Strategic leadership for the future of India - II

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 27 Jan 2010 23:10

Wow! No wonder Rahul has to be the next PM. What is it that makes a Gandhi decision acceptable to the local leaders?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Jan 2010 23:13

vera_k wrote:Wow! No wonder Rahul has to be the next PM. What is it that makes a Gandhi decision acceptable to the local leaders?

Ticket to contest and funds to get elected. None of the local leaders have followers.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 27 Jan 2010 23:20

So if a moneybags is able to fund people like Sharad Pawar, they would be able to topple the Gandhis.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Jan 2010 23:32

vera_k, re-read Indian history. Merchant princes were an integral part of colonial takeover. They were also funding the INC during the British days. Unfortunately their role was erased by the Modern historians to paint a DIEnastic view of the whole process.

Even UPA-I and the trust vote had that input.

A convergence of interests is needed. Just having money wont cut it. the interests have to worry about their preservation.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 27 Jan 2010 23:39

How could they think of Pawar knowing his suspected association with D Company?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Jan 2010 23:42

Prem wrote:How could they think of Pawar knowing his suspected association with D Company?

Most likely he will rehabilitate Dawood as a retired Sufi baba/singer. That could reduce operating room for ISI etc.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 02 Feb 2010 08:23

Hate to complain, but isnt this thread all about the nature of leadership for the future of India? OTOH we are discussing leaders and other authority figures who are largely the by-product of the colonial mindset.

IMHO we should switch to discussing the construction of a modern India which is largely free of babudom and other current trash!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 02 Feb 2010 09:11

I am convinced that Bharat did not get true independence after British left. The freedom fight would have returned to pre-colonial social arrangement if it were not for partition. But then the natural consequence of partition should have been the formation of Hindu Bharat. Instead, Congress opted for a British construct, which is neither here not there. Looks like even before trying for independence the Congress leadership were de-Bharatized, probably due to the influence of western education and exposure.

What I do not understand is why are Congress leaders were not confident of removing the Islamic colonization, even after they were successful in removing 200 year old British/western colonization?

I know nothing

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Feb 2010 11:28

Pakistan is in shambles since they feel that ancient diktats encompassed in their religious books hold true today.

China, on the other hand, has abandoned Communism except in form, and are a global power!

If one studies China's transformation from the rigid Maoist era to what is now, it will be a revelation!

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 02 Feb 2010 15:25

Rahul Gandhi puts foot in mouth again:

Viewpoint: Rahul’s comments are laced with danger

Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi is known for his frank talk. But sometimes he fails to gauge the implications of his `frank comments’. By saying that commandos from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh saved Mumbai, Rahul is speaking the same divisive language of the Sena – dividing India on the lines of language and region.

Categorising National Commandos as men from Bihar or Uttar Pradesh is dangerous. It is not just commandos from Bihar or Uttar Pradesh who saved Mumbai. The commandos are national in colour. They should remain that way.

Dividing security forces or the Army on the lines of statehood is a wrong and dangerous move. What happens if there is another attack on Mumbai and Bihari commandos say that they will not step in because their brothers are being driven out of Mumbai?

Or, the commandos take the stand that let Mumbai commandos or Maharashtra commandos step in first. One should, including Rahul Gandhi, remember that it is India that is fighting terrorists, not Biharis or people from Uttar Pradesh. The brave men out there on the borders fighting infiltration from across Pakistan are from all the states - from Andhra Pradesh to West Bengal and Punjab to Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Maharashtra included.

Taking a swipe at the two Sena outfits, Rahul had said, "If terrorists have to be fought with, let Biharis remain there. In Maharashtra, MNS leader Raj Thackeray keeps on saying throw out people of Bihar and UP. But, who killed the terrorists who had attacked Mumbai? They were the NSG guys from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and from the rest of the country. At that time they did not say throw away Biharis."

That is not a right line for Rahul Gandhi to take. This is nothing but dangerous divisive politics.

Rahul should also remember that it was the brave Mumbai cops who first faced the fire from hardened Pakistan-trained terrorists during the 26/11 attack; it was a brave Mumbai cop who got killed while capturing Kasaab alive; it was the brave hotel personnel who evacuated people from the Taj risking their lives.

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article ... id=3596943

Sad that a nation of a billion plus has to suffer this fellow and his antics.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Feb 2010 21:09

RamaY wrote:I am convinced that Bharat did not get true independence after British left.

Generation of colonized mind cannot be change on one Independence day.

The freedom fight would have returned to pre-colonial social arrangement if it were not for partition. But then the natural consequence of partition should have been the formation of Hindu Bharat. Instead, Congress opted for a British construct, which is neither here not there. Looks like even before trying for independence the Congress leadership were de-Bharatized, probably due to the influence of western education and exposure.

DIE elite will not allow others to take power.

What I do not understand is why are Congress leaders were not confident of removing the Islamic colonization, even after they were successful in removing 200 year old British/western colonization?
I know nothing

Do they represent true leadership

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 03 Feb 2010 01:49

So the small states mantra was being honed from 2003 atleast even when the INC was not in power. And the moment to strike was the misplaced Telangana agitation.
The targets are Maharastra and Andhra Pradesh in first round. Looks like the precarious balance of the UPA-I prevented this operation being launched. And with stable UPA II its being launched from Home Minsitry itself. What this does is create large states around the perihphery of small states.

x-post....

RamaY wrote:Chidambara Rahasyam

- Andhra Jyothy (telugu news paper)

Free Translation

P Chidambaram opined that small states form the foundation for economic development in his 2003 article “Wake up to the case of states”. He published a book titled “A view from the outside” by compiling all his articles and essays.

(1) In his “Wakeup to the case of states” Chidambaram said that the people in small states will be relieved from depending on the governments {how?}. He observed that 11 CMs in past decade did not hinder Goa’s economic development, after it got carved out of Maharashtra. In this essay he opined that it doesn’t matter how many CMs are changed {very congressique} as long as the development continues.

(2) Chidambaram further explains his logic saying that Gujarat and Goa developed only after their separation from Maharastra and that Goa, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Haryana, and Punjab are competing with large states.

(3) He also believes that the separation of states should not depend upon political leaders’ demands and opinions, and instead must be done on the basis of Area, Population, and geographical properties {so that their mineral resources can be exploited by MNCs and feudals?}.

(4) Chidambaram cautions that not all states need splitting on this basis, and thinks that only Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh (Maharashtra 9.7 crores, Andhra 7.57 crores) require splitting creating Vidarbha and Telangana states {How convenient – Tamil Nadu with its 6.7 crore population didn’t cut the mark, you see}. PC also believes that another round of splitting is necessary in UP and Bihar {using his paki logic, I guess}.

(5) He attributes the dismal performance of Chhattisgarh and Jarkhand states to the inefficient governances and ineffective governments {he he heee, this he pulled from his *** after writing point (1) and (2) above}. PC notes that 45% of poor people of the nation live in these three states (Bihar, UP, and MP) and the development rate and per capita income are below national average {because they are ruled by non-INC govts?}.

I found the original Ind Exp article in English here. Ensoi!

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 03 Feb 2010 07:37

Rahul's Gujarat remark kicks up row in Bihar
Headlines Today Bureau
Darbhanga (Bihar), February 1, 2010

Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi was on Monday forced to call off a meeting with students in Bihar's Darbhanga region after his comments on Gujarat created a stir.

Rahul, who had begun a two-day visit to the state to shore up support for the Congress, found that his comments did not find favour with the students of Lalit Narayan Mithila University.

Rahul said that for India to be changed, Gujarat needed to be changed first. This sparked off protests, with students saying that the meeting was not the platform for making political statements.

Rahul had gone to the university to attend a function.

Congress leaders failed to calm down the agitated students, forcing Rahul to apologise. Eventually, the Congress leader had to leave the venue.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story ... Bihar.html

Rahul's 'deadly smile' floors fair brigade at Patna College: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 529578.cms

Ecstatic students go berserk for a glimpse of Rahul Gandhi in Bihar's women college: http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/146766

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 03 Feb 2010 07:46

Pranav wrote:Rahul's 'deadly smile' floors fair brigade at Patna College: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 529578.cms

Ecstatic students go berserk for a glimpse of Rahul Gandhi in Bihar's women college: http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/146766

Come on its a wimmens college for crying out loud what did you expect?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Feb 2010 07:52

Sometime back e had a post about generations in US and one of us had done a similar mapping for India. Can we apply that to the leadership after Independence? What I would like to see is a grouping of the PMs by birth date and which generation they represent.

Thanks, ramana

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 06 Feb 2010 08:16

Why Indian media is always biased in reporting?

Why no coverage of this news in mainstream indian media....!!!!!!!

Read below and view the You Tube video:--Bihar students force Rahul Gandhi to flee campus:--

http://jaibihar.com/bihar-students-forc ... 16809.html

1, 2010DARBHANGA — Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi, who is on a two-day visit to Bihar widely dubbed as an exercise to test the waters, had to leave Darbhanga after students of Lalit Narayan Mithila University got agitated over his Gujarat remarks.Apparently to woo Muslim students, the son of Congress president Sonia Gandhi reportedly said, “India can change only if Gujarat changed first.”The students created ruckus accusing the scion of the Nehru-Gandhi family of doing politics in university campus. They asked him to abstain from making political utterances and that the campus was not a platform for such meetings.Protesting students shouted, “There is Congress government in Maharashtra and you also have the government at Centre, but why do you keep your mouth shut when Biharis are beaten in Bombay. Don’t ever come to Bihar to play your cheap and hypocritical politics.”Rahul had to apologize as Congress leaders present at the venue failed to calm down the angry students. He, finally, had to leave the campus as students refused to listen to him.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 07 Feb 2010 00:01

Does chai-biskoot track with Bakis is pushed with a view to shape the leadership that is going to emerge in Desh. Propose chai-samosa to pigs, as that would surely help the pigs to let loose and conduct the next audacious attack on India. As usual, the strong SOP in place will allow the present leadership in India, to do the usual thing to stop the talks and mouth platitudes. This response at that time would seem utterly ridiculous that something needs to be done. Previous such occasion claimed Shri Patil (known for the best dressed minister - connoissuer of 3-piece suits)and catapulted Shri.Chidambaram into the Home ministry.
This time around, why not change the leadership at the minimum to assuage the non-response; a golden chance to catapult crown prince into the gaddi.
Crown prince will then be the king and can talk tough (no action though) and say India needs young leadership to address all the modern day problems. Smooth and efficient transfer of power justifiably.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 07 Feb 2010 04:42

Indian (NON) Strategic condition
http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/ ... =EDITORIAL

By Kallol Bhattacherjee

When everybody in India was debating the Indo-US nuclear deal, the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, the country’s topmost strategic think tank, was silent. The reason: it was busy running a four-star hotel.
Once one of the most influential strategic research bodies in the world, IDSA’s decline has been incredibly rapid. Till about five years ago, its researchers and fellows, headed by the likes of K. Subrahmanyam and former air commodore Jasjit Singh, provided advice and prepared position papers to the defence, external affairs and home ministries and even to the Prime Minister’s Office. A small but dedicated research staff, picked from the armed forces, the ministries and the academia, gave the government and the public unbiased views on almost every strategic issue. As the IDSA campus in the cantonment area is in the heart of the defence establishment, scholars have expressed concern over hosting hundreds of guests there. DRDO, nuclear command and control and other critical offices surround it. Residency Hotels told THE WEEK that it could accommodate 200 people.
IDSA’s decline has drawn worldwide attention. A report of a workshop on international studies in India held at Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, says: “In the early years, IDSA came to be respected by officials and leaders across the political spectrum for its independent thinking. Over time IDSA appears to have declined in influence.”

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 10 Feb 2010 20:12

I agree with the sentiment, that India ignored Turkey, expressed in the Turkey dhaaga. Right from our first PM to the current; they have been all leaders and visionaries to different extent. In spite of their individual potential and skills, they did not manage to cast a strong vision coupled with actions to achieve the vision. Why? Reading Indian history, one will come to a stark reality - there was too much going on in the subcontinent. One of the reasons Emperors did not go on large campaigns outside the sub-continent. We have examples of Kings venturing out to S.E.Asia. But that is about it. With a large land, diverse people and sub-cultures; leaders hands are busy keeping things stable.

I hope the 60+ years of stability and relative peace and economic prosperity will allow our leaders to look beyond our shores. For starters the Indian Ocean rim countries and then beyond. Our leaders have now a platform from which they can jump.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Feb 2010 03:21

It takes two hands to clap. Attaturk's Turkey was happy thinking its European state and ignored India. At same time to satisfy its ummahist elite it supported TSP. It was a member of CENTO and other four letter alliances. It was the key state for bridging CENTO and NATO. Its only now that the economic miracle of India is drawing them.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 Feb 2010 04:20

ramana wrote:It takes two hands to clap. Attaturk's Turkey was happy thinking its European state and ignored India. At same time to satisfy its ummahist elite it supported TSP. It was a member of CENTO and other four letter alliances. It was the key state for bridging CENTO and NATO. Its only now that the economic miracle of India is drawing them.

Also the shift in the global economy to the Asian landmass from Atlantic has made them look at the east. Look at KSA

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 11 Feb 2010 06:12

ramana wrote:It takes two hands to clap. Attaturk's Turkey was happy thinking its European state and ignored India. At same time to satisfy its ummahist elite it supported TSP. It was a member of CENTO and other four letter alliances. It was the key state for bridging CENTO and NATO. Its only now that the economic miracle of India is drawing them.

Not to overlook the fact that Turkey has been the donkey behind the carrot (being the EU seat) for the last decade and a half! One common friend who could bring us real close is Russia, to use that oft repeated phrase, The road to Istanbul passes through Moscow!

Btw, could the gurus pls explain the purpose of this thread vis-a-vis the other thread Future Strategic Leadership for the future of India-2? This play of words in the topic has gotten me in confusion as to where to most appropriately post. I'm more for experimenting new ideas in leadership on micro-level rather than discussing yuvraj and his antics (no offense meant to anyone)!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 11 Feb 2010 13:15

Btw, could the gurus pls explain the purpose of this thread vis-a-vis the other thread Future Strategic Leadership for the future of India-2? This play of words in the topic has gotten me in confusion as to where to most appropriately post.

I presume one and the same thing.

Like LICO, CT, COIN, sub conventional ops.

Old wine in a new bottle!

I am equally confused!

But must be intellectually convergent that I have missed!

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 11 Feb 2010 17:34

ramana wrote:It takes two hands to clap. Attaturk's Turkey was happy thinking its European state and ignored India. At same time to satisfy its ummahist elite it supported TSP. It was a member of CENTO and other four letter alliances. It was the key state for bridging CENTO and NATO. Its only now that the economic miracle of India is drawing them.

Actually, in those days the entire West was backing TSP. Turkey was under control of its military, which is also aligned with Western elites and with Israel.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Feb 2010 22:23

So what? The idea of Turkey in NATO and with TSP in CENTO and SEATO was to provide a seamless modern Islamic states to back the Western powers. Turkey was the western sheet anchor of the modern Islamic states and TSP the eastern anchor of the ME in this scheme. So its naive to blame India for Turkey not being friendly. Its not ment to be in those days. Attaturkism is Modern Islamism (head scarf and skirts) to provide alternate to Arab Nationalism sweeping the ME after WWII.

However Pakistan went terrorist as it took in more of Islamism.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 11 Feb 2010 22:39

^^^ Well said Ramanaji!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Feb 2010 11:13

They teach in "Critical Decision Making" that the first step is to
- correctly define the problem.
- And framing the decision in terms of what may be lost causes to take risks.
- And biggest is hidden problems are the true hindrances to effective critical decisions.

With this in mind can we unravel the latest headless chicken run from GOI?

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 12 Feb 2010 13:24

To take the Turkey thing further, they have also opposed NATO's interference in Georgia-Russia conflict in a way to save their own backyards (Istanbul and the Black Sea), so they are in cahoots with the Russians on that one, they have also started a rail link to TSP. So they seem to be playing both pro-Russia and pro-TSP in more or less the same timeframes.

However they may have a major role to play in viewing how Iran, Syria and Lebanon have relations with us, given our links with Israel, in my view Turkey-Russia and India-Israel can do a lot together as a 4 man tag team, it is quite viable too in the current geopolitical situation.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Feb 2010 00:51

Sometime back Sri B.S. Raghavan floated as proposal to give up Tawang as peace offering to PRC. Sri Ram Narayanan polled a lot of Indian thinkers and got responses. Here is part I of it.

My dispatch of February 9, 2010 titled provocatively, "Should India make up with China NOW by surrendering territory or later when China will take it forcefully?" has produced interesting feedback from former diplomats, high ranking retired military officers, foreign policy experts and other knowledgeable observers of the India-China scene.

Of the more than 70 responses received, I am reproducing below extracts from 36 as PART 1 of this two-part series. PART 2 will follow tomorrow.

Where the responders had agreed to be identified, I have disclosed their names and background. On others I have provided background information.

I am sure you will find the responses illuminating, even fascinating!

1) Retired Lieutenant-General J.F.R. Jacob, the Chief of Staff of the Indian Army’s Eastern Command that vanquished the Pakistani army in the war of 1971 or Bangladesh Liberation War, and author of the lucidly written book "Surrender at Dacca : Birth of a Nation":

The Chinese want the whole of the Tawang tract upto and beyond Senge, that is well south of our main defences south of the Se La Ridge. If given to them, they will have easy access to the plains of Assam as also to Tashigong in Bhutan, which we are committed to defend ,.. and thence to the plains. Walong which they also want is in our territory some 70 miles inside. Possession is 90 % of the law..
We should not talk anymore, but continue to hold our territory. IF WE ARE STRONG THEY DARE NOT DO ANYTHING.

2) Retired Major General Afsir Karim:

The solution is status quo. Aksai Chin cannot be taken back and Arunachal Pradesh or any part cannot be bartered. I believe China will be willing, provided some other conditions not directly related to border dispute, are met. These conditions have to be discussed in a comprehensive dialogue held at the highest level. Preparedness to meet any armed aggression is a MUST even if an agreement is reached with China, but jingoism has no place in this process.

3) Arvind K Mathur, an Indian American Military History Buff:

There is an old saying in the military " battles are lost in the minds of generals, not on the battle field". So our IAS officer armchair soldier and some of the others here have a mindset and it is quite clear that it’s a mindset which is that of a loser. These folks are ready to make peace, negotiate and capitulate and bargain and trade and are cowering under the Chinese desire to become the number one superpower in the world. These men are neither warriors nor statesmen, their mind and ideas speak a language of capitulation. Some seem to say - we are going to lose the land anyway so lets just give it up now and "hope" to live in peace afterwards.

The history of the human race is unfortunately different. We are created to defend and fight unto death what we believe to be ours. Ask an Indian farmer if he will give up his land. I think its blasphemous to even think of capitulating on the basis of some concocted analysis that China will be satisfied with the land we give them and then we will live in peace afterwards. Do you remember the idea of panchsheel - it was a great intention right and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The founding fathers won our freedom by making great sacrifices for our impoverished people to remove the yoke of slavery and we are now looking for a new master.

Why do these analysts believe that India is incapable of defending herself against china ? What is it about us that is inferior to the Chinese except of course our mindset. Let us be clear. You cannot appease a competitor who considers the rise of India a threat to its world dominance. Do you think they will be satisfied by getting Tawang? No, they are fearful of the rise of the Indian nation. So the battle is not about the swathes of territory but about a threat by the Indian nation to world dominance by China. They probably consider theselves unfortunate that they have a rising superpower on their doorstep. They will never see their dream come true if India is as important as them right on their border.

So I reject the idea that the Chinese will let us live in peace if we let them have the land that they look for. Note that this land is not important to them they just want it. So its not that if we give it to them they will now say thank you and go about their business - no they will now be emboldened and ask for something else, may be the entire Indian Ocean. So it will never end.

On the other hand - why cannot we test their determination? Let us say - as we are doing - Arunachal is ours as is Tibet and as is Aksaichin and we are determined to fight for it if the need so arise. Let us tell them the entire India will be there forever to fight - after all we too have been around for thousands of years.

Unfortunately too many paper pushers are indulging their fantasy of imagining a way out of avoiding a fight to assert our righful place in the world. America is still fighting to keep its place in the world. To be able to negotiate you should have a partner that should have the same intentions. Unfortunately in the case of wanting to become a world superpower where is the room to negotiate ? Its like saying "I want to become the world power, but because you will negotiate with me I will let you be one too". This is nonsense. The only way to avoid war is to let your opponent know that we have the capacity to retaliate brutally. Now you have a negotiating stance - not by saying - take my land and go away. What kind of negotiation is that. If I were China I would say since you are willing to concede the land I’ll just take it now and I will give you a promise - which I will keep if I want to. Wow what statesmanship.

My advise to all the Babus in North and South block is - dont meddle in Geopolitics - its above your pay grade and there are no files where you can affix your rubber stamp, that you can send to China for approval. You do not know how to wield national power - its not about turf, its about people’s freedom and really we cannot expect our clerks to fight our wars and deal with our enemies in an advisory capacity. Besides we dont need too much bureaucratic and professorial input in the matter. The Chinese threat is real and we need to get up from warming our seats and go about defending the nation.

4) Retired Admiral Arun Prakash, till recently India’s Chief of Naval Staff:

Does no one remember history and the wages of appeasement?
Europe and the UK watched mutely while Hitler gobbled up Saar, Rhineland, Austria and Czech Sudetenland in succession in the name of "Anschluss" or "reunion".
Chamberlain’s famous declaration on return from Munich in 1938, " It is peace for our times...." will go down as the most pathetic last words ever.....
The Allies, by offering short term palliatives only whetted Hitler’s territorial appetite. He then sent his divisions rampaging into the mineral rich and vast spaces of Ukraine & Russia. This time the Germans sought "Lebensraum" or living space..
Totalitarian states have only contempt for appeasers and "reasonable" men of peace.
Let there be no doubt that China is a hegemon which wants to give India another knock to ensure that we know our (N0. 2) place in Asia.
Give away Tawang today and they will demand Arunachal & Ladakh tomorrow.
Far from becoming our friends & allies, they will hold us in contempt & expect us to behave like vassals.
Is that acceptable to a proud, independent and self-respecting nation?
This kind of appeasement will also provide great encouragement to Pakistan and Bangladesh........who have their own requirements of territorial adjustment on grounds of religion or Lebensraum..
Our timid & diffident socio-cultural attitude has led to enough humiliation over centuries of Indian history.
We seek peace and friendship with China, but not at the cost of our honour.
Given a visionary & resolute leadership India can stand up to China and make them back off.
As a nation of one billion talented people let us grow a spine, stand our ground and defy anyone to mess around with our sovereignity.
We have nothing to lose except our trepidation and pusillinamity.

5) Arvind Virmani, author of, "From Unipolar to Tripolar World: Multipolar Transition Paradox,2009":

One simple question needs to be answered first:
Is there any China sponsored global or continental (Asia wide) organisation (economic, social or security related) in which India was invited to be a full fledged founder member? I am not aware of any!

Is it likely to happen? In my judgement it can only happen if and when India’s growth rate exceeds that of China for at least a decade. I have predicted growth reversal by the middle of this decade [see comparative projections in my articles(2004, 2005) or books(2006,2009)]. The change in attitude is therefore unlikely to occur before 2025. However, the decade from 2025 to 2035 is likely to be the period when China is in a position to assert itself vis-a-vis USA in the Taiwan straits and the East China Sea!! This may delay any positive re-evaluation of policy towards India.

If (and whenever) China proposes such an Asia wide (or global) organisation, I would strongly be in favour of using it as a core of and stepping stone for India-China Asian/Global co-operation. Without such a concrete measure, there is a danger of degenerating into hot air, wishful thinking or worse (self delusion)!

6) Dilip K Basu, Professor of History , University of California , Santa Cruz:

Professionally, I am a scholar of Chinese History , have visited the country many times , have friends there.I stopped traveling to China after 1989 Tiananmen Sq massacre. I can claim to have some knowledge of Chinese history and politics. Based on this, I can safely say that I fully agree with the views expressed in the last paragraph which I believe is yours .

7) Retired Major General E D’Souza, PVSM:

My reaction is and has always been NO WAY. I faced the Chinese in1965 at Natu La. To me it is abundantly clear that we would be totally our of our minds to do so. After Tawang what next? Sikkim, Bhutan and areas in Ladakh? What would be our standing in Nepal and Bhutan?
I am convinced that we must stand fast and quietly go on girding our loins as we are now doing. But giving away Tawang -- NEVER. Such an act will embolden Pakistan abetted by China to demand Kashmir.

Lal, a cyber security professional and a student in International relations:

India should not surrender any territories to China in the hope of
having everlasting peace due a fundamental reason: incompatible
ideologies and balance of power.

India follows pluralistic democracy and its executives derive its
strength directly from the people, even Indian communists follow this
mainstream system where they have modified the communist ideologies to fit into a multi party democracy that guarantees the right to
equality, freedom, freedom of religion, cultural and educational
rights and above all the right to constitutional remedies. Indian
democracy is not anywhere near to perfection but it certainly is not
gravitating towards an absolute single party rule guided by Marxist-
Leninist- Maoist thoughts of dictatorship of the proletariat, instead
tries to implement the will of the people who subscribe to a
multitude of ideologies.

This fundamental difference in ideologies between the two nations is
the first obstacle towards a long lasting peace. The people of China
as well as India will consider its form of ideology and the society
thus built from it being superior to the other. Both nations will not
at the core, have respect for each other’s ideologies. These
incompatible ideologies will always try to compete until one replaces
the other. However, an equilibrium can be maintained given both
states are equally strong militarily as well as economically; peace
can be maintained by maintaining this equilibrium. For this to happen
India must bridge the gap it has with China.

Giving away land and accepting Chinese territorial demands will
only show weakness and will not work towards the creation of this
desired balance of power. Once China achieves its territorial goal it
is not logical to assume that peace will follow and China will keep
quite. It will keep pressurizing India to become its satellite and to
accept its suzerainty.

9) Madhav Nalapat, Professor of Geopolitics & UNESCO Peace Chair at the Manipal Academy of Higher Education and a prolific writer on international affairs:

The Chinese are not interested in Tawang, but are using that to ensure
Indian compliance on the "Dalai Issue" -- the matter that is their
deepest concern. Should we make concessions on that, they will agree to the status quo. So our friends are being needlessly generous, when they say that India should give away territory. Generally, that is a bad idea, including in where the Obama team wants India to
surrender, Kashmir.

10) Mohan Guruswamy, China expert and author of the well acclaimed recently published book "Chasing the Dragon:Will India Catch-up with China?":

This is not only out of the box thinking, but also out of the mind thinking! No strategically minded Indian will allow the Chinese sub Himalayan space so near the Brahmaputra valley. The Himalayas are our natural boundary and China must remain on the other side of it.

11) Retired engineer and keen observer of Indian and international developments, Nirmal Choubey:

I do not have time for those who want to surrender even an inch of India’s territory no matter who they are. I wholeheartedly agree with your concluding remarks.

12) A prominent academic figure in the US:

If China had the credibility to form a strategic alliance with India and work collaboratively with Japan and India to create a great Asia as Shri B S Raghavan states, that would be a worthwhile opportunity to consider. However, even in that most optimistic scenario, who do you think would want to be the dominant partner of the three? China does not want to share power with anyone; it resents India’s rise.

In a more realistic or pessimistic scenario, China has proven again and again that it cannot be trusted any further than one can throw it (see the case of Tibet, Taiwan, Arunachal Pradesh, Kashmir, ...). China wants every kilometer of territory that borders it (and then some) -- the implications of that statement are boundless. It will therefore not be satisfied no matter how much land India concedes. It is not interested in collaboration -- only in conquest (preferably without war, but conquest nonetheless). Unfortunately, it does have the military capability to swallow up all the land that currently abuts it. It is a lose-lose proposition with China, unless and until the world (particularly America) realizes that they are enabling a dragon with endless appetite.

He refers to "pursuit of common goals" and "India decides to unfasten itself from the US and makes happy and harmonious relations with China the pivot of its foreign policy" -- what are these common goals with China? Swallow Tibet, disenfranchise the Dalai Lama, take away human freedoms?

Walk away from a strategic partnership with America in favor of better relations with China? No; No, NO! America is not perfect, but between the two, it is infinitely more reliable, and besides its culture of democracy, human freedoms, free press, business, entrepreneurship, etc., etc. is *much* closer to that of India than is China. I think India realizes this, but America has yet to understand that the closest "twin" it has outside of the West is India. The sooner America realizes this, the better for both countries.

13) Lawrence Prabhakar, Professor of Political Science, Madras Christian College and Strategic Affairs Analyst:

Interesting conversation and an even more interesting constructivist argument of Mr B.S.Raghavan on the imperative to surrender territory to China and buy peace from China and hypothetically Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and other states would sue peace with India.

Good in terms of a constructivist argument that goes to say that alliance and adversity go by how the social construction is made. But in a neo-realist foci, what Mr Raghavan proposes is not robustly tenable.

Let me critique the propositions and outline why it is untenable in the strategic sense:

a) By what measure do you sue for peace; is it on concrete power profile terms that is reciprocal of mutual sharing and giving up of territory for a concrete long-lasting political settlement or is it merely the angst from a bully power; By the way what does China give up

b) In the recent history of China "settling its border and boundary disputes" there is not a single instance in which "Peaceful China" has reciprocated on territorial settlements including its strategic partner Russia. By the way Strategic Partner Russia is quite wary of China although it enjoys a thorough commercial relationship with China. Russian officials recently have expressed much concern about China’s military and strategic modernization and Chinese designs on Siberia. The Russian-Chinese friendship or strategic partnership is evident as long a powerful USA lasts.

Well that reality of a powerful USA is on the decline thanks to the "super-smartness" of a green-horn in the White House-- Occupant of the Oval Office-Obama whose "hope" "audacity" and "change" is all but bluster. See the way, the Al-Qaeda ridicules him, the Taliban treat him with contempt and the Iranians are riling at him despite his "peace overtures" with Islam and throwing allies under the bus for the sake of befriending the mullahs of Teheran;

c) So in its templates of sunset, the declining hyper-power with its macro-economic fundamentals hit formidably would not be in a position of managing global stability although the USA would continue to enjoy the public goods of hegemony albeit much diminished.

If thats the position of global stability, you have a rising power China -- assertive and abrasive and one that talks about peace. Please remember no authoritarian power in the ancient or contemporary period would ever prefer peace when it is on the ascendent rise; Peace among democracies are possible and workable when they trade on strong economic salients

But never has there been an authoritarian power willing for peace on pacific terms; so the proposition that once India gives up territory to China would lead to peace is untenable

This raises a second issue; once India cedes territory for the sake of peace; what prevents Pakistan from not raking up its unresolved agenda -- in fact ceding territory to China opens up the Pandora’s Box;

Why should China accept a peaceful coexistence with India once its territories are recovered? Looking at their attitudes is a recent one that "an independent think-tank had posted that China wants India to be cut into several pieces"

The inference into core of the argument is not simply Indian territory; but India’s subordination to a Chinese hierarchical order.

As China perceives that its rise and zenith would be the inevitable reality of the 21st century for a foreseeable future; China prefers a subdued immediate, intermediate and extended neighbourhood so that the "Middle Kingdom" could pacify and extend its writ -- extracting resources and dumping its goods into a pliable geo-economic and subdued neighbourhood.

Lets look at the domino effect; once India succumbs, then ASEAN would be a simple pushover on the South China Sea disputes; that leaves a jittery Japan that either stiffens up with its "normal" military power exercising its nuclear and missile options. It also exposes Russia into new strategic uncertainities and with the Siberian question it brings several catalclysmic changes in the geopolitical order;

China then expands to an assertion with the Euro-Atlantic power with the demand that they share a duopoly--an uneasy one;

With nuclear deterrence and space warfare on the anvil, China would simply sweep the Asian landmass with no deterrent power until it reaches the Greater Middle East and the Eurasian landmass.

These are some heady geopolitical shifts anticipated.

Let me state, China would not attack India as long as India has the conventional, land-air and naval forces in formidable order of battle and of course keeping a robust nuclear posture that is offensive. This includes a robust thermonuclear deterrent--one that is TESTED and deployed. Nuclear Deterrence and that too with a offensive accent alone can deter China.

Keep this Obama Nobel Peace Prize nuclear disarmament rhetoric for the sake of debates and conferences, China does not stand for any disarmament because their rhetoric and realities are galaxies apart.

Robust economic growth, robust conventional and nuclear deterrence with a solid escalatory ladder that impresses the CCCCP and CMC in Beijing should be unmistakeable.

With these if we negotiate a Treaty of Peace and Friendship NOT ON THE BASIS OF TERRITORY CEDING BUT ON THE BASIS OF ROBUST DEFENCE AND DETERRENCE THEN WE CAN HAVE PEACE WITH CHINA AND THE REST OF THE WORLD.

Russia is a good power from whom you can reliably procure SELECTIVE (NOT ALL) military hardware and trade with them. The Russians are no good strategic partners, because like the French they are good strategic opportunists.

If their resource-rich territory in Siberia is threatened, then India is a critical partner, if not they do not hesitate to carry on with the Chinese since the Chinese trade is more lucrative.

So lets not go by these "constructivist" notions of peace, as an academic I am impressed by these theories since I teach and research on them, but as a policy practice they are good hypothesis that lacks credibility.

Even if we go by the formula of reciprocity and exchanges, as pointed by Mr B.S.Raghavan, what worked with Russia would not work with India and China since there is steep power asymmetry. As world-class practicioners of power, China goes by the principle of power peers and not power asymmetry.

India needs to augment a long way for a decisive strategic culture; a clear elucidation of it is comprehensive national power and an assertive economic and strategic power with a focused objective.

Lets not be bedraggled by notions of peace on rhetoric but let intents-capabilities and operations and decisiveness show the Chinese and the rest of the world that India treads a path of peace built from strength, stability and sovereignty that is bolstered by resolve and backed by strategic sense.

14) A retired Vice Admiral in the Indian navy:

Surrender is never a solution to a problem. It only creates more problems by whetting the appetite of the victor. If we are under the impression that China or Pakistan, for that matter, is going to stop at Arunachal Pradesh or Kashmir, we are surely living in a fool’s paradise. We have to fight for what we believe is right, by history and by tradition. If we lose the battle, so be it. But please do not give up something which you genuinely believe is yours without battling to keep it yours. Thereby you establish a precedent for future, for history.

15) Paresh Patel, President and CEO of a software company with offices in the US and in India:

I’ve been passively reading your emails for more than 4 years and this email has prompted me to reply. No, India shouldn’t give an inch to China and instead lay sovereign claim to Arunachal and other disputed territory and make a lot of noise about it. The analogy is like a school ground bully that asks for a dollar and in order to pacify the person, you give twenty five cents. A little later the bully will inevitably come back and ask for another two dollars! You can neither pacify a bully nor "buy" peace. India gave back gained land to Pakistan after the war of 1971...did it help forge peace?

16) Pramitpal Chaudhuri, Prominent journalist and Foreign Editor, Hindustan Times:

The basic flaw in Mr Raghavan’s thesis is that it assumes that it is only the border dispute that is getting in the way of a sino-indian rapprochement.
Having met dozens of Chinese officials, journalists, diplomats and foreign policy analysts over the years I think it is safe to say that China has not the slightest interest in partnering with India on the geopolitical front. This is seconded by Chinese experts from a half dozen other countries, all of whom say that when the Chinese speak of India to them they only scoff. President Narayanan when he met Jiang Zemin told us how he was bluntly told by the Chinese leader, "we are your superior in everything except software. that surprised us. but I think it is only because of your knowledge of English."
China’s view is that Indians delude themselves when they think of themselves as being in the same league as China. the Chinese believe the US is their only peer and seek to be treated as an equal by Washington -- one of the reasons they were baffled by the US’s decision to assist India with the nuclear deal.
I ’ve also noticed that the Chinese rarely mention the border dispute. They see it as an Indian obsession and have always said "let’s ignore the border and move on to other things." The only gesture they would appreciate would be for India to hand over the Dalai Lama in a cage.
This doesn’t mean India and China cannot and should not work out a modus vivendi. but India would have to earn China’s respect, most notably on the economic front, before Beijing would be interested in treating India as a geopolitical partner. A Chinese business student told his Indian hosts on a recent visit, "your capital is no better than a second tier Chinese city." For his government, India is no better than a second tier country.

17) Retired Col. Rakesh Prasad Chaturvedi:

Following issues have probably been overlooked by Shri BS Raghavan in recommending a ’soft’ trading of territory for peace.
Historically this approach has NEVER been successful anywhere.
Any such ’barter’ has to be ratified by Parliament and can not be a PM show.........."fly down to China, and see this through" sort of an approach, mentioned in the article, will simply be too bollywood oriented. PM can’t just cede territory on his whims.
Incidently, McMahon Line remains unratified by China. AND that is the stage it has been stuck. They dont acknowledge it, forget sanctifying it. So having them take this as per the ibid line, as suggested by the author will not work. (By same logic, would we hand over J&K, parts of UP etc, to buy peace with Pakistan?).
China respects strength. Period. Our forward postures in Arunachal have deterred ingress. And if it was not for our indiferrent political masters, we would have a far better infrastructure there, to match Chinese preparation in Tibet. Unfortunately our administrators and policy makers don’t come through as a cogent strong willed lot. Tibet has all but been given away on the logic Mr Raghavan is now propunding. And to what effect?
Our conflict in the foreseeable future will be on Economic Area of Influence. Territory (like Tibet/ Arunachal(?) is just an ’outposts’ deployment for the mainland, where 80% of population lives. (in that 20% Chinese land mass). Strategic depth so to say. AND given its aims to be a WORLD POWER, China would like to keep India "in place". Following the suggested modality of handing over territory would ONLY empower them rather than sending us valentine day cards from Beiing.
And ofcourse the author is dreaming really big, to suggest peaceful Sino Japanese alliance. Peking does not forget. And Japanese are not historically their good neighbors. Even in the future, economic constraints only bode tensions between the two.
Frankly, I find the writeup a Cinderella tale.

18) Ramananda Sengupta,Chief Editor of sify.com:

In my humble opinion, apart from the fact that ceding any territory to China will be political suicide for any government in India, such a step would also give China, and Pakistan, the confidence to demand more.

If in return for Tawang, China agrees to force Pakistan to return occupied Kashmir, including the territory ceded to China, then it might be worth negotiating.

Just ceding land in the hope that China will drop claims to other areas would be strategically stupid.

19) Sreeram Chaulia, Associate Professor of World Politics at the OP Jindal Global University in Sonipat, Haryana:

Thanks for forwarding this with your own remarks. What Raghavan misses in his lopsided analysis is the nuclear deterrent we possess in the event of a full scale Chinese invasion of Arunachal. Beijing will never dare a repeat of 1962 after knowing we have nuclear bombs of up to 200 kilotons. If you noticed, Kakodkar’s claim of reaching 200 KTs capacity was critically covered in the Chinese mouthpiece, Global Times. Although we currently have a no first use doctrine, it should not rule out the basic usage of nukes against conventionally superior enemies who commit aggression. This is fundamentally what Vajpayee meant when he justified Pokhran II by juxtaposing it with nuclear armed China. I’m afraid Raghavan is building castles in the air by assuming China can just walk in and take Tawang without costs. What he should be talking about and we all should pay attention to is whether our nuclear arsenal meets the shifting definition of a credible deterrent. Brahma Chellaney has been correctly arguing that this is the most critical defence we have in light of the growing military gap with China. It is pointless to debate the inevitability of losing Tawang when it is not actually inevitable. These intellectuals you are citing are setting up straw men to peddle illogical visions of the future such as a Sino-Indian peace that would corner Pakistan. In fact, scholars like John Garver have shown through elaborate research that Pakistan is China’s all weather partner which Beijing will never ever sacrifice, least of all for friendship with an India that shelters the Tibetan movement. Maybe the next round of appeasement for some Indian thinkers after voluntarily handing over Tawang would be to handcuff the Dalai Lama and hand him over to Beijing??!!

20) D V Sridharan, environmentalist. pointreturn.org:

Why are there no equivalents of Raghavans in China?

Why does no Chinese commentator argue along the following lines?
a)- imagine what a solid phalanx China and India would make in the world order
b)- Clearly China desires to be no.1 more than India does
c)- therefore, why should China not close the border issue with India
by conceding all disputed territories to India?
d)- that would leave China to pursue its greater ambition with a
placid, unambitious neighbour.

21) Sumeet Chhibber, an independent analyst in the US:

This is a very simplistic proposal, and almost absurd. The author reflects a very shallow understanding of China’s calculations. China has settled every one of its border disputes except for India. China recognized the McMahon line in toto with Burma, but not with India. Tawang is not the real issue - the real issue is that of Tibet, and China’s suspicions about India’s motives over Tibet. Tawang has become an issue only because the next Dalai Lama could be picked from there, and China is worried about losing control over who the next Dalai Lama will be.

Have the Chinese indicated that the border dispute boils down to the ownership of Tawang? No!

And why would China abandon Pakistan? Just because a retired IAS officer thinks so?

22) Retired Brig. Suresh Nair is an infantry man who has intimate knowledge of India’s armed forces’ capabilities against China and the terrain on the borders. He has also served at Army HQ in the Military Operations Dte, Perspective Planning Dte and in Integrated Defence Staff HQ -- all involving short and long term planning. In particular, he has dealt with China in the Perspective Planning Dte. His assessment:

Very interesting views indeed. I have some distinctly different thoughts, though some what akin to yours, but with another rationale. It may sound silly, but it is my conviction.

Land and territories in my vew are not major consideraions for China in its attitude with India. China has enough territory for its even huge population, grabbing another few sq kms will not give any major gains. If it was so why did they withdraw in 62?

Taiwan now and Hongkong earlier were different, it’s the question of ideology and principles. So what are the Chinese up to as far as India is concerned? A million dollar question, which eludes the right explanation. Here I am with you, it is the question of superiority. It will not brook any resistance to that. So whether India ’concedes’ territory or not, in my opinion, will make no difference to the relationship as we have to see the grand strategy behind the Chinese moves. Territory is just a pressure point to be applied at their convenience.

So while India must be reasonable like any other democratic and mature nation in discussing border problems with China, we do not have to be subservient or rigid. Negotiations are two sided, we gain some we lose some. We could test the Chinese waters to understand the likely end state that they desire.

But the bottom line is that we have little choice than being fully prepared for all eventualities, we can only get a better bargain from a position of strength and not from weakness. As long as the mighty Himalayas lie between India and China (God made geography but once), it will never be cake walk for the Chinese, if India is prepared to slog it out. They can line up the entire PLA but unfortunately the gates are small in the mighty mountains and entry will be restricted. Of course that is just a simplistic way (in lighter vein) of putting it. Chinese are well aware of that too and being the wise men from the land of Sun Tzu are unlikely to get into any tangle which they are not sure of.

So let India be pragmatic as far as China is concerned, we do not want and should not create any hostilities. We do not desire to have any military conflict with China. But we must stand up for what we consider right and in our National interests without being meek. We must do all it takes to achieve that.

23) T V Parasuram, veteran journalist and retired Indian Express and Press Trust of India Special Correspondent in Washington DC and former Indian Army Observer with 26 Div.:

I think that those who think India can enter into a "golden era" of friendship with China by surrendering more Indian territory to China ought to read Chinese history. I took courses at Harvard on China and what I learnt there, on the basis of Chinese history books not taught in India, that to the Chinese, all non-Chinese are "barbarians." They simply do not regard Indians as their equals.

Another thing about China: When a foreign potentate visited China, according to custom, he would give a present to the Emperor and receive a gift in return. However, the way the Chinese historian wrote about it and filed it in secret archives was that the foreign ruler "paid a tribute" to the Chinese emperor and the son of heaven in return gave the visitor a gift.

By using the word "tribute," the Chinese rulers secretly claimed the territory of the visitor as part of the Chinese empire--a claim to be enforced when China became stronger and the territory of the ruler who thought he was giving and receiving gifts in Beijing.

Unlike India which historically has been multilingual, multicultural and multi-religious, the Chinese believe that their way is not only superior but also the only one for a "civilized person" to live by.

I would like those who talk of a "golden age" of Sino-Indian friendship to remember the days of "Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai." Nehru died a broken man for believing in it. He realized he should have been wiser to say "Hindi-Chini Bye Bye" instead of saying Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai." As a journalist, I covered many events including Chou en-Lai’s visit to India when the "bhai bhai"slogans were raised throughout the land.

If we are wise, we would ensure that India is not in any way second rate compared to China in military and economic power as well as national cohesion.

Can’t one see that China is doing its best to isolate India from her neighbors and establishing anti-Indian alliances and bases to isolate India?

The golden age for India will be to have solid relations with other threatened powers like the United States, Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam and Australia in addition to the British and other European democracies, and further strengthening relations with Russia.

24) Vijendran Rao, a retired senior scientist aged 75 , who has live through the freedom movement and the aftermath of independence:

People and particularly the politicians have a very short memory. I am surprised a retired IAS officer would talk like this. At least he should remember the days of Hindi-Chini bhai bhai. How China stabbed India in the back for all the promotions India did for it at that time when the western nations had just boycotted the Chinese.

China cannot be dealt with on ordinary terms. It has always been devious and cunning. See its collusion with Pakistan in every matter which can some day hurt India badly - military, atomic/missile technologies, construction of strategic ports and border roads, etc.

Indian politicians and bureaucrats need to take lessons in Chanakya’s Arthasastra in covert and overt diplomacy and strategy in foreign policy. Following the techniques they learn or learnt from the western institutions and countries will not help in dealing with China.

The current joke going the round here is ’What Russia could not achieve with Communism, China will achieve with Capitalism - in strangling the West’. China knows how to use your own innovations to devour you.

Making concessions to China is like ’inviting a dragon with a cup of tea for a chat.

25) Retired Air Marshal Vinod Patney, who was AOC-in-C of Western Air Command during the Kargil operations and Vice Chief of Air Staff in 2001:

The idea of ceding territory to China is quite ludicrous. There is something known as sovereignity. We are not really powerless to tackle China.

26) Arun Sinha, an observer of the India-China scene:

Yes China is militarily stronger than India. However, we cannot negotiate, or appease, from a position of weakness. Even a bully avoids a ’weaker’ individual who is brave enough not to give in and is ready to at least give a bloody nose while being beaten to a pulp. Shri Raghavan’s phrase, "India shd be mentally prepared for some territorial sacrifice to buy peace and harmony", reminds one of Chamberlain’s famous words of 1938 after he appeased Hitler with part of Czechoslovakia

We have to develop Agni V, and upgrade our conventional military
hardware. But then voluntarily ceding Tawang to China will give it a
greater fillip and reinforce the current perception that India is ’soft’. By having China forcibly take Tawang we will lose face. But we will also lose face by voluntarily ceding Tawang. China is only waiting for us to blink first without the need for firing a shot.

Perhaps I am being idealistic. Our political leaders are busy with their own games.

27) Ashok Kapur, Distinguished Professor Emeritus in Political Science, University of Waterloo in Canada:

I am disappointed that you should present such a defeatist option. Why not give Kashmir to Pakistan, Arunachal Pradesh to China, divide India up into small city states like the days of British India, and make Sonia Gandhi the new Italian queen of India like queen Victoria. And what will dear Ram do in such an arrangement? You are playing China’s game of psychological warfare. What makes you think that China can take territory forcefully. remember that PRC has internal problems which is inherent in the internal power struggle leading to the post Hu succession by 2012. I wish you could devote some time to study of Chinese internal developments and the big problem they have in their approach to India and her neighbours.The article you sent is mere propaganda.

[Just for the record, it’s not really my view that Professor Kapur is attacking since in the penultimate two paragraphs of my dispatch, I had clearly dissociated myself from that view].

28) Suresh Khanna, a physician practising in the US, interested in political issues and fund raising for education in India:

I do agree with you Mr Narayanan, China will run all over India once we start thinking about settling territorial disputes just by yielding to their temper tantrums. India should build their armed forces along the border and all the political parties should join hands in strengthining the country. Beware of Communist parties.

29) Dharmendra Nimavat, a Professor of Medicine in the US who keenly follows Indian and world affairs:

I strongly believe that Our National territory must be protected at any cost, and there should be no second thoughts.

How you protect yourself is your problem no one can teach you or tell you? China, we know them very closely, no matter how much they have advanced we MUST NOT SURRENDER to them. If you start thinking of giving your motherland to anyone, an inch or even less, is considered as if you have lost (surrendered) it mentally and psychologically. There is no answer but strengthening yourself in all the fields and once you do that automatically everything will fall in place.

Look at the Israel and you will find an answer. Why are we not striving for superpower [status] as China? Why America is considered a superpower? You need to develop your defense compared to them so that no one dares raise a finger at you!!!

Rashtra-Bhakti is lacking and we are becoming "vyapari" -- if I give this thing to you, what will you give me in return? If you are true "Bharatiya" this idea should not come to your mind. Till the last drop of our blood no one can dare to take away an inch of our motherland!!, This spirit is lacking, since we became "materialistic" -- we value every single thing around money and "Bhautik suvidha"

Why did we not attack Pakistan when terrorists struck at parliament during Vajpayee government? BJP has no teeth and "Rastra-Bhakti" is at question. BJP wanted to stay in power and they did calculation and found it to have more benefit by not going to war!! This is one more example of "vyaparikaran" of our ideology.

Why are we not developing infrastructure in border states? Why are we worried too much about others as to what they will think? Did they think of you when they developed super-fast rail-road and developed infrastructure in their border state?

If you are not strong no one can make you strong!!! We have forgotten our past or we have been made to forget it (by westerners), we started worrying too much when it comes to war and conflict.

This is a part of life and accept the fact that people of India have to defend our motherland.

Our culture is changing so fast that no one even cares about these issues anymore!!! They have no time for this kind of activity because they are busy making money and becoming westerners at a rapid pace.

Mumbai example is very recent and we have seen how people have forgotten the massacre. People and the government are losing the "values", since no one is teaching them anywhere including at school and through the family!!!!

God Bless India and its territory. I have no faith and hope in current political parties or the government. You need steel nerves and titanium body to become like Sardar Patel !!!!!

30) Durga C. Sharma, retired Professor of Delhi University, now shuttling between USA and India spending time in social work:

Nehru in his farsightedness did exactly the same -- Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai and surrendered Tibet willingly to appease the Chinese dragon.
Territory is not important for China. It is being used as a leverage to keep India down. India should be a vassal state like N. Korea, Mongolia and give up Dalai Lama. That may satisfy China. Alternatively militarily strong India may deter the dragon.

31) Retired Brig. Gurmeet Kanwal, defence analyst who is currently Director, CLAWS (Centre for Land Warfare Studies), New Delhi ):

He wants to cede Tawang to the Chinese! How about Delhi?

32) Abhay who runs a successful brokerage business in the US and is a shrewd observer of Indian affairs:

Have any of these guys read "Arthashastra" by Chanakya the advisor to the first emperor of India, Chandragupta Maurya? The Mauryan empire began 150 yrs before the Chinese empire was established. Chankya put circles around Mauryan empire. The nations closest to the circle nearest to India were enemies. The nations on the circle no 2 closest from India were recognised as friendly nations. This theory teaches us that any border settlement with China and Pakistan will be fruitless and these two nations eventually will swallow all of India with new demands on Indian territory as jihadis in Pakistan are doing.
The emphasis should be on how soon we can recover AKSHAI CHIN and KASHMIR from the illegal occupation of these two enemy neighbors.

33) An expert on hedge fund business as a macro thinker with a Ph.D in physical sciences, yet a keen student of Indian history put in context of geostrategic thinking, says:

It was sad and utterly disturbing to read these well-meaning people suggest that India should appease China by ceding territory. But that is so typical Indian. People wish so hard for peace that they are willing to buy peace by giving whatever any aggressor wants, the thinking being if you just give them what they want, they will leave us alone. This is what Nehru thought when he agreed to the partition.
This has gone on for 1,000 years and nothing seems to change this thinking despite the history from Ghazni to British.

34) Dinesh, a technology entrepreneur in the US:

Amazing work of compilation of opinions from various top leaders and persons of great experiences and no hidden agenda.

I have extended my thoughts on India-China relationship on many occasions before. And I continue to say that India needs to do what’s in India’s long term interests and only thing India needs to worry about is self interest, nothing more nothing less. If ceding some territory which British annexed long time ago and handed over to us, and we neglect that territory and its habitants, do we really have a moral right to keep it? Shri Raghavan has provided a workable solution and if Chinese agree to that (which may be quite a difficult task), I think the rest will fall in line whether Japan, Russia, ASEAN, US or Europe. Pakistan does not even count, really.

And I agree with Shri Raghavan that this cannot be done by groups of officials who are only empowered in name. This can only be done by an Indian PM with his/her counterpart of China. And we need to approach it with magnanimity coming from strength and not weakness. Like Bharat Ratna APJ Abdul Kalam often quotes “Strength only respects strength”.

I personally am convinced that a friendly China is in our interest economically, strategically, and in all which ways; as it is a neighboring power with many thousand KMs of border with us. US, Japan, Europe and Russia are distant powers, who will leave India any time they feel like. We need to create an Asian Century or association with China like what Charles DeGaulle created one with Germany in the form of EU and now peace prevails for 65 years in that fighting piece of land for the first time in its known history.
Finally if India and China can get together all others will fall in line is the dictum easy to follow and I believe in it.

35) Ted Raman, who describes himself as an "ardent Silicon Valley Indophile":

I like Shri Raghavan's idea, Pragmatic idea
a) India, as it is, cannot deal effectively even with Pak
b) India has no friends to count if trouble starts with China or Pak. It has even less friends now than 20 years ago and after 20 years even less. China will see to it that its proxy Pak will dog India, and get what it wants without moving a finger
c) I have talked to some army folks about Arunachal. The people there are referred to as Chini even by Indians. And they dont care if they are with India. India cannot take care of its own, as it is.
d) Pak ceded territory 50 years ago has benefitted tremendously
e) If India acts now, it has a chance to save the western front..
f) India is sinking billions in arms, without an end to the tunnel.
At this rate there is no catching up even with Pak.
g) On the other hand a deal with Bejing would normalise the eastern front. We have done this to Bangladesh. Even ceded territory.

In addition,
Making peace with China will kill two birds.
One it will ensure an era of peace in the East.
Two. It will make Pak cool its behaviour.

I think it is a master stroke of genius, some good news India badly needs.

36) Retired Rear Admiral Mohan Raman, a keen student of global and South Asian regional affairs:

1. a) I think that India (like most of the world) does not count for much in China’s perception as it correctly considers itself far ahead in every sphere. China’s objective is parity with the USA, and the goal is within its reach. In this campaign China will try and tame Taiwan, and (later) Japan first, and see how America reacts.
b) As an extension of this, China would consider that it does not need Indian partnership for a glorious future. In its view, it is for India to decide whether it needs China’s support for its own future.
c) The price for such support would be an acknowlegement, in private and public, of China’s leadership. A trade-off in territory will not be required. Why? Firstly, trade-offs imply arrangements between equals. Second, the Chinese claim on Tawang is not serious, as it is based on religion -- an aspect of human heritage on which China places no value. Finally, the Dalai Lama in question is an earlier event in history than Gurkha rule over Himalayan foothills -- so you can see where that path may go!
d) Should India fall in with China’s view, we may even see an acceptance of the MacMahon Line, as an act of charity, as it were. Remember that China accepted this line as the boundary between itself and Burma, following the Burmese acknowlegement of Chinese supremacy.
e) The price of such acceptance would most likely be increased economic supremacy, as in the case of Burma -- and increasingly so in the case of Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Central Asia, Africa, USA, South America, etc.
2. Come to think of it, Chinese influence over India’s economy has grown fast in the last decade. I think that when this becomes irreversible over the next decade, paragraph 1(c) would have to be met by India. Paragraph (d) would follow. Our problem would be to judge:
a) Whether a state of Indian economic dependence on China should be permitted to develop, given that the rest of the world seems to be resigned to it.
b) How to package and present this forecast to the Indian electorate.
3. Given the trouble that arose when a small stretch of land was leased to Bangladesh to access Teen Bigha enclave, there is no chance whatever that any territorial adjustments made by any Indian Goverment with any neighbour would be accepted in the country. Kite flying sans reality checks will not become implementable ’out of the box’ ideas.

This ends PART 1 of this TWO PART series. Please wait until you have had a chance to read PART 2 TOMORROW before you offer your comments.

Will post the next one as it comes in.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Feb 2010 09:08

^^^

Thanks Ramanaji,

Glad to see so many "influential" opinions that validate our perceptions on PRC and preferred approach to deter PRC.

I think we have few weak links in Indian social body that needs immediate correction before the next-gen in India is overwhelmed by our enemies

1. Media - Media should be brought under progressive nationalistic visionary houses. Today, all major media houses are influenced/managed by non-Indian interests.

2. Political leadership - Our political leadership doesn't have any vision, while it is good that they are not under direct management of non-Indian interests, yet. They need to develop India-centric vision irrespective of their political philosophy(left-centre-right / federal-regional / democracy-communist-religious etc).

3. Intelligencia - The education system should be overhauled to present the history/phylosophy/heritage/culture as is, truth and nothing but truth only. Let the future generations make their own impressions of India that is Bharat.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 13 Feb 2010 09:15

Ramana,

Thanks.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 13 Feb 2010 10:25

Amazing and scary that we have so many Raghavans in this country

lakshmikanth · Post by **lakshmikanth** » 13 Feb 2010 11:34

TOILet welcomes the new king of the dynasty, and their new master whom they GUBO to

I guess India is not a democracy anymore. Ohh god, deliver us from this mediocrity!

Ohh and here is the irony in the whole article:

At a lunch hosted by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh the next day, the topic of discussion among chief ministers, who were in Delhi for an internal security conference, was Rahul's Mumbai raid. Apart from Congress chief ministers like Sheila Dikshit and Ashok Chavan, also at the table was Bihar CM, Nitish Kumar. Each spoke of the drama and his daring, but what they were really seeking to grapple with was Rahul's unpredictable idiom of political discourse.

It's a thing that they have been trying to unravel for a while now - actually, ever since his famous anti-dynasty statement of 2008: "It is undemocratic that the Congress is still led by a Gandhi. But it's the reality... My position gives me certain privileges . It is a fact of life in India that success in politics depends on who you know or are related to. I want to change the system."

What was this man saying, wondered politicians. How could Rahul Gandhi, the man who will be king by virtue of being born into the Nehru-Gandhi family, attack the very basis of his political legitimacy? Says a senior Congress leader who has known the family for many years: "Yes, the statement does seem strange, unless you take it at face value - that Rahul really finds dynastic rule undemocratic (which it is), but at the same time recognises that it's a fact in India. After all, dynastic rule doesn't happen just because a family wants it, which they undoubtedly do, but because a people reposes faith in a dynasty." {what a bunch of gibberish trash is this???}

"Rahul Gandhi appears to recognise this, but more importantly, wants to change it. Whether he will actually do so, one cannot say, but the impulse is modern and the sentiment good for our democracy. It also betrays enormous confidence, which is something few opposition leaders can fully comprehend."

Well I hope the young emperor does some good for the country. I can only do so much as hope

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 13 Feb 2010 12:03

I have no problem with dynasty.. Seriously, it can work.
This particular dynasty however is one under which India
- Lost huge tracts of territory
- Massive sep movements out of divisions germinated for votes
- Rotten economic policies which have kept us where are
- Totally colonial mindset (to two colonialists that ruled India) due to which we are always in a weak position when dealing with ROW
- Subverting democracy in a gazillion ways - emergancy, puppet media and judiciary, potential EVM etc etc

There are many more but one associates this dynasty with a lot of negatives. The trend is really screwed up and this dynasty is more concerned with being in power than doing the country any good

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 13 Feb 2010 16:52

The current Rahul Baba publicity blitz reminds one of Advani's indecent haste to get himself declared the BJP's PM candidate, before the Modi wave became unstoppable.

Now we have Chidambaram, who is clearly vastly more qualified than Rahul Baba, and there has been talk of Chidambaram succeeding MMS. It appears that the powers that be have decided to launch this publicity campaign for Rahul Baba, to nip in the bud any talk about Chidambaram.

Chidambaram would do well to recall how non-Gandhis like Lal Bahadur Shastri, Pilot and Scindia met with sticky ends.

Advani could not pull off his stunt by pre-empting Modi. But with the EVM binaries firmly in the grip of a US company, I don't think Rahul Baba will have a problem.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Feb 2010 06:25

Here goes the SECOND set of responses (nos. 37 through 70) received as feedback to Shri B S Raghavan’s proposal to cede territory to establish peace with China. PART 1 containing responses 1 through 36 was distributed yesterday.

37) Retired Vice Admiral Premvir Das, a former Director General Defence Planning Staff:

The presumption that India should hand over territory, read Tawang, (the Chinese already hold everything else) before the Chinese take it over forcibly is so utterly defeatist! It assumes that we will not be able to beat the Chinese when even much poorly equipped Vietnam did this so easily back in 1978. The Chinese are not unaware of our capabilities, even if these are not what we would want them to be. This is not to suggest that we should be confrontationist with China. Our two countries are going to be major Asian, even Global, players in the years to come and will learn to live together just as USA and USSR did despite all their ’idealogical’ differences. We must cooperate where it suits our interests viz. WTO, Climate Change et al but must be able to differ as well. The thesis that Russia, China and India will make for one big happy joint family which will also neutralize Pakistan ignores Chanakya’s maxim that neighbours should be handled cautiously just as the neighbour’s neighbour must be cultivated. Russia and China are neighbours but Russia and India are not. Just a thought for Mr Raghavan.

38) C V Ranganathan is a former ambassador of India to China:

Thank you as usual for sharing the debate on the India-China border initiated by Shri B.S.Raghavan, a figure I respect greatly. I am perhaps in a minority of one who believes that while the border question is very important to solve it is not very urgent given the impasse in negotiations. Secondly those who believe that China will take what it wants by force at a future date are Indo pessimists who grossly underestimate the capabilities of our armed forces. 2010 is not 1962. Chinese are fully aware of this. While there is no doubt there is an asymmetry between Indian and Chinese capabilities I am not convinced that capabilities translate into intentions. Lastly while there is no doubt that very good relations between Russia, Japan, ASEAN et al. with India are very necessary and reinforce India’s all round interests which include bettering relations with China, these relations cannot result in any exclusiveness or develop in ways which are aimed or even perceived as being anti-US.

39) Retired Major General Sheru Thapliyal:

1.We have no coherent and well thought out China policy in place.
2.Our politicians and foreign policy establishment are still traumatised by 62 war while the armed forces have got over it.
3.In the fifties we followed a policy of appeasement of China with disastrous conquences. Chinese have only contempt for the weak.
Unfortunately we are continuing to follow a policy of appeasement. Some armchair strategists who have never seen a Chinese also
advocate this policy.
4.If you wish to realise your potential of becoming an Asian power,you have to stand up to the Chinese.
5.We need to go proactive.We need to ask the Chinese to vacate Aksai Chin. Our claim line there should be the international border
which was handed over to us by the British.
6.I had written an article on the strategic importance of Tawang. I shall forrward it to you. Those who advocate that it can be given to
China have no idea what they are talking about.

40) A former ambassador of India to the US:

Wishful thinking is no substitute for right strategy. Assumptions about China need to be carefully analysed. Gestures and concessions are mostly taken as signs of weakness and nerves. Can we disregard the nuclear-arming of Pakistan by China or the string of pearls strewn adjacent to our coastline? I agree that jingoism must be avoided and every effort should be made to enhance trade and cooperation with China, but conceding territory at this juncture will invite only contempt and not goodwill. Today’s India is not the India of 1962. We should not sell ourselves short.

41) Wing Commander Praful Bakshi, former fighter pilot and former Ministry of Defence Spokesman and now Defence and Strategy Analyst; regular commentator on defence matters on various Tv channels, and written media.

Really appreciate your efforts to put forth the whole case so clearly, and your final suggestion, which is loud and clear .
No doubt we at the moment are facing an uphill task in building up our armed forces to the required plans , the things are fast working out in our way . Let me mention at the onset , that wars are won in the minds of the political and military leadership, followed by on the ground . Unfortunately our writers are living in the complexed cocoon of the 1962 debacle. The times are not the same and so is the political leadership, which is fortunately so different from that of Pt Nehru. The armed forces fully realise the requirement of the day and are fully prepared, and it would be so fool hardy of China to take to military alternative , which it tried with Vietnam , and got a bloody nose in the bargain.
Yes your point is well taken regarding sustained efforts towards defence modernisation which has to be on nothing short of war footing.
However in the mean while India must revise its policy towards Nepal , Bhutan Srilanka and Bangladesh. It must involve them in joint collaboration in the Defence sector, and joint Military exercises. Our Forign policy outlook demands a very innovative and revolutionary approach, as China is making a conciderable headway in this direction .
Finally India must make sure that National media is fully aware of its approach towards China , to put doubting Thomases at peace.

42) A Madhavan is a retired career diplomat of India:

I hesitate to enter this debate on India and China making up, mainly because my China-watching was done many years ago and I am unable to keep track of the rush of events concerning China’s development as a major power. Still, it is tempting to give utterance to my reaction to the debate, as you have outlined it.
Basically, I agree with you rather than to Sri BS Raghavan, whom I respect but cannot concur with on his assumptions. My belief is that a nation which is at odds with a stronger neighbouring nation should not begin by indicating a mindset hinting at the offer of concessions beforehand to sue for peace and abidng harmony. To do so would only aggravate the disparity between the two countries, inviting the hawks in the other country to press for more concessions.
Secondly, it is fallacious to think that China will be a territorially satisfied power if India gives up Tawang in return for status quo on the Western sector. China has long had the psychology of dominating peripheral countries and chiefdoms by being ’suzerein’ over them and even expecting a yearly tribute. China wants to foreclose the rise of India as an Asian rival and will continue to try and ’encircle’ India by tightening geopolitical bonds with our neighbours, mainly Pakistan, Nepal and Myanmar, with Sri Lanka, Bhutan and others also helping in their own way. Third, the link-up of Russia, China, Japan and India as a kind or New World League of Guardians is like the ’dream team’ which cricket fans like to conjure up. There are too many friction areas among and between these countries to be smoothed out in a grand alliance of Guardians for Eternal Peace. The US may be the sole superpower in a declining phase, but it can last a century or more. The US will have its counter strategy to meet the contingency of being overtaken by China as the predominant global power. Russia could figure in such a scenario, since Russians have a tradition of looking West rather than to China and Japan as the glowing civilisations of the East.
I agree that the border problem with China cannot be resolved without give-and-take. We have to determine for ourselves whether this problem is the consequence of China’s overweening ambition to tolerate no aspirant rival in Asia or the cardinal and determinant issue in Sino-Indian relations. I think the border problem remains irresoluble because neither India nor China can begin by making any territorial concession that cuts into the claim that each has made, citing dubious historical validation. India has inherited the British Raj, China the Chin empire and later acquisitions, including Tibet.

43) Dr.M.M. Reddy is Professor of Pediatrics at UCSD School of Medicine in the US. He is a strong supporter of close Indian/American relations in the long-term security interest of both the nations and the democratic world at large:

First of all let me thank you for keeping us up to date on such important national security issues. I admire your effort to educate all of us in matters that are so important to India’s security.

I do not have enough time to dwell on this at any greater length but let me offer a few thoughts.

There are any number of people who think that by offering Tawang and profusely praising the Chinese communists for their humanitarian service in Tibet, India can buy peace with China. For the propagators of this theory, I only have one comment that is " these guys are not only naive but down right stupid who have no idea how the communist mind set works." As you mentioned, as soon as India starts challenging the Chinese on the economic front, the Chinse will know that their house of cards will start collapsing because India presents an altogether different model of governace that actually succeeds while protecting civil liberties. Chinese will do anything and every thing to sabotage this prospect regardless of the status of the border dispute. Remember Chanakya, who stated that all your bordering neghbours are for all intent and purpose your enemy. So long as Indian strategic thinkers remember this dictom, they will do a great service to India. This does not mean that India should not be friendly with China or Pakistan. What I mean to say is that the very strategic compulsions make it impossible for both these countries to take each other for granted and assume that appeasement itself is a strategy. Unfortunately, India has many characters (such as the communists and some of the authors you just mentioned in this note).

Let me also make a brief comment on the suggestion that China can easily defeat India and forcibly take what it wants. This is another defeatist mind set. Let me remind these brain dead so called strategist if they ever thought about the current events involving the vassel state of Pakistan, essentially bankrupt, with no industrial base and any national governance, which could stop super power America from invading their country using ground forces. So long as Pak has nukes and a population of 170 million, no power on earth can physically occupy any major portion of their country without incurring unacceptable damage. If it is not possible for USA and India to contemplate direct military action, how these guys imagine that the Chinese could think of it even in their stupidest moments to take on a politaclly concious nation of 1 billian people with about half of them being well educated middle class, with world class industrial complex, having nukes and missiles that can reach Beizing and Shanghai, with full support from every civilized nation on earth. Also remember, how nervous were the Chinese when the whole world threatened to boycott the Olympics during the Tibetan uprising? I believe that if a war between India and China were to break out, India must derecognise Chinese sovereignty over the entire autonomous region of Tibet and recognise the Tibeton Govt in exile so that the conflict should be seen by the civilized world as a war of conflicting idealogies and not as a war with conflicting territorial claims. In this senario, His Holiness, the Dalai Lama’s appeal to boycot Chinese goods will translate into economic and diplomatic nightmare for the Chinese communists. I am sure, the west including the US and Russia will happily join the party. In such an eventuality, who do you think are going to support the Chinese? "all the rogue states on the planet including the Paks, the DPRK, Venezuela and perhaps Sudan."

44) Retired Capt M Kumar:

This is a very weak-kneed response howsoever well meaning these people may be.
1.This is no different than Nehru’ folly of giving 20% of Kashmir to Pak and then taking the matters to UNO.
2. Sometime back there was a futile discussion going on in some circles that Britain should have freed India later than 47.
3. It is as shameful as the episode Sharm in Egypt. GOI did not learn any lesson from it and invites Pak to talk which the Paks is claiming by thumping their chest that India blinked 1st.

45) Hemant Shah, a structural engineer in the US with experience in the designing of nuclear power plant structures. He has retired as a consultant. He recently published a book, "9-11 made us think.":

1. It is disgusting to even think of the option of surrendering any territory of a free people of Arunachal Pradesh to China.......India does not have any right to take away the freedom of those people because the rest of the country is full of cowards. Do you guys know that those brave Indian citizens of Arunachal Pradesh have already boycotted Chinese products? The citizens of Arunachal Pradesh are more nationalistic towards India than many others in India, like the naxalites, communists, and so called ’secular’ bunch. They have boycotted Chinese goods, while rest of ’proud’ Indians have not.

2. Lord Krishna never advised Arjuna to surrender because the Kaurav army was much larger....!! Death by fighting for your rights is far superior to a slavish lavish survival. Where has the Hindu doctrine that ’the body is temporary and the soul never dies’ disappeared?
Those guys who advocate the option of giving territory to China are either Communists or pro-Pakistanis, making a decent living in India. I do not believe in cutting an arm of my mother to save my own skin.

3. India was invited to join the Security Council as a permanent member in 1954. But Nehru asked US and UK to invite China instead.Did China support India to join the Security Council? No. It opposes India’s bid for the Security Council. [Ram’s comment: I questioned the authenticity of the statement that "India was invited to join the Security Council as a permanent member in 1954." Hemant was not able to provide a source but insisted on retaining the statement as it is, as his "opinion and understanding."]

4. As we all know...the Tibetans write and speak a language that is directly derived from Sanskrit. They follow the religion of India. Instead of giving any territory to China, India should support the Tibetan freedom movement. Nehru gave away Tibet to China.....did China stop at that?

5. Chinese doctrine is to divide India into many countries. This means that no matter what India does, China will be antagonistic to India.

6. There are predictions in the US that in five years China will disintegrate due to internal strife.

7. I am saddened and surprised that theses ’smart’ IAS officers have no idea that once you give some territory, there will be more and more India will end up giving away. Instead, why did no one suggest that India sign a defense treaty with the US?

Well, last but not least, to promote this kind of thoughts (of dividing India) even for discussion seems like doing a disservice to the cause of India.

46) Hosi Mehta owns an auto repair facility and car wash business in the US. He is President of the Zoroastrian community in the Chicago area:

Are we to do the same with Kashmir? And what if there are other situations in the future? Once a precedent is established it is hard to deviate from it.
I am sure lots of interim steps could be taken in the form of negotiations before either extreme could be reached.

47) A. Adityanjee is a practising psychiatrist in the US. He also is President of the Council of Strategic Affairs, New Delhi:

Shri BS Raghavan joins the swelling ranks of India’s "panda-huggers" and crypto-communists who are willing to sacrifice the supreme national interests for notional gains if any. The article was written by someone who is ideologically driven by pro-China sympathies and definitely an anti-India logic.

His article is another version of the now discredited "Bhai-Bhai" syndrome that afflicted the first Prime Minister of Independent India and still afflicts the likes of N. Ram and company.

There is no evidence to date that China will ever be pleased with some territory. China can not be a friend of India. It is a strategic rival at the worst and a peer competitior at the best! China has clearly spelt out its strategic dreams: balkanization of India. There was a strategic reason that China nuclearized Pakistan and provided it ballistic missiles through North Korea. India sacrificed her strategic interests by giving up the trade missions in Lhasa in the 1950s, by accepting China’s illegal annexation of Tibet, and working towards acceptance of PRC in the P5 of UNSC.

String of pearls is a real, live, growing strategy by China to encircle India. Any one who thinks otherwise is living in a fool’s paradise. Instead of having raptures at the mention of joyous welcome by Russia, and four-some block of India, China, Russia and Japan, Mr. Raghavan needs to seriously work towards clarifying his thought processes and learn to look at geo-strategic scenarios in a more realsitic, logical and less aspirational manner.

India will have to engage China while simultaneously working with other allies to contain its hegemonic ambitions. There is no question of antagonizing US to please China and India has to engage both these nations, independent of each other, for furthering her own national interests. China understands the language of strength. India needs to develop her comprehensive national power to the extent that China starts to respect India out of fear, awe and realistic hard power. Only then India-China border dispute would be resolved.

48) Arvind Amin is a retired businessman living in the US:

We just can’t give up the territory. We need to recover the territory China has occupied. We need to negotiate.

49) Kash Gupta is a chemical engineer and has worked with MNCs in the US. Most recently, he has been assisting pharmaceutical companies in regulatory compliance. He is very much interested in global politics and their impact on USA and India:

India has to gather international support for their cause, and stand up against this bully. China respects strength. They will back off under international pressure.

50) Narasimha Reddy is a retired electrical engineer in the US:

I don’t like to see India concede any territory out of cowardice. China does not want India to become a competitor. Whether we settle the border dispute or not China’s policy will not change. I don’t believe China wants to go to war and occupy land by force at this time. That action will turn many countries against China. India must prepare to defend no matter what happens. Cowardice does not help any one.

India can concede territory one area if China agrees to part with territory in another area of the border. This may be the best way for both. No one loses and no one gains.

I don’t like people saying India can’t fight with China. Those who say so are cowards and I don’t like them.

51) Naresh Mansukhani is a first generation Indian American with (he says) "an extraordinary level of common sense" totally committed to US India friendship:

One can never negotiate from weakness -- period. Negotiate from strength and you will get something done, negotiate from weakness and you will lose every thing .

I completely agree with you. India has to and need to become militarily strong to defend against the two pronged war that we are eventually going to face. (Chi-Pak)

The tactic should be same as Pakistan has towards us. Pakistan threatens us with nuclear weapons and have the ability to follow thru with that threat.

Make China aware of the nuclear threat and have a credible mechanism in place to follow thru with the suggestion. Then sit down to negotiate.

52) The President and CEO of a software company in Silicon Valley:

Shri BS Raghavan comes across to me as a very naive person. None of the by products he talks about after getting the disputes resolved will ever come and constitute of wishful thinking. Like you I travel a lot to China these days and observe the psyche of Chinese and China as you pointed out.

Chinese have nothing to gain by resolving the border disputes - perhaps one time PR on their national TV and on return take the burden of supporting the affected people in the border region. On the other hand, by not resolving the border disputes with India, they would have continuous PR opportunities to threaten and embarrass India. Choice is obvious. If the claimed border was such a national priority for China, they would have resolved a long time back.

Now coming to India: the disputed area presents no big national interest to India unless the area is rich with minerals etc and its people. So whether that land is part of India or not, does not really matter except the pride matter.

I think since it is a dispute, India should try to resolve it for once and all but with the strength. That part of world only understands the strength. Else, India should just completely ignore China on that matter and stay focused on its economic growth and defense. But I do not think China will settle as it is not in their interest. So, India should just ignore it.

China will only attack India in future if something really bad is gone inside China and they would need to divert the attention of its people like in 60s. Given that they would do that in any case and find one or another reason to do.

53) Raja Seth a.k.a. Rajendran S is an engineer and a computer scientist with a outstanding resume. He is now an active entrepreneur looking for mini and micro-ventures, living in both US and India:

Clearly, Raghavan and Hariharan aren’t suggesting they understand the mindset of the Chinese. So, I am afraid their opinion may not be based on a direct perception of the mindset of the Chinese. I have stayed off and on for a year in Hong Kong and China. I would agree with you that it is important to suggest practical solutions based on an understanding of the Chinese mindset as opposed to one that is solely based on logic! The greatest shortcoming of the Chinese is their political legacy, and I am sure it will be their battle to set it right over the next decades to come.

[To my query that "Hariharan is NOT supporting Raghavan’s viewpoint," Raja Seth responded as follows:]

I understand Hariharan does not agree with Raghavan. But neither seems to indicate an understanding of the mindset of the Chinese. Both refer to some sort of a logical approach. That is not bound to do any good as long as there is a non-democratic structure across the border. Only democracies seem to see the benefit of discussions and logical negotiations, even that with some difficulty. Then why would anyone expect a rational behavior from China? India should view China as a tactical friend but a strategic enemy.

54) An operations research guy who has worked for US MNCs, founded an NGO focusing on academic excellence, values and leadership among children in the US and India:

I agree with the red paras at the end of your long email. Experience and history tells us that China wants to set its own agenda and wants the world to buckle under it. China is on a path of unsustainability. Someone projected a $130 trillion GDP by 2040 or something. Did anyone translate that into water, raw material and energy requirements: water, coal, steel, copper, aluminium, crude oil, etc? If this comes to be true, there will be a war for water, resources and energy. May be China wants to divert Brahmaputra to their side! China will not mind taking over Saudi Arabia in 2040 if that is what it takes to fulfill their agenda.

China can never take over India of a billion plus people, unless it comes thru a naxalite movement. Let China defeat India on the North East! May be India will wake up for the second time for good. Indians need a lesson to be united and build their might. India never invaded another country. As long as that motto is maintained, India will survive.

Scholars they are. Alan Greenspan was a scholar too! See what ruin he has caused to the world. Many tend to use hockey stick approach. We need out of the box thinking with foresight much beyond the horizon.

It is a joke that there will be an alignment among Russia, China and Japan. People don’t forget history, especially China. Is China going to forgive Japan and Russia? Is Russia going to forgive China and buckle under Chinese agenda? It is Utopian to think that peace, harmony and love among these neighbors are around the corner.

55) Santosh C. Verma is President of International World Peace Foundation and author of a book, "How to achieve worldwide prosperity and peace".. He says he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize:

I think such a discussion is premature. China is expansionist and ambitious to dominate the world.
USA is concerned too. The entire world is watching how China would unfold as it becomes an economic and super military power.
Therefore, I do not see any reason to debate India-China border issue. It only shows China can go to any length to stop India from becoming a major power house-to play an important role in world affairs. China is a friend of Pakistan and Iran. This has complicated in dealings by USA with these and other countries.

56) Saro Timiri is an IT professional in the US:

Mr Raghavan makes some rather fallacious assumptions :
1) That China is willing to join hands and co-exist with a prosperous India
2) That such an alliance will receive nothing but joyous welcome from Russia
3) That Japan will have no other option but to join the India-China-Russia phalanx
4) That Pakistan will be denied China’s support and encouragement when India and China team up
5) That the President/Prime Minister of the People’s Republic of China and the Prime Minister of India can solve the problem in a single sitting by keeping the big picture before them, by sweeping away the clutter of the past, and by mustering a statesmanlike spirit and a long range vision.
And finally ....
6) That China will be satisfied by a "sliver of a territory" to give up its bigger intentions.

China is an old style great power aspirant and such nations do not brook equals or partners - as you rightly observed in your trips to that country. Their credo is smple - you can have only one "number 1" not two. As a precedent of other old style great powers, the US and Russia being on opposite sides of the planet could have easily shared the world among them and lived in blissful isolation. That did not happen. Both parties worked hard to bring the other down and we all know the rest of the story. So much for assumption # 1.
Given the current and near-future projected capabilities of India and China, even a teamup of the two will not automatically catapult them to No 1 spot. They will be No 2 until they are able to dethrone the US. Now, Russia being the "loser" in the earlier great power struggle, is silently but furiously working to hold it’s "number 2" spot. Seriously, they will NOT welcome any team effort from India-China to usurp second place on their way to the top spot, even if one half of that team (India) is an old friend. Assumption # 2 is a nyet.

Japan is a great power aspirant herself. She joined Britain/France in the first world war in the hope of annexing German territories in East Asia as spoils of war. When the US posed a power challenge in the Pacific, she did not hesitate to take the initiative on
Dec/7/1941. While Hiroshima/Nagasaki temporarily ended the military route for great power, by no means has it been discarded completely. The economic route to great power was pursued to keep Japan as an active player in the world stage as well as build up the resources required for a future military resurgence. Given that intent and their current close ties to the US, Japan is hardly compelled to join any India-China "phalanx". Sayonara assumption # 3.

Even if the India-China team comes to be, China has invested far too much in Pakistan over the past 35 years (since Pokhran 1974) to just pull out the tent pegs and leave. As any great power would and should, China - even in a partnership - would continue to maintain atleast one hedge (Pakistan) against its new partner (India). Al-vida, assumption # 4.

In the old days, kings and emperors would meet and decide the fate of their kingdoms. In a modern democracy, even a beneficial initiative like the Civilian Nuclear Accord had to be debated in Parliament and the PM’s personal impetus to close the deal was frowned upon. Such checks and balances are necessary to prevent wannabe Napoleans. In the case of China, Mr Raghavan unintentionally reveals a very common confusion as to who truly wields power in that country, so he ambigously states "The President/Prime Minister of the People’s Republic of China". The Chinese themselves prefer that ambiguity, as it affords them room to maneouver in international relationships. Given the lack of a "single" power wielder in either country, assumption # 5 does not get my vote.

China’s ambitions are far reaching and wide in scope. A mere offer of Tawang in exchange for peace will not satisfy the enormous appetite of the dragon. Rather it would justify their image of Indians being weak and encourage them to demand more. As you rightly noted, the Munich pact is the only precedent for such a suggestion. Assumption # 6 is not just fallacious, it is downright dangerous !

There is one silent/unmentioned assumption in Mr Raghavan’s proposal - that the US will not do anything to prevent the formation of a team that will challenge it for top spot in a decade or two. Seriously?

57) Achal Garg’s passion is national and international affairs and analyzing current news, though professionally he is a chemist in Ohio State and manages a lab that monitors heavy metals in water:

Thank you for sharing an article of such importance. It is unconscionable to think that India should trade its territory for peace with China. It will not end with a small area in Arunachal Pradesh. Dragon will want more. Is India ready to surrender the whole North-East region to China. And what signal that sends to Pakistan? Should India surrender Kashmir to Pakistan, then Punjab to Khalistan? The list goes on. There won’t be any India if India succumbs to the Chinese pressure. I agree with you that India needs to upgrade it’s forces and prepare itself for two-front war with China and Pakistan at the same time if it wants to survive. Strength is the biggest deterrent.

58) Dinesh Mehta is a social worker in Ahmedabad:

ANSWER IS SIMPLY NO. We have our own status to get Indentified in the WORLD.
Please keep it up and get VALUED.

59) Sharad Bailur is a retired banker and communications specialist in India. He is on the editorial board of Freedom First, a magazine that was started by Minoo Masani. He occasionally writes for magazines and journals in India and abroad:

Interesting construct. Unfortunately I expect India would prefer to go on the basis of whatever experience it has had of China and of the knowledge it has of its mindset. Our experience between 1951 and 1962 was not good despite our perpetual hand of friendship and of "Panchsheel".
I am fairly convinced that China is not interested in territorial gains. But there are a number of things that must be addressed:
1. China has great power mentality. It will only accept India as a vassal or subsidiary, not as an equal friendly partner. Besides we are in no position to demand that kind of equality.
2. In its quest for economic super-powerdom, China is tying up resources all over the world. India is nowhere in the contention. Besides it will be in competition. Why should China tolerate a competitor?
3. While it very well for us to say what a wonderful phalanx of super powers we shall be, have we asked China what it thinks of the idea? China might in fact wish to ally with the US given a choice!!!
The issue of territorial concessions pales in comparison with the strategic issues involved. The Chinese would look upon India as little more than a large neighbourhood dog that is friendly and wags its tail even when India has surrendered the whole of Arunachal,, Aksai Chin and whatever else it demands. One does not form equal partnerships with neighbourhood dogs even if they are big, friendly and nice.

60) Srikant Raghavan is a professor in the US specializing in operation management:

The last time an Indian Prime Minister went "Hindoo Chinee Bhai Bhai" we got invaded by China for no specific reason than to show the world that China can do what they want. I would say, give nothing and be prepared for a fight.

61) Sunil Erraballi is a Silicon Valley entrepreneur:

I agree with you – this idea (territory for peace) is very dangerous. India is no tin pot country for China to walk in. India also has nuclear arms and unlike in 1962 it will use its air force in an event of a Chinese attack.

In addition to building up its defenses, India needs to focus on its economy and continue to unshackle it from the corrupt bureaucracy and reduce the huge infrastructure deficit. In addition education should be given a very high priority – it will help the economy and India will be more productive with an educated populace.

62) V. V. Raman is Emeritus Professor of Physics and Humanities at a US university:

I very much concur with your view, although as a Non-Indian citizen, I have no say in the matter.
But I am appalled that there are Indians who are willing to give in to China’s territorial claims to avoid a Chinese take-over by force and buy China’s presumed support.
India will be (perhaps) the first nation to cede its territory voluntarily to a foreign power for fear of being overcome, although Indians have done that in earlier centuries to the Moguls, the Portuguese, the French, and the British: always to "buy peace and security," but in fact out of a sense of a national sense of impotence.
Whoever makes such suggestions is either naive about China’s long-range hegemonic intentions or surreptitiously/unconsciously colluding with the Chinese, and makes the whole proposition sound so sweet: Become part of a two-winged global power that will dominate the world.
I feel sorry that China’s overwhelming power has reduced some Indians to this state of willingness to surrender to that growing giant which is seeking every chance to dilute India’s power and prestige in the free world.
I should confess that my knowledge of the realities of the situation is zero. The author of that proposal certainly speaks as one who is more informed on the matter. I am only giving my gut reaction as a lover of Indian sovereignty, of one who grew up in India and shouted Jai Hind on August 15, 1947.

63) Tom Bose is active with the Democratic Party in California:

I agree with Ram. You remember the days Chou and Nehru proclaimed India China Bhai bhai. There is no guarantee that future Chinese govts. will agree to the past agreements. It is more important to tackle the Kashmir problem in this manner, NOT giving up any more land. Convincing the average Pakistani, that we have no ulterior motives, we do not need more illiterate people or unusable land. Many there think that Indian moslems are being suffocatd. We ought to broadcast to their people and send in our new papers to prove that Indian Moslem women are highy educated, have freedoms they do not have in Pakistan, and we have reservations for them etc etc. A few I talked to from Pakistan had believed the false propaganda about Indian Moslems, that their leaders have fed into their minds. I do not know many Moslems who would like to move over to Pakistan.

64) Anant Vijay ’Arya Vrata’ Joshi is an American veterinary surgeon of Indian origin and a keen observer of the Indian scene:

This question is like asking, " should I take off my clothes now, bend over in front of the bad guys so they can f.... me peacefully; or should I wait till I get raped anyway?"

Such defeatist questions are based on a false premise that no matter what one does, one is going to get screwed anyway!

Very funny,
Very idiotic,
Very cowardly,
Very Un Indian,

I say, screw this question along with the Chinese! Get prepared!
In a separate email, he says:

He is dismayed at the mismanagement of India, at the negative outlook of some political pundits who think India’s fighting China WILL lead to defeat of India, so let India surrender AP to China, at the fact that India’s MoD has not done anything to help any entity in India to develop even a handgun of world caliber, that India is sorely lagging behind China-Japan-South Korea in per capita GDP while those three nations and India started in very similar economic situations 60 years ago, that India still has the largest number of lepers in the world, that India still has the largest number of communal riots anywhere in the world, that Indians look only at their own ’marks sheet’ if you will and start gloating over their achievements without looking at what others have achieved in the same time frame! I am first and foremost somebody who believes in the great native intellectual strength of Indians, who is proud to have come from the ’Dharma Bhoomi’ of the world, who never shortened his or his childrens’ names to make it easier for business, who criticizes Indian weaknesses ONLY because he LOVES India and wants India to be a great civilization with power and wealth and Dharma again, who got really ticked off and lost patience at the question, "Should India surrender Arunachal Pradesh to China now, peacefully, or let China take it by force later?".

For right or for wrong, Afghan people can fight The Superpowers of the world with home made weapons, and some Indians are cowardly suggesting to hand over Arunachal Pradesh to China without a fight? Shame shame shame on such intellect and punditry!! I am sure most Indians realize that they have fought invaders for millennia, and one more fight, this time with Chinese, especially when India also is a nuclear power, is not to be avoided as a LAST resort to save India’s honor and territorial integrity. Analysis paralysis has to be avoided at all costs by India’s policy makers. Sometimes things are very simple and require simple answers ... China wants India’s land, India simply has to defend herself and fight for her honor and place in the comity of nations. That is the right thing to do, that is the simple answer, no pundits needed!

65) Sumit DasGupta is a computer science specialist:

I am aghast at the notion that a learned scholar believes that China will drop its belligerent tone just by getting Arunachal Pradesh from India. If we succumb so easily, it will then lay claim to Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, the Darjeeling area, etc. If anyone thinks that China will accommodate India in a power sharing agreement is naive at best and dangerous at worst. If China is truly well-meaning, will it back off and let Tibet go its own way? Why not demand to see this latter event occur as proof of intent before anyone in power in India contemplates the idea of forfeiting land, that is real, for peace that at best may be ephemeral.

66) Anand Agarwala is in real estate business in the US, besides being a social worker actively involved in projects in India and the US:

I completely agree with you. I do not think ceding territory to China will satisfy them into pressing Pakistan to behave. We should build our own strength to make Pakistan behave by creating proper alliances, pacts and understandings so China has to think twice before embarking on any adventurism. Trying to buy peace by cutting off your fingers or arm does not even sound like diplomacy. It merely shows our level of strength and weakness.

67) Suresh Chaurishya is a chemical engineer who has worked in environmental profession for 30 years. He has a grip on foreign policy issues:

I believe that China will be able to take what it wants by force, so negotiate to cede Tawang only if we have to, but with assurances that all territorial disputes are then settled, and that China will stop cultivating Pakistan and other neighbors as it’s anti India satellites. How that can be negotiated or guaranteed is the tricky one. Can you just take China’s verbal assurances? Would the Indian capitulation mean China will give up on the Pakistan inspired dream of balkanizing India in to many states, or would China think of snatching Tawang as the first step to severe Indian north east? If India cedes Twang to China, as an insurance India should make some contemporaneous move with the US, Europe, Japan and Russia to make sure that the world signs on in judging future Chinese behaviour at the Indian borders and it’s behaviour in instigating neighbors against India would be judged and responded with united force. China’s rise should be judged by the world with it’s behaviour with India from the day India-China territorial dispute is settled. I am skeptical that China would stop it’s strategic maneuvering against India in Nepal, Burma, Sri Lanka and of course Pakistan. Why would China allow India to develop as an Asian economic rival as it would perceive India to be? Is settling border dispute that important to China when it thinks/knows that it can take even more territory (whole of Arunachal Pradesh) by force, and humiliate India and further degrade India’s strategic significance? Would China call the geopolitical chess game with India almost a draw from a certain winning position of tearing up north east of India? China has ambition of setting up bases in Pakistan not just to threaten India but extend its power on the world theatre. Pakistan would expect China to maintain pressure on India. Would China forgo the dreams of military bases in Pakistan just to settle the border dispute with India? Would US, Europe, Russia, Japan draw a line in the sand for China to stop what may be slow and imperceptible pursuit of China/Pakistan dreams and continue the push in to India’s neighbors. I see Nepal, Bangladesh, and Burma becoming essentially Chinese satellites, and China/ Pakistan may instigate them to keep creating troubles for India. A healthy dose of paranoia is not a bad thing while dealing with the Chinese. India needs to approach the Chinese with all these concerns and at the least let the world know India’s future expectations from China.

68) An engineer who is in manufacturing:

Please do NOT send such stupid articles or circulate it. It is cowardice on the part of the writer and he does not know history!!!
India has to fight and upgrade defences. Giving in to China is cowardice. Nehru trusted the Chinese and India suffered. India was the only country to advocate Chinese entry in the UN and what did it gain?

69) CMA Nayar is an electrical engineer who splits his time between India and France. He is very knowledgeable on strategic issues:

I went through the document and Ram’s personal comments.I feel it will be necessary to answer the following questions before we can come to a logical conclusion .. I will give my answers to these questions under each question :
1 ) Will China continue to remain as one Nation in the coming two decades ? Will there be political instability in China if and when the Communist Party loses grip on the Nation . In such a situation , will Tibet , Xinjiang and a part of Yunnan Province remain as part of China ? If not , the whole border situation could change from India’s point of view ? In my view, the Communist Party will lose grip on the nation within a decade . Early indication will start coming out during the Transition of Power from Hu Jintao in 2013. China calls its system of Govt as the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat “ but in reality it is a “ Dictatorship of the Elites “ . Li Jinping ( 6th rank in Politburo ) and Xi Kequiang (7th in rank in Politburo) who are the main contenders to succeed Hu Jintao may not get the Presidency and the Power may go into the hands of a hard core Communist (probably with Military background ) for a short period marking the beginning of a totally repressive regime as also the beginning of the disintegration of China . Tibet, Xinjiang and part of Yunnan could become independent and major part of remaining China will continue to be China . In this situation , India will not have any land border with China . Even in the present situation where India has a very long land border with China , I do not think there will be a war between India and China on this issue . However, India has to be militarily ready to face any eventualities . In this bizarre world, only the strong are respected !!!

2 ) Has any Head of Govt in India ( for that matter even the Parliament) the power to transfer Indian territory to another country ? MyAnswer : ; The Govt does not have the powers to transfer any Indian territory to another country . All that the Govt can do is to make border adjustment at points where the border was not really defined . It is my understanding that plebiscite is not possible under Indian Constitution . Plebiscite was an interim measure accepted at the instance of the British for carving out Pakistan from India . I do not think we have the right to go for a plebiscite even in disputed Kashmir now.

3 ) Can China and India be two nations with complementary interests ? Irrespective of all the probable internal problems , China will continue to be an economic power house . China’s domestic growth will be very good but its exports will decline considerably. China’s competitiveness in export depends on four major elements ; low labour cost, subsidized energy cost, very low bank interest and export incentives . China will be compelled to withdraw the subsidies on energy cost and bank interest due to domestic pressure . USA and Europe will also introduce protectionist policies for saving their own economies. Under these circumstances , India could have an opportunity for increasing trade with China . India, however , will have to ensure that the trade balance will remain even and India does not become a dumping ground for Chinese products . In my view, India and China will always remain two competing adversaries .

4 ) Can USA be a reliable ally for India in its quest to achieve international stature ? History shows that USA has never been a reliable ally to any one . This is basically because USA is bothered only about its own self-interest (this is true with most of the nations ) and USA will dump any one once the utility to USA is over . India , therefore, has to be very careful in her relations with USA. Russia has always been more useful to us in many difficult situations. India will have a lot of opportunities to work together with Russia for mutual benefit .

In conclusion I would say :

1 ) India will have to have an independent policy for relations with other nations mainly to protect her own interest . The old concept of Power Blocs will not be good . In any case, being part of a Power Bloc with China or USA will be dangerous for India. India, China and USA will be three nations which will decide the destiny of the world in future along with EU.
2 ) India can not afford to make a settlement with China on border issue by abandoning our right to any part in our possession now . There is no urgency to settle the border issue with China now . However we should be militarily ready to face any eventualities .

3 ) China will be a competitor for India in every filed
and this competition should be put in a healthy background.

And, finally, some constructive, practical suggestions from Robinder Sachdev on how to sort out the India-China imbroglio:

70) Robinder Sachdev is president of Imagindia Institute, an independent think tank dedicated to promoting the imagination and public diplomacy of India across cultures. His thoughts:

Thanks so much for leading and anchoring this very important constructive dialogue – more importantly a dialogue which is not an academic exchange, but is rather aimed at some resulting action.

I have been thinking on this the past several weeks, and in response to your question, I am toying with an idea of a next version of Panchsheel (it may have nothing in common with the earlier paradigm, apart from the fact that this is also based on 5 points).

[a] India accepts status quo on the NW with China

China accepts status quo on the NE with India

[c] India reiterates its official line on Tibet

[d] China commits to status quo and realism on Tibet (i.e. the Dalai Lama and Tibetans have a home in India now, and their mutual discussions may proceed as between two parties, with no political interference by India)

[e] China and India set up an “Indo-China Bureau on Innovations for Development”. The bureau will be significantly funded, and housed with proper infrastructure in Beijing and Delhi. The bureau will function like a mix between a think tank, social entrepreneur, incubation center, and investment bankers to actively and urgently focus on innovations and solutions for creating jobs, poverty alleviation, energy security, and food security. The bureau has to have real teeth, and be structured like a semi-private enterprise, and top talent from both countries drawn to work in it. The annual review meeting of the Bureau will be chaired jointly by the Prime Ministers of both countries, and held by rotation in Beijing in Delhi annually.

Above may be the next Panchsheel of China-India relations. While simultaneously, apart from mutuality of China-India relations, in parallel, India makes three key strategic thrusts;

[a] One, to deepen, stabilize and mature its relationship with Russia;

Two, push for peace, stability and economic development of South Asia neighbors; and,

[c] Three, push for economic diplomacy in broader South East Asia (including pushing Indian business to invest in viable infrastructure, mineral resources, education, healthcare, and such projects in these countries)

So what prompted MR BS Raghavan to write such an article?

sardaka namam!

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 14 Feb 2010 06:39

So what prompted MR BS Raghavan to write such an article?

sardaka namam!

B S= Bull ****

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Feb 2010 02:54

Edward Luttwak, the writer on strategy talks about his new book Grand Strategy of the Byzantium Empire. Please take an hour or so and listen. Its on You tube also.
If you have Dishtv , the episode in on UCTV at 4:00 pm (PST) today.

The gist of it is he explores why the Empire survived for so long despite lack of resources and surrounded by threats and how Roman way has messed up dealing with intractable problems.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Feb 2010 23:25

So the real deluded ones are those in US who fall for the TSP's tricks every single time. Its this group who keep TSP in business. Might require real leadership in US to make these folks accountable for the constant sellout since 9/11. Thsi group consists of all shades of US elites but the single uniting factor is a distrust of India. Recall Bin Powell and his actions.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 17 Feb 2010 23:29

ramana wrote: Thsi group consists of all shades of US elites but the single uniting factor is a distrust of India . Recall Bin Powell and his actions.

What explains this though? Here we have an India willing to Gubo at the slightest opportunity. Polls have consistently shown that US enjoys the trust & warmth of Indian public at large compared with other allies. So what explains this distrust?