Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/
Philip ji,Philip wrote:I have a word of caution to those who say that China cannot afford to attack India.Beware.Pak is their prime proxy.If India and Pak slug it out in a war thta could go nuclear too,who wins? No prizes for the right answer.Secondly,have members been keenly watching developments ibn Burma? China is going to build a secret N-plant for them and if Burma,with 500,000+ troops is added to the equation as a second proxy with which to hem India in,the red light warning signal will start flashing.China is also sending a "special envoy" to Lankan to witness Pres.Rajapaks'e swearing in for his second term.Is India also sending a "bigwig" to counter China? The Chinese are weaving a deadly web of allies,proxies and fellow travellers,who in moments of global crisis will support Chiuna first against India.India's frist task is to "secure the neighbourhood",with dilomatic and military agreements with friendly nations and then rapidly buid up military forces to be able to take on the PRC,Pak and Burma simultaneously.
China has generally handled its extraordinary global ascendance with finesse, assuring neighbors that it remains a developing country and is embarked on a "peaceful rise." This astute policy is informed by the past. Heirs of an ancient civilization, China's leaders have a keen sense of history, and Chinese strategists have studied the experiences of other rising powers intently.Britain's smooth adjustment to being surpassed by the United States in the early 20th century is one case that gained China's attention. Another, and very different, example is Germany's bid to challenge France's position in Europe and Britain's supremacy at sea in the late 19th century. That latter gambit evoked an alliance among Britain, France and Russia, led to Germany's encirclement, and eventually to a world war that brought disaster to Europe and defeat to Germany. It need not have been that way. Otto von Bismarck, who unified Germany after Prussia's defeat of Austria (1866) and France (1871), understood the importance of treading lightly and assuaging the fears of Germany's neighbors so that they would not join forces and encircle it. Once Kaiser Wilhelm dismissed Bismarck in 1890, he discarded the Iron Chancellor's strategy and embarked on what proved to be the ruinous path to 1914.The lesson China seemed to take from these examples is that it should emulate Britain, not Wilhelmine Germany.
If China does become the world's most powerful nation, what would happen if it got angry about something truly important? This is the question being asked in India, Vietnam, Japan and Indonesia, the very countries that, no matter what they say to the contrary, are watching China's ascent with a mix of admiration and unease.
By virtue of geography, these nations are also well positioned to join the United States in an encircling strategy. We're hardly at that point — China has plenty of carrots and sticks, and its neighbors are too smart to line up mechanically with the United States — but there are signs of nervousness.India and the United States, estranged for much of the Cold War, now talk of a "strategic" partnership. U.S. arms will soon start flowing to India. President Obama this week endorsed India's longtime quest for a seat on the U.N. Security Council. Over the last several years, India and Japan, which have had little to do with each other on matters of national security, have engaged in a security dialogue and, together with the United States, joint naval exercises. Washington has not merely mended its fences with Vietnam; it is systematically deepening ties with Hanoi. A shared concern about China is one reason for this. The ban on American arms sales to Indonesia (another country in which suspicions toward China run deep) has been lifted.
These nascent realignments carry risks. Treating China as if it were a potential enemy could turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, leaving everyone worse off. But if this denouement is to be avoided, it's not enough for other states to eschew worst-case thinking. China needs to regain its composure and revert to its "peaceful rise" playbook — and ruminate anew on Bismarck.
Barely a month ahead of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to India next month, New Delhi has made it clear that it expects Beijing to set the record straight on Jammu & Kashmir by reciprocating just the way India has done in the case of Chinese sensitivities in Tibet and Taiwan.
...
Giving out details of these talks, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao put it bluntly on record: “Our minister (Krishna) referred to the need to show mutual sensitivity and that the Chinese side needs to be sensitive to our concerns in J&K like India has been sensitive to Chinese concerns on Taiwan and Tibet.”
That is sheer stupidity! It is one thing to equate J&K with Taiwan. What was the need to bring in Tibet as well? Tibet is a Dharmic territory, where India's religious places lie. Why is Nirupama Rao presenting China with Tibet on a platter?ravit wrote:Waking up finally?
India equates Jammu & Kashmir with Tibet?Barely a month ahead of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to India next month, New Delhi has made it clear that it expects Beijing to set the record straight on Jammu & Kashmir by reciprocating just the way India has done in the case of Chinese sensitivities in Tibet and Taiwan.
...
Giving out details of these talks, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao put it bluntly on record: “Our minister (Krishna) referred to the need to show mutual sensitivity and that the Chinese side needs to be sensitive to our concerns in J&K like India has been sensitive to Chinese concerns on Taiwan and Tibet.”
Forty-eight years have elapsed since the Black November of 1962, when took place the brief but brutal border war with China in the high Himalayas. As is clear, in retrospect, it was a relatively limited clash of arms — that unfortunately turned into a traumatic military debacle and political disaster for us. So, why recall those days and scratch the wounds that have nearly healed?
The reason is the sudden and unexpected availability of two “Eyes Only” letters Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to President John F. Kennedy of the United States informing him that the war situation was “desperate” and asking for “more comprehensive” US military aid, especially in the form of air power “if the Chinese are to be prevented from taking over the whole of Eastern India.”
To the best of my knowledge, the first public mention of these two letters was made in the Rajya Sabha by a member of that House, Sudhir Ghosh, in 1965. The then Prime Minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri, had flatly denied the existence of such letters, stating that he had conducted a thorough search of the prime minister’s secretariat, as it was then called, and the ministry of external affairs. For its part, the United States, after a lapse of some years, accepted that these letters were received but absolutely refused to reveal them. In the 1980s, copies of these letters were duly placed in the US National Archives, the JFK Library in Boston, the LBJ Library in Austin, Texas and some other places. But every line of each letter was so heavily inked out that no technology could help decipher it. Thousands of applicants seeking access to the “blacked-out” documents under the much older, and far more effective, American version of India’s Right to Information Act were courteously told that “at the request of the Government of India” the letters would not be made public.
Imagine my surprise therefore, when soon after arriving in Washington this time around, I had easy access to these “forbidden” epistles. What surprised me even more is that the copies of these letters have been around for nearly four years — but, as far as I know, haven’t yet been published anywhere. One reason may be that interest in the 1962 war has waned. Another, that only the JFK Library has declassified the Nehru letters; the White House and the State Department haven’t.
Let me also confess that for many days I agonised whether I should publish the letters at all, and give the habitual Nehru-haters, of whom there are quite a few in India, another opportunity to malign the iconic prime minister who was the architect of India’s secular democracy and its modernisation. But deep thought dictated that history must never be censored.
Just to publish the text of the two letters one after the other would serve no useful purpose. For the context is essential to comprehend their content and texture.
Moreover, the second letter, sent “within a few hours of the first”, is vastly more important. In this, Nehru informed Kennedy that during the short interval, “the situation in NEFA (North-East Frontier Agency, now called Arunachal Pradesh) Command has deteriorated still further. Bomdila has fallen and the retreating forces from Sela have been trapped between the Sela Ridge and Bomdila. A serious threat has developed to our Digboi oilfields in Assam. With the advance of the Chinese in massive strength, the entire Brahmaputra Valley is seriously threatened and unless something is done immediately to stem the tide, the whole of Assam, Tripura, Manipur and Nagaland would also pass into Chinese hands.”
“The Chinese have poised massive forces”, he added, “(also) in Chumbi Valley between Sikkim and Bhutan and another invasion from that direction appears imminent... In Ladakh, as I have said in my earlier communication, Chushul is under heavy attack and the shelling of the airfield at Chushul has already commenced. We have also noticed increasing air activity by the Chinese air force. (In the earlier letter, Nehru had said that after Chushul there was “nothing to stop the Chinese till they reach Leh, the headquarters of the Ladakh province of Kashmir.”)
After pointing out that hitherto he had “restricted our requests to essential equipment” and thanking the US for the assistance “so readily given”, Nehru went on: “We did not ask for more comprehensive assistance, particularly air assistance, because of wider implications... in the global context and we did not want to embarrass our friends.” The next five lines state what has been indicated above: “The situation that has developed is, however, desperate. We have to have more comprehensive assistance if the Chinese are to be prevented from taking over the whole of Eastern India. Any delay in this assistance reaching us will result in nothing short of a catastrophe for our country”.
Remarkably, Nehru’s request for comprehensive aid, especially “immediate support to strengthen our air arm sufficiently to stem the tide of the Chinese advance” goes into minute details, and is prefaced by the statement: “We have repeatedly felt the need to use our air arm in support of our land forces but have been unable to do so because in the present state... we have no defence against retaliatory action by the Chinese.” In this context his specific demands are for: “[A] minimum of 12 squadrons of supersonic all-weather fighters” and a “modern radar cover (which) we don’t have.” Nehru added that US air force personnel “will have to man these fighters and radar installations while our personnel are being trained.”
More significantly, he spelled out that US fighter and transport aircraft “manned by US personnel will be used for the present to protect our cities and installations from Chinese attacks and to maintain our communications... and if this is possible... to assist the Indian Air Force in air battles with the Chinese air force over Indian areas where air action by the IAF against Chinese communication lines, supplies and troop concentrations may lead to counter air action by the Chinese. Any air action to be taken against the Chinese beyond the limits of our country, e.g. in Tibet, will be taken by the IAF planes manned by Indian personnel.”
There is a fundamental disconnect between what India sees Tibet and J&K and what china sees the two regions--ravit wrote:Waking up finally?
India equates Jammu & Kashmir with Tibet?Barely a month ahead of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to India next month, New Delhi has made it clear that it expects Beijing to set the record straight on Jammu & Kashmir by reciprocating just the way India has done in the case of Chinese sensitivities in Tibet and Taiwan.
...
Giving out details of these talks, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao put it bluntly on record: “Our minister (Krishna) referred to the need to show mutual sensitivity and that the Chinese side needs to be sensitive to our concerns in J&K like India has been sensitive to Chinese concerns on Taiwan and Tibet.”
China befriending the distant while alienating neighbors?”
That was the question posed by Li Hongmei, the columnist of the Chinese Communist Party controlled “People’s Daily Online”, in an article carried by it on November 12,2010. The theme of the article was that while China’s relations with distant countries such as those in the European Union have been steadily improving, its relations with its Asian neighbours are not cordial.
WRT INDIA--The article quoted a Chinese saying that “a distant water supply is no good in putting out a nearby fire” and added: “To wit, China will never bend its consistent determination to seek after the good-neighborly mood in its vicinity.”
china does not want to settle differences with India as long as TSP plays its role to perfection. Low cost option and does not gets its undies soiled.Concern over the possibility of the US exploiting the differences of China with its neighbours has definitely introduced a re-thinking in the Chinese policy towards its neighbours. This does not mean any Chinese concessions on the question of territorial sovereignty. The Chinese give indications of toning down their rhetoric and restoring harmony in their relations with their neighbours. It is interesting to note that the recent writings in China on the need for a more accommodating policy towards its neighbours in order to pre-empt the perceived US designs to drive a wedge between China and its neighbours does not make any reference to China’s pending border dispute with India. India’s policy of bilaterally settling its disputes with China and Pakistan without allowing any third party role has given confidence to the Chinese that despite the closer strategic relations between the US and India, Beijing does not have to fear any US meddling in the border dispute. ( 15-11-10)
when ethnic violence broke out between Uyghurs and Han Chinese last year in Xinjiang, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that China's treatment of Uyghurs amounted to a "genocide." So what to make now of the news that Turkey is engaging in a second round of military exercises with China -- which a Chinese commentator says is probably designed with fighting Uyghurs in mind?
Never has a people stabbed their brothers so viciously in the back, as have the Turks done to Uyghurs. Shame! Shame! Shame!Uyghur groups have been silent thus far because “they are not prepared to make a public statement because of the political-cultural support that the Turkish government has shown in the past.” But privately, he said, “they are outraged.”
While enriching their immediate families. You still sound surprised. I love that about you.RajeshA wrote: Never has a people stabbed their [distant and twice removed] brothers so viciously in the back, as have the Turks done to Uyghurs. Shame! Shame! Shame!
You read too much into my rhetoric!TonyMontana wrote:You still sound surprised.
If we consider DDM to be idiots with few exceptions, why must we always ascribe 100% accuracy to their shrill headlines? Nothing of the sort was said by GoI to the chinese. The platitudes about mutual "sensitivities" cover a much harder message.RajeshA wrote:That is sheer stupidity!.ravit wrote:
India equates Jammu & Kashmir with Tibet?
This is diplomatic speak for Taiwan/Tibet will be back on the table if you don't back off J&K.“Our minister (Krishna) referred to the need to show mutual sensitivity and that the Chinese side needs to be sensitive to our concerns in J&K like India has been sensitive to Chinese concerns on Taiwan and Tibet.”
A meeting of foreign ministers from Russia, India and China on Monday confirms Obama's tidings that the US foothold in Asia is planted on firm ground. With the strengthening of US ties to Russia and India, and the aggravation of tensions in US-China relationship the backdrop in Wuhan, the ancient city on the banks of the Yangtze River, it was the Russia-India-China (RIC) triangle on which fissures were opening up.
Thanks to the "reset" with the US, Russia hopes to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2011; the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has invited Russia to join its missile defense project for Europe; and Russia is about to partner NATO in Afghanistan.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said over the weekend that Moscow and NATO may "put an end to the post-Cold War period" at the upcoming summit in Lisbon on Friday. (Obama and Medvedev are scheduled to meet again in Lisbon). Lavrov revealed that the agenda was agreed during NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen's visit to Moscow in the previous week.
The odd man out is China. Again, the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe is holding a historic summit in December in Kazakhstan, where Beijing is kept out. The Russian involvement with NATO in Afghanistan deprives the Shanghai Cooperation Organization of its gravitas.
What may hurt China most is that the US is rolling back the Caspian energy rivalries. The prospects for the South Stream and Nord Stream gas pipelines have brightened. Russia is assuming long-term obligations as energy supplier to the European market. Conversely, Moscow will be in no tearing hurry to find alternate Chinese markets for energy exports. The Russian-Bulgarian agreement on Friday on South Stream enables the project to take off ahead of schedule - Washington is applying brakes on Sofia no more.
The reset caught China by surprise. Chinese commentators were sanguine until recently that it was unworkable. But the reset vindicates Obama's belief that the preservation of American power is best achieved by jettisoning his predecessor's "unilateralism".
Even if I disagree with MK Bhadrakumar's prescriptions, he does have a finger on the pulse of the geopolitical happenings.The overture to India comes at a time when India's economy is poised to rise at a sharper pace than China's. A People's Daily commentary concluded: "Obama's whirlwind tour to India is a proof that the US strategic focus has been shifted from Beijing to Delhi."
China is the only remaining permanent member of the UN Security Council withholding support for India's bid to join the club. Indian officials expected that Obama's endorsement would put Beijing under pressure. At Wuhan they were in for a setback. The joint communique retracts from the RIC's earlier stated position.
I see all the signs that this is in fact what India is doing as is its duty. It may not be in-your-face obvious but if you connect the dots, it should become clear. No macho sabre-rattling and dada-giri unfortunately but we have massive levers. The chinese know this and it is worrying them. They did not send 11,000 PLA to PoK to build roads. The pakis can do that.RajeshA wrote: India should play the game to win, to win all of J&K and not try to snuggle up into some corner of stability and look for warmth.
In that case, all those signs are escaping me. I haven't read of any moves on the part of India, either military or of political positioning where India were trying to get China to vacate the territories in J&K under its control.Victor wrote:I see all the signs that this is in fact what India is doing as is its duty. It may not be in-your-face obvious but if you connect the dots, it should become clear.RajeshA wrote: India should play the game to win, to win all of J&K and not try to snuggle up into some corner of stability and look for warmth.
The following excerpts in the article are particularly interesting:RajeshA wrote:Published on Nov 17, 2010
By M.K. Bhadrakumar
Obama cleaves Asian rift: Asia Times OnlineA meeting of foreign ministers from Russia, India and China on Monday confirms Obama's tidings that the US foothold in Asia is planted on firm ground. With the strengthening of US ties to Russia and India, and the aggravation of tensions in US-China relationship the backdrop in Wuhan, the ancient city on the banks of the Yangtze River, it was the Russia-India-China (RIC) triangle on which fissures were opening up.Thanks to the "reset" with the US, Russia hopes to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2011; the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has invited Russia to join its missile defense project for Europe; and Russia is about to partner NATO in Afghanistan.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said over the weekend that Moscow and NATO may "put an end to the post-Cold War period" at the upcoming summit in Lisbon on Friday. (Obama and Medvedev are scheduled to meet again in Lisbon). Lavrov revealed that the agenda was agreed during NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen's visit to Moscow in the previous week.
The odd man out is China. Again, the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe is holding a historic summit in December in Kazakhstan, where Beijing is kept out. The Russian involvement with NATO in Afghanistan deprives the Shanghai Cooperation Organization of its gravitas.
What may hurt China most is that the US is rolling back the Caspian energy rivalries. The prospects for the South Stream and Nord Stream gas pipelines have brightened. Russia is assuming long-term obligations as energy supplier to the European market. Conversely, Moscow will be in no tearing hurry to find alternate Chinese markets for energy exports. The Russian-Bulgarian agreement on Friday on South Stream enables the project to take off ahead of schedule - Washington is applying brakes on Sofia no more.
The reset caught China by surprise. Chinese commentators were sanguine until recently that it was unworkable. But the reset vindicates Obama's belief that the preservation of American power is best achieved by jettisoning his predecessor's "unilateralism".Even if I disagree with MK Bhadrakumar's prescriptions, he does have a finger on the pulse of the geopolitical happenings.The overture to India comes at a time when India's economy is poised to rise at a sharper pace than China's. A People's Daily commentary concluded: "Obama's whirlwind tour to India is a proof that the US strategic focus has been shifted from Beijing to Delhi."
China is the only remaining permanent member of the UN Security Council withholding support for India's bid to join the club. Indian officials expected that Obama's endorsement would put Beijing under pressure. At Wuhan they were in for a setback. The joint communique retracts from the RIC's earlier stated position.
If Russia does get into Afghanistan as a full partner of NATO, Russia would be activating its full influence with the Central Asian Republics to bear upon the stabilization of Afghanistan. Also Russia would become the main route for supplies into Afghanistan, most probably overshadowing Pakistan's relevance.
At the moment China has leverage in Afghanistan only through Pakistan and then Taliban. With Russia moving in into Afghanistan, which they are most keen to do to cut off drug smuggling into Russia and Chechen Islamist training bases, the whole Shanghai Cooperation Organization will lose its salience.
Bhadrakumar goes on to say:Taking exception to recent Chinese moves suggestive of a questioning of India's sovereignty in Kashmir, Krishna apparently expressed the hope China would be sensitive to the Kashmir issue "as we [India] have been to the Tibet Autonomous Region and Taiwan".
Bhadrakumar is wrong of course - we need to frame the discourse in such a manner as to consistently maintain the parallel between Kashmir on the one hand and Tibet/Taiwan on the other.At any rate, this is the first time Delhi drew such a dramatic parallel between Kashmir, Tibet and Taiwan issues. Beijing is unused to taking punches (including counter-punches) involving the status of Tibet and Taiwan and it is unclear how Delhi hopes to flesh out this complicated analogy - Tibet and Taiwan are not territorial disputes.
http://www.freetibet.org/about/united-nations-tibet1 October 1959
Resolution 1353 (XIV) called for "respect for the fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people and for their distinctive cultural and religious life." Adopted by 45 votes to nine, 26 abstentions; Britain abstained.
12 December 1961
Resolution 1723 (XVI) called for "the cessation of practices which deprive the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights and freedom including their rights to self-determination." It also expressed "the hope that member states will make all possible efforts as appropriate towards achieving the purpose of the present resolution." Adopted by 56 votes to 11, with 29 abstentions; Britain (after initial doubts) approved.
December 1965
Resolution 2079 (XX) renewed the call for "the cessation of all practices which deprive the Tibetan people of the human rights and fundamental freedoms which they have always enjoyed." Adopted by 43 votes to 26, with 22 abstentions. On this occasion the Indian delegate accused the Chinese of trying "to obliterate the Tibetan people" and of suppression that "surpasses anything that colonialists have done in the past to the people they ruled as slaves." Britain supported the resolution.
I don't expect GoI to advertise its intentions but keep them as low key as possible.RajeshA wrote: I don't see that the GoI is all that keen on opening up the issue of PoK or CoK.
This is true. And we have put Tibet back on the table as a result. No matter how you cut it, this is a painful and public kick in the b@lls. Can you picture panda saying "ok, ok, we'll stop stapling visas now"? They have painted their sorry asses into a corner. Imagine the implications. Anyway, this would have to be done sooner or later but it happened now, probably more in response to the PLA troops in PoK than the visa-stapling. As I mentioned, this visa stuff is peanuts. How does it affect or change the situation on the ground? We have been issuing de facto Tibetan passports and visas for a half century and these documents are accepted everywhere. What kind of signal does it send to panda if we say that we now will get more aggressive on this? I think we are using the "visa row" as a smokescreen to position a shaft.So the current row between India and China has nothing to do with PoK or CoK, but rather with how China has changed its stance towards Indian State of J&K.
That jihadi monster is snapping at all those countries who enabled, financed or conceived it. But PRC is the only one really using it. Who created it doesn't really matter now!ramana wrote:sanjeevpunj,
Take all data as inputs and arrive at conclusions. PRC did not create the jihadi moster. Its the US(enabler), KSA(financiers) and UK(with its ideas).
Once I looked through the telescope, and I could swear I saw an Indian on the moon. India has been colonizing the moon, but it is all an hush hush affair, all top secret.Victor wrote:I don't expect GoI to advertise its intentions but keep them as low key as possible.RajeshA wrote: I don't see that the GoI is all that keen on opening up the issue of PoK or CoK.
What makes us think, that China has not escalated the J&K issue to put pressure on India to rescind our Tibetan policy?!Victor wrote:This is true. And we have put Tibet back on the table as a result. No matter how you cut it, this is a painful and public kick in the b@lls. Can you picture panda saying "ok, ok, we'll stop stapling visas now"? They have painted their sorry asses into a corner. Imagine the implications. Anyway, this would have to be done sooner or later but it happened now, probably more in response to the PLA troops in PoK than the visa-stapling. As I mentioned, this visa stuff is peanuts. How does it affect or change the situation on the ground? We have been issuing de facto Tibetan passports and visas for a half century and these documents are accepted everywhere. What kind of signal does it send to panda if we say that we now will get more aggressive on this? I think we are using the "visa row" as a smokescreen to position a shaft.So the current row between India and China has nothing to do with PoK or CoK, but rather with how China has changed its stance towards Indian State of J&K.
I will agree that 80% of our politicians are and have always been doofuses of the first order but not our babus. The politicians can't even take a leak without the babu's instructions. They are just there to play out our democrazy, make money and go back to muluk. Only the babus remain.
I may be reading it all wrong of course but if I discount the media noise and focus on facts alone, a clear picture emerges that says we are on track. It is a clear series of calibrated actions and non-actions going back decades. We are now much more confident of ourselves and some of the steps are becoming more visible.
RajeshA wrote:That jihadi monster is snapping at all those countries who enabled, financed or conceived it. But PRC is the only one really using it. Who created it doesn't really matter now!ramana wrote:sanjeevpunj,
Take all data as inputs and arrive at conclusions. PRC did not create the jihadi moster. Its the US(enabler), KSA(financiers) and UK(with its ideas).
That leaves then PRC in full control through proxy TSPA, making the monster usable against everybody else.ramana wrote:It has to snap at its creators before it can be taken out.
What is this pressure? If they staple some Kashmiri's visa to enter china, that Kashmiri will simply not go to china. Wow, what a huge calamity! But how does this change things on the ground and how and why should this stop us from helping Tibetans as is our duty? The chinese have manufactured a total non-issue thinking they were being clever (as opposed to intelligent) but we seem to be using it very well to scr3w them right back and double hard. The message I get is: India will NEVER rescind its Tibet policy but may instead be getting ready to ratchet it up a couple of levels.What makes us think, that China has not escalated the J&K issue to put pressure on India to rescind our Tibetan policy?!
On the contrary, I think it was absolutely necessary at this time. It also nixes Vajpayee's concession very nicely. The panda has itself given us the means to redress this slip-up.By putting Tibet on the table, we have shot ourselves in the foot.
India's whole polity has been revolving around the vexed question of Kashmir. Since 1948 we have been trying to explain to the world that Kashmir is a part of modern Indian state. For India it has been of utmost importance that the world recognizes that J&K is a part of India. That is the only reason why India has been coy about instigating separatism anywhere in the world, even in countries which are otherwise India's enemies, like Pakistan or China. India has acted under the somewhat misplaced belief that if we accept the territorial integrity of other states and resist meddling in their internal affairs, the other countries too would reciprocate.Victor wrote:RajeshA, with due respect, I am sorely lacking in the respect that you show for chinese coercive power. They have none. Zilch.
What is this pressure? If they staple some Kashmiri's visa to enter china, that Kashmiri will simply not go to china. Wow, what a huge calamity! But how does this change things on the ground and how and why should this stop us from helping Tibetans as is our duty? The chinese have manufactured a total non-issue thinking they were being clever (as opposed to intelligent) but we seem to be using it very well to scr3w them right back and double hard. The message I get is: India will NEVER rescind its Tibet policy but may instead be getting ready to ratchet it up a couple of levels.What makes us think, that China has not escalated the J&K issue to put pressure on India to rescind our Tibetan policy?!
On the contrary, I think it was absolutely necessary at this time. It also nixes Vajpayee's concession very nicely. The panda has itself given us the means to redress this slip-up.By putting Tibet on the table, we have shot ourselves in the foot.
IMHO, we are giving the devil undue stature by endowing it with powers it does not possess. It's one thing to be alert and ready but another to be cowed down by bluff posturing. Also, we need to give our people a lot more credit instead of mocking their low key style. It is unbelievable what we have come through to reach this point.
Ramana ji, with all due respect this is not true. The Jihadi 'monster' is part of the core doctrine. No one created it except PBUH. Rest all are subsets, folks and empires playig each other in a game they never imagined will turn this way.Take all data as inputs and arrive at conclusions. PRC did not create the jihadi moster. Its the US(enabler), KSA(financiers) and UK(with its ideas).
