Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/
Right now they are acting like Mad-Ill_Kong. They think China is TINA in Asia.Lalmohan wrote:the term "middle kingdom" covers it aptly - invokes an imperialistic memory
High drama of a Chinese troop "intrusion" on the disputed border with India seemed to ebb through negotiations as silently as it had begun, with seemingly little damage to Chinese Premier Li Keqiang's state visit to New Delhi. Yet Beijing may have weakened the very power centers in India that were working to usher in a brave new world of partnership.
Agnimitra wrote:Just admit it...everyone is missing Middle Kingdom Bhadrakumar...
India has dispatched four warships, including a frontline destroyer and a stealth frigate, on a long overseas deployment through the strategic Malacca Strait to Malaysia, Vietnam and Philippines.
The four warships from the country's Eastern Fleet — stealth frigate INS Satpura, guided-missile destroyer INS Ranvijay, missile corvette INS Kirch and fleet tanker INS Shakti - will make port calls at Klang in Malaysia, Da Nang in Vietnam and Manila in Philippines before returning to India towards end-June. Eastern Fleet commander Rear Admiral P Ajit Kumar is leading the flotilla.
"Constructive engagement is our principle weapon during peacetime. The idea is to enhance security and stability in the entire Indian Ocean Region (IOR) by engaging with regional and extra-regional maritime powers," said a senior officer.
India, of course, is also building strong maritime security bridges with countries like Japan and Vietnam in a bid to counter China's "string of pearls" maritime construct in the IOR.
Incidentally, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who is currently in Tokyo, said on Tuesday that India shares with Japan a strong strategic interest in expanding cooperation on maritime security and promoting regional stability.
India views Japan as a "natural and indispensable partner" in the quest for stability and peace in Asia. Ensuring sea lanes remain open and free is vital for the region's prosperity, given its dependence on oil imports from the Middle East, he added.
The Chinese have a demonstrated track record spanning decades of being uncouth in both words and actions. How about the "Barbarian of Asia?"RajeshA wrote:SSridhar garu,SSridhar wrote:It is very clear that the Chinese aggression on the LAC has this important component: Chinese pique at growing Indian relationship with all of China's neighbours with whom China has border disputes.
The Chinese are used to such kind of abusive, invective language referring to international leaders. They used to call Nehru a dog of western imperialism.
I think we should also have choicest words for the Chinese like "The Last Imperial Scum", etc. There are of course others who may also qualify for such epithets but that should not stop us from making a point that they are imperialist, and that their critique of Japan falls flat simply because they themselves are occupying N.E. Ladakh, Tibet, East Turkestan, Inner Mongolia, North Goguryeo (Korea) and are making illegitimate claims on many islands in the East China Sea and Indo-China Sea.
So in the same way we always add "Peace Be Upon Him" to the Prophet, similarly whenever we speak of China, it should always be with "The Last Imperial Scum" added to it, lest one forgets.
Kudos. Completely missed the middling kindom (sic) aspect. Shows how deeply the enemy have penetrated our babudom and media discourse.Agnimitra wrote:Just admit it...everyone is missing Middle Kingdom Bhadrakumar...
Frost in a promising Indian summer
By M K BhadrakumarHigh drama of a Chinese troop "intrusion" on the disputed border with India seemed to ebb through negotiations as silently as it had begun, with seemingly little damage to Chinese Premier Li Keqiang's state visit to New Delhi. Yet Beijing may have weakened the very power centers in India that were working to usher in a brave new world of partnership.
Top Indian and Chinese commerce officials held talks to take steps to reduce India's ballooning trade deficit with China and discuss follow up actions needed to broaden market access for Indian products here. [Beijing]
Commerce Secretary S R Rao along with Additional Secretaries Rajiv Kher and J S Deepak, who arrived here [Beijing] on May 27 on a five-day visit, discussed bilateral trade issues with their Chinese counterparts in the last two days, officials here told PTI.
Rao and his colleagues held talks with three top officials in the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, National Development and Reforms Commission (NDRC), the planning body of China and Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT).
They met Chen Jian, Chinese Vice Minister of Commerce and Yan Xueshan, Vice Chairman of NDRC and Vice Minister of MIIT. The talks are ongoing, the sources said. The talks so far went off well and were reportedly focussed on streamlining procedures for Indian exports, they said.
India also looks to facilitate Chinese offer to invest in industrial zones to step up its investments.
Issues relating to declining bilateral trade, which fell to about USD 66.7 billion last year from around USD 74 billion in 2012, China's plans to step up investments in India as well as the ballooning trade deficit which touched about USD 30 billion last year figured in the talks, officials said.
The two countries set the target of USD 100 billion in bilateral trade by 2015 during Li's visit.
During his recent visit, Li had promised to address New Delhi's concerns in this regard and seriously consider ways to meet India's demand to open up IT and pharmaceutical sectors which offered great potential for Indian products.
Li's promise to open up the sectors and the MOUs signed during his visit were expected to facilitate India's exports of oilmeal, pharmaceuticals, marine products and buffalo meat. Indian officials expect the buffalo meat exports to fetch about one USD billion dollars in the first year itself.
Meanwhile, a Chinese scholar came up with a bizarre argument that China's trade surplus is actually helping Indian economy.
"One could easily make a case that China's long-term surplus with India is supporting the economy of its large Asian neighbour rather than hindering it", Mei Xinyu, an associate researcher with the state-run Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation wrote in commentary in official daily Global Times.
"In India, protectionist policies have long kept outside companies from cementing footholds in its market. Sure, this means that Indian businesses face few foreign rivals within their home turf as they slowly develop - but it also means that local companies have few incentives to improve the quality of their products", the commentary said.
"If anything, opening the door to inexpensive goods from China will inspire healthy competition and push local companies to incrementally step up their games. This will encourage upgrading within India's manufacturing sector, which will translate into higher-quality goods for both local and world markets in the long run", it said.
"We can't forget that most of the imports entering India from China are cheap raw materials rather than finished products. These goods are highly prized in India because they keep operating and manufacturing costs at acceptable levels", Mei said.
Fuming over Japan's efforts to forge maritime security cooperation with India during the just-concluded visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a state-run Chinese daily on Thursday accused Tokyo of attempting to "encircle" China by building strategic alliances in the neighbourhood.
"With Singh on his four-day visit to Japan, both sides have discussed maritime security cooperation. A few days ago, when Shinzo Abe, Singh's counterpart, visited Myanmar, it was seen as Japan's attempt to complete a "puzzle game" in order to "encircle China," state-run Global Times daily said in its editorial today.
"Japan's strategy for China drives its activity around China's neighbours, said an editorial titled 'Diplomatic row due to disoriented Japan'.
"But Japan's wishful thinking of encircling China is just an illusion. Besides sneaking a few bargains from its competition with China, Japan does not have the strength to prevail over China's influence in Asia," it said.
The allegation comes as China's attempts to forge close ties in India's neighbourhood were perceived as Beijing's attempt to encircle India.
China is currently hosting Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa pouring billions of dollars of aid and investment, sparking concerns in India.
Today's editorial is second such comment by Chinese official media over Japan's efforts to forge close ties with India during Singh's visit.
An article in People's Daily two days ago had termed Japanese politicians "petty burglars" for courting India.
then why this chest-beating aritcle ? why worry just have some shanghai curry."But Japan's wishful thinking of encircling China is just an illusion. Besides sneaking a few bargains from its competition with China, Japan does not have the strength to prevail over China's influence in Asia," it said.
This spring, China's navy accepted the Pentagon's invitation to participate in the 2014 Rim of the Pacific — RIMPAC — naval exercise to be held off Hawaii. This will be the first time China takes part in the biennial event.Our allies should signal their intent to withdraw from the exercise if China participates. Failing that, the invitation should be withdrawn. RIMPAC is for allies and friends, not nations planning to eventually wage war on the United States. Russia sent ships in 2012, but while its senior officers may occasionally utter unfriendly words, they are not actively planning to fight the United States. Analyst Robert Sutter was surely correct when he wrote in 2005 that "China is the only large power in the world preparing to shoot Americans."That assessment, unfortunately, remains true today. Beijing is configuring its forces — especially its navy — to fight ours. For instance, China has deployed along its southern coast its DF-21D, a two-stage solid-fuel missile that can be guided by satellite signals. The missile is dubbed the "carrier killer" because it can be configured to explode in midair, raining down sharp metal on a deck crowded with planes, ordinance, fuel and sailors. Its apparent intent is to drive U.S. forces out of East Asia.A pattern of aggressive Chinese tactics also points in that direction. Especially troubling is the harassment in international waters of unarmed U.S. Navy reconnaissance vessels for more than a decade, most notably the blocking of the Impeccable in the South China Sea in 2009. And there was the 2001 downing of a Navy EP-3 and the surfacing of a Song-class attack submarine in the middle of the Kitty Hawk strike group near Okinawa in 2006.
Since then, we have been hearing bold war talk in the Chinese capital, from new leader Xi Jinping to senior officers and colonels who say they relish combat — a "hand-to-hand fight with the U.S.," as one of them put it in 2010.Why do China's officers want to go to war? There is an unfortunate confluence of factors. First, there is a new Chinese confidence bordering on arrogance. Beijing leaders, especially since 2008, have been riding high. They saw economic turmoil around the world and thought the century was theirs to dominate. The U.S. and the rest of the West, they believed, were in terminal decline.The Chinese military also has gained substantial influence in the last year, perhaps becoming the most powerful faction in the Communist Party. Beginning as early as 2003, senior officers of the People's Liberation Army were drawn into civilian power struggles as Hu Jintao, then the new leader, sought their support in his effort to shove aside Jiang Zemin, his wily predecessor who sought to linger in the limelight. Last year, the civilian infighting intensified as the so-called Fifth Generation leadership, under the command of Xi, took over from Hu's Fourth. Like a decade ago, feuding civilians sought the support of the generals and admirals, making them arbiters in the party's increasingly rough game of politics.The result of discord among civilian leaders has been a partial remilitarization of politics and policy. Senior officers are now acting independently of civilian officials, are openly criticizing them and are making pronouncements in areas once considered the exclusive province of diplomats.
The remilitarization has had consequences. As Huang Jing of Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy said: "China's military spending is growing so fast that it has overtaken strategy. The young officers are taking control of strategy, and it is like young officers in Japan in the 1930s. They are thinking what they can do, not what they should do."What do China's admirals want? They are supporting their nation's territorial ambitions to close off the South China Sea to others. This brings them into conflict with nations surrounding that critical body of water and pits them against the U.S. If there has been any consistent U.S. foreign policy over the course of two centuries, it has been the defense of freedom of navigation.
According to a white paper it issued in April, China is building a navy capable of operating in the ocean's deep water, and has 235,000 officers and sailors. Its navy last year commissioned its first aircraft carrier, and it is reportedly building two more. China has about a dozen fewer submarines than the U.S., but the U.S. has global responsibilities. The Chinese, therefore, can concentrate their boats in waters close to their shores, giving them tactical and operating advantages.While the Chinese plan to dominate their waters and eventually ours, we are helping them increase their effectiveness with invitations to RIMPAC and other exercises and by including them in joint operations like the one directed against Somali piracy. The U.S. Navy at the same time is continuing to reduce its fleet, currently at 283 deployable ships. As Beijing's behavior has become more troubling, the Pentagon has clung to the hope that military-to-military relations will somehow relieve tensions with the Chinese.Yet as Ronald Reagan taught us, the nature of regimes matter. We are now helping an incurably aggressive state develop its military — to our peril. There is something very wrong at the core of the Obama administration's and the Pentagon's China policies.
Security in the Forbidden City across the street from the Great Hall of the People was tight last month when Li Keqiang was installed as premier of China. But the uniformed guards weren't armed with automatic weapons. Instead, they were equipped with fire extinguishers to prevent would-be protesters from self-immolating.
During a recent trip to China, I spent a week talking with analysts about the Arab Spring and the changing strategic dynamic in the Middle East. In surprisingly candid discussions, Chinese experts on that region — many of whom spoke good Arabic — described an evolving view of Chinese involvement in a troubled part of the world the state has long avoided.China imports nearly 55% of its oil from the Persian Gulf, and it has long benefited from the U.S. security umbrella there. One Chinese analyst went so far as to describe the long-standing U.S. aircraft carrier presence there as a "public good." But these days Beijing is concerned about what the Obama administration's pledge to downsize the U.S. presence in the Middle East means for energy and regional security. Closer to home, the Chinese worry about the impact of rising Islamism on the state's restive Muslim population in the gas-rich western province of Xinjiang.China's think-tankers concede that the People's Liberation Army is not yet capable of playing a security role in the Middle East. Consider that the navy's first deployment outside of Asia — a three-ship anti-piracy escort mission in the Gulf of Aden — occurred less than five years ago, and it was reportedly a stretch for the force. And even if the PLA were able to field troops in the region, Washington wouldn't want to "make room" for China in the gulf, I was told.But the Chinese I spoke with grudgingly recognized that the People's Republic would eventually be compelled to start playing a bigger role in the Middle East. As one scholar noted, "China is a powerful state but doesn't act it."While China will not soon contribute in a meaningful way to security in the region, it has been increasing its presence there, including deploying peacekeepers to U.N. contingents in Sudan and Lebanon. It is also laying the groundwork for a more robust regional military presence, establishing its so-called string of pearls network of naval bases that spans from Asia to the Persian Gulf.Beijing is also raising its profile in the region in other ways. In 2009, Beijing appointed its first special Middle East envoy. And since 2011, China has vetoed three U.N. Security Council resolutions condemning Syria's Bashar Assad regime. Likewise, despite significant investments in Iran's energy sector, China has thus far complied with U.S.-led sanctions against Tehran to dissuade the theocracy from developing a nuclear weapon.Beijing is also projecting soft power in the Middle East, making a concerted effort to increase trade and investment, especially in the energy sector. China and Gulf Cooperation Council states are negotiating a free-trade agreement. State-owned Chinese companies are building joint-venture refineries in Saudi Arabia and have secured contracts to construct mosques — including a $1.5-billion shrine — in oil-rich Algeria.This new activism is not motivated by altruism. Beijing's priority is to secure ongoing access to Middle Eastern energy. At the same time, it doesn't want to see Iran go nuclear. But more important, it wants to avoid a fight with Washington over the sanctions.
The lessons of Libya were also sobering. China was later stung by its 2011 Security Council abstention in a vote that condoned international military action to "protect" the Libyan people but was subsequently exploited to topple Moammar Kadafi. Worse, during that revolt, 40,000 Chinese laborers had to be evacuated, and Beijing's consular and political sections in Tripoli were simply not up to the task. In the aftermath of the Libya debacle, China may bolster its diplomatic representation in the region.It is not likely that China will soon contribute to a more stable region. Instead, what the Middle East needs, according to a March 20 editorial by the official New China News Agency, is "helping hands from a responsible and constructive superpower" like Washington. Regrettably, absent a concerted U.S. effort to cajole Beijing to provide grant assistance to struggling Arab states and to support tough U.N. Security Council measures against Iran, the Middle Kingdom will remain a peripheral actor in a turbulent Middle East.After all, China recognizes that America's commitments to Japan and South Korea — states dependent on gulf energy — will long oblige Washington to underwrite security in the Middle East. So even as the Arab awakening has piqued Chinese concerns about stability, energy security and Islamism, for the time being, I was told, Beijing is content to remain a "free rider."
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's just concluded Japan visit continues to rile China, with a state-run daily warning that India could get close to Tokyo "at its own peril" and ties with it "can only bring trouble" to New Delhi.
After attacking Japan yesterday accusing it of attempting forge alliances with India and other neighbours to "encircle China" the ruling Communist Party-run Global Times today came out with an article titled "India gets close to Japan at its own peril".
Written by a scholar from an official think-tank, the Centre for Strategic and International Affairs of the Shanghai Institute for International Studies, the article with aggressive overtones outlines China's concerns over the close relations between India and Japan.
"Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh concluded his visit to Japan on Wednesday. The visit, coming after Chinese Premier Li Keqiang's recent trip to India, led to speculation in Indian media that it was a balancing tactic against China," it said.
Noting that Singh's visit, coming immediately after Li's visit, was coincidence, it said, "however, adding a day to the visit, initially planned for two days, after the recent China-India border confrontation, prompted speculation about India's concerns over China in the visit to Japan," it said.
"Given the long-lasting Diaoyu Islands dispute (Japan calls the islands Sekakus) and China-India border confrontation, there may be some tacit understanding in strategic cooperation between India and Japan," it said.
"However, India should keep sober over the (Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo) Abe administration's vicious intentions of denying the World Anti-Fascism War as a just war. East Asian countries that were the victims of the World War II won't indulge Japan".
"Overheated strategic cooperation with the Abe administration can only bring trouble to India and threaten its relationships with the relevant East Asian countries," it said.
SSridhar wrote:India can get close to Japan at its own peril: Chinese Daily - Economic TimesPrime Minister Manmohan Singh's just concluded Japan visit continues to rile China, with a state-run daily warning that India could get close to Tokyo "at its own peril" and ties with it "can only bring trouble" to New Delhi.
"Overheated strategic cooperation with the Abe administration can only bring trouble to India and threaten its relationships with the relevant East Asian countries," it said.[/b]
The society has been transformed into socially engineered experiment. This may not have been planned at the beginning but over the decades handlers did lose control over the experiment and the result has been uncouth.sanjaykumar wrote:I must say the Chinese, judging by their crude threats, seem to be a particularly uncouth race.
They have not progressed much from their " running dogs" culture.
This is precisely the sort of characterization, which some of us make of others, which is extremely damaging to us Indians. Let us say for the sake of argument that it is even 100% correct, that the Chinese are an uncouth people. So, let us ask some questions surrounding this assertion. Compared to who ? The Indians ? I have heard Indians being characterized as such by others, and I have strongly rebutted this assertions in forums big and small, whenever it has been asserted in my presence. However, I do feel that in relative terms, we Indians open ourselves far more to being labelled "uncouth" than even the "Chinese". Why ? Let us examine that.sanjaykumar wrote:I must say the Chinese, judging by their crude threats, seem to be a particularly uncouth race.
They have not progressed much from their " running dogs" culture.
Traditionally after the Mongol conquest of China, the Chinese military has been dominated by Manchu, Mongol and North East Asian types. But the working class are mainly the mandarin, South China types who have qualities of soft-spokenness, humility, simplicity, but it was this mandarin group which was led by the Song dynasty which was defeated by the mongol Kublei and in turn he imposed the bully attributes on his conquered, in the sense only the manchus, Yuezhi, Mongol types were given preference in jobs and military over the soft-spoken, 'non-martial' mandarin types. That legacy has been passed on to emperor's guards and then further to PLA types.Ashok Sarraff wrote:I find a curious disconnect between Chinese individuals and Chinese government. I know dozens of Chinese men and women, and I find them to be one of the most polite, soft-spoken, humble, and simple people (especially the wimmens) on earth. On the other hand, Chinese goverment comes out to be a global bully, foul-mouthing others and always eager to get into fist-fights. Why would that happen?
What specifically in my post do you not agree with and why ?Acharya wrote:As far ahead as the Chinese are of the Indians at the moment, they still dont have the power to menace us on their own, unless we Indians willingly help them to do so.
I agree with this. But not the rest
Your definition of uncouth will not be recognised by anyone with even passing familiarity with the English language.rsangram wrote:Because by definition, the uncouth cannot get along with anybody including their fellow man, and therefore cannot organize, while to be able to resist outside forces like China did and does, requires a certain sophistication in organization.