Thimpu to lodge a diplomatic protest and, at most, follow with a protest note of its own. It is discernible from China’s propaganda that in this interval of 10 days before China reacted publicly there would have been a series of discussions at higher echelons of the Central Military Commission (CMC) and the Party as to the next steps that China should take. The strained relationship would have been prominent in these discussions as also the views of the PLA. Senior officers of the PLA’s Western Theatre Command must be smarting after having been stymied by the Indian Army and would want to retrieve their dented prestige. Specifically, the Commanders of the Western Theatre Command and Shigatse Military Division, both officers with excellent records and assessed to be on the fast track for promotion, would want to redeem their military reputations.
4. In contrast to the shrill stream of anti-India criticism by the Chinese media and numerous, though restrained, MFA statements, India has displayed quiet confidence and refrained from reacting, thereby indicating its desire not to escalate matters. Bhutan’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement on the incident on June 29, and India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) similarly followed with a solitary statement on June 30, 2017.
5. By going public and consistently asserting that India had “invaded” China, Beijing has sought to use its propaganda machinery along with comments by MFA spokespersons to push the dispute between China and Bhutan over the Doklum Plateau into the background and, instead, emphasise that Doklum is Chinese territory. It reinforced this by accusing India of “invading” China and conducting a “surgical strike” against China -- protesting that China is not Pakistan or Myanmar. It insisted that Indian troops must first “unconditionally” withdrawBeijing’s effort to build a case to support its claim over this territory in the Doklum Plateau is unmistakable and a classic part of its ‘Three Warfares’ (Propaganda, Legal and Psychological).
6. China also attempted to divide the Indian political class. China’s Ambassador to India, Luo Zhaohui, quite unusually met leaders of opposition parties including Rahul Gandhi of the Congress, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and former Assam Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi and his son Gaurav. He also met former National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon and another former Indian Foreign Secretary. Luo Zhaohui’s wife, a Counsellor in the Chinese Embassy in Delhi, Dr Jiang Yili, contributed to the effort and flew to Bhutan and called on the royalty there, including the Queen Mother. Meanwhile, New Delhi-based Chinese diplomats met their interlocutors and think-tanks to propagate China’s views.
7. Pertinent in this context was the Chinese Embassy posting on its website the news of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi calling on the Chinese Ambassador. The post was quickly deleted after, as anticipated, it attracted notice and became an issue of political debate. The object of reporting the meeting on the Embassy’s website is questionable as is the Chinese Ambassador’s visit to Darjeeling at this juncture.
8. Pro-China ‘intellectuals’, journalists and columnists seemed to have been activated with many expressing doubts about the wisdom of the Government’s decision to take a stand and direction to the Indian Army to block the PLA building the road through the Doklum Plateau. Doubts were raised about India’s interpretation of the Convention of 1890, referred to by China, and whether India’s security would actually be jeopardised with China building the road till Gyemochen. Concerns have been expressed too about the Indian Army’s preparedness to confront the Chinese.
8. Pro-China ‘intellectuals’, journalists and columnists seemed to have been activated with many expressing doubts about the wisdom of the Government’s decision to take a stand and direction to the Indian Army to block the PLA building the road through the Doklum Plateau. Doubts were raised about India’s interpretation of the Convention of 1890, referred to by China, and whether India’s security would actually be jeopardised with China building the road till Gyemochen. Concerns have been expressed too about the Indian Army’s preparedness to confront the Chinese.
9. Between June 26, 2017 and August 1, 2017 alone, 36 articles on the stand-off at Doklum were noticed in the English-language state-owned Global Times. The PLA Daily, which caters to China’s armed forces, published 6 articles in English. In addition there were 33 in the official English-language China Daily. The official Chinese Communist Party (CCP) mouthpiece People’s Daily published 21articles in English while the authoritative official news agency Xinhua issued 6 despatches in English.
10. In an indication that popular opinion was being sensitised to the tension at the Doklum Plateau, there were a greater number of articles in Chinese-language newspapers on the Doklum issue. The Chinese-language edition of the People’s Daily published 49 articles, the PLA Daily’s Chinese-language version published 31 articles and the Hongkong-based China-owned newspapers namely the Wen Wei Bo and Ta Kung Pao published 30 and 20 articles each respectively. The official news agency Xinhua restricted itself to issuing 2 despatches in Chinese.
11. The tenor and content of the articles differed considerably though, with the Global Times publishing the maximum number of provocative articles warning India of dire consequences. Despite disingenuous remarks downplaying the importance of the Global Times, it is pertinent that the Global Times is a subsidiary of the CCP’s mouthpiece People’s Daily with a former Deputy Editor- in-Chief of the People’s Daily as its Editor-in-Chief. The Global Times is equally subject to the vetting and ‘advisories’ of the CCP Central Committee’s Propaganda Department as other official Chinese media. The articles appearing in the Global Times cannot have been published without high-level clearance from the CCP’s Propaganda Department. One reason for Global Times having been chosen as the propaganda vehicle of choice would be the awareness that Indian journalists do not speak Chinese and would, therefore, readily republish reports from the Global Times and disseminate them to a wider Indian audience. It is significant that New Delhi-based Chinese diplomats in their briefings to think-tanks and others in New Delhi used the same arguments that were repeated a day or two later by the Global Times!
12. Of concern is that the threats and warnings issued by the Global Times have not yet been denied or contradicted by any Chinese official. By late July, the state- owned Global Times had published nearly 20 articles. In addition to warning India of a repeat of the 1962 war and an image of a People’s Daily edition of 1962 being posted on the People’s Daily’s website and circulated on the popular Chinese sites Weibo and WeChat on July 12, 2017, each of the articles sought to prick India on sensitive issues and has a background. The threat about China’s intention to reverse its recognition of Sikkim as part of India, repeated byChinese diplomats in New Delhi, underscores the remark by a Chinese Vice Foreign Minister to the visiting Indian External Affairs Minister in 2008 that the issue of Sikkim remains unsettled. The warning about promoting insurgency in the northeast, after Deng Xiaoping reversed Mao’s policy of “exporting revolution” in 1979, has as backdrop the persistent reports about weapons purchases by northeast insurgent groups from China and the clandestine links maintained by Chinese Intelligence over the years with these groups. The warning can impact on the proposed Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) Corridor. China, incidentally, has a consulate in Kolkata though it has refused to permit India to reopen one in Lhasa. The article attempting to draw a parallel between India’s action in Doklum in support of Bhutan and mentioning the possibility of a Chinese intrusion in Kashmir ostensibly at Pakistan’s instance, brings into focus China’s links with Kashmiri separatists and the growing collusion between China and Pakistan and the pronounced military content of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). These articles as well as the statements by official Chinese spokesmen reveal the thinking in the CCP’s senior echelons about India.
13. The Global Times has also not hesitated in ‘personal attacks’ on Indian personages including External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj. On July 21, it called her a “liar”. Another article attacked Prime Minister Narendra Modi and ascribed the “rise of Hindu nationalism” as one of the reasons for pushing India and China into another war. The Global Times stated, ““Nationalist fervor that demands revenge against China has taken root in India since the border war. The election of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has fueled the country's nationalist sentiments. Modi took advantage of rising Hindu nationalism to come to power.... The border row this time is an action targeted at China that caters to the demand of India's religious nationalists.” Later another article described Ajit Doval as the “main schemer” who planned the incident and said his visit will not “sway Beijing”.
14. Articles in the Chinese media have been noticeably consistent in asserting that ‘India's withdrawal from the Doklum area is the precondition for talks’, that China will not budge from this stand and that “the longer the standoff, the moredisadvantageous India's position will be”. They have declared too that “China will make no concessions over the territorial issue nor will it yield to anyone when it comes to national security”. Similar statements have been made by Chinese MFA spokesmen. On July 25, on the eve of NSA Ajit Doval’s visit to Beijing for the Meeting of BRICS Nations NSAs, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi elevated the level of the Chinese demand and became the senior most Chinese official to blame India for triggering the military standoff at Doklum and asked it “to withdraw its border troops”. A disingenuous statement in Chinese issued by the MFA quoted Wang Yi as telling reporters in Thailand that the “problem was very straightforward” and “even Indian officials publicly said that Chinese soldiers didn’t enter the Indian territory. In other words, Indian side admitted (crossing) into Chinese territory.”
15. There were other articles too questioning the wisdom of boycotting Chinese goods. In this context, one lauded Prime Minister Modi for following an ‘open policy” of trade. A Xinhua commentary published immediately after Doval’s bilateral meeting with Yang Jiechi, however, struck a conciliatory note. It said "Instead of being rivals, India and China have much more common ground, common interests and common aspirations. Both as developing countries, the two need to work together on important issues like fighting climate change, protectionism and the financial privileges of Washington. Hopefully, wisdom will guide the two countries to common prosperity. There is more than enough room for them to co-exist and thrive in Asia and in the world. Both China and India need to enhance communication and nurture trust between them, first by recognizing that the two are not born rivals and that harboring ill will against each other is dangerous." This is the first time an article published by China’s official media uses a conciliatory tone and does not ask India to withdraw first.
16. Interesting are the posts and blogs that have appeared on People’s Liberation Army (PLA) owned or maintained websites. While the face-off at Doklum did not seem to dominate the military social media, the posts and blogs on the subjectwere noticeably firm and categoric. Some of them merit attention and are indicative of the thinking in sections of the PLA. At least one post authored by a serving and ‘informed’ PLA officer, stated that August will be the crucial month for military hostilities as the weather would become too inhospitable thereafter. Another military ‘expert’ recommended that the best time for China to strike India is in August, arguing that “from September weather conditions in the theatre of combat will change and not be conducive for soldiers to survive and fight at such high altitudes”. He said if the two countries are able to prevent the situation from worsening and escalating till September, then the possibility of an armed confrontation could reduce substantially as both countries would have to withdraw troops in September.
17. Other posts on these military sites listed the advantages for China of “teaching India a lesson”, asserting that this time around China should not make the same mistake as in the past and “recover” the whole of “southern Tibet”, or Arunachal Pradesh. One recommended that China should block the flow of river waters to India and especially cited the need to accelerate building the planned dams on the Tsangpo (Brahmaputra) river. None of the postings and blogs were noticed referring to any statements on the face-off that might have been made by higher PLA Commanders or CMC Chairman Xi Jinping.
18. A few posts on the military’s social media did, however, express concern at the possibility of outbreak of hostilities with India. Some said the PLA was inadequately prepared and not equipped to undertake such a venture, while others argued that differences should be resolved through diplomatic channels.
19. The PLA’s stated position was stiffened by the remarks on July 30, of retired PLA Major General Yao Yunzhu, presently Director Emeritus at the PLA’s prestigious Academy of Military Science (AMS) Centre on China-AmericaDefence Relations and whose remarks usually reflect the official Chinese ‘line’. Describing the face-off as of “unprecedented nature” that could make Beijing look for a strong resolution, she claimed the CCP and the PLA are under “huge pressure” to take strong action against the “invasion”. Yao Yunzhu was quoted as saying “China and India are unlikely to go to war, depending how you define war. If it is very small, if it is a limited-scale military operation against an aggression, it is possible. So, we are talking about very specific military operational issues. What I want to say is that for this Doklam (Donglang) event, Indians have intruded, invaded Chinese territory. That is something that has to be corrected. That is what I have been stressing.” She added “trespass” is “intolerable”. Saying she is: “not going to be talk about war or military operations, limited or unlimited without a context. The context is this — not only India, any country that has invaded China (or) Chinese territory and stayed on would have to be dealt with whatever means we have, because we cannot accept Chinese territory to be invaded and occupied.” She also said “Let us be specific. We are talking about Doklam (Donglang) incident, not generally along the border. Because on the border we have other mechanisms (to resolve disputes). We should analyse them case by case. But Doklam is an unique case, it is an established border line, uncontested territory. I will not say surgical operation, or missile strike or whatever. I will not specify....with whatever means, It has to be corrected...you have an invasion, you have to defeat that invasion.” She added “We are stronger. The Chinese military is stronger compared to the Indian military... not only in numbers of aircraft, warships, artillery pieces, tanks, we have a much stronger defence industrial base.”
20. China’s propaganda offensive against India during the period (June 26 – Aug 1, 2017) of the face-off at Doklum appears to have been particularly critical. Such public warnings have not been seen in the past 3 to 4 decades and clearly reflect the level of tension in the India-China relationship. Posts on the PLA websites have been firm in expressing the resolve to defend sovereignty and territory. Inherent in China’s propaganda offensive is undoubtedly a high level of psywar but China, which has projected itself as a major world power, will not want this image dented. Xi Jinping has also, since he took over in November 2012, used ideology and nationalism to consolidate the Party’s and personalpower. With the crucial 19th Party Congress scheduled two months hence he cannot afford to appear weak. Other factors including the recent tension between the US and North Korea could, however, prompt Beijing to defer action against India.
(The author is a former Additional Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India and is President of the Centre for China Analysis and Strategy.)
ricky_v wrote:
Also in the previous committee that is due to be changed now has an anti corruption chief/whip who is also quite powerful but is due for retirement as he is nearing 68 years.
Nope. Wang Quishan might get re-elected. And Xi can get into trouble because of that. We (me and a few of my mates) have been following that closely and it is perhaps likely that Wang Quishan can also get more powers (he has a plum post already).
There are two ways of looking at it: If Xi wins this round, the knifes, though shielded, will be out and waiting for the opportune moment. All it takes is some long period of restive populace, unrest, setbacks in limited wars etc and he could be hounded out. Alternately, Xi can consolidate his power even more as the days go by.
presumably in response). I dont think there is any reason to do any test to ward off China. As I was searching for recent missile tests, I found that India has been testing some missile or the other regularly for the past year, which is clearly based on pre-existing plans and not in response to any new threats.