It's time to stand up to China over Ladakh

My artcile It's time to stand up to China over Ladakh appeared in Mail Today.

Here is the link...

Does Beijing still consider Ladakh a ‘disputed territory’. If not, why not open Demchok? Pictured: Chinese president Xi Jinping
 
As Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi arrives in Delhi for his second visit to India, it is interesting to recall one of the most unknown episodes of the history of modern India.
Let's recall the negotiations which, in 1953-54, preceded the signature on the “Agreement on Trade and Intercourse between Tibet Region of China and India”, known as the Panchsheel Agreement for its lofty preamble.

Negotiations
The negotiations ended with India giving away all its rights in Tibet (telegraph lines, post offices, dak bungalows, military escort in Gyantse and Yatung, etc), while getting no assurance on the border demarcation from the Chinese government.
The talks were held in Beijing among Zhang Hanfu, China’s Vice- Minister of Foreign Affairs, N. Raghavan, the Indian Ambassador to China, and TN Kaul, his Chargé d’Affaires.
It lasted from December 1953 till April 1954.
Why so long? One reason appears in a cable sent by Raghavan to Delhi in which he informs the Foreign Secretary that Zhang was “virulently objecting to inclusion of Tashigong in Agreement.”
For centuries, the trade and pilgrimage route for the Kailash-Manasarovar region (and then onward to Lhasa) followed the course of the Indus, passed Demchok, the last Ladakhi village, and then crossed the border to reach the first Tibetan hamlet, Tashigong, some 15 miles inside Tibet.
Not only did Zhang refuse to mention Demchok in the agreement, but also bargained for nearly five months to not cite Tashigong.
Retrospectively, one can find two main reasons for the Chinese dragging their feet.
One was the proximity of the National Highway 219, later known as the ‘Aksai Chin Road’, cutting across the Indian territory in northern Ladakh. Though China had started constructing the highway, Delhi was to discover its existence only four years later.
In 1954, Indian border forces visiting Demchok could have noticed what was clandestinely being built; though the road was not within firing range for the Indian artillery, Beijing did not want to take a risk.
It did not occur to the Indian negotiators that something momentous was happening on the other side of the range.
The second reason is also grave and presently very relevant. After months of infructuous exchanges, Zhang Hanfu conceded that “traders customarily using this route might continue such use but an oral understanding to that effect between two delegations would suffice, (China) would not like in writing, even by implication, to have any reference to Ladakh.”
But why to not name this ancient route in the agreement, as it was done for the passes elsewhere? The answer is that China considered Ladakh a ‘disputed area’.
Kaul told Delhi: “We have taken (the) position that Ladakh is Indian territory and route should be mentioned as its omission would be invidious.”
But China did not accept the Indian contention and “after considerable argument (Zhang) agreed, but subsequently withdrew (his agreement). (He) suggests we would consider exchange of letters which will not form part of Agreement...”
Bargaining continued. India had finally to concur to the Chinese formulation. Demchok was mentioned nowhere, but article IV of the agreement says: “Traders and pilgrims of both countries may travel by the following passes and route: (1) Shipki La pass, (2) Mana pass, (3) Niti pass, (4) Kungri Bingri pass, (5) Darma pass, and (6) Lipu Lekh pass. … Also, the customary route leading to Tashigong along the valley of the Indus river may continue to be traversed in accordance with custom.”

History
You may think that it is past history, but it is not. China today continues to adamantly refuse to reopen the Demchok-Tashigong route to the abode of Lord Shiva, while insisting on a long and tortuous route via Nathu-la in Sikkim.
External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj should definitely raise this question with her Chinese counterpart when they meet.
The people of Ladakh have for years asked for the reopening of the ancient route.
Why is Beijing so reluctant to let people and goods flow again over the Himalaya?
Why can’t China allow the devotees wanting to visit Kailash-Manasarovar to use the easiest route, i.e. via Demchok?

Smuggling
It is not that there are no ‘exchanges’ along the Line of Actual Control.
Not far from Demchok, a place called Dumchule witnesses a good deal of smuggling happening between Tibet and Ladakh.
Local herders visit a Tibetan mart on the other side of the range, bringing back Chinese goods to Ladakh. If while visiting the bazaar in Leh, you wonder how there are so many Chinese bowls or other cheap stuff, the answer is Dumchule.
But the situation is not healthy; apart from the fact that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) can gather intelligence on what is happening on the Indian side, (that is why they close their eyes on the traffic) and worse, Indian pilgrims are not allowed to cross into Tibet and proceed to Mt Kailash.
To officially reopen the Demchok-Tashigong road would be the best confidence building measure (CBM) between India and China.
After all under its One Belt, One Road scheme, China constantly speaks of opening new routes or corridors.
Does Beijing restrict these projects to its ‘friends’ only (i.e. Pakistan and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor or Nepal in Zham and Kyirong)?
Let us hope that Wang will understand that it is in China’s interests to regularise the situation in Ladakh.
He should also clearly spell out China’s position: does Beijing still consider Ladakh a ‘disputed territory’.
If not, why not open Demchok?

‘One country’ which has not been nice

Can India ask for the return of Minsar?

My article ‘One country’ which has not been nice appeared in the Edit Page of The Pioneer.

Here is the link...

While blocking India’s NSG membership, China must look back into history when India twice refused a seat at the UNSC for the sake of the Middle Kingdom. Perhaps, India has been too good in its dealings with China

India’s bid to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) as a full-fledged member was rejected (or ‘postponed’) last week in Seoul. This outcome was expected since ‘one country’ wanted to play by the rules, and India is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), though Delhi has always strictly adhered to non-proliferation norms.
This has generated a lot of ink from analysts who have examined the issue from all angles. Shyam Saran, a former Foreign Secretary, wrote: “Why has China taken a more public and upfront position opposing India’s membership in the NSG?” His answer is that China today is a more confident and assertive power; it is “a demonstration of its newfound great power status rather than a sign of international isolation.”
Meanwhile, the Ministry of External Affairs spokesman who usually speaks in circumvoluted terms (sorry, in ‘diplomatic language’) made it clear: “There was only ‘one country’ which persistently raised procedural hurdles, as a result of which no decision could be arrived at in Seoul.”
It simply means: China is not ready to be nice to India. The minimum Beijing could have done was to show gratitude. Chinese are far better than Indians at remembering history. I am sure diplomats in Beijing still recall that India twice refused a seat in the UN Security Council (UNSC) for the sake of the Middle Kingdom.
Today, while China has a permanent seat in the UNSC with veto power, India has nothing. Why?  Perhaps India has been too ‘good’ in its dealings with China.
One remembers the 1955 Soviet offer to sponsor India’s case for a permanent seat. Sarvepalli Gopal, Nehru’s biographer, wrote: “He [Nehru] rejected the Soviet offer to propose India as the sixth permanent member of the Security Council and insisted that priority be given to China’s admission to the United Nations.”
Soviet Premier Nikolai Bulganin had told Nehru: “We propose suggesting at a later stage India’s inclusion as the sixth member of the Security Council”. Nehru answered: “This is to create trouble between us and China. We are, of course, wholly opposed to it. Further, we are opposed to pushing ourselves forward to occupy certain positions because that may itself create difficulties and India might itself become a subject to controversy.”
In August 1950, the US was also ready to sponsor a seat for India at the UN. Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, then posted as Ambassador to the US, wrote to her brother: “One matter that is being cooked up in the State Department should be known to you. This is the unseating of [Nationalist] China as a permanent member in the Security Council and of India being put in its place. …Last week I had interviews with [John Foster] Dulles and [Philip] Jessup... Both brought up this question and Dulles seemed particularly anxious that a move in this direction should be started.”
Nehru told Pandit: “The State Department is trying to unseat China as a permanent member of the Security Council and to put India in its place. So far as we are concerned, we are not going to countenance it. That will be bad from every point of view. It will be a clear affront to China and it will mean some kind of a break between us and China,” the Indian Prime Minister added: “We shall go on pressing for [Communist] China’s admission in the UN and the Security Council.”
All the more shocking as at that particular time, China was preparing to invade Tibet; a position in the UN would have helped India’s prestige and influence …and perhaps saved Tibet.
China has shown little gratitude towards India; perhaps Beijing is unable to appreciate kindness and generosity. India could also one day decide to be not nice with Beijing and ask for the return of territories belonging to India presently occupied by China.
Apart from the Shaksgam Valley, illegally ‘offered’ by Pakistan to China in 1963, the Government should ask for the return of Minsar, an Indian principality in Tibet. The Indian rights to this small town were inherited from the Peace Treaty between Ladakh and Tibet signed in Tingmosgang in 1684.
Besides the confirmation of the delimitation of the border between Tibet and Ladakh, the Treaty affirmed: “The king of Ladakh reserves to himself the village of Minsar in Ngari-khor-sum [western Tibet]”. For centuries, Minsar has been a home for Ladakhi and Kashmiri traders and pilgrims visiting the holy mountain.
The inhabitants of Minsar, although surrounded by Tibetan territories, paid their taxes to the kingdom of Ladakh. During the 19th century, when Ladakh was incorporated into Maharaja Gulab Singh’s State, Minsar became de facto part of the Jammu & Kashmir State which collected taxes from Minsar till the early 1950s. What happened then?
In 1953, wanting to be nice and have his Panchsheel Agreement signed, Nehru decided to abandon all Indian ‘colonial’ rights, inherited from the British. Even though Minsar had nothing to do with the Crown, being the outcome of an old treaty between Ladakh and Tibet, it was offered to China.
Though Nehru knew that the small principality was under the Maharaja of Kashmir’s suzerainty and, therefore, part of the Indian territory, he felt uneasy about this Indian possession, near Mt Kailash in Tibet. Nehru believed that India’s rights should unilaterally (and discretely) be renounced as a gesture of goodwill towards Communist China.
He instructed the diplomats negotiating the Panchsheel accord in Beijing: “Regarding the village of Minsar in western Tibet, which has belonged to the Kashmir State, it is clear that we shall have to give it up, if this question is raised. We need not raise it. If it is raised, we should say that we recognise the strength of the Chinese contention and we are prepared to consider it and recommend it.”
Beijing had not asked for anything. Nehru, however, added: “The point is that we should not come to a final agreement without gaining the formal assent of the Kashmir Government.” Delhi never referred the issue to Srinagar. The return of Minsar was never ratified by the Indian Parliament. Legally, Minsar still belongs to India. John Bray, the President of the International Association of Ladakh Studies wrote: “The status of Minsar is no more than a minor footnote to these concerns, but one that has still to be cleared up.”
Nehru’s perception that old treaties or conventions could be scrapped greatly weakened the Indian stand in the 1950s. Nehru’s wrong interpretation made it easy for the Chinese to tell their Indian counterparts, “Look here, McMahon was an imperialist, therefore, the McMahon line is an imperialist fabrication, therefore, it is illegal”.
If China wants today to be legalistic, India can also start claiming its territories in Tibet. Has Delhi the guts to do so?

Nepali-Chini Bhai Bhai

Chinese soldiers in Nepal after the eathquake

Nepalese Ambassador to India Deep Kumar Upadhyay asked India not to ‘push it to the wall’ by blocking petroleum and other essential supplies, otherwise the landlocked country would have to find alternatives: i.e. China …‘despite logistical difficulties’.
According to The Economic Times, Upadhyay asserted that, though India had assured Nepal that the present difficult situation will be resolved ‘at the earliest’: "They (India) should give a time frame. Does it mean hours, weeks or months?"
While one can only hope that the constitutional issues will soon be resolved to the satisfaction of all (and not only a section of the Nepalese population), China enjoys the situation.
According to Xinhua, on September 21, Beijing congratulated Kathmandu on the promulgation of its new constitution made public on the previous day.
During his daily press briefing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei stated: “We expect Nepal to use this as an opportunity, [for] achieving the nation's unity, stability and development.”
Hong added: “China attaches great importance to the China-Nepal ties, and is willing to continue the friendly cooperation between the two nations.”
Further, China is ready to provide “as much help as it can for the economic and social development of Nepal.”
In this atmosphere of Nepali-Chini bhai bhai, the relations between Nepal and Tibet are upbeat too.
On the day the new Constitution was promulgated in Nepal, Dadhiram Bhandari, Section Officer at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was in Lhasa.
He remembered that when first arrived in Lhasa in 2011, he thought that “Tibet was a marginalized and a primitive place, that was both barren and underdeveloped.”
Four years ago, his image of Tibet changed ‘within the blink of an eye’.
Bhandari was posted for four years in the Nepali Consulate in the Tibetan capital “every four months, I noticed significant changes,” he told Xinhua.
He recalled: “Development of Tibet is incredible. Despite the topographical harshness and climatic conditions, the Chinese government has made development a reality. We have so many things to learn from them."
Like most of the Nepali officials, Bhandari lavishly praises China for its role in Tibet: “Despite having a similar topography, Tibet has taken a heightened step in development whereas Nepal is still crawling, with political instability and minor issues.”
The Nepali official conveniently forgets that ‘stability’ was the main theme of the 50th Anniversary of the creation of the Tibetan Autonomous Region.
Yu Zhengsheng and others senior Chinese leaders stressed again and again on ‘stability’.
Why?
Simply because Tibet is not stable!
The Nepalis are blind to this.
Bhandari told Xinhua that Nepal should learn the dedication of the Chinese government and its commitment towards the development of Tibet.
This is of course propaganda, but the fact remains that Nepal and Tibet (and China) are getting closer by the day, at a time when the relations between Kathmandu and Delhi are rather frosty (understatement!).
Naindra Prasad Upadhyay, Secretary in the Ministry of Commerce and Supplies of Nepal, earlier posted as Consul General in Tibet, sings the same song than Bandari, "Tibet has done an impressive job with education and health development. Even in rural areas, we can find every facility. The living standard of people is high."
Upadhyay served in Tibet from 2007 to 2011; it was “a wonderful experience full of hospitality and cooperation,” he recalls.
Nepal is clearly enamoured of China: “Socio-economic development is taking place very rapidly in Tibet. The infrastructure development has provided a good opportunity for the people," believes the former Consul.
Nepal is eying at the tourists’ waves invading Tibet (17 million are expected in 2015).
Kathmandu calculates that it could greatly benefit if only 10 percent of Tibet's tourists could be diverted to Nepal.
Rajesh Kaji Shrestha, President of Nepal's Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry in an interview with Xinhua affirms: "We need to develop a strong cooperation with Tibet, especially with the nearest city [like] Lhasa for trade and tourism."
He adds "Tibetans are curious to do trade with Nepal. We can import anything from there but we need to make an environment for export focusing on specific goods."
Today Nepal get some 8 lakhs of tourists every year, nearly half of them Chinese, but the proportion of the latter is increasing fast.
Xinhua regrets: “the April 25 earthquake has diminished [the inflow of Chinese tourist in] Nepal, [which is] eager to draw more tourists and boost the country's economy.
Kathmandu would like to learn more from Tibet in order to achieve a more significant growth in tourists’ inflow.
What does it mean for India?
Last year on this blog, I reported the opening of the Kyirong (Chinese: Gyirong) landport.
I then quoted from a report of the official China Tibet Online:

The Gyirong Port in southwest China’s Tibet bordered with Nepal will be formally opened in October this year. The opening of the Gyirong Port has been listed in the key work plan of national ports in 2014."

The creation of a cross-border China-Nepal Gyirong Port Economic Cooperation Zone was then announced. The website continued:

The Gyirong Port enjoys a long history of being the largest land trading port between Tibet and Nepal. Many shop owners have expressed their hope that the opening of the port can help them get more involved in the border trade. From May 2007, the Shigatse Customs House will dispatch four officials to station at the Gyirong Port. A regular coordination system had been set up in order to seek support from the Gyirong county government, the Gyirong Customs and the Risur Customs of Nepal. Besides, the officials have been trying to promote preferential trade policies to encourage the local people to participate in the border trade. And some training has been provided to the port officials in Zham Customs House, another Class A port next to Gyirong in south Tibet’s Shigatse Prefecture.

What will be the outcome of the opening of a new port between Tibet and Nepal?
What will be the consequences of the arrival of the train in Kyirong in 3 or 4 years?
It first means new infrastructure on both side of the border, not only for tourists but also commodities, including oil, food products, etc.
In the long-term, it signifies that Tibet (read China) can replace India as the main supplier of commodities.
This will have serious strategic implications for India.
And the Tibetan refugees will further suffer in Nepal.
On 29th September, on the occasion of the second China Tibet International Tourism and Culture Expo, Dinesh Kumar Thapaliya, Nepal’s Secretary of Culture, Tourism and Aviation asserted:

Since our two countries [Nepal and China] established formal diplomatic relations in 1955, both sides have entered a new era of cooperation and development; high-level visits from both sides have increased as has mutual understanding; bilateral relations have forged ahead, deepening the multifaceted cooperation between the two countries. Both countries have cooperated in many areas internationally; further promoting peace, development and prosperity. The Nepal government’s stance towards the ‘One China’ policy is firm and unwavering; we will not allow, under any circumstances, any force to use our territory to encroach on the interests of our northern neighbor.

In another words, Nepal will stand with China in a ‘firm and unwavering’ manner.
Thapaliya said the Expo provided “an important opportunity for the promotion of tourism and culture in Nepal and Tibet, which will help further cooperation in this area.”
He ‘fondly’ recalled that Nepal and the People’s Republic of China have a long history of friendly relations: “Tibet has always been the gateway connecting Nepal to Mainland China; therefore Nepal and Tibet have a special relationship. Both sides have the same values based on the Buddha’s teachings and the towering Himalayas provide an important link between the two civilizations.”
It is good to know that China's Tibet is a Buddhist nation.
Thapaliya added: “China and Nepal share similar ideas and values and are geographically close.”
‘Similar values and ideals’?
What about democracy, now that Nepal has a Constitution?
The Nepali minister called for an improvement or the interconnection via land and air between China and Nepal, in particular Tibet and Nepal, adding that it will help promoting “mutual benefit, especially with respect to cultural tourism.”
India is nowhere is this new scheme.
Thapaliya even recalled: “In April this year Nepal suffered a devastating earthquake, but thanks to the strength of the Nepalese people and the powerful support of a friendly nation, normal life has been restored in Nepal.”
Nepal is presently so obsessed with China, that Kathmandu even forgets India’s help during the tragic post-earthquake days.
How to revert the trend is not an easy task.

Ajit Doval reminds China of History on border issue

My article Ajit Doval reminds China of History on border issue appeared in NitiCentral.


Here is the link...

‘The views of the two Governments remain as far apart as before’, wrote Subimal Dutt, the Indian Foreign Secretary in April 1960.
He was addressing ‘all the Indian Missions abroad’ to inform them about the visit of the Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai, who had come to Delhi to discuss the Sino-Indian border issue.
Tens of hours of talks between Nehru and his Chinese counterpart led nowhere. The transcript of the discussions has recently been declassified in The Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, (Series II, Volume 60). These documents make fascinating reading, particularly in the context of Prime Minister Modi’s recent visit to China and the seemingly stuck border negotiations.
Let us return to the present. During the annual K.F. Rustamji lecture, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval (who also officiates as Special Representative for the border talks with China), affirmed that while India's relations with China ‘were looking up’, India needs to remain on a ‘very very high alert’.
Speaking on 'Challenges of Securing India’s Borders: Strategising the Response’, Doval noted: “We have got a very long border, a very difficult and mountainous terrain snow-clad... for the bilateral relations with China, border is the critical and vital issue.”
Considering that Ajit Doval admitted that ‘advancement made in the relationship with China are centred around the settlement of the border’, it makes the ‘partnership’ all the more unstable.
Doval touched upon Arunachal Pradesh: “We are particularly concerned about the Eastern sector where [Chinese] claims have been made on Tawang (in Arunachal Pradesh) which is totally in contravention of accepted principles.”
Obviously, the NSA refers to ‘Agreement on the Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the India-China Boundary Question’ signed on April 11, 2005 between India and China.
Article VII speaks of the ‘settled population’: “In reaching a boundary settlement, the two sides shall safeguard due interests of their settled populations in the border areas.”
Ten years after the signature of the agreement, Doval reminds the Chinese that: “there is [a] settled population in these areas particularly in Tawang and other areas which have been participating in the national mainstream all through.”
But Beijing has forgotten about the 2005 Guidelines!
It is not even mentioned in the Joint Statement signed during Mr. Modi’s visit to China! It is a serious issue: if an agreement is reached after a lot of effort and time and soon after Beijing become affected by Alzheimer disease, it creates a huge problem for the co-signatory.
Doval mentioned another point: he was surprised that while China has agreed to the McMahon line being the Sino-Burmese border in 1960, the same principle was not accepted in the case of India. He added: “So, these are the ticklish issues. But these ticklish issues have to be talked about, deliberated and worked out.”
Doval also readily admitted that the Special Representative talks between India and China on the boundary issue had not made any headway so far: “Special Representative level talks …haven't reached anywhere. But it is also true that for last 30 years we have not exchanged a single bullet. But, it is also true that the number of intrusions have gone up and down. Fortunately, in the last one year the intrusions have become much less."
Beijing was quick to react to the NSA’s statements.
Foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying declared: “The Chinese side holds a consistent and clear position on the eastern section of the China-India boundary: Arunachal Pradesh is a part of Southern Tibet.”
Madam Hua explained: “The Chinese government does not recognise the McMahon Line, which is illegal,” adding: “The Chinese side is ready to work with the Indian side to resolve the boundary question through friendly consultation at an early date."
Hua did not say anything on the McMahon Line and Burma, she just noted: “it is not easy to resolve the China-India boundary question, as it is an issue left over from history."
Minus the 2005 Guidelines!!!
Incidentally, about the ‘left over from history’ theory, Morarji Desai, the then Finance Minister told Zhou Enlai during the 1960 talks, that it was wrong. China has created ‘history’ by invading Tibet: “Our attitude to Tibet has been condemned not only by our people but also by our friends abroad. They say that instead of being neutral in this dispute between Tibet and China, we should not have allowed you [Chinese] to dominate the Tibetans.”
The future Prime Minister added that India “surrendered all the privileges that we had inherited from the British. This was not entirely to the liking of our people but the Government of India and its leaders are convinced that what we did was the right thing.”
As mentioned earlier, Subimal Dutt told the Indian Missions that the Chinese and Indian views ‘remain as far apart as before’.
That was in April 1960. Unfortunately, nothing has changed since then.
After Zhou left Delhi on April 26, 1960, Dutt wrote to the Indian Ambassadors: “The Premier had seven long talks with the Prime Minister.”
Can you imagine today Modi and Xi together for a week and having 7 rounds of talks (of several hours each) on the disputed border?
What was Beijing’s position vis-à-vis China’s border with India in 1960?
It is summarized by Dutt: “The Sino-Indian boundary is not delimited and has to be settled by discussion between the two Governments.”
Delhi has always said the Eastern sector (then NEFA, today Arunachal) was settled in 1914 during the Simla Convention (i.e. the McMahon Line).
Dutt continues to quote Beijing’s views: “The Chinese will never accept the McMahon Line as a valid boundary. The NEFA area was traditionally part of Tibet and in many parts the Tibetans had been exercising jurisdiction. Indian control has extended there during the last 20 or 30 years.” Madam Hua says the same thing now!
China was (and still is) unwilling to acknowledge that in 1914, Tibet, an independent nation, was entitled to sign treaties or agreements with other countries.
According to Dutt, the next Chinese argument was: “The Ladakh area has been historically and traditionally part of Sinkiang [Xinjiang] in China and western Tibet, and has never been disputed until India tried to extend her control during the last one or two years.”
Here again, Beijing rewrites the history, and the Chinese position is as inflexible 55 years later.
Finally, Beijing equates the situation on the East (where the Chinese claim Tawang) to the West (India’s claims over the Aksai Chin) and says: “The position in Ladakh and NEFA is exactly similar in that there is a line upto which Indian control extends in NEFA and there is a line upto which Chinese control extends in Ladakh. The Indian claim to Ladakh must be treated in exactly the same basis as the Chinese claim to the NEFA.”
Dutt’s conclusion was: “We have disagreed with the Chinese stand on every single point,” however he told the Ambassadors, that it was “quite obvious that the Chinese aim is to make us accept their claim in Ladakh as a price for their recognition of our position in NEFA.”
In another words, a swap.
Today, Beijing is not even ready for a swap as it has added Tawang and the ‘populated’ area around, to its claims, in total contradiction of the 2005 Guidelines.
An Alzheimerish China is dangerous for India and Delhi ‘needs to remain on a very high alert’.

Demchok and the New Silk Road: China's double standard

A small nalla (stream) marks the border between Ladakh and Tibet

On May 23, Scoop News reported that the Chief Executive Councilor of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC), Rigzin Spalbar wrote to J&K Chief Minister Mufti Mohd Sayeed requesting his support on an issue important for the people of the mountainous region.
Spalbar wanted Mufti to take up with the Central Government the opening (or reopening) of the Kailash Manasarovar route via Demchok, in Leh district of Ladakh.
Soon before President Xi Jinping’s visited India in September 2014, PTI reported a forthcoming ‘political gesture’ from Beijing; the Chinese President was to announce the opening of a new route, via Nathu la in Sikkim, for Indian pilgrims wanting to go on the Kailash Manasarovar yatra.
It is a fact that the Ministry of External Affairs’ yatra, via the Lipulekh-Purang route has always been rather treacherous.
For those who were unaware of the topography of the Himalayas, the Chinese offer to open Nathu-la seemed reasonable.
PTI then explained: “The new route, though longer, takes pilgrims from Nathu La to Shigatse… [and] from there the pilgrims could comfortably travel to Manasarovar and Kailash using well laid out highway.”
It was obviously Beijing’s rationale, but was it really in India’s interests? PTI explained: “It would be part of the big gesture of friendship not only to strike chord with Mr Modi but also the people at large, specially the Hindus and Buddhists considering its religious importance.”
But this ‘gesture of friendship’ from Beijing was obviously driven by self-interest.
In his letter to Mufti Mohd Sayeed, Spalbar mentioned the historical and spiritual importance of Mount Kailash and Manasarovar Lake as pilgrimage places for Buddhists as well as Hindu and Jain believers. He further pointed out that the Buddhist population of Ladakh had a long tradition of visiting the Kailash area, at least till China occupied Tibet in the early 1950s; the pilgrims till then always used the Demchok road.
Spalbar added that till the 17th century, the Manasarovar Lake and Mount Kailash were part of the Kingdom of Ladakh and the village of Minsar, near the Holy Mountain (read my article on Minsar) continued to pay revenues to the J&K State up to 1960.
In 1954, Ven. Kushok Bakula Rinpoche, then a Minister in J&K Government visited Manasarovar, along with Sonam Khangsar, a Judicial Clerk of the Leh District Commissioner Office, via Demchok; they collected taxes from the Minsar villagers.
The Chief Executive Councilor highlighted the fact that the Lipulekh and Nathu-la routes are difficult as it “involves trekking at high altitudes upto 19,500 feet under inhospitable conditions including extreme cold and rugged terrain that covers 23-25 days.”
Spalbar suggested using the Demchok route as the Holy Lake and Mountain are located at a mere two-day drive from Leh; further the route is relatively easy as it does not encounter any major pass en route.
The letter further states that the opening of the Leh-Demchok route to Kailash Manasarovar route has been “a persistent demand from the people of Ladakh since last many decades and has been relentlessly taken up with previous Governments at Center.”
According to the Chief Councilor, the opening up of the Demchok road could be a catalyst for the local economy as well as for the overall development of Ladakh.
It would further give a new dimension to the trade and tourism sector to the Ladakh district and the entire J&K State: “Moreover, the long lost historical and spiritual relations [between Tibet and Ladakh] will be revived,” wrote Spalbar.
A day later, The Economic Times said that the J&K State Congress “hit out at the Narendra Modi government for its alleged failure in taking up the issue of opening of Demchok route in Ladakh for pilgrimage to Kailash Mansoravar, in the ongoing talks with China.”
The Legislature Party leader from Ladakh, Rigzin Jora alleged: "Modi government has failed to take up opening of Demchok… It is unfortunate that he has not taken up with China the opening of a new route …although this was BJP's commitment in the parliamentary election.”
Jora used the same argument as Spalbar: “One can drive upto Kailash Mansarovar from Leh in two days without going through any high pass. So far the access is through Pithorgarh in Uttaranchal and ...through Nathu La pass in Sikkim.”
He added: “Both these routes are treacherous and vulnerable to vagaries of nature and climate. A large number of pilgrims have lost their lives negotiating the high passes and the difficult terrain on these two routes. Demchok provides the easiest access. A pilgrim can visit the holy site and be back in Delhi in a week's time.”
Jora asserted that during former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's second tenure, Delhi was given to understand by Beijing that China was ‘not averse’ to open the Demchok road as it was ‘not a disputed area.’
Jora’s assertions cannot be confirmed as it is not known if National Security Advisor Ajit Doval could take up or not the issue of Demchok with his Chinese counterpart, State Councilor Yang Jiechi, when they recently discussed the Indo-China Boundary issue.

Another view of the nalla

The New Silk Road
It is however rather strange that China, which is batting for a grand plan to create a modern Silk Road, with an mind-blowing investment of over US $2.5 trillion (over a period of a decade), still refuses to open the Demchok, one of the main traditional trade routes linking the subcontinent to Tibet and Xinjiang.
The Chinese Commerce Minister Gao Hucheng explained that more than 50 countries have shown interest in the initiative known as ‘One Belt, One Road’ to build a modern Silk Road Economic Belt (as well as a 21st Century Maritime Silk Road).
These projects include a network of railways, highways, oil and gas pipelines, power grids, Internet networks, maritime and other infrastructure links across Central, West and South Asia to as far as Greece, Russia and Oman.
Beijing’s open objective is to increase China's connections to Europe and Africa.
Speaking at the sidelines of a conference in Boao, Xi Jinping said the scheme would stimulate trade and investment between China and countries along the route: “We hope that the annual trade volume between China and these countries surpasses US $ 2.5 trillion in a decade or so,” affirmed the Chinese President.
At the same time, the traditional routes, Demchok and the Karakoram Pass linking Ladakh to Tibet and Xinjiang remain closed to tourism, pilgrimage and trade.
This New Silk Road appears to be a Chinese hypocrisy, for keeping India away from the benefits of the project.

In the meantime, the J&K State is trying to increase the areas coming under the inner line permit system (or Protected Area Permit) for the foreigners wanting to visit some remote areas of Ladakh.
Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed stated: “The matter regarding extending the inner line permit for foreign tourists from Panamik to Varshi, including Yarma, Gumpa and Yarma Gongu monastery (in protected areas) in Nubra valley of Leh district, has been taken up with the Ministry of Home Affairs in February.”
These areas falls under the border districts of J&K which are covered by the Protected Area Regime under the Foreigners (Protected Areas) Order, 1958; it means that this order predates the time India discovered that China had built a road through the Aksai Chin.
A lot of water has flowed in the Indus since then.
The J&K administration had issued an order in January permitting domestic tourists to enter some of the so-called ‘protected areas’ under Nubra sub-division. The Indian Army was however not keen to allow foreign tourists in these protected areas without certain precautions.
It is said that the headquarters of 14 Corps based in Leh would agree to the extension of inner line permit (PAP) beyond Panamik with the precondition of establishing a police post to restrict foreign tourists beyond Varshi and along the road Sasoma-Sasrila; that would address the Army apprehensions.
While the security concerns should certainly be taken into consideration, it is also important to show to the world (and first, China) that these areas fall under India’s jurisdiction and it is up to the Central and State governments to grant permission.The same principle applies to many areas of Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim.
Regarding Demchok, the hypocrisy of China on this issue should be publicized; India can’t be roped in a Silk Road project if her interests are not taken into consideration.
And it is clearly in India's interest to open up Demchok to pilgrimage and later trade.

Rebalancing the Chinese Romance

My article Rebalancing the Chinese Romance is posted in Rediff.com

Here is the link...


'The question remains: Was the Obama visit truly a success?
'Only the future will tell us if the "breakthrough" in the nuclear liability issue will concretise into electricity... As importantly, it will be interesting to watch how India's relations with China will evolve in the months to come,' says Claude Arpi.

President Barack Obama has come and gone. The dust is slowly settling over the Indian capital. Even if very few concrete projects have materialized during the three-day visit, it looks as a great diplomatic success for Mr Narendra Modi. The bonhomie displayed by the two heads of Government is certainly a good omen for the future. At last India has come out of the dreadful ‘non- alignment’ syndrome.
The question remains, was the visit truly a success?
Only the future will tell us if the ‘breakthrough’ in the nuclear liability issue will concretize into electricity and if a similar formula can be applied for other countries ready to invest in nuclear energy in India, particularly France and Korea.
As importantly, it will be interesting to watch how India’s relations with China will evolve in the months to come.
The Global Times ran an op-ed saying: “The seemingly enthusiastic approach of the US and India and the romance between the two leaders do not suggest any substantial improvement in the bilateral ties of the two countries."
It is certainly a possibility, but it is also a fact that the visit of the US President to India on the occasion of the Republic Day triggered a larger than usual number of articles/comments in the Chinese press.
It started early on; the ‘romance’ was ignited by a big hug on the tarmac of Palam airport in front of the Beast.
The mouthpiece of the Communist Party of China asserted: “High-sounding remarks and deals are often showcased during high-level visits between the US and India, but when the trips end, actions often lag behind and words fail to translate into visible actions. The latest visit will likely repeat this pattern.”
This is might be true, but it is not restricted to the US, it happened after Xi Jinping’s and Putin’s visit to India too.
What made the difference this time was the ‘U.S.-India Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region’, released on the first day of the 3-day stay of the Obamas in India.
The new ‘Vision’, again mentioned in the Joint Statement, says: “India and the United States are important drivers of regional and global growth. From Africa to East Asia, we will build on our partnership to support sustainable, inclusive development, and increased regional connectivity by collaborating with other interested partners to address poverty and support broad-based prosperity.”
What has probably irked Beijing and triggered the Chinese press impressive media coverage was that India and the US affirmed “the importance of safeguarding maritime security and ensuring freedom of navigation and over flight throughout the region, especially in the South China Sea.”
The Joint Strategic Vision directly targeted Beijing: “We called on all parties to avoid the threat or use of force and pursue resolution of territorial and maritime disputes through all peaceful means, in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.”
How come these ‘non-shareholders’, India and the US, ‘call on all parties’ to interfere in the region, protested China?
Hu Qingyun, in another The Global Times’ piece saw the situation slightly differently: “While some say the US intends to use India as a wedge to contain China, most experts agree that New Delhi will not take sides.”
Zhou Fangyin, a professor at the Guangdong Research Institute for International Strategies explained in same article: “Obama's strategy is quite clear. He wants to split the relations between China and India, as well as India and Russia, in an effort to fulfill his strategy of a ‘re-balance’ in Asia," adding: “The US is courting India to become an ally in South Asia to contain China by supporting economic and military development.”
It is a fact that Beijing is clearly worried about any outside interference on its own turf. The more neutral South China Morning Post also believed the Modi-Obama encounter was targeting China: “Obama's appearance as chief guest at India's Republic Day parade underlined the strengthening ties between the two countries and - according to some analysts - sent a message that India and the US could team up against China if needed.”
Sun Shihai, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences told the Hong Kong newspaper: "The trip is a signal that both nations are exerting pressure on China. It shows that India's worries about China are deep-rooted and have not eased even though Beijing and New Delhi have vowed to deepen cooperation."
As the US President arrived in Delhi, Xinhua had predicted that nothing much will happen: “the Sino-Indian relations are not expected to be ‘significantly’ impacted by Obama's visit. The ongoing Obama trip in India may succeed in propelling the US-India relationship forward, it could hardly change the ground reality that India also needs China as a crucial cooperation partner."
Hua Chunying, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson took the same line during his press briefing, she affirmed: “China hopes the development of US-India relations can promote mutual trust and cooperation between countries in the region as well as benefit regional stability and prosperity.”
On January 26, 2015, President Xi Jinping sent a congratulatory message to his Indian counterpart in which he noted that “both China and India, as two ancient civilizations, are pursuing a great dream of national rejuvenation. China is delighted with India's achievements in its development.” Xi also conveyed that: “China is willing to make concerted efforts with India to lift China-India strategic cooperative partnership featuring peace and prosperity to new highs.”
The views of The New York Times are obviously more antagonistic to China: “Mr. Obama and his aides discovered to their surprise that Mr. Modi’s assessment of China’s rise and its impact on the greater strategic situation in East Asia was closely aligned with their own. Just as they did, Mr. Modi seemed increasingly uneasy about China’s efforts to extend its influence around the region and interested in a united approach to counter them.”
It is doubtful if the views of the Modi government were not known in Washington before Obama’s arrival; the US newspaper however added: “Mr. Modi seems not only willing but eager to redefine India’s relationship with the United States at a time China is on the rise economically, militarily and politically.”
Does Modi want to put all his eggs in the American basket? Certainly not!
An interesting development took place a day after President Obama left India. The Indian government announced the "curtailment of tenure of foreign secretary Sujatha Singh with immediate effect” and S. Jaishankar, India's ambassador to the US … and former ambassador to China became the new foreign secretary.
Jaishankar’s knowledge of the two countries and his rapport with both capitals will be a great asset in the new ‘alignment’ policy of Narendra Modi.
Another telling detail, Pakistani Army Chief, General Raheel Sharif was in Beijing during Obama’s visit to India. The General met the PLA top brass and particularly Yu Zhengsheng, chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, who told him: “China appreciates and supports Pakistan's efforts in fighting against terrorism and hopes to better bilateral defense and security cooperation.” Beijing is ready to work with its ‘forever good friend’ “to upgrade our strategic coordination, deepen all-round cooperation, and step up the building of China-Pakistan economic corridor," said Yu. A veiled threat?
Around the same time, during a politburo meeting, President Xi reaffirmed his commitment to traditional Marxist philosophy. The Politburo had a collective study session on Marxist dialectical materialism, a year after it held a similar one on historical materialism.
Is China going back to the days of pure Marxism? It is probably a more important question than the new ‘re-alignment’ of the Asian forces.

Proximity that should make India sit up

Kyirong landport, a new Gate to India?

My article Proximity that should make India sit up appeared in the Edit Page of The Pioneer

Here is the link...

Modi had offered Nepal a line of credit of one billion dollar for development projects. It was not appreciated. As a result, China has decided to increase by more than five times its official aid to the former kingdom

January 1 is a day for new resolutions. It is also a day for predictions. I will abstain from the first, but indulge in the second. The year 2015 will witness a slow takeover of Nepal by China. Here are some facts. In November 1950, a few days after China invaded Tibet, the young editor of Mother India, (published in Mumbai) asked Sri Aurobindo, the great Indian freedom-fighter and yogi about these ominous happenings in the Himalayas. The sage gave his views. In his next editorial, KD Sethna, the journalist wrote: “Let us not blink to the fact that Tibet is useful to China principally as a gate of entry to India. Nepal …appears to be the most likely objective (of Mao).” It is what is happening 64 years later.
Last week, Mr Wang Yi, the Chinese Foreign Minister, visited Kathmandu, where he declared: “Nepal is an important neighbour of China and developing ties with Nepal is one of China’s priorities in developing ties with its neighbours.” While expressing ‘his gratitude toward Nepal for its firm and precious support in China’s core interests including the issue of Tibet,’ Mr Wang added: “China and Nepal should not only be friends of mutual trust and mutual support, but also should be good partners of common development and common prosperity.”
When Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was in Nepal for the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation meeting last month, he offered Nepal a line of credit of one billion dollars. It was probably not appreciated on the other side of the Himalayas. As a result, China has decided to increase by more than five times its official aid to the former kingdom. Reuters reported: “The jump in assistance was announced after talks between visiting Chinese Foreign Minister and his Nepali counterpart Mahendra Bahadur Pandey, part of a deepening engagement which is expected to lead to a visit by President Xi Jinping next year.”
China has three objectives. One, Beijing needs to control the Tibetan refugees living in Nepal and make sure that their ranks do not increase in the coming years. Two, the communist leadership wants to render Kathmandu economically dependent on the trade with Tibet (read China). Three, China believes in ‘culturally’ infiltrating Nepal.
On the first issue of Tibet, China has already acted. During his visit to the former kingdom, Mr  Wang laid the foundations of a ‘police academy’ to train officers of Nepal’s Armed Police Force to guard the districts bordering Tibet. The new police academy is a ‘gift’ to Nepal, on top of the annual aid of $128 million. The Chinese Foreign Minister emphatically told reporters: “As neighbours, China and Nepal have common security needs... we need to work together to crack down on illegal border crossings and transnational crimes.”
In the past, tens of thousands of Tibetans crossed over the Himalayan passes; once they reached Kathmandu, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees would issue them passes for their onward journey to India. Beijing calls these refugees: ‘Illegal migrants’ and has decided to ‘help’ Kathmandu to stop the hemorrhage of Tibetans through the Himalayan passes.
On the second issue, China wants to increase manifold the trade between Tibet and Nepal. Mr Wang declared that the two nations should fully implement the ‘three supports’, namely, funds, talent and geography. About geography, new facilities at the China-Nepal (Kyirong-Rasuwa) landport have been opened on December 1. The China Daily says that it will “boost business between China and Nepal and benefit nearby residents.”
The Kyirong port is an old gateway between Tibet and Nepal; the present border post was opened in 1962, when the traditional trade between India and Tibet stopped due to the Sino-Indian conflict. Wang Long, Director of the new Kyirong Customs, recently declared that with the extension of the Qinghai-Lhasa railway line to Shigatse (opened in August), the new port will be a bridgehead towards South Asia. Does it mean that China is planning to flood India with consumer goods through the porous Indo-Nepal border in the Terai? This could be a very serious issue for India.
The new port and the arrival of the train (in a few years it will reach Kyirong) will also have security implications for India, especially if the military exchanges between Beijing and Kathmandu keep increasing. But there is worse, and it is Beijing’s third objective, to culturally infiltrate Nepal (and North India).
A few days ago, PTI reported that “security agencies have found that close to four dozen Chinese study centres and other monasteries are present along India's frontiers with Nepal and Bhutan and are allegedly indulging in propaganda programs.” The news agency quoted a report prepared by the Sashastra Seema Bal, the Central Police Force manning the Indo-Nepal border, under the administrative jurisdiction of the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The SSB believes that a number of China Study Centres have come up on Nepalese territory; 11 of them located dangerously (for India) close to the 1,751 km long Indo-Nepal border. PTI adds that these centres are working in the ‘Terai’ areas, ‘especially Jhapa and Ilam districts (of Nepal), which have strong trade, economic and ethnic ties with India.’ Though these CSCs are just supposed to teach Chinese language to local people and disseminate cultural information about China, they often indulge in ‘anti-India propaganda’, says the report.
There is certainly a possibility of these CSCs soon becoming Chinese spy centres. But there is more. The report also asserts that “22 monasteries have also come up along the border areas with Bhutan in the Indian territory between the districts of East Sikkim to Jaigaon, a small town in West Bengal near the Bhutan border.”
The ‘Buddhist’ centres, which ‘are supposed to carry out religious activities’ would have been started during the last few years. Have they been set up for religious purposes alone, is the question? According to the same source, some monasteries would have also been constructed near Kalimpong in Jalpaiguri district of West Bengal, where a Mountain Division of the Indian Army is located. Others have been reported in Malbazar, also a sub-division of Jalpaiguri district and in the neighbouring Alipurduar.
It is not difficult to predict, that in 2015, with the visit of President Xi Jinping to Nepal, the Sino-Nepali ‘collaboration’ will become closer. Delhi should seriously watch these critical developments.

China’s inroads in Nepal

Wang Yi with Nepali Prime Minister

My article China’s inroads in Nepal appeared today in NitiCentral.

Here is the link...

At the end of November, Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Nepal and held important talks with his Nepali counterpart Sushil Koirala. Not only did they discuss strategic issues, but India and Nepal signed 10 bilateral agreements.
Further, India offered a line of credit (LoC) of US$ 1 Billion to be utilized for hydropower, irrigation and infrastructural development projects. After the meeting, Narendra Modi commented: “When we trust each other, we can move forward very quickly.”
Though that sounded very positive, these developments may not have been appreciated on the other side of the Himalayas. According to Reuters, “China will increase official aid to Nepal by more than five times from fiscal 2015-16.” China wants “to develop infrastructure in the landlocked nation where regional rival India has long wielded political influence,” says Reuters which further reported: “The jump in assistance was announced after talks between visiting Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and his Nepali counterpart Mahendra Bahadur Pandey, part of a deepening engagement which is expected to lead to a visit by President Xi Jinping next year.”
China has two main stakes. One, Beijing wants to control the Tibetan refugees living in Nepal and make sure that their ranks do not increase in the coming years. Two, the Communist leadership wants to render Kathmandu economically dependent on the trade with Tibet (read China).
According to Xinhua: “Wang expressed his gratitude toward Nepal for its firm and precious support in China's core interests, including the issue of Tibet, …China and Nepal should not only be friends of mutual trust and mutual support, but also should be good partners of common development and common prosperity.”
On the first issue, Tibet, China has already acted. During his visit to the former kingdom, Wang Yi laid the foundations of a ‘police academy’ to train officers of Nepal’s Armed Police Force to guard the districts bordering Tibet. The new police academy is a ‘gift’ to Nepal, on top of the annual aid of US $128 million. The Chinese Foreign Minister told reporters: “As neighbors China and Nepal have common security needs ... we need to work together to crack down on illegal border crossings and transnational crimes.”
The Nepali leaders are not concerned as to why so many Tibetans try to escape Tibet. In the past, tens of thousands of Tibetans crossed over the Himalayan passes; once they reached Kathmandu, the United Nations’ High Commissioner for Refugees would use issue them passes for their onward journey to Dharamsala in Himachal Pradesh where the Dalai Lama lives.
Beijing calls these refugees, ‘illegal migrants’ and has decided to ‘help’ Kathmandu (with ‘gifts’ such as the Police Academy) to stop the hemorrhage of Tibetan through the Himalayan passes; as a result, the number of Tibetans ‘migrants’ has fallen from about 2,500 six years ago to about 200 last year.
On the second issue, China wants to increase manifold the trade between Tibet (China) and Nepal. Wang proposed to “widen pragmatic cooperation in nine sectors, namely trade, investment, agriculture, infrastructure, science and technology, interconnection and intercommunication, tourism, cultural and educational exchanges, security and law enforcement.”
The Foreign Minister stated that the two nations should fully implement the ‘three supports’, namely funds, talent and geography.
About geography, new facilities at the China (Kyirong) Nepal (Rasuwa) Bilateral Port have been opened on December 1. The China Daily says that it will “to boost business between China and Nepal and benefit nearby residents.”
The Kyirong port is an old gateway between Tibet and Nepal; the present border post was opened in 1962, when the traditional trade between India and Tibet stopped due to the Sino-Indian conflict.
The China Daily admits that the trade through Kyirong “began to drop off in the mid-1980s and continued to decline through 2006,” but in the recent years, exchanges between China and Nepal have increased so much that the Zhangmu Port, Tibet's largest land port, could no longer cope with the demand.
Penpa, director of the Tibet Autonomous Region's Department of Commerce explained: “Since 2008, preparatory projects to expand the [Kyirong] port have been launched, including equipping the port with inspection and support services."
Wang Long, the director of the new Kyirong Customs said that the extension of the Qinghai-Lhasa Railway line to Shigatse (opened in August) will be a bridgehead towards South Asia; he added: “There will be an increase in the categories of products and the quantity of exported electronic products, and there will be a rise in trading volume as well."
Does it mean that China is planning to flood India with consumer goods through the porous Indo-Nepal border in the Terai? This could be a very serious issue for India.
Su Yuanming, director of Tibet’s Port Administrative Office also told The China Daily: “Operation of the port means a solid foundation for China to build the South Asia trading area, and it will help to promote trade between China and South Asian countries in the near future."
It is time for India to wake up to this new threat.
From January through November 2014, trade volume through Kyirong Port reached 1,600 metric tons for a value of US $ 4.5 million, double the value of the past three years combined. With the formal opening of the new facilities, these figures are bound to increase manifold in 2015.
The China Daily emphasizes that it will greatly improve the lives of the local population on both sides. It quotes Lhakpa, a Tibetan from Kyirong Township, who worked as a driver since the age of 15, and now, at the age of 34, owns a small transport company: “I have long been waiting for this day, and I believe it will boost my business." Lhakpa explains: "With improved traffic conditions and a better electricity network, our villagers have begun to enjoy the advantages brought about by the government."
It is true that the residents of Kyirong have been trading with Nepal since ancient times, though the quantity of products has always been limited. Following the opening of the new port, it may not the case anymore.
In November 1950, a few days after China invaded Tibet, the young Editor of Mother India, (published in Mumbai) asked Sri Aurobindo, the great Indian freedom fighter and yogi about these ominous happenings in the Himalayas. The sage gave his views; in his next editorial, K.D. Sethna, the journalist wrote: “Let us not blink to the fact that Tibet is useful to China principally as a gate of entry to India. Nepal …appears to be the most likely objective;” Sethna further explained: “An extension of Mao’s rule to Nepal will lay India open to easy attack by him [Mao]”.
It is what is happening 64 years later.
The new port and the arrival of the train in Shigatse (and later in Kyirong) will also have strategic and security implications on India, especially if the military exchanges between Beijing and Kathmandu keep increasing.

When India had a Consulate in Lhasa

The Nepalese newspaper, The Republica reported that "China has turned down India's proposal to establish its Consulate General Office in Lhasa of Tibet."
The  proposal was made by Sujatha Singh, the Indian Foreign Secretary during the 6th China-India strategic dialogue held in Beijing last week.
Nepal remains the only country to have a Consulate General Office in Lhasa.
According to The Republica, after meeting her Chinese counterpart, Deputy Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin, Singh told the reporters that "India will now plan a decisive talk with China in this regard."
What does it mean?
India is ready to drop the idea of reopening the Lhasa Consulate?
Let us not forget that India had a full-fledged Mission between 1947 and 1952; in 1952, it was foolishly downgraded by Nehru into a Consulate General(under Chinese pressure).
After the 1962 Sino-Indian War, the Indian Consulate General in Lhasa (and the 3 Trade Agencies in Yatung, Gyantse and the 'seasonal' one in Gartok) were closed.
It appears that the outgoing Indian government is backing out of its earlier demand and would now be satisfied  with another Consulate General in Chengdu (Sichuan) or Kunming (Yunnan province) instead of Lhasa.
This remains to be confirmed.
Today, India has 2 Consulate General Offices in Shanghai and Guangzou.
At the same time, China is extremelly keen to open an Office in Chennai.
In this context, I am posting a letter from P.N. Kaul, the Consul General in Lhasa between 1959 and 1961. It is addressed to his successor Arvind Deo, who is to take over soon.
Note that in 1961 already, the Chinese were putting pressure on India to reduce the activities of the Consulate, particularly the trade.

Personal D.O. [Demi-Official Letter]
P.N. Kaul, IFSA [Indian Frontier Administrative Service]
Consul General
Lhasa, Tibet

To Shri A.R. Deo
Consul General Nominate
Camp Mumbai

September 15th, 1961

I was informed by the Ministry a month ago of your posting here as my replacement. I expected a communication from you for seeking clarifications on any minute details, but did not hear from you – obviously because you are on leave. Yesterday’s [diplomatic] bag (incidentally Bag comes here on every 4th, 14th and 24th of the month from Gangtok) brought in a few notifications regarding you from which I learnt your leave address.

2- You must personally have gone through the latest Note on Living Conditions in Lhasa; I enclose a copy to be on the safe side. The Note deals with most aspects. There are a few things, however, which you personally may be interested to be informed about:

a-    The work here is very little indeed since March, 1959. Social life outside our Consulate General is nil; there being the Chinese Foreign Bureau and the Royal Nepalese Consulate General with whom you have only occasional formal social contacts. The new Royal Nepalese Consul General, Yak Thumba, arrived a week back and has been ill ever since – he is, however, recovering fast.
b-    We have clerical staff of one Sikkimese Head Clerk (Local rank of Vice Consul) [Gyatso Tshering?], two “Sikkim-based” clerks, one Kalimpong boy as Tibetan Translator-cum-Librarian, one “Sikkim-based” Wireless Operator, One Cypher Assailant from Delhi and another assistant from Delhi just posted in replacement who functions as Confidential Assistant-cum PA; he also knows some Chinese having been student in Peking for three years on a scholarship. Besides there we have one Assistant Civil Surgeon I as our Medical Officer. All the above staff until recently had their families with them but the new Vice Consul and the newly posted assistant from Delhi are without their families here at present. My only worthwhile recreation has been sporting in a mediocre game of tennis with my staff in the evening.
There is no Indian Community in Lhasa.
c-    The staff and the local Class IV servants are not overworked. Until recently I had an Indian personal bearer-cum-cook with me but I was compelled to send back as he created problems! I have since been able to easily to cope with one Gurkha Class IV as my cook on payments during off hours, there being hardly much entertainment to outsiders. He is a reasonably fair cook but has no knowledge of cooking of South and West Indian dishes. One of the Class IV, since I sent away my own servant, has been doing my bearer in spare time on payment. A personal bearer or a bearer-cum-cook would however, be useful but the snag is that they remain idle most of the time.
In the balance it would be worthwhile having one Indian servant with you. Please treat this as purely personal informal advice.
d-    You do not need to bring any furniture or crockery with you. Rice (inferior), Atta, Dalda, sugar, etc., it is advisable to purchase and dispatch from Gangtok itself and the shopkeepers do all the needful. It is advisable to avail of your entitled maundage [?] to save on transportation charges later on. Fine rice, papars, pickles and the like should be brought with you from India. Electricity is available here since two years and pressure cookers, heaters, firewood stoves, (bukkaries) are available in the Consulate; you need to bring one electric iron for your use.
There is a radiogram and a radio in your residence; there only two dozen long playing records though, you can order more later on. The living quarters are tolerable enough for Lhasa. Needs of clothing, etc. have been fully explained in the Note on Living Conditions.
There is a Toshakhana [literarily treasure-house, in this case for food and liquor] grant of about Rs. 4000- per annum for entertainment. Stocks of liquor, cigarettes, sausages, cheese and the like are adequate in the Toshakhana. I have been purchasing my par needs from it, though it has been objected to by the A.G.C.R. [Auditor General & Central Audit] You can order for yourself from Calcutta drinks, imported tinned items like milk, Kraft cheese, sausages and bacon duty free from Calcutta. There will be hardly be any vegetables during winter and you are coming towards the beginning of winter season. I have however, got some tomatoes dried for you, besides you will be able to get fresh cabbage and turnip preserved in hot house and the universal potato.
There is one Consulate Willys Station Wagon [Jeep] mainly for your use, the second one is on its last leg and its replacement should materialize through D.G.S.D. [Directorate General of Supplies & Disposals] in three to four months time. If you have time in Delhi you may see Mr. Shrinivasan, Under Secretary (TG) and expedite its mataerializing.
a-    No foreign exchange problems are involved here. You get your pay in rupees; market exchange rupee-yuan is favourable to us. Rupees remittance facilities through Bank Drafts issue by the Office exists.
Our mail takes 10 to 15 days to reach here. Telegrams at India rates can be sent over the Chinese P&T channels.
b-    Most of our things of necessity are not available locally. On an average one truck on hire for our stores and rations materialize from Yatung to Lhasa monthly. One has to furnish requirement indent to Chinese one month in advance.
c-    The Consulate care will fetch you and your essential baggage from Yatung. A truck will be indented for to bring your heavy baggage and any stores lying at Yatung. Your baggage should be made into 35 seers leads as it has to travel from Gangtok to Yatung by ponies/porters. An odd heavier essential package is, however, managed by porters at higher rates.

In case you have any further clarifications to seek please send a signal over tour Delhi-Lhasa Wireless link, or a telegram if advisable.

Please do let us know you exact date of arrival in Gangtok and Yatung. I suggest you spend four days at Gangtok, although I am quite anxious to leave soon.

You may consult Mr. A.K. Sen and Director S. [Sumal] Sinha for further details as both were Ex-C.G. in Lhasa

With my very best wishes and Regards

Yours

(P.N. Kaul) IFAS

Source: National Archives of India
Shri P.N. Kaul, I.F.A.S., Consul-General for India, Lhasa, Progs., Nos. 5(3)-L, 1961, C.G.I. LHASA TIBET, 1961

China uses economic retribution to control other countries

My article China uses economic retribution to control other countries appeared in NitiCentral.com.

Here is the link...

Everyone knows that China is an irritable country. And if you irritate China there is a price to pay.
This was openly asserted on a blog published recently by The People's Daily.
Chinascope, the website which translated the posting into English, explains: "The People's Republic of China often chooses economic retribution as a means to control other countries' actions.”
Let us not forget that The People's Daily is the mouthpiece of the Communist Party and every word published in its columns has the sanction of the authorities in Beijing.
This particular posting shows the Chinese regime's way of behaving with ‘recalcitrant’ States: “The French President came to China and took a big package, a huge present, back to France with him. When the Chinese Premier Li Keqiang went to Germany, Germany also received benefits. At the same time, the United Kingdom is just able to watch from the sidelines.”
Explanation: in September of 2007, German Chancellor Angela Merkel met the Dalai Lama, Beijing was then forced to ‘retaliate’: “Of course, China would get angry,” says the blogger.
To punish the ‘culprit’ Angela Merkel, China “got close to the British and the French” and as a result the Germans were alienated; they “had a tough time”.
But, says The People’s Daily: ‘Merkel learned her lesson’ and after her reelection, she did not dare to meet with the Dalai Lama again. “Since then, she has managed to maintain a fairly good relationship with China,” comments the blog.
Then the French: in December of 2008, President Nicolas Sarkozy met with the Tibetan leader. It set a precedent for France (though the meeting was discreetly arranged in Warsaw, Poland, to not anger the Chinese), affirms the blogger who adds that during this period, Sarkozy had a ‘double identity’ (France held the Presidency of the European Union for 6 months). So, it doubly angered Beijing. And obviously, as the blogger explains: “Coupled with the bad role Sarkozy played before the Beijing Olympics, China’s revenge against France was much more violent”.
Remember, Carrefour shops were burned. Beijing had to “give (sic) sweetness to the British and the Germans and let France suffer”.
Sarkozy did not have to be punished for long, he flatly apologized to President Hu Jintao (‘France was forced to give in and issued a joint declaration with China’). But Beijing still remembered ‘the affront’.
Though Sarkozy repeatedly ‘tried to appease China’, it took some time for Beijing to show its magnanimity; by the time China was ready to forgive the ‘hyper-president’, he had lost the presidential elections. His successor got it straight right away. Hollande’s Sherpa, Jean-Paul Ortiz, is a known ‘China expert’, he must have explained to the French President, no more “T’ word, no more encounters with the Dalai Lama.
That is how Hollande got ‘a huge gift’ with Beijing (purchase of Airbus).
Foolishly, British Prime Minister David Cameron did not read the message on the wall. In May of 2012, he received the Dalai Lama at 10, Downing Street.
The blogger of The People’s Daily comments: “This time it was Britain’s turn to suffer. Meanwhile, France and Germany got the sweet treatment from China.”
Though other British leaders had met the Dalai Lama before (I remember in the 1990’s seeing John Major’s photo on altars in monasteries in Tibet), but Cameron did not realize that the times have changed. Today China is a powerful, very powerful nation.
His punishment: “Cameron still cannot make the trip to visit China that he has always wanted to make”.
And there is a collateral, Britain will lose billions of pounds of China’s investment because its Prime Minister’s audacious gesture.
The blogger asks: “Should he refuse to admit his mistake and save face or should he get the all-important money? This really is a question for the British.” Right, London should decide if it wants Beijing’s friendship or not.
The inheritors of the British Empire should know that “in the front of today's God of Wealth–China”, one has to bow. No bowing, no business. They have to make ‘some kind of gesture to obtain China’s forgiveness’, says the blogger.
Interestingly, when the EU decided to slam duties for 'dumped' Chinese solar panels, Li Keqiang managed to convince Angela Merkel and François Hollande to object to Brussels decision. They announced that they don’t agree with Brussels’ decision. Berlin and Paris have learned the ‘correct’ way to deal with the Middle Kingdom.
But as the European Commission is insistent on charging duties on what it considers as unfair practices (the solar panels are subsidized by the Chinese State to capture the European market), Beijing preemptively retaliated, it launched an anti-dumping and anti-subsidy probe in European (read French) wines.
That’s not all. The Chinese authorities announced that they had destroyed an unspecified amount of Belgium chocolates because they contained toxic substances. Belgium media was rife with speculations: “Could it be a coincidence that the latest trashing of the national delicacy comes as the EU pursues import tariffs on Chinese solar panels.”
China is said to have identified disunity between the EU countries, in particular Germany, France, and the UK, to be the most effective way to impose what they call ‘economically divisive tools’.
When the United States were irritated with the PLA’s Black Visitors regularly hacking into the US defence computers, the US President planned (without informing Beijing that the issue was the first on the agenda) to tell his Chinese counterpart what he thought about stealing others’ properties.
The Chinese got deeply irritated to be pointed a finger.
As Obama and Xi were to going to seat on a redwood bench at Sunnylands, ‘whistleblower’ Edward Snowden suddenly emerged in Hong Kong, the Special Administrative Region of China. Was it a miracle or just a coincidence? Or perhaps a retaliation?
An interesting question: what would happen if China irritates India?
Take the example of the Chinese camping in the desolate Depsang Plains of Ladakh; it was really irritating. But don’t ask silly questions!
Delhi can’t demand a gesture from China to obtain India’s 'forgiveness'?
India automatically forgives and forgets, it is her way of doing things these days.

Don't anger China, Please

Everyone knows that China is an irritable country.
And if you irritate China there is a price.
This is what this blog on The People's Daily openly says. 
Chinascope, the website which translated the posting into English, explains: "The People's Republic of China (PRC) often chooses economic retribution as a means to control other country's actions. An article written for a blog published on the website of The People's Daily demonstrates the essence of the Chinese regime's attitude and tactics. It reveals the PRC's hard reality more openly than in its mainstream publications."
One could ask: what if China irritates another country? 
Take the example of the Chinese camping in the desolated Depsang Plains of Ladakh, India was really irritated.
Delhi kept its anger and did nothing; Premier Li Keqiang's visit was not even canceled.
Should have Delhi demanded some kind of gesture from China to obtain India’s 'forgiveness'?
It is not India's style.
The Chinese blogger explains that it is not easy to take an upright stance, without bowing, in front of today's God of Wealth (China), but can't concerned countries decide to jointly impose economic sanctions on Beijing (like the EU did for the 'dumped' Chinese solar panels); China which a surplus balanced trade with most the major world economies, may not be the winner at the end.
It is said that China may launch an anti-dumping and anti-subsidy probe in European (read French) wine in response to the European Union’s decision to impose duties on imports of Chinese solar panels. Let them try.
The United States are now bound to be irritated with China by the fact that Edward Snowden, already termed the ‘most consequential American whistleblower’, emerged in Hong Kong the day the after the Sunnylands Summit. Hog Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China.
The 29-year-old, working for a defence contractor under the CIA, told The Guardian: “I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong."
Why did he choose Hong Kong? Because the city has: “a spirit of commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent,” he said.
Isn't it irritating for Washington?
In the meantime, the United States will continue to snoop on the rest or the world (as well as on its own citizens), while the Middle Kingdom will maintain its surveillance of each of its nationals and peep into the US servers whenever required for its ‘defence’.
All this is very irritating for the common man!
By the way, I did not understand this "new model for major country relationships" President Xi spoke about at Sunnylands.
Xi said that nations need to tread a new path, "different from the inevitable confrontation and conflict between major powers in the past”.
Presumably, this is of course if China is not angry!

Was Peng Liyuan's iPhone bugged?

The Outcome When Britain, France, and Germany Anger China
Blog from People’s Daily,
May 30, 2013
The French President came to China and brought a big package, a huge present, back to France with him. When the Chinese Prime Minister [Li Keqiang] went to Germany [for a visit], I believe Germany also received benefits. However, the United Kingdom is just able to watch on the sidelines.   
In September of 2007, German Chancellor Angela Merkel met with the Dalai Lama. As a result, the PRC “retaliated” against Germany. This German offense started under Merkel. Of course China would get angry. Therefore China alienated Germany and got close to the British and the French, whereas the Germans had a hard time. Later Merkel learned her lesson. After winning her second election, she did not dare to meet with the Dalai Lama again. Since then, she has managed to maintain a fairly good relationship with China.
In December of 2008, French President Nicolas Sarkozy met with the Dalai Lama, setting a precedent in France. At the time, Sarkozy had a "double identity" [He was also the Chair of the E.U.], so it had a far worse impact. Coupled with the bad role he played before the Beijing Olympics, China’s revenge against France was much more violent.
Then China gave sweetness to the British and the Germans and let France suffer. In the end, France was forced to give in and issued a joint declaration with China. Until then, China maintained distance from France. Interestingly, later Sarkozy repeatedly tried to appease China, but he still stepped down when his time was up.
In May of 2012, British Prime Minister David Cameron met with the Dalai Lama. This time it was Britain’s turn to suffer. Meanwhile, France and Germany got the sweet treatment [from China]. Although Cameron is not the first British leader [to meet the Dalai Lama], a year later, Cameron still cannot make the trip to visit China that he has always wanted to make.
According to the British media, Britain will lose billions of pounds of China’s investment in Britain because of it [his meeting the Dalai Lama]. Should he refuse to admit his mistake and save face or should he get the all-important money? This really is a question for the British.
Although the British seemingly do not want to bow, the outcome is likely the same as Germany and France, making some kind of gesture to obtain China’s "forgiveness."
China has identified the disunity between the EU countries, in particular Germany, France, and the UK, thus [effectively] enabling the imposition of such an economically divisive tool.
In the front of today's God of Wealth–China, it is not so easy for the former British Empire to insist on an upright stance without bowing.

The border according to China

Customary Border?

My article The border according to China appeared yesterday in NitiCentral.com.

Click here to read...

During the year 1960, long negotiations were held between India and China over their ‘disputed’ border.
The background of these talks was the visit to Delhi of Zhou Enlai, the Chinese Premier, early that year and his offer to ‘solve’ the issue.
Zhou Enlai was in Delhi for nearly one week (April 19 to 25, 1960) “to discuss certain differences relating to the border areas which had arisen” between the two countries.
The Nehru-Zhou talks however failed. According to a communique, the two Prime Ministers “decided that officials of the two Governments should examine the factual materials in the possession of the two Governments in support of their stands.”
The ‘officials’ led by Jagat Mehta for the Indian side met for several months, but could not arrive at an agreement.
The proceedings of their meetings were published by the Ministry of External Affairs’ ‘Report of the Officials of the Governments of India and the Peoples’ Republic of China on the Boundary Question’.
Please note that 50 years ago, the Indian Government was far more ‘transparent’ than it is today. It regularly informed common men about the happenings on the border. Today the common man is probably considered too stupid by the MEA Mandarins to grasp the intricacies of a customary border, a watershed, one (or several) LAC(s), etc.
The old report of the officials makes fascinating reading. It helps ‘common men’ to better understand the Chinese (and Indian) mindset.
At one point during the discussions, the ‘Indian side’ argued that because China had not mentioned earlier the contentious issue, Delhi was under the impression that there was no border issue.
The Chinese answer is worth reading: “The Indian side also contended that according to international law, if one side does not raise an issue when it has an opportunity to do so, it has no longer the right to set forth its views on the issue. The Indian side attempted to use this contention to prove that the Sino-Indian boundary question did not exist and that the Chinese side had no right to raise this question any more. … Is it that the boundary question must be raised even at occasions not at all meant for discussing the boundary question? Is it that the Chinese side must raise the Sino-Indian boundary question on all occasions; otherwise it would imply that the Chinese side has acquiesced in the assertion that there is no question about the Sino-Indian. … The contention that silence means acquiescence reflects not at all the accepted principles of international law. Can it be said that a sovereign state has no right to reserve its proposition concerning questions of its own sovereignty and to raise it on uitable occasions?”
This is what China has always done, raising the issue when the occasion is suitable to them! It is what they did on the ground in Daulat Beg Oldi in Ladakh on April 15. If they decide to not talk about the border when Premier Li Keqiang visits Delhi, it is only because it will not be ‘suitable’ to them.
The 1960 Chinese negotiators continue their argument: “China has never recognised the alignment now claimed by India; it has always held that only the boundary as maintained by China is the true traditional customary line. Whenever the Chinese Government refers to the Sino-Indian boundary, it can only be the traditional customary line as maintained by China, and not the other.”
This brings to mind the quote of Dr RC Majumdar, the great historian: “It is characteristic of China that if a region once acknowledged her nominal suzerainty even for a short period, she should regard it as a part of her empire forever and would automatically revive her claim over it even after a thousand years whenever there was a chance of enforcing it.”
The Middle Kingdom’s mindset has not changed much.
According to an article of The South China Morning Post, Luo Yuan, a People’s Liberation Army general recently claimed Okinawa Island as Chinese.
The General reacted to an article in The People’s Daily in which Zhang Haipeng and Li Guoqiang, two scholars of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences wrote: “Unresolved problems relating to the Ryukyu Islands (Okinawa is the biggest of the Ryukyu Islands) have reached the time for reconsideration.”
The fact that Okinawa is home to major US Air Force and Marine bases and has a population of 1.3 million Japanese nationals did not deter the scholars from claiming that the islands were a ‘vassal state’ of China before Japan annexed the islands in the late 1800s.
For General Luo: “Japan could not rightfully claim sovereignty over the islands, because they had started paying tribute to China half a millennium before they had done so to Japan.”
You could argue, he is a mad general, just forget him!
The most interesting is however China’s official reaction: when she was asked if China considered Okinawa part of Japan, Hua Chunying, the Foreign Ministry spokeswoman stated that the Chinese “scholars had long studied the history of the Ryukyus and Okinawa.”
A sibylline statement with implications for the Indian border!
It may not be ‘suitable’ for Premier Li Keqiang to talk about the border during his visit, but be sure that China will not forget or forsake its claim in DBO and elsewhere in the Himalayas.