China’s new weapon is ‘political archaeology’

My article China’s new weapon is ‘political archaeology’ appeared in The Asian Age and The Deccan Chronicle

In February this year, the Communist Party of China (CPC) started a new campaign called Party History Learning and Education

In February this year, the Communist Party of China (CPC) started a new campaign called “Party History Learning and Education”; it will continue in full swing through the year as the CPC celebrates its centenary in July. Neican, a weekly brief on China published from Australia, observed: “The CPC’s official historiography is a product of politics and serves a political agenda.” There is no doubt about this, and India should closely watch the new campaign.
Neican’s analysts said: “In the case of the current campaign, it aims to strengthen ideological cohesion, confidence, and a sense of historical destiny. In doing so, it will likely reinforce the legitimacy of Xi Jinping as the party’s helmsman and his political project of national rejuvenation.”
Like everything in China these days, the crusade originated in an “important” speech by President Xi Jinping, the new Great Helmsman. On February 20, at a gathering in Beijing, Mr Xi spoke of “the importance of learning the history of the CPC, so as to let the party better serve the people and lead the country to fully build a modern socialist country.”
Xinhua commented that the CPC has achieved its first centenary goal “to complete building a moderately prosperous society in all respects”, and now embarks on the second: “The learning [of history] will help ensure the whole party to remain true to its original aspiration.”
Being purely an ideological move, archaeology plays a crucial role in the new scheme of “national rejuvenation”. If Beijing is able to prove that China dominated large parts of Asia, let us say 3,000 or 4,000 years ago, the ideological foundation of the rejuvenation will be established.
Already in September last year, Mr Xi presided over a meeting of the party’s politburo and discussed “the latest archaeological discoveries in China and their significance”. The CPC general secretary showed a great interest in excavating the past; he spoke of “developing archaeology to better understand the long-standing and profound Chinese civilization”.
He said that he attached “great importance to archaeological research to deepen people’s understanding of Chinese civilisation that features a long history and profoundness, thus providing strong support for promoting fine traditional culture and strengthening people’s confidence in Chinese culture”. You could ask: how does this concern India?
Unfortunately, it does, especially after China’s new territorial claims in Ladakh as well as the older ones in Arunachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh.
On April 14, The China Daily mentioned with fanfare an event highlighting “China’s Top 10 New Archaeological Discoveries of Year 2020”; the annual awards function was dubbed the “Oscars of Chinese archaeology”. The idea was to promote new archaeological findings among the masses, with a 21-expert judging panel selecting the 10 sites.
One of them is the Sangsdar Lungmgo graveyard site in Tsanda county of Ngari prefecture of Western Tibet. Tsanda, or Zanda, is located near the historical vestiges of Tholing, close to the Indian border, north of Uttarakhand. The findings date from the 4th century BC to 7th century AD and though it is not officially said, it belongs to the Kingdom of Zhangzhung, which spread across Western Tibet and Northern India. The site was presented as a key finding “of early-stage history of Tibet, showing frequent communication among the region with the area to the south of Himalayas as well as today’s central China and Xinjiang”.
India should be concerned because “political archeology” has always helped China to substantiate its territorial claims at a later date. Zhangzhung was an ancient kingdom which spread in Western Tibet and Northern India; it predates the culture of Tibetan Buddhism in Tibet and is usually associated with the Bon faith. The inhabitants are often mentioned in ancient Tibetan texts as the original rulers of central and western Tibet. Only in the last two decades or so, have archaeologists started to excavate areas once ruled by the Zhangzhung kings.
Though very little is known about the extent of the kingdom, it is said to have had extensive contacts with its neighbours, particularly Northern India (and not China). While Beijing has now taken up a large number of excavation sites to demonstrate Zhangzhung’s relations with the mainland, very little is done in India, where archaeology is still under the slumberous Archaeological Survey of India and the babus of the ministry of culture.
At the same time, China is moving ahead with the blessings of the People’s Leader; for example in November 2017, China Tibet Online mentioned a group of 2,000-year-old sarcophagi tombs “recently discovered in Jomdo County, Chamdo, southwest China’s Tibet Autonomous Region, in which the cultural features not only possess strong local characteristics, but also have very clear similarities with sarcophagus remains found in the Min Jiang River and Yarlung River basin in the west part of southwest China’s Sichuan Province”.
Quoting a Chinese archaeologist, the article further argues: “This discovery confirms that around 2,000 years ago, there had been frequent communication and exchanges between the people living in the east part of Tibet and those in the plateau areas of western Sichuan.”
Another article in China News mentions the Western Tibet tombs; quoting Dr Feng Yang from the School of Archaeology, Culture and Science of Sichuan University, it speculated that the tombs dated back to the seventh century BC. During a seminar on “2020 Tibet Cultural Relics and Archaeological Achievements” recently held in Lhasa, Dr Feng gave a report on the latest stages of excavations: “Seven archaeological surveys and trial excavations were carried out from 1994 to 2001. In order to explore the early society and civilisation of western Tibet and clarify its status in Tibetan civilisation, archaeological excavations in this area continued from 2018 to 2020; 10 new cemeteries were discovered (eight of them were date-tested), 68 tombs were cleared, 10 new sites were excavated and one stone tool site found. Systematic carbon fourteen dating was done, and a basic chronological framework could be established.”
According to Feng Yang, the 68 tombs are divided into four phases: “Tombs are rich in burial goods, including pottery, iron, bronze, seashells, mussel decorations, beads, woodware, etc. The phenomenon of burial of animals is common, including sheep, horses, and cows.”
The article added: “The cultural connotation of this area is obviously diverse, and cultural connections with different surrounding areas can be seen, including cultural connections with the mainland.”
Unless India decides to heavily invest in the archaeology of the Himalayas, which will prove the Indic origin of the Zhangzhung kingdom, China will rewrite the history of India’s borders. But how many politicians understand this in New Delhi? Probably no one.

 

Step up pressure on Xi; bring France into Quad

My article Step up pressure on Xi; bring France into Quad appeared in Asian Age/Deccan Chronicle

Here is the link...

The world is becoming aware of the double standards in Chinese propaganda, and for the first time it is taking steps to counter its moves

An Indian army convoy moves on the Srinagar- Ladakh highway at Gagangeer, northeast of Srinagar, Indian-controlled Kashmir. The Indian military said it apprehended a Chinese soldier Monday, Oct. 19, in the remote Ladakh region, where the two countries are locked in a monthslong military standoff along their disputed border. (AP)
  An Indian army convoy moves on the Srinagar- Ladakh highway at Gagangeer, northeast of Srinagar, Indian-controlled Kashmir. The Indian military said it apprehended a Chinese soldier Monday, Oct. 19, in the remote Ladakh region, where the two countries are locked in a monthslong military standoff along their disputed border. (AP)
Since five months now, Indian and Chinese troops have stood face-to-face in the high Himalayas; in all probability, the standoff will continue during the cold winter months ahead in Ladakh.
It has consequences at many levels, not just militarily.
The first: what has President Xi Jinping achieved by trying to advance a few hundred meters in Galwan, Gogra or Pangong Tso?
Different motives have been attributed to the Chinese chess moves.
To cite a few, Beijing wanted to stop the Darbuk-Shyok-DBO Road, protect China’s projects in Gilgit Baltistan (and Shaksgam valley occupied by China); gain strategic advantages on the ground; enhance Chairman Xi’s prestige; boost the standing of the People’s Liberation Army; humiliate an arrogant competitor (India) in a period of weakness; it was even rumoured that Gen. Zhao Zongqi, the Western Theatre Command chief, thought he would get a seat in the powerful Central Military Commission after Ladakh.
China is today the loser: infrastructure development will continue, India will not renounce its legitimate claims on Gilgit-Baktistan, and so on.
Further, Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong or Xinjiang may come up for discussion in the not-too-far future and the “One-China” policy may be questioned in many quarters.
This didn’t stop Zhao Lijian, the Chinese foreign ministry’s “wolf warrior” spokesman, to continue with his anti-India tirades: “China does not recognize the so-called ‘Ladakh Central Territory’ and ‘Arunachal Pradesh’ illegally established by India, and opposes development of infrastructure construction in border dispute areas for the purpose of military control.”
This diplomat had the cheek to add: “Neither party should take any actions in the border area that would complicate the situation in order to avoid affecting the efforts of both parties to ease the situation.” This was the day Beijing announced a new strategic road leading up to Metok, north of the McMahon Line.
A Chinese TV report said the Pai-Metok Highway will be completed by the end of September 2022: “After completion, the length of the road from Nyingchi City to Metok County [North of Upper Siang of Arunachal Pradesh] through Bomi County will be shortened from 346 km to 180 km, and the driving time will be shortened from 11 hours to 4.5 hours.”
At the same time, the world is fast becoming aware of the constant double standards in Chinese propaganda, and for the first time it is taking steps to counter Beijing’s moves.
Take France for example. In the past, Paris was often reluctant to offend China as it was “doing business” with Beijing. But things are changing; realising the danger of Chinese hegemony for the planet, French President Emmanuel Macron recently appointed Christophe Penot, his ambassador to Australia, to the new post of ambassador for the Indo-Pacific.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported: “The coronavirus has catalysed European concern over Chinese government actions in Hong Kong, the treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, military incursions into the South China Sea and political interference.” In June, Mr Penot had already warned that international standards were increasingly called into question, adding that the current Covid crisis was likely accelerate the process: “France and Australia have a particular responsibility here to ensure that the post-Covid world does not get worse and, if possible, that it becomes better than the world before.”
The Australian newspaper commented: “France is the last European power to change its vision of China and the region. In September, Germany, Europe’s largest economy, which has long enjoyed close ties with Beijing, released its first Indo-Pacific strategy focused on increasing diplomatic pressure on China.”

France in the Quad?
A couple of years ago, I had asked an Indian observer why France was not included as a participant in the Quad. “Nobody thought of it”, he had told me. This has changed after President Macron’s visit to India in March 2018. Addressing a French gathering in New Delhi, the young President reminded his countrymen: “France is a power of the Indian and Pacific Oceans; we are present at Reunion, we are also there in French Polynesia and New Caledonia. And we are a maritime power, it is often forgotten but France is the second maritime power in the world. We have a strong navy, we have nuclear submarines equipped like few other powers in the world; a maritime surveillance capability through our own satellites and technologies; it is obvious we are a military and intelligence power ranking us among the first nations in the world.”
France is ready to work with India on the oceans.
A few months earlier, C. Raja Mohan and Darshana Baruah had written for Carnagie India about Deepening the India-France Maritime Partnership: “As maritime security acquires greater salience in India’s foreign policy, New Delhi is increasingly looking to leverage its strategic partnerships, particularly with Paris. Although India and France have joined forces on a number of issues since 1998, regional cooperation in the Indo-Pacific has never risen to the top of the agenda. However, this may be about to change.”
After the Quad’s last meeting in Tokyo last week, US spokesperson Cale Brown said the foreign ministers of the US, Japan, Australia and India had reaffirmed their collective efforts towards a free, open, and inclusive Indo-Pacific: “they pledged to continue regular consultations to implement their vision of a peaceful, secure, and prosperous Indo-Pacific”.
US deputy secretary of state Stephen Biegun more recently explained: “The Quad is a partnership driven by shared interests, not binding obligations, and is not intended to be an exclusive grouping. Any country that seeks a free and open Indo-Pacific and is willing to take steps to ensure that should be welcome to work with us.”
It seems that Paris’ vision could perfectly fit into this scheme. So why can’t France join the four founding nations?
Emmanuel Lenain, French ambassador to India, answered the question in an interview with India Today: “Indo-Pacific is a priority. Both the leaders [Modi and Macron] have been working on that at least for the past four or five years. It is about values. We want an open, transparent Indo-Pacific. Now, what would be the framework. I don’t think anything is exclusive… All like-minded countries should join efforts towards an open, transparent Indo-Pacific.”
It sounds like the US secretary of state’s definition.
Whether France joins or not, there is no doubt all these new collaborative efforts should be credited to President Xi and his reckless foreign policies. One more “loss” in his balance sheet.

Whistleblower spurs China push for change

My article Whistleblower spurs China push for change appeared in Asian Age/Deccan Chronicle.

Here is the link...

The announcement of the surge in new cases happened as the Hubei provincial and Wuhan municipal party secretaries were shown the door.

When scholars will write the history of Modern China, one landmark will certainly be the day Mao Zedong founded the People’s Republic of China from the rostrum on Tiananmen Square in October 1949; another milestone will be when the students’ revolution was brutally interrupted on the same Square on June 4,1989.
The appearance of the COVUD-19 virus in Hubei in December 2019 seems destined to be another turning point in the life of the Communist Dynasty.
As I write this, more than 2,100 casualties have already been officially declared and 75,000 patients would have been infected; these figures are, no doubt, on the lower side of the reality.
Soon after the arrival in Wuhan of Chen Yixin, a Xi Jinping’s protégé, as new Deputy Chief the Central Guiding Group on the virus, the National Health Commission decided to ‘readjust’ the number of infected cases by reclassifying them; in one day, there was an increase of 14,840 new cases in Hebei province alone.
Bill Bishop, the author of the well-informed Sinocism Newsletter commented: “The situation remains very grim in Hubei and more cities in the province are going into quarantine lockdown. Do not be surprised for significantly higher case numbers to come.”
The announcement of the surge in new cases happened as the Hubei provincial and Wuhan municipal party secretaries were shown the door. Ying Yong, the mayor of Shanghai replaced Jiang Chaoliang as Hebei’s party secretary, while Wang Zhonglin from Jinan province took Ma Guoqiang’s seat as Wuhan party secretary. Incidentally, on the same day, Xia Baolong was appointed to replace Zhang Xiaoming as head of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office.
All this shows that the Middle Kingdom is in turmoil, a word frequently synonymous of great disasters such as famine, floods, earthquakes …or epidemic. Often in the past, the Emperor lost the Mandate of Heaven to rule when this occurred.
It is during these days that President Xi Jinping chose to disappear for several days from TV screens and the Chinese media (two of his colleagues of the Politburo’s Standing Committee, Wang Yang and Zhao Leji have not been publically seen since January 25).
On February 10, a masked Xi finally reappeared in a hospital in Beijing, where he talked to workers of three hospitals in Wuhan via videoconference: "Wuhan is a heroic city, and people of Hubei and Wuhan are heroic people who have never been crushed by any difficulty and danger in history.”
On the occasion of his well-orchestrated return, Xi was pompously named ‘Commander of the People's War against the Epidemic’.
Despite many laudible efforts such as building a 1000-bed hospital in one week, the people of China are angry.
Dr Li Wenliang, one of the first doctors who sounded the alarm in December, was in a first place, severely reprimanded by the local authorities. When he passed away, the Wuhan Central Hospital chose to deny his death, triggering a deeper anger among the Chinese public. The regime’s hesitations to announce Dr Li’s death show the dilemma of the Communist Party.
But there are others collaterals with perhaps far more serious implications for China’s future.
Following the death of Dr. Li Wenliang, a letter signed by hundreds of intellectuals asserted that he was a victim of speech suppression: “For thirty years the Chinese have been made to surrender their freedom in exchange for safety, and now they fall prey to a public health crisis and are less safe than ever. A humanitarian disaster is upon us.”
The signatories have five demands; first February 6, the day Dr Li died, should be declared ‘National Freedom of Speech Day’; second the National People’s Congress should implement the right to freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution; third, the state must immediately cease censoring social media and deleting or blocking accounts. The intellectuals also asked that all citizens across the country should be treated equally and receive timely, proper, and effective medical care and finally “beginning from today, [the State should] implement the [Chinese] Constitution!”
Quite an indictment!
That is not all: Xu Zhangrun, a law professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing, who has been under suspension, blamed Communist Party leaders for putting politics ahead of the people in a strongly worded piece published on overseas Chinese-language websites: “The political system has collapsed under the tyranny, and a governance system [made up] of bureaucrats, which has taken [the party] more than 30 years to build has floundered,” he said.
Xu also affirmed: “the level of popular fury is volcanic and a people thus enraged may, in the end, also cast aside their fear. Herein I offer my understanding of these developments in the broader context of the global system. Being mindful also of the cyclical nature of the political zeitgeist, and with a steady eye on what has been happening here in China since 2018 [when Xu published his famous critic of the regime, accusing Xi Jinping to have granted to himself an unlimited tenure].”
At the same time, some Chinese websites quoted Wen Jiabao, the former Chinese Premier, saying: “Without the success in reforms of the political system, a historical tragedy such as the Cultural Revolution may be reborn.”
Wen elaborated: “Now that the reform has reached a certain stage, without the introduction of political reforms, it is impossible to carry out the economic reform to their end, and the achievements already made may be lost. …With the development of the economy, problems such as unfair distribution, lack of integrity, corruption, etc. have arisen. …we must not only reform the economic system, but also reform the political system.”
To make things worse, it appears that there is some unhappiness within the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). On February 10, the Central Military Commission (CMC) issued stricter regulations for the relationship between the PLA and the civil regional governments; this was directly linked with the PLA’s role in the fight against the virus. The Political Work Department, the Logistics Support Department and the Discipline Inspection Commission jointly issued a ‘notice’ which listed thirteen ‘strictly forbidden’ items, for example, “[barring] PLA units to accept visits and donations from local civil units, enterprises, and individuals, in the form of money, marketable securities, and other payment vouchers.”
On the Chinese social media, commentaries said that the CMC did this to prevent the military units and local governments from colluding.
At the same time, the State has increased its monitoring of the common man; many netizens recently received a notice from Douban, the popular Chinese social network, "the news you posted has been removed as it contains radical political or ideological content.” It referred to the lyrics of the Chinese National Anthem which starts: “Arise, ye who refuse to be slaves!”
The words are indeed dangerous for the ruling Party in the present context. All this does not augur well for the future of the Middle Kingdom; one can only hope that the peak of the epidemic will soon to reached; once the epidemic is under control, the leadership in Beijing will have to seriously think of the future of the present authoritarian system.

The truth about Ladakh’s Shaksgam: Correcting historical wrongs in J&K

The Shaksgam Valley 'donated' to China in 1963

My article The truth about Ladakh’s Shaksgam: Correcting historical wrongs in J&K appeared in The Asian Age/Deccan Chronicle


A secret note prepared by the MEA’s historical division mentioned that ‘any such agreement will be illegal’

Soon after India reorganized the former state of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) into the new Union Territories (UT) of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, China went ballistic.
Geng Shuang, a spokesman of China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs told the media: "China deplores and firmly opposes this. This is unlawful and void and this is not effective in any way and will not change the fact that the area is under Chinese actual control." He urged India to "earnestly respect Chinese territorial sovereignty and uphold peace and tranquillity in the border areas.”
China’s territorial ‘integrity’ refers not only to Beijing’s claims over the Aksai Chin and some other places up to (and in some cases beyond) the Line of Actual Control (LAC), but to the areas illegally ceded by Pakistan to China in 1963.
The Indian Ministry of External Affairs answered sharply: "We do not expect other countries, including China, to comment on matters that are internal to India, just as India refrains from commenting on the internal issues of other countries," declared the Ministry’s spokesman. Referring to the Shaksgam Valley, he pointed out that China had 'illegally' acquired Indian territories.
One understands why the new maps released by the Government irritate China, as this virtually opens up another sector to be negotiated along the Indo-Chinese disputed boundary.
In the new maps, the Leh district of Ladakh includes the districts of Gilgit, Gilgit Wazarat, Chilhas and Tribal Territory of 1947, in addition to the known areas of Leh and of course the Aksai Chin, occupied by China since the mid-1950s.
Why is the mention of Shaksgam an issue for Beijing?
An agreement was signed on March 2, 1963 between Pakistan and China about portions of Kashmir’s boundary with Xinjiang.
A secret Note prepared by the MEA’s Historical Division mentioned that “any such agreement will be ab initio illegal and invalid and will not bind India in any respect.” The Note observed that the preamble states that the parties have agreed to formally delimit and demarcate the boundary between Xinjiang and the contiguous areas of Pakistan; the latter based her right on the fact that these areas were under her ‘actual control’.
However as the Indian note explained: “Under international law, the right of entering into treaties and agreements is an attribute of sovereignty. Furthermore, a sovereign cannot presume to exercise sovereign functions in respect of territory other than its own. Having regard to the UN resolutions of 17 January 1948 and 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 (UNCIP Resolutions) it is clear that Pakistan cannot (and does not) claim to exercise sovereignty in respect of J&K.”
The 1963 MEA note clarified that according to the term of the UN Resolutions, “Pakistan cannot purport to exercise even ‘actual control’ over the defence of these areas.”
It quoted a statement of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP): “The Commission did not ignore India’s claim to the right to safeguard the security of the State, nor did it put into question the legality of the Jammu and Kashmir Government” (UN Doc S/1430). In other words, the UN acknowledged the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh.
The legal conclusion was that “Pakistan’s claim to the ‘actual control’ ….can only mean that she has had recourse to a line of action which is illegal and inconsistent with the UN Resolutions,[it was] reaffirmed by her as late as 2 May 1962.” Occupying a land by force or war does not give the titles of that land to the occupiers.
The Historical Division commented further on Pakistan’s mala fides: “the conclusion of this ‘Agreement’ amounts to compromising the sovereignty of the state of J&K, which Pakistan has no business to do; even though Article 6 of the agreement includes provision for its renegotiation after the final settlement of the Kashmir question.”
It is strange that the Governments of China and Pakistan announced the agreement on the eve of important Indo-Pakistan talks on Kashmir.
On March 5, 1963, speaking about China during a Calling Attention Motion in the Lok Sabha, the Indian Prime Minister stated: “If one goes by these maps, Pakistan has obviously surrendered over 13,000 square miles of territory.”
Nehru rightly remarked: “The agreement claims to be provisional, and yet so much haste has been shown in concluding it. It is significant that it is not subject to ratification. Thus, the National Assembly, the press and the public of Pakistan have been given and will be given no opportunity to examine the terms of this agreement.”
About China, he added that: “in spite of its professions that it has never involved itself in the dispute over Kashmir or its absurd claim that the boundary negotiations have promoted friendship between the Chinese and Pakistani people and are in the interests of Asia and world peace, is directly interfering in Indo-Pakistan relations. By doing this, China, is seeking to exploit differences between India and Pakistan …to further its own expansionist policy.”
Unfortunately, India did not have the wisdom to break the negotiations with Pakistan at that time, though the note pointed out that Delhi objected to Article 1 which said that the boundary in this region “has never been formally limited”; already on May 10, 1962, Delhi had clarified that “the international boundary alignment in the sector west of the Karakoram Pass of the boundary of J&K State of India follows well-known natural features, has been recognized in history for all these years.”
Interestingly, the joint China-Pakistan survey of the ‘donated’ areas was conducted in1987 only, 24 years after the territory was offered to China; it means that in 1963, Pakistan did not even know the exact magnitude of her gift.
The traditional boundary runs along the watershed dividing the tributaries of the Yarkand river and that of the Hunza river; then it continues to the Kilik, Mintaka, Karchanai, Parpik and Khunjerab Passes. It later crossed the Shaksgam river and after passing the Aghil mountains, it follows the Aghil, Marpo and Shaksgam Passes up to the Karakoram Pass.
It was observed that no Chinese authority had ever reached these areas, “the Mir of Hunza (in Kashmir) exercised authority in this region and maintained posts and collected revenue.”
The conclusion was that Pakistan, by her own admission as well as by the UN resolutions, “has no right to act on behalf of any part of J&K. The UNCIP has clearly recognized the legality of the J&K Government and the right of India to safeguard the security of the State;” it was just an attempt by Pakistan to formally legalize her control over the northern areas of J&K. Sir Owen Dixon, who in 1950 had been nominated by the UN as the official mediator between India and Pakistan for Kashmir, had termed Pakistan’s action as “inconsistent with international law”.
The Historical Division concluded: “Since the basis of her claim to control over these areas has itself originated in illegalities, it is clear that she cannot use this illegal basis in order to substantiate her claims to negotiate on behalf of these areas.”
It is this historical wrong that the new maps published by the Government are trying to rectify …at least on paper.

Was Modi-Xi Chennai meet a ‘civilisational’ encounter?

My article Was Modi-Xi Chennai meet a ‘civilisational’ encounter? appeared in the Asian Age/Deccan Chronicle

Here is the link...

The Indian communiqué from the PMO said that the two leaders “evaluated the direction of bilateral relations in a positive light”.

Indian commentators have always been fond of the word ‘civilisational’, it was already so during the Nehruvian days, it continues today; it must be something anchored in Indian genes.
As I never really understood the meaning of the term, I finally looked it up in the dictionary: it is “the act or process of civilizing, as by bringing out of a savage, uneducated, or unrefined state, or of being civilized.”
Well this does not help much.
The two-day meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping at a resort in Mamallapuram was another occasion to talk ‘civilizational’. A famous columnist recalled: “The Pallava prince from Kanchipuram renounced the throne, became a Buddhist monk, known as Bodhi Dharma in India and DaMo in China, almost like how prince Siddhartha became Buddha. His guru asked him to go to Zhen Dan - today’s China. Bodhi Dharma, who became India’s first spiritual ambassador to China, also emerged as its chief mentor. Regarded as Buddhaabdara (Buddha’s Avatar), he expounded Zen Buddhism and founded the famous Shaolin Temple in China’s Henan province,” and added “Modi is now reviving memories of Bodhi Dharma to position him as the icon of India’s civilisational outreach to China, which is integral to his overarching strategic civilisational diplomacy.”
My own take is completely different; I believe that when nations start speaking about their past, it is often because they prefer to avoid talking about the present. It may be what happened between India and China during the two-day encounter in Mamallapuram?
According to Xinhua News Agency, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping “in a friendly and relaxed atmosphere, held a candid and in-depth exchange of views on bilateral relations and major international and regional issues of common concern,” (interestingly, I came across a Chinese report speaking of a ‘relatively relaxed atmosphere’).
Without denying the great past of the Chinese nation, one question was certainly not discussed at the sea resort: which type of civilization can China boast of today?
The day after his meeting with Modi, Xi Jinping, then in Nepal, warned that those not respecting the One China policy would be crushed: “Anyone attempting to split China in any part of the country will end in crushed bodies and shattered bones. And any external forces backing such attempts at dividing China will be deemed by the Chinese people as pipe-dreaming.”
According to China’s state media, Xi said this to the Nepali Prime Minister during his stay in Kathmandu; to state it mildly, it is rather unusual for a Head of State to use such words. One can imagine what would have happened to the Indian Prime Minister if he had uttered such statements, the Western media would have gone wild. But it is the prerogative of the Chinese president to be able to say such a thing, without being shot down.
The South China Morning Post commented: “While the immediate context would have been the Tibet issue, in light of the Nepal government’s crackdown on Tibetan independence activists protesting against Xi’s visit, China-watchers also saw it as a wider warning that applied to Hong Kong as well after more than four months of civil unrest and street violence.”
The Chinese proverb, ‘kill the chicken to warn the monkeys’ immediately comes to mind.
The Chinese ‘influence’ in India was experienced on a small scale by the Tibetan refugees who tried during Xi’s visit in Tamil Nadu, to protest against the happenings on the Roof of the World; many young refugees ended in police custody (mercifully the local police did not crush their bones). At the same time, the Dalai Lama declared in Una (Himachal Pradesh): “We enjoy freedom living in India, in one way I am a refugee, but I enjoy India’s freedom”. Everything is relative would have said the Buddha.
During the Mamallapuram summit, termed by the Indian Government as the ‘Chennai Connect’, the Chinese President observed: “Maintaining and developing good relations between the two countries is China's unwavering policy.”
Probably influenced by the cultural tour given by the Indian Prime Minister on the first day, Xi spoke of ‘national rejuvenation’ for India and China.
The reference is also ‘civilisational’ as the concept is linked to the Chinese Dream to see the Middle Kingdom becoming the most powerful nation in the world.
Though it is not known what went on for two and half hours during the one-to-one dinner composed of delicious dishes, very few concrete decisions seem to have been taken. The Indian communiqué from the PMO said that the two leaders “evaluated the direction of bilateral relations in a positive light.”
The leaders agreed that the international situation is witnessing significant readjustment: “India and China share the common objective of working for a peaceful, secure and prosperous world in which all countries can pursue their development within a rules-based international order.”
But is China following ‘rules-based’ policies, whether it is the South China Sea, Tibet or Xinjiang? The great fear of the people of Hong Kong and Taiwan is that Beijing-based rules will soon prevail.
The difficulty with ‘unofficial’ meets is that the talks are not minuted, no joint statement is issued and no joint press conference is held.
Everything remains ‘informal’; and the parties are not bound to the decisions taken (if any) as there is no signature on any agreements or minutes.
Can the age-old “commercial linkages and people-to-people contacts in the past two millennia,” in other words the civilisational links solve the current contentious issues such as Chinese claims over Ladakh? Certainly not; though it helped to relax the atmosphere which had been vitiated by Pakistan Prime Minister’s visit to China a few days earlier.
The Indian Foreign Secretary said that the K word was not pronounced, it is regrettable; it was an occasion to clarify the Indian position.
Xinhua said that President Xi made some proposals such as the dragon and the elephant dancing together being “the only correct choice for the two countries” or the two countries should “correctly view their differences, and never let the differences dim the overall situation of bilateral cooperation.”
One positive outcome is the decision to establish a High-Level Economic and Trade Dialogue mechanism “with the objective of achieving enhanced trade and commercial relations, as well as to better balance the trade between the two countries.” This could hopefully help to rebalance the trade deficit, today in India’s disfavour.
Regarding the border dispute, both parties reiterated that efforts should be made to arrive at a mutually-agreed framework for a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable settlement; similar words have been used since 1960. However, the PMO communiqué speaks of the Political Parameters and Guiding Principles agreed by the two counties in 2005 and later rejected by China. Article VII stated that in reaching a boundary settlement, the two sides shall safeguard due interests of their settled populations in the border areas,” which meant that areas like Tawang would no longer be claimed by China. We should know if China really agreed to this when, hopefully in a not too distant future, the Special Representatives meet; otherwise the Meet would have been ‘civilisational’ only (though one very positive outcome was the cleaning up of the area around the resort).

Tourism is changing Ladakh: It’s a boon, but it also creates new crises

My article Tourism is changing Ladakh: It’s a boon, but it also creates new crises appeared in Asian Age/Deccan Chronicle

Here is the link...

Scholars do not agree on the etymology of the word Ladakh. For some, it is the 'Land of the Passes' (la); for others, it is the 'Land of the Lamas.' Whatever the correct interpretation, it is, for both reasons, certainly one of the most stunning places on earth.
Visiting Leh last week, I had the opportunity to experience once again the celebrated peace of the place and the hospitality of the Ladakhis.
The region has however completely changed since my first visit in 2002: along with the majestic gompas (monasteries), you can now see a myriad of cement shops symbolizing daily faster development; all due to the craze of the Indian and foreign tourists for the mountainous region.
Though the Kashmir valley constantly draws the attention of the world media and the chancelleries in Delhi, it is geographically a very small portion of the state and Ladakh is far more strategic for the nation, with two unfriendly neighbours on its borders.
At the time of Kashmir's accession to India in October 1947, political and economic power was offered to Sheikh Abdullah's National Conference government in Srinagar despite the fact that Ladakh covered 70 per cent of the area of J&K under India's administration. Dominated for the past 70 years by the successive Srinagar governments, Leh has for decades been deprived of any say on its own development. It is finally slowly changing.
Soon after Independence, when the Pakistani hordes’ motto was: 'Let us liberate our Muslim brothers from the yoke of the Hindus’, Ladakh seemed at first safe. It was without taking into account the infinite greed of the new Pakistani leaders. According to their 'two nations' theory, Muslim dominated areas of the subcontinent were to become part of Pakistan and the Hindus, Sikhs and others were to remain with India. But the theory was thrown to the winda when Karachi decided to also liberate their Buddhist ‘brothers’ in Ladakh, not for ideological reasons, but for the treasures of the Buddhist gompas which became a lure for a finance-starved Pakistan.
It is then that two young Buddhist officers from Lahaul, Captains Kushal Chand and his cousin, Prithvi Chand offered their services to the nation to stop the raiders; the duo managed the incredible feat of crossing on foot in winter the snow-bond Zoji-la between Kashmir and Ladakh; they were accompanied by a small caravan of men and mules carrying arms and ammunitions. Though Buddhists and believers in ahimsa, they risked their lives to save Ladakh. Without the knowledge of Army Headquarters - which would have been reluctant to permit such a risky operation - the young captains crossed the pass and reached safely Leh to prepare a surprise for the raiders.
They fought the weather, the altitude and the hordes of invaders to defend their co-religionists, both were awarded the Maha Vir Chakra (MVC), the second-highest decoration in war time.
The Lahaulis’ was first of a long saga of daring acts by young officers who, since then, have bravely defended Indian territory.
It is worth visiting the Hall of Fame, near the Leh airport where their exploits, as well as those of other local heroes, are depicted.
 One should mention Col Chewang Rinchen, who was twice awarded MVC - first for having stopped the advance of raiders in the Nubra Valley in June 1948 and the second for the bravery he displayed in the Turtuk sector in December 1971.
More recently, Major (later Colonel) Sonam Wangchuk (another Buddhist soldier to be awarded the MVC) and his Ladakh Scouts recaptured some of the crucial peaks occupied by Pakistan during the Kargil war in 1999. One still has the image of Wangchuk, praying to the Dalai Lama, the incarnated Bodhisattva of Compassion, to give him the strength to save India, his nation.
Immediately after J&K Accession to India, Ladakhis took the stand that their future was linked with India, though culturally, racially and linguistically they were closer to Tibet.
In May 1949, the first delegation of the Young Men's Buddhist Association of Ladakh led by Kalon Chhewang Rigzin met Nehru in Delhi and presented him a memorandum: “We seek the bosom of that gracious Mother India to receive more nutriment for growth to our full stature in every way. She has given us what we prize above all things - our religion and culture.”
Kushok Bakula Rinpoche, the head Lama of Ladakh and long-time minister in Srinagar was another one who, as early as in the 1950s, defended the rights of the Ladakhis. Bakula never chose the path of confrontation; he always tried to get a greater autonomy by working with the system. As his method did not fully succeed, faced with Delhi's decades-long apathy and the 'larger issue of Kashmir', in 1989, the Ladakhis had no alternative but to resort to an agitation, a concept alien to Buddhism. A greater autonomy and closer links with India were not granted till the Ladakh Buddhist Association organised a non-violent movement; after many frustrating decades, Ladakh was finally offered an Autonomous Hill Development Council as a compromise in 1995. Though the chairman and his executives councilors (ministers) have vast executive powers on paper, they often face a frustrating situation with Srinagar.
But Ladakh is changing. Today Tourism is a boon …and a bane.
Last year more than three lakh tourists literarily descended on Leh, providing employment, but also creating the first water crisis of the region. While the population is far better-off economically, environment is clearly in peril. How to sort out the dilemma?
Sonam Wangchuk, a Magsaysay awardee and the inspiration for one of the characters of Aamir Khan’s movies, The Three Idiots, believes that the solution is changing the pattern of tourism in space and time; he advocates bringing tourism to the villages (space) and the all-year long (time).
It may work for a time, though there is no easy solution, whether it is in Ladakh, Uttarakhand or Himachal Pradesh, mass tourism has too many negative aspects.
Ladakh has an advantage over other regions, it has a more responsive administration, i.e. the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council and with the Division status recently granted by the Central Government, the region should get a better capacity to solve such problems.
On the strategic side, though the Fire and Fury Corps of the Indian Army is watching, the enemy is still at the border.
The opening of a new landport for trade with China at Demchok or Dumchele could be an important confidence building measure with China; hopefully, it will be discussed during President Xi Jinping’s visit to India in October?
If the political leadership decides so, Demchok or Dumchele could also become a Border Personnel Meeting (BPM) where the Indian and Chinese armies meet. It would be the third one in Ladakh.
The opening of a new landport with China would boost the village economy, and satisfy the local population …and one day, one can dream of a new route (without crossing a single pass) to Mt Kailash. It would then become the fastest and easiest access to the holy mountain.
In the meantime, Ladakh needs to control its too-fast development.

In Tibet, an atheist regime talks of reincarnation

The Dalai Lama in Tawang (April 1959)

My article In Tibet, an atheist regime talks of reincarnation appeared in The Asian Age/The Deccan Chronicle


Here is the link...

A worse contradiction is about the position of the atheist regime on the Dalai Lama’s rebirth.

China is the land of dichotomies, not to say contradictions. On March 31, 1959, the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet crossed the Indo-Tibet border in the Kameng Frontier Division, north of Tawang; he met a detachment of the Assam Rifles waiting to welcome him. He had had no choice but to flee his native land, as severe repression had taken place in Lhasa.
Three days before the Tibetan leader reached the Indian border, the Communist regime declared that the “feudal lord” had left his native land; that this would allow the serfs to be emancipated. Though thousands had died in Lhasa in the process of “emancipation”, Beijing still celebrates the massacre as the “Serfs Emancipation Day”.
On March 26, the 24-year-old Tibetan leader had sent a message to Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India: “Ever since Tibet went under the control of Red China and the Tibetan government lost its powers in 1951...”
The Dalai Lama had decided to take refuge in India — a free nation.
On March 11, 2019, the Global Times affirmed: “Sixty years since the epoch-making democratic reform in Tibet, people in the plateau region have enjoyed unprecedented human rights in history.”
The tabloid of the Communist Party added: “The democratic reform in Tibet in 1959, led by the Communist Party of China, ended the cruel serfdom system and emancipated one million Tibetan serfs, or more than 90 per cent of the region’s then population.”
The article compares the massacre of the Tibetans in Lhasa in March 1959 by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to “the Abolition Movement led by former US President Abraham Lincoln, viewed as an immortal achievement for civilisation and human rights, the end of Tibet’s feudal serfdom”.
But it is not the last of the contradictions.
While proclaiming that the “Tibetan people enjoy unprecedented human rights in history”, the region has not only been closed to foreign tourists, but according to Human Rights Watch, on March 7, the Chinese authorities “staged mass rallies in Lhasa and other provincial cities”. A parade of armoured vehicles and military hardware was seen on the streets of Lhasa. Thousands of armed police and other security forces from across the region gathered to “pledge” loyalty to the party and its political objective of “comprehensive, long term stability”.
Though Beijing’s propaganda said “human rights” in Tibet have never been so good, it was announced that “24-hour patrols of some 100 police service stations in Lhasa had greatly improved the city’s peace and stability. …Not a single criminal case was reported in the palace area in the past eight years, mainly because of the police service station since 2011, which can respond to emergency calls in three minutes”.
Wang Yongpu, a police station chief working in Tibet for seven years, explained to the Global Times, “through the surveillance system, 24-hour patrols, security checks and cooperation with traffic departments, police in the service station can prevent crimes”.
The Epoch Times reported: “Having perfected facial recognition and Artificial Intelligence-enhanced surveillance systems, the Chinese regime is now applying the technology to taxis in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet.”
The US-based publication quoted a report which appeared in Tibet News on March 6: “a Chinese state-run online news site, 200 new taxis were put into operation in Lhasa in February — equipped with real-time video surveillance — before they were assigned to taxi drivers. The GPS (Global Positioning System) has been upgraded from running on 2G mobile networks to 4G to optimise real-time monitoring”.
This technology was intended to “prevent drivers from violating safety regulations such as smoking and making phones calls while driving”.
So much for human rights!
The Chinese propaganda has a tragicomic side.
The reason given for banning foreign visitors visiting Tibet was given by Wu Yingjie, Tibet’s Communist Party’s secretary during the National People’s Congress (NPC) — he said that the restrictions were necessary because some visitors suffered from altitude sickness.
Where it become more grotesque is when it comes to the Dalai Lama, China’s bête noire.
Again, according to the Global Times, during an open-door discussion with the Tibetan delegation to the 13th NPC, Wu Yingjie came down heavily on the Tibetan leader: “The Tibetan people have more affection for the government. The Dalai Lama has not done a ‘single good thing’ for Tibet since he left (in 1959).” Wu added that the people of Tibet were “extremely grateful for the prosperity that the Communist Party has brought them”.
Tashi Gyaltsen, a young Tibetan grassroots delegate from Lhoka, affirmed that “there is no such thing” as adoration for the Dalai Lama among Tibetans.
This should be easy to test — let Beijing allow the Tibetan leader to visit Tibet for one week — the adulation of the Tibetans for their spiritual guru and protector will be seen by all.
Go Khok, deputy party chief and mayor of Lhasa, however, asserted that maintaining stability would be a key task for the city government this year.
A worse contradiction is about the position of the atheist regime on the Dalai Lama’s rebirth.
The Tibetan leader jokingly told Reuters: “China considers Dalai Lama’s reincarnation as something very important. They have more concern about the next Dalai Lama than me,” before adding: “In future, in case you see two Dalai Lamas, one from here (India), a free country, (and) one chosen by the Chinese, then nobody will trust, nobody will respect (the one chosen by China). So that’s an additional problem for the Chinese! It’s possible, it can happen.”
A couple of years ago, a Chinese “expert” quoted by the Global Times, affirmed that it is so ridiculous to talk about reincarnation “when the 14th Dalai Lama is still alive.”
It is ridiculous, but Beijing has been working hard since years to put everything in place for when the day comes.
Already in 2007, the stage was set for the tragicomedy when China decided to implement the “Measures on the Management of the Reincarnation of Living Buddhas in Tibetan Buddhism”.
Beijing had started preparing for the Lama’s succession: the Chinese government had decided to use the Manchu-favourite type of selection, the Golden Urn lottery, which can easily be manipulated.
Today, China is actively preparing for the post-Dalai Lama period.
On March 7, 2019, a panel discussion took place during the People’s Political Consultative Conference in Beijing; the Chinese-selected Panchen Lama Gyaltsen Norbu presided. Apart from the young lama considered as “fake” by the Tibetans, a few lamas, mostly unknown to the Tibetans, met to discuss the future of Buddhism; it included, Dupkang Thupten Kedup, vice-chairman of the Buddhist Association of China, Tsemonling, a former regent of Tibet in his previous reincarnation, Gomangtsang Rinpoche, Rinchen Namgyal Rinpoche, from Qinghai province and Lodro Gyatso Rinpoche from Sakya Monastery. China would like these lamas to lead the process to find the next incarnation of the Dalai Lama.
Is it not a contradiction when an atheist regime works hard on soul reincarnation? It does not seem to disturb the apparatchiks in Beijing.

Xi gets PLA war-ready, India must wake up

My article Xi gets PLA war-ready, India must wake up appeared in Asia Age/Deccan Chronicle on Monday.

In May 2015, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang announced a strategic plan for China, known as ‘Made in China 2025’; the Middle Kingdom wants to move away from being the World's factory and shift to higher value products and services; the idea is to upgrade the manufacturing capabilities of Chinese industries.
The China Briefing of Dezan Shira & Associates wrote: “This has required transitioning the country’s existing manufacturing infrastructure and labor market towards producing more specialized output – with targeted investments in research and development (R&D) and an emphasis on technological innovation.”
One of the tools to reach this objective is the program called ‘civil-military fusion’ (CMF) which would bring together the civil and defense R&D and developments; something unthinkable in India.
On March 2, 2018, during the third meeting of the Central Commission for Integrated Military and Civilian Development (CCIMCD), President Xi Jinping emphasized the strategic importance of reducing barriers between the commercial economy and the defense industrial base. A few days later, Xi spoke of CMF as a ‘prerequisite’ for realizing the goal of building a strong military. The objective is to become the No 1 power of the planet, (in 2049, for the 100 years of the Communist Party?).
In its China Brief, the Jamestown Foundation explained: “China’s efforts to become a dominant ‘science and tech superpower’ in technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum communications, robotics and smart manufacturing are well documented. Less is known about how China plans to use CMF to convert its technological push into a long-term military advantage, in ways that, to a significant degree, are partly modeled on the US.”
For the Council on Foreign Relations, China is “on its way to becoming a science and technology power. Three of the five most valuable tech startups are Chinese. Companies like Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, and Huawei are increasingly narrowing the spending gap with American tech giants on research and development.”
All this translates directly into the military domain.
Recent developments in terms of new weaponry, some of them facing India, have to be seen in this background. For example, information has recently emerged that the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) had deployed a new Shenyang J-16 strike fighter in strategic locations in Tibet (probably in prevision of the arrival of the game-changer Rafales on the Himalayan scene).
The deployment of the J-16 could provide the PLAAF with an modern complement to the J-11B – the derivative of the Russian Su-27 Flanker.
Beijing today claims that the advanced fighter now possesses ‘near stealth’ capabilities; the paint covering the plane “is a kind of cloaking coating that gives the warplane a certain stealth capability, making it nearly invisible to the naked eye and electromagnetic devices," reported the Chinese media.
On January 8, the Chinese State-owned Global Times announced that some units of the PLA Ground Force (PLAGF) stationed in Tibet have been equipped with a new vehicle-mounted howitzer to boost their combat capability and improve border security.
The mouthpiece of the Communist Party referred to the new system as ‘PLC-181’, claiming that it had already been deployed by an artillery brigade in Tibet during a 72-day-long stand-off in 2017 between the PLAGF and the Indian Army at the Doklam tri-junction between Sikkim, Tibet, and Bhutan.
The Global Times posted a PLA photograph with units of the new howitzer system in a mountainous area. According to Jane's Intelligence Review, “the platforms are similar in appearance to the Norinco SH-15 155 mm self-propelled artillery system.”
It has to be seen in the larger context of the PLA’s preparedness for War.
On January 4, President Xi Jinping ordered the Chinese armed forces to enhance their combat readiness, he instructed the armed forces to resolutely safeguard the national sovereignty, China’s security and development interests and be ready to withstand complex situations and severe struggles: “The world is facing a period of major changes never seen in a century”, he asserted, while speaking of the various risks and challenges facing China.
The Chinese Armed Forces are expected to speed up their preparation in view of a series of landmark anniversaries in 2019, particularly the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic.
Last month, Xinhua reported that some 2 million personnel had been involved in more than 18,000, mostly small-scale exercises in 2018.
Apart from that, China has been active in boosting its border defence with India; for example, the rapid development of infrastructure on the Tibetan plateau (in particular three new airports in Lhuntse, Purang and Tingri) or new drones for better border control.
In November, The Global Times quoted a professor at the National Defense University who revealed details of China's new armed reconnaissance drone, which had been seen at the Airshow China 2018 in Zhuhai: “The GJ-2 is believed to enhance China's border patrol and counter-terrorism efforts,” said the professor. The military-industrial conglomerate Aviation Industry Corporation of China had unveiled a new reconnaissance drone series. Reportedly, the GJ-2 prototype flew over the 8,848-meter Mount Everest during one trial flight. The drone has six weapon bays under its wings, capable of carrying more ordinance than its predecessors, including up to 12 air-to-surface missiles.
The new-generation Type 15 lightweight battle tank, which is much swifter and has better mobility than other armoured vehicles, could easily be deployed in Tibet in the event of a conflict with India. It was also recently handed over to the PLA.
Many more such examples could be cited.
All this shows that China is working hard to be ready for any contingency.
India needs to wake up, closely follow the developments on the plateau and take necessary counter-measures to boost the preparedness of the Indian Army and Air Force on the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
However, there are small mercies as the real situation might not be as rosy as depicted by the Communist propaganda.
Dennis Blasko, a former US Army attaché in China wrote in War on the Rocks, that the PLA is today facing serious issues: “A large body of evidence in China’s official military and party media indicates the nation’s senior civilian and uniformed leaders recognize significant shortcomings in the warfighting and command capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army.”
He further elaborated: “the increasing scope and frequency of these self-critiques during the tenure of Xi Jinping as chairman of the Central Military Commission casts doubt over the senior party and military leadership’s confidence in the PLA’s ability to prevail in battle against a modern enemy.”
Let us not forget that some 200 officers of the rank of Major General and above have been ‘investigated’. What a huge gap in the hierarchy! A decade may be necessary to replace the ‘corrupt’ officers.
The PLA also suffers from the ‘Peace Disease’; the PLA hasn’t faced an actual combat since the War with Vietnam in 1979. It is a huge issue for China.
Despite the advances in technologies, the PLA might not be ready to face the US …or even India, at least for a few years.

Macron in India: Ties that keep growing

My article Macron in India: Ties that keep growing appeared before the visit in The Asian Age and Deccan Chronicle.

Here is the link...

Indian and France are celebrating twenty years of partnership.
The accord signed in 1998 by President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister AB Vajpayee is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, ‘strategic partnership’.
It was inked during the French President’s visit to India: “Both countries share a perspective that the new world order has to be a genuine multi-polar world order. Our bilateral relationship is poised to grow in the coming months in a multi-faceted manner,” declared Chirac.
Over the last two decades, the partnership has steadily grown; no major political difference has darkened the sky between Paris and Delhi. France has constantly been supportive of India, particularly for a permanent seat for India in the UN Security Council and has shown comprehension for India’s nuclear policy. Though in recent years the term ‘strategic partnership’ has been devalued by the multiplication of such accords, in the Indo-French case, the 1998 momentum has been regularly sustained by new initiatives.
One is of course the Rs 59,000 crore deal for 36 Rafale fighters in September 2016; it will soon prove to be a game changer, partly due the offset clauses forcing the French to reinvest in India 50% of the total deal’s amount, but also for India’s western and northern fronts. China realizes this, its recent efforts to reinforce its air defence of the Western Theater Command, particularly on the Tibetan plateau, is definitily linked to the arrival of the Rafale in 2019.
As she arrived in India in October 2017, French defence minister Florence Parly stated in an interview to The Times of India that India was France’s‘major strategic partner in Asia’. She noted that the relationship was “the fruit of a long, shared history, grounded in an unshakable trust. We have always worked alongside India, in good times but also at difficult moments,” adding “our partnership is continuing to develop even more, including in very sensitive areas.”
These ‘sensitive’ areas make the difference.
Delhi knows that it needs to diversify its diplomatic relations if it wants to play a major role in the world. An example: for India’s engagement in the Indo-Pacific region, France could also be a crucial partner.
In an article for Carnagie India, C. Raja Mohan and Darshana Baruah wrote about Deepening the India-France Maritime Partnership: “Faced with growing geopolitical turbulence and more aggressive maritime maneuvering, India and France are eager to expand their strategic engagement in the Indo-Pacific.”
The authors elaborated: “As maritime security acquires greater salience in India’s foreign policy, New Delhi is increasingly looking to leverage its strategic partnerships, particularly with Paris. Although India and France have joined forces on a number of issues since 1998, regional cooperation in the Indo-Pacific has never risen to the top of the agenda. However, this may be about to change.”
The study cited a series of high-level discussions between New Delhi and Paris which focused on the prospects of a stronger maritime security partnership: “Central to the recent discussions has been the creation of a framework for strategic coordination in the Indo-Pacific. …As they explore their bilateral cooperation on regional security, the Indo-Pacific offers ample potential for such an enterprise.”
A highpoint of Macron’s visit could be a logistics accord allowing India access to the strategically important French base in the Reunion Islands near Madagascar. Another possibility is the opening of the French facilities in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa where India’s rival China has already a military base. This is part of India’s new maritime strategy.
Interestingly, another author, Emanuele Scimia wrote in The Asian Times about a new alliance emerging in the region. He cited the French Jeanne d’Arc’s naval task force, heading for East Asia and the South Pacific to practice with the British Royal Navy.
Though the objective of the five-month deployment is the improvement of the maritime cooperation between their navies, in reality, said Scimia, “it can be read as a new initiative by the two European countries to support the United States in its freedom of navigation operations in the region against China’s military activism.”
The task group consists of the Mistral-class helicopter assault ship Dixmude and the La Fayette-class frigate Surcouf.
Scimia further commented: “It is worth noting that the French-led task force will dock in countries at odds with China. Indeed Indonesia, Australia and Vietnam question Beijing’s claims to the South,” before concluding: “the prospective Quadrilateral (Quad) alliance among the United States, India, Japan and Australia to counter China’s military assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific space could be extended to France and Britain.”
Does it mean a Quad + Two? India and France will probably prefer the bilateral way to start with.
Incidentally, in December 1954, a previous avatar of the Dixmude, arrived in Mumbai to deliver 20 aircrafts with ammunitions: “Dixmude will stop at Bombay only for 5 days. In view of large quantities on board and short time available for off loading French air Ministry has requested for facilities as special case to unload explosives at Jetty instead of at anchor outside harbor,” wrote the then Indian ambassador in Paris.
Four years later, 22 Mystere and 13 Ouragan (‘Toofanis’) would be again delivered by the same Dixmude.
Another important development: during the forthcoming presidential visit, a deal could also be signed between India and Safran (one of the partners of Dasault in the Rafale deal) to develop a M88 engine for the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas.
A report in The Tribune recently hinted that “the M88 engine would be used as the base engine to adapt it for the LCA program or it would be an altogether new development using Safran technology to create a new engine from the ground upwards.” The LCA Tejas, manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is presently equipped with a General Electric F404 IN20 engine. India is obviously keen to resurrect the Kaveri engine project which was originally started in the 1990s to develop an indigenous jet engine. Safran has now offered to collaborate on the Kaveri engine program as part of the 50% offsets for the Rafale deal.
Following Florence Parly’s visit, French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian came to India in November; in Delhi he mentioned common bilateral interests such as “combating terrorism, maritime security, cooperation in the Indian Ocean – where France and India are two countries belonging to the Indian Ocean Rim – we have a complete commonality of views, which calls for the strengthening of our partnership.”
Macron’s visit was delayed for a few months due to the importance of an important joint initiative, the International Solar Alliance (ISA). Launched at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris in November 2015, the ISA wants to create a coalition of solar resource rich countries and address each participant’s special energy needs.
Finally, twenty years after Chirac’s visit, it would make economic and strategic sense for India to partner with France in more futuristic research projects such as a fifth-generation combat plane or an armed drone.
Modi and Macron need to prepare the future.

Is India opening up? Some good signs

My article Is India opening up? Some good signs appeared in The Asian Age/Deccan Chronicle

Here is the link...

The media has often mentioned the report prepared by Lt. Gen. Henderson-Brooks on the October-November 1962 debacle.

Is India changing? Political pundits will probably have diametrically opposite views on the subject.
It is a fact that India is rapidly emerging as an important economic pole; the recent visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos and the hosting of the 10 Asean Heads of State or government  for Republic Day are symbols of this new emergence.
India has reached some maturity in certain fields but not in all. One can cite the poor ranking of Indian universities on the global stage and the lack of serious R&D in the defence sector among areas that are lacking. But the fact that the government continues to confiscate the history of modern India is not only immature, but also shows lack of self-confidence.
The media has often mentioned the report prepared by Lt. Gen. Henderson-Brooks on the October-November 1962 debacle. Fifty-five years after it was presented to the Government of India, the report is still kept in a locked almirah in the defence secretary’s office with only a few having had the privilege to go through the pages written by the Anglo-Indian general. The babus running the largest bureaucracy in the world seem keen to keep history under wraps. Will their mindset ever change?
I personally believe the study of the history of the subcontinent could be one of the keys to disentangle difficult problems such as the Kashmir issue and the border row with China. Unfortunately, it is difficult to access this information.
One has to admit that things have changed in the past few months, and it is certainly a positive sign. Take the National Archives of India (NAI), for example.
I have been visiting its research room for years, and it has been nothing less than an ordeal. First, I had to re-register every two years and “prove” that I was “still” a scholar. Whenever I asked why I could not be a “scholar for life”, I was invariably told: “Sir, it is not like that in India”. This statement itself shows the mindset of those supposed to be assisting the researcher.
Then, while going through the catalogues, it took ages to search for a keyword as the software was extremely slow. That was not all: thousands of spelling mistakes were made at the time of entering the data. I remember a specific instance — the day I was searching for a file on Maj. S.L. Chhiber, who served as the Indian consul general in Lhasa (Tibet) at the end of the 1950s. I could get nothing on “Chhiber”. Fortunately, probably by the grace of the “archive” god, I chanced on a Maj. Children. It was the file!
When I wanted to photocopy some documents for my research, I was told that only 25 per cent of the document could be copied. I once had a document of nine pages, my request to copy three pages was rejected and I was allowed to have two pages only.
On another occasion, I visited the archives six weeks after my previous trip and I was told that the rule was clear; I could not take photocopies again. A delay of several months had to take place between two requests: “In any case, why do you need the photocopies so often?” When I tried to explain that I was trying to write a book based on Indian archival material, it made the person even more suspicious. This has serious implications — and scholars find it easier to write on India using foreign archives.
As the NAI was doing me a favour in letting me consult “their” material, no discussion was possible!
Many things have changed in the past one year or so.
A new web portal Abhilekh Patal was recently launched with advanced (and quick) search facilities (a new version 2.0 is even online since January 12). It has a powerful search engine, real-time filters on search results and even digitisation “on demand”. Scholars need only to login using their registered email ID and a password. This is a great achievement. And if you find a misspelling, you can even suggest changes to the webmaster.
But perhaps more than the technological “smart” aspects of the portal, it is the change in the attitude of the staff posted in the research room — they are now ready to “facilitate” your research. During my recent visit, it was a pleasant surprise to find professional staff willing to help and not just protect “their” archival material. Each scholar has a personal monitor enabling him/ her easy access to all the catalogues.
Similarly, great progress has been made in the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library (NMML) where the famous JN Collection (also known as the Nehru Papers) has been opened to study for researchers. Though not indexed, it is an extraordinary mine for the study of the history of post-Independence India. At both the places, the number of scholars has increased manifold. An encouraging sign indeed!
Unfortunately, while some progress is taking place at the NAI and NMML, not much is happening on the declassification front; both the ministries of external and home affairs are hard nuts to crack. Bureaucrats make sure that you don’t access the dusty files: India’s security and integrity will be endangered if these precious documents are opened to the public, they say.
Is there really a question of India’s national security interests? In fact, the opening of some archives (after a due professional declassification process is undertaken and documents are “sanitised” if necessary), would greatly enhance India’s position in most cases; but in most cases the babus themselves have not read the files — they have no time.
Two other factors come into play. First, bureaucrats always prefer to “block” everything instead of making an effort of going through the proper process; and second, the MEA and other ministries do not have knowledgeable staff to do the job.
For this, I admire the United States of America: Official documents are scrupulously made available to the public. A couple of years ago, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the US official organ, posted some 320,000 declassified cables online. The most impressive aspect is that the text of declassified diplomatic cables, superbly indexed, is retrievable from the NARA website. Even the secretive CIA has posted lakhs of documents on its electronic reading room.
Some may argue the United States or France is a “developed” nation that can “afford” the cost of sifting through historical documents and the process of declassification, but it is the  wrong argument.
While bureaucrats do not see any good reason to open up the “old” files, Indian politicians see their own interests in the continued closure of the archives. Opening them up could make them accountable.
But if India wants to become a great power, why should Indians and all others not be allowed to know about its recent past? Is that not the hallmark of a mature nation?

India needs to be wary of ‘Tibet development’

The Dalai Lama (left) with the Panchen Lama in Beijing (1954).
The Tibetan leader's last visit to China

My article India needs to be wary of ‘Tibet development’ appeared in The Asian Age/Deccan Chronicle.

Here is the link...

As I finished writing this article, the news flashed that "the Dalai Lama could possibly head to China on a private visit, the Sikyong (head) of the elected Central Tibetan Administration, Lobsang Sangay, confirmed today." Sangay told the press: “Don’t read too much into it. At most it’s a private visit and it’s too early to say anything.”
The visit, if it materializes, is bound to be a serious security issue.
[Thankfully, the Dalai Lama's visit to China was later denied by the Central Tibetan Administration in Dharamsala].

Tibet and the Dalai Lama have recently been in the news. Does this mean that the Tibet issue is moving towards a solution? Probably not.
On November 23, the Dalai Lama affirmed in Kolkata: “Tibet does not seek independence from China but wants greater development. …China and Tibet enjoyed a close relationship, though there were occasional ‘fights’.”
While saying that China must respect the Tibetan culture and heritage, he added: “The past is past. We will have to look into the future. …We want to stay with China. We want more development.”
‘Development’ did not come up when the Tibetan spiritual leader met with former US President Barack Obama on December 1; they discussed ‘compassion and altruism’, according to an aide. The Dalai Lama said that the meeting with Obama was ‘very good, I think we are really two old trusted friends’; during their 45-minute encounter, the two leaders only discussed promoting peace in today's world torn by strife and violence.
On his return to Dharamsala, the Tibetan monk announced that he may not travel abroad in the future; his fatigue had increased significantly, he said. He has already nominated two official emissaries, President Lobsang Sangay and former PM Samdhong Rinpoche who should be acting as his official envoys.
A few days later, the Dalai Lama was again in the news, he gave an unusually long (a full page of the newspaper) interview to The Times of India (ToI). Apart from mentioning the Tibetan tradition and its closeness to India’s belief system, and their relevance in today’s world, when asked about his earlier declaration about more development in Tibet, the Tibetan spiritual leader commented: “We also need material development. And many Chinese are showing genuine appreciation of Tibetans' spiritual knowledge. …Eventually in the future, with Buddhism, we could control China. Yes, this is possible!” The Dalai Lama added: “The Chinese government must respect Tibetan culture and the Tibetan language. One time, Chinese narrow-minded officials deliberately tried to eliminate Tibetan language and script — this is impossible to do. Tibetans too have an ancient culture that's difficult to eliminate.”
This time again, no word about returning to his native land and about ‘more development’ for Tibet which could become a serious problem for India.
What would indeed mean more development on the plateau?
For the Tibetans, it would probably translate into more Han Chinese migrating to Tibet in order to build and maintain new roads, airports, railway lines and cities.
For India too, it would have implications as all these new developments have a dual use, i.e. civil and military.
On July 1, 2016, China Military Online reported that a joint meeting on the development of military-civilian integration (known as ‘dual-use’) of airports had been held in Beijing.
On the agenda was the ‘Interim Provisions of Operation Security at Dual-use Airports by the PLA Air Force (PLAAF)’. According to the PLA website, it is based on win-win principles for both the military and civil administration. The new arrangement integrates the development of military-civilian airport resources between the PLAAF and civil aviation; the article further explained: “Its main purpose was to establish a complementary management mechanism with smooth coordination and shared resources to gradually form a support capability that guarantees flight safety at peace times and meets combat needs at wartimes.”
Soon after, Lhasa Gongkar airport became one the two first ‘integrated’ airports in China.
Since then, the National People's Congress passed a new law dealing with national defense transport. The legislation covered the use of infrastructure for defense as well as civilian purposes. Xinhua reported: “The new law regulates the planning, construction, management and use of resources in transportation sectors such as railways, roads, waterways, aviation, pipelines and mail services, for national defense.”
After the recent incident at the trijunction between Sikkim, Tibet and Bhutan, more ‘development’ facilitating the rapid deployment of troops and airborne Special Forces on the plateau, China could be tempted to enter into a conflict with India.
Another example: the Siang becoming black was recently commented on in the Indian press. Though not due to a ‘diversion’ of the Brahmaputra, the silt can, with certitude, be attributed to ‘developments’ in Southern Tibet and possibly to an earthquake which occurred on November in the vicinity.

Earthquake near the Great Bend on November 17

The day the Dalai Lama met Obama, a Chinese website mentioned the road to Metok, the last Tibetan village before the Yarlung Tsangpo enters India in Arunachal Pradesh and becomes the Siang. The Chinese article says that Metok was an ‘isolated island’ due to lack of transportation: “The situation was unchanged until October 31, 2013 when Zhamo Road was completed …[since then] the road mileage has been increasing rapidly.”
Daqiao, Metok’s deputy county chief admitted: “The completion of the road also boosts local tourism, which has generated much more incomes for local people by offering services to a growing number of tourists.”
Wang Dong, Daqiao’s boss added: “We are upgrading the road this year with an investment of 1.2 billion yuan.”
It is a lot of money to ‘upgrade’ an existing road so close to the Indian border; undoubtedly, such ‘development’ will bring more silt to the Brahmaputra …and the PLA closer to India’s border.
In a related issue, former Ambassador Phunchok Stobdan commented in The Wire: “Within this rapidly-unfolding scenario, the Dalai Lama appears to have sent Samdong on a discreet visit to Kunming [in China’s Yunnan province]. Samdong’s visit, starting from mid November, must have been facilitated by no less than You Quan – newly-appointed head of the United Front Work Department that overseas Tibetan affairs. You Quan, who formerly served as party secretary of Fujian, is a close associate of President Xi.”
Though Samdhong’s visit has not been confirmed, it is doubtful that the Tibetans could sign a deal with an everyday more authoritarian regime in Beijing in the present circumstances; it is however worrisome for India. If the Dalai Lama returns to Tibet, will the Tibetans take Beijing’s side on for the disputed borders, particularly in Ladakh or Uttarakhand (in the case of Tawang, the Dalai Lama has made it clear time and again, that it is Indian territory)?
Another strange development is the nomination of a Tibetan General, Thubten Thinley to the recently-held Communist Party’s 19th Congress. General Thinley, besides being a rare specimen of a ‘minorities’ general’, specialized in military recruitment; his job is to recruit Tibetans in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). For China, it makes sense to enroll more Tibetans in the PLA and post them on the ‘Indian’ borders.
Local Tibetans are tempted by the enrollment, as it brings more decent revenues to the poorer sections of the Tibetan society,.
The Dalai Lama told the ToI: “China needs India, India needs China …There is no other way except to live peacefully and help each other.”
It might be true in theory, but the Doklam incident has taught us that there is a gap between the theory and the present practice.
India should be watchful of Beijing’s next move on the Tibet issue.

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.