Chinese troops intrude in Ladakh: a coincidence?

Gen Zhang Yang in Ngari

Xinhua has just reported that General Zhang Yang, a former member of the Central Military Commission’s (CMC) and the boss of the CMC’s Political Work Department, committed suicide last week.
The South China Morning Post said that a source close to the former Guangzhou Military Command confirmed that Zhang hanged himself at his home in Beijing on the morning of November 23: “the news of his death had been relayed to all People’s Liberation Army theatre commands."
Later Xinhua confirmed the circumstances of his death.
Zhang was apparently linked to former disgraced CMC vice-chairmen Guo Boxiong and Xu Caihou who have been sentence for “serious disciplinary violations” in other words, corruption.

A couple of months back, I posted the following comments:

Yesterday while announcing the appointment of new PLA Army and Air Force Chiefs, Han Weiguo and Ding Laihang respectively, The Nikei in Tokyo pointed out:

[about] the rest of the 11-member Central Military Commission, Gen Fang Fenghui, Li's predecessor as head of the Joint Staff Department, and General Political Department chief Gen Zhang Yang were reportedly arrested in late August on suspicion of ‘disciplinary violations’. The allegations are believed to involve graft, though details have not been disclosed.

The Japanese newspaper added:

Though such arrests are extremely unusual, the two officers are not the only Central Military Commission members ensnared in Xi's anti-corruption campaign. Guo Boxiong and Xu Caihou, both loyal to former President Jiang Zemin, were previously ousted over bribery allegations. Fang and Zhang reportedly had close ties to Guo and Xu, respectively.

Reuters asserted that during his monthly news briefing, Defence Ministry spokesman Ren Guoqiang declined to comment on Fang, who turns 67 next year, usually around the age at which Chinese officials retire.
It is getting hot in Beijing.

I re-post here a piece posted in September 2015 about Gen Zhang Yang on the Indian border.

September 13, 2015
Was it a coincidence?
Just the day before the new stand-off between the Indian and Chinese defence forces in Ladakh started, a senior member of the Chinese Central Military Commission visited the region.
Let us look at the facts.
As it already happened before the visit of Premier Li Keqiang to India in April/May 2013 and also as President Xi Jinping arrived in Ahmedabad in September 2014, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) intruded on India’s territory.
The face-off is currently happening in Burtse area, a few miles east of Daulat Beg Oldie (DBO), where the 2013 confrontation occurred.
According to The Times of India, “the bone of contention is a surveillance structure being erected by the PLA very close to the Line of Actual Control (LAC).”
The Indo-Tibetan Border Police apparently objected to the construction of the structure and, with the help of the Army, stopped the PLA.
Subsequently, the PLA called for reinforcements, followed by a massing of more Indian forces in the area.
The Times of India said: “The two forces are still locked in an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation and efforts are being made to defuse the situation.”

General Zhang Yang 'inspects' a farm in Ngari

The Coincidence
On September 9 and 10, a member of the all-powerful Central Military Commission visited Ngari Prefecture, which borders Ladakh, in Western Tibet. General Zhang Yang was in Tibet to ‘celebrate’ the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Tibetan Autonomous Region.
At the end of the main function held in Lhasa, the ‘Central’ delegation divided itself into different groups. As mentioned in a previous post, Yu Zhengsheng went to Shigatse and visited the Tashilhunpo.
Vice-Premier Liu Yandong went to Shannan (Lhoka) Prefecture, while Jampa Phuntsok ‘inspected’ Nagchu. Another ‘sub-delegation’ led by Du Qinglin, Vice-chairman of the CPPCC, went to Nyingchi.
General Zhang Yang headed for a two-day tour of Ngari Prefecture. He went to convey the ‘loving care’ and the ‘deep feeling’ of the CPC Central Committee, the State Council, and the Military Commission to the ‘cadres and masses of all nationalities’.
Note that ‘of all nationalities’, just means ‘Tibetans’.

Like his colleagues, General Zhang brought along a banner carrying President Xi’s words, ‘Strengthen National Unity and Construct a Beautiful Tibet’.
Zhang was accompanied by Lt. Gen. Xu Yong, commander of the Tibet Military District.
Speaking at the main function in Lhasa, Lt Gen. Xu Yong had, a day earlier, declared that after 50 years of vicissitudes, with the region's rapid economic development and social progress, the living standards of the masses’ have markedly improved and social stability has overall been sustained: “During these 50 years in the same boat, the troops stationed in Tibet and police staff always depended on the Party's to write the bloody battles to defend Tibet, carve a new chapter the history of Tibet.”
What does General Xu refer to, when he speaks of ‘bloody battles’? It is not clear. The 1962 conflict with India?
Xu lavishly praised his boss, CMC's Chairman Xi: “All the troops stationed in Tibet and police officers must resolutely obey the Central Military Commission and Chairman Xi command; conscientiously implement the Sixth Tibet Work Forum’s spirit; vigorously carry forward the heritage of the ‘Old Tibet Spirit’ and faithfully fulfill our mission of responsibility,… and make new and greater contributions for the great prosperity of the motherland and border stability.”
Nothing new!
Also in the delegation, was Wang Yongjun of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI). A year ago, WantChinaTimes had reported that the CCDI’s boss, Wang Qishan had started ‘parachuting’ CCDI officials into key posts around China in order to strengthen the party's anti-graft campaign and bring new blood to certain regions.
In January, 2014, Wang Yongjun, formerly deputy dean of the China Discipline Inspection and Supervision Institute was transferred to head the Tibet regional branch of the dreaded (by the corrupts) CCDI.
The Political Commissar of the Tibet Armed Police Corps, Xiao Tang was also in attendance in Ngari.

Meeting the 'masses'

After the customary photo sessions with the ‘cadres and the masses’, (i.e. herders, farmers, toilers, etc.), the General who also heads the PLA’s Political Department, stressed “the need to thoroughly study and implement the spirit of the important speech Xi Jinping, in particular, his speech at the Sixth Work Forum and implement the good advices given by Yu Zhengsheng during the 50th anniversary function.”
He concluded, “seize the opportunity, work hard and continue to strive.”
This is the usual stuff.
But during his visit to Ngari, General Zhang Yang and his delegation “made a special trip to lay a wreath on the revolutionary martyrs’ cemetery.”
Which martyrs? 1962 again?
And perhaps more importantly, one line in the local press mentions that Zhang 'visited the troops'.
Was the 'political' general informed that the PLA was planning to build a structure in an area considered by India to be within her territory?
If Zhang was not informed, the PLA has a serious problem of command.
If he was informed, it is a serious issue for India.

PS: By the way, where was Lt. Gen. Peng Yong, the commander of the Xinjiang Military District, who looks after Ngari area?  Can a Yong (Xu) replace a Yong (Peng)?

Faking the Fake

The New Chinese Lhasa

Gyaltsen Norbu, the Panchen Lama nominated by the Communist Party of China (CPC) has recently been in the news. The Global Times said that young Lama accused vendors on Taobao, an online shopping website affiliated to the Alibaba Group “of selling artworks that are falsely attributed to him.”
He asked the public not to buy these items.
In a WeChat post, the 27-year-old Tibetan Lama, himself considered ‘fake’ by the Tibetans in exile, said that “all calligraphy being sold on the e-commerce platform bearing his name are fake.”
The Panchen Lama said he himself discovered that a dozen Taobao vendors were selling such works.
He had done a keyword search for his own name.
Incidentally, he probably did not find the name of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the boy recognized by the Dalai Lama as the ‘real’ Panchen Lama, who is languishing in ‘house arrest’ for 22 years; Gedhun’s name, like the Dalai Lama’s is strictly banned in China.
The ‘fake’ Panchen Lama wrote: "None of them are my authentic artworks, please don't buy them.”
The Chinese media claims that Gyaltsen Norbu is known for his calligraphy skills: “Since childhood, he spends an hour each day practicing the art both in Chinese and Tibetan”, reported Tibet.cn.
All items were apparently later removed from the website.
The South China Morning Post (SCMP), also belonging to the Alibaba Group, picked up the story: “Senior Tibetan Buddhist leader found dozens of shops on Taobao selling counterfeit calligraphy and paintings.”
The article, quoting a regional government’s official, asserts: “A top religious leader in Tibet has accused dozens of shops on Alibaba’s Taobao e-commerce platform of selling counterfeit art bearing his name.”
The SCMP affirms that the Panchen Lama is the second-highest figure in Tibet’s spiritual hierarchy,  giving some recognition to Gyalstsen Norbu.
The Hong Kong paper explains: “Tibetan Buddhism has become increasingly popular in China in recent years, especially among upper-middle class people.”
More popular than the Communist Party with its 89 millions adherents?
Certainly!
At the end of the article, it is admitted: “The Dalai Lama, the Tibetan spiritual leader who lives in exile in Dharamsala, India, opposed Beijing’s selection and proposed a different candidate as the 11th Panchen Lama. That boy, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, was taken into custody by the Chinese government and has not been seen in public since May 1995.”

The Regulations for reincarnations
On November 24, 2017, the website en.tibetol.cn reported that the Lama “together with over 60 Tibetan Buddhists from the High-level Tibetan Buddhism College of China and the Lama Temple attended the Exhibition on the Reincarnation System of Living Buddhas held by Tibetan Culture Museum in Beijing.”
Apparently, the CPC suddenly acquired a great knowledge in the ‘reincarnation’ process?
Could it be called ‘atheist reincarnations’?
Or is it simply ‘political’ reincarnations?
We are told by the website: “The exhibition was held to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the implementation of the Regulations on the Reincarnation System of Living Buddhas in Tibetan Buddhism.”
Living Buddhas is the name given to reincarnated lamas, usually known as tulkus or rinpoches.
One remembers that in 2007, the State Council had published ‘Regulations’ to be able to control the reincarnation of the next Dalai Lama (for example, the 'regulations' assert that all Living Buddhas should be recognized by the Party).
The website says: “The exhibition highlighted the history of the reincarnation system of living Buddhas and the religious rituals of the reincarnation of Dalai and Panchen Lamas.”
I mentioned on this blog the ‘fake’ recognition ceremony of Gyaltsen Norbu.
According to the website, the Chinese Panchen Lama declared that the Living Buddhas “have not only gained high accomplishments in religion but also made great contribution to the unity of the country and the prosperity and security of the contemporary society.”
‘Contribution to the unity of the country’ refers to the time when Tibet was an independent nation and Tibet was not ‘unified’. But it is probably true that some lamas collaborated with the Communist Party in the 1950’s to ‘unify’ the country.
According to Gyaltsen Norbu: “The implementation of the ‘Regulations’ safeguards the inheritance of the reincarnation system.”
He urged the new generation of Living Buddhas “to protect the unity and solidarity of the country and guide the religion suitable to the socialist society.”
Once again, the ‘unity’ of China is emphasized.


Commercialization of religion
On November 24, 2017, another article in the SCMP mentions that Beijing has decided to ban “commercialisation of Buddhist and Taoist activities.” This is seen as a move to tighten the Party’s grip on religion believes the Hong Kong paper: “The State Administration for Religious Affairs and 11 other departments rolled out measures to step up governance over commercialisation of the two religions in a 10-point directive which will be implemented by local governments across the nation.:
According to the Xinhua news agency, issues such the “commercialising the two religions are a key public concern.”
One of the problems of the Communist State today is that there are more and more followers of the Buddha in the Middle Kingdom. It is not the case for the followers of the Communist Party.
The new regulation says: “All commercial investment in Buddhism and Taoism is prohibited under the directive, with the basis that their temples are non-profit in nature. The religions are important in Chinese culture and society and some of the country’s most popular tourist attractions revolve around centuries-old Buddhist and Taoist temples.”
Interestingly, the local Party cadres have specifically been requested to stop “promoting and profiting from religious activities in the name of fostering economic development.”
Karl Marx was probably right: religion is the Opium of the People, more so in today’s China.
The commercialization regulations order: “Investing in or contracting out the operation of temples or other religious venues is also banned, along with any other profit-making activities associated with the two religions. Temples in scenic spots cannot overcharge tourists for entry, while they are banned from building any new large outdoor religious statues. Existing ones will also be under scrutiny.”
According to the SCMP, these measures will be protecting the religions …while maintaining social stability. The latter rationale is probably the most important because religion in China becomes more and more a concurrent of the Communist Party despite the fact that the 19th Congress has promoted Marx’ religion on a grand scale.
Further the Regulations say that any revenues gained from religious operations should be used for charity and maintenance purposes only, and religious groups must follow a standard taxation, banking and accounting system.
It seems that it has not been the case in the past: “commercialisation could be destructive for Buddhism and Taoism, disrupt normal religious activities and breed corruption.”
In the meantime, the Dalai Lama recently declared in Kolkata that he does seek independence from China: “The past is past. We will have to look into the future. We are not seeking independence... We want to stay with China. We want more development."
However, it is not clear what does it practically means in the present circumstances.
What would be, for example, the relation between the ‘fake’ Panchen Lama and the Dalai Lama, in case Beijing accepts the Dalai Lama’s plea.
His ‘return’ would certainly raise many many more such questions.
To paraphrase Zhou Enlai, it is obvious that: “Time is not ripe for settlement.”
But in the former Chinese Premier’s case, he was referring to the border dispute with China.
That was in 1954.

Rules of play: Avoid unnecessary reactions

My article Rules of play: Avoid unnecessary reactions appeared on Thursday in the Edit Page of The Pioneer

Here is the link...

Post the Doklam stand-off, one may think that a new page in Sino-Indian relations has been turned. But unless China drops ‘unrealistic' claims on the boundary, no progress can be made

The next round of border talks between India and China is expected to be held in Delhi next month. Other bilateral issues may also be discussed when the Special Representatives, Ajit Doval, the National Security Advisor meets the Chinese State Councillor Yang Jiechi. Doval will probably first congratulate Yang, who has recently been promoted to the Chinese Communist Party’s Politburo. It will be the first encounter between the two countries after President Xi Jinping’s election for a second term and the 20th round of border talks, four months after the end of the 73-day long Doklam stand-off at the trijunction between Sikkim, Tibet and Bhutan.
While the Indian Press has been restrained about the forthcoming talks, it has not always been the case for China. The sharp tongue of Hua Chunying, one of the spokespersons of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, did not help smoothen passions during the Doklam episode. One still remembers the bad names she gave to Doval, Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, the then Defence Minister or the Army Chief.
Though some commentators are ‘cooler’, it is not the case for all. Qian Feng, an expert at the Chinese Association for South Asian Studies told The Global Times: “The talks, coming months after the stand-off, will put managing a crisis on the top agenda as future disputes remain possible, and both sides need to manage the disputes and avoid confrontation.”
One may think that a new page in the Sino-Indian relations is turned but some Chinese ‘experts’ remain extremely aggressive. The same Chinese tabloid quoted Hu Zhiyong of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences’ Institute of International Relations; he said: “India should also be more realistic and show more sincerity in maintaining the fragile ties that returned to normal after the BRICS Summit in September. …If India refuses to make a deal on the issues and continues to send senior officials to the disputed border, the talks will not yield tangible results.”
What does ‘realistic’ mean? To accept China’s stand on the tri-junction in the Doklam area or in Ladakh? The tabloid specifically mentioned Arunachal Pradesh: “Indian Defense Minister Nirmala Sitharaman visited the South Tibet area (which India calls Arunachal Pradesh) to inspect defense preparedness.”
Unless China drops these ‘unrealistic’ claims on the boundary, no progress can be made. The question is: Why create an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion before the talks start. Probably, China is not interested to see any progress in the border talks. Further having disowned the 2012 agreement that the status quo at the tri-junction should be maintained till a solution is agreed between Bhutan, India and China, Beijing feels that the best form of defense is aggression.
About her visit to some border posts in Arunachal Pradesh, Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman rightly (and politely) said the North-Eastern State is Indian territory and the country is not concerned about someone else’s opinion on it. China had objected to Sitharaman’s first visit to the border state, saying her tour of the ‘disputed area’ was not conducive to peace in the region.
“What is the problem? There is no problem. It is our territory, we will go there,” Sitharam told a media person.
Another unnecessary reaction of the Chinese media: After The Economic Times reported that India plans to construct 17 highway tunnels totaling 100 kilometers along the line of actual control, The Global Times bitterly complained. The party mouthpiece quoted Xie Chao, an ‘expert’ at Tsinghua University’s Department of International Relations, who said that “boosting border infrastructure has been Indian’s consistent policy.” A poor joke, when one knows the reality.
Another ‘expert’, Zhao Gancheng, director of the Center for Asia-Pacific Studies at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies stated that “the tunnel building along the border is a further fermentation after the Doklam stand-off.”  He reiterated China’s baloney stand: “On June 18, Indian troops illegally crossed the border and trespassed into Chinese territory in Doklam.”
Fermentation or not, India is decades behind China in the field of border infrastructure, but Zhao dared to criticise India in The Global Times: “Although some Indian senior officials made a friendly gesture toward China after the stand-off, India has pursued its previous policy along the border — developing infrastructure as well as troop mobility.”
The communist mouthpiece commented; “The Indian Government is playing two cards over the border issue, the situation of which will be a ‘new normal’ for the China-India border.” Xie Chao warned: “It is the Chinese Government’s responsibility to safeguard border safety and China won’t take the initiative to seek military force to tackle border problems. But a balanced force along the border will make China cope with the tensions.”
Is it not double standards? While India is far behind China which develops infrastructure at a swift pace, the slightest improvement on the Indian side is condemned by Beijing and its ‘experts’ as an aggressive move. All this was before the ‘Quads’ meet on the side of the Asean meet in Manila. Officials from the US, India, Australia and Japan met, raising the possibility of a bloc to counter-balance China’s fast-paced strategic expansion.
It might be an occasion for the Chinese spokespersons and ‘experts’ to complain, with a reason. Already a week earlier, Hu Zhiyong had said to The Global Times: “The US and Japan are stepping up their efforts to cozy up to India as a balance to China, which gives India more ‘confidence’ to play tricks behind China’s back on the border issue.”
Hu further asserted: “However, the US is merely fooling India and its real intention is to increase weapons sales to the country, and India should be more realistic in that China will not lose if a military conflict erupts after another border dispute.”
Now, Beijing has something concrete to whine about. The South China Morning Post gave the background: “The idea of the quadrilateral security initiative of ‘like-minded’ democracies was first raised by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in 2007, but wary of their relations with China, India and Australia hesitated to take part initially.”
The Hong Kong newspaper added: “Analysts said the Quad meeting was not a coincidence given that Trump appeared keen to promote his Indo-Pacific concept as the cornerstone of his Asia strategy and worked hard to strengthen ties with its allies and partners, including India and Vietnam, to counterbalance China.”
Immediately, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang reacted saying that regional cooperation should neither be politicised nor exclusionary. During his meeting with Prime Minister Modi, President Trump also mentioned regional security and he pledged to boost bilateral trade and security ties. Modi would have told Trump that India-US ties were becoming broader and deeper. “You too can feel that India-US ties can work together beyond the interest of India, for the future of Asia and for the welfare of the humanity in the world.”

EU's defence partnership has lessons for India

My article EU's defence partnership has lessons for India appeared in Mail Today/DailyO.
Here is the link...

New Delhi must find strategic partners to prepare for tomorrow.

One man, Jean Monnet, has been central to the creation of the European Union. He had the vision to propose certain basic principles which became the bedrock of the multi-national institution. At the end of World War II, as Europe was going through one of the most traumatic periods, he created the "circumstances" under which a successful partnership could take shape.
The first principle on which Monnet worked was: Any association, partnership or union should be built among equals. Though at the end of World War II, Germany was the loser, from the first days of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), France and its neighbour acted as equals. This principle remained to date.

Principle
Another principle set by Monnet and his colleagues is that the association should be voluntary. In the summer of 1950, Monnet thought of an organised European defence on a supranational basis; he presented his proposal to René Pleven, the French Prime Minister. Pleven proposed to his European partners the plan to constitute a European army of 100,000 men (including German soldiers) which would operate under a European minister for defence, endowed with a common budget and placed under the supreme command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
In 1954, the European partners failed to agree to the European Defence Community (EDC); the loss of the national "independence" was probably a step too far, too early.
It would have been a first if independent states had agreed to create a supranational authority to which part of their national sovereignty was delegated. It had worked for the ECSC in 1951; and with the Treaty of Rome in 1957, it had gone a step further with the creation of supranational European institutions like the European Economic Community and the European Community for Atomic Energy; however, Europeans nations were not yet ready to trust their partners for their own defence.
Sixty-three years later, most of the EU states have agreed to create "the nucleus of a joint army". On November 13, 23 out of 28 EU member states signed a declaration in Brussels, which will become legally binding at an EU summit next month. Britain (which has historically opposed the EDC), Denmark, Ireland, Malta, and Portugal did not sign.
The EU’s foreign relations commissioner, Federica Mogherini, spoke of an "emotional moment"; she said that the move will help "dismantle the ghosts of the past" and demonstrate that "the taboo concerning EU defence could be broken". She added: “This could be an inspiration for other areas of EU integration.”
For those who have followed the European integration with its ups and downs, it is an elating moment, though it did not make the first pages of the world media. It is indeed revolutionary. According to the new agreement, the European nations will jointly manage a rapid reaction force and jointly develop new equipment. A single European logistics and medical support hub will be created. The participants will be bound to increase defence funds for R&D. A single hub for overseas military training missions will also be set up.
Some see this development as a reaction to an inward turn of the United States under President Donald Trump, but also the instability at Europe’s gates as well as the increasing number of Islamist terrorist attacks.

Project
The final project is less ambitious than some EU states, such as France and Italy, had wanted; but it is a promising beginning. Mogherini explained the rationale behind the move in simple words: “The world is changing.” Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO boss, meanwhile, considered the project "good for Europe and good for NATO".
French President Emmanuel Macron, whose visit to India has been postponed for a couple of months, in September, called for a "profound transformation" of the EU, requiring “deeper political integration to win back the support of disgruntled citizens.” He even suggested blocs moving forward at differing speeds which may help the UK to “one day find its place again”. Macron pleaded for the EU to return to its founders’ "visionary" ideas, “born out of the disaster of two World Wars”.

Collaboration
This comes at a time when Airbus Defence and Space (DS), itself the outcome of a close European collaboration, announced the concept of a new fifth-generation fighter plane which could replace the Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault’s Rafale in the 2040s. Antoine Noguier, DS’s strategy head, affirmed: “Germany and France have taken the decision to develop a new combat aircraft to maintain sovereign and European capabilities.”
Florence Parly, the French minister of armed forces, who was recently in Delhi, commented on the European structure: “What France wished, it is the possibility to develop a strategic structure, common to all the States, which would have the capacity to intervene in extremely rapid conditions.”
In other words, joint operations.
A less ambitious German project ultimately prevailed. “Structured and permanent cooperation, as inclusive as possible”, it will have more chance to succeed.
The creation of the new European defence structure is a ground-breaking move, not only in terms of European defence, but also in the field of research and development. We could tomorrow see a new European aircraft carrier, new European drones or a breakthrough in quantum communication.
The French say, "l’Union fait la force" (union makes you strong). India should watch the happenings in Europe and definitively learn from it in terms of collaboration. The time has come for Delhi to find reliable strategic partners to prepare for tomorrow.

Look West again, towards Paris

My article Look West again, towards Paris appeared last week in The Asian Age/Deccan Chronicle

Here is the link...

A PMO release said Prime Minister Modi appreciated “the invaluable contribution” of business leaders from both countries.

The Narendra Modi government is well aware that it needs to diversify its diplomatic relations if it wants to play a major role in the world. While the Indian media regularly covers the “Look East” or “Act East” vision, which translates into closer contacts with nations like Japan, Vietnam and Australia, “Look and Act West” is often overlooked. Perhaps it’s happening in a more discreet manner, such as in the case of relations with France.
Besides the recent visit of French defence minister Florence Parly and the forthcoming visit of foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian (seen as a precursor to the visit of French President Emmanuel Macron to India in the second week of December), the last few weeks have seen important visitors, putting Indo-French ties on a new launchpad towards deeper collaboration in several fields.
In September, the president of the Movement of the Enterprises of France (MEDEF), Pierre Gattaz, visited India. MEDEF is the largest French employers’ federation, representing over 800,000 member-companies. Known as “boss of the bosses” (patron des patrons), Mr Gattaz was accompanied by a 60-member delegation to “help India innovate and create jobs with expertise in infrastructure, renewable energy, waste and water treatment and smart cities”.
The delegation toured New Delhi, Mumbai and Bengaluru, where it met government officials and business groups like Ficci and CII. In Bengaluru, Mr Gattaz asserted: “We want to be in India for the next 30 years and become one of the best partners in India’s development path. India needs the skills and expertise that French businesses can provide. Our objective is to create one million jobs a month in India.”
A PMO release said Prime Minister Modi appreciated “the invaluable contribution” of business leaders from both countries.
A few days later, the diplomatic adviser to the French President and the NSA’s counterpart, Philippe Etienne, visited New Delhi. On October 4, at his meeting with the PM, Mr Etienne briefed Mr Modi “on the strengthening ties between India and France in all sectors, including in the areas of defence and security”. At this meeting, Mr Modi fondly recalled his successful visit to France in June 2017. He told his interlocutor that defence and security were the two important pillars of the India-France partnership.
Mr Modi had paid a short visit to Paris on June 3 to acquaint himself with Mr Macron. The talks between the two leaders mainly centered around the Paris Conference on the environment as US President Donald Trump had just announced American withdrawal from the Paris Accord.
Speaking afterwards, Mr Modi declared that the Paris climate deal reflects “our duty towards protecting the mother earth and our natural resources. For us, protection of the environment is an article of faith”. Perhaps more important, a “current of understanding” had passed between the two leaders.
The recent visit of Ms Parly must be seen in this perspective: a special relationship, which already works, needs to bloom further. Of course, it includes the field of defence, particularly selling more Rafale combat planes, which is on the table, at least, for the French and the Indian Air Force.
Before the visit, a national newspaper noted: “After selling 36 Rafale fighter jets to India for $8.7 billion (`58,000 crores) last year, the French government is now pushing for a project to manufacture warplanes in India to give a boost to Prime Minister Modi’s push to encourage local manufacturing under ‘Make in India’.”
A defence ministry official said though Ms Parly’s visit “is aimed towards strengthening defence cooperation, offering a production line in India for Rafale jets will surely be on the cards”. It is not known if this was discussed between Ms Parly and defence minister Nirmala Sitharaman, but it is significant that the French minister travelled to Nagpur to launch a joint production facility between Dassault Aviation and Reliance to fulfil the Rafale deal’s offset obligation. Around Rs 20,000 crores need to be invested by the French. Ms Parly, along with Dassault Aviation chairman Eric Trappier and Reliance ADAG chairman Anil Ambani, laid the foundation stone of an aerospace park for manufacture of aircraft components.
The Dhirubhai Ambani Aerospace Park (DAAP), being set up in Nagpur’s Mihaan Special Economic Zone, will spread over 289 acres. It is due to be the largest greenfield aerospace project in India. The Dassault–Reliance Joint Venture (JV) has already shortlisted a large number of vendors, mostly small and medium-sized enterprises, to be part of an indigenous supply chain for the Rafales. Its objective is to build a strong base for the success of the Rafale programme under the “Make In India” scheme. According to an official: “The production at the facility is expected to start in the first quarter of 2018 and phase one will be fully operational by the third quarter of 2018.”
The strengthening of Indo-French relations will greatly depend on the success of this JV. Another “test”, a difficult one at that, has been the collaboration for the construction of six Scorpene submarines at Mazagon Dock in Mumbai. When asked by a reporter about France joining the Indian Navy’s project (Project-75-India) for the six new-generation submarines, Ms Parly said that the French naval group (DCNS) had proposed “a new submarine design and the associated weapons systems which are perfectly adapted to the high ambitions of the Indian Navy and incorporate cutting-edge technologies”.
Talking about the Scorpene experience, she remarked: “We already have in-depth experience of cooperation with Indian industry to build modern and effective submarines in India.” About the massive leak of confidential data in the Scorpene submarine project in Australia, she quoted Mr Macron and Mr Modi, who had said: “This matter is now behind us.”
Let us hope so.
Beyond these experiences in concretely working together, one can hope that Mr Macron’s encounter with Mr Modi in December will give a new impetus to a grand “Act West” policy.
It would also make economic and strategic sense for India to partner with France in more futuristic research projects like a fifth-generation plane or an armed drone.
Mr Modi spoke to Ms Parly about “greater cooperation in the ‘Make in India’ framework in defence manufacturing and joint research and development”. It would be beneficial not just for India, but for France as well as it would get the crucial financial support and market. Such a faraway possibility is worth thinking about.

Why Vallabhbhai Patel strongly opposed Nehru's 'suicidal policy' of appeasement over China and Tibet

My article Why Vallabhbhai Patel strongly opposed Nehru's 'suicidal policy' of appeasement over China and Tibet appeared in Mail Today/Daily Mail (UK)

Here is the link...

For several reasons, scarce scholarly research has been done on the internal history of the Congress; the main cause is probably that a section of the party would prefer to keep the history under wrap.
Take the acute difference of opinion between Sardar Patel, the Deputy Prime Minister and ‘Panditji’, how Nehru was then called by Congressmen.
In the last weeks of Patel’s life (he passed away on December 15, 1950) there was a deep split between the two leaders, leading to unilateral decisions, for which India had to pay the heaviest price.
The most serious apple of discord was Tibet’s invasion by the Chinese ‘Liberation Army’ in October of 1950. In the course of recent researches in the Indian archives, I discovered several new facts. Not only several senior Congress leaders, led by Patel, violently opposed Nehru suicidal policy, but many senior bureaucrats too, did not agree with the Prime Minister’s decisions and objected to his policy of appeasement, which lead India to lose a peaceful border.
It is usually assumed that on November 7, Sardar Patel wrote a ‘prophetic’ letter to Nehru, detailing the implications for India of Tibet’s invasion. In fact, Patel used a draft given by Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai, the Secretary General of the Ministry of External Affairs and Commonwealth.
A month after the entry of the People’s Liberation Army in Tibet, Patel sent Bajpai’s note under his own signature, to Nehru, who decided to ignore thes Deputy Prime Minister’s letter. Bajpai, the most seasoned Indian diplomat, even lost his cool, witnessing the nefarious influence of KM Panikkar, the Indian Ambassador to China, who ceaselessly defended the Chinese interests.
On October 31, in an internal note, Bajpai detailed the sequence of events which followed Tibet’s invasion and the role of Panikkar, whose attitude was compared to the one of Sir Neville Hendersons toward Hitler.
Bajpai’s anger demonstrates the frustration of many senior officers; the account starts on July 15, when the Governor of Assam informed Delhi that, according to the information received by the local Intelligence Bureau, Chinese troops, “in unknown strength, had been moving towards Tibet from three directions, namely the north, north-east and south-east.” Mao was preparing to invade Tibet. The IB had reported that “one column was moving from Jyekundo in Qinghai Province, the second one from Derge in the Sikang [Eastern Tibet] Province. …The third column, which came from the Yunnan Province, had reached the Shukla Pass.”
Not only Panikkar was unable to get any confirmation, but he virtually justified Beijing’s military action by writing: “in view of frustration in regard to Formosa, Tibetan move was not unlikely.”
During the next three months, the Indian Ambassador would systematically take the Chinese side.
Sir Girja, Panikkar’s direct boss, became more and more frustrated with the Ambassador who reported to ‘Panditji’ only; after the Tibetans lost Chamdo, the capital of Kham province, Panikkar argued: “I should like to emphasise that the Chinese firmly hold that Tibet is purely an internal problem and that while they are prepared in deference to our wishes to settle question peacefully they are NOT prepared to postpone matters indefinitely.” Beijing was hinting that the Tibetans were been ready to seat at the negotiating table. It was a pure lie.
After receiving Bajpai’s note, Patel wrote back: “I need hardly say that I have read it with a great deal of interest and profit to myself and it has resulted in a much better understanding of the points at issue and general though serious nature of the problem. The Chinese advance into Tibet upsets all our security calculations. …I entirely agree with you that a reconsideration of our military position and a redisposition of our forces are inescapable.”
Bajpai then prepared a draft for Patel to write to Nehru.
Some more details of the seriousness of the situation filter through Inside Story of Sardar Patel: The Diary of Maniben Patel, the daughter of the Sardar.
An entry on October 30 shows Patel deeply disturbed by Nehru constantly interfering in his ministry: “Jawaharlalji now trying to interfere in States' Ministry! If he has no confidence, why doesn't he tell Bapu [Patel] directly to quit,” writes Maniben.
The same day, Patel tells VP Menon, the Secretary of his Ministry, "You tell Rajaji that I don't want to keep the States Ministry".
On November 2, 1950, Maniben reports: “Rajaji and Jawaharlal had heated altercation about Tibet policy. Rajaji does not at all appreciate this policy. Rajaji very unhappy — Bapu did not speak at all.”
Later in the afternoon, “Munshi complained about Tibet policy. The question concerns the whole nation — said he had written a personal letter to Panditji on Tibet.”
Later Patel tells Munshi: “Rajaji, you [Munshi], I, Baldev Singh, [CD] Deshmukh, Jagjivan Ram and even Sri Prakash are on one side, while Gopalaswamy, Rafi, Maulana [Azad] on his side.”
There was a vertical split in the Cabinet; and it was not only about Tibet. The situation would deteriorate further during the following weeks.
On December 12, Patel was divested on his portfolios. Nehru wrote: “In view of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s ill-health it is absolutely necessary that he should have complete rest and freedom from worry, so as to be able to recuperate as rapidly as possible. …no work should be sent to him and no references made to him in regard to the work of these Ministries.”
Gopalaswami Ayyangar was allotted the Ministry of State and Nehru kept the Ministry of Home.
The Sardar was only informed after the changes were made. He was deeply upset. Three days later he passed away.
The question is why nobody has ever research these important historical issues.

Why all this fuss for a few Indian tunnels?

Rongme Ngatra Tunnel, stretching 13 kms on National Highway No 317

The meaning of ‘double standards’ is unknown in China.
After The Economic Times reported that India plans to construct 17 highway tunnels totaling 100 kilometers along the line of actual control, The Global Times bitterly complained.
The Party mouthpiece quoted Xie Chao, an ‘expert’ at Tsinghua University's Department of International Relations, who said that: “boosting border infrastructure has been Indian's consistent policy.”
A poor joke, when one knows the reality.
Another ‘expert’, Zhao Gancheng, director of the Center for Asia-Pacific Studies at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies stated that "the tunnel building along the border is a further fermentation after the Doklam standoff."
He reiterated China’s baloney stand: “One June 18, Indian troops illegally crossed the border and trespassed into Chinese territory in Doklam.”
Fermentation or not, India is far behind China in the field of infrastructure.
Zhao dared to tell The Global Times: “Although some Indian senior officials made a friendly gesture toward China after the standoff, India has pursued its previous policy along the border - developing infrastructure as well as troop mobility.”
The Global Times commented; “The Indian government is playing two cards over the border issue, the situation of which will be a ‘new normal’ for the China-India border.”
Xie Chao warned: "It is the Chinese government's responsibility to safeguard border safety and China won't take the initiative to seek military force to tackle border problems. But a balanced force along the border will make China cope with the tensions."
Is it not ‘double standards’?
While India is 20 or 30 years behind China is terms of development of border infrastructure, the slightest improvement on the Indian side is shown by Beijing and its ‘experts’ as an aggressive move.

Infrastructure on the Tibetan side
Just read the Chinese press, you will understand.
On October 28, China Tibet News announced that the newly-built runway of Chamdo Bangda Airport was officially put into use, “ushering in a new period of rapid growth.”
A total of 19,000 flights took off or landed at Bangda Airport; it boasts of 1.876 million passenger throughput. The new runaway will improve further the traffic: “In 2015, with a total investment of 849 million yuan [150 million US dollars], the airfield renovation project was started and it was built on 4C standard,” said the website.
Chamdo Bangda Airport has already flights to Lhasa, Chengdu, and Chongqing; soon planes will be able to fly to Tianjin, Fujian, and other Mainland cities.
At the same time, the reconstruction project of the highway from Shigatse Peace Airport to Shigatse City has begun, Shigatse will become “a comprehensive transportation hub”.
It will be an important part “for Tibet's export-oriented economic development,” said the website. Practically it will be a next stage towards opening a road and railway to Nepal.
According to China Tibet News: “After this project is completed, it will improve the regional traffic conditions and play a key role in meeting Tibet's high grade highway demand.”

On October 23, another website, China Tibet Online affirmed: “China's central government continues to increase support for infrastructure construction in southwest China's Tibet and Tibetan-inhabited areas in Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan Province, striving to break the bottleneck that constraints the social development and people's livelihood improvement in those regions.”
According to the Chinese website: “Since 2012, Tibet has opened the Lhasa-Shigatse Railway, and the Lhasa-Nyingchi Railway also enters its construction, starting a new era in railway construction. Highway distance increased from 62,500 kilometers in 2012 to 82,100 kilometers in 2016, an increase of 25.9 percent. There are 71 domestic and international air routes connecting Tibet with 41 cities.”
And the list goes on.

Developments in Tibetan-inhabited areas
The fast-track infrastructure development is not limited to the Tibetan Autonomous Region; it extends to the Tibetans-inhabited provinces.
So why this fuss for a few Indian tunnels, which will take years to materialize?
In the power fields too, giant steps are taken on the plateau.
China Tibet Online provides details on the Sichuan-Tibet Power Interconnection Project which has recently been put into operation, “eliminating serious power shortages in Chamdo City in the Tibet and the southern part of the Garze Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in southwest China's Sichuan Province. The total power installation capacity is 2.65 million kilowatts, 1.3 times more than that in 2012.”
It is said that it for the first time Tibet achieved net electric power transmission of 200 million kilowatts hour outwards.

More infrastructure in Sichuan
The same website further asserts that “Sichuan implemented two rounds of the ‘three-year transportation battle’, while completing and opening the Yading airport in the Daocheng County in Garze and the Hongyuan airport in Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture, construction on the Gesar Airport in Garze, the Chengdu-Lanzhou Railway, the Chengdu-Ya'an part of the Sichuan-Tibet Railway and the Ya'an-Kangding as well as Wenchuan-Markham Highways have also begun. At the end of 2016, the total distance of the highway in Tibetan-inhabited areas in Sichuan reached 45,200 kilometers.”
Does India complain each time, China open a dual-use airport on the plateau?

In Yunnan too
At the same time, in Yunan Province, “1,142 projects have been completed of the 1,344 major projects implemented over the last five years, and a total of 103.9 billion yuan (15.7 billion US dollars) have been invested.” While Gansu Province opened in 2013 the Xiahe Airport and the Linxia-Hezuo Highway, respectively the first civil aviation airport and the first highway in its Tibetan-habited areas, the first railway line, from Lanzhou to Hezuo, has also been under construction in 2016. There are currently 10,046 kilometers of highway, and 95 percent of villages are accessible to modern transportation in the Tibetan-inhabited areas.”
The highway coverage in Tibetan-inhabited areas of Qinghai Province reached 65,117 kilometers in 2016, increasing by 11,367 compared with 2012. The 251 townships and 1,659 villages in its Tibetan-inhabited areas are all accessible to highways.
This is not called ‘double standards’ when so-called experts complained after India struggling to provide genuine communication facilities for the border population in the Himalaya.

In the meantime, a combined army brigade under the PLA's 77th Group Army (former 13th Group Army) practiced at an altitude of 4,700 meters on the plateau area on November 7, 2017.
India is not making a fuss.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

China is reinforcing its border with India

Choekar and Yangzom wrote to Xi Jinping

My article China is reinforcing its border with India appeared in the Edit Page of The Pioneer.


Here is the link...

The Middle Kingdom is winning the trust of the locals to safeguard its border. This must worry India. But can China win over the Tibetans who have largely been sympathetic towards India?

At the end of the 19th Congress, Chinese President Xi Jinping appears to emerge the winner on most fronts. First and foremost, the 19th Congress approved an amendment to the Party Constitution, enshrining ‘Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Er’.
Though the new Central Committee and Central Commission for Discipline Inspection were more or less along the expected lines, the Politburo and the Standing Committee brought some surprises. Apart from these party issues, in his three and half hour speech, President Xi mentioned several times “border” and “minorities” areas.
Xi particularly asserted: “We will devote more energy to speeding up the development of old revolutionary base areas, areas with large ethnic minority populations, border areas, and poor areas. We will strengthen measures to reach a new stage in the large-scale development of the western region [ie  Tibet and Xinjiang].”
To start implementing his policy, the Chinese President sent a personal letter to two young Tibetan herders soon after the conclusion of the Congress. They had written to him introducing their village, north of Indian border.
According to Xinhua, Xi “encouraged a herding family in Lhuntse County, near the Himalayas in southwest China’s Tibet Autonomous Region, to set down roots in the border area, safeguard the Chinese territory and develop their hometown.”
Safeguarding China’s territory against whom? India obviously!
Xi acknowledged “the family’s efforts to safeguard the territory, and thanked them for the loyalty and contributions they have made in the border area. Without the peace in the territory, there will be no peaceful lives for the millions of families,” he wrote.
The two Tibetan girls, Choekar and Yangzom, had told the Communist Party of China’s (CCP) Secretary General about their “experiences in safeguarding the border area and the development of their township over the years.”
Interestingly, the girls’ village, Yume, is located a few kilometers north of the McMahon Line, not far from the remote Indian village of Taksing.
Xi also hoped that the girls’ family could “motivate more herders to set down roots in the border area ‘like kalsang flowers’, and become guardians of the Chinese territory and constructors of a happy hometown.”
Yume is said to be China’s smallest town in terms of population. In the years to come, Beijing will undoubtedly put pressure on India not only by using Tibetan populations living north of the McMahon Line, but also by influencing the Indian tribes south of the Line, enticing them with a better life on the Chinese side.
Can this letter from Xi Jinping be considered as an acknowledgment of the McMahon Line, as the Indo-Tibet border? From the reporting of Xinhua, it seems so. Xi clearly thanks the two herders for ‘guarding’ the border?
Already in November 2016, China Tibet Online had mentioned Yume ‘town’ on the southern slope of the Himalayas as the border area of China and India: “If driving, you had to go south 400 km from Lhasa to Lhuntse in Shannan (‘Lhoka’ for the Tibetans) City, then there was another 200 km of muddy mountain roads before you reached Yume.”
The official website asserted that “It is the least populous administrative town in China. With an area of 1976 square km, Yume has one subsidiary village, and only nine households with a total of 32 people. Yume has very few residents, but it is not impoverished, nor backward.”
The article concluded: “For a long time, there was only one family in Yume. After the Tibet Autonomous Region Government dispatched officials and doctors, built the roads, and added a power station and a medical clinic, Yume became more and more lively. In 2015, the annual average per capita disposable income in Yume was 26,000 yuan.”
On October 12, 2016, the powerful Tibetan Autonomous Party Secretary, Wu Yingjie, surprisingly landed in the area. According to The China Daily, Wu met frontier troops posted in this remote area: “[Wu] conducted a field survey on how to promote development and stabilisation of the border region, people’s livelihood, grass-root-level Party building and poverty alleviation.”
Wu told the local residents: “You defend the border areas of our country and protect our country from being nibbled or divided. I salute you.” A flag raising ceremony was held in Yume on the occasion of the party boss’ visit.
Why so much interest in this tiny border community? Just to protect the border against India?
The China Daily notes: “Frontier soldiers and local residents patrol in the township. Every resident of the township has a strong awareness of border defense and make it part of their life.”
On the other side of the McMahon line is Taksing; it is the last village in Upper Subansiri district of Arunachal Pradesh and …certainly the first place susceptible to be invaded in case the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) decides to retaliate after the recent confrontation in Doklam.
The problem is that the village still has no access road and the local inhabitants believe that it will take at least five to 10 years to see a road reaching Taksing.
It is not that nothing is happening. On April 6, 2017, the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) managed to open a new section connecting Tame Chung Chung (known as TCC) and Nacho. The inhabitants living in the TTC' vicinity had dreamed of seeing this road for decades, but like many other things for the border population, it had remained a dream.
A BRO’s communiqué explained: “The area is located in an extremely remote area with rugged terrains, thick vegetation and inhospitable weather. The place has remained inaccessible since 2009.” The road was to be opened in 2009.
As an aftershock of the Doklam incident and the subsequent ‘speeding’ up of the border projects, the TTC-Taksing road may hopefully be opened in two years.
In October 2014, The Deccan Chronicle reported that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) had been focusing on the Taksing area: “After the recent Ladakh incursions, frequent intrusions by China’s PLA in Arunachal Pradesh’s Taksing region have come to the notice of the security agencies.”
At that time, some local villagers had managed to shoot a short video on their phones of the PLA ‘visiting’ their village.
In the meantime, China is building up pressure by enticing and cajoling the Tibetan population on their side of the McMahon Line.
In several places, China has started developing ‘border’ infrastructure on fast track, bringing large number of Chinese tourists; not only to Yume, but also in Metok County, north of Upper Siang district or Lepo village, near Khenzimane on the McMahon Line.
Xi’s letter tends to show that Beijing has decided to use more and more the local Tibetan populations in border areas to ‘defend’ the Middle Kingdom’s borders. This should deeply worry Delhi; so far the Tibetan population has been sympathetic towards India, can China manage to change this?

Tibet: When Patel and Bajpai opposed Nehru

About my latest book

It is usually assumed that Sardar Patel, the Deputy Prime Minister of India wrote the ‘prophetic’ letter to Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister, detailing the implications for India of Tibet’s invasion. A new book proves that Patel used a draft given by Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai, the Secretary General of the Ministry of External Affairs and Commonwealth.
On November 7, 1950, a month after the entry of the People’s Liberation Army in Tibet, Patel sent Bajpai’s note under his own signature, to Nehru, who decided to ignore Patel’s letter. The next day, meeting Bajpai in the corridors of South Block, the Prime Minister told his General Secretary: “you are marshalling the big shots”. Bajpai, deeply upset by the turn of events (which were influenced by KM Panikkar, the Indian Ambassador to China, who ceaselessly defended the Chinese interests), had also written to President Rajendra Prasad and C Rajagopalachari.
Reproduced below are extracts of Tibet: The Last Months of a Free Nation: India Tibet Relations (1947-1962). It deals with a first note of Bajpai on the sequence of events and the nefarious role of Panikkar.
The October 31’s note written by Bajpai is historically important for several reasons; first and foremost because after it was sent to Sardar Patel, the latter asked for a draft for a letter to be sent to Nehru; Bajpai’s note also shows the frustration of many senior officers in the Ministry and provides a precise chronology of the tragic events of Summer and Fall 1950.

[Extracts] 
G.S. Bajpai’s Note of October 31
…Bajpai first noted that on July 15, 1950, the Governor of Assam had informed Delhi that, according to information received by the local Intelligence Bureau, Chinese troops, “in unknown strength, had been moving towards Tibet from three directions, namely the north, north-east and south-east.” The IB had reported that one column was moving from Jyekundo in Qinghai Province, the second one from Derge in the Sikang Province. …The third column, which came from the Yunnan Province, had reached the Shukla Pass.”
The same day, the Indian Embassy in China reported that rumours in Beijing had been widely “prevalent during the last two days that military action against Tibet has already begun.”
Though Panikkar was unable to get any confirmation, he virtually justified Beijing’s military action by writing: “in view of frustration in regard to Formosa, Tibetan move was not unlikely.”
…[A few days later], Bajpai remarked that the Ambassador [Panikkar] had “answered [Delhi] that he did not consider the time suitable for making a representation to the Chinese Foreign Office. Panikkar gave the following reasons:

1. The Chinese have been anxious to settle the question by peaceful negotiations and had offered Tibetans autonomy and invited Tibetan representations to Peking;
2. Tibet had been stalling negotiations on one excuse or another.
3. Since military action was reported to have already started, ‘any such suggestion now will only meet with rebuff’.

…Bajpai is more and more frustrated with Panikkar’s surrender to Chinese interests and perhaps also by the support that the ambassador gets from the Prime Minister. The Secretary General is clearly in a difficult position.
…Already on July 20, Panikkar’s attention had been drawn by South Block to the fact that Beijing’s argument that the ‘Tibetans had been stalling the talks’, was wrong.
Panikkar had been informed by Delhi that the Tibetan Delegation should not be blamed for something they are not responsible for “…The Tibetan Delegation have been awaiting a reply to the communication of their Government to the Chinese Government.”

Panikkar brings in philosophical issues
…India [Panikkar] attempted to change the Communist regime’s decision to ‘liberate’ Tibet, by bringing a philosophical angle to the issue: “In the present dangerous world situation, a military move can only bring a world nearer [to a conflict], and any Government making such a move incurs the risk of accelerating the drift towards that catastrophe.”
Mao was not in the least bothered about such niceties.
…As the preparations on the Chinese side continued, Panikkar wrote to Delhi on August 13 to inform the ministry that he has been unable to meet Zhou Enlai, who is ‘ill with dysentery’, but he had met Chang Han-Fu, the Vice Foreign Minister: …”Unfortunately, nothing is mentioned by the Ambassador, either about the inappropriateness of military operations in the prevailing international situation or the absurdity of General Liu Bosheng’s reference to an imperialist control over the Tibetan authorities”, comments Bajpai.

Another Aide-Memoire
…Delhi again repeats its ‘philosophical’ position: it would be bad for Beijing to invade Tibet: “The Government of India would desire to point out that a military action at the present time against Tibet will give those countries in the world which are unfriendly to China a handle for anti-Chinese propaganda at a crucial and delicate juncture in inter-national affairs.”
…Delhi is convinced that ‘the position of China will be weakened’ by a [Chinese] military solution.

The Chinese plans are clear
… the objective of Mao and the Southwestern Bureau in Chengdu is to occupy Chamdo, it is therefore clear that the PLA is preparing to enter ‘Tibet proper’. Though the plans for the military action are ready, the logistic is not. The objective remains the fall of Chamdo before the winter, ambassador or no ambassador, negotiation or no negotiations.
On the front, the preparations are going on full swing.

On October 7, 1950, Tibet is invaded
On October 11, The Statesman in Kolkata publishes a report saying: “Communist forces had penetrated 50 miles into Tibet from the Sino-Tibetan border.” The Ministry in Delhi had not heard anything.
…Panikkar is told that if there had been Chinese military movement in Tibet recently, “he should draw the attention of the Chinese Government to our grave concern about this development.”

Sir Girja’s narrative continues
On October 17, the Indian Ambassador receives the full details of the Chinese invasion of Tibet. South Block confirms that Tibet has been invaded, it was “brought to our notice at the request of the Tibetan Government in a message sent through our Mission in Lhasa,” says a cable from Delhi.
…The next day, Panikkar continues to argue against the invasion having happened; he says that out of the incidents to which Lhasa has drawn Delhi’s attention, only one appears to be new. He adds that the telegram from the Indian Mission “did not indicate whether Changtu [Chamdo] was definitely identified as Changtu in Tibet.” Handwritten in the margin is “the suggestion was that there was another Changtu in the Chinese Province of Sikang.”

Bajpai more and more upset
…Sir Girja Bajai is obviously upset; he writes that the rest of the ambassador’s telegram deserves quotation in full. We can understand why.
Panikkar first argues: “Further I should like to emphasise that the Chinese firmly hold that Tibet is purely an internal problem and that while they are prepared in deference to our wishes to settle question peacefully they are NOT prepared to postpone matters indefinitely.”
This is written by the Ambassador of India.

On October 22, Nehru writes to Panikkar
…Nehru cables the Ambassador in Beijing: “Our information from Lhasa is that Chinese forces are still advancing and Riwoche, Dzokangdzong, Markhan and Chamdo have fallen. Also that Lhodzong is expected to fall soon. Unless it is clear that these forces are halted and there is no imminent danger of invasion of Tibet, there is little chance of Tibetan delegation proceeding to Peking.” …The Prime Minister continues: “I confess I am completely unable to understand urgency behind Chinese desire to ‘liberate’ when delay CANNOT possibly change situation to her disadvantage.”

Another aide-memoire is presented
Finally on October 24, the Ambassador presents an aide-memoire to the Chinese Foreign Office. Bajpai notes “The contrast between the tone and content of the instructions sent to the Ambassador, and his feeble and apologetic ‘note’ deserves notice.”
This raises a question, how could the ambassador present an aide-memoire without its content being vetted by South Block?
It is a mystery.
…Bajpai could only conclude that “from the foregoing narrative which I have been at some pains to document, that ever since the middle of July, at least, Peking’s objective has been to settle the problem of its relations by force.”
…As we shall see from Chinese archives, particularly from Mao’s cables, the invasion (or ‘liberation’ for the Chinese side) did not at all depend on ‘negotiations’ or ‘talks’ with Tibetans. The army action had been decided since months.
…Though Bajpai, a seasoned diplomat is aware of what is going on, he is caught up in the system with the strong-willed Prime Minister (and Foreign Minister) dominating the scene and a ‘darbari’ Ambassador.
Remains the fact that Chinese excuses or pretexts (or the one advanced by the Indian Ambassador in China) do not make sense, Bajpai admits it: “What justification there is for Chinese fear of American aggression must remain a matter of opinion. What, in my opinion, is not open to dispute is that however well-founded such fears, they cannot justify either Peking’s invasion of Tibet or Peking’s discourtesy to and suspicion of us.”
Though Bajpai says that he is not interested to find ‘scapegoats’, he finally blames his ambassador to China: “In examining the larger implications of China’s policy towards Tibet, the role of any individual must have relatively minor significance. The search for scapegoats is neither pleasant nor fruitful, and I have no desire to indulge in any such pastime. Before concluding this paper, however, I feel it my duty to observe that, in handling the Tibetan issue with the Chinese Government, our Ambassador has allowed himself to be influenced more by the Chinese point of view, by Chinese claims, by Chinese maps and by regard for Chinese susceptibilities than by his instructions or by India’s interests. Ample justification for this comment exists in the telegram from which I have quoted.”
This is a strong, though late indictment of Panikkar.

Patel replies to Bajpai
…When on October 31, a copy of Bajpai’s note goes to Sardar Patel, the latter writes back to Bajpai: “I need hardly say that I have read it with a great deal of interest and profit to myself and it has resulted in a much better understanding of the points at issue and general though serious nature of the problem. The Chinese advance into Tibet upsets all our security calculations. …I entirely agree with you that a reconsideration of our military position and a redisposition of our forces are inescapable.”

A few days later, Bajpai would write a draft for Patel to shoot his famous letter. Nehru would not even acknowledge it…
Patel passed away five weeks later.
The rest is history.