CORRUPTION: THE SORRY STATE OF THE NATION

B.RAMAN

India has been going through a political and moral crisis of disturbing proportions, with no end to the crisis in sight. Despite undoubted economic growth, one could sense the lack of a feel good feeling right across the society.

2.We have a Prime Minister who had some moral authority, but had no political authority to be able to translate his moral authority into meaningful action against corruption. His perceived inaction or inadequate action against corruption has eroded even the moral authority he had. For nearly seven years, the Government has been headed by a person who is a Prime Minister on sufferance and not by right.

3.Sonia Gandhi, the leader of the Congress (I), has immense political authority, but, in the eyes of large sections of the people, lacks the required moral authority which could enable her to translate her political authority into acceptable policies to deal with the moral crisis confronting the country.

4. There is thus a huge vacuum ---political and moral---in governance. Into that vacuum have sought to move in newly-emerging non-governmental forces in the name of the civil society. The Government, which is helplessly buffeted by these forces, finds itself in a position where it is neither able to satisfy norresist them.

5. These forces and the electronic media have made action against corruption the yard-stick by which to judge the performance of the Government and the Congress (I). The tendency of the Prime Minister to avoid action, if possible, and to act only when forced by external pressure or circumstances has created a widespread feeling that he is not serious when he talks of the Government’s determination to act against corruption.

6. There is a feeling at the best that he wants to act, but is prevented by the party from doing so and at the worst that neither he nor his party is genuinely interested in dealing with this evil. The consequent loss of what little moral authority was there has added to the strength of the newly-emerging non-governmental forces. They have been able to project themselves in the eyes of large sections of the people as the defenders of the moral fibre of the nation against a Government increasingly bereft of moral authority.

7. Unless and until the Government is able to acquire the required moral authority, the present moral and political crisis will continue to sap the energies and the prestige of the nation. It is doubtful whether a Prime Minister on sufferance will be able to acquire such moral authority, buttressed by political strength.

8. So long as Dr.Manmohan Singh continues to be perceived as a helpless Prime Minister buffeted between the civil society forces pressing for action against corruption and a Congress (I) headed by Sonia Gandhi which sees the civil society forces as a greater evil than corruption itself, there will be no end to the present crisis.

9. The buffeted ship of the nation needs a competent, self-confident and morally sensitive captain who can take it through the troubled waters. Even the most charitable well-wishers of Dr.Manmohan Singh would be doubtful in their mind whether he is the right man of the occasion.

10. However talented and administratively skilful, no Prime Minister on sufferance will be able to take the country out of the present crisis, which has demonstrated the inadvisability of dual authority with the de facto and the de jure centres of power contributing to a political and moral paralysis.

11. The time has come for mid-term polls which could usher in a Government headed by a Prime Minister by right and not on sufferance who could acquire the required moral and political authority and assert it effectively in the interest of the nation. Public opinion should demand early mid-term polls. ( 8-6-11)

( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail:seventyone2@gmail.com )

Thought Leadership: Nine Skills that one need to develop

Shelley Dunstone

Shelley Dunstone is the principal of Legal Circles and a mentor with Thought Leaders Ltd. She helps businesses to develop leaders who actively foster and promote innovation.

Email her at shelley.dunstone@legalcircles.com.

www.legalcircles.com and www.shelleydunstone.com

The thought leader checklist

To become a thought leader, there are nine key skills that you need to develop:

1.Foresight – learn to spot new trends that will affect your clients. How can you better prepare your clients to deal with the future?

2.Communication – develop your communication skills to help you get your point across in a meaningful, effective and engaging way. You might do this through speaking, writing, training, facilitating, coaching or mentoring.

3.Comprehension – when you are preparing to present at a seminar or conference, build in a variety of presentation techniques to get attention from more of the people, more of the time.

4.Expertise – this goes well beyond knowing what the law says. Draw deeply on your unique experience. Learn to unpack what you know and find engaging ways to express it.

5.Uniqueness – all of us are a product of our unique upbringing, education and experiences. What is your personal value proposition that effectively differentiates you?

6.Positioning – know how to position yourself, your business or your organisation so people know exactly what you do and why.

7.Commitment – for lawyers, marketing is personal; clients tend to consult an individual rather than a firm. You need to be able to explain why they need you.

8.Pitching – you need to sell your services in a variety of settings, whether in a formal bid process or one-to-one with a potential client. Learn how to invite people to buy you, your business or your ideas more effectively.

9.Execution – take your great ideas and help your clients put them into action.

By

The Australasian Law Management Journal is produced by the Australian Law Management Group of

the Legal Practice Section of the Law Council of Australia

www.lawcouncil.asn.au/almj

STOP THE CRIMINAL GAMES OF THE CONGRESS PARTY AND CORRUPT POLITICIANS

Dr.Babu Suseelan

The views and opinion expressed in this article are authors own.you may email author l babususeelan@hotmail.com

The Congress Party, headed by the uneducated Italian catholic Sonia and her corrupt political cronies are playing criminal games with Indian citizens for a long time. They act like hardened criminals. The arrest of Swami Ram Dev and disruption of his campaign against black money and corruption remind us of games common criminals play. Imagine that a sex predator broke into a home and raped a teen age girl. At the trial, the deviant sex predator defends himself by arguing that he did not kill the girl, only raped her. Because killing is worse than raping, the criminal argues that he is innocent and should not be punished for his offending behavior. The sex offender wants the public to praise him for raping and giving pleasure to the girl but not killing.

This logic sounds ridiculous. However the Congress Party headed by the Italian catholic Sonia in defense of disrupting Swami Ram Dev’s campaign against black money, corruption and his arrest is exactly the same as that of the sex offender. The corrupt Congress Party has argued that the arrest of Swami Ram Dev and subsequent police action avoided a potential “public disorder”. In order to prevent public disorder lathy charge, tear gas use and arrest of Swami Ram Dev was thus justified. It is a classic example of deceptive politicians who are masters in “ruling by fooling”.

Looting public money or disrupting peaceful fasting against corruption, which one is better? For Corrupt politicians to ask such foolish question indicates how shameless the Congress party is. The general public had that “gut-level-feeling” that something was wrong but couldn’t put their finger on it. The Congress Party has been playing criminal games on Indian people for a long time. Only by knowing how to recognize criminal games played by the corrupt politicians and looting schemes devised by political parties both inside and outside the government, can Indian citizens protect themselves from possible great losses.

Swami Ram Dev ran an exciting marathon with new challenges around every bend. The Congress Government has created obstacles on every way to dismantle the race against corruption, looting, hawala operations and mafia organizations. Hindus have been subjugated, oppressed, the country was invaded, temples destroyed men, and women, children and elderly people were beheaded and forcefully converted for thousands of years. When will the majority Hindus learn from our history? Since Hindus are passive, submissive and follow the footsteps of corrupt rulers, the Congress criminals were ruling the country by fooling Hindus. The criminal games the corrupt politicians play need to be stopped by force. It is high time for Hindus to put on their track shoes and go for the targeted goals. Never stop believing in what the criminal politicians say. Never quit until the mafia gang is thrown out. Our Dharma requires us to fight against evil forces bent on destroying our culture, country and our civilization.

We have the right to be angry about the way corrupt politicians are looting our wealth. May be in retrospect it seems incomprehensible that anyone ever believed--the power of the masses would work. Power (Shakti) and goal directed action is what we needed now. Our incompetent, corrupt and crooked politicians are conspiring to rob our future, but now they lacked the political wherewithal to put a stop to the momentum created by Swami Ram Dev. Our elders have been tolerating evil forces, miscreants, mindless Marxists, corrupt politicians, crooks, mafia gang and missionary misfits. They turned inward rather than fighting evil forces. At their worst, they regarded the decay of political institutions with ironic detachment. May be now Hindus wish our parents and grandparents hadn't been tolerating and compromising with criminal thinkers, invaders, and plunderers. What can we learn from their mistakes? The lessons are obvious. Corrupt politicians, criminal thinkers, and mafia gang act without fear, shame, guilt and any remorse. They should be cornered, contained and a force continuum shall be applied to save Bharat Mata.

It is high time for nationalist Hindus to break the wall of denial and avoid the fashionable cynicism. Avoid apathy and ignorance and take hands on approach to bettering our nation. Hindus must find their voice and become a vital part of direct, goal directed political-social-cultural action. Our time is coming. Never allow our time to be distracted by pseudo-secular media with phony issues and gridlocked by anti national criminals.

Although the need is acute, the will to effect change and overthrow the liars, cheaters and looters through massive public protest has been eroding. Many Hindus do not want to participate in political protest and have become passive spectators in the destruction of our country. Despite the emergence of Jihadi terrorism, coercive religious conversion, foreign interference in media manipulation and social reconstruction through bribery and the lethargy and incompetence of our corrupt political leaders, there is a sharp decline in focused, targeted, goal directed protest movements in India. The sense of eradicating corruption, Hindu temple wealth looting, conversion, and hawala transaction through legislation no longer seems a likely option.
Finally, realize that we are all in this together. We have not only a right but a duty to stand up to those who would steal our wealth, demoralize our people and destroy our country. It is not a burden but an opportunity to dismantle the current government headed by the Italian mafia lady. In our art and thought, let us join together to achieve our full capacity for dealing responsibly and imaginatively to wipe out the corrupt system. All around us is the sound of moral decay, tolerance of intolerance, phony secularism, and sound bites of the anti Hindu media. Bharat Mata is crying for help. Let us save her.

The New Intelligence Process (Let's Kill The Intelligence Cycle)

Part 1 -- Let's Kill The Intelligence Cycle

Part 2 -- "We''ll Return To Our Regularly Scheduled Programming In Just A Minute..."

Part 3 -- The Disconnect Between Theory And Practice

Part 4 -- The "Traditional" Intelligence Cycle And Its History

Part 5 -- Critiques Of The Cycle: Which Intelligence Cycle?

Part 6 -- Critiques Of The Cycle: The Intelligence Cycle vs. Reality

Part 7 -- Critiques Of The Cycle: Cycles, Cycles And More Damn Cycles!

Part 8 -- Tweaking The Intelligence Cycle

Part 9 -- Departures From The Intelligence Cycle

The New Intelligence Process (Let's Kill The Intelligence Cycle)

How to Open a Beer Bottle with a Lighter

Former US State Department Expert: Oil Embargos on Iran Endanger US Security

TEHRAN (FNA)- A former member of Iran's Desk at the US State Department warned the Congress that any oil sanction against Iran would seriously endanger the United States' national security.

Director of Research at the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) and a former Iran Desk Officer at the US Department of State, Reza Marashi, underlined in an article on the US sanctions and embargos on Iran that broad-based sanctions don't affect Iran's strategic decision-making and rather backfire.

Marashi said that to the surprise of few, new Iran sanctions legislation was recently introduced in the House and Senate, shortly before this year's AIPAC conference commenced.

"In what has become a game of domestic political one-upsmanship, some members of the Congress are now supporting Iran-related legislation that would effectively seek to impose an oil embargo on the Islamic Republic - irrespective of the economic costs to the US or the humanitarian costs to the Iranian people - and reduce President Obama's waiver authority on sanctions that run counter to the US national interests," he added.

He said ostensibly, sanctions are devised as a multi-level (unilateral and multilateral) strategy to sharpen Iran's choices, and make Iran give up its nuclear program.

"In practice, political constraints at home and abroad inhibit America's ability to move beyond tactics centered on sanctions, and instead toward a strategy that deconstructs the US-Iran institutionalized enmity through sustained diplomacy.

"Sanctions are a tool that American policymakers know - they know how to add them, change them, intensify them, push them through Congress, and negotiate them bilaterally and at the UN.

"Lesser known is how Iran perceives this paradigm that seemingly traps US policy. Indeed, the logic of some in Congress (and the Obama administration) regarding what sanctions can achieve is largely misguided," he added.

Marashi said that decision-makers in Tehran believe that Iran must deal with the West from a position of strength. "To that end, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assumed the presidency in 2005, the Islamic Republic analyzed the finite scenarios surrounding the nuclear impasse, observed the inherent limitations of sanctions as panacea and perceived a reasonable degree of strategic flexibility over the short to medium term."

"It was no secret to Tehran, or anyone else for that matter, that the US would spend significant political capital to transfer Iran's nuclear file from the IAEA (a technical body) to the UN Security Council (a political body). Iran's familiarity with the politics of the Security Council prepared it for a referral and subsequent sanctions resolution, despite its preference to the contrary. More specifically, Iranian decision-makers knew that if Russia was on board - which was likely, given Moscow's reputation in the Security Council for setting a price and selling to the highest bidder - China would likely follow suit.

"Security Council resolutions, like all sanctions, are not negligible for Iran. But several key factors make them manageable. The Islamic Republic knows that its nuclear activities are legally permissible - despite Western claims that Iran no longer enjoys its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty because it was found in noncompliance by the IAEA. Thus, Iran perceives the West as unable to sell "crippling" sanctions based on its activities thus far, because there is no "smoking gun." With that in mind, the Iranian government views sanctions through two prisms.

Marashi said internally, both UN-endorsed and US-led "coalition of the willing" sanctions do limit Iran's access to Western markets and technologies, and in turn decelerate economic development. Nevertheless, Iran continues its shift toward emerging powers China, Turkey, India and Brazil as trade partners.

"Externally, Tehran perceives a Western bloc that is in a bind - none of their options are intuitively good ones, but those nations cannot afford to allow Iran to keep defying them. One the one hand, nations of the West cannot implement painful oil and gas sanctions because prices would skyrocket beyond a tolerable threshold (the idea is to hurt Iran, not themselves). On the other hand, Iranian decision-makers perceive Western powers that are legitimately worried about their reaction to sanctions: If Iran withdraws from the NPT, the West is faced with confrontation at a level that it does not have the bandwidth for, particularly at a time of widespread regional unrest."

"Overall, the Islamic Republic perceives a credibility gap in the West that it repeatedly seeks to leverage. After the flawed reporting and intelligence on Iraq's alleged WMD program, Western powers will be hard-pressed to use the same arguments to push for confrontational action on Iran. For that reason, Russia and China are unlikely to support punitive measures beyond the status quo."

"This is the inherent flaw in America's sanctions-based approach to Iran: Since its inception, the Islamic Republic has faced a steady stream of sanctions, and conflict - and Iranian hardliners perceive this as the environment in which they thrive. To that end, they have defied sanctions for over 30 years, take a certain pride in doing so, and are likely to continue doing both. Iran's ruling elite sees sanctions as the West resorting to a pressure-based formula that history has proved ineffective due to the lack of viable policy alternatives. This reinforces Tehran's self-perception of increasing strength, leverage and power vis-à-vis the West."

"Historical precedent has shown Iran that Western powers tend to accept the status of a "regional power" when that power becomes formidable. China, India and Brazil are often cited as examples. The Islamic Republic is counting on such an eventual acceptance. The key virtue from Iran's perspective has been patience. Decision-makers in Tehran know that the cost of this strategy is high - sanctions and conflict abound - but they are insistent that Iran must assume the role of an accepted regional power. And if the US maintains the objective of making Iran yield on the nuclear issue through pressure, Iranian strategy will continue to be predicated on patience and knowing that it can eventually achieve its status as an accepted regional power by playing the long game."

The Secret Wars of the Saudi-Israeli Alliance

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

May 28, 2011


As an old Chinese proverb says, crisis can be used as an opportunity by some.

Tel Aviv, Washington and NATO are taking advantage of the upheavals in the Arab World. Not only are they fighting against the legitimate aspirations of the Arab people, they are manipulating the Arab geo-political landscape as part of their strategy to control Eurasia.

Sectarian Conflicts in Egypt: A Means to Weaken the Egyptian State

Egypt is ruled by a counter-revolutionary military junta. Despite the increasing assertiveness of the Egyptian people, the old regime is still in place. Yet, its foundations are becoming shakier as the Egyptian people become more radical in their demands.

Like in the Mubarak era, the military regime in Cairo is also allowing sectarianism to spread in Egypt in an effort to create divisions within Egyptian society. In early-2011 when Egyptians stormed government buildings they discovered secret papers that showed that the regime was behind the attacks on Egypt’s Christian community.

Recently, so-called Salafist extremists have attacked Egyptian minorities including Christians but also Shiite Muslims. Egyptian activists and leaders in the Coptic and Shia community are pointing their fingers at the military junta in Cairo, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

The Egyptian military junta, Tel Aviv, and the Al-Sauds are all part of an ominous alliance. This grouping is the backbone of the U.S. imperial structure in the Arab World. They are dependent on Washington. They prevail inasmuch as the U.S. remains dominant in Southwest Asia and North Africa.

The Al-Sauds are now working with Washington in Egypt to establish a supposedly Islamic government. This is being done through political parties that the Al-Sauds have funded and helped organize. The new so-called Salafist movements are primary examples of this. It also appears that the Muslim Brotherhood or at least branches of it have been co-opted.

The Saudi-Israeli Alliance and the Politics of Division

The ties of the Al-Sauds to Tel Aviv have in recent years become increasingly visible and pervasive. This secret Israeli-Saudi alliance exists within the context of a broader Khaliji-Israeli alliance. The alliance with Israel is formed through strategic cooperation between the ruling families of Saudi Arabia and the Arab sheikhdoms in the Persian Gulf.

Together Israel and the Khaliji ruling families form a frontline for Washington and NATO against Iran and its regional allies. The alliance also acts on behalf of Washington to destabilize the region. The roots of chaos in Southwest Asia and North Africa are this Khaliji-Israeli alliance.

In line with the U.S. and the E.U., it is the alliance formed by Israel and the Khaliji rulers that has worked to create ethnic divisions between Arabs and Iranians, religious divisions between Muslims and Christians, and confessional divisions between Sunnis and Shiites. It is the “politics of division” or “fitna” that has also served to keep the Khaliji ruling families in power and Israel in its place. Israel and the Khaliji ruling families would not survive without the regional fitna.

The Al-Sauds and Tel Aviv are the authors of the Hama-Fatah split and the estrangement of Gaza from the West Bank. They have worked together in the 2006 war against Lebanon with a view to crushing Hezbollah and its political allies. Saudi Arabia and Israel have also cooperated in spreading sectarianism and sectarian violence in Lebanon, Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and now Egypt.

Israel and the Khaliji monarchies serve Washington in its objective to ultimately neutralize Iran and its allies, as well as any form of resistance against the U.S. in Southwest Asia and North Africa. This is why the Pentagon has been heavily arming Tel Aviv and the Khaliji sheikhdoms. Washington has also been setting up missile shields aimed at Iran and Syria in Israel and the Arab sheikhdoms.



Iranophobia

The alliance between the Khaliji sheikhdoms and Israel has been instrumental in creating a wave of Iranophobia in the Arab World. The ultimate objective of Iranophobia is to transform Iran in the eyes of Arab public opinion, into an enemy of the Arab people, thereby distracting attention from the real enemies of the Arab World, namely the neo-colonial powers which occupy and control Arab lands.

Iranophobia is a PsyOp, an instrument of propaganda. The strategic objective is to isolate Iran and reconfigure the geo-political landscape of Southwest Asia and North Africa. Moreover, Iranophobia has been used by the Khaliji ruling families, from the U.A.E. to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, as a pretext for the repression of their own people, who are demanding basic freedoms and democratic rights in the sheikhdoms.

The March 14 Alliance in Lebanon, which is a collection of Khaliji-U.S. clients and Israeli allies, has also used Iranophobia and the “politics of division” to try to attack Hezbollah and its political allies in Lebanon The objective is to weaken and undermine Lebanese-Iranian and Lebanese-Syrian ties. The March 14 Alliance, specifically the Hariri-controlled Future Movement, has imported into Lebanon the so-called Salafist fighters of Fatah Al-Islam with the objective of getting them to attack Hezbollah. The Future Movement has also had a role in the Israeli-Saudi-U.S. project to destabilize Syria and remove it from the Resistance Bloc.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya specializes in the Middle East and Central Asia. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

From Abbottabad to Worse

Not posted lately, but here's Chris Hitchens tearing apart our indulgence of Pakistan. As I have always said, it is not Pakistan which is the problem, it is US! GOTUS/POTUS/State Dept./CIA/Stink tanks have all been embedded with the terrorist state of Pakistan for a long, long time, so much so that our Stink Tanks suggest that a messy marriage is better than an acrimonious divorce. Until we Americans unequivocally and irrecovably turn course 180 degrees - and it doesn't look like we are about to do so - we will continue to suffer.

Pakistanis can take justifiable pride in defeating two major superpowers in the last two centuries: a military defeat of the Soviet Union in the 20th century, and the economic defeat of the USA at the beginning of the 21st century. If Bush had actually implemented you are with us or against us policy, or carried out his threat of bombing Pakistan back into the stone age, Pakistan would have coughed up UBL in Dec. 2001 itself, saving Americans approx. 3 trillion dollars which experts suggest has gone funding into this "war on terror" farce. Of course, our embedded government (zinni, powell, cia chiefs and their Pakistani counterparts) welcomed Pakistan as an ally (al-lie) showering them with billions upon billions of dollars at the expense of our economic survival here at home.

If, in the early 2000's, as I had then suggested to the editorial board of the local newspaper, we had waterboarded and held accountable Musharraf, Karmat, Kiyani, Mahmood Ahmed etc. on UBL and other terror suspects, this war would have been over a long time ago. Instead, taking the cue from our "embedded ' government sources, the editorial board considered me the radical, biased person who held anti-Pakistani views just because of my Indian-American background. Scores of my letters, substianted on facts provided by the GOTUS no less, on Pakistan were never published depriving Americans of the truth. Of course, it is now open season on Pakistan only becasue the GOTUS/CIA/State Dept. is currenlty miffed with Pakistan. In that, I hold many of the so called journalists equally culpable in shielding Pakistan's terrorism for many of them knew EXACTLY about Pakistan's perfidy. Very few had the journalistic integrity to write against the stated policy of the GOTUS back then. Should the situation vis-a-vis Pakistan become normal once again, these very journalists will start parroting the GOTUS's views on South Asia, facts and truth be damned!

It will be the day when articles such as one reproduced below can be read in mainstream newspapers. Although, I must admit, it has a far greater impact on average Amerians like myself when it appears in magazines like the Vanity Fair. Slowly, but surely, the avearage Amerian is getting it when it comes to Pakistan.

Reggie Sinha

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/07/osama-bin-laden-201107

From Abbottabad to Worse

Hating the United States—which funds Islamabad’s army and nuclear program to the humiliating tune of $3 billion a year—Pakistan takes its twisted, cowardly revenge by harboring the likes of the late Osama bin Laden. But the hypocrisy is mutual, and the shame should be shared.

By Christopher Hitchens•

Illustration by Barry Blitt

July 2011

Salman Rushdie’s upsettingly brilliant psycho-profile of Pakistan, in his 1983 novel, Shame, rightly laid emphasis on the crucial part played by sexual repression in the Islamic republic. And that was before the Talibanization of Afghanistan, and of much of Pakistan, too. Let me try to summarize and update the situation like this: Here is a society where rape is not a crime. It is a punishment. Women can be sentenced to be raped, by tribal and religious kangaroo courts, if even a rumor of their immodesty brings shame on their menfolk. In such an obscenely distorted context, the counterpart term to shame—which is the noble word “honor”—becomes most commonly associated with the word “killing.” Moral courage consists of the willingness to butcher your own daughter.
If the most elemental of human instincts becomes warped in this bizarre manner, other morbid symptoms will disclose themselves as well. Thus, President Asif Ali Zardari cringes daily in front of the forces who openly murdered his wife, Benazir Bhutto, and who then contemptuously ordered the crime scene cleansed with fire hoses, as if to spit even on the pretense of an investigation. A man so lacking in pride—indeed lacking in manliness—will seek desperately to compensate in other ways. Swelling his puny chest even more, he promises to resist the mighty United States, and to defend Pakistan’s holy “sovereignty.” This puffery and posing might perhaps possess a rag of credibility if he and his fellow middlemen were not avidly ingesting $3 billion worth of American subsidies every year.

There’s absolutely no mystery to the “Why do they hate us?” question, at least as it arises in Pakistan. They hate us because they owe us, and are dependent upon us. The two main symbols of Pakistan’s pride—its army and its nuclear program—are wholly parasitic on American indulgence and patronage. But, as I wrote for Vanity Fair in late 2001, in a long report from this degraded country, that army and those nukes are intended to be reserved for war against the neighboring democracy of India. Our bought-and-paid-for pretense that they have any other true purpose has led to a rancid, resentful official hypocrisy, and to a state policy of revenge, large and petty, on the big, rich, dumb Americans who foot the bill. If Pakistan were a character, it would resemble the one described by Alexander Pope in his Epistle to Dr Arbuthnot:

Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike.
Just hint a fault, and hesitate dislike:
Alike reserved to blame, or to commend,
A timorous foe, and a suspicious friend …
So well-bred Spaniels civilly delight
In mumbling of the game they dare not bite.

There’s an old cliché in client-state relations, about the tail wagging the dog, but have we really considered what it means when we actually are the tail,and the dog is our goddam lapdog? The lapdog’s surreptitious revenge has consisted in the provision of kennels for attack dogs. Everybody knew that the Taliban was originally an instrument for Pakistani colonization of Afghanistan. Everybody knew that al-Qaeda forces were being sheltered in the Pakistani frontier town of Quetta, and that Khalid Sheikh Muhammed was found hiding in Rawalpindi, the headquarters of the Pakistani Army. Bernard-Henri Lévy once even produced a damning time line showing that every Pakistani “capture” of a wanted jihadist had occurred the week immediately preceding a vote in Congress on subventions to the government in Islamabad. But not even I was cynical enough to believe that Osama bin Laden himself would be given a villa in a Pakistani garrison town on Islamabad’s periphery. I quote below from a letter written by my Pakistani friend Irfan Khawaja, a teacher of philosophy at Felician College, in New Jersey. He sent it to me in anguish just after bin Laden, who claimed to love death more than life, had met his presumably desired rendezvous:

I find, however, that I can’t quite share in the sense of jubilation. I never believed that bin Laden was living in some hideaway “in the tribal areas.” But to learn that he was living in Abbottabad, after Khalid Sheikh Muhammed was discovered in Rawalpindi, is really too much for me. I don’t feel jubilation. I feel a personal, ineradicable sense of betrayal. For ten years, I’ve watched members of my own family taking to the streets, protesting the US military presence in northern Pakistan and the drone strikes etc. They stood there and prattled on and on about “Pakistan’s sovereignty,” and the supposed invasion of it by US forces.

Well, what fucking sovereignty? What fucking sovereignty were these people “protecting”? It’s bad enough that the Pakistani army lacks sovereignty over the tribal area and can’t control it when the country’s own life depends upon it. But that bin Laden was living in the Pakistani equivalent of Annapolis, MD …

You will notice that Irfan is here registering genuine shame, in the sense of proper outrage and personal embarrassment, and not some vicarious parody of emotion where it is always others—usually powerless women—who are supposedly bringing the shame on you.

If the Pakistani authorities had admitted what they were doing, and claimed the right to offer safe haven to al-Qaeda and the Taliban on their own soil, then the boast of “sovereignty” might at least have had some grotesque validity to it. But they were too cowardly and duplicitous for that. And they also wanted to be paid, lavishly and regularly, for pretending to fight against those very forces. Has any state ever been, in the strict sense of the term, more shameless? Over the years, I have written many pages about the sick relationship between the United States and various Third World client regimes, many of which turned out to be false friends as well as highly discreditable ones. General Pinochet, of Chile, had the unbelievable nerve to explode a car bomb in rush-hour traffic in Washington, D.C., in 1976, murdering a political rival and his American colleague. The South Vietnamese military junta made a private deal to sabotage the Paris peace talks in 1968, in order to benefit the electoral chances of Richard Nixon. Dirty money from the Shah of Iran and the Greek dictatorship made its way at different times into our electoral process. Israeli religious extremists demand American protection and then denounce us for “interference” if we demur politely about colonization of the West Bank. But our blatant manipulation by Pakistan is the most diseased and rotten thing in which the United States has ever involved itself. And it is also, in the grossest way, a violation of our sovereignty. Pakistan routinely—by the dispatch of barely deniable death squads across its borders, to such locations as the Taj Hotel in Mumbai—injures the sovereignty of India as well as Afghanistan. But you might call that a traditional form of violation. In our case, Pakistan ingratiatingly and silkily invites young Americans to one of the vilest and most dangerous regions on earth, there to fight and die as its allies, all the while sharpening a blade for their backs. “The smiler with the knife under the cloak,” as Chaucer phrased it so frigidly. (At our feet, and at our throat: Perfectly symbolic of the underhanded duality between the mercenary and the sycophant was the decision of the Pakistani intelligence services, in revenge for the Abbottabad raid, to disclose the name of the C.I.A. station chief in Islamabad.)

This is well beyond humiliation. It makes us a prisoner of the shame, and co-responsible for it. The United States was shamed when it became the Cold War armorer of the Ayub Khan dictatorship in the 1950s and 1960s. It was shamed even more when it supported General Yahya Khan’s mass murder in Bangladesh in 1971: a Muslim-on-Muslim genocide that crashingly demonstrated the utter failure of a state based on a single religion. We were then played for suckers by yet another military boss in the form of General Zia-ul-Haq, who leveraged anti-Communism in Afghanistan into a free pass for the acquisition of nuclear weapons and the open mockery of the nonproliferation treaty. By the start of the millennium, Pakistan had become home to a Walmart of fissile material, traded as far away as Libya and North Korea by the state-subsidized nuclear entrepreneur A. Q. Khan, the country’s nearest approach (which in itself tells you something) to a national hero. Among the scientists working on the project were three named sympathizers of the Taliban. And that gigantic betrayal, too, was uncovered only by chance.

Again to quote myself from 2001, if Pakistan were a person, he (and it would have to be a he) would have to be completely humorless, paranoid, insecure, eager to take offense, and suffering from self-righteousness, self-pity, and self-hatred. That last triptych of vices is intimately connected. The self-righteousness comes from the claim to represent a religion: the very name “Pakistan” is an acronym of Punjab, Afghanistan, Kashmir, and so forth, the resulting word in the Urdu language meaning “Land of the Pure.” The self-pity derives from the sad fact that the country has almost nothing else to be proud of: virtually barren of achievements and historically based on the amputation and mutilation of India in 1947 and its own self-mutilation in Bangladesh. The self-hatred is the consequence of being pathetically, permanently mendicant: an abject begging-bowl country that is nonetheless run by a super-rich and hyper-corrupt Punjabi elite. As for paranoia: This not so hypothetical Pakistani would also be a hardened anti-Semite, moaning with pleasure at the butchery of Daniel Pearl and addicted to blaming his self-inflicted woes on the all-powerful Jews.
This dreary story actually does have some bearing on the “sovereignty” issue. In the beginning, all that the Muslim League demanded from the British was “a state for Muslims.” Pakistan’s founder and first president, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, was a relatively secular man whose younger sister went around unveiled and whose second wife did not practice Islam at all. But there’s a world of difference between a state for Muslims and a full-on Muslim state. Under the rule of General Zia there began to be imposition of Shari’a and increased persecution of non-Muslims as well as of Muslim minorities such as the Shiites, Ismailis, and Ahmadis. In recent years these theocratic tendencies have intensified with appalling speed, to the point where the state contains not one but two secret statelets within itself: the first an impenetrable enclave of covert nuclear command and control and the second a private nexus of power at the disposal of the military intelligence services and—until recently—Osama bin Laden himself. It’s the sovereignty of these possessions that exercises General Ashfaq Kayani, head of the Pakistani Army, who five days after Abbottabad made the arrogant demand that the number of American forces in the country be reduced “to the minimum essential.” He even said that any similar American action ought to warrant a “review” of the whole relationship between the two countries. How pitiful it is that a Pakistani and not an American should have been the first (and so far the only) leader to say those necessary things.

If we ever ceased to swallow our pride, so I am incessantly told in Washington, then the Pakistani oligarchy might behave even more abysmally than it already does, and the situation deteriorate even further. This stale and superficial argument ignores the awful historical fact that, each time the Pakistani leadership did get worse, or behave worse, it was handsomely rewarded by the United States. We have been the enablers of every stage of that wretched state’s counter-evolution, to the point where it is a serious regional menace and an undisguised ally of our worst enemy, as well as the sworn enemy of some of our best allies. How could it be “worse” if we shifted our alliance and instead embraced India, our only rival in scale as a multi-ethnic and multi-religious democracy, and a nation that contains nearly as many Muslims as Pakistan? How could it be “worse” if we listened to the brave Afghans, like their former intelligence chief Amrullah Saleh, who have been telling us for years that we are fighting the war in the wrong country?

If we continue to deny or avoid this inescapable fact, then we really are dishonoring, as well as further endangering, our exemplary young volunteers. Why was the raid on Abbottabad so rightly called “daring”? Because it had to be conducted under the radar of the Pakistani Air Force, which “scrambled” its jets and would have brought the Black Hawks down if it could. That this is true is bad enough in all conscience. That we should still be submitting ourselves to lectures and admonitions from General Kayani is beyond shameful.

Read More http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/07/osama-bin-laden-201107?printable=true#ixzz1OVQE9Hn4

Russians Are Notorious Trade Partners

Interview with Bahram Amir-Ahmadi

http://www.irdiplomacy.ir/en

Moscow’s Ambassador to Tehran, Alexander Sadovnikov, has recently invited Russian energy companies to invest in Iran’s energy sector. But Bahram Amir-Ahmadian, Russian affairs’ analyst, is quite cynical about the outcome of cooperation with the Russians, and regards them as unreliable partners.

IRD: Dr. Amir-Ahmadian, regarding Russians’ general policy towards Iran, how reliable is collaboration with their companies in the oil and gas sector?

BA: They are not honest trade partners. The Russians have frequently failed to deliver on their promises in previous joint projects and contracts. Iran seeks help from Russia only because of the restrictions it’s facing in the international arena. But Moscow has not lived up to Iran’s expectations. It has been a signatory to all UN Security Council resolutions against Iran, while sustaining its trade ties with us. The Russians have meanwhile made the most of the sanctions in order to court the West. For Iranian statesmen, Russia is still a technological and armaments lifeline, but they seem not to have read history. Russia’s predecessor, the Soviet Union, left Egyptians high and dry during their war with Israel, and equipped Saddam Hussein’s army during the 8-year war with Iran. They turn covetous when dealing with other countries; fans of the win-lose game indeed.

Moscow is also fond of the perpetual strain in Iran’s ties with West. The more distant Iran is from West, the closer it gets to Russia. Moscow has also frequently stated that it does not want to see a nuclear Iran on its southern borders. Take the Bushehr nuclear power plant project as an example of believing that Russia is Iran’s most notorious trade partner. They protracted its construction long enough to ensure that the technology became obsolete. As former head of Iran’s Atomic Organization Hassan Ghafourifard once said, the building of a nuclear plant from scratch would be more cost-effective than assigning the Russians to resume construction of the reactor at Bushehr [80% of it completed by Germans before the 1979 Islamic Revolution]. And anyway, this power plant will generate only 1/34^th of Iran’s electricity. Iran is also buying civilian aircraft from Russia, particularly the infamousTupolev, while Russian domestic airlines have been using a Western fleet for years.

IRD: Will Russian companies welcome the idea of investment in Iran?

BA: The Russians have kept to the terms of UN Resolution 1929 so far, and have shown little interest in circumventing the sanctions, since that would bring criticism from other members of P5+1 [five UN Security Council members plus Germany]. The energy sector has not been officially sanctioned by the UN, so Russia, unsatisfied with its current state as a raw material exporting country, can seize the opportunity. It can also find another opportunity to expand its sphere of influence in the Middle East. Moscow has lost part of this influence as a result of the pro-democracy uprising in Libya –with which they were a strong trade partner- where Qaddafi continues to crack down on the opposition with Russian weapons.

Iran’s economy needs an extensive and deep restructuring. But I think the oil sector should not be our priority. Agriculture and industry need further attention, while tourism is also potentially a highly lucrative source of revenue. Maybe if we focus on cooperation with the Turks –who attracted nearly 30 million tourists last year- it would pay more dividends.

IRD: How will Iran receive Russian companies’ investment in its oil and gas sector?

BA: Iran would have never reached out to Russia if it had better options. Of course, Iran is in need of investment in its energy sector-- reportedly 200 billion dollars in the next 10 years. Sanctions imposed by West –most importantly the D’Amato Act that restricts investment in Iran’s energy sector- have deprived Iran from obtaining advanced technologies and equipment. The Russians will use this opportunity to sell their outdated technology to Iran, and will import advanced Western technology for their own oil and gas industry.

22 Sunday May 2011 10:14

Need to promote relations between India & Iran stressed

Posted by HC-Team on June 4, 2011
http://www.hyderabadcircle.com/world-news/need-to-promote-relations-between-india-iran-stressed-29182

Hyderabad: Former Minister and Friends of Iran Society president, Mr K. Prabhakar Reddy said that there was a need to promote relationship in trade and economic sectors between India and Iran, to develop both the countries in economic field.
He was speaking at a seminar on the “International Impact of Islamic Revolution in Iran and Leadership of Imam Khomeini” on the occasion of the 22 nd Anniversary of the demise of Hazarath Imam Khomeinie, organized by the Consulate General of Islamic Republic of Iran here and Friends of Iran Society here today. He said that Imam Khomeinie, was not only a political leader but also a spiritual leader of Iran, under whose able guidance the people of Iran in February 1979, after years of struggle, had toppled the 2500 years of Imperial Rule of Pahlavi by establishing Islamic Republic Government with the 98.09 per cent of the votes.

He lauded that Khomeine had worked for eradicating poverty and increasing literacy in Iran. He said that he did not encourage his heir entering into politics. He urged that all non-democratic countries should change their way and establish democracy in their respective countries. Referring to the present turmoil in middle- east countries, he said that people of middle-east were following his footsteps to fight for democratic rule in their countries. He said that though people of Arab countries were fighting against Imperial rule, the rulers did not change their way to turn to democratic fold. He wanted that India and Iran to cooperate in education, cultural, energy and petroleum sectors.

Mr Mahmoud Safari Farkhud, Consul General of Islamic Republic of Iran, said that the seminar was aimed at reviving the age-old relationship between the two great nations –Iran and India. Mr Abid Rasool Khan, APCC general secretary, also spoke.

China: Position Paper on Sino-Indian Border Dispute

By D. S. Rajan

A comprehensive position paper in Chinese language, in six parts, captioned ‘China – India Border Dispute’ has been published in a party-affiliated website in China on 25 January 2011. The web post is still available for viewing.

The website www.hprc.org.cn, which focuses on studies relating to the history of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is being managed by a premier think tank in the country - the Institute of Contemporary China Studies (ICCS). The ICCS, which works closely with the authoritative Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), was established on 28 June 1990 with the approval of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee and is receiving ‘political guidance’ from that Committee’s Secretariat. The President of the ICCS is Zhu Jiamu, who also functions as CASS Vice President and a member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). Against this background, the importance of the paper, apparently intended to educate the Chinese population on the Sino-Indian border issue, can be well understood. The paper may also serve as a tool for analysts outside China to understand the Chinese thinking at high levels on the issue of Sino-Indian border. With this in view, the Chennai Centre for China Studies (CCCS) thought it worthwhile to translate its contents into English for the benefit of the researchers worldwide. The translation of the article is attached as annexure to this paper.

The position paper carries an introduction to the Sino-Indian border issue, attaching adequate reference material for the benefit of readers. The topics covered include the origin of the issue, China-India border talks and their focal points and “Chinese counter attack in self-defence in 1962”. Interestingly, it also throws light on the concerns being felt by China over India’s approach towards the border issue. What should not be missed is that, the paper conveys its assessment in a subtle manner, choosing to quote to a large extent, from what the state-controlled media in China have said on the Sino-Indian border issue, without referring to any official document.

Prominent themes of the paper are that the Sino-Indian border has never been formally demarcated, the PRC does not recognise the McMahon line and Arunachal Pradesh state and a solution to the border issue is still eluding due to India’s persistent acceptance of the McMahon line. On what China and India should do in the current period, the paper stresses the need for the two sides to promote ‘framework’ negotiations. Its call for “a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution” to the border issue is in conformity with Beijing’s official stand.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry’s observations in an article on the border issue (foreign ministry website, 7 August 2009), carried in the paper look important. The article especially describes the length of the border as about 2000 kms. Significantly, the article appeared on the eve of 13^th round of Special Representatives talks. It mentioned that the Sino – Indian border is about 2000 km long. Analysts in India, contrasting China’s position with that of India describing the length as 3488 kms, consider that the Chinese version of border length is of recent origin and that it amounted to China’s exclusion of border portion relating to India’s Jammu & Kashmir state, indicating a change in Beijing’s position on the Kashmir issue. Chinese experts like Prof Hu Shisheng of the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, on the other hand justify China’s stand on border length by arguing that the western section of the border is disputed which needs to be settled by India and Pakistan and hence that section cannot be considered as part of China’s dispute with India. Whatever may be the case, with the Chinese foreign ministry itself coming out with its position on border length in 2009, various other channels in China confirming the same in the subsequent period and India obviously questioning the Chinese stand, the two sides, in future border talks, may have to face the tough question of how to reconcile their differences on this count. It is not known whether the issue was discussed at the 14^th round of Special Representatives talks (Beijing, November 2010).

On India’s approach towards the border issue, the paper identifies China's concerns, with India’s despatch of additional troops to Northeast on top of the list. It points out that the strength of the Indian troops in the border now exceeds that of China and that India’s moves are not conducive to establishing mutual political and military trust. It sees dangers of border clashes.

Secondly, through this paper, China seems to be signalling to India its sensitivity over the matter of Tawang’s political status. Describing Tawang region as a focal point of border talks, the paper’s reference material states that China - India talks should aim at solving two parts of the border issue – the strategic aspect of the disputed territories and the politically sensitive aspect of migrants – settled areas under which Tawang falls.

The paper identifies a third area of China’s dissatisfaction- India’s mindset on the border issue. It sees four factors affecting India’s mindset- fixation with ‘status quo’, inheritance of colonial legacy, expectation of a quid pro quo from China and belief that ‘control’ provides legitimacy to ‘action’. Elaborating them, a reference report linked to the paper said that the border issue remains unsolved, for which India’s fixation with its ‘recognising the status quo thinking’ is responsible. Another source quoted by the paper said that as an inheritance of British colonial legacy, India wants China to accept the “McMahon line” as well as the India- advocated border line in the Western sector based on the principle of ‘watershed delimitation’. On quid pro quo, the linked report stated that India gave up its privileges in Tibet, albeit per force, as a result of the 1954 trade and transport agreement between China’s Tibet and India, but expected China to provide a return by way of accepting the “McMahon line”. This was followed by India’s ‘forward policy’. On the last mentioned factor, a comment attached to the paper, alleged that India, as a demonstration of its faith in the dictum of ‘ Who so ever is in control, that person’s actions are justified’ , is “occupying, establishing administration in, sending migrants to and militarising” the disputed territories.

India’s official interlocutors, who are in touch with the Chinese side, may be well aware of the Chinese perceptions regarding the Sino-Indian border issue. However, the contents of the paper may deserve their attention as an additional authoritative input on the issue. What looks important is identification of areas of concerns of China on India’s approach to the border issue, important among them being Chinese perception that India’s military build up in northeast is a security threat to the PRC. Needless to say that India, while formulating its responses, may have to factor the Chinese fears, conveyed through the publication in question which is close to the CCP leadership.

( The writer, Mr D.S.Rajan, is Director, Chennai Centre for China Studies, Chennai, India.Email:director.c3s@gmail.com)

Annexure

Translation of a position Paper in Chinese language, dated 25 January 2011, carried by the Chinese Communist Party-affiliated websitewww.hprc.org.cn (‘Guo Shi Net –National History Net). (first edition of the Paper appeared on 25 June 2010). China-India Border Issue

Author: Editor of the Guo Shi Net date of Issue 25.01.2011 Source: Guo Shi Net

People’s Daily Net (renmin wang) carried an article on 14 October 2009 captioned “Do not provoke incidents in the territory under dispute between China and India”. The article said that according to Indian reports, India’s Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh recently went to “Arunachal Pradesh” and gave speeches at election gatherings. The activities of Indian leaders in that disputed region disregarding the serious concerns of the Chinese side caused strong Chinese dissatisfaction and on 13 October 2009, the Chinese Foreign Ministry demanded the Indian side to attach importance to Chinese solemn and just concerns and not to provoke incidents in the disputed territory.

China-India border has never been formally demarcated. The stand of the Chinese Government towards the Eastern section of the disputed border has been consistent and clear. Holding of activities in the region repeatedly by Indian leaders, can only hurt the feelings of the Chinese people. It will also not be beneficial to finding a solution of the China-India border question.

Everybody knows that basically the so called ‘Arunachal Pradesh” has been set up encompassing the three regions of China’s Tibet – Menba, Luoyu and Xia Zayu, which are under illegal Indian occupation. These three regions are located between the illegal “McMahon Line” and the China-India traditional and customary border; they have always been China’s territory. In 1914, the colonialists through their secret concoction of illegal “McMahon line”, attempted to incorporate these three regions of China into India’s territory. Chinese governments since then did not recognize the same. The Indian authorities announced the setting up of so called “Arunachal Pradesh” in February 1987. The Chinese side many times made solemn and just statements that it absolutely does not recognize the illegal “McMahon line” as well as the so-called “Arunachal Pradesh”. India is clear about this.

According to Indian reports, elections were held in certain regions of the country including the so-called “Arunachal Pradesh” on 13 October 2009. At a time when India faced a situation of growth decline, food price inflation and most serious drought in 40 years, the leaders of the ruling Congress party quickly resorted to holding elections in some regions. Indian reports further said that the Indian Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh said at an election meeting in the so-called “Arunachal Pradesh” “the Congress party had an emotional attachment towards Arunachal Pradesh”.

It should be pointed out such talks of Indian leaders in the disputed territory about “attachment”, are extremely irresponsible.

In November 2008, the then Indian Foreign Minister Mukherjee, while visiting the so-called ”Arunachal Pradesh” said that “ the state of Arunachal Pradesh” is an inseparable part of India’s territory. The Chinese side in its open statement deeply regretted Mukherjee’s irresponsible remarks. India’s current leaders should have learnt a lesson, but with in less than one year since then, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh paid a visit to the region. Such behaviour is really puzzling.

China and India are important neighbors. They are also developing big powers. For the two sides, highly significant would be to find a political solution to the border issue and protect peace and tranquility in the border regions. Presently, they, on the basis of the political parameters and guiding principles with respect to solution of the border issue, must make efforts to promote the process of framework negotiations and seek a formula for fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution. But, prospects of realizing such aspirations will recede further if the solemn and just Chinese concerns are not given importance and incidents in the disputed region are provoked.

1. Background Material

www.china.com.cn carried an article on “China and India to maintain border tranquility together”, 9 August 2009. The article said that the 13^th round of Special Representatives of China and India on the border issue was held at New Delhi on 7-8 August 2009. State Councillor Dai Bingguo, the Special Representative from the Chinese side, and National Security Adviser Narayanan from the Indian side, in a frank and friendly atmosphere, had a deep exchange of opinions on solving the China-India boundary question.

2. China-India Border Dispute: Origin

Chinese Foreign Ministry Net, 7 August 2009 report:

The total length of China-India border is about 2000 kms. The border falls into three sectors- Eastern, Middle and Western. The total area of the region disputed by the two sides is about 125,000 sq.kms- about 90,000 sq.kms in the Eastern sector, about 2000 sq.kms in the Middle sector and about 33,000 sq.kms in the Western sector.

China-India border issue is a historical legacy. In 1914, British colonialists concocted the illegal “McMahon line”, which all successive Chinese central governments do not recognize. India, after its independence in 1947, not only inherited the parts of China’s territory occupied by Britain, but also further occupied a large stretch of Chinese territory. In 1953, India extended its occupied territory unto “McMahon line”. In 1954, with its occupation and irrational view as basis, India, in its maps, unilaterally changed the hitherto used terminology of “undecided border” as that of “ decided border”. In accordance with such a changed position in the maps, India, in 1959, formally made its territorial claim on the Aksai Chin region of China’s Xinjiang. In April 1960, Premier Zhou Enlai paid a visit to New Delhi and held talks with Prime Minister Nehru. As India persisted with its irrational stand, the two sides could not reach an agreement during the visit. Official-level meetings between the two sides, which followed, also could not yield results. In October 1962, India launched an all- out armed attack on China, attempted to forcibly grab territory; in return, China was compelled to carry out an attack in self-defence. Since then, for a considerably long period of time, peace prevailed basically in the China-India border.

In February 1987, India established the so called “Arunachal Pradesh state’ comprising Chinese territory south of “McMahon line” illegally occupied by it. The Chinese side many times made solemn and just statements that it absolutely does not recognize the illegal “McMahon line” and the so-called “Arunachal Pradesh state”. It also demanded India’s withdrawal of all of its military personnel operating from points set up across the line.

In December 1988, Indian Prime Minister Gandhi visited China. Both sides stated that while seeking a way, acceptable to both the sides, for solving the border issue, they must also develop ties in other fields and make efforts to create atmosphere and conditions beneficial to solving the issue. Also, the two sides agreed to establish a vice-foreign minister level Joint Working Group to deal with the issue.

Till today, the Vice-Foreign Minister level Border Affairs Joint Working Group of the two countries has held more than ten rounds of talks. Both the sides are unanimous in considering that the border issue must not become an obstacle to development of bilateral ties in other spheres and that it should be solved through peaceful dialogue. In 1993, the two governments signed an agreement on “Maintaining Peace and Tranquility along the Line of Actual Control in the China-India Border Area” and set up an Experts Group to discuss ways for enforcing the agreement’s stipulations. These marked some positive developments. In November 1995, the two sides dismantled their respective army sentry posts operating very close to Wangdong sector in the Eastern border. This led to more stability in the border situation. In November 1996, during the visit to India by President Jiang Zemin, the two governments signed an agreement on “Confidence Building Measures in the Military Field along the Line of Actual Control in the India-China Border Area”. This marked an important measure adopted by China and India to establish mutual trust. The agreement’s signing and enforcement has helped in the matter of further protecting peace and tranquility along the Line of Actual Control and created a good atmosphere for a final solution of the border question.

3. Points Of Focus in the China-India Border Issue:

Jilin City Evening News carried an article captioned “Tawang region is the focal point of the China-India border issue” on 12 November 2008. The article said that the Tawang region in the eastern sector is the biggest focal point of China-India border issue. Britain, while it ruled India, pushed the China-India traditional and customary line towards North and fixed the “McMahon line” which never received the acceptance of the successive Chinese governments. After India attained independence in 1947, it sent troops to occupy Sela in the eastern sector. In 1951, India occupied Tawang. In 1953, it occupied 90,000 sq kms of territory in the Eastern sector. In 1954, the Indian government made “McMahon line” as the country’s border. The article added that in 1986, in an attempt to legalize its occupation, India elevated the status of “Arunachal centrally administered region” to that of a “province”.

I Feng net carried an article captioned “Focal Issues in China-India Border Talks”. The article said that China-India talks should in the main solve two parts of the border issue- firstly the territorial aspect generating strategic concerns and secondly, the politically sensitive aspect of migrants- settled areas. Tawang region is one falling into ‘politically sensitive’ category. It is also a region disputed very much by China and India. Tawang is also the birthplace of Sixth Dalai Lama and till today, the Tibetan Buddhist monastery there is considered sacred. No doubt, Tawang is thus the focal issue of China-India border talks. The article added that at the same time, from China’s point of view, Tawang is the gateway for the world outside to enter Tibet. On its part, India considers Tawang is they key junction for entering into Northeast region. Under these circumstances, Tawang is a difficult subject for the sides to talk. The question is how to solve the presence of 7 million Indian migrants in Tawang region. Should colonizers rule Tawang or should they be thrown out? The article said that this question is worth considering.

4. China-India border Self-Defence War

On 4 June 2009, People’s Daily Net carried an article entitled “20 October 1962: China-India Border Self-Defence War”. The article said that since 1961, the Indian troops had been intruding into the Western and Eastern sectors of China-India border. They established bases for aggression. The proposals of the Chinese government to solve the border issue through talks were rejected by India. On 10 October 1962, China-India border situation worsened due to violation of border by the Indian troops. On the forenoon of 10 October 1962, the invading Indian troops launched an attack on the Chinese border troops in Chedong region, killing 11 Chinese soldiers. Next day, 22 Chinese soldiers were either wounded or killed. The Chinese government on that day lodged a strongest and most serious protest with its Indian counterpart. It also protested to India about intrusion of Indian aircraft into the Chinese airspace over Lhasa and other places of China’s Tibet. From 17 to 20 October, India launched fierce attacks against Chinese border troops in the Eastern and Western Sectors. Under compelling circumstances, the Chinese border troops had to launch counterattacks in fronts in both the sectors. Seeking a peaceful solution of the China-India border question, the Chinese government announced on 21 November 1962 that from that day the Chinese border troops would ceasefire along the entire front in the China-Indian border. From 1 December 1962, the Chinese border troops started withdrawing to positions 20 Kilometers away from the China-India Actual Line of Control as it stood on 7 November 1959. The Chinese government returned to the Indian side all arms and ammunition captured and all detained Indian soldiers.

5. China-India Border Talks

Southern Daily Net published an article entitled “Zhou Gang: The crux of the China-India border talks lies with India” on 13 August 2009. The article highlighted the 15 rounds of China-India Vice-Foreign Minister level Joint Working Group meetings on the border held before 2003 and acknowledged the role played by former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in contributing to such progress. It took note of the significance of the agreements reached by China and India in 1993 and 1996. The article however admitted that China-India ties reached a low after the 1998 nuclear tests by India, but positively viewed the agreement on setting up of “China-India Constructive and Cooperative Partnership” and on “appointment of special representatives to discuss the border question”, concluded during Prime Minister Vajpayee’s visit to China in 2003. It focused on the 13th round of talks between the two Special Representatives at New Delhi on 7-8 August 2009, acknowledging the consensus reached by the two sides on ‘working together to protect border tranquility’. The article quoted an unidentified Chinese diplomat as saying that the 13^th round ended with two important results – agreement to avoid military incidents in the border and reiteration of the “political parameters and guiding principles” as a way to solve the border dispute.

Issues

But China-India differences on the specific contents of some guiding principles are still serious. Where do the issues lie?

www.china.com.cn published an article entitled “ Indian troops in China-India border is 100,000; Strength already exceeds that of People’s Liberation Army”, on 15 July 2009. The article stated that India has announced additional dispatch of its 60000 troops to areas close to the region disputed by China and India. Putting together the original strength, the total number of Indian troops deployed in China-India border exceeds the figure of 100,000.

India has all along been taking the pretext of the Chinese military superiority to justify its dispatch of additional troops to the border. But in fact, according to the data given by Pakistan’s “Asian Defence Review”, the strength of the deployed Indian troops in the border region has now already exceeded that of the Chinese army. Besides, India has also attained a partial superiority. Therefore, during the sensitive period of China and India holding new rounds of border talks, the unilateral Indian moves to send additional troops to the border will seriously erode into the mutual political and military mutual trust between the two nations. Such methods of India will not only be least beneficial to solving the border issue but will also greatly increase the dangers of eruption of border clashes between China and India..

On 7 August 2009, Chongqing Evening News carried an article entitled “China and India will today negotiate on the border; Indian attitude is the bottleneck”. The article said that during the last more than 60 years, China-India border issue was negotiated several times, but it still remains unsolved. The main reason for this is India’s fixation with its “recognizing the status quo” thinking with respect to finding a solution.

The following factors fetter the Indian mind:

“ India- the natural successor to colonial legacy.”

Firstly, India inherited the colonial legacy and after its independence, insisted that China-India border has already been demarcated. India took the stand that if China needed negotiations, it must accept the “McMahon line”. In the Western Sector, New Delhi’s position was that China should accept the India-advocated borderline based on ‘delimitation according to watershed principle’. The Chinese responded to this by affirming that China-India border has never been demarcated and that the Chinese government does not recognize the illegal 1914 Simla Convention agreement over “ McMahon line”, reached by the British, Indian and the local Tibetan representatives behind the back of the Chinese government.

“ India’s giving up its privileges expecting China’s quid pro quo.”

Secondly, India refused to give up the privileges acquired from the colonial Britain, even after China’s “peaceful liberation of Tibet”. The Nehru government encouraged the Dalai Lama to flee Tibet and seek Tibet independence from outside. After the China-India agreement on 29 April 1954 which provided for trade and transport between China’s Tibet and India, India was forced to give up its privileges in Tibet, but the Nehru government thought that through signing the 1954 agreement, the Chinese government recognized the status quo in the China-India border, in other words, completely accepted the “McMahon line delimitation”. This reflected the expectation of India, which gave up its privileges in Tibet, for a Chinese quid pro quo. Such a mindset naturally drove the Nehru government to aggressively implement a “forward policy” which eventually led to the 1962 border conflict.

“India’s belief- whosoever is in control, that person’s action is justified”.

Thirdly, India believes that “whoever controls, he is justified.” Under this thinking, in the past few decades, India has been trying to do “a fait accompli”, forcing the Chinese side to recognize India’s actual administrative jurisdiction rights over the disputed territories. India has been resorting to unilateral actions in the disputed border region in the Eastern sector. Such actions have manifested in ‘occupation of, establishment of administration in, populating and militarizing the disputed region’. India sent people to occupy the disputed territories, even using force to drive out Tibetan local administrative officials. It strengthened its administrative control and organizational setup in the occupied areas and continuously sent migrants to such areas. Also, India continued strengthening of its border defense units in the disputed territories under its control.

On 10 August 2010, www.china.com.cn carried an article entitled “The two sides to protect tranquility in the border, but where the border talks are stuck?” The article said that the crux of the China-India border problem basically lies with India’s stubbornness in persisting with the “McMahon line”. This line is absolutely not acceptable to China. Chinese Academician Professor Zhao Gancheng said that in 1987, India set up “ Arunachal Pradesh” state and in this way, attempted to create within the country an image of a done-deal. But such a step has limited the policy options for the Indian government. Under the ‘done deal’ situation, there can be uproar and accusations in the Indian media and public opinion if somebody within India views the formation of “Arunachal Pradesh state” as illegal or expresses opinions in favor of talks.

6. Other Connected Material

The People’s Daily Net carried the views of netizens in China on certain remarks made on China by India’s three service chiefs. India’s Naval Chief has openly recognized that India is not a match to China in military strength. Indian senior Naval commander Das, while talking to China’s “International Herald Monitor” admitted China’s military superiority vis-à-vis India. Senior Army officer Banerjee pointed out that India requires catching up with China. The Indian Air Force Chief said that India is worried about how China will use its military strength.