Bharat Rakshak

RajeshA wrote:The Chinese are pushing the Japanese very hard - even dictating what the Japanese can say and what not.This is all good. The more the Japanese get kicked in their butt by China, the sooner they will stand up!

Countering China's Strategic Encirclement
Brig Kartar Singh (Retd)

The Defence Minister and Army Chief have voiced concern over China’s increasing assertiveness on the political, diplomatic and military fronts. Though there is no cause yet to sound an alarm, the Indian establishment should be prepared to checkmate the Dragon’s moves

DRAGON’S FIRE: Chinese self-propelled rocket launchers during a field exercise

Look at some of the past and recent developments and then perceive the scenario of a Sino-Indian thaw. The occupation of Aksai Chin by China since 1962, construction of the Karakoram Highway connecting Pakistan, supporting insurgency in India's North East since 1965 and claiming areas like Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh have been some of the direct interferences of China in Indian affairs.

A few recent developments, however, are more disturbing then the earlier ones. These include :

• A proposed rail link, via Myanmar, to Chittagong port in Bangladesh
• Construction of Sona deep sea port at Cox Bazaar in Bangladesh
• Construction of Hambantola port in Sri Lanka
• A full facility at Gawadar port, west of Karachi, in Pakistan
• Occupation of northern areas of Gilgit by regular Chinese troops
• Interference in internal politics of Nepal
• Intruding in various places along the borders in the guise of herd-grazers
• Construction of nuclear power plants in Pakistan

Sino-Indian relations started on a warm note after independence. Both countries were in search of their place in the new World Order and trying to find bread for their people. All this changed in the aftermath of the 1962 Sino-Indian war, which has left China and India in state of flux that continues till today. China started her economic development in late 80's and became a popular investment destination for Americans and Europeans.

Today she is poised to become an economic superpower and is in close competition with the US and Japan, leaving India far behind. China knows it well that after Japan and United Korea, no other country can compete with her. With India waking up very late to the new realities of economic developments, China now perceives India as a potential competitor in Asia and Afro-Asian regions. China has become the largest user of oil in the world overtaking USA. Her growing economy has also become the third largest economy of the world and she is fully a developed nuclear state with the largest Army in the world.

It is reported that China consumed 2,200 million tons of oil in 2009. Her consumption of energy in future is well perceived and in order to maintain future import requirements, she definitely requires a supply chain management system from the Gulf countries. Gawadar-Xinjang highway, gas pipeline from Myanmar and intermediate refueling facility at the port of Hambantola in Sri Lanka may be her genuine requirements.

These facilities may legitimatise as geo-economic necessities for the future. But her regular troops occupying Gilgit region in POK, direct support to the Maoist party in Nepal and openly declaring Kashmir as a disputed area prove her hidden intensions of deploying herself in the geo-strategic encirclement of India.

Recent developments in the Indo-US relationship paradigm may have also irked Beijing. US civilian nuclear deal with India, enhanced mutual trust between the two democracies, Obama's forthcoming visit to India, purchase of defence hardware by India from the US and Obama's clear indications of upgrading mutual relations with India could be seen as unwelcome developments by China.

China follows well-practiced strategies with her neighbours, like "teaching them a lesson", as she did with Vietnam in 1978. She also follows a strategy of "tactical arrogance", which she repeats with India, Nepal and Bhutan over and again during the livestock-grazing season. She also believes in the strategy of "bullying"' neighbours by actions more than words. Recently she denied a visa to one of our Army Commanders posted in Kashmir.

These postures and actions prove yet another point that China has grown so powerful that it does not bother about anyone, including Uncle Sam. She believes in having its cake and eating it too.

One of the biggest and saddest event that has gone in favour of China is downfall of the erstwhile USSR. The present Russian federation cannot engage China due to its internal problems and weak economy. So, what does it boil down to? What should India do to engage her bullying neighbour meaningfully?

One of the options available to India, as our economist Prime Minister stated, is that our engagement with ASEAN countries is a key element of India's vision of an Asian economic community. If we can meaningfully engage ASEAN countries in economies ties, then these countries will definitely look up to New Delhi in a supportive and friendly gesture. These countries will definitely upgrade India in their priorities over China. India should also keep close watch on SAARC countries and help them in their genuine economic development. This would remove their fear of India's big brother attitude and bring about an economic change in the region. We, therefore, must agree upon an economic development programme for SAARC countries to enhance their confidence in India and not leave them to any vulnerable threat from outside.

China knows it well that India today is not what she was in 1962. With a credible nuclear deterrence, a fairly well trained and well deployed army, India cannot be bullied or treated with arrogance. India could do well by organising some sort of offensive capabilities along the north-eastern borders. Indian defensive capabilities are fairly well developed and she is capable of countering any limited misadventure by China. A large-scale Chinese offensive, of course, would dictate different options for India.

In all fairness, China is definitely not an irresponsible state and recognises India's regional and international aspirations. If New Delhi and Beijing can settle their long-standing border disputes and engage in economic development between themselves as well as ASEAN and SAARC countries, then the 21st century definitely belongs to these Asian giants. After all, Panchsheel, the basic document guiding India's foreign policy, was first signed by these two countries.

Ominous Moves Across the Himalayan Borders
Wg Cdr N.K. Pant (Retd)

Much water has flowed down India's rivers ever since former defence minister George Fernandes declared that the 1998 Pokharan nuclear tests had been aimed at the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). In 2008, Pranab Mukherjee, the external affairs minister, repeated this, calling the security challenge posed by Beijing as an important priority for New Delhi. These were not off-the-cuff remarks by politicians, but a clear comprehension of the impending threat looming large on our northern mountainous borders since 1950 when the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) overran Tibet.

Tibet had racial, cultural and religious characteristics entirely different from China. It was rightfully emerging on the world stage as an independent nation, but PLA's brutal military occupation and human rights abuses altered the course of history. Subsequently, mass migration of Hans to the so-called Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) from the Chinese mainland rendered Tibetans a minority in their own homeland.

The myopic leadership in New Delhi, with exception of then deputy prime minister Sardar V. Patel, at that crucial time failed to see the writing on the wall and went ahead to recognise China's sovereignty over Tibet. This shortsighted approach to China's Tibetan invasion has cost the country dearly in terms of the defence of our Himalayan borders. After strengthening its grip on Tibet and improving road communication till the Indian borders, Beijing invented a thorny boundary dispute with New Delhi, which it is unwilling to resolve. In 1962, Communist China, that lays claim on vast areas in the Himalayas and refuses to recognise Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim as integral parts of India, launched a humiliating military attack on India.

That China's hostile policy towards India is not going to change, is clear from a recent online poll conducted by a Chinese website, huanqiu.com, which stated 90 per cent participants believed India posed a big threat to China. About 74 per cent said China should not maintain friendly relations with India anymore, while 65 per cent thought India deploying additional troops in Arunachal was damaging bilateral ties.

Recent reported confiscation of tourism brochures by the Chinese police from the Indian pavilion at the Shanghai Expo because these showed Arunachal Pradesh as part of India is perhaps a forewarning of a military blitzkrieg across our Himalayan frontiers. New Delhi must take foolproof countermeasures to avoid a 1962 type fiasco.

Despite rapidly rising trade relations, China has, off and on, been provoking India on military and diplomatic fronts. The year before, there were media reports about increasing incursions by PLA along the borders. China has now reportedly deployed 11,000 regular troops in Gilgit-Baltistan region of Jammu and Kashmir that is under Pakistan's occupation. China is the only country that issues stapled visas to Indian citizens from J&K and Arunachal on the pretext that these territories remain disputed. Last year it raised objections when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Arunachal Pradesh. As quoted in the media, Singh now rightly wants the nation to be prepared in view of the new assertiveness among the Chinese, which "is difficult to tell which way it will go".

Beijing's refusal to issue visa to Lt Gen B.S. Jaswal, the Northern Command chief, for a high-level military exchange visit on grounds that he commanded troops in the disputed area of J&K has added salt to the injury, leading New Delhi to cancel defence exchanges with China. Indian officials found China's behaviour particularly provocative because in August 2009, Gen V.K. Singh, currently the Army Chief and then the Eastern Army Commander, had visited China for a similar exchange. If territorial sensitivity was the issue, then Gen Singh's visit should have been even more problematic because, as the Eastern Army Commander, he had jurisdiction over Arunachal Pradesh, which China has provocatively started calling South Tibet.

It now transpires that besides amassing troops along the 1,700-km Indo-Tibet border, China has menacingly deployed nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at the Indian mainland. Last year when India decided to bolster defences in Arunachal, Global Times, China's English language mouthpiece, in an editorial termed it "dangerous if it is based on a false anticipation that China will cave in". It also commented India's current course can only lead to rivalry between the two countries and cautioned that India "needs to consider whether or not it can afford the consequences of a potential confrontation with China". The bottom line, unambiguously, was India should not have any illusions as China would neither make any compromise in border disputes nor would sacrifice its sovereignty in exchange for friendship.

Should India not revisit its policy on the Tibetan issue in view of China's continued aggressive intransigence? Sometimes in the middle ages, China may have had "suzerainty" over Tibet, but the territory has always functioned as a free nation till Mao's army annexed it in 1950. In fact, the region, in cultural, trade and religious spheres, was much closer to India than to China. Some imperial dynasties ruling Chinese mainland in the distant past had association with Tibet that can be loosely compared to the British monarch's connections with some Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia. However, present-day Britain never laid territorial claims on these sovereign nations that had once been its colonies. New Delhi, besides bolstering defences on the Indo-Tibet border, must strive to create a strong international opinion for creating a genuinely autonomous Shangri-La where indigenous Tibetans can preserve their vanishing cultural and religious identity.

Prem wrote:

RajeshA wrote:The Chinese are pushing the Japanese very hard - even dictating what the Japanese can say and what not.This is all good. The more the Japanese get kicked in their butt by China, the sooner they will stand up!

Seems Chinese being given long rope to hang themsleves. Son- zu is not showing any sign of maturity to the world except NOKO and POAKO .

These military devices, leading to victory, must not be divulged beforehand.

China is courting the secessionist government of oil-rich southern Sudan, an apparent departure from Beijing's decades-long opposition to independence movements abroad.

Sudan, after nearly constant civil war over the past five decades, is seeing tensions boil again ahead of a planned independence referendum early next year that stands to split Africa's largest country in two. Voters from the oil-rich, largely Christian south are expected to vote to break away from the country's largely Muslim north. As the Jan. 9, 2011, election date approaches, both sides accuse the other of amassing troops.

The vote poses a conundrum for China. Beijing has consistently opposed independence movements abroad, lest it embolden separatist sympathies at home. And despite its recent overtures to the south, Beijing seeks to maintain its longstanding economic ties with Khartoum, the seat of Sudan's government and center of northern power. China armed and supported the north in the 23-year civil war against the south from 1983 to 2005, in which two million people are believed to have died. It continues to arm Khartoum and has built the north infrastructure projects, including the largest hydroelectric dam in Africa.

Chinese companies are among those that are competing to win a contract for building a pipeline that would pump oil produced in South Sudan through a Kenyan port, according to a report on the Wall Street Journal (WSJ).

The controversial project would enable the landlocked South to avoid transporting its main export through the pipeline that runs through the North until it reaches Port Sudan.

"China is one of the parties that has been invited to participate," Alfred Mutua, a Kenyan government spokesman told WSJ.

Most analysts believe southerners will vote to secede from the north in an emotional referendum on independence due in less than three months, the culmination of a 2005 north-south peace deal ending Africa’s longest civil war.

But the North is wary of letting the oil-rich South go without arranging for a wealth sharing formula that would prevent an economic collapse in post-referendum Sudan. Currently the North and the South are splitting the proceeds of crude in accordance with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed in 2005.

About 75 per cent of Sudan’s proven reserves of 6.3bn barrels are in the south but the pipeline that carries the oil to export terminals and refineries runs through the north.

Sudan exports 60% of its oil to China. Sudanese production accounts for 7% of China’s annual consumption. Beijing therefore has a vested interest in ensuring that the South Sudan referendum goes smoothly so as not to threaten its multi-billion dollar investments in the East African country.

China has a pragmatic reason for tolerating a potentially independent south: It is home to 80% of Sudan’s oil reserves, including most of the China National Petroleum Corp.’s four oil concessions, granted to it by Khartoum. Beijing’s stake amounts to 40% of Sudan’s oil industry.

GoSS last week assured China that its investments would be protected should the South vote for separation from the North.

"The largest investment in southern Sudan today is Chinese. They have invested billions of dollars in the oil sector, and have a large number of Chinese workers in the oil fields," said Pagan Amum, secretary general of the south’s ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM).

"We have given assurances to the Chinese leadership delegation to protect the Chinese investments in southern Sudan, and are desirous to see more investment in the future," he further said.

The president of semiautonomous southern Sudan has asked visiting member countries of the United Nations Security Council to deploy peacekeepers along the border with northern Sudan, stoking tensions between the two regions ahead of a January vote on the south's independence.

Senior Western diplomats said no formal request for the U.N. troops had been made. But such a request would be "carefully considered by the council" and the U.N., one diplomat said.

The north and the south have fought two civil wars lasting 43 years. The second war ended with a peace agreement in 2005 that called for a referendum on Jan. 9 that would determine whether the south remains part of Sudan or secedes.

Sudan is becoming a political pressure cooker ahead of the vote. Both the north and south sides have accused the other of amassing troops along the disputed border.

U.N. diplomats accused China on Wednesday of trying to block the publication of the report. They said there is no evidence that Beijing sent ammunition directly to Darfur, but called the attempt to suppress the report "suspicious."

China is one of Sudan's top arms suppliers, but Ma said it has "precisely" enforced the Security Council resolutions on Sudan.

The U.N. says fighting in Darfur between rebels and Sudanese-backed militias has killed about 300,000 people since 2003 and made nearly 3 million people homeless.

The Sudanese government puts the death toll at 10,000.

The weaponry and ammunition in this and many other subsequent attacks on the UN peacekeeping force were in all likelihood manufactured in China and imported into Darfur by Khartoum’s armed forces—in direct violation of a UN Security Council embargo on all such movement of arms or ammunition. This is confirmed in a new, unpublished report from the UN Panel of Experts on Darfur, created by UN Security Council Resolution 1591 (March 2005). According to the Washington Post, the UN panel reports “finding recently manufactured shell casings from Chinese ammunition at the site of numerous attacks launched by unidentified assailants against peacekeepers from the joint UN-Union Mission.” This finding clearly implicates Khartoum and its proxies in the attacks on peacekeepers.

As the Post’s Colum Lynch also reports from the UN, China’s response to the report has been “a strenuous diplomatic campaign to block publication.” For the Chinese are well aware of what the report will contain: “at a briefing this month, a UN panel responsible for implementing the [arms] embargo told the Security Council that Sudanese forces have used more than a dozen types of Chinese ammunition against Darfurian rebels over the past two years.” China’s angry response to these factual findings, by an independent UN investigating body, has been to insist that it will “block the public release of the report unless the findings were rewritten.” Chinese UN diplomat Yang Tao urged “the panel of experts to conduct its work under the principles of objectivity and responsibility.” Given the meticulous and comprehensive nature of previous reports from the UN Panel of Experts on Darfur, all fully in the public domain, this demand is preposterous. It reflects nothing more than Chinese embarrassment and anger at being so fully caught out in violating an arms embargo adopted by the Security Council. It also explains why China alone on the Security Council did not vote to renew the mandate of the UN panel.

Though defence exchanges between India and China remain suspended after Beijing refused a visa to a senior Army General, the ruling parties of the two countries — the Congress and the Communist Party of China (CPC) — will seek to further strengthen their ties when they meet for a “relationship conference” on November 1 in New Delhi.

A Chinese delegation led by Zhou Yongkang, Member of the Standing Committee of Politburo and Secretary of the Political and Legislative Affairs Committee of CPC’s Central Committee, will attend the conference, ‘China and India: 60 Years and Beyond’, to be held at the Nehru Memorial Library.

Zhou, ranked ninth in the CPC hierarchy, is a key strategist of the ruling dispensation in Beijing and is said to play a key role in China’s policy in Tibet.

“The delegation is visiting specifically for the conference, thus underlining the importance being attached to it by the two sides. Sonia Gandhi has personally approved the event,” Chairman of Congress’s Foreign Affairs Department, Karan Singh, said in an invitation to party colleagues to attend the conference.

Chinese scholar affirms Okinawa claim
More than a few Chinese scholars are beginning to claim Okinawa as Chinese land by writing numerous academic papers in Chinese journals, though they are still in a minority among historians.

Xu Yong, noted professor of history at the Beijing University, is among scholars whose work presents the Chinese case. Xu was a member of the Japan-China Joint History Research Committee, set up in 2006 under an agreement between then-prime minister Shinzo Abe and Chinese President Hu Jintao. This was an attempt to salvage bilateral relations that dived during the time of Abe's predecessor, Junichiro Koizumi, and his regular visits to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine memorializing Japan's war dead (including Class A war criminals such as Hideki Tojo).

Xu has said in research papers and recent symposiums that the issue of sovereignty over Okinawa is unsettled because the Qing Dynasty of China did not approve when Japan abolished the Kingdom of Ryukyu and set up Okinawa Prefecture in 1879.

The US put Okinawa under its control after World War II on the Potsdam Declaration without any legitimate basis in international law, Xu has said. He has claimed that the abolition of the kingdom by the Meiji government in 1879, US control over Okinawa even after the war and Okinawa's reversion to Japanese sovereignty from US occupation in 1972, were all illegitimate, which in return affirmed China's right to claim Okinawa.

Anti-Japan protesters also claim Okinawa Chinese scholars are not alone in staking claims for Okinawa. Recent anti-Japan protesters in Chinese cities have made the same claim. For example, a Reuters photo taken on September 16 in Chengdu showed that young anti-Japanese marchers brandished a big Chinese-language banner reading ''Restore Ryukyu! Liberate Okinawa''.

Beijing involved too
India, however, is not alone in "meddling" in Nepal's politics. Rival China seems to be at it too. The end of monarchy in Nepal was a huge blow to the Chinese, as Nepal's kings have traditionally been closer to Beijing than Delhi, the latter having supported the pro-democracy struggles. In 2005, for instance, King Gyanendra initiated the successful effort to get China into the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation as an observer, much to India's chagrin.

Then when the Maoists came to power, China successfully wooed Prachanda. His exit was a setback to Chinese influence. The Chinese are just as determined as the Indians to see that they have a "friendly face" at the helm in Kathmandu, someone they can count on to crush the increasing activity of the “free Tibet” movement in Nepal. Hence their support for the Maoists. Prachanda is reported to have met Chinese officials repeatedly in recent months.

China has matched India's every step in Nepal. In 2007, for instance, when India reportedly helped form the Terai-Madhes Loktantrik Party, Beijing deepened its interaction with the Madhesi Jana Adhikar Forum, even sending a Chinese to its annual conference last year.

The Chinese role in the current impasse was laid bare recently when journalists in Kathmandu received a tape of a telephonic conversation between the Maoists' foreign affairs cell chief Krishna Bahadur Mahara and an unidentified Chinese official, wherein Mahara is heard asking for 500 million rupees (US$11.2 million) to secure the votes of 50 members of parliament, apparently from the Madhesi parties, for Prachanda.

Beijing has not concealed its unhappiness with India's enhanced role. "Nepal must be able to solve its problems on its own without outside interference, and China takes every such interference seriously," He Yong, a member of the central secretariat of the Communist Party of China who led a 21-member delegation to Nepal, is reported to have said during meetings with the Nepali president, acting prime minister and the Maoist leader.

China has never hesitated to pressure Nepal's government to act against Tibetan activists. A little over a fortnight ago, Chinese pressure forced Nepalese authorities to crack down on an attempt by Tibetans to vote in elections for a new government-in-exile. Police confiscated ballot boxes midway through the poll.

More embarrassing for the Nepali government was the pressure it was subjected to when President Ram Baran Yadav planned to visit a Buddhist monastery in Boudha last year to inaugurate the centenary celebrations of a Buddhist monk. Chinese officials in Kathmandu warned the government that the visit would be interpreted in Beijing as aiding and abetting anti-Chinese activities. President Yadav canceled his visit an hour before his scheduled arrival at Boudha. Boudha is home to a large number of Tibetan refugees.

While Chinese influence in Nepal is growing, India has only itself to blame for its dwindling clout in Kathmandu. Its misreading of the Maoists and its stubborn reluctance to accept them as a part of Nepal's democratic arena has pushed them into China's waiting arms.

"India has lost the plot" in Nepal, Varadarajan observed. It has allowed "the paranoia and tunnel vision of its security and intelligence establishment to compromise its long-term strategic interests" in the region.

Meanwhile, reports indicate that Nepal's deposed King Gyanendra is fishing in the country's troubled waters too, and is seeking to make a political comeback. He will be looking for powerful patrons. India and China are wading ever deeper into Nepal's political swamp. Which of them will succumb to the temptation of biting the ex-king's bait?

Japan turns to Vietnam to mine rare earth minerals vital to electronics
Naoto Kan, the Japanese prime minister, and his Vietnamese counterpart Nguyen Tan Dung are expected to sign a deal when they meet in Hanoi on October 31. But Japan is so anxious over fears that stockpiles of the exotic metals could run out by next March that it sent Yukio Hatoyama, the former prime minister, as part of an advance guard delegation yesterday (FRI).
A number of leading Japanese companies already have joint ventures with Vietnamese enterprises to extract the minerals crucial for the manufacture of things like computer disks, mobile phones, hybrid vehicle batteries and earphones. But China, which produces 97 per cent of the world's supply of rare earth minerals, sparked a crisis when it blocked supplies to Japan after it arrested a Chinese fishing vessel in disputed waters and held its captain. China, which supplies 60 per cent of its output to Japan, halted the exports on September 21 and has yet to restart the flow even though diplomatic row at the heart of the dispute has now been papered over. Beijing has constantly denied that there is any official ban on the supplies of the minerals, but the looming shortfall if stockpiles run out has prompted Japanese companies in frantic search for alternative supplies.
"It is too risky to depend on one country for crucial material supplies," said Hideyuki Wakutsu, an official at Japan's trade ministry. In another move reflecting the alarm over China's manoeuvring Toyota – which uses the rare earth minerals in production of its hybrid cars – said it would also be teaming up with Vietnamese mining companies. Hanoi is keen to gain from Japan's industrial muscle in the mining of the minerals but after its own bruising disputes with Beijing it is wary of being caught in the crossfire of Tokyo's politicking with China

Lance Whitney reporting in CNet News: "A Chinese state-run telecom provider was the source of the redirection of U.S. military and corporate data that occurred this past April… The current draft of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission's (USCC's) 2010 annual report, which is close to final but has not yet been officially approved, finds that malicious computer activity tied to China continues to persist following reports early this year of attacks against Google and other companies from within the country."

Then on April 8, a large number of routing paths to various Internet Protocol addresses were redirected through networks in China for 17 minutes. The USCC identified China's state-owned telecommunications firm China Telecom as the source of the "hijacking." This diversion of data would have given the operators of the servers on those networks the ability to read, delete, or edit e-mail and other information sent along those paths.

The current geopolitical reality in Asia is that: under the overarching umbrella of American power, China, Japan and India are growing more rapidly than ever before. At present, Sino-Japanese and Sino-US relations remain tense, while the game between India and China is in full swing.

csharma wrote:Chinese view. Interesting cartoon.

http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2010-10 ... 181802.htm

ramana wrote:I for one dont agree with the idea of keeping the King out of power in Nepal. The whole thing was pseudo-secular plot which destroyed India's long term interests in Nepal. A stable Nepal is India's interest and the King figure provides that. However PS elite in India dont like the fact that he is Hindu. That is the crux of the problem. Further as long as INC is in power there is distrust of India seeking to incorporate neighboring kingdoms into the Republic of India. Its this fear that drives them into other powers hands. INC will never categorically state that it will not incorporate all those neighbors. Thats the root of the problem.

The Chinese are Coming !
By Lt Gen JFR Jacob
2 September, 2010

The Dragon has emerged from its lair with a vengeance.

A senior Indian army officer was denied an official Chinese visa on the grounds that he was commanding in Jammu and Kashmir, a disputed territory according to the Chinese.

The Chinese occupy considerable amount of territory in Ladakh, which they captured in 1962. They are now slowly making inroads into the Indus Valley and other areas. In 1963, Pakistan had illegally ceded some 5,000 square km (2000 sq miles) in the area of the Karakoram to China.

Pakistan is now reported to have handed over control of the major part of the northern territories to China. Media reports indicate that there are some 10,000 Chinese soldiers based in Gilgit on the pretext of protecting the widening work on the Karakoram Highway and the construction of a railway line to link east Tibet with the Pakistani port of Gwadar in the Gulf of Oman.

The Russians in the 19th and 20th centuries dreamt of a getting warm water port on the Arabian Sea. The Chinese seem well on the way to fulfilling this Russian dream.

In a Further Move to Encircle India by Sea, the Chinese are Establishing Naval and Air Bases on Myanmar’s Ramree Island in the Bay of Bengal. (Incidentally, I took part in the amphibious assault on Ramree Island during World War II). These Bases on Ramree Island will help the Chinese in their Endeavors to Control the Upper Bay of Bengal and Pose a Threat to Kolkata, Vishakapatnam and the Andamans.

The presence of Chinese troops in Gilgit is a matter of great concern. During the Kargil conflict, the five battalions of the intruding paramilitary Northern Rifles were maintained from Gilgit and thence from Skardu. There is a good road from Gilgit to Skardu. In pre-Partition days, road communications to Gilgit were along the Kargil-Skardu-Gilgit route. This section can easily be restored in a short period of time.

The reported presence of Chinese troops in Gilgit poses a serious threat to Indian road communications to Ladakh running through Kargil.

Another matter of concern is the increased Chinese interest in the Indus Valley. The easiest approach to Leh is along this valley. The Chinese have not only shown interest in the Indus Valley but also the Karakoram Pass between India and China.

Any Chinese move through the Karakoram Pass will threaten our troops in Siachen and our base at Thoise. In the contingency of any future conflict with the Chinese, new areas of conflict in Ladakh will open up. I served in Ladakh for two years immediately after the Chinese invasion of 1962, and it also fell under my purview subsequently as Chief of Staff and Army Commander covering the northeast. During this period there were many incursions and incidents.

Keeping these factors in mind, there is an urgent requirement for another division and supporting armour to be raised for the defence of Ladakh and two more for the north east.

In the northeast, the Chinese may, after negotiations, reduce their claims from the whole of Arunachal to the Tawang tract and Walong.

Major Bob Kathing and his Assam Rifles platoon only moved to take control of Tawang in the spring of 1951. The Chinese had placed a pillar in Walong in the 1870s. They have built up the road, rail and air infrastructure in Tibet. It is assessed that the Chinese can now induct some 30 divisions there in a matter of weeks.

We are committed to ensure the defence of Bhutan. We need at least two divisions plus for the defence of Bhutan. In West Bhutan, the Chinese have moved upto the Torsa Nulla. From there it is not far to Siliguri via Jaldakha. This remains the most serious potential threat to the Siliguri corridor.

The Chinese have developed the infrastructure in Tibet to enable them to mount operations all along the border. We are still in the process of upgrading our infrastructure in the north east. It will take many more years before the infrastructure in the north east is upgraded to what is required. Thus we need to raise two more divisions and an armoured brigade for the north east.

There is an urgent requirement for more artillery, firepower and mobility. More helicopters are also needed to ensure mobility. Mobility is a key factor in military operations. Mobility is necessary to obtain flexibility as also the ability to react in fluid operations. In order to ensure the means to react, we need reserves. These reserves have yet to be created.

The Air Force needs to deploy more squadrons in that region, since, unlike 1962, the Air Force will play a decisive role in any future operations.

The Chinese are also said to be re-establishing their earlier links with the Naga insurgents.

In 1974/75, I was in charge of operations that intercepted two Naga gangs going to China to collect weapons and money. The Nagas were then compelled to sign the Shillong Accord, and Chinese support for the Naga insurgents was put on the backburner. Twelve years of peace followed. But now, the Chinese, in collusion with the Pakistani ISI, are said to be in the process of re-activating their support of the Naga insurgents as part of an overall scheme to destabilize the north east.

The increasing military collaboration between China and Pakistan is of growing concern, but we seem woefully unprepared for this contingency.

The government urgently needs to expedite the induction of land, air and naval weapons systems and to build up the required reserves of ammunition and spares. In any future conflict, logistics will be of paramount importance.

During the 1971 war, it took me some six months to build up the infrastructure for the operations in East Pakistan. The requirements now are far, far greater. Modern weapons systems take a long time to induct and absorb. The induction of new weapons systems and build up of logistical backing should be initiated on an emergency footing.

At the moment, we seem to have insufficient resources to meet this contingency.

We are critically short of modern weapons systems and weaponry. No new 155mm guns have been inducted for some two decades.

During the limited Kargil conflict, we ran out of 155mm ammunition for the Bofors field guns.
Fortunately for us, the Israelis flew out the required ammunition.

New aircraft for our Air Force are yet to be inducted. The navy is short of vital weapons systems. These shortages need to be addressed at the earliest.

There is no Soviet Union with its Treaty of Friendship to help us now [in 1971, the Soviets moved 40 divisions to the Xinjiang and seven to the Manchurian borders to deter the Chinese]. We have to rely on our own resources. We must show that we have the will and wherewithal to meet the emerging contingencies.

It is High Time the Government Reappraises the Emerging Situation and puts in place the Measures Required to Meet the Developments, Before it is Too Late.

Juggi G wrote:When an 87 Year Old Retired General Realises the Grave Gravity of the Situation & the very sorry State of Affairs of Military Acquisitions, Why can't the Serving Big Generals, the Politicians & the goddamn Government

Pratyush wrote:Why only Kangress and not any other political party or a group of parties to meet the CPC.

Should I be smelling a rat?

Acharya wrote:Check this scenario which is never discussed by Kaplan. IOR is not going to be the theatre of conflict but the land borders around the Himalayas will be the region of real conflict

India prospers and it soon finds itself surrounded by powerful enemies. As war erupts. India joins the Allies against the Hegemony.

WW3: The Third Human Civil War
India one of the major allied powers during the Third Human Civil War, fought alongside the United States, EU, Mexico, Korea, AU, Australia, Japan, Brazil and Israel against the Hegemony. India provided the bulk of the allied soldiers and opened up a second front which in time broke apart the Hegemony and led to its fall.

1. Maoism spreads in Nepal, India's East - Orissa, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, Bihar, West Bengal, etc. and makes India's supply lines through the Indian mainland vulnerable as well as spread chaos through the region at the instigation of the Chinese.
2. Bangladesh becomes antagonistic to India - Chinese are going to build the Chittagong port, increasing their presence in Bangladesh and Bangladesh politics. It is not inconceivable that the Chinese push the Bangladeshis to take an antagonistic line towards India, and gives the Bangladeshis nukes as well. Whether they give nukes or not to Bangladesh, it is still possible that Bangladesh would not allow India to access India's North-East through its territory. At the instigation of the Chinese, the Bangladeshis could even start a new front against India and send in troops into India's North-East. China could promise them, that Bangladesh would be allowed to keep certain areas like Tripura, etc. where there already are a big Bangladeshi demographic presence.
3. Nepal offer PLA an army base on Nepali soil. - Considering that the Maoists in Nepal are almost in power there, and now they have a rich patron in Beijing, willing to give the Maoists enough money to finance their further arming to the teeth, it is quite conceivable the Maoists would see a PLA base in Nepal as an insurance policy against Indian retaliation. If under Chinese nuclear umbrella, the Pakistanis have been arming Jihadis inside India and pushing them to cause terrorism, same way Nepal could become a Maoist stronghold, also under Chinese security umbrella, supporting the Naxalites in India.
4. Myanmar allows PLA to station troops along the Indian border to Myanmar - Myanmar is already in China's pocket. Secondly Myanmar is going to be China's primary route to the Indian Ocean. Such an enormous economic undertaking would be secured using PLA soldiers through Myanmar. These PLA soldiers would be available for the invasion into India.
5. Tibet is already fully militarized with the Chinese having set up many border roads, airfields, railroads and Army bases.

The Chinese government has effectively backed away from a new state policy which it had conveyed to the United States and considers the South China Sea as part of its "core interests" that concern China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, sources close to the matter said Friday.

Beijing informed Washington in March that it sees the South China Sea as a core interest, along with Taiwan and Tibet. But in recent meetings, Chinese officials have been refuting such claims, the sources said.

The apparent change in China's policy comes in the wake of growing wariness among Southeast Asian nations, as well as other players such as the United States, about China's arrogance amid its increasing military presence in the South China Sea.

China's "core interest" policy has drawn protests from the United States and member nations of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, some that have territorial disputes with Beijing in the South China Sea.

The sources said, though, that China may no longer use the term "core interest," but it remains unclear if China will ease its hard-line stance on protecting its maritime interests, which also includes the East China Sea.

Arrested NSCN (I-M) arms procurer Anthony Shimray has told the National Investigation Agency (NIA) sleuths that he paid an advance of $ 800,000 this April to a Bangkok-based company to source rocket launchers, grenades, assault rifles and ammunition for the Naga and other insurgent groups in Assam and Manipur from a weapons supplier in mainland China.

Shimray, 50, picked up by the Indian security agencies apparently from Patna on October 2, has revealed that he has been frequently travelling to Beijing and is in constant touch with the Chinese intelligence.

Top government sources told The Sunday Express that Shimray’s release has been demanded by NSCN (I-M) chairman Isak Chisi Swu in a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh from Bangkok this month, saying that the arms procurer for the insurgent group was in India only to help the Naga leadership in the ongoing dialogue with New Delhi.

Before Swu’s missive, NSCN (I-M)’s so-called Commander-in-Chief, V S Atem, wrote a threatening letter to the Indian government and accused the RA&W of picking up Shimray from the Kathmandu International Airport as he landed from Bangkok. Atem’s letter has since been withdrawn by the NSCN (I-M) leadership.

Sources said Shimray told his interrogators that he has to make a final payment of another $200,000 before the Chinese company would ship arms from Dalian in north China to the Naga group through either the Cox’s Bazaar route in Bangladesh or through the land route via North Myanmar. The arms supplier said the weapons delivery was expected to be made in October-November, once the advance had been paid to the Chinese company.The NIA has the exact names of the companies involved in Bangkok and China.

RajeshA wrote:



Acharya garu,

This is all pretty much in the future, going from the timestamp on these scenarios.

To be honest, at first I thought of this as a huge mountain of crap, and out of respect, I did not respond to the post. Now I am giving it some more thought. Actually the scenarios in the video still have not been the clinchers in changing my view, simply stimulants.
.

The Japanese trade minister urged China on Sunday to restart exports of crucial minerals known as rare earths that both traders and government officials say have been blocked for the past month amid a territorial dispute between the countries.
The trade minister, Akihiro Ohata, also quoted a top Chinese official as acknowledging that customs officials had stepped up inspections of all rare-earth shipments from China. Industry officials said last week that China had quietly halted some shipments of the materials to the United States and Europe, despite denials from Beijing of an official embargo. Mr. Ohata said the Chinese vice minister of commerce, Jiang Yaoping, who was visiting Tokyo for an energy conservation forum, had told him that Chinese customs had strengthened checks of all rare-earth exports, not just to Japan, as a “countersmuggling” measure. But Mr. Jiang reiterated that there was no international trade embargo, Mr. Ohata said. Mr. Ohata said he had pressed the Chinese minister to normalize rare-earth shipments. Mr. Jiang responded that he would “make efforts to ensure the situation will not adversely affect the economies of Japan and China,” Mr. Ohata said.

Kukreja wrote:China retracts policy on S. China Sea, tells U.S.
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/internat ... 7000c.html

The Chinese government has effectively backed away from a new state policy which it had conveyed to the United States and considers the South China Sea as part of its "core interests" that concern China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, sources close to the matter said Friday.

Beijing informed Washington in March that it sees the South China Sea as a core interest, along with Taiwan and Tibet. But in recent meetings, Chinese officials have been refuting such claims, the sources said.

The apparent change in China's policy comes in the wake of growing wariness among Southeast Asian nations, as well as other players such as the United States, about China's arrogance amid its increasing military presence in the South China Sea.

China's "core interest" policy has drawn protests from the United States and member nations of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, some that have territorial disputes with Beijing in the South China Sea.

The sources said, though, that China may no longer use the term "core interest," but it remains unclear if China will ease its hard-line stance on protecting its maritime interests, which also includes the East China Sea.

1962 redux?

Gen. Shankar Roychowdhury is a former Chief of Army Staff and a former Member of Parliament
..
The present Sino-Indian equation is almost irresistibly reminiscent of the run-up to the Sino-Indian border war of 1962, and provides a fascinating playback of China’s postures at that time with its disconcertingly similar sequence of claims along the McMahon Line in North East Frontier Agency (Nefa), as well as along the Uttar Pradesh-Tibet border and in Ladakh, as relics of historic injustices perpetrated in earlier days by British imperialists. A naive and militarily ill-prepared India, with an exaggerated self image of its own international relevance as a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, had sought to dissuade a determined China with platitudinous Nehruvian philosophies of anti-colonial solidarity, all of which were contemptuously disposed of by “a whiff of grapeshot” on the desolate slopes of the Namkha Chu and Rezang La. India’s collapse and comprehensive downsizing in short order in 1962 was primarily because it lacked military capability vis-a-vis China, a fatal flaw which has a disconcerting tendency of repeating itself when lessons of earlier debacles wear off from the country, as they seem to be doing now. “1962 redux” is slowly grinding into gear again, with end results unforeseeable, except that an enhanced replay at some stage (2020?) can never be totally discounted. India must not repeat its follies of the past because this time around it has been adequately forewarned.
In starkly contrasting national attitudes, the People’s Republic of China has never swerved from its “sacred duty” to recover and reunify what it perceives as its lost territories, notably Tibet and Taiwan. China’s other such claims pertain to areas along the Sino-Soviet and Sino-Indian borders, besides smaller island entities in the South and East China Seas, to which has now been added the complete territory of India’s Arunachal Pradesh under its new Chinese appellation.

India has to evaluate the threat potential of the situation dispassionately but realistically, having reference to China’s demonstrated determination to set its own history in order. Tibet was successfully concluded in 1950 when the People’s Liberation Army marched into the country against a feeble and disjointed resistance, and re-established China’s authority. Taiwan has been an infructuous effort so far only because of the massive support and protection of the United States, which has guaranteed the independence of that country with the presence of its Seventh Fleet.

If similar Chinese pressures develop regarding Arunachal Pradesh, and cannot be resolved through diplomacy and mediation (again as in 1962), India will be left with starkly limited options — either capitulation to China, or military defence of its territory.

In the latter contingency, even a speculative overview would suggest that for India a full fledged Sino-India war would likely be a “two-and-a-half front”, with Pakistan and China combining in tandem, and an additional internal half front against affiliated terrorist networks already emplaced and functional within the country. For India it would be a combination of 1962, together with all of India’s wars against Pakistan (1947-65, ’71 and ’99), upgraded to future dimensions and extending over land, aerial, maritime space and cyberspace domains. Nuclear exchange at some stage, strategic, tactical or both, would remain a distinct possibility, admittedly a worst case, but one which cannot be ignored. The magnitude of losses in terms of human, material and economic costs to all participants can only be speculated upon at present.

China is obviously very much ahead of India in military capabilities, a comparative differential which will be further skewed with Pakistan’s resources coming into play. India has to develop its own matching capabilities in short order, especially the ability to reach out and inflict severe punitive damage to the heartlands of its adversaries, howsoever distant. There would be national, regional and international repercussions that would severely affect the direct participants as also close bystanders like Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan, if not countries further afield as well.

Any future Sino-Indian conflict is a doomsday scenario, straight out of Dr Strangelove, a zero-sum calculus that must not be allowed to occur. China must restrain itself regarding its alleged claims to India’s Arunachal Pradesh. History has moved on — attempts to reverse it are futile.

RajeshA wrote:India would have to change how it is perceived in the neighborhood. Every transgression by a neighbor should be forcefully punished. Every politician in the neighboring countries, who goes against India's interests should be mercilessly brought down, politically or otherwise, and those politicians who favor India should be given strong financial support. Regardless of whether we do it or not, India would always be condemned by the neighbors of interference in their internal issues. This perception can only be prevented if India also controls the media and the narrative in the neighboring countries. We can try to generally improve India's image there, or balance our negative image simply by proliferating a negative image of all involved by besmirching reputations and making allegations of impropriety and corruption against anti-Indian politicians.

Anyway, India should try to absorb Nepal, otherwise we would be letting a big PLA outpost to grow in the heart of Indian Subcontinent.

brihaspati wrote: Moreover, I would see a different scenario 20 years before that projection. Where PRC is forced to retreat substantially and confine itself to the lower plains. Pak is no more after initiating a conflict with India with Chinese and other backing. Depending on whether the then Indics combine a "prosleytizing" agenda or not, a lot of those colours in the map may just change into something different.

TonyMontana wrote
The difference is intention. China is actively trying to make this map happen. Would she succede? Up to discussion, but this is what she's trying. (I don't agree, but let's go with it). What is India doing to make your scenario happen? Or are you relying on the Chinese to do the work for you?

brihaspati wrote:
If India is trying anything to make my scenario happen, should she at all reveal what she is doing? Maybe I am relying partly on the Chinese to make it happen, may be not entirely! Maybe the idea is to help the Chinese to make it happen! Let's see! By the way, if China is making it so apparent as to what she intends to do - thats very poor statesmanship - isn't it?

boats were in Japan's "contiguous zone" but did not cross into Japanese territorial waters, Kyodo reported, sourcing Japan's coast guard.But Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshito Sengoku said in the protest message to China that seeing Chinese patrol boats made his government feel "uncomfortable," according to Kyodo.China's foreign ministry has claimed that its boats' patrols are both legal and based on need.Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshito Sengoku said Monday that Japan will step up its monitoring activities around the Islands, according to Kyodo. Japan will add six submarines to its current fleet of 16 during the next four years as it sees increased naval activity from Asian neighbor China, according to news reports from Tokyo last week.Diplomatic tensions peaked in September after Japanese authorities arrested a Chinese fishing captain near the islands and detained him for more than two weeks.
The battle escalated into diplomatic threats by Beijing, the suspension of diplomatic talks and canceled trips between the nations. High level military talks between the two powers that had been suspended over the row restarted October 11 but with little talk about islands, because it was "not very productive," as one Japanese defense official said.Japanese opposition politicians have called for Internet search engine Google to drop the Chinese name from its maps and were quickly joined by Japan's foreign ministry. Anti-Japan protesters in China turned violent over a week ago, vandalizing Japanese businesses and cars. On Monday, the Chinese Embassy in Tokyo received an envelop containing a bullet and a protest document, Kyodo reported -- the second such protest this month.

TonyMontana wrote: So basically the argument is that since India is going to be seen by her neighbours as a hegemony anyway, she might as well act as one to at least get the benefits. Logical, if I do say so myself. But do you think this is somehow giving credit to the "Chinese Model"? Since this is what we are doing?