Managing Chinese Threat

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 15 Sep 2010 21:00

ramana wrote:chaanakya, Have you thought why does Tibet have a Tibet House in New Delhi? Only Indian states have Bhavans or Houses in New Delhi.

thanks for the jnan.... I didn't know that. Now RajeshA's posts make more and more sense...

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Sep 2010 21:05

I have one small request to the posters. "HH DL for Prezi" has become the default Thread for discussing the Tibet in India vs Not-In-India issue. Please x-post related posts there also. Thank you.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 15 Sep 2010 21:09

ramana wrote:chaanakya, Have you thought why does Tibet have a Tibet House in New Delhi? Only Indian states have Bhavans or Houses in New Delhi.

Bhavans or Houses of States are Govt institutions facilitating liaison with GOI, providing boarding ,lodging and transportation facilities to visiting officials. Tibet House is society registered under Societies Registration Act. I don't know but it may have some symbolic value. If so , good to have a supporting point. Does it have and similarity with erstwhile India House in London???

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Sep 2010 21:29

I dont know. Its for us to find out.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 15 Sep 2010 22:18

shiv wrote:When I look at what the Chinese are doing - at least some percentage of their actions appear to me to belong in the category of "giving an appearance of being intimidating" in order to keep others in awe of them and make the others fear the Chinese. This allows the Chinese to appear unpredictable and causes others to react to them in ways that allows the Chinese to mould how others behave and "respect them"

This behavior requires three conditions:
1) The actual military power required to appear threatening
2) The flaunting of that power at predetermined times and places to intimidate someone
3) Obfuscation so that nobody knows whether the Chinese are going to use their power or not. There is continuing "fear and anxiety" that the Chinese may actually use their advertised military strength (which itself is large with lot of secrecy and veiling)

It is important to understand that this is how the Chinese behave. Knowing this allows handling of al Chinese actions with the following insight

a) The Chinese may be posturing to create a particular image of being threatening an able to pull off some "rapid, spectacular" victory
b) The Chinese may not actually want to do that and may even have weaknesses that make it costly for them to do anything more than posturing
c) The main thing one needs to prepare for is a local military punishment of the Chinese with a threat of greater damage if they take the game further.

The important thing in all this is not to underestimate Chinese military might, but to estimate accurately Chinese will to undertake military action and willingness to face military defeats which they are certain to face in any military action. It is also important to remember that even military action taken by the Chinese will follow the same pattern of giving the appearance of overwhelming blitzkrieg like unstoppable forces - and this is what one can expect to hear from Chinese media in a hot conflict no matter what the truth on the ground may be.

We tend to concentrate on what we see as "Chinese slights" like stapled visa. They combine this with massive symbolic military moves that threaten an overwhelming of defences from Tibet. Simultaneously the Chinese are doing - in the east, an intimidation of Japan, buzzing Japanese ships 90 miles from Japan and other actions designed to intimidate. They are also intimidating Taiwan and the Philippines.

Exactly how many of these countries is China going to fight wars with? If Chin gets involved in a border war with India, are Chinese ships still going to be acting funny with Japan, or will they be sucking up. The interesting thing here is that China is carefully trying to intimidate and overawe everyone. But they cannot take on everyone. The advantage this gives them is that if they get into a difficult situation on any front, they will instantly do a downhill ski and appease one or more powers in some other front until their current threat is removed, after which they will get back to their usual activity.

If there is a military standoff in the east, expect China to go easy on India. The big advantage of "appearing intimidating" is that when Chine holds out a conciliatory hand, an intimidated (dhimmi-ready) power (such as India or Japan) will instantly accept that hand with relief and gratitude, making it easier for China to fight whoever it is currently fighting. To the credit of the US - it remains perfectly strong about its core interests and does not do a downhill ski with China to let China off the hook when China is in trouble on some front or other.

The key to handling China is through military power. Enough military power to seriously stretch their forces is the one thing that gives them maximum takleef and cause them to try more and more to intimidate and "gain the respect" that China needs to conduct its foreign policy in its own style. This fact has not been missed by anyone. The US, Taiwan, Japan and India all know that China does react with anxiety (revealed by a show of aggression) to increased military strength. India's aim should be to maintain enough party pooping power to seriously take down Chinese military power locally and make China weaker against the US and Japan and Taiwan if they choose to needle India. I believe we are doing that. Saying we are reactive makes me happy. Unless we react China will think we are asleep.

We need not necessarily do a tit for tat and give "stapled visas" but we can create new irritants like getting every visa applicant from China to sign a document that accepts the sovereignty of India from Kashmir to Kanyakumari and from Kutch to Arunachal Pradesh. And then put a visa stamp in the passport that says the same thing in Chinese and English.

Sorry to quote the whole post, but this is one excellent summary of the psychology (Chiskology) of China. China itself can be called BRC (Bullying Republic China).

There are a couple things I can add to this:

Firstly, when a nation or individual take on excessive show offing kind of bullying, it is a very strong indication that there is some weakness. This kind of bullying is not a sign of strength, but some serious absence of it. It may not be simply a weakness of PLA per se, or their weapon systems. But some phobias are in play.

Secondly, Shiv did not mention the "face" aspect of BRC. Face is of vital importance, they always need to save it w.r.t. other nations, within BRC too people are constantly emphasizing saving face. When they wish to fight and defeat others, their main modus operendi is to make the other loose face. That is why in dealings with India, they emphasize humliating India more than getting their real needs met. Humiliating others is a means of testing to see how much the other is willing to take. They want to see how much the other will want to save his own face, which will tell them about their strength. With the ruder, country bumpkin kind of rulers they have (an apt description), the aggressive move to make India, USA, Japan loose face is even more unsophisticated.

The corollary to this is that one way to counter BRC is not to simply try to defeat it and cause pain on our terms, but to go for those tactics and strategies that make BRC loose "face". Go for the "face" and you will see enormous dividents with an economy of coercive force needed.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 15 Sep 2010 22:24

RajeshA wrote:Any Indian traveling on an Indian passport having a stapled Chinese Visa should be sent back with his Passport confiscated and not be allowed to board, or transit through the Indian border.

The Indian Passport is the property of the Indian Government. It does not belong to the holder!

That is what I proposed too. Declare that not will India not allow anyone to leave with this phony visa, but if you do visit PRC with thsi visa, you cannot come to India.

BRC visa will not be worth the paper it is printed on. No one would want it, and BRC looses face.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 15 Sep 2010 22:28

^^^
One more addition: PLAN not only sent a boats too close to Japanese ones, but they had also harassed a USN ship a few years back. It was a bizzare incident: Chinese boat had men who had stripped to their undies on their ramshackle boats and were headed straight for collision with the US boat.

British sense of humor was at display when the news headline on BBC or some such site read "... Naked Aggression ...". I fell of the chair laughing.

One of these days, these sort of school boy tactic is going to end badly, very badly.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 15 Sep 2010 23:31

China itself can be called BRC (Bullying Republic China).

Minor modification suggested to avoid phonetic resemblance to BRIC and to make it sound as funny and meaningful as BeNIS, to make it BuRCa, since it aptly describes the curtain of vile that it is. So in future we can have BuRCa threads for the pleasure of lurkers from the muddle kingdom.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Sep 2010 01:07

M.V. BhadraKumar wrote in Hindu

South Asia beckons China

A peaceful South Asia can be built only if India works with China. The alternative will be war and mayhem and history provides many examples.

An Assistant Secretary dealing with South Asia in the State Department in Washington a decade-and-a-half ago once took justifiable pride that she only needed a clutch of minutes to get the Indians all worked up into a tizzy. What the loquacious U.S. diplomat, who was an old India-Pakistan hand familiar with the human frailties (and vanities) in our part of the world, meant was that Indians never bothered to crosscheck facts when they came across an unpalatable thought.

She had a point. And her adage holds good. When an opinion piece by the U.S. strategic analyst, Selig Harrison, appeared in the New York Times recently alleging large-scale Chinese military presence in the Northern Areas of Pakistan, history seemed to repeat itself. Our tribal instincts resurfaced. It still remains foggy on what basis Mr. Harrison painted the apocalyptic vision of war drums beating distantly in the obscure Himalayan mountains. The regions beyond the northern edges of Kashmir comprise tangled, inaccessible mountains and it is highly improbable that Mr. Harrison wrote on the basis of any first-hand information regarding the 22 secret tunnels in which 11,000 Chinese soldiers belonging to the People's Liberation Army reportedly huddle uneasily alongside stockpiles of deadly missiles that could be launched against India. (Actually, the Pakistani authorities have invited him to go to that picturesque region and take a good look himself.)

Not much ingenuity is needed to discern that Mr. Harrison based his opinion piece on intelligence sources. All he would say later was that his story was based on “western and regional intelligence sources.” Who could be these sources? Politics should, after all, begin with asking a few blunt questions. Were these sources Pakistani, Afghan, Iranian, Russian or Chinese who guided Mr. Harrison? Seems illogical. Were they Indian sources based in Delhi — or Indian “analysts” comfortably located in Singapore? Indeed, by a process of elimination, we arrive at the conclusion that the greatest likelihood seems to be that Mr. Harrison's sources were American. This of course is by no means casting aspersions on Mr. Harrison's integrity. In fact, he has been most candid about his thesis when he concluded his opinion piece with a stirring call to the U.S. administration. He wrote: “The United States is uniquely situated to play a moderating role in Kashmir, given its growing economic and military ties with India and Pakistan's aid dependence on Washington.

“Washington should press New Delhi to resume autonomy negotiations with Kashmiri separatists. Success would put pressure on Islamabad for comparable concessions in Free Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan … Precisely because the Gilgit-Baltistan region is so important to China, the U.S., India and Pakistan should work together to make sure that it is not overwhelmed … by the Chinese behemoth.”

Both Islamabad and Beijing have since repeatedly and unequivocally refuted the contents of Mr. Harrison's article. Top Indian officials who have full access to intelligence have also off-the-record given their estimation that any Chinese presence in the Gilgit-Baltistan region could be related to flood-relief work and some development projects and it doesn't involve Chinese regulars of the PLA. They are also inclined to accept the Chinese assurance that there is no change in Beijing's stand on the Kashmir issue, including the part of Kashmir that is under Indian governance.

Equally, in their assessment, Chinese nationals are not taking up habitation in Gilgit-Baltistan, but come to the region from time to time to build infrastructure projects and they go away upon the completion of those projects. Delhi regards the figure of $1.7 billion as Chinese investment in Northern Areas and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir as far-too inflated a figure. As a senior Indian official put it “They [the Chinese] are a business-like people and they won't invest in that kind of area like that.”

Evidently, there is a glaring disconnect in New Delhi between those who know and generally prefer not to speak and those who rave but have no flair or patience for checking the facts on the ground. The problem with disregard of facts is that incrementally you withdraw into a smaller and smaller coil of rage and ultimately resign yourself to a sense of powerlessness, frustration and defeat. Should that be the fate of a great country like India that has survived for millennia?

Ultimately, it all boils down to China's presence in the South Asian region and, as the Prime Minister put it the other day, “we have to reflect on this reality, we have to be aware of this.” The issue is: what is the nature of the “reality” so that we can come to terms with it?

The reality is China's growing power and influence that need to be tackled in regional politics. The security of our region and its future will significantly depend on the choices that China makes. Having said that, we too have choices to make. Even if India fails to overtake China economically, it will nonetheless be the second-strongest regional power and will be the most serious constraint on Chinese power. That is to say, the manner and the directions in which India chooses to use its power is going to be no less important than China's actions in their impact on regional stability.

Of course, our choices are going to be harder than China's. The heart of the matter is that a stable, peaceful South Asia can only be built if India works with China. The alternative will be war and mayhem and history provides many examples. The point is, there is a fundamental choice involved here — the choice between “influence” and stability. India and China are on the same side — both want influence and neither seeks instability.

However, we cannot insist that regional stability is synonymous with India's primacy. The international community will only mock at us if we do so in this era of globalisation. As, for that matter, was the region in a blissful state of stability even in the halcyon days when India's influence reigned supreme? In short, the rise in China's influence in the region can lead to peace and regional stability provided we eschew outdated notions of “sphere of influence.” On the contrary, a struggle will inevitably ensue if India chooses to contest China's growing influence since the quintessence of that choice will be that India is prepared to sacrifice peace and stability in the region in its quest for regional primacy. Our South Asian neighbours will only see our choice as a quest for regional hegemony and they cannot be expected to accommodate hubris.

Alas, a segment of our strategic community seems to think that South Asia can be peaceful only under Indian tutelage. It perceives China's desire to expand its influence in the region as inherently threatening. But what is the alternative? China has already grown to be the second biggest economic power in the world. With such economic power, political and strategic power inexorably follows. To quote from a recent thoughtful essay by well-known Australian scholar Hugh White, “China's power, controlled by China's government, must be dealt with as a simple fact of international politics. If Americans deny the right to exercise its power internationally within the same limits and norms that they accept for themselves, they can hardly be surprised if China decides not to accept the legitimacy of American power and starts pushing back. These days it can push back pretty hard.”

Again, all evidence so far points to a distinct pattern that China wishes to expand its influence in South Asia without breaking international law or the rules set out in the Charter of the United Nations. China has not used its power improperly. The fact that China has growing ambitions to develop communication links via South Asia to the world market bypassing the Malacca Strait (which is an American “choke-point”) or that China aspires to explore the vast untapped potential for regional trade and investment in South Asia do not make the Chinese policies illegitimate. Our dilemma is that we are used to exercising a level of regional primacy in the neighbouring countries and we may have come to regard it almost as a mark of our national identity. Clearly, the instinct to “fight” to keep our perceived regional primacy stems from a wrong notion.

The rise of China's influence doesn't have to be a story of India's weakness but can remain a story of Chinese strength. What is it, arguably, that prevents Indian companies even today from spreading wings to the mountains, jungles and beaches of Nepal, Myanmar or Sri Lanka with the gusto with which the Chinese businessmen are doing? Last week, Yunnan commenced direct flight to Colombo. Why is it that a Raipur-Colombo air link remains “uneconomical?”

The lack of firm commitment of GOI to support them. Merchants can't be just merchants without politicial backing in modern world. They can be if they had deep pockets which is not the case.}

Nothing like this Chinese “challenge” ever happened before in the South Asian region. Japan or America or Britain could have mounted it in these six decades, but they didn't. But then, they weren't South Asia's neighbours. China is a neighbour.

(The writer is a former diplomat.)

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 16 Sep 2010 01:23

^

It is very irritating that Harrison type analysts think PRC can do whatever because some region is so important to it... I infer the following from this mindset..

- USA's vision, strategy and actions in the past are built upon this premise - "might is right. No morals."
- USA is a weakening force where as PRC is a growing force. So PRC is expected (and even allowed) to the same.
- India is still viewed as a third-rate nation; suitable for manipulation, coercion and scape goat.

Some of the posts in this forum too present this mindset. a $1T++ ($4T PPP) economy cannot spend $50B+20,000 lives on a legitimate, and geopolitical life-line region. Perhaps this group-think is comfortable with a Japan like power projection.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Sep 2010 01:33

RamaY, I beg to differ. Harrison has been consistent in advancing American interests. The American interests since Adlai Stevenson negotiated with Shiekh Abdullah in mid-Fifties are: Independent state of J&K under US protection. All actions are in support of that objective. Robin Rapahel helping setup Hurrirats, questioning accession etc. They may sound sympathetic to India on occassion, but its to snatch support for that goal. And that goal will bring back the 600 states of India.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 16 Sep 2010 01:51

ramana wrote:M.V. BhadraKumar wrote in Hindu

South Asia beckons China

If Pakistan is going to be foremost exporter of towels, India will be the biggest exporter of white flags!

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 16 Sep 2010 03:10

Look, if British were allowed to rule for 200 years, and the ROP for 800 years, why should our China brothers not be given a chance to rule us? What is so wrong with them?

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 16 Sep 2010 03:35

ramana wrote:M.V. BhadraKumar wrote in Hindu

South Asia beckons China

So Mr.Bhadrakumar thinks that China's foray into Indian subcontinent is no threat to India ? No wonder that article appeared in the Indian edition of Xinhua ! I shudder when i think this guy is a former diplomat. What people should realize is irrespective of america's beef with china or even India and its real or perceived attempts to make china and India fight each other, China's entry into Indian subcontinent is not in India's interests.Period.If china enters the subcontinent against Indian wishes, then India should make both the Chinese and their subcontinental client states pay for it. India should "work" with China in "South Asia" ONLY if China works with India in East Asia.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Sep 2010 03:37

surinder,
neither really "ruled" all over India. In ROP case, the max extent was very briefly under Mughals, and ROL case, by their own claim they did not rule the "princes". We cannot even speak of another foreign rule - even in sarcasm and bitterness.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 16 Sep 2010 03:45

M_K_Bhadvakumar wrote:Were they Indian sources based in Delhi — or Indian “analysts” comfortably located in Singapore?

did you notice this? It's a snide dig at the C.Raja Mohan & Rajesh Basrur type analysts from Nanyang University, Singapore, who seem to be unfailingly pro-Washington in their analyses. Shows that MKB has his own personal axes to grind and uses the precious column space afforded him by our lefty-media to do so.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Sep 2010 04:11

It is a collective mindset that is a continuation of the dependence on colonial regimes for ideological direction. So if UK is distant, and USA not satisfactory - look at some other "foreign" superpower or aspiring superpower. This mindset comes under various cloaks - "caution", "economic development onlee", "balancing international powers", "not being disastrously adventurous", etc.

To manage "Chinese threat", maybe the first thing was to clarify "why is China a threat". In fact, trying to get response to that question would have shown all the fissures of the "opinion-makers" or "speakers on behalf of Indians".

Frankly speaking, we are here all indulging in making claims about "Indians". Those who urge "caution", "economic development onlee", "anti-communal", "friendly and economic cooperation with China" claim it on behalf of the majority of Indians, just as those of us who make claims to the opposite also do it on the behalf of the majority of Indians. It is difficult to prove either as the reality.

However the line of thinking and arguments will reveal the basic drives : and we can broadly classify them into two.

(1) China is a threat because it is capturing markets and resources that Indian business could have exploited. This is the economic line. From here it is a short distance to the subordination of all other aspects or considerations under "profit". Risk avoidance will immediately jump on to "cooperation with China" as the only line for India. This is how "baniafication" of the national ideology started in the past. It will find justifications for trade-offs and compromises in territory and other non-financial areas in return for securing share of profits.

(2) China is a threat because it is aggressively expanding or staking claims on territory either belonging to India or conspiring with enemies of India to damage/shrink/ the territory of India. This is more about concepts of nationhood. But then it is not always clear why Chinese capture of Indian territory or Chinese rule over parts of India is "undesirable". What makes the Chinese nation worse than India as a nation that we do not want to belong to or come under Chinese rule? That is also not a comfortable question to answer.

Because that forces us to define Indian nationhood, and the formal politically correct definition does not have much to choose between. One has declared communist principles as foundation while the other has socialism included. Both are "secular". Both have essentially leftist principles entwined in underlying aspirations in the foundations. Parliamentary democracy is not unique to India, so even that does not stand out as something peculiarly Indian to shoot at the Communist party dictatorship.

What is that which is uniquely Indian and which Chinese expansion will destroy that we think is worth fighting for or resisting China for?

It is not a trivial question. When Talebs first smashed into power, I was in desh as a student. My fellow students at one of the "institutions of national importance" expressed delight at their triumph in one canteen lunch session - and wished that something like that happened in India too. At one point there were open slogans by young Indians - that "China's chairman is our chairman".

What or how we see the "Chinese threat" is itself an important indicator of the actual threat. It is a comprehensive attitude to crystallize. If we come to that concise perception, it will become easier to evaluate as to what is necessary to do - and costs etc will become secondary. The very idea of "PRC" is something that goes against India, and India should think of destroying PRC as a system, as an ideology and as a model of state - just as Americans and the Vatican thought of USSR. Only that overwhelming attitude will yield results over a long time. Just in case anyone flares up - for me "PRC" not equal to "China" or Chinese.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 16 Sep 2010 04:26

MKB Uvacha

The problem with disregard of facts is that incrementally you withdraw into a smaller and smaller coil of rage and ultimately resign yourself to a sense of powerlessness, frustration and defeat. Should that be the fate of a great country like India that has survived for millennia?

Doesn't it sound very similar to Bark-a's trick of bringing the family of dead soldiers to try and make a point against AFSPA? wrap propaganda around nationalistic sounding empty verbiage..

Yet another yellow trick of the red puppets is to quote unnamed sources when it suits their purpose (of course it will be 'proving' what they say)..but attack anyone using unnamed sources that does not suit their agenda.

However, we cannot insist that regional stability is synonymous with India's primacy. The international community will only mock at us if we do so in this era of globalisation.... In short, the rise in China's influence in the region can lead to peace and regional stability provided we eschew outdated notions of “sphere of influence.”

Exactly, we should take your advise Mr. MKB only work to strengthen our own influence in area like Japan, Vietnam, Tibet, Taiwan, SEA and other parts where your beloved PRC considers them to be her 'sphere of influence' And then we see what our yellow propaganda red brigade says...the tune may change..

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 16 Sep 2010 04:53

brihaspati wrote:surinder,
neither really "ruled" all over India. In ROP case, the max extent was very briefly under Mughals, and ROL case, by their own claim they did not rule the "princes". We cannot even speak of another foreign rule - even in sarcasm and bitterness.

Brihaspati,

Yes it is with disgust that I say that; the apathy and the lack of understanding of basic stuff is shocking.

The ROL thingie about Princes, is bogus. Princely states were Bantulands who independence was a chimera and a hoax which only the Princes beleived. They were fully under the British thumb. The Princes were more like District Collectors, employees & agents of the British.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 16 Sep 2010 05:01

brihaspati wrote:What or how we see the "Chinese threat" is itself an important indicator of the actual threat. It is a comprehensive attitude to crystallize. If we come to that concise perception, it will become easier to evaluate as to what is necessary to do - and costs etc will become secondary. The very idea of "PRC" is something that goes against India, and India should think of destroying PRC as a system, as an ideology and as a model of state - just as Americans and the Vatican thought of USSR. Only that overwhelming attitude will yield results over a long time. Just in case anyone flares up - for me "PRC" not equal to "China" or Chinese.

Brihaspati garu,
You have heightened my interest in your subsequent posts!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Sep 2010 07:56

surinder wrote: Sorry to quote the whole post, but this is one excellent summary of the psychology (Chiskology) of China. China itself can be called BRC (Bullying Republic China).

There are a couple things I can add to this:

Firstly, when a nation or individual take on excessive show offing kind of bullying, it is a very strong indication that there is some weakness. This kind of bullying is not a sign of strength, but some serious absence of it. It may not be simply a weakness of PLA per se, or their weapon systems. But some phobias are in play.

Secondly, Shiv did not mention the "face" aspect of BRC. Face is of vital importance, they always need to save it w.r.t. other nations, within BRC too people are constantly emphasizing saving face.

Thanks Surinder. And I like the term Chiskology. But piskology works both ways.

It is Indian piskology that has chosen at an individual citizen level (though not necessarily at a national/armed forces level) to feel intimidated by China. Even before this "threat" thread was started - China has been shown a lot of respect with at least some of it that it does not deserve.

I am frequently reminded of the mixed emotions shown by primary school students towards a homosexual child molester principal. On the one hand everyone suspects him but everyone is too scared to talk about his faults. Any critic is warned to shut up and respect the fact that he is principal, or else... Indians have responded to China that way.

The 1962 war was fought under the leadership of a man who was adored by Indians. Indians wept for their nation as Nehru wept listening to Lata singing "Ae mere watan ke logon". It was a humiliation that has been passed on by the young parents of 1962 to their children, and thence to their grandchildren.

"Be scared of China". This is exactly the message that China has wanted to convey.

The piskology of fear is a completely different phenomenon. When you start off by fearing someone, you are unable to think about him in normal terms. You attribute powers to him that he does not have and you are constantly mulling on your own weaknesses that have been reinforced in your mind by decades of self flagellation and negative literature from the usual sources. Even your successes or courageous acts become smaller in your eyes compared to the object of your fear.

The concept of a "dragon" has an interesting origin. It has been hypothesised that a person attacked by a fearsome beast (tiger/bear/wolf) in a chilling cold climate can easily mistake a well known creature for a fire breathing monster simply because of clouds of vapor from the breath and the feel of the actual breath, emerging at a body temperature that is hotter than usual (from exercise like a chase behind prey) can feel burning hot to a terrified and cold victim. If he survives - he will think he has been attacked by a fire breathing dragon. In an era of Animal Planet and NatGeo it is easy to forget how humans have faced up to wildlife in centuries gone by. We now know that those beasts are not invincible, and do not breathe fire. It is curious that a country that was a weak parody of the "Iron Curtain" and called the "bamboo curtain" has now transformed itself into a "Dragon". It has done this without fighting any war. That is a very sensible thing to do. But I predict that it would like to continue to do so without war.

But that will depend on what it does. If the dragon asks for war, that is what it will get. "Avoiding war" becomes difficult if you ask for it. And war is expensive. it hinders and holds up development. Nothing stupid about avoiding war. If possible.

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 16 Sep 2010 09:01

shiv wrote:But that will depend on what it does. If the dragon asks for war, that is what it will get. "Avoiding war" becomes difficult if you ask for it. And war is expensive. it hinders and holds up development. Nothing stupid about avoiding war. If possible.

Here lays the biggest problem for India. The most supreme victory is one won without fighting. What if China never ask for war? What if the stategy is and alway has been to bleed India without a outright conflict? Would India initiate war?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Sep 2010 09:24

TonyMontana wrote: Here lays the biggest problem for India. The most supreme victory is one won without fighting. What if China never ask for war? What if the stategy is and alway has been to bleed India without a outright conflict? Would India initiate war?

You are asking for an answer to a hypothetical question "Would India initiate war" after cooking up a condition "what if China never asks for war but chooses to bleed india"

This question only puts the person who tries to answer it in a spot because it is a conditional, rhetorical question that avoids a huge part of reality. The question that needs to be answered before that is "Can China, or can any nation achieve everything that it wants to do without war?".

So we are going to get stuck with a silly series of arguments

"What if China does that?"

If China can achieve everything it wants without war and if it chooses to bleed India without war, I guarantee you that India will impose war on China. India does not want to be like a Pakistan, but the more India gets damaged, the cheaper war becomes. It is economic development that makes war costly. War is cheaper as things fall apart. That is the logic that has made Pakistan so dangerous and is giving Indian forces valuable experience under fire. And is making the Indian arsenal bigger under a population that is getting more strident about making war. Just like the great powers which we want to emulate.

In my view China can only go so far and no further without war. For example getting a fully functional access to an Indian ocean port without fighting someone will be impossible as long as Pakistan is unsettled. And as long as China encourages Pakistan to oppose India, India will fight the lesser power (Pakistan) and land access for China will slip further and further away.

Of course China may build the roads to show tarrel and deepel fliendship - but ultimately security will have to come from the Pakis who are too busy opposing India. So 2500 km of Pakistani roads taking goods to and from China will be vulnerable as long as Pakistan does not make peace with India because 75% of Pakistani forces are tied up at the Indian border. China is welcome to continue to use the Malacca strait and let her ships skirt India by 1000 km. Peacefully. Without war. Or else Chinese troops have to be posted in Pakistan to secure the roads. I am actually looking forward to that...but China won't want that fight.

PS: Please look at my related post made earlier today in the terroristan thread
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 18#p941518

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 16 Sep 2010 09:41

TonyMontana wrote:The most supreme victory is one won without fighting.

In that case the Indian civilization won over China hands down!

The modern Indian nation-state will get around to it sooner or later.

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 16 Sep 2010 10:05

shiv wrote: I am actually looking forward to that...but China won't want that fight.

This illustrate my point exactly. From a Chinese point of view, a shooting war with India makes no sense. In my opinion, it is the Indian nationalists that want China to initate a war with India, so India could legitimately teach the Chinese a lesson, expand the boundries of Greater India and become a regional power. Your analysis to me seems to say that India need a war to get what she wants.

So if there is a war in the near future between China and India, it means that there has been serious miscalulation in Beijing. China would be playing into Indian hands. Now let's assume for a second that the people in charge of China are rational and calculating. What does that say about your strategy in countering China?

I seems to see a lot of analysis based on:
if the Chinese economy collapses...
if there is major social unrest in China...
if the Chinese starts a war with India...

Just wondering how productive these analysis really are.

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 16 Sep 2010 10:11

Pulikeshi wrote:
TonyMontana wrote:The most supreme victory is one won without fighting.
In that case the Indian civilization won over China hands down!
The modern Indian nation-state will get around to it sooner or later.

[img]facepalm.jpeg[/img]

Cultural imperialism huh? I can't wait for the day when Chinese dance to Bollywood tunes...

I bet we butcher it too. Bollywood with Chinese Charaterstics.

Dhiman · Post by **Dhiman** » 16 Sep 2010 10:16

TonyMontana wrote:The most supreme victory is one won without fighting.

That doesn't mean anything! What matters is who says it: Gandhi or Mao. CCP (and China by extention) is an entity that likes to concentrate power in their own hands. India is a complete antithesis of that and hence anyone wishing to concentrate power will find their task more and more difficult as India grows; hence, the Chinese efforts (and aggressiveness) in attempting to contain India. That is the basic problem! CCP's (and by extention China's) ability to concentrate power in Asia is indirectly proportional to India's growth rate and this is the bottom line equation that CCP is not comfortable with.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Sep 2010 10:17

TonyMontana wrote: I seems to see a lot of analysis based on:
if the Chinese economy collapses...
if there is major social unrest in China...
if the Chinese starts a war with India...

Just wondering how productive these analysis really are.

These are perfectly reasonable analyses for a public forum consisting mainly of Indians.

Do the Chinese want their economy to collapse? No.
Are they doing everything they can to stop that from happening. I don't know. China is not open enough to admit if something were wrong - so rumors will be rife. At worst (for China) those rumors will be true. At best those rumors will cause anger and irritation among the Chinese who want to appear strong and invincible and lose face when foreign devils say such nasty things. Either way talking about it is win win for such a forum.

Will there be major social unrest in China?

This is the juiciest question. There is enough unrest in China to keep the government on its toes. Will China openly admit the unrest as India and even tarrel and deepel Pakistan does? No.This is the most loved topic of discussion on this forum. the analysis might not be useful to you

If Chinese start a war with India.. Well the Chinese did in 1962. They have kept off since then, but they did India a great favor by waking Indians up. Who knows what may spark war? But if you say China won't start that war we have to wait and see. Social unrest and war are interlinked. China might want to fight a border war for several reasons. If you deny that there may be social unrest in China - you can deny anything. Even the possibility of a future war.

sum · Post by **sum** » 16 Sep 2010 10:25

Rony wrote:
ramana wrote:M.V. BhadraKumar wrote in Hindu

South Asia beckons China
So Mr.Bhadrakumar thinks that China's foray into Indian subcontinent is no threat to India ? No wonder that article appeared in the Indian edition of Xinhua ! I shudder when i think this guy is a former diplomat. What people should realize is irrespective of america's beef with china or even India and its real or perceived attempts to make china and India fight each other, China's entry into Indian subcontinent is not in India's interests.Period.If china enters the subcontinent against Indian wishes, then India should make both the Chinese and their subcontinental client states pay for it. India should "work" with China in "South Asia" ONLY if China works with India in East Asia.

Kindly remember that MKB is the chief foreign affairs guru of CPM and is right hand man of Prakash Karat ( who depends on MKB for all foreign policy matters).

Knowing this, read the article and everything will make sense ( Indian commies becoming more partriotic to PRC than the Chinese themselves)

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 16 Sep 2010 10:37

M.V. BhadraKumar wrote in Hindu

South Asia beckons China

A peaceful South Asia can be built only if India works with China. The alternative will be war and mayhem and history provides many examples.

An Assistant Secretary dealing with South Asia in the State Department in Washington a decade-and-a-half ago once took justifiable pride that she only needed a clutch of minutes to get the Indians all worked up into a tizzy. What the loquacious U.S. diplomat, who was an old India-Pakistan hand familiar with the human frailties (and vanities) in our part of the world, meant was that Indians never bothered to crosscheck facts when they came across an unpalatable thought.

She had a point. And her adage holds good.

Is it not the state of affairs since the birth of this nation...Is not Delhi became battleground for information warfare and influence for all the powers like China, USSR, Western Europe, USA and even Pakistan? Is it that only US can manipulate the public opinion? Is it not Nehru thought Menon to be Chinese stooge later days.. Is it not our own brethen called Mao as their Chairman?

(Actually, the Pakistani authorities have invited him to go to that picturesque region and take a good look himself.)

and then later claim, he was abducted by non state actors only...... I mean do you like to believe whatever stunt loving Pak says?

Both Islamabad and Beijing have since repeatedly and unequivocally refuted the contents of Mr. Harrison's article. Top Indian officials who have full access to intelligence have also off-the-record given their estimation that any Chinese presence in the Gilgit-Baltistan region could be related to flood-relief work and some development projects and it doesn't involve Chinese regulars of the PLA. They are also inclined to accept the Chinese assurance that there is no change in Beijing's stand on the Kashmir issue, including the part of Kashmir that is under Indian governance.

Is this some kind of joke? So why not then they better come forward and declare so openly and stop stapling visas..as they came openly to unequivocally refuted the contents of Mr. Harrison's article. Dont you think, we Indians better deserve an unequivocal statement from China on this? Why was that drama in calling POK as Pakistan territory first and later without any clarification removed that sentence? I'm asking where is that unequivocal statement from China? Is only Harrison deserve's that status, not us? Is that we have to take Bharadkumar word as he became their spokesman?

The reality is China's growing power and influence that need to be tackled in regional politics. The security of our region and its future will significantly depend on the choices that China makes. Having said that, we too have choices to make. Even if India fails to overtake China economically, it will nonetheless be the second-strongest regional power and will be the most serious constraint on Chinese power. That is to say, the manner and the directions in which India chooses to use its power is going to be no less important than China's actions in their impact on regional stability.

Of course, our choices are going to be harder than China's. The heart of the matter is that a stable, peaceful South Asia can only be built if India works with China. The alternative will be war and mayhem and history provides many examples. The point is, there is a fundamental choice involved here — the choice between “influence” and stability. India and China are on the same side — both want influence and neither seeks instability.

So far good.

However, we cannot insist that regional stability is synonymous with India's primacy. The international community will only mock at us if we do so in this era of globalisation. As, for that matter, was the region in a blissful state of stability even in the halcyon days when India's influence reigned supreme? In short, the rise in China's influence in the region can lead to peace and regional stability provided we eschew outdated notions of “sphere of influence.” On the contrary, a struggle will inevitably ensue if India chooses to contest China's growing influence since the quintessence of that choice will be that India is prepared to sacrifice peace and stability in the region in its quest for regional primacy. Our South Asian neighbours will only see our choice as a quest for regional hegemony and they cannot be expected to accommodate hubris.

BhadraKumar, you mean the kind of peace and stability as we seen in Tibet, N.Korea, Dafur? These are Chinese sole area of influence. If you say, there is no stability even in the halcyon days when India's influence reigned supreme, why we have to worry about stability now? Not you know, as long as Pak exist in the current form & attitude, there is no stability for India and China and Pak very much seeks that instable India?

Alas, a segment of our strategic community seems to think that South Asia can be peaceful only under Indian tutelage. It perceives China's desire to expand its influence in the region as inherently threatening. But what is the alternative? China has already grown to be the second biggest economic power in the world. With such economic power, political and strategic power inexorably follows. To quote from a recent thoughtful essay by well-known Australian scholar Hugh White, “China's power, controlled by China's government, must be dealt with as a simple fact of international politics. If Americans deny the right to exercise its power internationally within the same limits and norms that they accept for themselves, they can hardly be surprised if China decides not to accept the legitimacy of American power and starts pushing back. These days it can push back pretty hard.”

Here he contradicts with the previous para. We, India, should stop thinking in the outdated notion of "sphere of influences" but China can do that in pushing back American power.

Again, all evidence so far points to a distinct pattern that China wishes to expand its influence in South Asia without breaking international law or the rules set out in the Charter of the United Nations. China has not used its power improperly. The fact that China has growing ambitions to develop communication links via South Asia to the world market bypassing the Malacca Strait (which is an American “choke-point”) or that China aspires to explore the vast untapped potential for regional trade and investment in South Asia do not make the Chinese policies illegitimate. Our dilemma is that we are used to exercising a level of regional primacy in the neighbouring countries and we may have come to regard it almost as a mark of our national identity. Clearly, the instinct to “fight” to keep our perceived regional primacy stems from a wrong notion.

Are you a diplomat Bhadrakumar? There are upteen examples of China disobeying international obligations, so it is now a distinct pattern. Why not you ask your own Indian officials, just like you asked them for intelligence on POK, whether engaging in construction in POK is as per rules? Or you going to say, blocking of ADB loan is also as per rules?

The rise of China's influence doesn't have to be a story of India's weakness but can remain a story of Chinese strength. What is it, arguably, that prevents Indian companies even today from spreading wings to the mountains, jungles and beaches of Nepal, Myanmar or Sri Lanka with the gusto with which the Chinese businessmen are doing? Last week, Yunnan commenced direct flight to Colombo. Why is it that a Raipur-Colombo air link remains “uneconomical?”

sigh, you only previously mentioned, India is still not powerful enough economically as that of China, so why you are comparing both through the same prism. If you think China's influence can give better prosperity why not better take your hike to China.

Nothing like this Chinese “challenge” ever happened before in the South Asian region. Japan or America or Britain could have mounted it in these six decades, but they didn't. But then, they weren't South Asia's neighbours. China is a neighbour.

Oh by that way, even Pak is our neighbour. Afghanistan and Taliban too...

There is no black & white neither with US nor with China. Its all the hey days of USA/GB & USSR trampling for influence in New delhi. We are fighting the battle in the grey areas where both are enemies and could be friends. Just as we used China card against US in Climate Change fora and showing US card against China in other matters, well, it could probably be US using India as Bhadrakumar hints. In the game of wits, we only become "incrementally you withdraw into a smaller and smaller coil of rage and ultimately resign yourself to a sense of powerlessness, frustration and defeat" as Bhadrakumar puts, only if we try to see this as simple as black & white. We sides with US or China or both if it suits our interest. Just as US try to use India, India can also use US to their benefits in this matter.

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 16 Sep 2010 10:46

shiv wrote:
These are perfectly reasonable analyses for a public forum consisting mainly of Indians.

Sure. But to me it seems just a little obsessive. Wouldn't it be more productive to talk about things India actually have controls over?

But I digress.
Last OT post from me.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 16 Sep 2010 11:29

TonyMontana wrote: Cultural imperialism huh? I can't wait for the day when Chinese dance to Bollywood tunes...
I bet we butcher it too. Bollywood with Chinese Charaterstics.

Chinese girls in China taking pictures in front of Aishwaraya Rai posters - check!

Bhangra parties down party barges in Shanghai - check!

Of course no native takers on the Great Wall

See how much fun school can be with Bhangra!

----------------------------------------------------------------

What you need to do is grab a beer and read: Indian influences on China
(do notice the reason why this person wrote it!)

Better details: Tan Yun-shan: A Cultural Envoy between China and India

Interesting one: India-China Relations

Political contacts between ancient China and India were few and far between. In the cultural sphere, it was mostly a one-way street— from India to China. Hindu and Buddhist religious and cultural influence spread to China through Central Asia, and Chinese scholars were sent to Indian universities at Nalanda and Taxilla.

Gambe! Please finish your beer, it is on me!

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 16 Sep 2010 12:03

Pulikeshi wrote:
What you need to do is grab a beer and read: Indian influences on China
(do notice the reason why this person wrote it!)

Gambe! Please finish your beer, it is on me!

All good cuz. It might surprise you but I know everything in that link already. I've always believed that Indian and Chinese have more in common than we are different. The racial memory of the Indic civilisation in China is quite positive. But the sad part is, like China, we were cool once, a long time ago. Traditional Indic thought had a lot going for it. But in the modern time, I don't see how Indian bollywood culture could infiltrate the Chinese main stream. We get enough J-pop as it is.

Arihant · Post by **Arihant** » 16 Sep 2010 12:11

And the debate in the Taiwanese media today seems to mirror our own...
TAIPEI TIMES: Myth about our nuclear development program

Arihant · Post by **Arihant** » 16 Sep 2010 12:30

Very interesting statistics, from the KMT's own news site, based on a survey done by its own mouthpiece: Opinion poll on Taiwanese attitudes to relations with China

Dot point 2 on the page is particularly revealing - only about 14% of Taiwan's population would accept annexation by China at any point in the future.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 16 Sep 2010 12:44

TonyMontana wrote:I don't see how Indian bollywood culture could infiltrate the Chinese main stream. We get enough J-pop as it is.

No need to try. The piracy would make it unproductive.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 16 Sep 2010 13:07

Published on September 9, 2010
China’s Indian Provocations Part of Broader Trend by Dean Cheng and Lisa Curtis: Heritage Foundation

A concrete example of this growing set of capabilities was displayed in August, when China held its first major parachute exercise in the Tibetan plateau. This involved a paratroop drop of 600 troops, clearly establishing a rapid force insertion capability on the part of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). As a Chinese officer observed, this exercise showed that, in the event of a crisis, Chinese paratroopers could rapidly deploy at any time.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 16 Sep 2010 13:15

Published on September 12, 2010
Himachal Chief Minister expresses concern over Chinese threat: ANI

In the wake of many strange developments in the recent past with China, the Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister, Prem Kumar Dhumal has voiced his concern over the threat posed by China.

Speaking on sidelines of a function to inaugurate a building of Consumer Forum here, Dhumal cited that China had denied a visa to an IAS officer from Arunachal Pradesh cadre when around 100 IAS officers were going on an official visit to China in 2008.

"When our Prime Minister goes to Arunachal (Pradesh), so China objects on that; when IAS delegation has to got to China, it objects in giving visa to the IAS of Arunachal (Pradesh). Right now, I have learnt that they have set missiles in Tibet, which would target main cities of India. All these things are problematic. They are a threat to the nation's security, and I am saying this repeatedly that India has the greatest threat from China only," said Prem Kumar Dhumal.

He suggested that India should construct an international-level airport in Himachal Pradesh, both for tourism and from security point of view.

"We also brought this topic in the National Development Council meeting. On one side, China is making several airports and helipads, and making railway lines as well (in Tibet region)," Dhumal added.

Last month Beijing had refused a visa to an Indian Army General presently posted in Kashmir which happened to be the latest diplomatic spat between two Asian giants jostling for global influence and resources.

It may also be noted that in spite of decades of mistrust, China is today India's biggest trade partner. The value of bilateral deals was expected to pass $60 billion this year, a 30-fold increase since 2000, raising the stakes in maintaining peace.

Kudos to the Professor. The Chinese Threat should be talked about openly in India. Especially Indian Leadership should tell the Indian people about it, and that India may need to step up our military build-up and people should be prepared.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 16 Sep 2010 14:05

ARMING WITHOUT AIMING: INDIA’S MILITARY MODERNIZATION: Book Launch Event on September 9, 2010 @Brookings Institute

Ashley Tellis @Transcript Page 17 wrote:Indian defense policy is in crisis. It’s in crisis for at least two reasons. One, the external environment that India had planned its military forces for since independence is steadily changing before the eyes of Indian policymakers.

The kind of threats India is going to face from Pakistan, which are threats that emerge increasingly from weakness, are not the kind of threats that the Indian military is the best instrument to cope with. And the kinds of capabilities that India is going to face on the Chinese front, which traditionally were premised on the assumption of persistent Chinese weakness, are actually being transformed as we speak into fundamental Chinese strengths, emerging Chinese strengths. And it is still not clear at this point whether India’s military capacities will enable it to hold its own vis-à-vis a modern Chinese military, particularly if China’s political and strategic intentions towards India were to change.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Sep 2010 14:18

TonyMontana wrote: Sure. But to me it seems just a little obsessive. Wouldn't it be more productive to talk about things India actually have controls over?

Obsession is a two way affair.

You are seeing this forum over a period of a few weeks and seem especially "sensitive" to picking up the discussions you see as futile, not being aware of all the other discussions that have gone on earlier or are occurring in parallel about what India can do.

I am sure you would like to see discussions of what India can do so that you can either store them away in memory as "feasible" or post a counter asking how that would be feasible. That is a perfectly sensible way of joining in a discussion. But basically (and in my personal viewpoint) forum discussions will always get stuck on points that show how India is weak, impotent and intimidated. Anyone who says that India can do anything is usually shouted down, and anyone who agrees that India is impotent and about to get choked, conquered, subjugated is cheered on as a patriot who knows the truth. In this environment the easiest thing to discuss about China is the "Voodoo doll" phenomenon in which we Indians can all agree to a model of China that is going under any day, all by itself.

If you had visited this forum perhaps a dozen years ago we used to hear the same thing about Pakistan in which a large number of people would come here solely to express anxiety about great Pakistani developments picked up in Pakistan internet fora and then cry on here. Any attempt at reassurance was usually met with a counter volley of the poor state of Indian technology, economy. manufacture etc. Given Indians poor image of their own capability or the capability of the government in power, the chances of survival of a snowflake in hell are greater than the chances of anyone talking about what India can actually do about China. That is a taboo subject discussed by blind and deaf people.

Hence the direction of discussion. Frankly - as you have yourself expressed - as long as China does legal things, or illegal things that India cannot help (like transferring nuclear bombs to Pakistan) there is not a lot India can do. What India needs to do is to learn that China can't be trusted to show goodwill - that is an Indian disease that has no short term cure. The other thing that India needs to learnt to do is act like a silly idiot with meaningless symbolism like "stapled visas". As a country India has inherited the restrained formal diplomacy of olde Britain where open insults and crass behavior is not encouraged. China has never followed any of that and comes across as the village bumpkin with a lot of power. It is India that needs to change and treat China with its own silly games of symbolism. Put stamp on Indian visas that say things that the Chinese authority may not like. release a stamp and first day cover to commemorate so many decades of suppressed freedom in China. It matters little whether these taunts ar true or not. The less true they are the better - but it is just the sort of crass behavior that China excels in and deserves to be shown by India. The ball is in India's court.

Oh yes there are a lot of irritants in Indian behavior which are not recognised on this forum. For example the existence of Tibetans leading Buddhist lives as they did in Tibet when they were driven out serve as a civilizational memory that China cannot wipe out. That is surely an irritant - and if it is not. well then all is well isn't it?

If, as you say war is not a solution and the Chinese also believe that war is not a solution - surely they are being too clever by half by acting like they want to make war. A country that feels threatened by China will prepare for war and remain prepared as long as China appears belligerent. If China wants respect by acting belligerent it gets the sort of respect a rabid dogs gets. If the Chinese believe that they will get as much as possible without war and go to war only if need be- they can only get what is possible without war and they will have to satisfy themselves with that. China's relationship with Pakistan is one such failure.

But I think too many commentators are being disingenuous saying that "China wants to dominate Asia and keep India down". I hope China does not desire that because it won't happen that way. But accusing China of being like that may not be China's fault - it may be Indian and other observers watching China's aggressive boorishness and mistakenly assuming that they are trying to do that. Perhaps Chinese are only looking for respect, approval and peaceful rise but behave boorish and aggressive because Mao wiped out all culture and finesse from China in his revolution. I am still trying to figure that out..