Managing Chinese Threat

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 14 Aug 2013 18:50

China is polluting all these areas they are intruding into, with their military-PLA-politbureau-territory-empire-control-domination crappola ideology and behaviour.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 14 Aug 2013 18:57

What I don't understand is this: When TSP violates cease fire or tries to violate our borders, we open fire, conduct flag marches and at least make a phone call. But such violations happen repeatedly at the Chinese-Indian Border, why do we act as if rigor-mortis has set in? are fire karo bhai!, kuch tho karo!. Why do we act as if we are 5 year kid and complain to the media? or did GoI give toy or water guns to our soldiers? there are scams everywhere you see, it too is a possibility.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 14 Aug 2013 19:12

There is an exponential increase in the incursions and they are becoming more and more audacious. India is also signing the BDCA with them. We know that the original BDCA draft from China proposed freezing of construction activities, patrol protocols etc. There is now news that India is shortly to sign the BDCA after exchange of draft documents between the two. I only hope that there are no adverse conditions imposed on us. The bureaucrats are quite capable of drafting excellent agreements but we do not know what the political leadership is asking them to do. The two front war is under way, much earlier than expected.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 14 Aug 2013 19:19

India, China Hold First Dialogue on Central Asia

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 14 Aug 2013 19:46

It sounds like they are probing to see how far they can go before we react.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 14 Aug 2013 20:14

They might as well take a stroll and take Arunachal Pradesh and/or Ladhak, the weather is balmy, with birds chirping and all, why bother to probe? who is resisting here?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 14 Aug 2013 20:49

The question is how do you "resist" ?

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 14 Aug 2013 21:13

1. Give them pains diplomatically a). If not outright and public support make ambiguous statements to revive Tibet, invite Tibetan rebels for chai-biscuit we know that dance well anyway. b) Invite Vietnamese to visit our Brahmos facility and enter into discussions make overtures in that direction. c) Japan, get serious with defense ties, sign some major defense projects and make statements to tell Chinese don't f with us.

2. Not a military expert but, a) mobilize forces, pound their installation, enough of watching Chinese movements through binoculars. b) Mobilize covert resources and let Chinese projects have a set back in PoK and Sri Lanka, what are they doing in our back yard anyway.

Few ideas that a complete non-expert like me could think in few minutes. it is better than inaction... atleast you will sleep well that you moved your finger when it mattered.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 14 Aug 2013 21:57

What use if you have great minds, great strategic thinkers, when they cannot produce one useful strategy to counter your enemy? in that situation even throwing a stone at the Chinese is better and is a good strategy, atleast you can give a bloody nose.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 14 Aug 2013 22:19

venug wrote:What I don't understand is this: When TSP violates cease fire or tries to violate our borders, we open fire, conduct flag marches and at least make a phone call. But such violations happen repeatedly at the Chinese-Indian Border, why do we act as if rigor-mortis has set in? are fire karo bhai!, kuch tho karo!. Why do we act as if we are 5 year kid and complain to the media? or did GoI give toy or water guns to our soldiers? there are scams everywhere you see, it too is a possibility.

venug ji, the over-reaction on the Paki front is precisely to take our minds off the Chi-Pak front and away from the 3.5.

If you see something that looks like Rigor mortis and acts like Rigor mortis then it becomes difficult to ascribe motives to the messenger. An amputation may be required.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 15 Aug 2013 01:46

venug wrote:1. Give them pains diplomatically a). If not outright and public support make ambiguous statements to revive Tibet, invite Tibetan rebels for chai-biscuit we know that dance well anyway. b) Invite Vietnamese to visit our Brahmos facility and enter into discussions make overtures in that direction. c) Japan, get serious with defense ties, sign some major defense projects and make statements to tell Chinese don't f with us.

2. Not a military expert but, a) mobilize forces, pound their installation, enough of watching Chinese movements through binoculars. b) Mobilize covert resources and let Chinese projects have a set back in PoK and Sri Lanka, what are they doing in our back yard anyway.

Few ideas that a complete non-expert like me could think in few minutes. it is better than inaction... atleast you will sleep well that you moved your finger when it mattered.

1 has already been done. Indian warships go to East asia almost every month. In fact, when the visa issue was going on - India threatened to revisit Tibet issue - and that resolved it. PRC know we hold the tibet card.

2 - What are they doing in our backyard? Building a few ports doesn't make much difference and doesn't mean much.

These moves by China happen to almost every nation surrounding PRC. India is not the only nation suffering from this behavior. PRC is succeeding in pushing its neighbours to look to us for support and make closer friends with us. Myanmar, Vietnam, Thailand are more recent examples of this.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Aug 2013 01:57

Telling or knowing others are also suffering from China's surge is not helpful to Indians who are at the recieving end. Its typical Indian elite message the massess to grin and bear the affronts.
And hurting PRC where no one can see is also not useful for it might have happened at all.

Misfortunately for the Indian elite, in a democracy leaders get elected to represent the people and and not otherway around. hence the discomfort with pallitative measures from Indian elite to PRC depradations.
The real remedy is to make them stop by all the means at our disposal.

India does not just hold a Tibet card but the entire post Communist China card.

The Indian elite are not trained to recognize it.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 15 Aug 2013 02:10

To what extent do you want to resist? That's the problem here. How far do you want to go and it's about getting that balance right.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 15 Aug 2013 02:15

2 - What are they doing in our backyard? Building a few ports doesn't make much difference and doesn't mean much.

These moves by China happen to almost every nation surrounding PRC. India is not the only nation suffering from this behavior. PRC is succeeding in pushing its neighbours to look to us for support and make closer friends with us. Myanmar, Vietnam, Thailand are more recent examples of this.

Shyamd garu, to me "few ports doesn't make a difference" sounds more like "what to do onlee" mentality. It gives them the opportunity to strike id they so want. Ia that not a reason enough? You already know how Chinese react when anyone enters South China sea, they too could have let it go saying "what to do onlee, they are just passing by...". But they don't, the reason is they give it such importance. We need not act like street bullies the way Chinese do, but atleast we should care and take notice of it. When I say take notice of it, I meant take counter measures. If we are concerned for security, we need to be paranoid, IOR or not, the Chinese shouldn't be given the opportunity to be in SL. If SL doesn't listen to our pleas, make it listen. Even during 1971 war, they allowed TSP planes to land, that shows their gall. And now Chinese are sitting pretty and we say "just few ports"? just their proximity to us should have been sufficient for us to bring sense to SL which ever way they prefer to listen to us.

Chinese moves happening to any other nation is different to happening to India. We are no 'any other' nation. If we can't have the self esteem and confidence to self assert, no one will do that for us. The nations you mentioned moved closer alright, but it wouldn't take much longer for them to bow to China or distance a loser if we act like we are bunch of chicken. If China slaps us silly, what do you think the message would be to these nations?

The Chinese fear that India might play the Tibet card should be made real, I don't see us ever utter one word about Tibet even after these incursions. What use is Tibet card when you don't use it? Chinese are not sitting idle, they encourage Maoists, so why shy away? we too should encourage Uighurs and Tibetans to claims their lands. Two can play the game, but that too seems to be a pipe dream.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 15 Aug 2013 02:40

Venug sir,
Not at all what I am saying - lets take a high level view - PRC have built commercial ports - these are not military in nature at all. If they started to turn it into a naval base and left naval vessels there then yes we should be concerned. But they are not and have not.

As for these border transgressions - I agree there needs to be a tougher response but diplomatic ties and trading banners signs is a weak response IMO. I am sure the Chinese major general in PLA HQ is not losing sleep over these options. And look at the nature of the incidents - they walk in - so what does a person do? Shoot? Last one was to set up camp opposite the Chinese and wave the banners. Ok so lets say you surround them. So if the PRC want to retreat are you going to fire and risk a bigger escalation? Ok, so do you want to push more troops into the area to be able to back the troops up if things get out of hand. What response will they have once press gets to hear about it. Things can quickly spiral out of control..
These are all questions that need to be well thought out. Choices are not easy unfortunately and due to the brazenness of PRC - risk of a large conflict rises. Obviously there will come a point where they will force us to react strongly - we are getting closer and closer to that point

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Aug 2013 02:54

See - the ball is always neatly turned into the court of those who do not have the eyes and ears of the innermost innards of those who know best in their everlasting silence. Aaam aadmi, BRFite or anyone similar - should always be asked - "what would want to do ?" "How far do you want to go?" as if how far they want to go is really the issue here!

The question should be asked in reverse - "how far does the gov want to go?" "how far shyamd [who is ever eager to defend the silence or non-silence of those in state power] is willing to go?"

Seriously, shyamd ji - why don't you lay out your wish cards on the table? How far do you want to go over Tibet? How far do you want to go with Chinese pressures, border transgressions? How far do you want to go with Pakistan and in which direction?

Friends - do question back. You have answered enough. By asking such question the voices of the regime cleverly fudge their own indecisiveness, or any hidden agenda that gives possibly more weight to personal power, electoral equations feared to be influenced by external interests, and the hope possibly for a financial space to bargain over national futures? For example investments in return for going soft militarily and politically against them - investments which would hopefully circulate among a chosen few well connected but bandied about as bringing gazillions of people out of poverty?

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 15 Aug 2013 03:07

Shyamd garu, I agree, our response shouldn't be rushed. But few months back they intruded and we don't even patrol anymore in our own territory, that means we lost the territory, what use is a piece of land when you can't even venture anywhere closer to it? Iam sure the Chinese even then 'they just walked in'. To me it is ludicrous to imagine that. We lost land because some Chinese literally strolled into our territory which resulted in we losing it. That means Chinese don't need any weapons, they should take frequent strolls, good for their health too.

Ports are good vantage points to listen, I'm sure you know better than me. If the Chinese so will, it doesn't take much effort to encourage Maoists in AP or to push weapons to IM or use their Merchant ships to transfer weapons to TSP. why give them the opportunity?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 15 Aug 2013 12:05

Thanks Venug sir, I think what you are referring to is patrolling 2km away from the LAC that's been going on for all these years. That's being scrapped by the way and there are long range patrols inside PRC that the SF conduct. Problem is there isn't much of an option at the moment other than stay eyeball to eyeball waving banners.

The Chinese are still using spy ships for their spying in the area, and if there was a spy facility - India's reaction would have been totally different. Passing arms via the sea route is always a possibility - having a port makes zero difference.

What India is concerned about is arms smuggling by certain group of the PLA to the Maoists. PRC is a strange entity in itself there are a lot of entities acting without direction or orders from the top. I don't know if it's still the case after the change in govt there but it certainly was in the previous govt.

vic · Post by **vic** » 15 Aug 2013 20:32

The biggest problem for Indian and a positive for China is slow decay of Japanese military capabilities and ambitions.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 15 Aug 2013 20:54

vic wrote:The biggest problem for Indian and a positive for China is slow decay of Japanese military capabilities and ambitions.

vic, the Japanese decline may have several reasons but there is a great complementarity between us and the Japanese to turn it into a mutually beneficial formula.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 15 Aug 2013 22:17

What is keeping Japanese to resurrect themselves from this decline, given that they consider themselves a martial race and few decades back almost every Japanese soldier would prefer to die in the battle than surrender? this decline seems very strange for that type of nationalism among Japanese, it is almost as if they are castrated.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 16 Aug 2013 01:11

There's no point in appealing to the worst of the IJA/IJN's excesses as a way to take on the PLA/PLAN. Japan is better today because they moved on from that era, while the PRC is doing a lot of what the entity whose excesses they bemoan, once did.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Aug 2013 06:28

PLA acting without orders from the top - like Paki non-state actor theory?

Some extreme naivete or deliberate deception about the PLA then, for anyone who has studied the PLA from its inception and the structure of party control that has evolved, should have immediately shown any such claim of decentralized independent action like these, as false.

What is the purpose behind pushing such absurd theories? save the face of GOChina and GOI? or what!

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 16 Aug 2013 07:36

India & China to resume strategic talks after a gap of 3 years - Indrani Bagchi, ToI

With Prime Minister Manmohan Singh scheduled to travel to Beijing in October, India and China will be resuming a strategic dialogue after three years.

On August 20, foreign secretary Sujatha Singh will meet her counterpart, Chinese vice foreign minister Liu Zhen Min, here to hold the fifth high-level strategic dialogue that had fallen into disuse after November, 2010. This will be Singh's first big foreign policy interaction.

But the occasion has a special personal significance for the new foreign secretary. Thirty years ago, one of the first batches of pilgrims to Kailash-Manasarovar through Lipulekh Pass were caught in a mountain blizzard that turned dangerous. It took a lot of physical and mental resources of the MEA liaison officer deputed for the trip — a young Sujatha Singh — to shepherd the pilgrims to safety. For a few days, New Delhi lost contact with her as she moved through hostile Chinese territory with the pilgrims, before returning to India.

Next week will be a different experience, as Singh will be having a markedly different conversation with Beijing. This includes boundary, market access and security, global affairs like Afghanistan and Syria etc. The fourth round was held during the tenure of Nirupama Rao in Beijing. In the two years that Ranjan Mathai was the foreign secretary the Chinese vice-minister could not make time to come to India for the dialogue. That has now been corrected.

Meanwhile, officials said a "high degree of candour" characterized the first India-China dialogue on central Asia that was held in Beijing in the past couple of days. An official statement of the meeting said the two sides discussed "regional security and counter-terrorism, Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), energy security, development partnerships". Ajay Bisaria, joint secretary in the MEA, who led the Indian delegation briefed the Chinese side on India's Connect Central Asia policy. As the two countries increase their interaction on a gamut of issues, MEA officials observed that the policies of both countries appeared to be similar.

Montek Ahluwalia, deputy chairman of the Planning Commission, is also expected to hold the strategic economic dialogue with China in the coming weeks, as both sides gear up for a summit meeting. While the PM's visit might yield an agreement on border cooperation {I am really concerned about the BDCA that has been rapidly pushed through with an India government that has been very generous to its two inimical neighbours} , its unlikely there will be any big breakthrough with China this year, largely because the Indian government is nearing the end of its tenure.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 16 Aug 2013 11:54

venug wrote:What is keeping Japanese to resurrect themselves from this decline, given that they consider themselves a martial race and few decades back almost every Japanese soldier would prefer to die in the battle than surrender? this decline seems very strange for that type of nationalism among Japanese, it is almost as if they are castrated.

that is exactly what was done - they were made to feel the shame of militarism

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 16 Aug 2013 17:30

Chinese "roar" or "bark". China 'dog-lion': Henan zoo mastiff poses as Africa cat. Enjoy.

An animal described as an African lion at a Chinese zoo was exposed as a fraud - when the creature started barking in front of visitors.

Tibetan mastiff dog

Other species were also apparently mislabelled; there was a white fox in a leopard's den and another dog being passed off as a wolf

Read between the lines.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 17 Aug 2013 03:22

anupmisra wrote:Chinese "roar" or "bark". [
An animal described as an African lion at a Chinese zoo was exposed as a fraud - when the creature started barking in front of visitors.
Tibetan mastiff dog
Other species were also apparently mislabelled; there was a white fox in a leopard's den and another dog being passed off as a wolfRead between the lines.

Where and in which category are they keeping the Poaqanimal ?
In Lap
In Pakhana
In whorehouse

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 17 Aug 2013 10:19

From the archives of The Hindu

India against border pact

In a strongly worded note delivered to Chinese Government on July 15, 1963, India has accused Peking of concluding the border agreement with Pakistan with the intention of adding to the existing tensions in the border regions. India’s note forms part of White Paper Number Nine which was placed before Parliament on August 16 by the Prime Minister. It covers correspondence exchanged between New Delhi and Peking from January 1963 to end of July 1963. India’s note is in reply to Chinese letter of March 25 in which Peking maintained its right to conclude the border agreement with Pakistan, another sovereign country, and questioned the propriety of India, a third party, to interfere with this agreement.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 17 Aug 2013 10:50

Diplomat Stresses Sino-US Ties; India Not mentioned - Ananth Krishnan, The Hindu

China’s new State Councillor and top diplomat Yang Jiechi has said that the new leadership under Xi Jinping would emphasise building a new model of relations with the U.S. and consolidating ties with the country’s neighbours as it looks to carve out its diplomatic priorities in the coming decade.

In his first detailed comments after taking over as the top foreign policy official earlier this year, Mr. Yang, in an article published this week by the Communist Party’s official magazine Qiushi , pointed to Mr. Xi’s trip to the U.S. and recent visits by leaders from South Korea, Pakistan and Vietnam to Beijing as reflecting the new direction of the country’s foreign policy priorities.

Regarding disputes with neighbours, Mr. Yang said China would act firmly in disputes with Japan over the Diaoyu or Senkaku islands and also with several countries in the South China Sea The boundary dispute with India was, however, not discussed by Mr. Yang. Interestingly, India did not find any mention in the 3,600-word essay, which attempted to outline China’s diplomatic priorities and challenges under the new leadership.

The new Chinese Premier and second-ranked leader Li Keqiang chose New Delhi as his first destination after taking office as he embarked on a four-nation tour in May. But analysts in Beijing say the initial momentum has appeared to fizzle out, particularly following the Depsang stand-off in April.

The essay also left little doubt that China sees relations with the United States as its single biggest priority. The new leadership would emphasise “putting forth the vision of building a new model of major-country relationship between China and the United States”, as suggested by the June Sunnylands summit meeting between Mr. Xi and U.S. President Barack Obama in California.

This “new model”, he said, would include “non-conflict and non-confrontation”.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 18 Aug 2013 23:19

Chinese try to derail India-US tyre deal

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eff462fe-07d7 ... z2cLUrtbkP

Chinese workers have stepped up their campaign to scupper India’s largest acquisition of a US company, warning of continuing disruption at a joint venture that is a central element of the $2.5bn cross-border deal.The Chengshan Group operates a large factory in Shandong province with Ohio-based Cooper Tire, which accepted a buyout offer from India’s Apollo Tyres in June.Chinese workers at the joint venture went on strike shortly after the deal was announced, and late last month Chengshan asked a local court to dissolve the venture with Cooper.It is the first time Chinese industrial action has targeted a large offshore acquisition involving two foreign companies, exposing a new risk for multinationals operating in the country.Chengshan managers and the joint venture’s workers complain that they were not adequately consulted over the Apollo offer. They also argue that the deal will burden their prospective Indian owner with too much debt and result in a clash of corporate cultures.The union representing the joint venture’s 5,000 workers said they would “not welcome” senior Cooper managers assigned to the factory. The workers agreed to resume their shifts at the weekend, but insisted that they would only produce Chengshan tyres while boycotting any work on Cooper Tire branded products.
“People are angry that Cooper Tire has refused to respect the union and employees’ right to information, to make suggestions and to participate in democratic management of the factory,” the workers said in a statement. “As long as [Cooper] does not respond to our legitimate concerns in a reasonable and satisfactory manner, the strike will continue.”Cooper said it “continues to work toward getting the plant operating fully again as soon as possible, including the production of all tyre types and brands”. Cooper and Apollo both insist that the strike will not derail their deal, which they expect to complete by the end of the year.Cooper is the majority partner in its joint venture with Chengshan, controlling a 65 per cent stake.“The culture gap between Chinese and US companies is so large it took us years to adapt [to Cooper],” Liu Shuhong, director of Chengshan’s legal department, said. “No one here is willing to repeat that painful experience again with an Indian company.”“Since the beginning of this process, Apollo hasn’t listened to our concerns, met with us or shared any information,” Ms Liu added.Apollo said the company “looks forward to engaging directly with all of Cooper’s employees at the appropriate time”. According to Ms Liu, the head of Cooper’s international division met workers in late June but did not satisfy their demands.“I believe that this strike has government consent,” said Li Qiang, executive director of China Labor Watch, a New York-based worker rights group. “Other joint ventures in China can learn from this strike.”

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Aug 2013 02:44

Bharat Verma writing in the latest IDR has put forward his hypothesis that a joint Sino-Pak "62" is in the offing.he makes a few key points.

Firstly,that the game the Pakis and Chinese have been playing has been to see the removal of NATO/US/Western forces from Afghanistan.The Pakis believe that they "saw off" the Soviets with US help and are now seeing off the US with Chinese help,the use of "Jihadis" to put enormous pressure upon western/US forces and make them retreat,as we've all along predicted would happen.The Pakis now believe that with a little help from its "all-weather friend",China,it can see off India in J&K.The phony "peace" that has been happening for the last few years is only because Pak was engaged in Afghanistan.During this time,a disinformation campaign was waged by the Sino-Pak JV that Pak was willing to make peace and "peaceniks" on both sides were activated to fool the Indian media.The UPA regime fell for the Paki "peace" gambit hook,line and sinker.The sinking regime of MMS,equally determined like a lemming to jump off the cliff by entering into a "peace in our time" with Pak,and mistakenly believing that that act of a Quisling will endear him to history's record keepers,is falling right into the trap!

The aim has all along been to stir up internal trouble in the valley at the opportune time. In this,the role of Nawaz Sharif (not touched upon by BV) must be mentioned as he was the very same PM when the Bandicoot,Gen.Muah-a-rat launched his Kargil War.BV says that Paki talking heads on Indian TV now have started their "fight to the finish" rhetoric about liberating Kashmir and Siachen.Similarly,China suddenly started talking about Ar.Pradesh belonging to it (S.Tibet) and that 90,000 sq/km of Indian territory was theirs! The recent aggro that we are seeing in both Ladakh and the NEast are meant to divert attention from where the actual Chinese attacks are going to take place,which one feels is using the same successful strategy of the Allies in WW2 in fooling the Germans into believing that the actual D-Day landings would take place at Calais.

BV believes that China will attack in greater force than our defence strategists imagine,a mere thrust into ladakh,with an attempt to invade the Siliguri corridor bounded by Nepal,"a Chinese colony" and Bhutan,where China is putting political pressure upon the kingdom.This will cut off the NEast of India and China will have access to B'DEsh too from its invasion.The balloon is expected to go up once substantial US forces have left Afghanistan and the Pakis through their proxy,the Taliban,are in control of much of the country.

BV has some advice on what we should do.I have an outrageous,heretic thought that if the mil. situ deteriorates dramatically as he has opined,and we are in danger of losing the N-East,we should seriously consider using small tactical N-weapons (neutron bombs) in our own territory against the Chinese. forces.It will do two things.Stop them in their tracks and send a warning to the PRC that we can also use the same on Chinese territory,hit their key bases in Tibet,and that our N-deterrent is a real force to be reckoned with.

X-posted from the Mil.td.

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news ... game-plan/

The Chinese Game Plan
By Bharat Verma
Issue Vol. 28.3 Jul-Sep 2013 | Date : 19 Aug , 2013

Nawaz Sharif and Li Keqiang

With the opening of two fronts against New Delhi, Beijing will, in collusion with Islamabad, repeat ‘1962’ in the near future on an enlarged scale.

The ‘peace’ witnessed in Kashmir for many years was not due to any extraordinary Indian capabilities; it was because Pakistan was preoccupied with the ongoing war in Afghanistan pursuing its own strategic interests and that of China.

As a tactical ploy for the past several years, Beijing and Islamabad have been dishing out sermons on friendship. China has used its lobby successfully in India to promote the concept that the two nations, instead of being at loggerheads with each other, should join hands to make the twenty-first century theirs.

The twin objective was to concentrate on the American forces; firstly, with the help of Pakistan to ensure the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan and secondly, that India does not shake hands decisively with the US thereby tilting the balance of power in favour of democracy.

Similarly, Pakistan, more or less a colony of China, went out of its way to promote friendship with India, using the oft employed ploy of the ‘twenty-first century belonging to Asia’. The refrain was that instead of fighting with each other Pakistan, China and India should join hands to evict American imperialism from Asia. Pakistan deployed its journalists on Indian channels at times bending backwards to placate Indian sentiments. Simultaneously, they effectively activated Pakistan’s peace constituency in India that is much larger than the one that exists in Islamabad to gain major traction. The continuous ranting of Pakistan being a bigger victim of terrorism and putting a temporary leash on Hafiz Sayeed did help to pull the wool over a large number of Indian eyes.

The aim of the China and Pakistan combine was to first employ jihadi forces in Afghanistan under the guidance of the Pakistan Army to evict the Western forces. Therefore, it was imperative to offer a fig leaf in the guise of friendship that retains calm on the Indian front. It was merely a tactical withdrawal to concentrate all available resources against the Americans in Afghanistan. Meanwhile under China’s guidance, India’s Track II crowd was enticed to sign, seal and deliver Siachen to Pakistan as the glacier is of great strategic importance to the Chinese. In the so-called Track-II diplomacy, India walked straight into the trap!

At the same time, to gain credibility with thinking Indians, both Pakistan and China desisted from aggravating the situation on the borders. However, the so-called misguided elements that left Kashmir for PoK were sent back duly trained in jihad on the pretext of temporary surrender; the real game being to wait for an opportune moment to engineer a home-grown rebellion. All along, the pot was kept intelligently boiling but on slow fire. The ‘peace’ witnessed in Kashmir for many years was not due to any extraordinary Indian capabilities; it was because Pakistan was preoccupied with the ongoing war in Afghanistan pursuing its own strategic interests and that of China. Undoubtedly, these were high priority military objectives.

With the withdrawal of US forces from the region, the jihad factory will be idle. Pakistan can implode due to this situation of high unemployment.

As usual, on account of collective incompetence, the establishment at Delhi fell for this ruse. It was the conduct of ‘psychological warfare’ under Chinese supervision at its finest. Executed with finesse, the phase of temporary tactical withdrawal put New Delhi completely off guard. Pakistan believes it has defeated two super powers in Afghanistan – the Soviet Union with the help of the US and the latter, with the help of China. Defeating India with a little help from China should, therefore, be a cakewalk.

The gloves are finally off with America’s ‘cut and run’ from Afghanistan. With the exit of the West, China and Pakistan are now confident that large areas of Afghanistan will be under their thumb. In due course, Indian footprint in Afghanistan will be wiped out.

In the second phase currently underway, India’s borders have come alive with China and Pakistan mounting intense pressure simultaneously. The PLA intruded 19 km across the LAC into Indian territory and dismantled existing structures. To add insult to injury, on the arrival of the Defence Minister Antony at Shanghai, Beijing issued a demeaning statement against New Delhi. Incursions into Indian territories continue while Chinese innocently claim they are patrolling on their side of the LAC.

For all the insults the Chinese continue to heap on India, they were rewarded by New Delhi rolling out the red carpet for Li, withdrawing troops from own territory in Despang, and sending the NSA, Foreign Minister and the Defence Minster in succession to pay respects as though Beijing were an ‘imperial Durbar’. In spite of being insulted on landing at Beijing, the Defence Minister announced the enhancement of military-to-military cooperation between the two nations! To be subservient appears to be a persistent trait of the Indian leadership. It is simply amazing that New Delhi should offer military-to-military cooperation to China – a country that is at loggerheads with it all the while laying claim to 90,000 sq.km. of Indian territory.

Pakistan has gone into overdrive, beheading Indian soldiers inside Indian territory. In a raid in the Poonch sector, its Battle Action Team massacred five Indian soldiers. The timing and intelligence of the adversary appear to be flawless as this killing has taken place at a time when the Maratha battalion was taking over from the exiting Bihar Regiment – a time when the units are not on a high state of alert.

In order to deter the China-Pakistan combine from inflicting war, India will need to rapidly equip its Army and the Air Force with deep offensive capabilities and phenomenal maneuverability even as it builds up a blue-water navy.

China excels in long-term strategic thinking; its shared ethnicity with the people of the North-East India enables its spies to blend in easily with the people in the North-East region. However, China is limited by language and facial features to mess with the Indian heartland and proxy Pakistan, with no such limitations intermingles with ease within India. Pakistan, in coordination with China, has now put pressure on the border. At the same time, it has helped instigate, with renewed vigour, ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Kishtwar and Doda. This move is similar to that of Kashmiri Pundits ultimately being dislodged from the Valley while New Delhi continued to indulge in despicable vote-bank politics.

As it was with China, the Pakistan Army claimed that it was not responsible for any incident on the borders. Meanwhile, the sloppy response from the Delhi Durbar has emboldened Pakistan High Commission to raise questions on internal matters concerning India. With the withdrawal of US forces from the region, the jihad factory will be idle. Pakistan can implode due to this situation of high unemployment. Therefore, to redirect the destructive energy of this force towards India to achieve foreign policy objectives and avoid implosion would be an imperative for Pakistan.

Pakistani journalists appearing on Indian electronic media in the second phase changed their tune from soothing ruffled feathers earlier to declaring ‘a fight to the finish’ for the independence of Kashmir and vacating Siachen. On monitoring comments in the social media, the chant from, “India and China should join hands to make the twenty-first century belong to South Asia” has shifted to “India, whether it likes it or not, has to live with China and Pakistan, now that the Americans are running away. It has no choice but to join us!”

The second phase by China and Pakistan will continue for some time to further weaken Indian borders and inject communal disharmony through covert operations till sufficient demoralization sets in, American withdrawal is complete and a large swathe of Afghanistan’s territory is controlled by the Pakistan Army with the help of its jihadi forces.

In the final phase, the Chinese game plan is to repeat a much larger version of “1962” by imposing a two-front war on India once the Western forces are out of Afghanistan. Many in the Indian military, the government and a few analysts erroneously believe that China will opt for a limited attack in Ladakh.

The coming years will witness the territorial integrity of the nation coming under severe stress due to threats posed by the Great Chinese Game.

In the current globalised century, waging war attracts severe economic penalties on a nation with the long-term debilitating consequences. Therefore, the prize has to justify the cost-benefit-ratio. In what may be termed as a repeat of 1962, the China-Pakistan combine will impose war on India at a time of their choosing which may be sooner than one can imagine.

China will go for the jugular by landing its airborne divisions and choking the 200-km long Siliguri Corridor that is merely 28 km to 60 km wide. On one side, we have Nepal, which is now almost a colony of China. On the other side, Bhutan is under pressure from Beijing to toe its line. This implies that the entire North-East region may be cut off from the Indian mainland. Apart from this region adding to flank protection as far as Tibet is concerned, China will gain direct access to Bangladesh and easier access to Myanmar.

Simultaneously, Pakistan will attack the Western front to unhook Jammu and Kashmir from India after creating sufficient internal turmoil to soften the target. China has always supported and will readily accept Jammu and Kashmir to be part of Pakistan. In the event of Pakistani success, China can hive off large chunks of territory in Ladakh to suit its strategic interests. Besides, the key advantage to China will be securing the flanks of alternative supply route from Gwaddar to Xingjian Province. This two-front war will also guarantee China’s position as the undisputed leader in Asia substantially reducing the preeminence of the USA.

In order to deter the China-Pakistan combine from inflicting war, India will need to rapidly equip its Army and the Air Force with deep offensive capabilities and phenomenal maneuverability even as it builds up a blue-water navy. Indian intelligence agencies should gear up to support separatist forces inside Tibet and Pakistan. In addition, Indian foreign policy must decisively leverage the influence of democracies in Asia and the West, particularly the USA.

The coming years will witness the territorial integrity of the nation coming under severe stress due to threats posed by the Great Chinese Game.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Aug 2013 10:11

Telepathic? V.Adm.Arun Kumar Singh retd. recommends a similar dose of "radiation" in deterring a Sino-Pak JV against India.

Deterring a joint China-Pak attack
Aug 19, 2013

Arun Kumar Singh

To protect our territorial integrity, we need to change India’s “no first use” (NFU) doctrine to make it similar to that of Pakistan and China. India should declare that it may use tactical nuclear weapons in case its “red lines” are crossed.

In 2008, based on my four-decade-long experience in the Indian Navy and Coast Guard, small activities and border skirmishes caught my attention and, as I began studying them, I saw a diabolic pattern emerging.

Alarmingly, it all added up to Pakistani terrorists getting ready to carry out an attack on India by sea. On May 19, 2008, The Asian Age published my article, The next terror attack could be from the sea. The carnage of 26/11 took place six months later.
Fifty-one years after the disastrous 1962 war with China, India continues to pay the price for ignoring its defences, this time in Ladakh, where lack of infrastructure (there is still no road link from Leh to the eastern airstrip at Daulat Beg Oldi, and men need to march for six days across mountainous terrain to cover this distance), and lack of adequate force levels have left a vulnerability which is being exploited skilfully by China. Favourable flat terrain, excellent Chinese infrastructure and force availability means that Chinese troops can reach the disputed territory in eastern Ladakh in 12-24 hours.
The recent change of political leadership in China and Pakistan, along with the impending American withdrawal from Afghanistan, has resulted in more coordinated China-Pak activities along our borders. When Nawaz Sharif came to power on June 5, 2013, he immediately set up the “Kashmir cell”. Less than two months later, on August 2, 2013, bombs went off near our Jalalabad consulate. Now, studying the pattern of activities along the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir (the August 6 killing of five jawans, firing along the LoC and the Kishtwar riots) and the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Ladakh (the April 2013 Depsang area faceoff, and present probes by the Chinese Army), I am once again worried that a joint China-Pak threat may materialise at very short notice, specially now that we are in “election mode”.
China, worried about the security of its proposed $18 billion “energy corridor” (oil pipeline, road and rail links) from Xinjiang province to Gwadar port via Karakoram mountains, has apparently decided that it needs to grab some disputed territory in eastern Ladakh, close to its proposed energy corridor.
Given the infrastructure and military capability in eastern Ladakh — armed Indian policemen and a few soldiers — the Chinese Army can launch an air-ground offensive with 10-20,000 motorised troops and 100-300 tanks to capture the entire area it claims as its own in north-eastern Ladakh in 48 hours. The border airstrips of Daulat Beg Oldi and Nyoma could be captured by Chinese helicopter-borne forces in a few hours, thus cutting off airborne logistics to eastern Ladakh. Active intervention by the Indian Air Force (IAF), even if approved immediately by the government, may have little impact on the outcome given the current force levels on both sides.
If it seizes about 1,000 sq km in north-eastern Ladakh, China would not only ensure security of its proposed “Karakoram-Gwadar” energy corridor, but also make our positions on the Saltoro ridge untenable — our troops would have the Chinese behind them and the Pakistanis in front.
If this crisis were to erupt, Chinese warships, submarines and aircraft would move to Gwadar port and airfield, thus nullifying peninsular India’s natural geographical advantage of being located astride China’s sea lines of communications, through which it exports goods and imports energy. Gwadar-based Chinese naval units could cut off Indian energy imports from West Asia.
In April 2011, Pakistan signed a contract with China for delivery of six Qing-class conventional submarines, expected to begin entering service by 2014-15. Each of these Qing subs will have the capability to fire three nuclear-tipped CJ-10 cruise missiles with a range of 2,500 km.
India’s leaders need to remember that in the 1998 Pokhran II nuclear tests, India tested four nuclear devices (of 0.2, 0.4, 0.8 kilo and 14 tons each), which would qualify as tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) for delivery against large enemy military formations invading our territory, including in Ladakh. These TNWs would deter a massive Chinese ground assault in eastern Ladakh, as they could decimate the invading force once it crossed into Indian territory. Of course, both China and Pakistan have TNWs, and will not hesitate to use them on India.
To protect our territorial integrity, we need to change India’s “no first use” (NFU) doctrine and make it similar to that of Pakistan and China. India should declare that it may use tactical nuclear weapons in case its “red lines” (eg. unacceptable loss of territory) are crossed. These TNWs must, of course, be inducted under strict control of the Nuclear Command Authority.
A hostile China-Pak adventure can only be deterred by nuclear weapons, political will and a new nuclear doctrine. Our Mandarin-speaking China experts and Punjabi-speaking Pakistani experts need to let professionals advise the government on security matters.

The writer retired as Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 19 Aug 2013 10:29

2-front war against 2 nuke armed enemies is definitely exceptional, regardless of excuses thrown.

What does 'international opinion' say about such a scenario against India, especially nuke armed rabid pukis with nuke control with army and against just India - or we are used to playing reactionary to 'international opinion' and 'political situation' and so on and so forth for another chattering session and won't pile on efforts till bluffmasters hit us.

Hopefully Indians are also part of international situations and international opinions and without Indian views, barking dogs matter nothing however rabid the bites and loud the barks.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 19 Aug 2013 19:38

This article touches upon the important connection between the shocking decline in the economic growth of India during the last year or so and its security implications particularly with respect to managing the threat from China.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home ... 901135.cms

I can add some thoughts to the above.

The strong improvement in India-US relations during the first decade of this century starting with President Clinton's visit to India, the first by a US President after more than two decades, was in retrospect perhaps driven by three factors I can think of: (a) India becoming a nuclear weapons power, (b) the rapid Indian economic growth and (c) the desire on the part of the US to get India to sign the nuclear treaty.

The effect of item (a) is now fading especially with Pakistan attaining parity with India on the number of nuclear weapons. There is not much India can do about this. A nuclear weapons race between India and Pakistan will only benefit China.

The rapid economic growth of India suited the US/Europe very well providing a ray of hope to contain China with the new muscular Indian economic role on the world stage - everyone talking of India and China in the same breadth as if they were equals. This also created economic opportunities in US/Europe. However item (b) is now fading given the decline in India's economic growth.

The third item would have been to strengthen PM Manmohan Singh's political hands within India to sign the nuclear treaty. This would benefit the US by placing some limits on India's nuclear weapons potential and secondarily to create some relatively minor business opportunities. The former reason is now past tense since the treaty has been signed.

The big India-US naval exercises - recall giant US carriers in the Indian ocean exercising with India's smaller naval ships, US Navy "escorting" Indian Navy ships en-route to S. Korea (or was it Japan) - and the US/India army exercises close to China's borders. All this came to a sudden slow-down coinciding with India signing the nuclear treaty and with Mr. Obama becoming the President - don't know which of these two events to choose from as the root cause. Maybe elements of both? After all the Indian economy had not started slowing down at that time and not expected to do so with sufficient certainty to drive political decisions, and so cannot be the root cause. Is this a case of the current Indian Government's inability to understand why the US had wanted to exercise with India in the first place? Is this an example of a lack of strategic thinking in international affairs?

Therefore, to the above article I would propose that the stagnation or even decline in India-US strategic relations during the last 5 years coincides with Mr. Obama becoming President and India signing the nuclear treaty. Perhaps to reverse this trend, Mr. Obama sent his Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to India a year back. However, India pontificated with the US and publicly and un-equivocally came to China's rescue in the face of what appeared to be anti-China moves the US was making on the international stage at that time and also including India in those moves. (That China returned India's favor with the Depsang Bulge incident and others is nothing new and is a different story.) At that time, the UPA government lost a chance to stem the decline in relations and to replace it with vigor. Usually such chances come once in long time. This was confirmed during the Vice President Biden's recent visit when he repeated himself TOO MANY TIMES that India-US strategic relations were not directed at China. If it is not directed against China, what is the purpose of the India-US strategic dialogues? To sample each others cuisines and exchange intellectual ideas about India's new role in the world? To add to the confusion, India is now having "strategic dialogues" with numerous countries in the world (some of whom have no global clout) including China! If India does not want to join the US to contain China, the strategic relationship with between the US and India will be limited to the economic dimension only.

Importantly without a robust economic growth for the next generation or two, India will have difficulty finding the money to counter China militarily. Both of India's difficult neighbors will exploit this disadvantage to the hilt. A slow growing India can still take on Pakistan (alone) but China will be more difficult. India has no choice but to grow fast for the sake of its own security especially vis-à-vis China.

The Pakistan Army will also now be emboldened by (a) the slowing Indian economy, (b) the slow-down in India-US strategic relations and (c) the departure of the US and Europe from Afghanistan. This will further weaken India's hands when managing the threat from China.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Aug 2013 20:53

On the eco front,with the collapse of the market and the free-fall of the Re.,the open door policy to imports ad nauseum say many economists,destroyed Indian industry.Instead of us being a manufacturing nation-which Britain is now trying to redress,we became one of the world's biggest importers.Of arms we stand no 1! Cheap Chinese goods in every sphere has decimated many of our industries and especially small scale ones,which employ those in the mofussil regions.The NREGA dole is destroying agriculture and the construction industry as labour is either scarce or unavailable,and what is available is often extremely unproductive.Thanks to political interference in education,we boast of thousands upon thousands of engineering colleges,but 90% of the so-called graduates from these institutions are unemployable.A vast number of "educated" youth are going to be jobless and retrenching is going on apace.They have also been hit with the "get-rich-quick" syndrome and want the fine things of life without having to work hard for them.crime is on a huge upward curve.The politicians are mostly criminals and are extorting massive amounts of money from the middle class ,by demanding huge bribes for almost everything connected with ordinary life.And even if you die,getting a death certificate also costs money!

IN managaing the PRC threat,we must first reverse the huge imbalance in trade with China.ban,or impose massive duties on Chinese goods.The Chinese are screwing us both militarily as well as economically.At least here we can hurt them,that is if our criminal lot who rule us have some an iota of affection for the motherland.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 19 Aug 2013 23:12

http://www.nanjing2013.org/en

Why are all the Indian players in this second asian youth championship are called "Independent Olympic Athlete"

While We have Afghanistan, Nepal, nPakistan, Cheen, etc. but India!

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 20 Aug 2013 01:18

Huawei Technology Co Ltd (002502) Is Building A Fiber-Optic Cable Between China and Pakistan

http://pulse2.com/2013/08/15/huawei-tec ... ort-91687/

Huawei Technology Co Ltd (SHE:002502) is working on building a fiber-optic cable that connects Pakistan and China, according to sources with the Associated Press of Pakistan (APP). This connection will run between Pakistan’s borders near Khunjerab to Rawalpindi and will span a distance of about 820km (around 509.52 miles). This project will reportedly cost around $44 million and will be completed within 2 years.Pakistan currently connects to the Internet through a few undersea cables so this new connection will bring added redundancy, which will reduce Internet downtime and add security. This project will reportedly stimulate trade and IT awareness in the region, which will generate economic opportunities. The sources also noted that it will generate revenues of 1.5 billion rupees (US$24.3 million) in the first 3 years.This past March, a fiber optic cable got cut in the Arabian Sea near Karachi. This resulted in a 50% decrease in Internet speed in Pakistan

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Aug 2013 06:04

China will defend its maritime rights: Chinese Defence Minister in the US - ToI

Military relations between China and the United States are steadily improving but Beijing remains determined to defend its maritime rights, the country's defence minister said Monday during a US visit.

Although General Chang Wanquan and his US counterpart, Pentagon chief Chuck Hagel, struck an optimistic tone after more than three hours of talks, the Chinese official made clear Beijing would not make concessions when it comes to its core interests.

"We always insist that related disputes be solved through dialogue and negotiation," Chang told a joint news conference at the Pentagon.

"However, no one should fantasize that China would barter away our core interests, and no one should underestimate our will and determination in defending our territory, sovereignty and maritime rights," he said.

China claims virtually all of the South China Sea, despite rival claims from other countries in the region, which have accused Beijing of staging a gradual takeover of disputed islets.

And Japan and China are locked in a bitter feud over which country has sovereignty over islands in the East China Sea.

Hagel restated the US stance on the issue, saying Washington remained neutral over sovereignty questions but insisted that disagreements be resolved peacefully, "without coercion."

In the run-up to Monday's meeting, US defense officials have touted progress in defense ties with Beijing after years of false starts, crediting the shift in part to China's new leader, President Xi Jinping.

"One of the themes we emphasized today was that a sustained, substantive military-to-military relationship is an important pillar for this strong bilateral relationship," Hagel said.

And Chang said defense ties are "gaining a good momentum."

Before Monday's talks, Chang met the head of US Pacific Command in Hawaii on Friday and the head of Northern Command on Saturday.

His visit follows a series of high-level visits, exchanges and joint initiatives, including plans for Chinese naval forces to take part in a major US exercise next year.

This weekend, Chinese naval forces will take part in an anti-piracy exercise with US ships in the Gulf of Aden.

With China's rapid economic growth fueling an expansion of military might, the US military has sought to forge a dialogue with the Chinese top brass to avoid any miscalculations or incidents on the high seas.

Washington also has pursued a strategic "rebalance" towards the Asia-Pacific region to counter Beijing's rising influence, particularly in the South China Sea.

Chang said the strategic shift towards Asia had raised some concerns in China, and that more US-led military exercises "further complicated the situation in the region."

The general cautioned that the US tilt to Asia should not be focused on any one nation.

"We would like to have this rebalancing strategy balance on different countries as well because the essence of rebalancing is balance," he said.

The talks also covered cyber security, a contentious issue as the United States has alleged the Chinese military and government of backing some digital espionage against defense firms and other US targets.

Chang said his country opposed any "arms race" in the cyber realm, as well as any "double standard," amid recent revelations of massive electronic surveillance carried out by America's National Security Agency.

"Regarding how to solve the cybersecurity issue, I believe it requires the common exploration and cooperation between China and United States rather than ungrounded accusation or suspicion," he said.

Chang's trip to the United States follows a visit to China earlier this by the top US military officer, General Martin Dempsey, who took part in Monday's talks.

And Hagel said Monday he had accepted an invitation to travel to China next year, his first trip there as Pentagon chief.

Hagel said he was looking forward to meeting Chang again next week in Brunei at a gathering of defense ministers from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations ( ASEAN).

The US defense secretary said his trip to the region also would include stops in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Aug 2013 17:00

India Flexes its Muscles, Sends C-130J to DBO Rajat Pandit - ToI

Flexing its muscles in eastern Ladakh, where the Indian and Chinese armies have had face-offs in recent months, IAF on Tuesday morning landed a C-130J Super Hercules aircraft at the Daulat Beg Oldi airstrip close to the Line of Actual Control.

"The commanding officer Group Captain Tejbir Singh and the crew of the "Veiled Vipers" squadron, along with senior officers of Air Headquarters, touched down on the DBO airstrip, located at 16614 feet (5065 meters), in the Aksai Chin area after taking off from their home base at Hindon," said an officer.

DBO is an important Army forward area post which links the ancient silk route to China. This base was built during the India-China conflict in 1962 and came into prominence when Packet aircraft of the IAF operated from DBO between 1962 and 1965.

"Once again this strategic base in the Northern Himalayas gained importance when it was resurrected and reactivated by the IAF along with the Indian Army and made operational when a twin engine AN-32 aircraft from Chandigarh landed there after a gap of 43 years," he said.

Considering the very limited load carrying capability of AN-32 and helicopters, a decision was taken by the IAF to land the C-130J, which is capable of lifting up to 20 tonnes of load. "With this enhanced airlift capability, the IAF will now be in a better position to meet the requirements of our land forces who are heavily dependent on the air bridge for sustanence in these higher and inhospitable areas," said the officer.

IAF said Tuesday's achievement will enable the forces to exploit the inherent advanced capabilities of the aircraft by increased capability to induct troops, improve communication network and also serve as a great morale booster for maintenance of troops positioned there. "It is also a projection of the fact that the IAF is capable of operating in such inhospitable terrain in support of the Indian Army," he said.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 20 Aug 2013 17:07

What a piece of TOIlet paper. We landed C-130J because our roads to that area are laughable or not upto the job. Hell our connectivity to Ladakh 60 years after Independence is a joke.