October 26, 2012
Realty comes back to bite the Pawar family
India gears up for trilateral with U.S., Japan
LULL IN COMMUNAL RIOTING IN RAKHINE STATE OF MYANMAR
B.RAMAN
Since the afternoon of October 26,2012, there has been a lull in communal rioting between the Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims in the Rakhine State (Arakan ) of Myanmar.
2. The rioting broke out on October 21,2012, reportedly following demonstrations by some Buddhists against allowing the OIC to open a humanitarian relief office in Yangon. The Rohingya Muslims wanted the office to be opened.
3. Despite opposition from some Buddhists, the Government of President TheinSein has continued to accept humanitarian relief from the OIC countries for distribution to both the communities.It has been reported that two planeloads of humanitarian relief material arrived at Yangon from Turkey on October 25.
4. According to Government sources, when the rioting broke out on October 21, the security forces found themselves to be inadequately numbered and had difficulty in controlling the situation.Reinforcements have since reached the State and the security forces are now in a better position to deal with the situation.
5. While official statements continue to estimate the total number of fatalities as about 60, the local "Irrawaddy Journal" and the Xinhua news agency of China have estimated the total number of fatalities till the evening of October 26 as 112.
6. According to local sources, the steep increase in fatalities is partly due to the security forces repeatedly opening fire on the rioting mobs from both the communities.It has been reported that nearly about 2600 houses have been burnt down.
7. Following expressions of concern by Western and UN sources that if the riots continued it could threaten the process of reforms initiated by President TheinSein and weaken his position, the National League of Democracy (NLD) of Aung SanSuuKyi, which was maintaining a discreet silence till now on the situation, has bestirred itself and urged the Government to send more reinforcements to the affected areas ofMrauk U, Minbya, Rathedaung, and Kyauktaw townships, north of the state capital of Sittwe, and southern Rakhine'sKyaukPhyu city and Mebyon.
8.A member of the "Committee of the Rule of Law and Tranquility," which is chaired by SuuKyi, proposed at the Lower House in Naypyidaw on October 26 that the situation be discussed in Parliament. Following a debate, Parliament approved a proposal to deploy more security forces to the region.
9. The Chinese have been concerned over the spread of the violence to KyaukPhyu, where a Chinese company has been constructing a port and a gas/oil pipeline to Yunnan to reduce China's dependence on the Malacca Straits for energy supplies to China. Chinese officials have expressed the hope that the TheinSein Government will be able to maintain stability in the area.So far, there are no reports of any threats to the Chinese working in the Rakhine State for oil and gas exploration, port and pipeline construction and the construction of a railway line to Yunnan. (27-10-12)
(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 Twitter @SORBONNE75)
Q&A: ‘Baloch Groups to Unite Against Pakistan’
COMMUNAL CLASHES WORSEN IN RAKHINE STATE OF MYANMAR
B.RAMAN
The fresh communal clashes between Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims in the Rakhine State of Myanmar, which broke out on October 21,2012, have worsened despite the induction of security forces reinforcements by the Government.
2. While local Government sources have put the total number of fatalities so far at 20, a despatch of the Associated Press of the US has put it at 56. Local sources say that many of the latest fatalities seem to have occurred due to the security forces opening fire to bring rioters from both the communities under control.Arson attacks at nights have reportedly led to the destruction of nearly 2000 houses so far.
3. The areas worst affected by the violence and arson attacks areMinbyar,Mrauk-U,Kyaukpyu and Kyauktaw. Reports from the affected areas indicate that the security forces, though inadequately numbered, have been trying to protect the Muslims by opening fire on rioting Buddhist mobs seeking to attack the Muslims. This should account for the sudden increase in the number of fatalities.
4. The National League for Democracy (NLD) of Aung San SuuKyi issued a statement on October 25,2012, urging the Government to take further security measures to stop the ongoing violence and re-establish peace and security in townships such as Kyaukpyu, Minbyar, Mrauk-U and Ann.
5.The 88 Generation Students group also released a statement calling on all people to work together to resolve this conflict, stressing that a solution must be based on democracy and human rights.( 26-10-2012)
(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 Twitter @SORBONNE75)
October 25, 2012
Gadkari and the business of politics
NITIN GADKARI,SONIA GANDHI, NAVEEN JINDAL & MITT ROMNEY
B.RAMAN
ShriNitinGadkari, President of the BJP, and Shri Naveen Jindal, Member of the LokSabha belonging to the Congress, are businessmen who have entered politics and have continued to be associated with decision-making relating to their business companies even while playing their political role.
2. Mrs.Sonia Gandhi, President of the Congress, which is in power in the Government of India, is the mother-in-law of Shri Robert Vadra, who has prospered in business after marryingMs.Priyanka Gandhi, daughter of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi.
3.Mr. Mitt Romney is a member of the US Republican Party belonging to a well-known business family of Massachusetts.He entered politics to become the Governor of his State.He is now contesting the US Presidential elections against President Barack Obama.
4. ShriGadkari has got involved in a huge controversy because of his continued association with his business companies when he was the PWD Minister in the Maharashtra Cabinet in the 1990s and now as the President of the BJP.
5. Shri Jindal has got involved in an embarrassing controversy because of his continued association with his steel business even while serving as a Member of the Parliament belonging to the Congress.He has allegedly benefitted from a coal mining block allotted to him by the Government of India.
6. There is nothing wrong in businessmen entering politics provided they do not profit in their businesses as a result of their political position and they do not allow their political role to influence their business decision-making. How to enforce political and business rectitude when businessmen take to politics?
7.It would be useful to make a case study of Mr.Romney in the US.He was associated with some business companies of his State investing in and trading with China. One of the companies was allegedly even dealing with telecommunications which is a sensitive area from the national security point of view.
8.Before Mr.Romney decided to enter politics and contest as Governor of his State, he made a public statement of all his business interests and holdings, formed a public trust in respect of each of his companies and dissociated himself from all decision-making in respect of these companies.
9. Those who had watched the second Presidential debate between Mr.Romney and Mr.Obama, would have noticed that Mr.Obama questioned Mr.Romney's association with business companies investing in and trading with China.Mr.Romney replied that the affairs of these companies are managed by a public trust and that he is not associated with their decision-making. Mr.Obama was satisfied with his reply and did not pursue the matter.
10.In India, huge controversies have arisen relating to the business background of Sri Gadkari and Shri Jindal because they did not dissociate themselves from decision-making relating to their business companies while functioning as political leaders holding key positions. The public perception is and will be that they have benefitted in their businesses as a result of their political role and influence.
11.ShriGadkari was a public servant when he was the PWD Minister. He is not a public servant now as the President of the BJP.Shri Jindal is a public servant as a member of the Parliament and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Had he been a member of the US Congress and had he been allotted a coal mining block, the legal and public assumption in the US would have been that he did not get the block on merits, but by virtue of his being in the Congress.To avoid such perceptions, all public servants in the US form public trusts of their businesses and dissociate themselves from decision-making.
12. In the case of Mrs.Sonia Gandhi, the wrong-doing was of a different kind. When the Congress was elected to power in 2004, political rectitude demanded that she should inform all Government departments of the Government of India and all State Governments where the Congress is in power, that her son-in-law is a real estate businessman and he should not be shown any favours because of his being her son-in-law. She did not do so.
13. When the controversy regarding the real estate wheeling and dealing of ShriVadra recently broke out, she should have immediately written to the Prime Minister to look into all his real estate dealings in which departments of the Government of India and State Governments were involved and satisfy himself that there was no wrong-doing.
14. She did not do that either.Instead, allegedly at her prodding, a number of senior Ministers of the Cabinet of Dr.Manmohan Singh holding sensitive portfolios embarked on a cover-up and damage control exercise to prevent any political embarrassment to her and to deny any criminal liability of ShriVadra.
15. The controversies relating to ShriGadkari, Shri Jindal and Mrs.Sonia Gandhi call for follow-up action at two levels.An enquiry into all allegations made to rule out civil or criminal wrong-doing and introduction of conflict of interest provisions in our laws to enforce rectitude when businessmen want to enter public life. ( 26-10-12)
(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 Twitter @SORBONNE75)
India Strategy Forum 2012
3rd Annual India Strategy Forum | ||
India Strategy Forum 2012 October 30-31, 2012, Hotel The Grand, New Delhi. | ||
Organised by Institute for Strategy - A Global Think Tank of Strategy Experts from Top Global Business Schools / Universities and CEOs focused on Asia. | ||
MEMBERSHIP We are inviting membership, both Corporate and Individual, for the Think Tank. | ||
Highlights v Comprehensive Agenda Developed by Top Global Experts. v Targeted at Leaders and CXOs in India or those interested in India. v Focus on Practice of Corporate, Business and Functional Strategy in India. v 60 High Profile Speakers consisting of Chairmen, CEOs, Managing Directors. v Already Confirmed Participation by Senior Management from 300 Companies. |
October 24, 2012
Why the U.S. Debate’s Silence on India?
BUDDHIST-MUSLIM TENSIONS AGGRAVATE IN RAKHINE STATE OF MYANMAR
B.RAMAN
The Myanmar Government headed by President TheinSein is rushing Army reinforcements to the Rakhine State following a fresh outbreak of clashes between Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims in different townships of the Rakhine State since October 21,2012.
2.So far, two Rohingya Muslims and one Buddhist have been killed in the clashes and about 1000 houses, mostly belonging to Rohingya Muslims, have allegedly been burnt down, thereby forcing the Muslim residents of these houses to shift to boats.
3. The fresh anti-Muslim campaign has assumed new disturbing features. Buddhist monks have revived their opposition to the Government accepting humanitarian assistance for the Rohingya Muslim displaced persons from the OIC member-countries. Following bitter opposition from the monks, the Government of TheinSein has reversed its decision to allow the OIC to set up a branch in Yangon. It has now stated that it will allow the OIC to have only a temporary set-up in Yangon to supervise the distribution of humanitarian relief to the internally displaced Muslims and Buddhists in the Rakhine State. The monks are opposing even this and have been insisting there is no need for any humanitarian assistance from the OIC countries.
4.Buddhist students, who took out a procession ( 800) in Sittwe, the capital of the Rakhine State, on October 24,2012, have demanded the introduction of an anti-Muslim apartheid policy in the local educational institutions. They have been saying that they will not sit in the same classes and stay in the same hostels as Rohingya Muslim students and have been demanding separate classes and separate hostels for the Rohingya Muslims. The Buddhist students, who participated in the procession, denounced the Rohingya Muslims as Bengali terrorists.
5. The Commission set up by the Government to enquire into the causes for the violence since May has not made much headway in its enquiries due to non-cooperation from both the communities.
6. The anti-Government anger of the Muslims of the Rakhine State has started affecting Muslims of sub-continental origin living in Yangon and other cities of Myanmar outside the Rakhine State. Apart from expressing solidarity with the Rohingya Muslims of the Rakhine State, they have been accusing the Government of TheinSein of failing to give assurances regarding the security of the Muslims living in other parts of Myanmar during the Eid festival on October 26,2012.Muslim groups in Yangon have called for the non-observance of Eid on the ground that the Government has failed to give satisfactory guarantees for their security during the festival.
7. The Government of President TheinSein is finding itself in a dilemma. It is under growing pressure from the OIC as well as the Western countries to pay attention to the human rights and security of the RohingyaMuslims. At the same time, the anti-Rohingya demands of the monks and the Buddhist students have public support, even among Buddhist soldiers of the Army.
8. Till now, the Buddhist soldiers of the security forces have remained disciplined and have been complying with the orders of the Government to enforce law and order and to protect the Rohingya Muslims. But will they continue to do so? That is a question that has been troubling the Government.
9. Unfortunately, there is no political leader ---not even Aung San SuuKyi---- with any influence over the Buddhist monks and students of the Rakhine State who can persuade them to tone down their anti-Rohingya rhetoric and refrain from acts that could further exacerbate the situation. Aung San SuuKyi continues to maintain a discreet silence on the plight of the RohingyaMuslims lest she lose the support of the Buddhists.
10. The unabated anti-Buddhist anger among the Rohingya Muslims could add to the radicalisation of the Muslim community in the affected region with unpredictable fall-out on theregional law and order situation. ( 25-10-12)
(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 Twitter @SORBONNE75)
October 22, 2012
OBAMA-ROMNEY: WHO CAN BETTER MANAGE THE SAME OLD WORLD?
B.RAMAN
The third andthe last US Presidential debate, a fortnight before the polling day, was held on the morning of October 23,2012 (Indian Standard Time).
2. It was supposed to have been devoted almost exclusively to foreign policy, but economic issues kept intruding into the debate quite often and sometimes in a substantive manner.
3.Even before the debate, it was known that Mr.Mitt Romney, the Republican challenger, is weak on foreign policy issues. He did remarkably well in the first debate which was totally devoted to economic and social issues.He, therefore, kept bringing in economic issues in context and out of context and President Barack Obama found himself forced to react to him in kind.
4. On purely foreign policy issues, Mr.Obama did much better than Mr.Romney, but even then he could not cross the 50 per cent mark in terms of support from the sample voters ( 48 per cent) polled by the CNN after the debate.
5. After the conclusion of all the three debates, it is evident that while Mr.Romney did overwhelmingly better than Mr.Obama in the first debate on the economic issues, Mr.Obama did better thanMr.Romney in the second and third debates devoted to a mix of the economic and foreign policy issues----but not overwhelmingly so. The election campaign seems to be moving slowly in favour of Mr.Obama but not yet in a decisive manner.
6. The Republican camp has reasons to be disappointed by the performance of Mr.Romney in the second and third debates. Mr.Romney is bruised, but not yet beaten beyond recovery.
7.It was evident that both the candidates came to the debate with the belief that foreign policy issues may not be crucial in influencing the as yet undecided voters on the polling day. In their calculation, it is economic issues that will influence their preferences. Both the candidates were, therefore, looking for an opportunity to bring in the state of the US economy even while debating the state of the world. As a result, the debate became a bit repetitive and stale.
8. While discussing China, one would have expected them to dwell on questions such as the rapid modernisation of the Chinese Armed Forces, the possible threats to freedom of navigation from the Chinese Navy, China's cyber and space warfare capabilities etc.
9. Surprisingly, none of these questions were raised in a substantive manner. Instead, they focussed on China's perceived currency manipulation, its continued violation of intellectual property rights and the threat posed to the US industries from their Chinese counterparts. This showed that while purely foreign policy issues like West Asia, Iran, and the Af-Pak decisions preoccupy their minds, the impact of foreign policy on the state of the economy was an equally worrisome issue. The spectre of a worsening economy came in the way of the formulation of a clear vision---whether in respect of economic or foreign policies.
10. When the three debates are taken as whole, it is clear that a fortnight before the polling day, the campaign is shaping up to be a contest between the lack-lustre record of an incumbent President and the lack-lustre policy vision of his challenger.
11.This has been a lack-lustre election campaign---with no exciting vision for the future articulated by either Mr.Obama or Mr.Romney.What they were debating was not how they would usher in a brave new world, but how they would better manage the same old world that they have inherited. In the absence of exciting new ideas and new visions for the future, an incumbent even with a lack- lustre record may do better than a lack-lustre challenger, who tries to play it safe and is not a risk-taker.
12. There is no reason for us to feel disappointed that India did not figure in the debate even once. Even the European Union, Japan, South Korea, the ASEAN and Australia did not figure even in passing. This is because these are areas of future opportunities for US policy-making. Today's debate was mostly about areas of present concern to the US.
13. This may please be read in continuation of my article of October 7,2012, titled "Romney's Ambivalence on India" at http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.in/2012/10/romneys-ambivalence-on-india.html ( 23-10-12)
(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 Twitter @SORBONNE75)
US seal on India’s key role in rebuilding Afghanistan
US seal on India’s key role in rebuilding Afghanistan
TNN | Oct 20, 2012, 08.40PM ISTIndia is returning to centerstage in Afghanistan. Two years after being relegated to the sidelines, India is clawing her way back to relevance.
As the US prepares to draw down in Afghanistan, India is emerging as Afghanistan's key ally. The tide turned decisively with the first trilateral meeting between Afghanistan, India and US in New York last week. Jawed Ludin, Afghanistan's deputy foreign minister, led the proceedings. For the first time, Indian, US and Afghan officials sat together to discuss Afghanistan's future. The meetings, held at the Afghan mission in New York, were under the radar and didn't attract the attention of Pakistan, which is wary of the trilateral arrangement.
In an unpublicized statement that laid out the contours of the cooperation, Ludin said the trilateral "marks the beginning of a series of consultations among our three governments... who have pledged to work together on common challenges and opportunities including combating terrorism and violent extremism... increasing regional trade, investment and integration."
Indian and US officials agree that continuing to help Afghanistan's economic development is a top priority. The first area, where all three would be working together, would be in mineral resources — an Indian consortium secured the Hajigak mines' exploration, and Indian firms are looking at getting more mineral rights. Equally, India would be looking for US' technical help in these ventures. The second sector will be in connectivity — all three nations are investing in creating roads and rail networks to embed Afghanistan in the regional trade and transit networks. India and the US believe this is the way to save Afghanistan from becoming a haven for extremism.
The trilateral, say sources, is a testimony to the roots that India has struck in Afghanistan over the past decade. Significantly, it shows the distance the US has traveled on the Af-Pak front. Not so long ago, US officials preferred to ignore India's work in Afghanistan as they talked up Pakistan's importance. Pakistan's rants about Indian consulates prompted much US questioning of New Delhi's intentions there, and there was general rejection of any suggestion to have an Indian presence in the security sector.
India laboured on solitarily, because in the policy establishment in New Delhi, there was a conviction that Afghanistan's stability is crucial to national security. India's economic and development programmes have yielded rich dividends. Hamid Karzai, regularly vilified by the West for being corrupt and venal, has received unqualified support from India. It wasn't a coincidence that the first strategic partnership agreement was signed with India, with others following afterwards. But as Pakistan's relations with the US have dived, and its connections with the Haqqani Network are there for all to see, the US heeded Afghan insistence and turned to India. After getting the contract to develop the Hajigak iron ore mines, a consortium of Indian companies is hoping to win a bid to mine copper and gold in the country.
The trilateral plans also point to something else — the US is not going to uproot its presence from Afghanistan any time soon. They will dominate the security sector, not merely to degrade Talibanbut to try to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a haven of terrorists again. William Burns, US Deputy Secretary of State, told TOI, "The US commitment to stability in Afghanistan doesn't end in 2014. We all learned from the mistakes that followed the Soviet exit from Afghanistan. That's exactly why the US entered into a Strategic Partnership Agreement with Afghanistan similar to the Strategic Partnership Agreement which India has entered into with Afghanistan."
Baloch people being treated like slaves: Akhtar Mengal
Watch Video : http://youtu.be/xSyh7NOn8bA
Pakistan has not just neglected Balochistan but has also discriminated against it ever since its army forcefully occupied the region in March 1948.
The exploitation of the region’s natural wealth continues at the cost of lives of hundreds of Baloch political activists and nationalist leaders.
There is no rule of law in Balochistan, which is facing the worst kind of human rights violations.
" We have been occupied against our will. Balochistan was forcefully occupied by Pakistan and till now we have not been treated as equals. We are being treated like slaves." said baloch leader Sardar Mengal
Sardar Akhtar Mengal of Balochistan National Party (BNP) is among many Baloch leaders who have been forced to live in self-imposed exile. He has been living in London for the last three years.
He recently visited Islamabad to depose on the state of Balochistan before the Supreme Court and submitted a six-point plan that asked for an end to military operations against the Baloch and the release of thousands of missing persons.
Sardar Mengal, who headed Balochistan for 18 months in 1998 before his government was dismissed by Pakistan, is seeking an intervention by the United Nations.
"If you look back in the past, we have tried all methods. We have participated in elections. We have tried the democratic way to make them understand the genuine problems of Balochistan. The Pakistani establishment just doesn’t want to understand. The six-point plan that I have submitted to the Supreme Court is not a solution to Balochistan's problems. These are confidence building measures. Once these measures have been taken, then we can sit with Pakistani authorities, whoever they are – be it the establishment, the Parliament or the government. Whoever they are, but with a guarantor! The guarantor can only be the United Nations." said baloch leader Sardar Mengal
Mengal’s 6-point plan is similar to the six-points presented in 1966 by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the leader of the Bengali nationalist movement who later become the founder of Bangladesh state.
The Pakistan government and the army has rejected the assertions of the Baloch leader saying the armed forced are neither conducting any military operation nor are there any death squads of the intelligence agencies operating in Balochistan.
Sardar Mengal says it is `outrageous’.
" I am not surprised by their (Pakistan government) attitude. Till now they haven’t accepted what they have done in East Pakistan – which is now Bangladesh. They killed thousands of civilians. Their army raped innocent Bengali women. Even the Hamoodur Rahman Commission report is against the Pakistan army. They are not ready to accept it, then how can they accept the genocide in Balochistan." said baloch leader Sardar Mengal
The situation in Balochistan is fast moving towards a point of no return.
Baloch people are continuously raising their voice against Pakistan’s atrocities, especially the “Pick, Kill and Dump” tactics adopted by Pakistani intelligence agencies.
An urgent political solution with international intervention is required to save millions of lives in Balochistan.
Understanding China’s world view
Shyam Saran
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20121022/edit.htm#6
Delegates at the annual Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.
THE Chinese will insistently demand and sometimes obtain explicit formulations from a friend and an adversary alike on issues of importance to their interests, but will rarely concede clarity and finality in formulations reflecting the other side’s interests. Thus, there is the recurring demand that India reaffirm, time and again, its recognition of Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. In 2003, during Prime Minister Vajpayee’s visit, China conceded Sikkim as a part of India but this was not explicitly recorded in a written formulation. In 2005, during Wen Jiabao’s visit to India, China went a step further and handed over maps of China, showing Sikkim as part of India. Recently, some Chinese scholars have pointed out that the absence of an official statement recognising Indian sovereignty leaves the door open to subsequent shifts if necessary.
China is the one power which impinges most directly on India’s geopolitical space. As the two countries expand their respective economic and military capabilities and their power radiates outwards from their frontiers, they will inevitably intrude into each other’s zone of interest, what has been called “over-lapping peripheries”
I recall seeing the record of conversation between R.K. Nehru and Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai in 1962, some months before the border war erupted in October that year. R.K. Nehru drew attention to reports that China was leaning towards the Pakistani position that Jammu and Kashmir was a disputed territory. He recalled to Zhou an earlier conversation, where when asked whether China accepted Indian sovereignty over J&K, he had said, rhetorically: "Has China ever said that it does not accept Indian sovereignty over J&K?" or words to that effect. At this latest encounter, Zhou turned the same formulation on its head, to ask, "Has China ever said that India has sovereignty over J&K?"
Much of the misunderstanding and lack of communication that has characterised India-China relations may be sourced to the failure on India’s part to be conversant with Chinese thought processes. It is easy to accuse the Chinese of betrayal, as Nehru did after the 1962 war, but a clear awareness that deception is, after all, an integral element of Chinese strategic culture, may have spared us much angst in the past. Such awareness should certainly be part of our confronting the China challenge in the future.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao with Dr Manmohan Singh: China is respectful of India’s role in multilateral fora, where on several global issues Indian interests converge with China.
Chinese ‘contextualise’
Another important feature of Chinese thinking is what I would call, "Contextualising". Significant decisions and actions must always be located in a broad assessment of political, economic, social and even psychological factors that constitute the stage setting for the proposed activity. This lends an inherent prudence to Chinese strategic thinking, but once events have brewed to the right mix and the timing is right, action must be swift and decisive. The Chinese strategist may wish to avoid war, if such a war carries inordinate risk. However, the use of force is an essential and accepted part of pursuing national interests and war is not necessarily an unmitigated evil. The Indian attitude towards the use of force and the dangers of war is more ambiguous. The use of force is often seen as a failure of diplomacy, not an extension of it. And this is an important difference between the two countries. The conversations between Nehru and Mao in 1956 on the nature of war reflect this clearly.
Let me try and illustrate this by examining some of the events leading up to the 1962 border war. In January 2005, Chinese TV broadcast a documentary entitled "The Secret History of the China-India War". This documentary is important for two reasons. It painstakingly spells out the domestic, regional and international context within which the decision to launch the attack against Indian border forces was taken. It refers to the hesitation within certain sections of the party leadership to "make an enemy out of India", at a time when China was still recovering from the ravages of famine and the disastrous consequences of the 1958-61 Great Leap Forward. The international situation was also not judged to be favourable. The ideological conflict with the Soviet Union, the commentary says, had now become a state-to-state conflict as well. The United States continued with its hostile policies towards China and the Chiang regime in Taiwan was becoming more aggressive. This is an example of the "contextualizing" approach. This probably corresponded to the assessment of Chinese posture on the Indian side; briefly, that while border skirmishes would continue, China was unlikely to engage in a full-scale war.
However, from the summer of 1962, the "context" had begun to change and the clues to this change were missed by the Indian side. After having retreated to the "second line of leadership" in the wake of the failure of the Great Leap Forward, Mao plotted his return to absolute leadership, using the PLA with the new Defence Minister Lin Piao, who had replaced Marshal Peng Tehuai, as an ally. The TV documentary points to differences of opinion within the Party leadership on the border issue. This, it said, was settled by the denunciation of those who counselled restraint, as "right opportunists". While having temporarily ceded the administration of the Party and the Government to other veteran leaders like Liu Shaoqi and Peng Zhen, Mao appears to have taken charge of issuing directives to the PLA personally, on handling border tensions with India. It was he who decided in August, 1962, to engage in a full-scale military assault on Indian forces, and to "liquidate the invading Indian army". But this was done only after his commanders had reported that the Indian side simply had neither the numbers nor the equipment to withstand a Chinese attack, particularly if the attack was of an unexpected scale.
On the international front, too, there was a window of opportunity, mitigating some of the constraints. In June, 1962, Chinese Ambassador Wang Bingnan had enquired from his U.S. counterpart in Warsaw whether the U.S. would take advantage of India-China border tensions, to encourage a Taiwanese attack on the mainland. He obtained a categorical assurance, which he claims in his memoirs, played a big role in the decision to go to war with India. Thanks to the impending Cuban missile crisis, the then Soviet Union sought Chinese support by conveying its intention to side with China in the border conflict with India. China may not have known about the looming US-Soviet crisis, but it certainly profited from the Soviet change of heart, temporary though this proved to be. Perhaps it is too much to expect that Indian decision-makers would have connected these dots together, but that is precisely what is necessary in dealing with China.
The other example of the importance of contextualising may be seen through a contrary example. In 1971, during the Bangladesh war, the US and China were allies supporting Pakistan. Kissinger tried to persuade the Chinese to attack India along the Sino-Indian border as a means of relieving pressure on their common ally, Pakistan. In the papers of Alexander Haig, who was the White House Chief of Staff at the time, it is reported that he did receive a formal reply from the Chinese side, conveying that China had decided not to move troops to the Sino-Indian border. One can confidently surmise that the constraining ‘context’ in this regard was the Indo-Soviet treaty of 1971.
The Wangdung incident
Lest any one believes that Chinese strategists always get things right, I would like to recall what happened in 1986 during the Wangdung Incident in the Eastern sector. In 1985, China began to signal that the so-called "package proposal" for resolving the border issue, essentially legitimising the post-1962 status quo, was no longer on offer. In official talks, Chinese officials stated explicitly for the first time that since the disputed area in the Eastern sector was much larger than in the Western sector, India would have to make significant concessions in that sector and China would reciprocate with appropriate concessions (unspecified) in the West. It was also conveyed to us that at a minimum, Tawang would have to be transferred to the Chinese side. When we pointed out that just three years back in 1982 Deng Xiaoping had himself spelt out the package proposal as we had hitherto understood it, the response was that we may have read too much into his words.
The shift could have been related to a greater level of confidence following China’s rapid growth and the fact that a young and as yet untested Prime Minister had taken office in Delhi. This was followed by the discovery in the summer of 1986 that the Chinese had crossed the Thagla Ridge and occupied a feature called Le, built permanent barracks as well as a helipad. This was in some way linked to the hardening of the Chinese position on the border and the new insistence on India making concessions in the Eastern sector.
An undiplomatic offensive
I recall accompanying Ambassador K.P.S. Menon to lodge a protest with the then Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister and being witness to a most undiplomatic offensive and vituperative harangue by the latter. He claimed that China was, of course, on its own territory, that it was only "strengthening border management" after the neglect of recent years and that India would be prudent not to over-react. Soon thereafter I was transferred from Beijing to Tokyo, but en route in Delhi I attended a strategy session called to discuss our counter moves. There was, I admit, a reluctance to take any military counter measures. However a couple of weeks later I learnt that the then Army Chief, Sundarji, had airlifted troops and occupied the parallel ridge, known by the peaks Lurongla, Hathungla and Sulunga , overlooking the Sumdorung river. Two forward posts, Jaya and Negi, were set up across the river just below the ridge and only 10 metres from a Chinese forward post. The Chinese were taken completely by surprise as perhaps were our own political leaders. The then External Affairs Minister, N.D. Tiwari, was transiting Beijing on his way back from Pyong Yang after attending the Non-Aligned Coordination Bureau meeting that September, to try and assuage Chinese anger. I was accompanying him en route to Tokyo having been deputed to Pyong Yang to assist our delegation. Senior Chinese Foreign Ministry officials were at hand at the airport to receive our delegation. In the brief exchange that took place at the airport, our Minister’s protestations of peace and goodwill were met with the not unreasonable comment that while our leaders were talking peace they were making aggressive military moves on the ground at the same time. China would only be satisfied if Indian troops vacated the ridge they had occupied. China would not be fooled; it would "listen to what is said, but see what action is taken."In later talks we agreed to vacate the heights on our side if the Chinese retreated behind the Thagla ridge, but since they were not ready to do so, we stayed put as well.
While we may not have planned it this way, the Chinese judged our actions through their own prism: that we had countered their unexpected move by a well orchestrated counter move of our own. Subsequently, I am told, that the offensive and overbearing tone adopted by Chinese Foreign Ministry officials also changed to being more polite and civilized The next several years were spent in the two sides discussing disengagement in this sector and finally in 1992, the eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation was ended and a number of confidence-building measures adopted. The lesson to be drawn is not that we should be militarily provocative but that we should have enough capabilities deployed to convince the other side that aggressive moves would invite counter moves. This is the reason why it is so important for us to speed up the upgradation of our border infrastructure and communication links along all our borders, not just with China.
Chinese perceptions
Currently, there are two strands in Chinese perceptions about India. There are strong, lingering attitudes that dismiss India’s claim as a credible power and regard its great power aspirations as "arrogance" and as being an unrealistic pretension. The other strand, also visible in scholarly writings and in the series of leadership summits that have taken place at regular intervals, is recognition that India’s economic, military and scientific and technological capabilities are on the rise, even if they do not match China. India is valued as an attractive market for Chinese products at a time when traditional markets in the West are flat. China is also respectful of India’s role in multilateral fora, where on several global issues Indian interests converge with China.
I have personal experience of working closely and most productively with Chinese colleagues in the UN Climate Change negotiations and our trade negotiators have found the Chinese valuable allies in WTO negotiations. In such settings the Chinese comfortably defer to the Indian leadership. I have also found that on issues of contention, there is reluctance to confront India directly, the effort usually being to encourage other countries to play a proxy role in frustrating Indian diplomacy. This was clearly visible during the Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting in Vienna in 2008, when China did not wish to be the only country to oppose the waiver for India in nuclear trade, as it could have since the Group functions by consensus.
China may have refused to engage India in any dialogue on nuclear or missile issues, but that does not mean that Indian capabilities in this regard go unnoticed or their implications for Chinese security are ignored. It is in the maritime sphere that China considers Indian capabilities to possess the most credibility and as affecting Chinese security interests. These two strands reflect an ambivalence about India’s emergence — dismissive on the one hand, and a wary, watchful and occasionally respectful posture on the other. Needless to say, it is what trajectory India itself traverses in its economic and social development that will mostly influence Chinese perception about the country.
Impact of Indo-US ties
Additionally, how India manages its relations with other major powers, in particular, the United States, would also be a factor. My own experience has been that the closer India-US relations are seen to be, the more amenable China has proved to be. I do not accept the argument that a closer India-US relationship leads China to adopt a more negative and aggressive posture towards India. The same is true of India’s relations with countries like Japan, Indonesia and Australia, who have convergent concerns about Chinese dominance of the East Asian theatre. I also believe that it is a question of time before similar concerns surface in Russia as well. India should be mindful of this in maintaining and consolidating its already friendly, but sometimes, sketchy relations with Russia. The stronger India’s links are with these major powers, the more room India would have in its relations with China.
It would be apparent from my presentation that India and China harbour essentially adversarial perceptions of each other. This is determined by geography as well as by the growth trajectories of the two countries. China is the one power which impinges most directly on India’s geopolitical space. As the two countries expand their respective economic and military capabilities and their power radiates outwards from their frontiers, they will inevitably intrude into each other’s zone of interest, what has been called "over-lapping peripheries". It is not necessary that this adversarial relationship will inevitably generate tensions or, worse, another military conflict, but in order to avoid that India needs to fashion a strategy which is based on a constant familiarity with Chinese strategic calculus , the changes in this calculus as the regional and global landscape changes and which is, above all, informed by a deep understanding of Chinese culture, the psyche of its people and how these, too, are undergoing change in the process of modernisation. Equally we should endeavour to shape Chinese perceptions through building on the positives and strengthening collaboration on convergent interests, which are not insignificant. One must always be mindful of the prism through which China interprets the world around it and India’s place in that world. It is only through such a complex and continuing exercise that China’s India challenge can be dealt with.
The writer is a former Foreign
Secretary. The article has been
excerpted from the second annual
"K. Subrahmanyam Memorial
Lecture" he delivered in Delhi
on August 29, 2012.