Managing Chinese Threat

[krisna]

X posting from India Japan thread--

India japan must deepen security ties

The following editorial appeared in the Yomiuri Shimbun on Tuesday, October 26.
India, a major power in South Asia, is not only a promising market with a fast-developing economy but also is a country that shares concerns with Japan over China's military expansion.
Tokyo should strategically enhance its partnership with India in both economic and security fields.

But the aftermath of a Chinese fishing vessel's collision with Japan Coast Guard patrol boats off the Senkaku Islands in September has revealed that China, under the single-party regime of the Chinese Communist Party, does not hesitate to use high-handed diplomatic measures over economic and personnel exchanges to push its political demands.

How India can help Japan--

1) By contrast, India is a democratic country and shares similar values with Japan, such as the rule of law. 2) It does not present the political risks that China does. 3) Besides, India has a population of 1.2 billion, the second-largest after China, and maintains a high economic growth rate of 9 percent annually.4) Enhancement of Japan's economic partnership with India will alleviate the nation's economic dependence on China. 5) Japan will help India increase production of rare earths, which are indispensable in manufacturing many high-tech products. India's output of rare earths is far behind China's but is still the second-largest in the world.

Security cooperation between the two countries is significant, too. Japan faces a direct threat from China's maritime expansion in the East China Sea, while India is exposed to a similar threat in the Indian Ocean.
Japan and India should actively utilize vice-ministerial talks between their foreign and defense ministries, which were established at the end of last year, to discuss common strategy regarding China, such as measures to ensure the safety of sea lanes.
The two countries also need to seek partnerships with the United States, and then with the Southeast Asian countries that stand at the forefront of friction with China. To realize this goal, Japan and India, regional powers in Asia, must further deepen bilateral relations.

?? Ring of steel surrounding the panda!!-- Japan SoKo vietnam and India along with the uncle.

[krisna]

Development in India not a threat to China, says Chinese leader

China's development is an opportunity rather than a threat to India. Likewise, India's development is not a threat but an opportunity for China," Chinese Communist Party Politburo member Zhou Yongkang said here.

Only if it was economic development and not military threat to India. It has to understand the concepts of live and let live.

Meanwhile Krishna says India, China relations grossly under-utilised

Observing that Sino-Indian relations are “grossly under-utilised”, External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna on Monday said the two countries should leverage their strengths while being sensitive to each other’s concerns to realise the true potential in the ties. krishna is all day dreaming about bonhomie with panda.
He said the divergence of views between the two sides was often “exaggerated” and the two sides should not just cooperate but “must be seen doing so by the rest of the world.”

[Prem]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8b854dac-e50b ... abdc0.html
Sino-Japan dispute overshadows summit
( Son Zu remain immature kid)

One western diplomat described China’s acrimonious outburst and last-minute cancellation of a formal meeting between the Japanese and Chinese prime ministers as an “ambush” that took Japanese diplomats completely by surprise.Wen Jiabao, China’s premier, and Naoto Kan, the Japanese prime minister, did get together for a very brief “unofficial meeting” away from the cameras on Saturday. But that was only after Beijing had sent a strong message by cancelling what would have been the first official meeting between the two leaders since a spat that began in early September when Japan detained a Chinese fishing boat captain in disputed waters.Delegates to the summit and analysts said Beijing’s anger and resentment appeared to be directed mostly at one man: Seiji Maehara, Japan’s newly appointed foreign minister who is regarded as a China hawk and supporter of closer ties with the US.
The trigger for Beijing’s outburst and cancellation of the planned meeting between Mr Wen and Mr Kan appeared to be a Friday morning meeting Mr Maehara held with his Chinese counterpart, Yang Jiechi. Media reports quoted Mr Maehara afterwards as saying China had agreed to a high-level meeting and to restart talks with Tokyo over disputed gasfields in the east China Sea. Japanese officials later dismissed suggestions that he had ever made such a claim.But Hu Zhengyue, an assistant Chinese foreign minister, accused Japan of “ruining the atmosphere” for a planned Wen-Kan summit by making “false statements” about the foreign ministers’ discussions.
Mr Hu also referred to a meeting between Mrs Clinton and Mr Maehara in Hawaii on Thursday, in which the secretary of state restated the US position that it was bound by treaties with Japan to help defend the disputed uninhabited islands at the heart of Sino-Japanese tensions

[ramana]

Nightwatch, 2 Nov., 2010

China-India: A member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee presented a five-point plan to boost relations with India, Xinhua reported 1 November.

Zhou Yongkang's proposal includes,

• promoting political mutual trust;
  
  expanding economic and trade cooperation;
  
  expanding friendly exchanges;
  
  strengthening international cooperation; and,
  
  strengthening friendly consultation and handling issues on a foundation of mutual respect.

Zhou said the development of friendly ties with India is "an established policy and strategic decision" for China.

Comment: The most noteworthy part of the presentation is Zhou's assertion that friendly ties with India are "an established policy and strategic decision." This language has power in that it signifies a decision of the highest level of the Chinese government.

Nevertheless, the language does not necessarily imply cordial relations with India. From a Chinese perspective, the language asks India to "understand" Chinese behavior in India's strategic space. It does not imply that China will respect Indian aspirations for strategic dominance in the Indian Ocean region, but asks India to respect China's right to poach in Indian waters.

The language does imply that China is not now prepared to use pressure tactics with India when confrontations emerge, which, per ipse, implies that confrontations will emerge. In that sense, the proffer of the olive branch for resolving challenges means that India must expect challenges..

If China is banking the fires of confrontation with India, the question arises as to what will be China's primary strategic direction. Inasmuch as securing Chinese claims to territories lost in past wars appears to be the top objective, the top priority targets of Chinese combined diplomacy and coercion can only be Northeast and Southeast Asian nations.

[Prem]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101102/wl_ ... _japan_usa

China decries any U.S. involvement in Japan dispute

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said that this was only "a U.S. idea," adding that it was "totally wrong" to include the disputed islands in any U.S.-Japan defense agreements."It must be pointed out that the Diaoyu islands are Chinese territory, and the dispute between China and Japan over them is one between the two countries," he said in a statement on the Foreign Ministry's website (www.mfa.gov.cn)."The U.S. side has suggested official talks between the United States, China and Japan. I want to stress this is only a U.S. idea," Ma said."The United States has many times said that U.S.-Japan security treaties can apply to the Diaoyu islands. This is totally wrong. The U.S. side should immediately correct this mistaken position," he added.Sino-Japanese relations dived after Japan detained a Chinese skipper in September after his fishing boat collided with two Japanese patrol ships near disputed

[Prem]

http://www.bookforum.com/blog/archive/2 ... #entry6626
China-Japan

[Lalmohan]

its in china's interest to keep us out of the US camp. they are applying a carrot and stick policy to do so...

[Prem]

http://noisyroom.net/blog/2010/11/05/[b ... eo-posted/[/b]

[VinodTK]

India's soft response to Chinese assertiveness

The Chinese leaders are quite happy with the reluctance shown by the Government of Dr.Manmohan Singh to inform the Indian public opinion and the international community about the nature of the activities of the PLA under the cover of friendship. It suits their designs that the international community is given the impression that everything is normal in Sino-Indian relations and that the Government of India is not unduly worried over the Chinese activities.

[Juggi G]

X-Post

China Using Pakistan to Slow India's Growth : Former US Envoy

[Juggi G]

X-Post

UnSure of China's Motives, But 1962 Repeat Not Possible : Army Chief General V K Singh

[shiv]

I think this might be the appropriate thread to discuss the points made below:

The sources of anxiety about China come from three sources :
(1) Chinese sponsorship and virtual cover for Paki jihad against India
(2) Chinese sponsorship of Maoists and separatists in NE
(3) economic penetration and capturing of domestic as well as international markets

[dinesha]

Indo-US joint Statement: Strategic Consultation on East Asia (China)

[svinayak]

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/column_ch ... er_1460036
China is edgy about India’s rise as an East Asian power
Venkatesan Vembu

There was a perception in Beijing in 2008-09 that the Obama administration wasn’t enthusiastic about President George W Bush’s legacy of Indo-US relations and that Obama would pursue a ‘China-focussed’ foreign policy. Indeed, Lee notes, that was what happened — until late 2009, when Obama’s China-focussed policy seemingly began to fail.

Since then, Obama has shifted tack by “deepening relations with existing and emerging security partners at the expense of the relationship with China,” he points out.

“India is now seen as a key component of this shift, which was additionally prompted by aggressive Chinese posturing over the past six months in the East China Sea, South China Sea and the Yellow Sea.”

During his visit, Obama will want to signal India’s importance not only as a South Asian power, but as an East Asian power, reckons Lisa Curtis, a South Asia expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation who served in the George W Bush administration.

“He will talk about India’s role in the region and globally.” Obama will also likely be “forward-leaning” in terms of US-Indian cooperation in the Indian Ocean “with an eye towards the China challenge”.

However, he is unlikely to make any “specific references” to China, she adds. “I don’t think India too will want to be seen as being used by the US as a counterweight, but there are subtle ways to signal that the US is prepared to cooperate in new ways that will deal with the challenge of a rising China,” notes Curtis.

The way Obama might approach the issue, she reasons, will be by raising the possibility of specific cooperation between the US and India that addresses the challenge of a rising China.

Specifically, he would look for maritime cooperation — in the context of China taking a more aggressive stance with respect to its territorial claims in the East China Sea and the South China Sea, and its border dispute with India.

China “genuinely fears” US-India naval cooperation in the Indian Ocean, notes Lee. “Beijing’s strategy has been to distract India through a policy of fomenting ‘contained chaos’ in India’s neighbourhood — in Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan.” And US-India naval partnership would be “a significant blow” to such a strategy, he adds.

Commentary in the Chinese media ahead of the Obama visit reflects this concern and larger apprehensions about US ‘re-engagement’ with Asia. A recent editorial in the nationalistic official daily Global Times claimed that the US’ “return brings uncertainty to Asia”.

Cheng Chongren, a professor at the Institute of International Relations at Fudan University, said the US is “seeking to gain a foothold in Asia… in the context of containing China.”

The possibility of seeing a higher profile for India in China’s neighbourhood in East Asia is additionally giving China some cause for disquiet. Media commentary is also taking wary note of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s just concluded visit to Japan, which was recently embroiled in a bruising maritime dispute with China.

According to Fu Xiaoqiang, a professor of South Asian affairs at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, Singh’s visit “illustrates India’s ‘Look East’ strategy.”

Donald Emmerson, director of the Southeast Asia Forum at Stanford University’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Centre, points to increasing concerns in the US about “Chinese hegemony in Asia”.

Chinese policy lately in defence of its maritime claims “has come close to bullying,” he adds. In that context, many in the US see India as a potential counterweight against China, and the fact that India is a democracy “enhances its reputation in the US”.

But George Perkovich at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace cautions against conceptualising the US-India partnership as “a means to contain or contest China — a notion that many in the US and in India wish to project onto the relationship”.

To conceive of India as a balance against China “instrumentalises it, and India is nobody’s tool,” he adds, noting that the Indian democratic spectrum contains “strong strains of anti-American ideology as well as pro-Chinese and non-alignment elements”.

[svinayak]

China “genuinely fears” US-India naval cooperation in the Indian Ocean, notes Lee. “Beijing’s strategy has been to distract India through a policy of fomenting ‘contained chaos’ in India’s neighbourhood — in Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan.”

[Prem]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... -at-china/
The President will skip China on his Asia tour, but his itinerary signals America's growing unease with the superpower's global clout. Peter Beinart on why Obama's cozying up to China's rivals this week—and how his policy is more hawkish than Bush's.

The most important foreign policy issue in the 2010 midterms, in fact, had nothing to do with 9/11. It was China. According to The New York Times, at least 29 congressional candidates bashed China in television ads in October alone. And China is playing a larger and larger role in President Obama’s foreign policy as well. In August, the Obama administration sent the USS George Washington to do joint exercises with Vietnam, which has territorial disputes with Beijing in the South China Sea. Team Obama is negotiating a nuclear deal with Vietnam, drawing militarily closer to Indonesia, and has been more aggressive than the Bush administration in selling arms to Taiwan. In July, at the Association of South-East Asian Nations, Hillary Clinton ambushed the Chinese by rallying 12 countries to protest its territorial incursions. And now Obama is visiting India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Japan, the four Asian countries most crucial to its effort at balancing Chinese power. It all adds up, as the Carnegie Endowment’s Douglas Paal recently told The Economist, to “the most comprehensive burst of diplomatic and military activity in Asia, particularly South-East Asia, in decades.”This, I suspect, is the new normal. Jihadist terrorists may kill more Americans in the years to come, but they don’t threaten American primacy. China does. Decades from now, historians may well identify the entire “war on terror” as an interlude between great power competition, the kind of thing the United States could afford to focus on in those unipolar years between its rivalry with the Soviet Union and its rivalry with China.The interesting thing about looking at American foreign policy through an Asia-centric, rather than Middle East-centric, lens is that it is suddenly no longer so clear who the hawks and doves are. President Obama began his dealings with Beijing in a conciliatory vein, but almost two years in, his policy is more hawkish than President Bush’s. He’s angered human rights types by restoring military ties to the Indonesian Special Forces and, according to The Economist, may cut a nuclear deal with Vietnam that allows it to enrich uranium outside of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And if Obama is more hawkish than Bush, the Democrats are, in some ways, more hawkish than the GOP. In September, when the House passed a resolution aimed at pressuring China to revalue its currency, Democrats supported it almost unanimously while Republicans were split. Paul Krugman regularly excoriates China for its currency policies. Nancy Pelosi has long excoriated it over human rights; in 2008 she urged Bush to boycott the Beijing Olympics.

For the moment, America’s China debate takes place in two, artificially separate, spheres. When it comes to defense, the right—more than the left—uses the Chinese threat as a justification for bigger military budgets. But when it comes to economics, the left—more than the right—insists that the U.S. challenge the way China values its currency and treats its workers. The right wants America to grow more economically integrated with China even as we grow more militarily confrontational. The left wants America to risk rupturing our economic ties with China while any national security spills over. It doesn’t make much sense. Sooner or later, China is going to wreak havoc with the foreign policy fault lines to which Americans have grown accustomed since 9/11, and indeed, since Vietnam. Let’s hope it’s sooner.

[brihaspati]

China “genuinely fears” US-India naval cooperation in the Indian Ocean, notes Lee. “Beijing’s strategy has been to distract India through a policy of fomenting ‘contained chaos’ in India’s neighbourhood — in Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan.”

Maintaining bases like Diego Garcia must be getting increasingly costly given the state of finances for both the Anglo's. Why not share both costs and ownership with India?

[ramana]

I saw a ticker on CNN about a new US strategy of piggybacking on Aussie military bases as that maximises their investment. They wont raise hackles as the bases are Aussie but in a pinch they can use them. So that might be the new way forward - - where they piggy back on others' infrastructure as a power on demand. Could explain the single minded pursuit of interoperability requirements for their stuff. They see arms sales as an extension of their own resources.
You can fly but you will fight for us kind of thinking.

[brihaspati]

UK will resist - since it basically owns the place in the first place. But could be a good leveraging point now.

[Prem]

Maintaining bases like Diego Garcia must be getting increasingly costly given the state of finances for both the Anglo's. Why not share both costs and ownership with India?

Last month,US DOD has allocated 12 Billion$ to "renovate" the DG Adda.

[brihaspati]

If 50 billion is something they are joyful about , that 12 may not last long. I am just suggesting that such a share could be considered. Keeping a mutual eye and see to it that they do not help out poaks on the sly using the base. At worst if they can no longer maintain it, it should not fall into other hands.

[RajeshA]

I don't know about others, but what makes me shiver in my dhoti (did try to wear it once) is a scenario based on the following facts:

1. Illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in India - especially in India's Northeast - Tripura, Assam, etc. In 2003, George Fernandes claimed there were around 20 million illegal Bangladeshi in India.
2. Strong Anti-Indianism in Bangladesh, especially within BNP & Friends, BDR and Bangladesh Army, Islamists
3. China's political and economic inroads into Bangladesh
4. India's limited access to India's Northeast (Chicken Neck)
5. Separatist movements in India's Northeast supported by outside forces
6. Strong Maoist standing in Nepal
7. Naxalite movement in several Eastern Indian states.
8. Kashmiris insurgency
9. Radicalization of some Indian Muslims (say in Kerala, West Bengal, etc.)
10. China's military infrastructure in Tibet, and increasing naval presence in the Indian Ocean
11. Nuclear-armed Pakistan hell-bent on taking on India
12. Chinese military presence in Myanmar

Logic dictates that if China wants to make trouble for India it would activate all fronts. Why should they allow India to deal first with one enemy or one challenge, and then move to the next one, etc?! Most probably it would be all internal fronts being activated first, and once Indian forces are under stress, the external fronts also becoming active.

Internal fronts would be:

1. Hindu-Muslim communal clashes in mainland India.
2. Kashmir insurgency in full-bloom
3. Naxalites on rampage
4. Illegal Bangladeshi immigrants trying to take over power in Indian Northeast
5. Northeast Indian separatist groups fully armed taking on Indian forces in India's Northeast

External fronts could be:

1. Chipak forces in J&K
2. Chinese forces & Maoists in Nepal, putting pressure on Hindi heartland
3. Chinese forces in Tibet-Arunachal Pradesh border
4. Chinese forces in Myanmar
5. Bangladeshi forces in Siliguri Pass & India's Northeast (having been promised land in India's Northeast by the Chinese and in support of the illegal Bangladeshi immigrants)
6. Skirmishes between Chinese PLAN and Indian Navy
7. Nuclear Threat from both Pakistan and China

This all need not be one great event, but rather a continued tightening of the screws can be employed against India, until the Chinese and the Pakistanis notice India's hold weakening.

A straight Indo-China War across our international border or LAC is perhaps the most unlikeliest of possibilities. Even a traditional two-front war with China and Pakistan would be highly unlikely. I'm quite confident that India's Armed Forces can hold up both of our foes successfully.

The most likely of scenarios IMHO is

1. Indian forces in Assam, Tripura, Meghalaya being attacked and sabotaged by Bangladeshi immigrants, while those forces on the border to Bangladesh being challenged by Bangladesh Rifles and Bangladesh Army.
2. Indian forces in Arunachal Pradesh being attacked by Chinese forces from Tibet.
3. Indian forces in Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur being attacked by Separatists, fully supported by Chinese 'Irregulars' from the Myanmar side.
4. Indian forces in Siliguri Pass being held down by Nepali Maoists with Chinese 'Irregulars'
5. Indian forces in Eastern India wanting to go to support other Indian Troops in Northeast being held down by Naxalite forces supported by Nepali Maoists.
6. Bangladeshi immigrants and Islamists in West Bengal throwing the area into chaos.
7. Kashmir insurgency diverting most of our paramilitary troops.
8. Pakistan issuing the Jihadis the go-ahead to cause terror in India's major cities

When the dust settles down, one could see

1. Arunachal Pradesh under Chinese control
2. Nagaland, Mizoram and Manipur as Chinese protectorates
3. Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and parts of West Bengal under Bangladeshi control
4. Kashmir Valley under Pakistani control
5. Chinese soldiers having a permanent presence in Nepal

I simply don't think one can really consider Indo-China War in isolation, not with Chinese making inroads into the Indian Subcontinent - mainly in Nepal and Bangladesh and reaching a strategic understanding with them. Would Bangladesh not show any interest if China offers Bangladesh to split up India's Northeast between the two of them? Bangladesh needs space to breathe. Bangladesh under an anti-Indian Govt. could agree. Until today, India has not shown the inclination to go for total war even under provocation e.g. Mumbai 26/11 terrorist attacks. Should Bangladesh not feel emboldened, that Bangladeshi losses would be minimal? Considering the value of Indian Ocean, the Chinese could feel tempted to make a corridor for themselves through India's Northeast.

Chinese inroads into India's strategic space can be looked upon as

1. Simply economic and political influence, not too threatening to India
2. Patronage of anti-Indian forces in India's neighborhood, allowing them to prick India even more
3. Security Nightmare as mentioned above.

People would look at the threat differently, but what should be clear to all Indians is, that India should take no risk and should become active in pushing back Chinese influence in the Indian Subcontinent.

Just some thoughts!

[Juggi G]

China will Attack India 'Soon' : Mulayam Singh Yadav

China will Attack India 'Soon' : Mulayam Singh Yadav
PTI
Nov 9, 2010

NEW DELHI: Former Defence minister Mulayam Singh Yadav on Tuesday claimed that China could attack India "soon" and the threat needed to be taken seriously against the backdrop of the 1962 invasion.

"China is laying claim on several of our states including Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarkhand besides the Ladakh region... It is going to attack us soon... The attack can take place any time," the Samajwadi party supremo said in the Lok Sabha during Zero Hour.

The SP chief wanted Parliament to immediately discuss the issue threadbare in view of the threat. He had unsuccessfully tried to raise the issue as soon as the House met for the day.

While Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal said he would draw the attention of the Defence Minister to Yadav's statement, Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee said, "We will discuss this issue."

The SP chief said when he was Defence Minister, roads had been laid on the borders with China which have now turned bad.

Against this, China has built four to eight lane roads on its side of the border.

Yadav claimed the Army top brass has been warning the government over the Chinese threat.

His statement came close on the heels of Army Chief General V K Singh's remarks that India was "not sure" of China's intentions for developing infrastructure along the borders. At the same time, the general had said a repeat of the 1962 aggression was "never" possible.

[RajeshA]

Originally posted by kmkraoind
Published on Nov 09, 2010
China may attack India anytime soon: Mulayam: IANS

New Delhi, Nov 9 (IANS) Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav Tuesday warned the government he had 'specific' inputs that China was preparing to attack India 'anytime soon' and was 'daily' occupying an inch of the country's land.

He urged the government to take the China threat seriously because 'everybody knows what happened in 1962'. 'China is laying claim on several of our states, including Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand and also Ladakh,' the former defence minister said in the Lok Sabha.

'We have specific information, and I am sharing it with the house that China has all but prepared to attack India. They can attack us anytime soon,' Mulayam Singh said.

'China is unreliable, the most deceptive (neighbours of India). They have occupied lakhs of square kilometres of our territory. China is occupying an inch of our land daily for the last so many years and has laid tarmac roads up to the border with India in preparation to invade us,' he said.

The Uttar Pradesh MP said as defence minister he had initiated a road laying programme on the borders with China, which it now appeared was not being followed as keenly.

He said senior army officers had been warning the government about the Chinese threat.

Mulayam Singh's statement comes days after army chief General V.K. Singh remarked that India was 'not sure' about China's intentions behind developing infrastructure along its borders with India.

'China is doing a great amount of infrastructure development, which it says is for locals of the area. No bones about it, no crib about it. But our problem is we are not very sure about the intentions. And when intentions change, with this capability, things can go wrong. And that is what is a matter of concern,' the general had said.

Mulayam Singh said he wanted to know what the defence ministry is doing about the Chinese threat. Janata Dal-United (JD-U) leader Sharad Yadav supported his concerns.

Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal said he would draw the attention of Defence Minister A.K. Antony to Mulayam Singh's statement and asked Speaker Meira Kumar to allow the debate keeping 'in view the relationships we have with our neighbours'.

Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee assured the Samajwadi Party chief that the house 'will discuss this issue'.

Hats off to Mulayam!
Does the fact, that he is a former wrestler, makes him have bigger cojones?!

[Lalmohan]

i believe that a direct war is unlikely, but proxy wars a certainty.

pakistan sooner or later WILL have to be taken out of the equation.

separatists within India can be neutralised mostly through economic benefits and good governance, although there will always be exceptions. Whilst we maintain a strong vigil on the borders, this must get top priority - the long term costs are much much lower than using the danda method in the short term
similarly we must not get sucked into a defensive mindset - a new forward policy in xinkiang, nei monggol gaoyan and else where on the peripheries of the rich coastal zones is essential

[Juggi G]

Govt to Widen 3,770km Single-Lane NH by 2014 with $2.96bn World Bank Loan

"Under this Plan, Arunachal Pradesh will be the biggest beneficiary with 1,940 km of its single lane highway proposed to be upgraded to 2-lane with paved shoulders," Singh said.

[ramana]

Modern PRC = Confucian tyranny.

[Rupesh]

RajeshA,

Mulayam has close ties with sherkhan. He may be parotting their words.I dont trust this guy
( 'China is unreliable, the most deceptive (neighbours of India). They have occupied lakhs of square kilometres of our territory.) .. unless he is considering Tibet to be part of India

[shiv]

Mulayam is fighting a rearguard battle to save his own ass. In a flash he will dump patriotism for his own partisan views.

[Pratyush]

Shiv,

The question is why. To me it seems that he thinks that PRC bashing will get him votes in elections. For the nation that is a good news.

Alternatively, he may be sending a message to the PRC that if you support me financialy I will support you withing India.

JMT

[RajeshA]

Why do we need to be cynical about Mulayam's patriotism?! His partisan politics is his domestic politics. One does what one needs to win.

He played a pivotal role in pushing through the Nuclear Deal. Without him MMS and his foreign policy would have been long dead. He helped out when one needed him most, when even BJP were not willing to look at the bigger picture and were willing to bring everything down in cooperation with PRC-chamchas - CPI-M.

He has been Defence Minister, so he must have received a lot of sensitive information, and must be in the know.

If he says, there is a threat, then Indians should take it seriously, instead of deriding him.

[Christopher Sidor]

It was during Mulyam's tenure as Defense minister that the 9000 corer SU-30MKI deal was clinched with Russia.

It is even rumored that when Mulyam visited Saichen, as Defense minster, the Paki Army gave him a welcome by shelling Indian positions. He is reported to have asked the commanding officer, why are our guns silent. Our Artillery opened up soon after.

The problem with Mulyam is two fold. One is his casteist politics and secondly his honeymoon with crime. Whenever he is in power in UP, the crime rates shoots up. There is a saying in UP, Bhenji takes money quietly and does the work. Mulyam on the other hand takes money and growls a lot.

And moreover we should not get distracted by the messenger. Rather we should concentrate on the message. What he is suggesting is very important. Let us not shoot the message down just because of the messenger.

[Pratyush]

Rajesh,

A castist and communal man like Mulayam cannot be trusted. All he cares is the proximity to power. Regardless of the things he has done as the Defence minister of the nation.

So the question is why is making this point now. The Intentions of the PRC have been known for some time. Is it becaues we are lookinf at the anniversary of the 62 war. If so then why was he silent in the previous years.

Not that the message is disagreable.

But it is becaues of the messenger the message has little credibility at least with me.

[RajeshA]

Rajesh,

A castist and communal man like Mulayam cannot be trusted. All he cares is the proximity to power. Regardless of the things he has done as the Defence minister of the nation.

Yes, and Churchill was a racist, and he still won the war for Britain.

Mulayam can be kicked and abused as much one wants in the context of India's domestic politics, but there is one principle of a confident world power, a leader's patriotism is taken for granted, unless proven otherwise, and one leaves one's domestic politics at home (because otherwise one becomes a Pakhanastan).

A clean and highly moral image at home is no guarantee for enlightened patriotism. JLN was in many ways a great leader, but he messed up J&K and Tibet, big time. There are noises that AK Antony gives more priority to his clean and squeaky image than to India's military preparedness and timely procurements.

So as far as I am concerned, if Mulayam wants to lead India's fight back against Chinese incursions, he is my kinda guy!

[Pratyush]

Rajesh,

If indeed he is doing it. For all we know he may be raising the point to get the PRC pay him some money to STFU. That is my concern at the moment. If that is not what his intention is. Then I am all for Mulayam. But his past leaves me full of doubt regarding his intentions.

[RajeshA]

Rajesh,

If indeed he is doing it. For all we know he may be raising the point to get the PRC pay him some money to STFU. That is my concern at the moment. If that is not what his intention is. Then I am all for Mulayam. But his past leaves me full of doubt regarding his intentions.

I started this thread. Now I am just waiting for PRC to give me a call. I wonder how much I should ask for stopping anti-Chinese propaganda!

It sounds like a good business model. Every Indian should turn anti-Chinese, and as by nature our loyalties are always up for sale, in the end it could bankrupt PRC to buy up a billion of us. Then none of us need fear a bankrupt PRC anymore!

[Pratyush]

Rajesh,

If you were a politition for Sale the PRC would try to buy you. But being a rakshak with no influence they will not bother with you. Nor can you get them to spend any money on you.

But some one like Mulayam can. The question is why now. The actions of PRC have been known for a long time. This worthy had to have known them for some time. Then why has he played this card now. Why not sooner. He has been silent for the past one year on this matter when the Cabinet was raising the issue. When the Indian media was shouting from the roof tops of the PRC threat. He was all quite. But he comes up with this statement now. Why?

[Pratyush]

Some polititions when they open their mouths on international relations are bound to raise distrust in me.

Prime examples amongst others include..

Mayawati, Mulayam, Ram Vilas Paswan,Lalu, Etc.

[RajeshA]

Pratyush ji,

Why now? Cuz, now is just as good a time as any other time. We are going into unnecessary speculation.

Why does raising the issue now, gives Mulayam a better chance to be bribed by the PRC, than say, if he had raised the issue a month ago, or an year ago?

Some polititions when they open their mouths on international relations are bound to raise distrust in me.

Prime examples amongst others include..

Mayawati, Mulayam, Ram Vilas Paswan,Lalu, Etc.

As I see it, you seem to have a bias either against leaders from the Hindi heartland, or from leaders, who do not fulfill your criteria of sophistication, or from leaders who represent the lower castes.

The thing is, that too is India, I would say 'the real India'! And they have as much right to be worried about India's security as say the urban and sophisticated chatterati! In any case, I think India's boldest cojones are too be found in the rural areas.

[Pratyush]

The reply will be OT for this thread.

The issue is not that these guys don fit my idea of sofistication, nor is it that they are from Hindi heartland. The issue is that thes guys have consistantly tried to put the intereste of one particular subgroup of people to the exclusion of others. Law and order and rule of law has not been the strong point of these people.

It is too much to for these people to look at the wider national issues. Let alone international Issues. It just dosenot fit the pattern of established behievour for these leaders.

I still remember Paswan standing at jama masjid shouting that it will be acceptable for India to loses 70 crore people fighting the Yanks in Iraq. In the late 90s.

I think it was mulayam who said during kargil that India should pay Pakistan 2000 crores annually. And you expect me to trust these leaders.

JMT