India-China News and Discussion

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 21 Oct 2009 02:02

Indias response to the chinese Dam activity should be to fire the bullet from anothers shoulder.

India should declare that if Chinese dam construction goes on, then India will have to offset the loss by scrapping the Indus water treaty with Pakistan/constructing dams on rivers prohibited by the treaty and also will not be able to release enough water in Ganga & Bhramaputra for Bangladesh.

Let the taller than mountain & deeper than cesspool friend try to influence china to do otherwise. Also this will cause the banglas to cry out against ramifications of chinas actions

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Oct 2009 02:40

csharma wrote:K Subrahmanyam on the "Chinese Challenge".

http://www.maritimeindia.org/pdfs/KS_18Oct09.pdf

The Chinese challenge has to be faced economically,
politically and militarily. The challenge India faces is not in terms of a rivalry with China in the immediate
future. India must recognize that in economic and military terms, China is so far ahead of India that talk of
rivalry in the next three decades is meaningless. The challenge India has to face is China’s attempt to slow
down India’s growth and keep India off balance militarily in the near future so that India will not emerge as a
rival, over the longer term.
.

The rise of China as an untethered hegemonic power is not favoured by US, Russia, Japan or the European
Union. Only Russia sells military equipment to China while other major powers do not. On the other hand all
major powers are eager to sell military equipment to India. India is already the largest market for military sales
for Russia. Furthermore, Moscow has been willing to help India to construct a nuclear submarine and lease to
India nuclear submarines. There is an agreement between India and Russia to develop the fifth generation
fighter aircraft. The US is keen to sell India its frontline fighter aircraft and make India one of its major arms
markets. Part of China’s pressure on India is attributable to the fact that in terms of military capability, China
is far ahead of India in quantitative and in certain areas even in qualitative terms. This imbalance can be
rectified by India going in for large acquisitions of sophisticated US equipment that are likely to be available
and thereby gain a technological edge over China.
Admiral Mehta's comments about not matching China weapon for weapon was interpreted as a need to buy high tech US arms. KS is openly stating that.

While China may consider India as a rival and attempt to slow down India’s growth, India has no ambition of
catching up with China in the next three decades. That is not possible except under very exceptional
circumstances such as an internal collapse. However China is ageing and because of the one child policy of
Mao Dze Dung, in the next three decades the PRC will develop a demographic profile in which a significantly
higher proportion of its population of aged will have to be supported by a smaller proportion of population of
working age .China’s growth rate will dip at a time when India will have a much higher percentage of
population of working age ..

In 2000 I wrote:

Challenge of China

Buying US arms wont do anyting except bolster sagging balance sheets for US arms companies.The arms wont be enough to gain an advantage. And to monitor their use they will need US people. Better yet buy more local and not hanker after unobtanium powered arms.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 21 Oct 2009 04:17

Indias response to the chinese Dam activity should be to fire the bullet from anothers shoulder.

India should declare that if Chinese dam construction goes on, then India will have to offset the loss by scrapping the Indus water treaty with Pakistan/constructing dams on rivers prohibited by the treaty and also will not be able to release enough water in Ganga & Bhramaputra for Bangladesh.

Aditya Ji, that is an exceptionally good idea!

If India verifies Chinese are indeed diverting the waters of the Brahmaputra, then India should declare it is obliged to scrap the Indus water treaty or any water treaty with BD and simultaneously declare that the Tibet is considered as disputed and China must respect the 1961 UN resolution for the right to plebiscite in Tibet.

Triple whammy!!! We need water after all too.

Plus if it is confirmed we will definitely need to upgrade our nukes in response to China diverting major water systems away. Pakistan will have to be told that the Indus treaty will be scrapped if China diverts waters and we will test nukes and build major maximum credible nuke deterrence against China in case of such, not directed against Pak.

Obama should be told so too, so the pressure will be on China.

Thats the stand if we have the balls we must take!

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 21 Oct 2009 07:04

IMHO, importing selective high technology weapons is not a bad idea. India currently does not produce state of the art weapons in many areas. For example: currently a realistic threat from China is its vast submarine fleet coming into the Indian Ocean. India does not have to match them submarine for submarine. India can get state of the art anti submarine technology and that nullifies the Chinese advantage. I think that is the kind of thing Admiral Sureesh Mehta and KS are talking about.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Oct 2009 07:10

China hopes for 'extensive talks', plays down tension

Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi will hold an “extensive” exchange of views with External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna when they meet in Bangalore next week, a Chinese official said on Tuesday, even as Beijing sought to play down the recent tensions with New Delhi.

In the next seven days, India and China will have two opportunities to address the strains in their relationship over the long-running border dispute. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is likely to meet Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit in Bangkok this week, though both sides are yet to confirm a meeting.

But the two countries’ Foreign Ministers will certainly hold talks in Bangalore on October 27, when the Foreign Ministers of India, China and Russia will meet.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 21 Oct 2009 07:15

That article is from The Hindu and there are no direct quotes ascribed to any real foreign ministry official in China.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 21 Oct 2009 07:26

csharma wrote:That article is from The Hindu and there are no direct quotes ascribed to any real foreign ministry official in China.

does it make a difference?

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 21 Oct 2009 07:30

The Hindu's agenda regarding China was posted earlier in the forum.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Oct 2009 08:17

csharma wrote:That article is from The Hindu and there are no direct quotes ascribed to any real foreign ministry official in China.

csharma, that's not true. From the above,

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said on Tuesday that Mr. Yang would exchange views with his Indian counterpart “in an extensive way” on bilateral ties and regional issues of common concern. He would not specify whether the recent tensions over the border dispute would figure in the talks.

The Hindu's views on China and many other international and domestic issues are well known. It is The Hindu's Editorials, Op-eds, analyses that are biased when it comes to China, Hindus etc. However, its reporting continues to remain accurate.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 21 Oct 2009 08:23

SSridhar, I stand corrected.

disha · Post by **disha** » 21 Oct 2009 09:08

Interesting blog on India-China Border issue. The Dragon-Cometh Slowly.

http://blogs.intoday.in/index.php?optio ... ntid=61503

From the above

FACT - China wants to keep India engaged in talks, even as it continues to build military pressure in the area. Talks have been going on for three decades -with no breakthrough, is proof enough.

FACT - China is consolidating its national power (with special focus on Tibet region), once that is done, expect more pressure on the LAC with India.

FACT - the military muscle mismatch between the two countries is wide and is increasing day by day … China and NOT Pakistan is a more potent threat.

FACT - Long before we lost Askai Chin in '62 - there had been reports of Chinese activity in the area…from '57 onwards India chose to ignore the clear signals of Chinese aggression.

Looks like the governmand loves to be an Ostrich! Dilli abhi door hain mode!!

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Oct 2009 10:26

India, China and Water Security

This explains in a nutshell the water issue.

How concerned should India, which lies downstream on the Brahmaputra, be? Work on the Brahmaputra, or Yarlung-Tsangpo as it is known in Tibet, is still in the early stages. China’s projects on this river are of two kinds — one, for hydel power generation, and the more ambitious kind, still in the works, a massive diversion project that envisages diverting the river’s waters to the arid north.

The Zangmu project, which has been in the news in India recently, was publicly announced a year ago, and the contract awarded this March. Some reports have alleged that Beijing was going back on its commitment to India to not divert the Brahmaputra. The Zangmu site is essentially a hydel power project — a ‘run of the river’ power generation project, which experts say is no cause for alarm as it will have little impact on the course of the river downstream.

The real worry for India, experts and officials say, is when China embarks on its diversion plan. The mammoth $62 billion “South-to-North Water Diversion” project, currently embroiled in debates and delays in Beijing, is the centrepiece of the Chinese government’s plans to address its northern water crisis.

The diversion project, first mooted by Mao Zedong in the 1950s involves diverting water from the south to the north along three routes. The central and middle routes, which have no impact on India, will divert water from the Yangtze river to Beijing and Tianjin in the north. The western route, from the Brahmaputra, is the most ambitious and is of huge consequence to India and Bangladesh. It involves building a dam on the ‘great bend’ of the Brahmaputra — the spot where the river does a u-turn of sorts and begins its journey east to India.

Work has begun on the central and eastern routes. It is four years behind schedule because of increasing costs and problems with relocating millions of people along the routes. The eastern route will be completed by 2012, but has also been plagued with environmental problems. Officials said last week the government has begun to relocate 330,000 people along the central route, which also runs from the Yangtze.

The delays and costs of the first two routes have resulted in growing opposition to the western route, which is also the most technically complicated. Its fate is undecided. According to Wang Shucheng, former water resources Minister, Beijing is even considering abandoning the project. Technical feasibility studies are still under way. Mr. Wang argues that it is “unnecessary” and “infeasible” to include the Brahmaputra in the diversion project, and that the Yangtze was large enough to deal with the northern shortages. He has cautioned that the speed of the flow of the river, which is the world’s highest and fastest-flowing, would damage dams and embankments. The ‘bend’ is also an earthquake-prone zone.

Kenneth Pomeranz, an expert on China’s water issues at the University of California Irvine, says it is “hard to get a handle on” on the Chinese’s government’s views on the western route. There is clear dissent within the Ministry of Water Resources, with Mr. Wang leading the arguments against the project. But others among China’s leaders, including President Hu (a hydraulic engineer by training) and the influential former President Jiang Zemin, are thought to back the project.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Oct 2009 11:56

Diverting the Brahmaputra which is a lifeline for both India and Bangladesh would be an act tantamount to war.Apartf rom the environmental dangers,which are serious,China should take into account Indo-Sino relations which would hit rock bottom in the future.How would China like it if we acted like Somali pirates,or sponsored benami ones,and plundered Chinese shipping and oil tankers plying from the Middle East to China?

Tamang · Post by **Tamang** » 21 Oct 2009 12:06

It’s a dim sum game - Prem Shankar Jha

The media have responded to China’s unusually strong demarche over Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh with a universal cry of ‘How Dare You’? Such sanctimonious outrage serves little purpose. China dares because it is now accepted as the second most powerful nation in the world and holds the keys to the US treasury. These are facts. Railing against them will not serve any useful purpose.

Continuing to do so can, however, push us into war. Every single action of the Chinese in the past two years — from the denial of a visa to an official from Arunachal Pradesh in 2007 to the 270 incursions across the Line of Actual Control this year — has been a carefully calibrated escalation of the border dispute.

Time, however, is running short. The immediate need is to persuade the Dalai Lama to postpone his visit to Tawang. This should not prove difficult for he could hardly be relishing the prospect of setting the house he has been living in on fire. A postponement will buy time for the two countries to clear misunderstandings and evolve a policy that brings peace to Tibet.

When will Mr.Jha bat for his own country?

Masaru · Post by **Masaru** » 21 Oct 2009 12:58

Tamang wrote:It’s a dim sum game - Prem Shankar Jha

What a nauseous choice of headline! Is the fact that he knows the name of a common food from Hong Kong gives him the authority to peddle his sophomoric views as expert opinion? Pray explain what is the relevance of dim-sum Mr. Jha or is that the first thing that comes to your mind when your write about China?

OT but, the level of knowledge of the so called Indian opinion makers and self-styled experts on matters related to China is pathetic, which leads to reports like chinese troops wrote in cantonese on a rock in Leh on national TV!

Breathless reporting and meaningless pandering to the flavor of the day kind of reporting which is prevalent in the electronic media is showing up in print media too. At the very least the so-called China experts should be able to recognize 2000 odd chinese characters and read some chinese language news and do some original research/analysis and not just regurgitate yesterday's news/opinion from US about china.

But one needs to look at the world through Beijing’s eyes to grasp it. These are the eyes of a country whose electrifying growth has created an alarming, and so far uncontained, rise in social discontent. These are the eyes of a country with no fewer than 56 minorities, the two largest of which are in open revolt. These are the eyes of a country that has had no experience of political accommodation in the past two millennia and does not now know where to start.

What great logic, poor chinese haven't learnt how to be accommodative, that's why the rest of the world has to kowtow to them!

The second is satellite telephony and the internet, which have enabled these elements to build links with their counterparts in Tibet, to weave together what could be the first ‘virtual’ nation in the history of humanity.
{Get inside the great firewall and type tibet/dalai lama and see the consequences!}

Fortunately for India, reversing the escalation does not require making humiliating concessions. All that New Delhi needs to do is clear up the misapprehensions that have taken root in the Chinese leaders’ minds.

How about growing a pair of balls or a backbone!

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 21 Oct 2009 13:21

^^^

MMS needs some too ! He avoided Tawang! But post S-e-S, atleast it looks like some lessons have been learnt.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091021/j ... 639392.jsp

The Prime Minister was being quoted by an officer who took notes while he addressed the unified commanders’ conference — an annual event of the defence establishment — here today. The Prime Minister’s words on relations with China were absent from the official text of the excerpts of his speech that was released to the media.

So looks like this time GoI is doing something. Appears as though he didnt want to add fuel to the media fire.

Singh said the security situation in India’s neighbourhood had worsened in the past year. He said the armed forces “should be trained to fight anywhere, anytime and under any conditions. Their ability to deal with non-traditional threats must receive greater attention”.

He urged the defence establishment to draw up modernisation plans that involved the army, the navy and the air force.

I see these as positive moves. Moving Sukhois to the east, strengthening units and dusting off old runways.

But the apologetic tone with China must go and now.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 21 Oct 2009 13:26

Ho ho! Heartening !

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Curious-I ... 60695.aspx

Thupten Jambey, 64, has never seen anything like this: vehicles packed with tourists pack his lone filling station. “The tankers come once in five-seven days, forcing me to ration petrol and diesel. I gave 30 litres per vehicle the day before and cut it down to 15 yesterday,” he said. “Today, it’s just 10 litres.”

Hotels and guesthouses, most of them flanking Nehru Market in this district headquarters perched 10,000 ft above sea level in Arunachal Pradesh, are filled with visitors — with China on their minds.

China had briefly occupied Tawang during the 1962 war.

“There are more guests than the 11 rooms in this hotel can accommodate,” said 42-year-old hotel manager Lobsang Tenda. This (tourist rush) started on September 25 and will continue right through March, he said.

“This year has seen more tourists than ever, and compared to only 500 beds last year we have accommodation for over 700 visitors. Four home-stay cottages have also come up, but they don’t seem to be enough,” said Tawang deputy commissioner Gamli Padu.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 21 Oct 2009 13:29

But then you can count on the CPI for never failing to backstab us through their mouthpiece Chindu!

http://www.hindu.com/2009/10/03/stories ... 151000.htm

“There has been a revival of the bogey of the threat from China among sections of the corporate media and strategic experts. A series of hostile manoeuvres by China have been cited… All such reports were either baseless or highly exaggerated… Both the Chinese and Indian governments have stated that there are no tensions growing on the border,” CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat said in an article in the party organ, People’s Democracy.

What a nutter!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Oct 2009 15:28

PSJ's defeatist views are exactly what the PRC wants to happen,an Indian cave in on the Dalai Lama visiting AP and Chgina thereby wins a battle without even firing a shot! Tsun Zu would certainly simile at Gin and Tonic's strategy.What is despicable about PS Jha''s statements is the underlying defeatism about a war with China.What if China attacks us anyway? What does Jha want us to do,simply lie down and surrender? It is this defeatist atitude of the generation of Indians who lived under the Raj that stinks to high heaven.Those of us who were born in free India have none of this servile character in our blood.Every inch of Indian territory must be defended with every drop of blood of every Indian.The sooner China get6s this message,the faster it will back off.

The PRC's new3 ASEAN strategy.

http://www.asianewsnet.net/news.php?id=8286

China is searching for new Asean strategies

Kavi Chongkittavorn
The Nation (Thailand)
Publication Date: 19-10-2009

As China celebrates peacefully the 60th anniversary of its rise, the country is also seriously contemplating new Asean strategies responding to emerging and more dynamic regional political landscapes that include unresolved disputed claims in the South China Sea and the Spratly Islands, as well as the opening up of the Mekong sub-region. At this juncture, Beijing no longer has unrivalled access to the region.

Of late, Asean-China relations are not what they seem. Deep down, there are signs of wariness and complacency. While both sides still value their hard-won friendship and economic-focused transactions, factors that keep their ties vibrant are completely missing these days. Worse still has been the new tendency for using aggressive rebuttals, emphasising sovereignty and nationalism, among claimants over the South China Sea disputes. They have forgotten they used to pledge self-restraint.

After Beijing first attended the 1991 Asean meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Asean-China relations have progressed at an unprecedented pace. There was a brief lull in 1995 during the stand-off between Asean and China over the Mischief Reefs in March 1995, leading to the first joint Asean condemnation of China.

A subsequent patch-up meeting a month later in Huangzhan, Hangzhou allowed Beijing to overhaul its foreign policy and make realistic assessments of Asean by recognising its collective power and expanding regional roles. Literally after the meeting, Beijing stopped perceiving Asean as an American bogeyman.

Since then, China has painstakingly built up mutual trust with Asean, which quickly led to closer all round cooperation. It spoke out loudly and supported fervently Asean initiatives and endeavours within and sometimes outside the region. China was the first dialogue partner to accede to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in 2003, and to offer a free trade pact with Asean, which will be effective in January 2010.

Furthermore, China's trade with and investment in Asean has become a huge regional engine of growth. Last year, China was the eighth largest investor and the grouping's fourth largest market. The current global financial crisis has also expanded China's role in the region.

Its gigantic stimulus packages have already benefited regional economic performance. Beijing's strong financial backing for the Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralisation, along with Japan and Korea, has pushed the scheme ahead. In August, a US$10 billion "China-Asean Fund on Investment Cooperation" was set up by Beijing to support infrastructural development in the region on top of a longstanding credit of $15 billion to Asean members over the next three to five years.

After months of delay, at the Cha-Am summit this weekend, both sides will sign a memorandum to set up the Asean-China Centre in Beijing.

Such unequivocal collaboration and commitments have served as a benchmark of China's intimacy with Asean - the subject of envy among other dialogue partners. These coming years should have been the best time for Asean-China relations. Unfortunately, it will not be the case as some Asean countries have scores to settle with China.

From 1995 onwards, Asean and China have coexisted peacefully by putting the controversial disputes over the South China Sea on the backburner. In November 2002, after nearly a decade of effort, they signed the landmark document Declaration of Concerned Parties to the South China Sea, containing guidelines for claimants over the disputed areas. In the declaration, they pledged to increase their cooperation and find peaceful ways to resolve their conflict, including protection of marine environment, preventing transnational crimes, promoting safety of navigation and communication at sea in the disputed areas.

Now seven years have elapsed. No progress has been made as stipulated in the declaration. Since it is not a legally binding document, it would be difficult for any signatory to raise the issue. Asean, which has been frustrated with China's passive attitude towards the South China Sea, has kept quiet so far. Renewed attempts in the past four years to turn the declaration into a code of conduct have been unsuccessful.

However, during these intermittent years, bilateral arrangements for exploration proliferated between China and claimants such as the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia.

But there were hiccups when Asean and China started to materialise and prioritise cooperative activities by working out a common guideline in resource-rich maritime territories.

China has proposed that prior to any Asean-China meeting on the South China Sea, there should be separate meetings among the four Asean claimants - Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Philippines - followed by non-claimant members. Later on, the 10 Asean members will meet with China.

Asean has opposed the plan because the grouping prefers to speak as one - a common Asean guideline.

The disagreement has already prevented any future cooperation as envisaged in the declaration. Some Bangkok-based Asean diplomats believe China's unyielding positions indicate its toughening attitude against Asean.

Alternatively, the Asean members, especially among the claimants, have become more business-like. Beijing's proposal to convene an Asean-China defence ministerial meeting has received lukewarm support, albeit with the Asean chair's endorsement.

Furthermore, Asean has been recalcitrant about allowing China, which has shown a keen interest, to be the first nuclear power to accede to the 1995 Southeast Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (SEANWFZ). This time around, Asean wishes to have all the big five sign SEANWFZ at the same time. Such an attitude has surprised Beijing, which is used to 'first-come, first-serve' treatments from Asean.

During the Thai chairmanship, the South China Sea disputes were not on top of the Asean agenda. However, when the new Asean chair, Vietnam, takes over in 73 days, the ongoing disputes could be raised and lead to the much-feared multilateralisation.

Within the Asean circle, Hanoi has made it known the disputes would be included in the agenda at Asean summits in Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi, in April and October 2010, respectively.

Beijing has learned valuable lessons from extensive engagements with Asean that the maritime territorial disputes would pit the grouping as a whole against China, as in the Mischief Reefs case. Settling regional littoral disputes is highly problematic due to the lack of fixed demarcation lines and the constant threat to use forces among the claimants. That explains why Beijing has increasingly paid more attention to the non-claimants. Asean insists the declaration is between the grouping and China.

The chill in Asean-China ties came when the regional dynamics continued to highlight the respective roles of the major powers.

China is no exception, particularly on the South China Sea conflict, the Burmese crisis and the Mekong sub-region. Any conflicts at sea or inertia over Burma would not bode well with China's burgeoning international roles and peaceful rise.

The Mekong subregion, which has always been under China's influence, has now opened up and soon will become a new area of contest. In August, the US surprisingly made an initiative linking the Mississippi and Mekong Rivers for future cooperation on managing water resources, through the US-Lower Mekong Ministerial Meeting.

Such unusual cooperation between authorities working for inland and international rivers has been viewed with suspicion by China - interpreting this as US intrusion to weaken its control in the subregion.

Beijing understands well new strategies towards Asean must be multilayered and sustainable going beyond the mere economic realm without a black hole in the South China Sea.

Furthermore, the Chinese policy-makers have to consider other major powers, especially the US, new Japan, India, Australia, and their readiness to engage Asean on the same level playing field that China has enjoyed - but without pebbles in their shoes.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 21 Oct 2009 15:32

Somebody was yapping the other day that UPA-2 is bunch of sel-louts etc. Am not too sure. The divorce with the left helped the UPA a lot, lot. Their actions - esp on the anti PRC front appear sensible even if delayed by 5 yrs of CPM malfluence.

Also, see the move against the maopests in the redzones in central india. Another long overdue activity that sri shivraj patil and the commies scuttled effectively for way too long.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Oct 2009 17:28

I too think that there has been a change in the thinking of the UPA in recent times,especially after S-al-S and the dragon's roar.The PM's stateent yesterday that we could face imminent attacks from our enemies was specific that it did not mention by default only Pak as is usually done (cross-border terrorism).The spate of publicised military measures being taken in the high Himalayas and conferences with service commanders indicates that the GOI is trying to reassure the general public that it is alive to the danger,taking neccessary steps to plug gaps in our security,without increasing tension with the dragon and give the PRC the excuse to conduct a military strike.

The clock is ticking and the final countdown to the Dalai Lama's visit to AP is fast approaching.This is going to be the crucial moment in India's standing up to the dragon or surrendering to it in the 21st century.China might very well use his visit as the excuse to launch a military strike against India.Even if the GOI/MMS agrees to "delay" his visit-one contemplated method to "soothe" the dragon,it will be seen as a msasive moral victory for the Middle Kingdom and India's prestige will plummet.The recent Sino-Pak confabulations in Beijing are suspected of being the PRC's tip to the Pakis that such a move is being contemplated if the Dalai is allowed to visit AP and what the dragon expects fropm the Paki side to keep India battling on two fronts with the third front already in action internally,the Maoists.The Maoist war against the Indian state at this juncture is another sign of the Chinese master-puppeteer at work,trying to divert the GOI's attention at this particular moment in history.

Will the Dalai Lama on his visit to AP,just across the border from Tibet and his people,make some hint or statement at his future successor or lay down his plans for the future of the Tibetan movement in exile after his demise? If so,it will be a fait-accompli and the Chinese will be unable to do anything given his undisputed authority over the Tibetan people.Perhaps the Chinese have got wind of his plans though their intelligence and want to squash this.Any statement he makes from AP will in effect be a direct signal to the Tibetan people as to their future course of action.In earlier statements he has made clear his anguish at the hardline of the PRC and the failure of his attempts at finding a compromise.China in fact has reneged on its solemn committments made in the '50s to India as well,that Tibet would have autonomous status,much as Hong Kong does,where the Tibetans are in complete control over their religion and culture especially.

The Chinese from their track record are nothing more a bunch of bare-faced liars and hegemonists,whose aim is nothing less than holding the rest of Asia under its thrall as Suzerain and overlord.The Middle Kingdom today is merely a nation of warmongering mischief-making monkeys,whose screeching from the pagoda rooftops cannot be a substitute for nations whose foundation is based upon true democracy,the voice of the people,not the screams of suffering,the voice of slavery.

Anthony Hines · Post by **Anthony Hines** » 21 Oct 2009 17:38

A very interesting read. BTW I am reading this along with Neville Maxwell's book on the border dispute with China.

http://www.archive.org/stream/himalayan ... p_djvu.txt

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 21 Oct 2009 18:01

Why the Chinese are so upset about Tawang
Claude Arpi

The core issue is the fact that Tibet was an independent country when the misnamed People's Liberation Army marched into Tibet in October 1950. This can be proved without ambiguity by digging into the British Archives in London (or the almirahs of our ministry of external affairs).

One example: Noel-Baker, the British foreign secretary, addressed the House of Commons on December 14, 1949, to inform the MPs about the British official stand on Tibet. London stood by a memo given by Prime Minister Antony Eden to Dr T V Soong, the Chinese foreign minister, in 1943.

It stated: 'Since the Chinese Revolution of 1911, when Chinese forces [which had occupied Tibet for a short time] were withdrawn from Tibet, Tibet has enjoyed de facto independence. She has ever since regarded herself as in practice completely autonomous and has opposed Chinese attempts to reassert control.'

Interestingly, when the British high commissioner in India showed this to K P S Menon, the first Indian foreign secretary, he said: "Such publicity is good". India agreed and wanted the world to know about Tibet 'de facto' independence.

Unfortunately, less than a year later, Chinese troops entered Tibet and began to occupy the entire plateau.

Over the last nearly six decades, Beijing has done its utmost to make the world forget that before 1950 Tibet was an Independent State with not only a Separate Language, Literature, Religion and Culture, but also its own Foreign Office, Currency, Coins, Stamps and even hand-made paper Passport.

Beijing has practically succeeded in erasing all these factors from the world's collective memory, but for one thing: a thick red line.

This last symbol, the McMahon Line, proving that Tibet could sign treaties on its own, delineated the Indo-Tibet border. Beijing believes that if by a magic trick (or a bit of bullying), it can manage to annul the red line, nobody could ever challenge China's colonisation of Tibet anymore; the last proof that the powerless religious nation was invaded by its neighbour would disappear.

This is the crux of the matter and explains Beijing's present anger and belligerence.

Another misconception created by the Chinese is that because Tsangyang Gyatso, the Sixth Dalai Lama, great poet and lover, was born near Tawang in 1683. For Beijing, it is proof that Tawang belongs to Tibet (and therefore part of China). Elementary, Mr Hu!

This is another lame argument. Is France part of Kashmir because Dr Karan Singh was born in Cannes on the French Riviera? What about Liaquat Ali Khan, born in Karnal, Haryana; Zia-ul-Haq was born in Jalandhar; or Pervez Musharraf in Daryaganj in Delhi? Does it make Haryana, Punjab or Delhi a part of Pakistan?

The Sixth Dalai Lama, Tsangyang Gyaltso (the Precious Ocean of Pure Melody), who loved freedom above all, would have probably written a beautiful poem on Chinese pretentions.

Chinese names

The Chinese say that all the names south of the McMahon are Chinese. Unless Tibetan language (gompa, dzong, la, chu, etc) has become Chinese, it is wrong. In fact both languages are etymologically and grammatically totally different. However, if the Chinese start claiming as theirs all the areas using 'Bothia' (Tibetan) language and scripts, Kinnaur, Lahaul, Spiti, Ladakh or Sikkim will soon be claimed by them. And why not the Buriat and Kalmyk republics of the Russian Federation? What about Darjeeling (from Tibetan Dorjee Ling, meaning the place of the Vajra)? Does it make sense?

The current campaign is primarily caused by the forthcoming visit of the Dalai Lama to Arunachal Pradesh which in itself is a Reiteration that the Tibetan leader stands by the McMahon Line as the Indo-Tibet border, a historical fact which can't be erased retrospectively.

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 21 Oct 2009 18:22

China looking to use stake in PoK as bargaining chip?

BEIJING: The Chinese foreign ministry on Tuesday did nothing to justify its decision to invest in the Neelam-Jhelum hydroelectric project in
Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, which has drawn India's ire.

The Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu evaded a directly reply to questions on why China was investing in the disputed area. Indications are that China does not want the issue to come in the way of a smooth dialogue when the foreign ministers of the two countries meet in Bangalore on October 27.

"The Kashmir issue has been left over from history. Pakistan and India should properly handle it. We hope there will be peace and stability in South Asia," Ma said responding to a question about India's protest over the proposed Chinese investment.

Ma was asked by another reporter how Chinese investment will help India and Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir problem. He repeated more or less the same words without trying to explain Beijing's decision.

The ministry spokesman's refusal to justify a decision taken during the recent meeting between Chinese president Hu Jintao and Pakistan prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani may suggest that Beijing is taking a second look at its move to invest in POK.

India had earlier reacted to the move saying: "The Chinese side is fully aware of India's position and our concerns about Chinese activities in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. We hope that the Chinese side will take a long term view of the India-China relations, and cease such activities in areas illegally occupied by Pakistan."

The issue is expected to come up when Indian foreign minister S.M.Krishna meets his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi on October 27. The Chinese foreign ministry today confirmed that Yang will attend the trilateral meeting between the foreign ministers of India, Russia and China in Bangalore. Yang and Krishna will will hold a separate meeting to exchange views on bilateral ties and regional and international issues of common concern, Ma said.

China is also putting pressure on India to stop the proposed visit of the Dalai Lama to Arunachal Pradesh ahead of the forthcoming meeting between the Indian and Chinese foreign ministers.

China was firmly opposed to the Dalai Lama's visit to what he described as "the so-called Arunachal Pradesh". Beijing claims that Arunachal Pradesh is part of its own territory and describes it as "South Tibet".

"We believe that this further exposes the Dalai Lama clique's anti-China and separatist nature," Ma said. China seems to suggest that Dalai Lama's visit to Arunachal Pradesh will further the cause of separatists seeking an independent Tibet.

He said India and China have agreed to further advance their strategic cooperative partnership by holding a series of commemorative activities, including a "country festival" to mark the 60th anniversary of establishing official diplomatic ties in 2010.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Oct 2009 18:41

I don't know whether this piece from Kuldip Nayar was earlier poisted,but it is is well written with good advice.

India’s tense ties with China By Kuldip Nayar
Friday, 09 Oct, 2009

The portrait of Stalin was prominently displayed at the parade celebrating Beijing’s 60th anniversary. One of the world’s most tyrannical rulers, his picture still takes the pride of place in the office of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) politburo in Kolkata.
Therefore, it was not surprising that CPI-M secretary-general Prakash Karat underplayed China’s recent intrusions and attributed Indian criticism to the ‘strategic alliance’ between India and America. Those who remain sentimental about Beijing are confusing China with the communism that represented the cleansing of thought, reformist ideals and the passion of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Such people themselves have drifted away from the ideology of the true left. If they had any spark of intellectual honesty left in them, they would have tried to rescue communism from China and not use this ideology to justify their conquests.

Both the Communist Party of India and the CPI-M, which claim to represent the left, still have the same reverence for Beijing as they did when the Chinese undertook the Long March under the leadership of Mao Zedong. Then the goal was to build an agrarian economy from below. Capitalism, which the country has now adopted for development, did not fit into the scheme the Chinese were pursuing at that time. Out of capitalism grew the idea of superiority in arms. This is not the China of Mao Zedong’s dreams.

The way China is behaving towards India today invokes memories of the run-up to what happened in 1962. The forcible building at that time of the infamous Aksai-Chin Road and the murders of India’s border patrol men is a sad chapter in the history of India-China relations and something one hoped had been buried. But the recent incursions by Chinese soldiers into Arunachal Pradesh have been accompanied by boasts that they can take over the whole area in a couple of days.

This is hardly a manifestation of the Hindi-Chini bhai bhai equation. I thought China occupied in 1962 all the territory it claimed and declared a unilateral ceasefire. It did not even agree to the Colombo proposals which suggested the withdrawal of 12.5km from the positions the two sides held. India, even though the victim, complied with the proposals.

Over the years, talks between the two countries have not resulted in any firm borders either on the Ladakh or Arunachal side. But the middle sector, including Sikkim, has been recognised by China. Why has it now intruded into Sikkim and left its evidence in the shape of large red Chinese characters painted on rocks? This definitely indicates a change in Beijing’s thinking.

No sovereign country can take this kind of behaviour lying down. Nor can India condone China’s claim that Arunachal belongs to it. Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of India and New Delhi has made it clear more than once.

The latest irritation has come in the shape of visas granted to people originating from Kashmir. Instead of the standard type, the visa has been attached to a separate piece of paper stapled on to the passport. This is designed to convey that China can lay down the law and get away with it as well. The result has been that students who were given the new type of visa could not go to universities of their choice in China because India did not recognise the visa given to them.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh continues to pursue a relationship of peace and goodwill despite these provocations. I concede that China is far ahead of us in military prowess. They have more conventional weapons as well as nuclear devices.

Yet, India is not the same as it was in 1962. It is economically an emerging giant.
It may not have allocated as much money to defence as the dangers on its borders warrant. Jawaharlal Nehru also made the same mistake. He wanted to develop the country instead of having a large military arsenal. But if the desire is to articulate that power comes from the barrel of the gun, New Delhi may also be forced to reorder its priorities. Perhaps India should take a leaf out of Vietnam’s book. Here is a small country that has also suffered a border dispute with China but stood its ground and refused to kowtow.

Probably, there is something in what Nehru said in 1962 that the clash between China and India is a clash between two ideologies, two cultures and two different ways of viewing the world. One is the democratic with a live-and-let-live philosophy and the other represents authoritarianism and is without a free press, free judiciary or free vote.

We are not on weak ground, but what I cannot understand is the series of statements by the service chiefs one after another declaring that India could not take on China. The outgoing naval chief, Adm Suresh Mehta, said the country had neither the capability nor the intention to match China’s force. The new air chief, P.V. Naik, says the strength of India’s air force is one-third that of China’s. If we are ill-equipped in military strength, the chiefs can communicate this to the government, which is the right authority to take care of any inadequacies. Otherwise they not only demoralise the people, they also misguide the government.

India has a dearth of expertise where China is concerned. India by now should have encouraged the development of scores, if not hundreds, of experts capable of dissecting and analysing every Chinese move. Both Russia and Japan have, over the years, amassed sufficient information to help them deal with Beijing. India can learn from them. Force, however strong, cannot and should not have the last word.

The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... hina-zj-06

PS:Arpi's piece is excellent and nails the Chinese lie about Tibet being Chinese.He should send it to the Quisling of the Chindu,

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 21 Oct 2009 19:16

Philip wrote:Even if the GOI/MMS agrees to "delay" his visit-one contemplated method to "soothe" the dragon,it will be seen as a msasive moral victory for the Middle Kingdom and India's prestige will plummet.

Dalai Lama visit to Tawang is happening in Nov. All this talk of "Wen wants to meet PM" as if China is extending a good will hand that is scheduled between Oct 23-25 and "Extensive talk" between foreign ministers on Oct 27 are just a ploy to scuttle the Dalai Lama's visit to Tawang. In another words 'Coercive Diplomacy'. Modus operandi is as usually the same.

Lets see how this gov reacts. If Dalai Lama visit goes as planned, indeed, India has scored over Beijing.

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 21 Oct 2009 21:01

No action against journalists who filed Chinese firing report
Delhi Police has been instructed not to prosecute two journalists for what officials said was a wrong report about Chinese firing across the border, official sources said Wednesday.

Home Minister P. Chidambaram is learnt to have told Delhi Police Commissioner Y.S. Dadwal not to proceed against the journalists against whom the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) had filed an official complaint.

In their complaint to Delhi Police, the ITBP had said the two journalists from Delhi published a news report about Chinese cross-border firing that apparently resulted in injuries to two of their personnel. The ITBP wanted police to file an FIR against the journalists for misleading the public and causing panic.

When the issue reached Chidambaram, he is learnt to have told Dadwal not to pursue the case against the reporters or the newspaper.

Not only the ITBP but also the government has strongly denied reports of such incidents or increase in Chinese border aggression.

http://blog.taragana.com/n/no-action-ag ... rt-176385/

This "magnanimity" on the part of the state shows why no one fears any one in India and why Indian press has become the playground of intelligence agencies to plant stories and run campaigns. The two journalists will be laughing all the way to the bank. A state which gets fits of magnanimity with wrong-doers won't survive for long. Even in the US, the two jokers would have landed in jail. Soft state with knees of jelly, that is what India is. A strong action against these two would have sent a message to wheeler-dealer "journalists" of India who accept lifafas.

Punishment is given by the state not as much to punish the wrong-doers but to send a message to those who are watching. Now other corrupt journalists will say, "bhaiya lete raho, un dono ke saath bhi to kuch nahi hooa. Choot gaye dono araam se." With this magnamity, what message has the home minister sent to other journalists who are trying to decide whether to accept money and plant stories?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Oct 2009 21:20

Hari Seldon wrote:Somebody was yapping the other day that UPA-2 is bunch of sel-louts etc. Am not too sure. The divorce with the left helped the UPA a lot, lot. Their actions - esp on the anti PRC front appear sensible even if delayed by 5 yrs of CPM malfluence.

Also, see the move against the maopests in the redzones in central india. Another long overdue activity that sri shivraj patil and the commies scuttled effectively for way too long.

Without Left to provide an excuse, a repeat of 1962 will finish off the INC for sure. Cant let it happen twice on its watch. Hence the apparent pro-active posture after delaying force modernization for the last term.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 21 Oct 2009 21:41

Straws in the Wind from China
D S Rajan
Chennai Centre for China Studies

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Oct 2009 22:57

From Chandigarh Tribune, 10/21/09

Chinese chequers, dam(n) nonsense
India doesn’t need to lose cool
by B.G. Verghese

WHY are the Chinese so nervous, huffing and puffing away over something as innocuous as Dr Manmohan Singh’s election visit to Arunachal and the Dalai Lama’s spiritual journey to the revered Buddhist monastery in Tawang? These demarches were preceded by a gratuitous statement that Arunachal is part of China and India should best back off from there. This bluster, sometimes expressed though the columns of party journals, targets India for not responding to China’s boundary “concessions” and for adopting a hegemonistic attitude towards its neighbours, Pakistan and Nepal included. The Sino-Indian boundary is still “disputed” and while negotiations are in progress, the matter has not been settled and hence the status quo ante, as perceived by Beijing, must prevail.

The facts are otherwise. China has dragged its feet on boundary demarcation, refusing to exchange sector maps as settled through talks so as to avoid inadvertent incidents of innocent trespass. It has also blandly gone back on one of the agreed principles of understanding, namely, that settled border areas shall not be brought into question during the boundary talks. It has violated this seminal principal by claiming “possession” of all of Arunachal, particularly Tawang, and adopting ludicrous rhetorical positions.

India does not need to be unnerved by such conduct that betrays a sense of uncertainty and anxiety over the situation in China’s borderlands in Tibet and Xinjiang which remain restive. Arunachal went to the polls once again and registered a 75 per cent vote in a democratic process that Communist China does not understand and deeply fears. China may have appeared proud and powerful as it celebrated the 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic; but while the stands in Tiananmen Square were full of regimented supporters, the people were locked away. China has done remarkably well in many ways. But it is replete with inner contradictions and social disharmonies. Economic liberalism and modernisation do not go well with a tight party dictatorship, the suppression of religious freedom and rural-urban and regional disparities. All monoliths are solid until they crack.

There has, however, been too much media and right-wing hype about alleged Chinese designs on India by projecting growing capabilities into malevolence. This mix of jingoism and fear is immature. Chinese military modernisation and technological displays are impressive but India has no need to match either of these in numbers or idle showmanship. Ours is not an aggressive posture and the Chinese have a shrewd idea that 1962 is ancient history and adventures are best avoided. This does not mean that India should not improve its border infrastructure and connectivity and uplift living standards in all outlying regions.

If Dr Manmohan Singh meets the Chinese Premier, Mr Wen Jiabao, in Bangkok on October 23 on the margins of the East Asian summit, this should offer opportunity to iron out recent wrinkles in bilateral relations. Among these is a new red herring being dragged across the trail as a result of reports that the Chinese plan to dam the Tsangpo at Zangmu (29.14 lat., 29.52. long.) with an installed capacity of 450 MW (comparable to the Baglihar project India has commissioned on the Chenab). Even if this be true (and more such sites are reportedly being investigated) this is probably a modest run-of-river hydro-project with little consumptive use and no hint (or capability) of diversion northwards. Such a project would be fully within China’s right to build.

Indian news reports continue to be singularly ill-informed about Tibetan geography, topography and hydrology. The Water Resources Ministry must take the rap for such national ignorance which has deeper roots in the downgrading of geography as an educational discipline. For one thing, the Tsangpo (Siang/Dihang in Arunachal) is confused with the Brahmaputra (which is formed in Assam after the confluence of the Siang, Luhit, Dibang and Noa Dihing, all substantial rivers in their own right). So the “Brahmaputra” is not being diverted anywhere and will not “run dry”. In any event, more than 70 per cent of the run-off of the Brahmaputra is generated south of the Himalaya.

Reference is made to a report by Li Lung, “Tibet Water Plan to Save China” (2005) through the Great Western Route Project, by diverting over 200 billion cubic metres of water from Tibet to North China, 120 BCM of this coming from the “Brahmaputra basin”. This diversion is proposed at a far higher latitude in the great U-Bend of the Tsangpo as it drops into India from Tibet is also confusingly discussed as a possible source of pumping power for moving water north. While many old time generals and ideologues have commended the Great Western Diversion Project, a number of technical experts, economists and ecologists have panned this fantasy.

So, while India keeps a wary eye on water resource development in Tibet, it does not need to become hysterical and thrown off balance and diverted from the real tasks of diplomacy and development. Earlier reports of floods from extreme river surges in Arunachal and in the Sutlej Valley were mistaken for Chinese mala fides. They were, in fact, the result of debris/glacial lake outbursts in remote Himalayan Valleys. These, with glacial and permafrost melting and aberrant weather, are going increasingly to impact the entire Himalayan-Karakoram region on account of climate change. Cooperation in meeting this common challenge is what India and China should be talking about.

Is there a public bipartisan China Studies Insititute not relying on Govt patronage or staffed by ex-GOI folks?

Tamang · Post by **Tamang** » 21 Oct 2009 23:00

Should the Dalai Lama visit Arunachal Pradesh?

Worth reading with many many more gems from our beloved Prem Shankar Jha a man who is a self proclaimed expert on everything, and please do vote in favour of the visit too.

Some quotes from PSJ

------

Jha, an economist strategic analyst, who has written three books on China that includes Crouching Dragon, Hidden Tiger: Can China and India Dominate the West? and Managed Chaos on the fragility of the Chinese miracle, dismissed in strongest words all those experts who support the Dalai Lama's visit. He told rediff.com that these experts know nothing about China and strategic issues.

Who are these "know nothing about China and strategic issues" experts?

- Former diplomat Naresh Chandra, who has been a member of International Crisis Group and National Security Advisory Board
- Mohan Guruswamy
- Srikant Kondapalli, China expert who has written two papers on China's defence services and who was post-doctoral visiting fellow at the People's University, Beijing, from 1996-98

"I have lived through 1962. I have lived through humiliations. I don't want such humiliations, again. I wrote three books on China because I had gone through the pain of humiliations."

"There is a terrible feeling in government that these people (strategic experts who support the Dalai Lama's visit) have gone crazy. They will drive us to war."

Jha thinks in the upcoming meeting of China and India's leaders in Thailand (during the ASEAN Summit), China is likely to warn India. India and China can do lots of things together in the field of environment, trade and economic crisis. Why create another crisis? he asks

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Oct 2009 23:25

Posting in full Tamang's quote

Experts differ on whether the Dalai Lama's [ Images ] visit to Arunachal Pradesh could escalate tensions between India and China and even lead to war, writes Sheela Bhatt.

Should the Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of the Tibetans, visit Arunachal Pradesh when tension between India and China is so high?

China has objected, officially and unofficially, against his proposed visit in November more than once.

It is well-known that the Chinese see the Dalai Lama as a 'splittist" leader and not as a religious or spiritual leader of Tibetans. The Dalai Lama has visited Arunachal Pradesh several times in the past despite China's protests.

Prem Shankar Jha, well-known columnist and author of many books including The Twilight of the Nation State: Globalisation, Chaos and War has argued in his latest column that, 'The immediate need is to persuade the Dalai Lama to postpone his visit to Tawang. This should not prove difficult for he could hardly be relishing the prospect of setting the house he has been living in on fire. A postponement will buy time for the two countries to clear misunderstandings and evolve a policy that brings peace to Tibet [ Images ].'

Jha thinks that for good of India and China, the Dalai Lama should not visit Twang in times like this. In quite a surprising tone he warns that, 'The resulting confrontation has now acquired a life of its own and is leading the two countries towards a war that neither wants. The calibrated escalation of China's demands and actions suggests that the point of no return will be the Dalai Lama's visit to Tawang in November. Wen Jiabao's request for a meeting with Manmohan Singh [ Images ] in Bangkok should, therefore, be seen as a last ditch effort to avert war.'

This sounds scary but most New Delhi-based analysts, well-versed with international affairs, rejected Jha's claims.

Former diplomat Naresh Chandra, who has been a member of International Crisis Group and National Security Advisory Board, told rediff.com that, "The decision to visit Arunachal Pradesh should be left to the Dalai Lama. India should not allow China to have a veto in this matter. It is true that both countries are under tension. But, tension has to be managed. What can China do to India if the Dalai Lama visits Arunachal Pradesh? Will it stop trading with India? India is not saying that Chinese prime minister should not go to Tibet."

Chandra says if India agrees to postpone the Dalai Lama's visit, Chinese will push the envelope. In future they may mind his visit to Leh also.

"Jha has got it wrong. The issue is if you concede China's demand to not allow the Dalai Lama's visit, you are conceding that China has a special interest in Arunachal Pradesh. This is not possible to do because you can't concede on any Indian territory. We should be friendly to China but conceding on Arunachal Pradesh is just not possible. The line should not be crossed."

Mohan Guruswamy, who has written the book Chasing The Dragon: Will India Catch Up With China?, told rediff.com that, "We should not encourage China in this matter. It is none of its business. The Dalai Lama should go to Arunchal Pradesh. India is free to decide about it. There is no end to Chinese demands."

He says the Dalai Lama should go now and go again and again.

Srikant Kondapalli, China expert who has written two papers on China's defence services and who was post-doctoral visiting fellow at the People's University, Beijing [ Images ], from 1996-98, told rediff.com, "I don't think India and China are moving towards war because unlike in 1962, India is not unprepared. Both countries are nuclear powers and both countries are alert. No war is possible in these circumstances."

Kondapalli, who has been educated in Chinese studies in India and China with a specialisation in modern Chinese history, says, "I think the Dalai Lama should go to Arunachal Pradesh because if he cancels it will be seen wrongly by Indians and by the world. It will be seen as India working under pressure from China and moreover, South Block will lose face because diplomats like Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao [ Images ] and Joint Secretary (East Asia) Vijay Gokhale, have said clearly that the Dalai Lama is free to visit any part of India."

Jha, an economist strategic analyst, who has written three books on China that includes Crouching Dragon, Hidden Tiger: Can China and India Dominate the West? and Managed Chaos on the fragility of the Chinese miracle, dismissed in strongest words all those experts who support the Dalai Lama's visit. He told rediff.com that these experts know nothing about China and strategic issues.

In an angry tone, he said, "I have lived through 1962. I have lived through humiliations. I don't want such humiliations, again. I wrote three books on China because I had gone through the pain of humiliations." He is a gubo-dhimmi

Jha says that China is economically strong but politically insecure. He says, "Those people who are supporting the Dalai Lama's visit don't know China at all. China is economically successful but it is an intrinsically insecure country. Many people see high-rise buildings in Shanghai and think that nothing can go wrong with it. But, that is not true. China has been giving signal after signal of its views over border issues."

Jha said he knows reliably that, "There is a terrible feeling in government that these people (strategic experts who support the Dalai Lama's visit) have gone crazy. They will drive us to war." {So he claims to be speaking GOI mind?}

Jha says logically one should ask question the when China's GDP is 2.5 time bigger than India, when it holds 2/3rds of US treasury bonds, when it is having dialogue under G-2 with US why would its Prime Minister Wen Jiabao ask for Indian prime minister's time? {Maybe he wants to set his clock right?}

Jha thinks in the upcoming meeting of China and India's leaders in Thailand (during the ASEAN Summit), China is likely to warn India. India and China can do lots of things together in the field of environment, trade and economic crisis. Why create another crisis? he asks. If PRC is insecure now is the time to make them chose their battles. Chanakya says diplomacy/statecraft is all about making people choose.}

He also put forward and argument that China can shift an entire division of its army in just a week's time near Indian borders but the Indian army [ Images ] is not prepared. It needs time. Jha says, "The very least our experts can do is buy time for the Indian armed forces." {Let the generals worry about it. They will not be found wanting. Jah's advice is more like weakening Indina resolve at grave crisis tie and is quite like Shalya sarathyam for Karna.}

He also argues that, "I am very surprised that the Dalai Lama who has lived in our house since the last 60 years is not taking a position. Why does he not offer to postpone his visit? He can see the damage to India better than I can see it. His visit to Twang to open a hospital is purely a political act." {He is blaimng our guest for the enemy at the gates?}

Talking about the basic issue between two countries, Jha argues that China has a misunderstanding about India's stand on Tibet. They think that surreptitiously India may be supporting the Dalai Lama's idea of a 'Greater Tibet' which if conceded will have direct impact on China's unity and future. Jha says, "India has never supported and will never support idea of a Greater Tibet. But the misunderstanding should be cleared." Its for PRC to clear it up themselves by removing the cataract in their eye. Besides it was PRC that supplied nukes to TSP when their stolen designs did not work}

Jha forcefully pleads for talks with China and he thinks India should buy time, "Those who support strident diplomacy vis-a-vis China owe it to people of India to find out about any misunderstanding with China. If China is readying to humiliate India, we should buy time. We are doing neither. People who know nothing about China are rushing India into confrontation for which the Indian Army is not ready." {This quote shows his defeatist mentality. Indian Army is ready and has been for quite long time. Defeat of PRC in this context means defending the area and that can be done. It does not mean liberate the Uighers!}

In this catch-22 situation, the Dalai Lama has been evasive, so far. If he himself prefers to delay his visit to Arunachal Pradesh, the matter can be solved amicably and will help cool the tempers, says a New Delhi-based strategic expert offering a temporary solution. This guy is even more astute than Jha, in not revealing his name!}

Uday B · Post by **Uday B** » 22 Oct 2009 00:22

Well going by the recent developments and the "REQUEST"from chinese premier Wen to meet MMS at the sidelines of ASEAN summit, they sure would be "REQUESTING" us not to allow his holiness Dalai Lama to visit Tawang. Lets see how we react. I personally feel the Dalai lama visit will be postponed based on the request from GOI. This will be a huge loss of face for the GOI, given the fact that both SMK & Nirupama Rao have categorically stated that Dalai lama is free to visit any part of India.

But I sincerely hope the visit to Tawang takes place and we finally stand up to the Chinese and not succumb to their pressure tactics, in light of the broader INDO SINO relationship rhetoric which is going no where.

Interesting and crucial times ahead!!

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 22 Oct 2009 00:48

I remember Jha's fawning praise of PRC in Hindu as far back 1992.

He is a sinophile. what MMS baiters here are forgetting is that the INC has kicked out all sinophiles out of the cabinet or relegated them to non core positions. Mani Shankar Aiyar, Natwar Singh as examples.

This was done as far back as 2004...something to think about.

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Oct 2009 00:51

These days I have been trying more than hard to not throw in the towel , anyways from GOI's and India's perspective I just want to ask

1. What does India gain by giving in to China's request about not allowing Dalai Lama to visit Tawang ?

2. What harm can China cause to India in long/short term if we do not budge and instead welcome Dalai Lama ?

And what sort of compromise or resumption of dialogue process should be expected from PRC? for as far as I know peace accord or compromise is a two way street .
* What sort of concessions is PRC supposed to give India in return ?
* Is China gonna stop work on infrastructure projects in POK ?
* Is PRC willing to be more transparent on water sharing as far as building reservoirs/dams on rivers that flow into India are concerned ?
* Are chinese incursions across the LAC gonna end ?

If answer to any of the above is YES , then perhaps GOI can even think on the lines of requesting Dalai Lama to postpone his visit.Else I don't see any reason why GOI should entertain the Chinese request .

Lastly I don't see what more worse can happen to Indo-China ties if we out rightly reject the Chinese demands.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 22 Oct 2009 08:39

Manmohan-Wen Jiabao meeting 'very important': China

China on Wednesday confirmed that Premier Wen Jiabao will hold meetings with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Thailand this week when the two leaders attend the ASEAN summit.

Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue said the two leaders would exchange views on bilateral relations and regional and international issues of common concern.

China viewed the meeting as “a very important one” in the context of strengthening ties between the two countries, he said.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 22 Oct 2009 09:09

Man, Prem Shankar Jha is pissing in his pants

Growing balls or a backbone will not help him. He's beyond hope.

I wouldn't be surprised if people in the current GoI are also doing the same.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 22 Oct 2009 16:43

PS Jha being whatever he is, it would not have mattered, one would have seen the point in PRCs getting all excited about DL visiting AP. That is because the point, then would have been, China is super-sensitive on Tibet, and the issue is not AP. That is understandable, and perhaps excusable. Because unfortunately, successive GOI regimes, including ABV, have sold Tibet cause down the river and no decent western power is going to back us up on that.

But by objecting to PMs visit, PRC has closed that intrepretation and has made it abundantly clear that issue is not about DL or Tibet, it is about AP. Once again, PRC puppets have been given a huge slap in the face and called third rate liars by PRC itself. There can be no other interpretation. This is on top of making the Stalinist rapist goons and their yellow media look like fools when their 'all is fine with PRC, it is all RSS fault' propaganda was crudely interrupted by PRC's strong statement on AP.

Thus GOIs options are very clear. To be seen as having b..s and not wetting pants whenever PRC makes a threat.

One fails to understand why Beijing would make its own puppets look like idiots, perhaps they think these idiots are so devoid of self respect and patriotism, they would anyway come back licking..

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 22 Oct 2009 16:55

AFAIK there has been no parliamentary approval on China's sovereignity over Tibet. Individual PMs have made statements on behalf of India. However i see no reason why we cannot backtrack on Tibet. If individual PMs can make committments behind closed doors without taking the nation into confidence, why can't another PM in the future make Tibet back into an issue. I find it defeatist that PSjs and AP Venketesans claiming we cannot now go back o the the Tibet card. We can and must. With Brahamaputra being diverted, and AP, Sikkim, Bhutan, Ladhak being raised as issues, we have little options left except backtracking on Tibet.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 22 Oct 2009 17:45

I agree, barring anything other than signed treaties (perhaps even that) can be abrogated. But fooling around with Tibet and Taiwan would constitute damn serious provocations and we should go in with eyes wide open and after all precautions have been taken on domestic front including further marginalisation of the PRC puppets..

I doubt if present regime has the right sort of collection of soft dangling objects to do this. Even if it does, our economy needs further strength, world public opinion needs to be favorable and so on. Right now the world (which as we all know means west) is foolishly hoping for PRC to play a stabilising role in global economy and also be a economic engine on its own, instead of being a dependent on western markets.