|| Satyameva Jayate ||

Excerpts from “Art of War”

Excerpts from a review of Arun Shourie’s “Are we deceiving ourselves again?” by Brahma Chellaney:

…having forsaken the Kautilyan principles, has proven no match to China’s Sun Tzu-style statecraft. From Nehru’s grudging acceptance of Chinese suzerainty to Atal Behari Vajpayee’s blithe acceptance of full Chinese sovereignty, India has incrementally shed its main card — Tibet.

…it wasn’t geography but guns — the sudden occupation of the traditional buffer, Tibet, soon after the communists seized power in Beijing — that made China India’s neighbour.

…Shourie’s well-researched, powerfully written book relies on Nehru’s letters, speeches, notes and other correspondence to bring out the significance, in Nehru’s own words, of the events from the 1950-51 fall of Tibet to China’s 1962 invasion.

Keep Reading…

September 24th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | China related, Geo-Strategic Issues (incl. Nuclear, Oil, Energy), India & Its Neighbours, Politics and Governance in India, Post Independence History | no comments

This is how China treats its religious minorities

Some of you may have picked up the news on Friday that US has (once again) included China in its list of  ”Countries of Particular Concern” (CPCs) mentioned in the International Religious Freedom’s annual report*.  The report lists countries and regimes who restrict or suppress religious freedom..The worst violators are mentioned as “Countries of Particular Concern”.

China has been on this list since at least 2005 (possibly earlier) and was first included in 1999.  

Against this backdrop, read how China treats its religious minorities in these excerpts from Ramadan Curbs Imposed in China: 

…Local governments in a Muslim desert region in western China have imposed strict limits on religious practices during the traditional Muslim fasting month of Ramadan…according to the Web sites of four of those governments.

The rules include prohibiting women from wearing veils and men from growing beards, as well as barring government officials from observing Ramadan.

…The Web site of the town of Yingmaili lists nine rules put in place to maintain stability during Ramadan.

They include barring teachers and students from observing Ramadan, prohibiting retired government officials from entering mosques and requiring men to shave off beards and women to doff veils. Mosques
cannot let people from outside of town stay overnight and restaurants must maintain normal hours of business. Many restaurants close in daytime hours during Ramadan because of the sunrise-to-sunset fasting.

In nearby Xinhe County, the government has decreed that Communist Party members, civil servants and retired officials must not observe Ramadan, enter mosques or take part in any religious activities during the month. Worshipers cannot make pilgrimages to tombs, so as to avoid any group event that might harm social stability…

…Shayar County, which includes the town of Yingmaili, said on its Web site that migrants must register with the police, and that any missionary work by outsiders is banned. Even outside Ramadan, China is wary of missionaries doing any kind of work in the country.

The city of Artux is also preventing its teachers and students from observing Ramadan. As a result, schools have to keep serving food and water, city authorities said.

More on CPCs here: http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?ID=603

P.S. In case you are curious, India has been mentioned too (although not as a CPC)

Related Posts:

India and China: Apples and Oranges

Does “secularism” mean “favouritism towards Muslims”? 

If only we were Chinese… 

When is it OK to shut down a place of worship?  

September 21st, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | China related, Current Affairs, Human Rights and Legal Issues, Politics and Governance | 5 comments

Weekend Reading: N-Deal, China, Sarah Palin

First, this great post on the N-Deal from BarbarIndian: The mis-argumentative Indian (recommended).

Next, Bhaskar Roy writes on China’s Assasin’s Mace strategy re. the recent N-deal…

and finally, why Sarah palin may not be that different from a Muslim Fundamentalist.

Extracts from all these links below.

Keep smiling, Stay Healthy and Enjoy the weekend.

Keep Reading…

September 12th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | China related, Current Affairs, Geo-Strategic Issues (incl. Nuclear, Oil, Energy), Miscellaneous, Politics and Governance in India | no comments

If only we were Chinese…

Prompted by this excerpt from Gautam Mukherjee’s Op-Ed in “The Pioneer”, “Assert India’s Hindu identity”:

If only we were Chinese, we wouldn’t have a Jammu & Kashmir problem at all. If we were Chinese, we would set about reneging on Article 370 even before the ink was dry on the document sanctioning it. The Chinese do not allow previous commitments to get in the way of present expediency, let alone their strategic interest.

…So if we were Chinese, we would not hesitate to put down the cynical and unruly politics of the Kashmir Valley, pressing it into ruthless submission. We would have no compunctions about disabusing the Valley politicians of their grandiose notions. We would engineer a massive demographic rebalancing — aided, abetted, and incentivised — all over this multi-religious and vast country. We would deliberately and swiftly change the character and dynamics of Jammu & Kashmir once and for all. There would be no Muslim-majority Kashmir any more than the Dalai Lama and his followers can hope to see a Tibetan-majority Tibet.

If we were Chinese, we would set about putting right historic wrongs. We would put all the shamefully displaced Pandits back where they belong, restoring their homes, land and dignity to them. In addition, we would extract reparations and indemnities for their trauma, suffering and humiliation from their erstwhile friends and neighbours turned tormentors and usurpers.

We would drive most, if not all, of the rabid Islamist terrorists and their vociferous supporters across the border. We would drive them into so-called ‘Azad Kashmir’ where they can savour life on the other side, much closer to their friends, compatriots and benefactors.

We would let the rest of the Islamists — appropriately reoriented to ground realities and reminded of their duties as much as their rights from time to time — participate in democratic discourse and hold high office if elected at all by the reformed electorate and the restorative magic of universal suffrage.

There are a few more things I thought of as I was reading this.

If only we were Chinese:

We would have backtracked on Simla Agreement and the UN resolution years ago.

We would have made modernisation of our armed forces a national priority. 

We would have shut down the Madrasas along the India-Nepal, India-Bangaldesh borders.

We would not have called our terrorists “militants“.

Afzal Guru would have already been hanged…

and finally, we would not have made an ass of ourselves at the Olympics Opening Ceremony.

But don’t misunderstand me, I am truly thankful for our democracy.

Please feel free to expand and add your own thoughts.

August 9th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | China related, Current Affairs, Miscellaneous, Politics and Governance in India | 5 comments

When is it OK to shut down a place of worship?

Apparently, when it becomes a training ground for Jihad.

Chinese authorities have…closed down 41 “illegal” places of worship (in the Muslim dominated Xinjiang province).

These places of worship were used as training ground for conducting a “holy war”, Chen Zhuangwei Chen, the police chief of Urumqi, capital of the Xinjiang province, said.� Xinjiang, which borders central Asia and Pakistan, has been the scene of a pro-independence movement by a section of the eight million Uighurs living there for a long time.� [ link ]

What about these Madarsas�though? and what about the Deobandi madarsas where the Taleban were trained?���

Highly Recommended:� Mosque Demolition meets Deathly Silence

Related Posts:

When is it OK to storm a place of worship?�

China�s Afzal Guru��

July 17th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | China related, Current Affairs, Global Terrorism, Human Rights and Legal Issues, India & Its Neighbours, Islam & Terrorism | 4 comments

China’s claim over Tibet is questionable

From a Sify report on a seminar held last Friday at IIC on ‘1914 Shimla Convention Agreement and Consequences’ (emphasis mine):

The fact that the Chinese refused to ink the 1914 Shimla Convention agreement between India and Tibet puts question mark over the legality or morality of China’s claim of sovereignty over Tibet, a group of India’s top jurists, scholars and security experts feel.

…The participants - who included senior Supreme Court Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, Arunachal MP Khiren Rijuju, Lt Gen. (Rtd.) F.R. J. Jacob, veteran diplomat Dalip Mehta, and writer Dr Parshotam Mehta - felt that this could make a strong case for India to press for autonomy of the Tibet in its negotiations with China during sixth round of discussions on Indo-China border that started today.

…Dhawan argued that China’s case for sovereignty over Tibet was inconclusive, contradictory and un-established. �I have gone through all relevant documents. At best, a nominal suzerainty was imposed by the imperial powers, which lapsed when the Chinese did not sign the agreement,� he said.

Writer Parshotam Mehta and Dr Anand Kumar of Jawaharlal Nehru University drew attention to the July declaration signed by the �plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and Tibet� which said if China did not sign the agreement �she will be debarred from all privileges�.

�It was an agreement between the government of India and Tibet and did not accept any claim by China if the latter did not accept the conditionalities,� they contended.

But all the legalities in the world pale against lack of political will and resolve…I am not in the least optimistic that�the sixth round of discussions with China would be any different from the previous ones…

Related Posts:

Of sound bites, Shilpa Shetty and Arunachal

Tibet - not always part of China�

Dancing with the Dragon�

.

If you liked what you read, consider subscribing to my feed or�subscribe�by Email.

July 6th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | British Rule in India, China related, Current Affairs, Geo-Strategic Issues (incl. Nuclear, Oil, Energy), India & Its Neighbours, Miscellaneous, Modern Indian History, Politics and Governance in India, Post Independence History, World History | one comment

Crisis in Darfur - Who will bell the cat?

French philosopher Bernard-Henri L�vy on the�crisis in�Darfur�quoted in�Guernica, June 2008:

…I was there (in Darfur)…just one year ago nearly to the day, smuggling myself across the border with Chad, crossing 500, 600 kilometers of a devastated Darfur. And I must say what I saw then, what I experienced there never left my mind and my heart since. I was deeply shocked in the most intense sense of the word by this experience, even if I lived many others in my life since my youth in Bangladesh, in Pakistan. What I saw in Darfur in a way bypassed, overwhelmed a lot of things which I experienced before.

I would like to sum up the conclusion I did draw from this journey. My first conclusion was and still is that we should stop speaking of the crisis of Darfur or even the war in Darfur. It is not a crisis. It is not a war. A war presupposes of course a frontline, presupposes organized battles, and presupposes, even more, two real armies. It is not a war between two armies. It is a war by an army against civilian populations. It is not a civil war, it is a war against civilians.

…My second conclusion, which I drew from this journey, is that we should get rid of at least … part of the myth of the Janjaweed. There are a lot of big stories about the Janjaweed, these horsemen of the devil, ill-equipped themselves, arriving in the villages burning the huts, spreading fear, like in the Middle Ages. What I saw is not exactly that. I saw huge holes in the ground, craters from bombs which were the result of a bombing…This is not Janjaweed. This is a real bomber. What everybody told me is that these Janjaweed when they arrive, generally in lorries, in trucks, they are commanded by people in uniforms or have uniforms that happen to belong to the Sudanese Army.

…Another thing which I never saw to this extent (and which makes the polemic about genocide completely outrageous and frivolous) is the impossibility of giving the real number of dead. Nobody knows if it is 200,000 dead, the number which has been given on and on for years, if it is, which is my evaluation, closer to 300,000 or 350,000; some human rights organizations�serious ones�say 400,000, maybe 500,000. From 200,000 to 500,000�nobody being able to decide which is the right figure? Which means that there might be in Darfur hundreds of thousands of children, women, men, raped, killed, burnt without any memory, without any inscription anywhere, without graves, without a face, without a name, without a number.

The question now is to know why. My last, or nearly last remark: why? And why is the international community so passive? For more than 4 years [facing] this situation, why this passivity? Why this inability to [make] decisions or, when they are made, to make them respected? Of course, there are some obvious reasons: the regime in Khartoum, the regime of murderers has some oil.

…You have also the reason (which is true) that the Khartoum regime managed to make the Western countries, and especially America, believe that they had a card to play, they�Khartoum�in the war against terrorism.

…And to end, what can we do facing that? Facing this devastation? Facing this uncomparable mass murder?

First of all, of course to try to make it visible…

Number two: we can and we should, and it is possible, to ask for real sanctions on the state of Sudan, despite the oil…

…And last but not least, there is one weapon which we have pleaded for, Mia Farrow in America and myself in Europe, for months and months. There is one actor in this terrible game, who has huge power, and can do a lot if it wants. This actor is China.

…China provides the weapons. China buys a big portion of the oil. China protects the Sudanese regime in the Security Council of the United Nations.

So the real pressure, the most efficient pressure should be and is still today the pressure on China.

And we have a tool, as you know, on China. We have a real weapon, which would prove to be very efficient if we tried. It has been tried for a few days about Tibet. It has already given results: the resuming of the dialogue with the Dalai Lama. It should be implemented [against] the Darfur tragedy, [and it] is the weapon of a boycott of the Olympic Games. …If we accept going to Beijing for the games, it will be�like in Berlin in 1936�games of blood and shame.

…all this should prevent us from saying that we are impotent, unable, that there is nothing to do. There is a lot to do to save what is still savable in Darfur.

Here are some shocking photographs of the tragedy.

The question is who will bell the cat?

Related Posts:

China�s investments and expansion in Africa��

India and China: Apples and Oranges�

P.S. As many of you would know, China’s role in Sudan is well documented and its critics range from the George Clooney to Steven Spielberg…

June 27th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | China related, Current Affairs, Geo-Strategic Issues (incl. Nuclear, Oil, Energy), Global Terrorism, Politics and Governance | one comment

Lets stop dreaming - Human chains will not stop China

…Even as New Delhi talks of taking up the issue of border incursions with China at the “appropriate highest level”, up in the Himalayas, the Indian soldiers are using a Gandhian method to stop the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops from intruding into the Indian territory.

With the PLA making fresh incursions into the Fingertip Area of Sikkim, Indian troops are now blocking the Chinese soldiers by forming human chains.

“We are literally forming human chains to stop the Chinese from crossing over,” says a senior Army officer. “If they come in groups of 20, we assemble 50 men and form a human chain. They can’t after all push us and cross the border.”

Under the terms of confidence-building measures started between the two countries during the days of Atal Behari Vajpayee government, troops on either side do not open fire to stop intrusions in disputed areas.

…There have been 65 transgressions into Sikkim in the last six months and on June 16, PLA men entered the region in light vehicles and later returned to their territory.

but more worrying is this…

At the Fingertips Area, in north Sikkim, Chinese patrols have been coming regularly for the past two years, the last being on Monday.� [ link ]

and taking up the issue at appropriate levels is certainly not going to “sort out China incursions issue”

…Dubbing Chinese incursions into Sikkim �unfortunate�, Minister of State for Defence M.M. Pallam Raju said on Thursday that India would take up the issue with China at the appropriate level. �The issue of incursions will be raised at the next flag meeting with the Chinese and also discussed at the appropriate level. As responsible neighbours, we will sort it out,� Raju told reporters.

But I applaud the Minister of state for defence for being candid:

��All this is happening because we are failing to assert ourselves as a nation on our stand on what we believe is ours,�� Raju told meadiapersons here on the sidelines of a seminar on Indian ways of war fighting, organised by Centre for Joint Warfare Studies (CENJOWS).

.

What realistic options does India have in the face of these constant low-intensity attempts by China to bully India?

Can India really win a war against China on the Eastern front?

I don’t know….

I will try and find answer to all these questions in the next few days. In the meantime, please contribute with your thoughts and comments.

Related Posts:

Slowly but steadily, China marches�ahead��

As the Government sleeps, dark clouds gather on the�horizon��

June 20th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | China related, Current Affairs, Geo-Strategic Issues (incl. Nuclear, Oil, Energy), India & Its Neighbours, Politics and Governance in India | 2 comments

With “allies” like these, who needs enemies?

This analysis of�attitudes that the communist parties have�towards vital matters of national interest reveals why they are probably the most dangerous�element in the current political landscape…

Excerpts from Red Star over South Block�(emphasis mine)

As the Manmohan Singh government enters its last year in office, the contradictions in the approach to national security and foreign policy issues between a mainstream national party…on the one hand and the communist parties, which appear determined to make India a client state of China on the other, are becoming increasingly evident…There are…other serious differences between the approach of the communists and virtually all other national parties on crucial issues of defence, national security and foreign affairs � differences that cannot be papered over any longer.

In its 2004 election manifesto, the CPM has advocated talks between India and Pakistan for a “denuclearised environment” in South Asia. This CPM formulation would result in India acceding to the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) by the back door and in China to becoming the only nuclear weapons power in Asia.

Interestingly, this formulation coincides with what China has constantly advocated since 1998, when it demanded that India should give up its nuclear weapons, sign the NPT and agree to UN intervention in Jammu and Kashmir, as demanded in the UN Security Council Resolution 1172 of 1998. These demands have been reiterated when China speaks of its reservations on the Indo-US nuclear deal.

The real reasons for Chinese opposition to the Indo-US nuclear agreement were voiced in an article in the August 2007 issue of the influential Renmin Jiabao magazine, which stated: “The US-India nuclear agreement has strong symbolic significance (for) India achieving its dream of becoming a powerful nation…The CPM finds fault with the India-US nuclear agreement for precisely the same reasons as China.

While decrying India’s nuclear weapons programme and making China the sole guarantor of nuclear security in Asia, the CPM overlooks the entire China-Pakistan nuclear nexus. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are of Chinese design. China has, over the past three decades, clandestinely provided Pakistan with nuclear weapons designs and technology, including plutonium facilities for manufac-turing thermonuclear warheads. Even if we sign a bilateral agreement for a denuclearised South Asia as the CPM proposes, how do we deal with clandestine Chinese proliferation to Pakistan? Moreover, the Shaheen-I and Shaheen-II missiles that Pakistan periodically tests, which are capable of striking at cities across India, are of Chinese origin.

Despite this, the CPM joins the Chinese in expressing opposition to missile defence systems. Does the party want Indian population centres to be defenceless against attacks of nuclear-tipped missiles? Have CPM leaders ever voiced concern about the Pakistan-China nuclear and missile nexus to their Chinese comrades during their visits to the Middle Kingdom?

…In its manifesto, the CPM steadfastly avoids any reference to Pakistan-inspired cross-border terrorism, while championing the cause of India-Pakistan dialogue, primarily to contain American influence, while Chinese influence in the region grows. One has yet to hear a CPM leader unequivocally condemning Pakistan-sponsored terrorism.

…virtually every political party in India has been forthright in condemning continuing Chinese claims to Tawang and indeed to the entire state of Arunachal Pradesh. The communists alone continue to waffle on Chinese border claims and maintain that it was India and not China that was guilty of aggression in the 1962 conflict!

I wonder if Shri Yechury or Shri Karat - who otherwise wax eloquent on a range of issues -�have any comment.

June 14th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | China related, Current Affairs, Geo-Strategic Issues (incl. Nuclear, Oil, Energy), India & Its Neighbours, Pakistan related, Politics and Governance in India, Post Independence History, Terrorism in India | one comment

Slowly but steadily, China marches ahead…

…into Indian territory�

Buried amongst the avalance of news on the web, I found this alarming snippet:

…A tiny area in Sikkim has become the latest bone of contention between India and China, with the latter asking Indian army to remove a pile of stones failing which it would be demolished.

India, while noting that the boundary there has already been demarcated, has told China not to transgress into the ‘finger’ area in north Sikkim…

The way the incident is reported, it looks as�if it is India that needs to be apologetic not China (now, where have I heard that before?):

..India has conveyed its readiness to discuss the issue to avoid conflagration…sources pointed out that it was not unusual for the army patrols of either country to venture into areas which are disputed along the Line of Actual Control (LOAC).

Please note:�“…the Sikkim boundary has been demarcated and recognised by the two countries long ago in 1959…” BUT it�apparently�is “one of the most peaceful but unsettled border”!

No - I did not not understand that either…but no�need to loose sleep over this:

“New Delhi, however, does not see it has any cause for worry, saying that such ”problems” will keep happening and the two countries will discuss to resolve these.”

The Indian Express report has a bit more colour to the story:

“…The row began to build up last year when Chinese troops started to frequent the area far too often � this year too about 50 Chinese transgressions have been reported in this area � and then started building a road towards the end of the year that crossed this tract of land.

When India objected to this at a local military commander level, China claimed that the area fell in its territory. A shocked Indian side then produced a 1924 map of the Survey of India where the stone cairns have been identified and shown as part of Indian territory.

When China did not pay much attention to this, India even lodged a diplomatic protest in February with the Chinese government on this issue. This was after China had protested other troop deployments in Sikkim resulting from relocation of India troops from the western border. As a result of this diplomatic escalation, the road construction near the area came to a halt.

Realising that this could suddenly escalate into a major controversy, the Indian side started beefing up its positions and constructing pathways in the area. Sources said this further annoyed China, which re-emphasised its claim.

The bigger question that has emerged from this issue, China destroying a makeshift bunker at Doka La near the Sino-Sikkim-Bhutan trijunction and then the protest of India troop movements, sources said, is a Chinese effort to bring Sikkim back into the boundary controversy.

…what was considered a settled issue once China recognized Sikkim as part of India is now making an uncomfortable re-entry into the boundary settlement discourse.”

.

Can you see a pattern here? This is what I see:

1. Choose an�area of the border which is hitherto considered “settled” or “not disputed”

2.�Make a small road, destroy a bunker or just increase the number of “patrols” that accidentally transgress�the region

2. When the expected Indian “protest” happens,�agree to discuss this issue - even when there is no “issue” at all - and even when the terrritory was clearly Indian territory and�when we (China) are�clearly in the wrong (correction: we can never be in the wrong)

3. By agreeing to such talks, we will be seen as�a “responsible” neighbour; we will be�able to bring a settled issue back on the table; and we will�be able to divert attention from other things happening elsewhere..

In other words, imagine a neighbour who breaks part of your fence, then agrees to sit down and “discuss” this issue, all the while stealthily and steadily encroaching on your land from the other end…Get the picture?

Sadly our political leadership doesn’t - or chooses not to…But why blame them…when their own survival is at the mercy of the “red power”?

Related Posts:

Getting obsessive about�Arunachal��

As the Government sleeps, dark clouds gather on the�horizon��

and a�thoughtful analysis of this issue (by Brahma Chellaney)�Dancing with the�Dragon�

May 19th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | China related, Current Affairs, Geo-Strategic Issues (incl. Nuclear, Oil, Energy), India & Its Neighbours, Politics and Governance in India, Post Independence History | 3 comments

India and China: Apples and Oranges

Many of you probably�read B Raman’s open letter to Aamir Khan in rediff recently.

In the article Shri Raman made several points about why (and how) India and China are fundamentally different and how India’s record on human rights - while not stellar - cannot be compared to that of China.

It is worth reminding ourselves of that as “lumping” India and China in one bracket�is becoming something of a fashion these days.

The tendency�to do this is hardly limited to politics or to human-rights issues.

For example,�when it comes to business or economic development issues, even otherwise astute observers of international affairs succumb to the temptation�(or intellectual laziness)�of�painting them with the same brush - or worse, lumping them under the naive (and ill-considered) label “ChIndia”.

I�came across a�brilliant critique of this intellectual laziness is an�article I had read some time ago - and of which I was reminded of once again after reading B Raman’s piece.

Here are some excerpts from “EYE ON THE TIGERS“�by Ashutosh Sheshabalaya

“�They are omnipresent, even if they lie shrouded backstage in discussions about climate change. At last count, there were almost two-and-a-half billion of them - Chinese and Indians.

Indeed, one of the most sterile facets of the global warming debate is to refer to China and India, rather than to Chinese and Indians. China and India may be among the world�s biggest CO2 emitters. But your everyday Wang or Rajiv hardly qualifies for such an honour.�

The reasons are clear: out of the world�s 235-plus countries, China and India�s populations outnumber the bottom 220 put together.� And their per-head/per-body contribution to global warming is vastly lower than that of the West.

In the typical Indian�s case� - commercial energy use is, crucially, also far below the global average.� In 2005, world electricity consumption was 2,400 kilowatt hours (kWh) per person. India�s was just 432 kWh, four times less than China�s 1,662 kWh.� Oil use, too, exemplifies such trends.

An Indian�s consumption of crude, at 0.8 barrels per year, pales against the world�s 4.5 barrels, and is less than half China�s 1.8. There is little point throwing more dazzling, vulgar beams of light by juxtaposing such figures against the Western world, lit up end-to-end for the Christmas and New Year festivities.

Still, what is clear is that the difference between India and China is at least as significant as that between China and the world. And here is a suggestion to move the climate change debate beyond noisy palavers (a word originally referring to the patronising monologues of European colonial adventurers in Africa).

Firstly, differentiate between India and China. Both may be rising industrial powers, but China�s economic growth-at-any-cost is rather different from that of India, and this difference goes far beyond the numbers referred to above.

Keep Reading…

April 9th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | China related, Current Affairs, Distortions, Misrepresentations about India, Enviroment Related, Geo-Strategic Issues (incl. Nuclear, Oil, Energy), Human Rights and Legal Issues, India & Its Neighbours | 3 comments

Now Thats What I call Music..sorry, *News*

From Monday’s Telegraph�(”Brahmaputra jitters from China project“):

“…Hints have emerged from China that it may be gearing for a project on the Brahmaputra that threatens drought in India�s Northeast, environment experts and Indian officials claim.

Delhi, however, has decided to ignore the developments and instead volunteered to pay Beijing for help in avoiding floods in the region, government sources here said…

China, despite official disclaimers, has long been suspected of planning to divert the waters of the Brahmaputra � which originates in southwest Tibet as the Yarlung Zangbo or Tsangpo �to its thirsty northwest.

Experts have warned that such a project could trigger an ecological disaster in India�s Northeast and Bangladesh.

In recent weeks, a flood of technical articles has appeared in China backing the diversion plan, indicating Beijing is setting the stage for the project, Indian officials said. They said the Chinese government had also built an airstrip on the river�s banks close to a potential diversion point where a dam could come up…”

So what does our Government do?

Nothing. It just “watches”

Keep Reading…

April 3rd, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | China related, Current Affairs, Enviroment Related, Geo-Strategic Issues (incl. Nuclear, Oil, Energy), India & Its Neighbours, Politics and Governance in India, Post Independence History | 4 comments

News thats really not *news*

Pakistan still training terror outfits: India

“….National Security Advisor M K Narayanan recently said one of the greatest dangers India faced was terror camps being run on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border by the Al-Qaeda�and the Taliban.

He said Pakistan continued to acquire missiles and other weapons and its military strategy remains India-centric.

…The Home Ministry said terror attacks like Samjhauta blast, Mecca Mosque attack, twin explosions in Hyderabad and incidents at the Dargah Sharif in Ajmer, besides the blasts in court premises in Uttar Pradesh ‘have been committed by externally based and sponsored terrorist outfits with some local help’.

A senior MHA official said some recent incidents suggested that outfits like LeT and JeM used territory and elements in Bangladesh and Nepal for movement of men and material. The involvement of HUJAI-Bangladesh has come to notice in some of the recent incidents of terrorist violence, he said.

He said Indian youth were recruited by LeT and HUJAI-BD, which has links with LeT and JeM, for training in Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir, and re-launched into India ‘for sabotage and subversive activities’….”

but there�may be some hope (or we may be disappointed once again with empty platitudes):

Pakistani PM vows to fight terror�

“…Pakistan’s new Prime Minister, Yusuf Raza Gillani, has told parliament in Islamabad that his top priority will be the fight against terrorism.”

China the ‘bully’ is threat number one: Fernandes

“…Describing the National Democratic Alliance government’s decision to recognise Tibet�as a part of China as an ‘error’, former Defence Minister George Fernandes has said the Communist nation was the ‘potential threat number one’ to India and flayed the United Progressive Alliance dispensation for allowing it to be ‘bullied’.

…”It was not a mistake but an error. It should not have been done,” he said about India’s decision to recognise Tibet as part of China during the previous Atal Bihari Vajpayee government in which he was the Defence Minister.

Fernandes told Karan Thapar’s Devil’s Advocate programme on CNN-IBN that China is ’still the potential threat number one’ and ‘could become an enemy’, as he recalled his statement on similar lines years ago.

…”I have a feeling that what happened in 1962 is still affecting people’s mind and they can’t get out of it,” he said.
Fernandes also took exception at the Chinese government lauding India for its handling of the Tibetan protests in the country.

“It is a disgrace that China should say that India has done well,” he said.”�

The full interview is here: http://www.ibnlive.com/printpage.php?id=62286�ion_id=3�

Related Posts:

We know its Pakistan but we hope its�not!�

Pakistan, Taliban & the �War on�Terror��yawn�

and the whole category of Pakistan related posts

March 30th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | China related, Current Affairs, Geo-Strategic Issues (incl. Nuclear, Oil, Energy), India & Its Neighbours, Jammu & Kashmir related, LeT, SIMI etc., Pakistan related, Politics and Governance in India, Post Independence History, Terrorism in India | 14 comments

Getting obsessive about Arunachal…

Some of you may think I am getting obsessed with Aruncahal Pradesh, China or the North-East…but this issue deserves far more attention that it ever gets…

As I said in one of my previous posts, we seem to be sleepwalking our way into a disaster…

I am seriously tempted to start a “Save Arunachal” movement…(and I am not saying this light-heartedly).

Excerpts from a Rediff interview with Arunachal MP Kiren Rijiju, “”It is time to wake up to Chinese incursions”, March 04, 2008 (emphasis mine, as always):

“… Q: Chinese intrusions have been denied by the army and the government, but you have repeatedly brought the matter to public notice. Could you tell us what is really happening?

A: In my constituency in Arunachal (West), there are many points where Chinese intrusions are happening. And it happens throughout the year….The Chinese (intrusions) are happening in a slow, creeping manner. Inch by inch, the Chinese station their army personnel and bring equipment.

Keep Reading…

March 25th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | China related, Geo-Strategic Issues (incl. Nuclear, Oil, Energy), India & Its Neighbours, Modern Indian History, Politics and Governance in India, Post Independence History | 16 comments

The path to becoming a “super-power”

I recently came across this excellent article by Capt Bharat Verma on How India can acquire great power status. Unfortunately, knowing the way our politicians thinks and our system works, this analysis is likely to pass un-noticed and ignored by the powers that be.

This inability (or unwillingness) to think�strategically is one of our leadership’s�biggest�weaknesses - and we are paying for it -�dearly.

Excerpts below�(emphasis mine):

“Due to New Delhi’s slavish use of ‘carrot’ since Independence, without any equilibrium with the ’stick’, the great power potential of India lies in tatters.

�Between Naxals in the Red Corridor, border states particularly Jammu and Kashmir and the Northeast, New Delhi’s writ barely runs in fifty per cent of its territory.

�This lopsided use of ‘carrot’ has emboldened neighboring countries like China, Nepal (Maoists), Pakistan, and Bangladesh to execute a sly rollback of the Indian Union on its borders through ingress, territorial claims, occupation of Indian territory, infiltration, export of Islamic terrorism and demographic assault.

Simultaneous shrinking of influence without and within is sowing seeds of disintegration of the Union.

�India has clear potential of achieving great power status. Unlike the negative demographic young profile in its neighbourhood, it boasts of a highly skilled young population. Its geographical location and the size lend it the advantages of both, a continental as well as maritime power which, make it possible for New Delhi to impact and influence West Asia, Southeast Asia and the Central Asia.

However, this is only possible if instead of being an inward looking nation, New Delhi’s footprints extend outwards.� Inward looking entities tend to wither away as their influence shrinks. This in particular is true of India that faces a 14,000 km wall (on its land frontiers) of fundamentalist/ authoritarian regimes.

Despite India’s geographical location and human resources bestowing on it all the advantages�it continues to waste its potential of achieving a great power status due to skewed policy making, indecision and inconsistency.

To be a great power, Indian aim should be to establish its preponderance over Asia.

Broadly, this requires three decisive steps.

First, set its house in order.

Second, develop political, economic, military, and technological dominance in the vicinity.

Third, create international alliances without forming a formal block, based on the age-old principal of ‘enemy’s enemy is a friend’. (E.g. see this post: The �Raja-Mandala� approach to containing�Pakistan)

Keep Reading…

March 10th, 2008 Posted by B Shantanu | China related, Geo-Strategic Issues (incl. Nuclear, Oil, Energy), India & Its Neighbours, Jammu & Kashmir related, Pakistan related, Politics and Governance in India, Post Independence History, Terrorism in India | 2 comments