Are they not putting their throats in our hands? In case of full blown war..India might simply choke them to coal and wood...I wouldn't talk about Delhi's will on this as it'd be a self loathing act.ramana wrote:The odd thing is both the POK and the Myanmar route brings the PRC lifelines within Indian grasp. Yet it is being touted as a move to hedge for Pacific blocade by US and the Straits of Malacca chokehold!!!
PoK would not be within India's grasp once China takes it. If the Chinese facilitate the transfer of Kashmir Valley to Pakistan, then PoK becomes all the more distant from India. Whereas Chinese military would be guarding PoK from within PoK, Indian planes would have to fly from further afield, whereas Chinese planes in Sinkiang or even Gilgit-Baltistan could react at short notice. China would not leave KKH vulnerable.ramana wrote:The odd thing is both the POK and the Myanmar route brings the PRC lifelines within Indian grasp. Yet it is being touted as a move to hedge for Pacific blocade by US and the Straits of Malacca chokehold!!!
India has nearly 100000 soldiers in arunachal pradeshIn short, in case the Chinese attempt any kind of adventurism on the Arunachal-Sikkim sector, the Indian Army would have three full corps waiting for them—the Sukhna-based 33 Corps, the Tezpur-based 4 Corps and the newly-augmented Dimapur-based 3 Corps. All of them have also been given the light 155mm guns which can be heli-lifted. Advanced landing grounds have been built in Tuting, Pasighat, Vijaynagar, Along and Mechuka in Arunachal for heli-landing troops and equipment. “Take it from me,” said a general staff officer, “if they come, the Chinese will find Tawang an impregnable fortress.”
Apparently the Chinese know this. And so they have been shifting focus onto the western sector comprising India’s Ladakh. A few probing trespasses were made there last year, to which India responded with three measures. First, Jairam Ramesh’s road-blocking environment ministrywithdrew its objections to building roads in some 760 Himachal villages. Second, the Indian Air Force augmented and activated a landing strip at Nyoma, 20km from the China border for taking troop-carrying Antonov-32 planes. Next, the IAF developed two more airstrips at Fukche and Daulat Beg Oldi.
The third move, by the cabinet, was to clear the contract for building a tunnel in Rohtang which would make it possible for the troops to move to Ladakh at any time of the year.
It seems India is reacting rather than being proactive. hopefully it will change.These moves, India expects, would make a Chinese bid on Ladakh from Aksai Chin in the east almost impossible. So the Chinese are opening another front on the west—from Gilgit-Baltistan in Pakistan-held northern areas.
I too think that USA is playing India. The question is does India have a choice other than go along. After all India's national interests are at stake here.krisna wrote:Uncles scheme
The timing of the release of the article regarding china in pok, the afghanistan study group recommendation of withdrawal of us troops, sudden ongoing protests in J&K. are they related somewhat together. One of the author is common to both.
RajeshA wrote:The Americans are looking for ways to get out of Afghanistan with their honor intact. They want to be able to tell the American people, that they have not lost in Afghanistan.
In fact the Americans will not be able to suffice even one mission goal for Afghanistan. So the only other way they can do that is by saying something more important came up. That can be either Iran or it can be support to India in China-occupied Kashmir or it can be both.
Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) is only West Jammu. 'Rest is China occupied'.
Iran however is not a crisis region at the moment. Should Israel or USA start something there, many in the international community would put the blame on USA for war-mongering and unprovoked aggression, or as simply an open tactic to get out of Afghanistan.
Balwaristan (Gilgit-Baltistan) however can very quickly turn into a conflict zone, through the actions of other parties, and using that as an excuse to pull out of Afghanistan would seem far more credible.
JMTs
That's a little wishful, don't you think?ramana wrote:Or is this putting lifelines in Indian hands a CBM from PRC?
Burma is heavily focussed on China. In fact China's ungali is everywhere there.Analysts say Myanmar may not always be able to count on China's unqualified support, however. Although China has made major investments in oil, gas, and other resources projects in Myanmar in recent years, many analysts believe China has also at times put pressure on Myanmar behind the scenes to back economic and social reforms. China has also expressed displeasure over reports of possible instability along its border with Myanmar, which is also known as Burma. Myanmar's government has long waged low-grade wars with ethnic separatist groups in border areas, and it has vowed to intensify those efforts this year if the groups don't hand over weapons and fully support the election process.Many analysts say they believe China is counseling Gen. Than Shwe to back down from any steps that could lead to more violence around the election.
"China's No. 1 interest in Burma is stability," said Ian Storey, a fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore. "They have all these investments there," he said, and "they're worried the way things are going in Burma, things could get risky."
Quoting KS article countering chinaRajeshA wrote: I too think that USA is playing India. The question is does India have a choice other than go along. After all India's national interests are at stake here.
True USA would draw some mileage out of the situation for itself, but would it be harmful to Indians to play along?
US wants to befriend India in its high power stakes game with panda. Same happened during cold war-- US vs SU with china siding with US. This occurred because china had clear goals and core interests so it know how much it could tag along with US despite communism prevailing in SU and China. pretty unusual exploited fully by uncle.Times have changed, as has the international strategic milieu. Even while retaining Russia as a friend in the Asian context, India has to develop a new balance of power equation to deal with the challenge from China and Pakistan not merely to our external security but to our national development as a pluralistic, secular and democratic nation. India too has its ancient strategic wisdom, preached in the Panchatantra, Hitopadesa and Arthasastra, encompassing sama (cooperation), dhana (buying up), bedha (causing division) and dhanda (use of force). It is time to invoke that ancient wisdom and devise an appropriate international strategy to counter the Chinese-Pakistani challenge.
I do agree, that USA and India's interests could coincide against PRC.krisna wrote:As long as India clearly articulates the core interests it can play along side USA. It must have certain goals and national aspirations. With that in the background it can play the game.
Agree. no issues on this.RajeshA wrote: I do agree, that USA and India's interests could coincide against PRC.
It is however important that we keep our independent policy, and it is important that we also publicly demonstrate of independence of policy.
.India's immediate interest should be an integration of PoK within India, without getting too bruised up.
By raking up the issue of PoK through Selig Harrison, it seems USA would want India to mobilize and take over PoK. USA also realizes that it would be a uphill task for India, trying to ward off both TSP and PRC at the same time. So either USA simply wants India to lean more towards USA for geopolitics, which we should carefully think over; or the USA is willing to really pitch in militarily and help India get control of PoK, in which case we should show interest. Military support would probably be in terms of aerial troop and hardware transport, but most importantly by pinning down China in the Pacific through a massive naval deployment. That can be in response to some crisis created by North Korea for example.
Best case would be if both North Korea and PoK simultaneously fall to South Korea/America and India respectively
USA will not give in black or white terms nor do India will say it so.So India should put the question very directly: What are the Americans willing to commit to the project of confining China to East Asia, how far are they willing to go to ensure a duopoly in Asia?
Chinese officials have already increased their call for political talks since the signing of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA). The first factor already seems to be having an effect.
Judging from the series of setbacks for the KMT in the legislative by-elections and its predictable defeat in the municipality elections, China is likely to ramp up its support for the KMT in the 2012 presidential election to keep the “China friendly” Ma in power.
According to some news reports, China is studying the feasibility of withdrawing some of its missiles in order to rescue Ma’s re-election campaign in exchange for a quiet agreement for political talks. Ma might get a boost and China would earn a reputation internationally for making peace.
Ma would be in a very weak position to refuse to enter China’s road map at all, if he wants to be re-elected. Of course, it would also mean the end of Taiwan’s security ties with the US.
For China, this would be the stone that killed three birds. However, the consequence for Taiwan is that it would sink politically into “one China” without any prospect of reversing the unfortunate situation. It would also change the regional strategic picture dramatically. Japan worries about this scenario — with very good reason.
This scenario might take place next summer, when the presidential election heats up and if Ma’s popular support is still low. Judging from the non-transparent approach of the KMT and the Chinese governments in handling issues, such as Taiwan’s participation in the World Health Assembly, military confidence building measures and other contacts of a political nature, this situation may materialize — and it would be a nightmare for those who worry about China’s dominance of the region.
China may have room yet to continue growing as the benefits of modernization spread westward within China, but its success will depend on significantly promoting domestic-led growth, which in turn will require returning the proceeds of investment to ordinary depositors, which will raise the cost of capital to enterprises who now depend on low-cost capital to be profitable. In other words, the China we see now will have to change the way it does business—with major implications for how its system works.
Now, one of these problems by itself might be a manageable challenge for foreigners, their governments, and the international system, but the three taken together pose real risks. If China’s elite begins to fight over power as the public clamors for tougher foreign policy positions, experience suggests that domestic Chinese concerns will trump foreign policy interests. Foreign considerations would receive short shrift. When absolute power is at stake, certainly in China and elsewhere, the niceties of foreign relations are quickly forgotten.
Probably more important, China’s so-far successful management of its state economy will ultimately be forced to accommodate the gravity of market economics. In appealing for supporters, the level headed bureaucrats that have substituted for market forces in China’s economic rise in recent years will be increasingly subjected to interest group politics not necessarily grounded in market economics. Distortions will necessarily occur and deny the Chinese the rate of growth to which they are now accustomed. Again, these issues will be exacerbated by discord among the rulers and ruled.
Schelling's theory of surprise; he believes that surprise is often the by-product of analytical timidity. "The poverty of expectations—the failure of imagination—I found this just so interesting," Rumsfeld said. "We tend to hear what we expect to hear, whether it's bad or good. Human nature is that way. Unless something is jarring, you tend to stay on your track and get it reinforced rather than recalibrated. If I as a policymaker fail to make a conscious decision that you want to go around three hundred and sixty degrees and test things, you're likely to stay in a rut.
from the current issue of The Week ( this issue could be termed as The Weak) of malayala manorama publicationsChina has also been enhancing its strike power in Tibet. The Indian Army believes that the PLA can move one full mechanised infantry division into Tibet in 48 hours in an emergency, and about 10 divisions in one month for a permanent base. More worryingly, in its largest ever tactical exercises (code-named Stride) last year, the PLA demonstrated awesome airlift capability. As per the Indian Army’s assessment, China today can airdrop an infantry brigade of 3,000-plus in one airlift and an entire infantry division of about 15,000 troops and their equipment in a single operation.
In addition, China is also learnt to have raised a rapid deployment force (called Emergency-Resolving Mobile Combat Force) which can induct four divisions on any stretch of its frontier (or enemy territory) on a day’s notice. Plus, the PLA’s logistics management has been tuned in such a way as to gain a capability to move 20 to 25 divisions over two months. Most of these capabilities were proven in Stride-2009 in which 50,000 troops were moved across 1,600km by road, rail and air from the military districts of Shenyang, Lanzhou, Jinan and Guangzhou.
Stride-2009 was essentially aimed at proving the PLA’s ability to mobilise in real time. However, what alarmed India was the simultaneous building of advance infrastructure in Tibet so that nearly 25 divisions could be moved into Tibet at short notice. China had three main airfields in Tibet—Kongka, Hoping and Pangta. However, in the months prior to Stride-2009, China built or operationalised two more around Lhasa, and four more elsewhere in Tibet, thus giving them nine airfields to land troops and support fighter operations. And about two months ago, China even exercised a few squadrons of Sukhois and J1s over Tibet. “Exercising them over Tibet has other implications,” said an IAF officer. “You cannot have a sustained exercise programme without having built massive ground support system. Thus even if China is not basing advanced fighters in Tibet as of now, they have all the ground systems in place. They can move in the aircraft in a matter of two hours now.”
More worrying has been the recent integration of their non-nuclear strategic missiles with their military area commands. India has kept its non-nuclear missile regiments (such as 333) under a separate command so that battalion or brigade commanders are not tempted to use them in the event of minor battlefield reverses. China, however, has integrated them into their area commands which signals that their use in battle is being left to the judgment of middle-level commanders.
Good catch!Arihant wrote:Cross-posted from the PRC thread:
This article appeared today in the Taipei Times - very appropriate given recent discussion on this forum.
EDITORIAL : Does Taiwan need nuclear weapons?
RajeshA: The next Taiwanese Presidential election is ours to lose. We could help the right side of Taiwanese politics in many significant ways. We only have to take a page out of the Chinese playbook - they are able to simultaneously maintain a position that is inimical to Taiwan but supportive of the KMT. We need to maintain a position supportive of Taiwan, but less laudatory re the KMT. We need to make our support of the DPP clear, and hold out some goodies for Taiwan should the DPP come to power (mainly diplomatic, but also commercial - as many posters have recently said, there are many commercial goodies for India to offer as well). DPPs Tsai Ing-Wen should visit India, and the visit should get some appropriately calibrated media coverage.RajeshA wrote:Beware of China’s peace offensive by Joseph Wu: Taipei TimesChinese officials have already increased their call for political talks since the signing of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA). The first factor already seems to be having an effect.
Judging from the series of setbacks for the KMT in the legislative by-elections and its predictable defeat in the municipality elections, China is likely to ramp up its support for the KMT in the 2012 presidential election to keep the “China friendly” Ma in power.
According to some news reports, China is studying the feasibility of withdrawing some of its missiles in order to rescue Ma’s re-election campaign in exchange for a quiet agreement for political talks. Ma might get a boost and China would earn a reputation internationally for making peace.
Ma would be in a very weak position to refuse to enter China’s road map at all, if he wants to be re-elected. Of course, it would also mean the end of Taiwan’s security ties with the US.
For China, this would be the stone that killed three birds. However, the consequence for Taiwan is that it would sink politically into “one China” without any prospect of reversing the unfortunate situation. It would also change the regional strategic picture dramatically. Japan worries about this scenario — with very good reason.
This scenario might take place next summer, when the presidential election heats up and if Ma’s popular support is still low. Judging from the non-transparent approach of the KMT and the Chinese governments in handling issues, such as Taiwan’s participation in the World Health Assembly, military confidence building measures and other contacts of a political nature, this situation may materialize — and it would be a nightmare for those who worry about China’s dominance of the region.
Possibly, India now could be rethinking on appropriate policy options on Tibet, Taiwan or even on Xinjiang.
Srikanth Kondapalli is professor in Chinese studies at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
I think it would be far easier to revise the policy position on Arunachal, then to pronounce Tibet not a part of China. That would be a big step, as it would carry an anti-nationalist touch. KMT can also simply proclaim, that they recognize all those parts of China as China, over which they ruled, before the KMT were pushed out of China. As KMT wishes to speak for all Chinese - PRC + Taiwan, their proclamation would be looked as anti-national by the mainland Chinese, and any support they may have on the mainland could evaporate.Lalmohan wrote:KMT needs to rescind its views on tibet and arunachal first - publicly
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 23#p939923RajeshA wrote:Good catch!Arihant wrote:Cross-posted from the PRC thread:
This article appeared today in the Taipei Times - very appropriate given recent discussion on this forum.
EDITORIAL : Does Taiwan need nuclear weapons?
I think, and I have mentioned this before, Taiwan needs to have a nuclear deterrent, and Vietnam can help both India and Taiwan in testing those nukes. India and Taiwan should work together on this project. However that would probably have to wait till Ma leaves office and DPP under a new leader comes to power.
Two Possibilities:ramana wrote:Or is this putting lifelines in Indian hands a CBM from PRC?
Egjaactly..I thought of same when posting this article yesterday in last page.anchal wrote:Even the JNU jholawalas are recognizing the value of countering China
http://news.rediff.com/column/2010/sep/ ... ection.htm
Possibly, India now could be rethinking on appropriate policy options on Tibet, Taiwan or even on Xinjiang.
Srikanth Kondapalli is professor in Chinese studies at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
Dr. B R Deepak is Associate Professor in the Centre of Chinese and Southeast Asian Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
If there were no territorial disputes between India and China.Altair wrote:Two Possibilities:ramana wrote:Or is this putting lifelines in Indian hands a CBM from PRC?
.....
2. China is sending a message to India, albeit a cryptic one to "Be smart and join China and jointly we can screw US and Pakistan in Af-Pak region till they disintegrate".
..!
Probably MMS is trying to hit this confidence by singing duets with USA.China worried regularly that India would drift into the US camp, but in
the end was confident that ‘India’s DNA does not allow itself to become
subordinate to the US like Britain and Japan’. The country is simply too ancient,
too big and too self-absorbed to yield again to alien Diktat.
Sorry Venkarl-ji - slipped on that one...Venkarl wrote:Arihant wrote:Cross-posted from the PRC thread:
This article appeared today in the Taipei Times - very appropriate given recent discussion on this forum.
EDITORIAL : Does Taiwan need nuclear weapons?
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 23#p939923
Arihant saab...I have mentioned "this" editorial in last page...I thought you'd respond to that post.
Somewhat complicated for the KMT to do - as I was saying some days back, it is tied up in historical binds, and undoing one requires undoing others (remember that not too long ago, the KMT maintained a fictitious Chinese senate in Taiwan - with senators representing provinces of China that they had never set foot on). Which is to say that a pragmatic engagement with right shade of KMT types is feasible. Having said that, KMT is not the best option for India - the DPP is infinitely better....Lalmohan wrote:KMT needs to rescind its views on tibet and arunachal first - publicly
Venkarl wrote:Are they not putting their throats in our hands? In case of full blown war..India might simply choke them to coal and wood...I wouldn't talk about Delhi's will on this as it'd be a self loathing act.ramana wrote:The odd thing is both the POK and the Myanmar route brings the PRC lifelines within Indian grasp. Yet it is being touted as a move to hedge for Pacific blocade by US and the Straits of Malacca chokehold!!!
Note comment in the above op-ed...EDITS | Tuesday, September 14, 2010 | Email | Print | | Back
The dragon takes a leap
September 14, 2010 8:45:23 PM
Sandhya jain
China has emerged as a serious challenger to American hegemony on the Eurasian landmass. It will be less easy to out-manoeuvre Beijing
Catching a somnolent Indian political and security establishment unawares, the Chinese dragon has taken virtual charge of the strategic Gilgit-Baltistan in the north-west corner of the undivided kingdom of Kashmir. This — like the 38,000 sq km in Ladakh connecting Tibet and Xinjiang, and 5,000 sq km in Shaksgam Valley given by Pakistan in 1963 — is Indian territory acceded on October 26, 1947 by Maharaja Hari Singh, but lost to Pakistani invaders by a Prime Minister who allowed himself to be manipulated by Governor-General Louis Mountbatten.
India’s loss was sealed by the US-dominated United Nations that froze the status quo via Australian jurist Owen Dixon and Czech-American Josef Korbel, who was supposed to represent India. For Mountbatten, who had urged Hari Singh to join Pakistan, this was no mean feat; he breezed off to England with India partitioned on three frontiers, its elite none the wiser.
Korbel’s daughter, Ms Madeleine Albright, became Secretary of State to US President Bill Clinton, which only goes to show how the imperial West protects its geo-political-strategic interests through generations of committed ‘mandarins’ while spouting the rhetoric of democracy and open society. Indians nursing the Clinton-sold dream of ‘emerging superpower’ must realise that greatness comes from a national understanding of power, not mindless adherence to a pretended friendly superpower.
Indian analysts fell into frenzy after former journalist Selig Harrison revealed the new geo-political reality in The New York Times (August 26, 2010). The article, which said 7,000 to 11,000 Chinese soldiers have moved into Gilgit-Baltistan is interesting on several counts.
Beijing, says Mr Harrison, wants to secure access to the Persian Gulf via Pakistan. Currently, it takes 16 to 25 days for Chinese oil tankers to reach the Persian Gulf. Once the high-speed rail and road links through Gilgit-Baltistan are done, cargo from China will reach Pakistani naval bases at Gwadar, and Pasni and Ormara on the Makran coast, within 48 hours.
People’s Liberation Army engineers and soldiers are working on the railroad and also extending the Karakoram Highway that links Xinjiang province with Pakistan. Other projects include dams, expressways, and 22 secret tunnels. These could house the projected gas pipeline from Iran to China (excluding India because of our self-destructive loyalty to the US); they could equally store missiles and hence challenge American designs on the Yellow Sea, South China Sea and Indian Ocean. Washington is worried because Islamabad's support for the Taliban and offer of passage to the Persian Gulf to China proves it is not an ‘ally’. Perhaps it is just a major non-NATO mercenary.
New Delhi must ponder over Mr Harrison’s advocacy of a “settlement” of Kashmiri demands for autonomy on both sides of the ceasefire line. Mr Harrison knows the State legally ceded to India in 1947. He knows the Shias of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir hate Pakistan; he avoids assessing their possible reaction to the Han Chinese soldiers if they stay too long.
But Mr Harrison does not make even polite noises about the return of Indian territory to India. Instead, he brazenly asks New Delhi to join hands with Washington, DC to ensure that Beijing is denied a foothold in Gilgit-Baltistan and does not take it over like Tibet. Islamabad has been asked to cooperate, a polite way of telling the Generals to boot out the PLA, an unlikely scenario.
{In my comments on the Harrison article, I had pointed out that it was an US agenda article depite Harrison's long support for India! Sandhya Jain also suggests its a way to pry Kashmir from India. Again it goes with what I earlier said of PRC and US being two sides of the problem for India.}
So what’s the score for New Delhi? First, by getting into northern Pakistan, China is adjacent to the strategic Siachen Glacier, where the Pakistani Army is deployed on one side. Peaceniks, Track II and assorted jholawallahs who advocate demilitarisation of the glacier — as a prelude to a Pakistani, and now Chinese walkover — must be made to hold their tongues, or tried as foreign agents.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh must cease all talk about porous borders. All our frontiers are open — land and sea. We must upgrade the border infrastructure on a war-footing (think what we could have done with the money looted for the Commonwealth Games fiasco!) and fix our neighbourhood diplomacy with Myanmar, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Iran, Iraq, and resist the temptation to needle China.
Of course, India cannot ignore provocations like Beijing's refusal of a visa to Northern Command chief Lt Gen BS Jaswal and rightly cancelled all military exchanges with China until the issue is resolved. We need some reciprocal action for the stapled visas granted to Indians from Jammu & Kashmir; so far we have penalised our own citizens by not letting them travel on such documents, a correct move in itself, but one which does not redress the issue.
Above all, India must recognise that Pakistan is the fulcrum of the Persian Gulf-Central Asia strategy of America (whom it mistakenly views as a friend) and China (whose enmity it exaggerates). If New Delhi is touchy about Beijing giving Islamabad two nuclear reactors (breaching Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines) it cannot overlook the covert American aid to AQ Khan.
China has emerged as a serious challenger to American hegemony on the Eurasian landmass, the first real threat since the smashing of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, and one whose elite will be less easy to manipulate and out-manoeuvre, unless Christian missionaries succeed in penetrating the upper echelons of the Communist Party of China. Undeterred by American hostility, China is helping Iran's nuclear ambitions, and has reportedly sold long-range solid-fuel missiles to Saudi Arabia, which can hold nuclear warheads. The gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to China, bypassing Russia, is another power statement.
China has suffered tremendously at the hands of Western and Japanese imperialism, and has worked hard to rise again in the comity of nations. It has studied the Anglo-American geopolitical strategies that caused the two World Wars, and, unlike India, has realised that Islam is the best buffer against the West and Asia, and can also help achieve Chinese geopolitical and security interests. Hence the cultivation of Pakistan from the time of President Ayub Khan, the Saudi dynasty, and so on. The chink in Beijing’s armour is the CIA-trained mercenary jihadis of Pakistan, who can be moved from the Northern Areas into Xinjiang.
{I}{US needs an independent Cashmere to facilitate this}[/i]
For India, a collateral benefit of Chinese presence in Gilgit-Baltistan is that it has nixed plans to delink Jammu & Kashmir from India by creating an East Timor-like situation in Srinagar Valley prior to President Barack Obama’s visit to New Delhi, thereby forcing UN intervention and plebiscite.
{Correct assessment. With PRC in Gilgit all the stone throwing comes to naught. No revoking or dilution of AFSPA. Even Omar Abdullah might have to go as he ruined the situation to gain brownie points.}
AWAKE INDIA: LEARN TO LEAD ALL OF SOUTH ASIA NOT FOLLOW US-UK-EU DESIGNS
By Maheswar in Kaandu on 9/14/2010 5:03:00 AM
Churchill and Roosevelt correctly foresaw that India would pose a real challenge to Western civilization and (wrongly as it's now China) their economic dominance of the globe. Hence they encouraged and sustained the partion of British India. Now enter the dragon to make more complex the South Asian connundrum currently exemplified by Kashmir.
Well said RajeshA-ji. Actions speak louder than words. PRC's actions in many issues speak loudly of their intentions.RajeshA wrote:The Chinese threat is very much real!