India-China News and Discussion

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 15 Sep 2009 22:44

Indian Army seeks lifting of border patrol restrictions

(TibetanReview.net, Sep15, 2009) With Chinese border incursions becoming ever more frequent and aggressive, the Indian Army is pushing for a rethink on its own patrolling restrictions in certain “sensitive areas” of the Line of Actual Control along the border of Chinese occupied Tibet, according to the Indian Express newspaper Sep 13. It said the restrictions, imposed by the China Study Group (CSG) many years ago, prevents Indian troops from going up as close as possible to India’s claim line in certain areas where Chinese incursions have increased of late.

The CSG, made up of the secretaries from Defence, Foreign and Home ministries, besides the two intelligence heads, had in the past placed restrictions on the Indian Army in certain areas of the LAC so as to avoid any confrontation or clashes with Chinese troops. These reportedly relate roughly to 10-odd areas in the Western Sector of the LAC in Ladakh, almost the entire Central Sector which includes Sikkim and about four areas in the Eastern Sector where perceptions vary and are hence, “sensitive”.

The current restrictions prevent the Indian Army from going right up to the front while China has imposed no such restrictions on its Army on occupied Tibet’s side.

The report said that about three months back, the CSG is had relaxed a few restrictions, given the heightened Chinese activity in Sikkim but that the military was clearly not satisfied and now wanted complete lifting of restrictions.

The relaxation includes the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) being allowed to carry out an occasional patrol in many of these sensitive areas but with strict instructions not to provoke. In fact, in some areas of Sikkim, the ITBP personnel are asked to go without weapons to prevent provocation, the report said.

http://www.tibetanreview.net/news.php?cat=10&&id=4372

Kati · Post by **Kati** » 15 Sep 2009 23:00

To all experts:
What do we learn from China-Vietnam war in 1979? Is China planning the same
with India also? In 1979, China was able to destroy the northern vietnamese city of Langson
but the tenacity of the vietnamese army gave China an unpalatable taste, and eventually
left the occupied area.

Possible reasons for border troubles with India might indicate - (i) to "teach India a lesson"; (ii) to negate India's claim on a SC veto power; (iii) to deflect domestic attention from internal troubles ranging from Xin Xiang to economic hardship; (iv) to show its displeasure over Indo-US closeness, especially the defense ties.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 15 Sep 2009 23:51

Cross posting from :
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 10#p738610

I am wondering whether the happenings in Bangladesh (BDR killings) tie up with the new found aggression of the chicoms.

Meanwhile who was Neville Maxwell
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/09/03 ... -to-blame/

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Sep 2009 01:16

Kati wrote:To all experts:
What do we learn from China-Vietnam war in 1979? Is China planning the same
with India also? In 1979, China was able to destroy the northern vietnamese city of Langson
but the tenacity of the vietnamese army gave China an unpalatable taste, and eventually
left the occupied area.

Possible reasons for border troubles with India might indicate - (i) to "teach India a lesson"; (ii) to negate India's claim on a SC veto power; (iii) to deflect domestic attention from internal troubles ranging from Xin Xiang to economic hardship; (iv) to show its displeasure over Indo-US closeness, especially the defense ties.

None of these reasons are valid.
- India has been taught a lesson in 1962 from which it hasn't recovered politically. Militarily its another matter.

- US already suffers from the mistake of expanding UNSC to PRC. It doesnt want any other power to have a veto. Five is enough. The earlyier group was result of WWII power equations. Indis shows no inclinatinto acqure military power. All its improvments are of defensive nature.

- PRC doesnt yet have domestic trouble that needs deflection. Its still a totalitarian state and is least effected by domestic distrust.

- Indo-US closeness is really to fetter India. All the EUMs do the job better thant the PRC can ever accomplish it.

Also PRC invasion of Vietnam was in a special time and situation. The US was tied up after Nixon's mess. The Vietnamese were cleaning up PRC supported dictator in Cambodia Pol Pot who was ehtnic cleansing the Vietnamese origin people in Cambodia. So they had US tacit support for the US feared that Vietnam will assert itself in South East Asia. And even after destroying the Vietnamese city the PRC got a bad reputation as a fighting force that Deng had to include the PPRC forces in his four modernizations.

All those are not going to happen in India.

What might happen is war sanctioned by uncle for joint attack by the two minions. Thats the only scenario to worry about.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 16 Sep 2009 05:01

Newcomers are missing the point that while PRC may have taken over Tibet...but India also gained Sikkim, NEFA(absorbed into India) and Bhutan, Nepal (Buffer states) since the 1950s.

Independence in 1947 was a momentous occasion for the Indic civilization. The significance of independence in 1947 is not understood in full by most of us. A leader like MKG comes up only once in millenium.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Sep 2009 07:24

Folks when you want to rebut any op-ed please stick to the content and do not make personal remarks. It does not help you or your arguments and brings in bad blood.

Thanks, ramana

rsharma · Post by **rsharma** » 16 Sep 2009 10:03

Its really disgusting to see the way Government-Military establishment in our country downplay the seriousness of recent Chinese misendeavors..
Where else in the World do u find the side being threatened speaking up for the aggressors acting as their spokesperson??

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Sep 2009 10:10

rsharma wrote:Its really disgusting to see the way Government-Military establishment in our country downplay the seriousness of recent Chinese misendeavors..
Where else in the World do u find the side being threatened speaking up for the aggressors acting as their spokesperson??

What if all this hype is orchestrated to achieve some unseen objective and these establishment folks don't want that to happen?

Recall there is a multi $B order for MRCA in works and all other arms imports on the anvil. What if this fake crisis is needed to expedite such procurements? You know neta wringing hands and saying "kya kare, kuch treaty/veaty sign kar dalo!"

I mean from the IA and IB perspective looks like this things happen all the time. So why this English media cacophony?

Dhiman · Post by **Dhiman** » 16 Sep 2009 10:12

Paul wrote:Newcomers are missing the point that while PRC may have taken over Tibet...but India also gained Sikkim, NEFA(absorbed into India) and Bhutan, Nepal (Buffer states) since the 1950s.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... tVarsh.jpg
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/features/0 ... arsha2.jpg

These two maps show all the places that constitute the classical Indian civilization as described in ancient text such as Mahabharat, Ramayan, etc. Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, and NEFA are certainly included in this, so I am not sure how and in what way we gained these areas?

Infact, Lake Mansarovar and Mt. Kailash in Tibet also lie within the classical Indian civilization and things were ok as long as the buffer state of Tibet existed, but as soon as China took over Tibet, we lost these areas to China. Any boundary negotiation with China must include these places on the negotiating table as well.

Independence in 1947 was a momentous occasion for the Indic civilization. The significance of independence in 1947 is not understood in full by most of us. A leader like MKG comes up only once in millenium.

Independence not only from 200 year or so long British rule, but also from 700 years or so long Islamic rule. In that respect MKG and cohorts certain did double duty. MKG himself did quadruple duty given the fact that he also inspired Black Civil Disobedience movement in US and Anti-apartheid movement in South Africa.

I think the following verse describes MKG well:Whenever there is decay of righteousness O! Bharatha And a rise of unrighteousness then I manifest Myself!

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 16 Sep 2009 10:16

it works out well...china helps us buy a shitty f-16in ready to fly and no match for 2015, and the us rakes the dough to buy cheap chinese goods and sell them some more xxx bonds, using the pramise of peace and security to hand us the shitty bitty oh and a few years of no pakistan worry.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 16 Sep 2009 10:18

so I am not sure how and in what way we gained these areas?

Civilizations rise and fall likes waves in Tide. The High tide of Indic civilization is yet to come. The Indic civilization will flourish inspite of the best efforts of it's stupidest wellwishers and shrewdest enemies. We are the only pole of human civilization to retain the knowledge of the ancients.

If we fall, mankind falls.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 16 Sep 2009 11:02

so, China should call the bluff of Indian english media by calling this manipulation if we were to select say EF2000 or Rafale?

btw, EF2000 assembly line is already full and Rafale is expensive

so the hurry to fast nos factor helps Unkil, suitably played by PRC

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 16 Sep 2009 11:05

Paul wrote:Newcomers are missing the point that while PRC may have taken over Tibet...but India also gained Sikkim, NEFA(absorbed into India) and Bhutan, Nepal (Buffer states) since the 1950s.

Independence in 1947 was a momentous occasion for the Indic civilization. The significance of independence in 1947 is not understood in full by most of us. A leader like MKG comes up only once in millenium.

if you really think about it, then partition was necessary for real independence of indic civilization -- to dethrone the abrahamic primacy. that also explains why india is still being needled by the west -- to restore the abrahmic primacy over the indic. kudos to MKG.

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 16 Sep 2009 19:11

Guru log , what is your take on this article
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story ... China.html

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 16 Sep 2009 19:21

rkirankr wrote:Guru log , what is your take on this article
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story ... China.html

cough, cough ... does the Indian media which has "declared war on China" have any American investments, by any chance? The Anglicized brown sahibs of English media -- the Sardessais and Roys and Jains and Singhvis -- are not doing any favours to our country, are they? When the Indian news media was opened to foriegn (read "American") investment by Vajpayee, the NDA had specified that for news channels and newspapers, all the editors have to be Indian. But if the policy change was done because these English media charltans were expected to uphold national interest and not of their American investors, I would say NDA government had turned delusional.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 16 Sep 2009 20:09

India asks China to hire Indians in their India projects

Chinese investors should employ more Indians to run their projects in India instead of carrying large number of workers from China. This is New Delhi’s latest response to complaints concerning India’s reluctance to grant enough visas for Chinese workers.

“An India-specific approach will have to be thought through by Chinese companies,” S Jaishankar, India’s new ambassador in Beijing told a conference attended by Indian and Chinese businessmen and officials.

He pointed out that companies from other foreign countries did not feel the need to carry their own workers to projects in India, which has a vast reservoir of skilled workmen and a long history of industry and entrepreneurship.

“I have personal experience in working with many of India’s other major economic partners. I cannot recall their investments and projects requiring such large manpower support from home,” Jaishankar, who was earlier ambassador in Singapore, said.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 16 Sep 2009 20:22

X-Posted from Bhaarat-Unkil Dhaaga..

rkirankr wrote:
Chiron wrote
Don't know who will be the first victim.. However, Myanmar will be the next Poland, IMHO.
What will be India? The next GB or France?

India can't afford to be the France. Because in that case, there won't be a GB to hold on.. Bhaarat has stronger hold over the IOR than the Chinese. The peninsular India and Andamans are the greatest strategic assets of India in current times.

Bhaarat should start interfering in Myanmar. After a particular threshold of increasing Bhaaratiya interference, China will have to come out of closet.

IMHO, the two mountain divisions being raised in NEFA will be instrumental in mountainous-forest warfare along Indo-Burmese border. Any army with ambition to neutralize heartland of Bhaarat from east should invade through Myanmar-Bangladesh-Bengal. It is the easiest route to get to plains of Assam. Himalayan frontier war can only be tactical and short-lived and can never be strategic.

All this is of course assuming that China indeed has sinister ambitions of territorial conquest of Bhaarat just like Nazi-Germany had. I doubt why a nation should think of invading Bhaaratiya heartland. More practical approach will be small battle and quick capture of Ladakh-Northern Kashmir (north of Jhelum) to form a contiguous block of China-Pakistan without Bhaarat being around to bother.

China has replaced Russia in the equations of the Great-game. China's need for access to Indian Ocean is similar to Russia in 19th century. The trade and energy security of China depends upon this access. The sabre-rattling should be in NEFA and thrust should be in Kashmir, if the battle is to serve Chinese interest. Just that, Lhasa is awfully close to India from Tawang-Bhutan, if major Chinese thrust is Ladakh-Kashmir. The simultaneous Indian thrust in Myanmar will seriously undermine the efficacy of the containment move currently being executed by China vis-a-vis India.

However, in this scenario, Ladakh-Kashmir can be the new Poland for the global flash-point.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 16 Sep 2009 21:08

Chiron wrote:
China has replaced Russia in the equations of the Great-game. China's need for access to Indian Ocean is similar to Russia in 19th century. The trade and energy security of China depends upon this access. The sabre-rattling should be in NEFA and thrust should be in Kashmir, if the battle is to serve Chinese interest. Just that, Lhasa is awfully close to India from Tawang-Bhutan, if major Chinese thrust is Ladakh-Kashmir. The simultaneous Indian thrust in Myanmar will seriously undermine the efficacy of the containment move currently being executed by China vis-a-vis India.

However, in this scenario, Ladakh-Kashmir can be the new Poland for the global flash-point.

This is correct. China has deeper need to access the IOR.
This Chinese need is actually supported by US and other western countries. US has helped China is creating the concept of "String of Pearls"

So there will be long term pressure on India in IOR as well as in surrounding states. Indian strategy has to weaken the Chinese influence in the border states in a systematic manner.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Sep 2009 21:27

USA is going to encourage both India and PRC, pretending to support both. They need to keep both engaged in fighting each other so that the old Anglo-Saxonic policy can regain influence. They have used up their colonial capital extracted and looted from south and east Asia. They need to allow the region to accummulate surplus so that they can come in and reap the harvest. But to do the reaping they need to keep divisions and weakened military power in the region.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 17 Sep 2009 00:34

a hypothetical question -- what would happen if india/china announced a border settlement over next 3 years? what would be the global reaction?

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 17 Sep 2009 00:34

a hypothetical question -- what would happen if india/china announced a border settlement over next 3 years? what would be the global reaction?

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 17 Sep 2009 00:43

IMHO there is no such thing as China agreeing to settle anything with India. They have been dillydallying efforts by India to define borders even though India has repeatedly sent them maps of what it presumes to be the borders. This is a tactic by the chinese to create and maintain uncertainty vis-a-vis India.

V_Raman wrote:a hypothetical question -- what would happen if india/china announced a border settlement over next 3 years? what would be the global reaction?

Kati · Post by **Kati** » 17 Sep 2009 01:06

Some timed materials:

A chronicle of events: http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/ir/cews/dat ... /tibet.pdf

Flight of the Lama:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/12/magaz ... gewanted=1

Dalai Lama admits taking money from CIA:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/02/world ... ing&st=nyt

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Sep 2009 02:19

anishns wrote: a hypothetical question -- what would happen if india/china announced a border settlement over next 3 years? what would be the global reaction?

IMHO there is no such thing as China agreeing to settle anything with India. They have been dillydallying efforts by India to define borders even though India has repeatedly sent them maps of what it presumes to be the borders. This is a tactic by the chinese to create and maintain uncertainty vis-a-vis India.

Do you think it is possible that PRC is being advised by Uncle and Aunty on the Indo-Chin border issues and they are working together to deny a state border to India.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 17 Sep 2009 02:42

Acharya wrote:
anishns wrote: a hypothetical question -- what would happen if india/china announced a border settlement over next 3 years? what would be the global reaction?

IMHO there is no such thing as China agreeing to settle anything with India. They have been dillydallying efforts by India to define borders even though India has repeatedly sent them maps of what it presumes to be the borders. This is a tactic by the chinese to create and maintain uncertainty vis-a-vis India.
Do you think it is possible that PRC is being advised by Uncle and Aunty on the Indo-Chin border issues and they are working together to deny a state border to India.

It could be the other way too. PRC dictating to unkil and aunty. I will put some pressure here and there; you get those $10b defence contracts, I will get these few Sq. KMs here and there. You use your puppet (A) to say X and I will use my puppet (B) to say Y. Make your puppet A (appear) to be the loser this time and I will make my puppet B (appear) to be the loser in next elections. Let them gather $Bs of black money generated within thier own houses (if they consider it to be thier home) and save it in "our" safe heavens.

It all sounds CT, to say our national (do not cofuse with nationalistic) parties are puppets to external powers and our (largest) democracy is a sham/scam. But if trends are any indicator of the core values, then it is what it is.

Okay! I know... will take my post to nukkad (poor nukkadwallahs)...

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Sep 2009 02:47

RamaY wrote:
It could be the other way too. PRC dictating to unkil and aunty.

Highly unlikely. If you read the literature Chinese/PRC depend on data and news report coming from west to understand India and the political dynamics inside India.

PRC foriegn policy in south asia is based on info given by the west. There is lot of synergy and info exchange between the west and PRC regarding India and IOR

It all sounds CT, to say our national (do not cofuse with nationalistic) parties are puppets to external powers and our (largest) democracy is a sham/scam. But if trends are any indicator of the core values, then it is what it is.

This is debatable but look at only the facts. Facts and trends over 10-30 years reveal a lot.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Sep 2009 03:20

If above reading is right then PRC is playing the role of the thief to the US playing the role of the old man in the fable of the "Thief, Old man and the wife" in Pachantantra. IOW the whole charade is to make India rush into US arms.

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 17 Sep 2009 04:20

Crossposting from China Military Watch..

SanjibGhosh wrote: I am really not sure how much we should believe these media. Sometime I fell that they are trying to create something out of nothing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8258715.stm
'China bashing' in the Indian media

The above is from Amit Baruah of BBC Hindi. He recently moved to BBC from HT. Anybody follows him?

Pretty biased article. His whole article is based in statement of GoI that all is well and filled with sermons.

I wonder if he takes all the GoI's statements like Gospel, like he is doing here.

If the largely private Indian media is belligerent about China, a response is beginning to emerge from the Chinese side as well.

"India likes to brag about its sustainable development, but worries that it is being left behind by China. China is seen in India as both a potential threat and a competitor to surpass," the state-run Global Times wrote in June this year.

Kati · Post by **Kati** » 17 Sep 2009 04:24

ramana wrote:If above reading is right then PRC is playing the role of the thief to the US playing the role of the old man in the fable of the "Thief, Old man and the wife" in Pachantantra. IOW the whole charade is to make India rush into US arms.

...and why would China try to do that?

Obama is going to China in coming Nov. The recent tire tariff is just to test the water.
China is threatening to retaliate (Chicken feet and Sino-US trade conflict: http://www.cnbc.com/id/32879595/ ). Is it all just song and dance?

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 17 Sep 2009 04:26

Wonder why the great PRC bothers at all about stray dogs in the private Dilli media barking up a storm in a teacup if indeed they had no misadventurous intentions hidden up their musharrafs along the LAC.

The fact that they are giving a lowly yindia the time of the day is supposed to showcase their world famous generosity, I know, but also rubs off as pretence at high and mighty-ness based only on hot air.

If the prc is soo far ahead of yindia that there's no way in heaven we could even begin to imagine catching up, why do they care what we say or don't say? After all, yindia doesn't respond to every delusion somalia may have about economically surpassing yindia now, does it?

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 17 Sep 2009 04:40

India has to get its act right and show that it is China that has steadily increased temperature, starting a decade ago.

But Babus and Netas can't see beyond their buildings in Nayee Dilli!!!

Quote from above BBC article..

But now, the threat to a stable India-China relationship is coming not from the governments, but from sections within the media.
If the largely private Indian media is belligerent about China, a response is beginning to emerge from the Chinese side as well.
"India likes to brag about its sustainable development, but worries that it is being left behind by China. China is seen in India as both a potential threat and a competitor to surpass," the state-run Global Times wrote in June this year.

In essence, a media war, initiated by a few Indian television channels and newspapers, has now been joined from the Chinese side as the Global Times opinion piece indicates.

Global Times published article in June.

Indian Channels start highlighting in Aug/Sept. And in Amit's world, In essence, a media war, initiated by a few Indian television channels and newspapers (In Sept, possible Aug), has now been joined from the Chinese side (in June) as the Global Times opinion piece indicates

AshokS · Post by **AshokS** » 17 Sep 2009 06:41

Dhiman wrote:
Paul wrote:Newcomers are missing the point that while PRC may have taken over Tibet...but India also gained Sikkim, NEFA(absorbed into India) and Bhutan, Nepal (Buffer states) since the 1950s.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... tVarsh.jpg
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/features/0 ... arsha2.jpg

These two maps show all the places that constitute the classical Indian civilization as described in ancient text such as Mahabharat, Ramayan, etc. Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, and NEFA are certainly included in this, so I am not sure how and in what way we gained these areas?

Infact, Lake Mansarovar and Mt. Kailash in Tibet also lie within the classical Indian civilization and things were ok as long as the buffer state of Tibet existed, but as soon as China took over Tibet, we lost these areas to China. Any boundary negotiation with China must include these places on the negotiating table as well.

A few months ago I had some contractors working on my house, they were of Russian origin, originally from one of the CIS states (it was one of the *istans) - forgot which one, but my father told me it was one of the locations mentioned in the Mahabharat . What was unusual was the Russsians name was "Raja" and his sister had an Indian name as well, he said a lot of people from from his native city had Indian sounding names ..... There is definitely something there with regards to the Indian connection.

arun · Post by **arun** » 17 Sep 2009 07:21

X Posted.

Singapore's foreign minister George Yeo in an article datelined 8 September 2009 which appeared in Yale Global:

Between China and India: Is Tibet the Wedge or Link?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Sep 2009 07:46

TIBET: DISTORTED ASSERTIONS BY SINGAPORE FOREIGN MINISTER NEED CORRECTION By Dr. Subhash Kapila Introductory Observations The Yale Global Online (www.Yaleglobal.yuale.edu) carries a feature by Foreign Minister of Singapore, Mr. George Yeo dated 8 September 2009 entitled “Between China and India: Is Tibet The Wedge or Link”. The Singapore Foreign Minister became the first Foreign Minister to visit Tibet in August 2009 since the March 14 riots in Tibet against China’s brutal suppression of the Tibetan people. The feature that has been published by Singapore Foreign Minister seems to be the outcome of his Chinese-conducted visit to Lhasa and Tibet. While one has no objections to the line of reasoning of the Singapore Foreign Minister and the contents of his observations on Tibet, there are two assertions that find mention in this feature which are distorted and not borne out by historical truth. Singapore Foreign Minister’s Feature on Tibet: The Distorted Assertions Two assertions which seem to be distorted and not borne out by historical truth incorporated in this feature are reproduced below: * “In 1951, Mao Zedong’s Government negotiated the ‘peaceful liberation’ of Tibet with the local Tibetan Government, guaranteeing that Beijing would not force changes to the feudal political economy”. * Referring to Dalai Lama’s statement that the next incarnation of the Dalai Lama may be found outside Tibet, the feature by Singapore Foreign Minister states: “Many believe that ‘outside China’ means Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh where the 6th Dalai Lama came from, a Tibetan area controlled by India but claimed by China”. The historical facts in relation to the above are as follows: * China did not undertake a ‘peaceful liberation’ of Tibet. The use of single inverted comma if intended to allude that it was not peaceful liberation does not contextually show it up as such. * China indulged in military aggression against the spiritual and peaceful kingdom of Tibet. The historical truth the world recognizes is that China embarked on a “military occupation” of Tibet by use of brutal force. * It was therefore wrong to assert in the feature in that a ‘peaceful liberation’ was “negotiated” by Mao Zedong’s government with “the local authorities”. * Coming to the assertions on Tawang, by the Singapore Foreign Minister, it is wrong to assert that it is a Tibetan area (implying that it is part of Tibet) and “controlled by India”. * Tawang is part of Arunachal Pradesh which is a constituent state of the Indian Republic, notwithstanding any Chinese claims on it. * Tawang is not therefore an area “controlled by India”. It is a part of India. Since Tawang is hot news these days, it needs to be asserted that: * After the ceasefire following 1962 Chinese military aggression against India, China did not vacate the Aksai-Chin area in the Western Sector, even though the area patently is legally a part of the Indian Republic. * However after the ceasefire,, in the Eastern Sector, China withdraw from Tawang and other areas occupied in Arunachal Pradesh to area beyond Bumla, a good 40-50 km North of Tawang. * If Chinese claims to Tawang were all that legally and historically correct and tenable, then how come China condescended to vacate Tawang after the ceasefire.Tawang is an indisputable part of India beyond any doubt. Concluding Observations Singapore and India currently enjoy good relations including strategic and military cooperation. India holds Singapore in good respect and high regards. It is therefore intriguing as to how such distorted assertions crept in the feature on Tibet by Singapore Foreign Minister. In an environment where China is ratcheting up military tensions on Tibet and Tawang, friends of India need to be sensitive when commenting on China-Tibet-India issues, especially on their historical veracity. Further, the Singapore Foreign Minister stresses alongside his title of the feature that “Reconciling faith with the forces of globalization remains the challenge” for Tibet. One would have expected him to stress in parallel that the greater challenge remains for China to emerge as a responsible stake-holder in a globalized world without resorting to brutal suppression of the Tibetan nation “controlled” by Chinese armed might. (The author is an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst. He is the Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. Email:drsubhashkapila.007@gmail.com)

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 17 Sep 2009 08:17

Shree Raman might be in a role that the WKK played against Pakistan. Someone has to do that.

Hnair-ji

that makes al-bramanji even more dangerous to Indian interests, right? AFAIK India didn't benefit a single paisa from WKK gang.

Kati · Post by **Kati** » 17 Sep 2009 08:32

AshokS wrote:
Dhiman wrote:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... tVarsh.jpg
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/features/0 ... arsha2.jpg

These two maps show all the places that constitute the classical Indian civilization as described in ancient text such as Mahabharat, Ramayan, etc. Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, and NEFA are certainly included in this, so I am not sure how and in what way we gained these areas?

Infact, Lake Mansarovar and Mt. Kailash in Tibet also lie within the classical Indian civilization and things were ok as long as the buffer state of Tibet existed, but as soon as China took over Tibet, we lost these areas to China. Any boundary negotiation with China must include these places on the negotiating table as well.

A few months ago I had some contractors working on my house, they were of Russian origin, originally from one of the CIS states (it was one of the *istans) - forgot which one, but my father told me it was one of the locations mentioned in the Mahabharat . What was unusual was the Russsians name was "Raja" and his sister had an Indian name as well, he said a lot of people from from his native city had Indian sounding names ..... There is definitely something there with regards to the Indian connection.

Dhiman,
Things are pretty simple.
First of all, mahabharat style 'rath' (chariot) is supposed to have been unearthened in Kazakhstan. Also, 'Yagna kund', proof of "Soma ras', etc. vedic age stuff have been found there. Don't know how true these are, I'm just quoting from Michael Wood's DVD series ('The Story of India').
[That may be a psy-op after 9-11 and 7-11. Some one told me that the British govt., in search of a model immigrant community, and to counter jihadi culture, is trying to portray the indian civilization. They have suddenly found virtues in indian civilization after hundreds of years' of colonialism and promoted Wood's journey to trace the vedic civilization. Nevertheless, it is a good DVD. Positive psy-op.]

Anyway, russian and CIS' fascination with indian names is due to their love of hindi movies. Especially, names like 'Raj' (after Raj Kapoor), etc. are very common. When mrs. IG visited Russia just before the 1971 war, russians were mesmarized with her poise. Thousands of russian girls were named 'Indira'. Ask oldies from former USSR, they are still in love with the movie 'Haathi Mera Sathi', etc. etc.

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 17 Sep 2009 08:33

Acharya sir, I cannot deny that possibility. However, what I do understand, with my limited knowledge on military and political strategy, that if tomorrow China does take an aggressive posture towards us, we don't have anyone in our near neighborhood or beyond as a friend or ally coming to our aid. Unlike 1971 when Russia did make a stance against China and the US bullying or intimidating India. We could largely thank IG for that....but, it would be going offtopic.

What we really lack is strong political leadership and vision.....we have economists running the country and its a shame that a country of a billion+ people cannot produce a tough and inspiring leader who can come to the fore and uphold national unity and integrity above anything else and at the same time get the support and respect of the people in the country.

Like they say tough times need tough measures and out of this mess/screw up.....something good might come out eventually. Atleast we will find out if we have any friends

Acharya wrote:
anishns wrote: a hypothetical question -- what would happen if india/china announced a border settlement over next 3 years? what would be the global reaction?

IMHO there is no such thing as China agreeing to settle anything with India. They have been dillydallying efforts by India to define borders even though India has repeatedly sent them maps of what it presumes to be the borders. This is a tactic by the chinese to create and maintain uncertainty vis-a-vis India.
Do you think it is possible that PRC is being advised by Uncle and Aunty on the Indo-Chin border issues and they are working together to deny a state border to India.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Sep 2009 08:36

Good reply

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 17 Sep 2009 08:45

My CT mind thinks this.

1. Our media houses do not do any thing in Indian Interests. So if likes of Roys and sardesais raising their voices against their ideological gods it must be to the scripts of their spritual plus financial gods. These slaves are raising the tempo to influence certain military purchases, and a few come to my mind - MRCA, tactical AWACS, and BMD, each one running into 5-10 billion dollahs.

2. It works for PRC too. India spends it's cash on non-indegeneous projects, which will come under EUVA and will be useless in a limited conflict and are unavailable befor 2015. If I were PRC general, I would push India for the purchases (initial payments made) and move to Gail a small piece of Indian land in Tawang. With this I can neutralize Tibetan independence moves without going into a large scale war. GOI will get some non-veto UNSC seat (thru unkil) to pacify internal war cries.

Pleas think the psychological effect on Indian society from a second successful blow. Even after nearly 50 yrs from 1962 Indian leadership did not learn the art of statecraft. All it's energies are spent on exploiting and stealing from it's own home.

If I have any issues executing the above plan, I can help my whore to drop a crude any-bum and India's raise can be postponed by another 100 yrs

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 17 Sep 2009 09:00

Round table discussion on "India-China Border: Current Situation". The event is organised by Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Research Foundation, New Delhi.

A round table discussion on 'India - China Border : Current Situation'

Date and Time

Thursday, 24th September 2009

3.00 p.m to 5:00 p.m.

Venue

India International Centre (Main Conference Hall 1)

Participants-

Lt Gen (retd.) Shankar Prasad PVSM AVSM.

Mohan Guruswamy Senior Sinologist, Chairman, Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Prof. P Stobdan Senior fellow IDSA.

Tapir Gao China observer academician from Arunachal Pradesh and Former Vice-Chairman Scheduled Tribes Commission, Govt of India.

Prof. Srikanth Kondapalli Professor,Chinese Studies, JNU.

Balbir Punj Senior columnist and M.P, Rajya Sabha.

Ram Madhav China observer and Member National Executive, R.S.S.
Tarun Vijay Former Member of India-China Eminent Persons' Group (Ministry of External Affairs), Recipient of fellowship on India-China relation from Sichuan University, Chegdu (China).

Bal Apte President
Dr. Harsh Vardhan Secretary
Tarun Vijay Director

Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Research Foundation

(A centre for civilisational values and policy research)

Contact: 11, Ashoka Road, New Delhi 110001, Tel- 011 23005714/35 Fax 23382569, E-mail- director@indiannationalism.org,

Websites:- http://www.indiannationalism.org, http://www.theideology.org http://www.drsyamaprasadmookerjee.org, http://www.deendayalupadhyaya.org,