Double Standards with Chinese Characteristics

My article Double Standards with Chinese Characteristics appeared in Chanyaka Forum

Here is the link...

June 15 is a special day in the Middle Kingdom; it is the birthday of the Secretary General of the Communist Party of China.
In 2020, probably wanting to please China’s new emperor, an officer of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) tried to change the boundary in the Galwan sector and advance the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
A day before, some Chinese soldiers led by Col Qi Faobo, erected tents and an observation post on the LAC in contravention of an agreement arrived a week earlier.
Soon after, Colonel Santosh Babu, Commanding Officer (CO) of 16 Bihar regiment was ordered to make sure that the PLA vacate the post which had previously not been under their possession. He was brutally attacked and killed. The jawans of 16 Bihar decided to take revenge; thereafter followed a free for all.
India immediately admitted to 20 casualties while the Chinese did not acknowledge any (later they said four soldiers had been ‘martyred’). According to different sources (Indian and foreign) some 40-45 Chinese died that day (an investigative report by the Australian newspaper The Klaxon recently said that 38 Chinese troops were for sure drowned in the early stages of the face-off).

Do you think that any remorse has been expressed by the Chinese leadership over the incident?
No, and two years later, China still denies the undeniable facts, while Beijing still hides the number of Chinese casualties; Qi Fabao has now become a decorated hero in China. He was one of the torchbearers for the Winter Olympics 2022 and promoted Senior Colonel and Political Commissar of the Ngari Sub-Military District, opposing India in Eastern Ladakh.

China Celebrates
On the occasion of the second anniversary of the Galwan clash, the China Central Television’s military channel released a video of Chen Xiangrong, “one of the martyrs who sacrificed his life for the defense of the Chinese territory during the border standoff with India in 2020.”
The propaganda article says: “Chen Xiangrong died at the age of 19, and the fighting slogan ‘My pure love is only for China’ written by Chen inspires thousands of millions of Chinese people. After two years, many expressed their remembrance for those young heroes.”
On June 15, 2022, the Southern Xinjiang Military District commemorated its four ‘border defense heroes’ in order to “inspire officers and soldiers to train and prepare for war,” says The Global Times.
Wang Zhuoran, another of the martyrs “who sacrificed his life to safeguard national sovereignty and territory in the clash, shared the story of the hero [Chen], inspiring other officers and soldiers to learn from him, practice skills, and fight for the motherland and the people.”
What about the thirty-five or so other casualties? Not a word. The Chinese propaganda does not speak of them; they do not exist.
A reenactment of the battle was even staged showing how the ‘heroes’ defended the country, Beijing reiterating: “Four Chinese officers and soldiers sacrificed their lives, and one was seriously injured during the incident.…In desperation, the border guards resolutely fought back the aggression, achieving major victories and effectively safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
As often in Middle Kingdom, truth is the first casualty.

The Sino-Indian Relations Today
If one was to reduce the Sino-Indian relations to one fundamental issue, it could be that China has (and will) never take the blame for any wrongs it did in 1962, in 2017 or 2020.
On the contrary since two years, Beijing has constantly blamed New Delhi for starting the standoff along the LAC in Eastern Ladakh. It is what China’s Defence Minister, General Wei Fenghe did again at the recently-held Shangri-la Dialogue in Singapore.
Wei, who is also State Councilor, affirmed: “China and India are neighbours. Maintaining a good relationship meets the interests of both countries and that is what we are working on.…But on frictions along the border areas, the merits of the issue is clear.”
General Fenghe went on to say that India and China have held 15 rounds of Corps Commander level negotiations and the two sides are “working for peace” in the region.
‘Working for peace’ without admitting the wrong, is not conducive to a sustainable solution.

About Taiwan
Regarding Taiwan, Wei sent the ‘strongest warning’ to US, saying that Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy will fail to divide the region; according to The Global Times, “the Chinese armed forces will fight to the very end if anyone dares to split Taiwan from China.”
Wei affirmed that the island was part of China and “the Taiwan question is China’s internal affair. China will definitely realize its reunification.”
Quoting experts The Global Times noted: “it is necessary to send a clear warning to the US, and even if the US ignores the warning and continues its dangerous moves or even crosses the red line, China is ready to solve the Taiwan question once and for all, whether the process is peaceful or by force.”
After his speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue, Gen Wei declared: “Let me be frank. China’s policy on nuclear power is consistent. We use it for self-defense, we will not be the first to use nuclear power.…We develop nuclear capabilities to protect the peaceful hard work of the Chinese people and to protect our country from the scourge of war, particularly nuclear war.”

China is indeed a very peaceful nation!

Preaching for a Global Community with a Shared Future
In recent times, Xi Jinping has repeatedly pleaded for “a global community with a shared future.”
In January 2022, Wang Yi, China’s Foreign Minister asserted: “[Xi] is personally involved in the planning and successful conduct of head-of-state diplomacy. …The endeavor to build a community with a shared future for mankind, a vision radiating the light of truth in a changing world, made progress across the board, from Latin America and the Caribbean to the Middle East, from BRICS to the United Nations (UN), and from ecological conservation to digital governance.”
Incidentally, since 2018, the phrase “a community with a shared future for mankind” is now enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China.
Those who believe that a quick solution could be found in Ladakh, should think of this; China is constantly engaged in plain double talk.

The Refusal to Admit the Facts
All this does not augur well for the 16th round of talks to be soon held between the Senior Army Commanders in Moldo/Chushul. It is clear that China will not admit its guilt and therefore will refuse to disengage, particularly in Depsang and Hot Springs, especially a few months before the 20th Congress in Beijing which may witness tsunamic changes in China.
The refusal to admit historical facts has another aspect: if China admitted to have crossed the line in Ladakh, the Emperor would lose face and would be forced to acknowledge that he acts contrary to his own preaching about the ‘peaceful rise of China’.

The Case of 1962
Take the 1962 border war with China, which, in a few months, is going to be celebrated in a grandiose way in Beijing, by putting the entire blame on India; it has already been announced that Zhang Xiaokang, the daughter of Gen Zhang Guohua, the commander of the Tibetan Military Region in 1962 is planning to publish a book: One Hundred Questions on the Self-Defense Counterattack on the China-India Border.
The book is based on interviews with veterans who participated in the War; Zhang is said to have collected “first-hand information, reflecting the counterattack in a panoramic manner, especially telling the heroes, meritorious soldiers, martyrs, wounded and other [stories].”
An introduction to the book says: “Although a sixty years has passed since this war, it has not been forgotten with the passage of time, and generations of soldiers and military fans have always been interested in this counterattack. She will explain “how could [China’s] army wipe out more than seven brigades of the Indians’ most elite ace force in just a few days when they did not have much advantage in terms of strength and firepower?”
Unfortunately, the leadership in Delhi does not see the interest for India to highlight the glorious battles fought by the Indian Army on the Namkha chu (2 Rajput), in Walong, Rezang-la or elsewhere.

It probably means another battle won for the Chinese propaganda.

Was the local Chinese local Commander behind the Depsang incident?

Last year, when I wrote that the Depsang incident of April 2013 was perhaps due to the initiatives of some PLA's local commanders, I was told that "it can't be. the PLA's generals  are a disciplined lot and Chairman Xi is their Supreme Commander".
I later thought I might be wrong, if everybody thinks it is a foolish idea.
Yesterday, I was amused to read in The Business Standard that Shrikant Kondapalli, the JNU professor and expert on China affairs, expressed "his concern about the fresh Chinese incursion into Indian territory". He claimed that "this could be a message given by the Chinese troops to its President, Xi Jinping, that no fruitful discussion on the boundary issue be held with the Indian leadership during his official trip."
It clearly means that some very senior PLA generals were not happy about the thaw between India and China.
Kondapalli told ANI: "It is not clear exactly what is happening in the Line of Actual Control (LoAC) areas. If the reports about 5000 [500, not 5000, my comment] troops are correct then I think that the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and the People's Armed Police Force are sending signal to the civilian leadership not to have any fruitful discussions on the border dispute while President Xi Jinping is speaking to Prime Minister Modi in New Delhi".
Kondapalli is also absolutely right when he says that the claim to Chumur was unheard of till a few years ago.
Chumur, located north of Himachal Pradesh, has never been historically  claimed by Tibet (and consequently, later by China). It is totally new claim with no historical basis.
Some other areas have been 'historically disputed' (these areas were discussed in detail, during the 5 months border talks in 1960), but Chumur is pure land grabbing by the People's Republic of China; 'expansionism' as Prime Minister Modi had put it during the legislative election campaign.
But, if my theory (and Kondapalli's) is true, it is a very serious issue as it means that Xi Jinping, the Chairman of the Central Military Commission does not fully control his generals.
Is the sacking of Ambassador Wei Wei linked to this issue?
It is too early to say.
The solution for the 'intrusions' has been enunciated by the Indian Prime Minister; he stated yesterday:

I raised our serious concern over repeated incidents along the border. We agreed that peace and tranquility in the border region constitutes an essential foundation for mutual trust and confidence and for realizing the full potential of our relationship. This is an important understanding, which should be strictly observed. While our border related agreements and confidence building measures have worked well, I also suggested that clarification of Line of Actual Control would greatly contribute to our efforts to maintain peace and tranquility and requested President Xi to resume the stalled process of clarifying the LAC. We should also seek an early settlement of the boundary question.

In military jargon: 'let us exchange these bloody maps of the LAC'.

My post of November 4, 2013 

In May, in an article in Rediff.com, I had suggested that some Chinese PLA generals posted in Lanzhou Military Area Command were possibly responsible for the Depsang Plain incident; the PLA had then planted their tents between the Chinese and Indian 'perceived' LACs, creating a lot of tensions between India and China.
Many thought that this was far-fetched.
The sacking of General Peng Yong, reported by Reuters (see article below), seems to confirm my theory.
But who is General Peng Yong?
According to his biography, Peng Yong is a Han, born in 1954 in Lulong County, Hebei Province. In 1970, he entered the Party's work force; a year later, he joined the CCP; later graduated from Shijiazhuang Army Academy Long-Distance Education Program with a Bachelor Degree in 1998. 
From 2004 to 2011, he was Group Army (Corps) Commander of 47th Group Army of PLA. 
From 2011 till recently, he commanded the Xinjiang Military Region. In November 2012, he was promoted as a member of the CCP's Central Committee. 
Let us remember that the Xinjiang Military Region of the Lanzhou Military Area looks after the Indian border in Ladakh as well as Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand.

General Peng Yong

Reuters says that he had been 'booted off' for the attack, presumably by Uygyur militants, on the Tiananmen Square.
Why should the PLA Xinjiang Commander (and Central Committee) be responsible for a problem of law and order (Tiananmen incident).
The PLA's job is the defence of China's borders and is concerned with external threats from abroad (in this case, India).
The internal threats are dealt with the People's Armed Police (PAP) and State
Security apparatus (Public Security Bureau or PSB).
If a head had to roll for the embarrassing (for Beijing) incident which happened in the heart of the Chinese capital, the Party Secretary (and Politburo member) Zhang Chunxian should have lost his job.
PAP and PSB should have also been sacked.
They did not. It means that Peng Yong was shown the door for other reasons, the Depsang incident is a strong probability.
Let us see what happens next.

Chinese Military Boss Booted Off Ruling Council Following Attack 
Jason Lee
BEIJING
Reuters
China's ruling Communist Party announced on Sunday the removal of the military chief of restive Xinjiang from the region's governing council, following a car crash in Beijing's Tiananmen Square blamed on Islamist militants from Xinjiang.

The official Xinjiang Daily said in a brief front page report that Peng Yong had been sacked as a member of Xinjiang's Communist Party Standing Committee, and would be replaced by Liu Lei, an army veteran with more than a decade's experience in the region.
The newspaper gave no reason for the move, but the party frequently removes top officials following such incidents as it seeks to apportion blame. The incident was especially embarrassing for the stability-obsessed party given the billions of dollars it spends every year on domestic security, not only in Xinjiang but across the country, and that the crash happened in the heart of Beijing.
Peng was appointed commander of the Xinjiang military region in July 2011. It is likely that he will also be relieved of his military duties.
Real power in China lies with party bodies rather than government ones, as that is where the key decisions are made.
The government has blamed Islamist extremists plotting holy war after a vehicle police said was laden with gasoline ploughed into bystanders outside the front entrance of the Forbidden City, on the north of Tiananmen Square.
The three people in the car died, as did two tourists. More than 40 were injured. Police have also detained five suspected accomplices. Security has been stepped up in Beijing and Xinjiang following the incident. Beijing party chief Guo Jinlong has urged the police to improve their capacity to collect intelligence and take precautions against further attacks, the city government-run Beijing Daily said on Sunday. Guo urged police and security forces to "look for vulnerable links" and "learn the lessons" from the incident, the report said.
Xinjiang is home to the Muslim Uighur minority, many of whom chafe at China's restrictions on their religion, culture and language, though the government says they are granted broad freedoms.
Xinjiang has been wracked by unrest in recent years, blamed by the government on the separatist East Turkestan Islamic Movement which Beijing believes was also responsible for last week's incident.
Rights groups, exiles and some experts say, though, that there is little evidence of a cohesive extremist movement operating in Xinjiang.
In 2009, some 200 people died in Xinjiang's regional capital Urumqi during riots which pitted Uighurs against the majority Han Chinese.

(Reporting By Dominique Patton and Ben Blanchard; Editing by Ron Popeski)

Is there any point of the PM's China visit?

My article Is there any point of the PM's China visit? is posted in Rediff.com.

If the 1993, 1996, 2005 and 2012 border agreements have been unable to check Chinese aggressiveness, how can a fifth one succeed? asks Claude Arpi.
The Fifth India-China Strategic Dialogue was held in Delhi earlier this year. While some progress is said to have been made in narrowing the ever-growing trade (im)balance in favour of China, Beijing remained stuck on its position on the border issue as well as on a possible collaboration on the Brahmaputra and other trans-border rivers.
After the meeting, it was reported that 'both sides put their faith in the most recent bilateral mechanism, the [2012] Working Mechanism on Border.'
Well, this has not stopped the Chinese from intruding into India's territory.
Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh and her Chinese counterpart Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin (who served many years as Director-General, Department of Treaty and Law in China's ministry of foreign affairs) wanted to finalise a fresh Border Defence Cooperation Agreement, BDCA.
At a time the Chinese regularly try to create trouble on the Line of Actual Control, can a new agreement be more efficient than the previous ones of 1993, 1996, 2005 and 2012?.
One wonders why a new BDCA?

Click here to read...

Why to go to China now?

Why is Prime Minister Manmohan Singh heading towards China?
I am unable to answer this question; in fact, there is no economic, diplomatic or strategic logic.
Of course, it is said that he would like ‘to prioritize investment and business by easing norms for business and tourist visas’ as well as reduce border tensions. But is the timing right?
‘Business’ was the objective of Premier Li Keqiang when he visited Delhi in May. But when Chinese talk about business, they talk about trading from China to India. Mr. Li charmed everybody; he spoke of the Three Idiots, a film that his daughter ‘forced’ him to see, the Indian establishment (and media) melted: “The guy is really nice; he loves Indian movies”. Further, he chose to eat vegetarian food at his Indian counterpart’s banquet. Wow, here is a Chinese leader who is different; he deeply respects our customs; he likes India.
The South China Morning Post then commented that Li’s foreign tour (India, Pakistan, Switzerland and Germany) was a success: “On his maiden, eight-day diplomatic trip as premier, Li Keqiang not only engaged in serious bilateral talks but also attempted to show his personable side to boost the image of the Chinese leadership.”
At that time one of the main issues between India and China was the trade imbalance. Both countries had fixed an ambitious target of US$ 100 billion as the trade turnover by 2015.
Atfer the Li-Singh meeting a Joint Statement was issued: “the two countries agreed to take measures to address the issue of the trade imbalance. These include cooperation on pharmaceutical supervision including registration, stronger links between Chinese enterprises and Indian IT industry, and completion of phytosanitary negotiations on agro-products.”
Last financial year, India's exports to China reached only $ 13.52 billion while its imports were $ 54.3 billion. A trade deficit of $ 40.78 billion is not paltry!
The Times of India then reported that the companies represented in Li Keqiang’s business delegation ‘seem bent on selling instead of buying in the Indian market’.
The question is: has this changed? Let us put the question differently, can a new visit change this?
The Prime Minister is said to be keen on ‘increasing the tenure of business visas [for Chinese] to one year from the current six months with multi-entry provision and ensuring home ministry security clearance within 30 days for project visas’.
How inviting more Chinese companies to set up shop in India will help to reduce the trade imbalance is a mystery.
The Times of India commented: “The emphasis is significant as security concerns dog Chinese investments in several sectors like telecom”.
The relaxation of the visa policy for Chinese nationals will not solve the security issues, further it could only aggravate the trade imbalance.
It sounds like India is trying to be nice to China which again issued ‘stapled’ visas to two Arunachali archers on their way to an international competition to Yunnan; this is called the Gujral doctrine, the nastier you are with me, the nicer I will be with you.
One knows where the infamous ‘doctrine’ led India in the past.
The current reasoning of the Government is that easier visa rules could only help larger exchanges of delegates attending academic or business meetings and conferences. But reciprocity is not guaranteed. You will say that it is the beauty of the ‘doctrine’!
Further, despite warnings from all sides, the Prime Minister is dead bent on signing a Border Defence Cooperation Agreement (BDCA) during his three-day visit to China, starting from October 22.
Some babus in South Block may have concocted a new Agreement (in what will it be different from the 1993, 1996, 2005 and 2012 agreements nobody knows), which could be shown by the PMO as a justification for the visit.
But will China be more sincere in the implementation of the new agreement than they have been for the previous ones?
Another question, has India done her home work? Probably not. But, the Chinese have done theirs.
The Chinese Defence Minister, General Chang Wanquan has just visited the Xinjiang Military District dealing with the Aksai Chin area and India's border in Ladakh.
According to Xinhua, the Minister "called for a strengthened border and national defense in northwest China's Xinjiang." He spent an entire week on an 'inspection tour' of the region.
Can you imagine Mr. Antony spending a week in Arunachal and visiting the forward posts? One can always argue that it is impossible; he would have to walk for too many days, as India has no roads there.
General Chang took the time to visit military units "to further consolidate border defense and cast a wall of copper and steel in the frontier." What does it mean for India?
Just that China will be ready for any eventuality and the PLA will maintain its pro-active posture in the area.
The Chinese Defence Minister told the military units "to lay a solid basis for Xinjiang's long-term peace and stability by consolidating political power in grassroots governments and stepping up the fight against encroachment, separatist and terrorist activities."
Apart from the border with India, the Xinjiang Military District has to deal with the restive local Uyghurs who are, like the Tibetans, resentful of the 'ethnic' policies imposed by Beijing.
Regarding the border with India, Xinhua reported: "Military units were told to put border and national defense into prominent place and contribute to the consolidation of the defense in China's borders."
Interestingly, General Wang asked the local commanders to take 'initiatives in operations'. Ominous words for India; but nobody seems to be worried on this side of the border.
Xinhua said: "The minister demanded military officers to strengthen strategic thinking, carry forward construction projects as well as take initiatives (in operations)."
One wishes the local Indian commanders would sometimes have the same opportunity to 'take initiatives'.
The Cabinet Committee on Security is said to have discussed the border pact, whose objective is "to prevent face-offs between the troops of the two countries along the over 4,000 km disputed Line of Actual Control (LAC)."
Will it really prevent anything? I can bet that it will not.
In any case a point is certain, the Chinese have done their home work.

Report of the Officials of India and China on the Boundary Question (1961)

Map of the Central Sector (1900)

In order to better understand the long-pending border issue between India and China, I have posted on my website the Chinese part of the Report of the Officials of the Governments of India and the Peoples’ Republic of China on the Boundary Question of 1961.
I had earlier posted the Indian section that I had divided in 4 parts (to avoid to have to download too heavy files).
In the next few weeks, I will post the remaining sections of the Chinese report.
Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 have been uploaded so far.

Why a new border agreement?

Chaglacham in winter

The Fifth India-China Strategic Dialogue was held in Delhi this week. While some progress is said to have been made in narrowing the ever-growing trade (im)balance in favour of China, Beijing remained stuck on its position on the border issue as well as on a possible collaboration on the Brahmaputra and other trans-border rivers.
After the meet, it was reported that “both sides put their faith in the most recent bilateral mechanism, the [2012] Working Mechanism on Border.”
Well, this has not stopped the Chinese intruding into India’s territory.
The new Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh and her Chinese counterpart, Vice-Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin (who served many years as Director-General, Department of Treaty and Law in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) wanted to finalize a fresh Border Defence Cooperation Agreement (BDCA).
At a time the Chinese regularly try to create trouble on the LAC, can a new agreement be more efficient than the previous ones; to name them:
•    In 1993: Maintenance of Peace and Tranquility along the Line of Actual Control in the China-India Border Areas
•    In 1996: Confidence-Building Measures in the Military Field Along the Line of Actual Control in the India-China Border Areas
•    In 2005: On the Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the India-China Boundary Question
•    In 2012: Establishment of a working mechanism for consultation and co-ordination on India-China Border Affairs

Click to enlarge

One wonders why a new BDCA?
Is it just a pretext for the Prime Minister to visit Beijing?
Probably, but why can’t the PMO’s babus find a better excuse/reason?
For months, the media has mentioned incursions across the LAC in Ladakh, whether it is near Daulat Beg Oldi, Siri Jap, Chumar or Demchok.
Now, it appears that the Chinese have extended their intrusions to Arunachal Pradesh, particularly to the Anjaw district.
Former BJP MP, Tapir Gao claimed that early this month, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has intruded at least 30-40 km into Indian territory after over-running at least six of the nine Indian check posts. Gao even affirmed that the face-off continues near the McMahon Line.
Talking to The Assam Tribune, Gao asserted that the incursion started around August 12. He explained that a group of BJP workers visited the area, located near Chaglagam in Anjaw district and confirmed the veracity of the information.
According to the former MP, some 200 PLA personnel are occupying six unmanned check posts, which serve as temporary camps for Indian forces patrolling in the area. Chaglagam is the last administrative circle located some 108 km south of the McMahon Line.
Tapir Gao explained that ever since the incursion took place, some 1,500 or 1,600 local people live in constant fear. The local administration has apparently informed Itanagar about the incident.
Like in Ladakh, one of the problems is that the Army is not deployed in the area; only 70 to 80 Indo-Tibetan Border Police troops are left facing the Chinese PLA.
Another local source said: “There are no roads or regular supply chain from our side to the areas occupied by the Chinese, so the Indian Army has to move on foot. Situation is grim as our local people are worried that the Chinese PLA may not vacate the occupied areas. Why does the Government of India not understand the gravity of the situation?”
Tapir Gao demanded the immediate deployment of the Army in the area; he also asked the Defence Minister AK Antony to pay a visit in Chaglagam.
In these conditions, is there any point for a Prime Minister to visit China?
If the 1993, 1996, 2005 and 2012 agreements have been unable to check Chinese aggressiveness, how can a fifth one succeed?
The Chinese reasoning is that the new agreement could bring peace on the condition India accepts to freeze the development of the border areas.
A source told The Indian Express that India did not want to escalate the tension and efforts were on to resolve the differences: “Chinese troops had put up tents at the occupied position, but it was removed the next day. Efforts are on to end the standoff between the two sides. Currently, the 9 JAK Rifles are face to face with Chinese troops in Chaglagam sector.”
And the MEA parrots: “The Centre keeps a constant watch on all developments having a bearing on India’s security and takes all necessary measures to safeguard it.”
An important point to note is that the latest Chaglagam incursion by the PLA depends on the Chengdu Military Region and not the Lanzhou Military Region like the ones in Ladakh and the Central Sector (Barahoti). It demonstrates a coordinated effort from the Central Military Commission in Beijing to pester India, which is too slowly catching up in terms of infrastructure development.  Last year, a local newspaper in Arunachal spoke of Delhi’s “reluctance to upgrade its resources along the international border in Arunachal Pradesh”
It said: “One glaring example is the border demarcation along Indo-China border near Chaglagam outpost in Anjaw district. Due to lack of proper boundary demarcation, the Chinese Army often intrudes through two passes of Glai Takre and Hadira Takre which are about 100 km from last ITBP base camp situated at Chaglagam.”
At that time, Anjaw Zilla Parishad Chairperson B. Tega had said that the Chinese often intrude in the area and puts up unknown signs and symbols on stones and trees inside the Indian Territory. Tega explained that after the departure of the Chinese, the Indian patrols were quick to erase the Chinese military marks and signs.
The Zilla Parishad leader had then suggested: “the Indian government needs to establish military camp at Tanya, Pompom and Laitakru areas for security and easy monitoring of border areas”.
In 2012, a Chaglagam district official had told the local press: “due to non availability of proper motorable road from Chaglagam to Glai Takre and Hadira Takre, the Indian patrolling team takes 4 to 5 days to reach the border; this pose a danger during emergency time."
The official urged the government to widen the Chaglagam-Hayuliang road for transportation of military and other heavy vehicles and stated: “The Chinese government has connected its border area with highways. On the other hand, India is yet to make any roads leading to all border posts in Arunachal Pradesh even today.”
Incursions are not only happening in Arunachal. On July 25, The Hindustan Times (HT), quoting some top government source, reported that some 21 PLA troops crossed the LAC in Barahoti area of Uttarakhand.
It appears that the Chinese soldiers moved back after straying across LAC for more than an hour. The HT said: “This was the third straight intrusion this month apart from a face-off in Chumar on July 16-17, and another one on July 12-13 in Arunachal Pradesh.”
This particular one in the Central Sector occurred after maps have been exchanged between India and China. It is the only sector where it has been done.
The intrusion took place just before the Joint Secretary (East Asia) Gautam Bambawalla met a Chinese delegation headed by the Director General (Boundary Affairs) to discuss steps to make the LAC peaceful.
During the two-day official-level talks held under the 2012 agreement, the Indian and Chinese sides discussed ways to maintain peace along the LAC; the MEA spokesperson Syed Akbaruddin candidly admitted: “The delegations reviewed recent developments in the India-China border areas.”
One could also ask: what is the point to have a new agreement if no tangible progress has occurred with the existing mechanism; it is not one more visit of the Indian Prime Minister to Beijing which will change this state of affairs.
Another sign that relations are not what they should be is that according to an official release, the two sides discussed “enhancing understanding on the utilization of trans-border river waters”. Here again, the Chinese are not ready to have set up a proper working mechanism to dispel Indian fears that the waters of the Brahmaputra will be diverted.
The time has come for the Indian Government to publish a White Paper and tell the Indian public what is going on. Why a new agreement is required when we already have four?
Nehru used to regularly issue White Papers (15 White Papers were published between 1959 and 1965), why should the present government not do the same? It would be wise before they lose the files!

Kill chickens to scare away the monkeys

General Luo Yuan

My article  Kill chickens to scare away the monkeys appeared in the Edit Page of The Pioneer.

Here is the link...

One cannot expect Indian politicians to really understand the subtleties of the Art of War and Peace, but if they learn a bit from China, it would help New Delhi to not always be the loser

August 15, 1947, is the birthday of free India. It marks for her the end of an old era, the beginning of a new age. But we can also make it by our life and acts as a free nation “an important date in a new age opening for the whole world, for the political, social, cultural and spiritual future of humanity”, wrote Sri Aurobindo in a message for All India Radio; it was also his 75th birthday.
Where are we at today?
While Sri Aurobindo and many others envisaged a leading role for India, it appears that India is today in reverse gear in many domains such as public probity, sustainable development, gender equality, politics, etc.
A Minister of Uttar Pradesh recently suggested that India does not need IAS ‘babus’, but it could also be argued that India would be better without the politicians who only serve their caste, their creed, their political constituency and their pockets.
Not only this, but when five Indians jawans were recently killed on the Line of Control, several Ministers seemed to condole Pakistan, speaking about ‘peace’, ‘talks’ or ‘forthcoming visit’.
Senior analyst MD Nalapat wrote in The Guardian: “Senior commanders in the India-Pakistan battlefield say that the rules of engagement enforced by the Prime Minister’s Office are the cause of the multiplying number of deaths of Indian soldiers at the hands of the Pakistan Army.” He quotes an Army officer as saying: “…unless the Army is given the freedom to act against provocations, more of our soldiers will pay the ultimate price”.
Not only are the bureaucrats in the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of External Affairs directing the operations (we have seen the outcome of this policy in October/November 1962), but also politicians are preaching peace.
Union Minister of State for Human Resource Development Shashi Tharoor, while visiting south India, said that “keeping peace with Pakistan is in India’s national interest”; he affirmed: “The country will not be able to achieve its goals if it is distracted by hostility on its borders.”
It may be a distraction, but five jawans died. For Mr Tharoor, as for many of his colleagues, “We should be careful not to take any steps that would play into the hands of those aiming to derail peace.”
This is an old disease: Most Indian politicians believe that by chanting “Shanti, shanti, shanti”, peace will prevail and the bullies on the other side of the LoC (or the Line of Actual Control) will be pacified. Jawharlal Nehru thought so but he only encouraged Mao and his colleagues to descend towards the plains of Assam.
For the Chinese, it was easy to bully a weak India, who just wanted to talk peace and was unprepared for war. The country has never recovered from the 1962 debacle, but politicians continue to speak of ‘peace’.
It must be said here that the Gujral Doctrine of peace with our neighbours has never brought any positive results for the country. In this context is interesting to look at the how Chinese deal with such issues, and win wars without having to fight. Beijing has a few well-trained ‘Generals’, who make China’s opponents aware of the relativity of peace and war. The most famous is Major General Luo Yuan. He plays an important role when the Chinese Government needs “to kill the chickens to frighten the monkeys”.
During the South China Sea dispute, a Chinese website explained: “At the top of both the military and the Party, there is a consensus that it is beneficial to have a hardline attack dog reminding the world not to mess with the PRC.” The logic was: Official-ish voices, those of like Gen Luo and other hawkish paramilitary figures (one of them is an Air Force officer and another a Rear Admiral), add a layer of unpredictability to China’s foreign policy.
When Defence Minister AK Antony landed in Beijing in July, Gen Luo warned Delhi that it should be careful with its words and deeds; he threatened: “India is the only country in the world enhancing its military prowess while citing China as a threat perception.” He also thundered: “India should not provoke new problems, increase military deployment at the border areas and stir up new problems.”
Gen Luo, who serves in the PLA’s Academy of Military Sciences, reminded the Indian people: “90,000 square kilometres of Chinese territory are still occupied by the Indian side.”
He added that as a military person, it was his “sacred mission” to protect China’s territorial sovereignty. Get the message?
It was enough to frighten some monkeys; Luo Yuan’s utterances were a great media success in India, with television channels reporting ‘China’s threat’. Gen Luo had destabilised India’s mild Defence Minister and made sure that Mr Antony did not ask too many questions about what happened in the Depsang plain in Ladakh in April, and why the PLA had suddenly decided to set up some tents on Indian territory. Obviously Beijing had been deeply embarrassed.
Now that the ‘joker’ had played his role on the stage, the main characters could continue on their peace-footing (Mr Antony said that he would only speak to ‘officials’).
In February, Gen Luo had made his debut on Sina Weibo, China’s Twitter; he wrote that if a conflict erupted, China “will bomb Tokyo and take the 130 thousand Japanese citizens in China as hostages”. During the following days, General Luo continued his tirade to entertain his Chinese audience and frighten the monkeys abroad.
Andrew Chubb in the last issue of the China Brief of the Jamestown Foundation has studied the PLA ‘hawks’: “The hawkish generals are able to ‘stimulate’ nationalism and patriotism inside China which is an important factor to pressurize the ‘enemy’ or even scare the enemy that it is better to find a negotiated settlement”, concluding, “The hawks’ activities may have contributed to the Philippines and Japan’s acceptance of the new status quo in a number of ways… The PLA’s ‘hawkish faction’ appear integral to this combined civil-military approach to international conflict.”
The PLA hawks are part of the state’s propaganda machinery and in that particular case, they helped Beijing’s civilian leadership to convince the Japanese Government not to oppose their frequent entries into the territorial waters surrounding the Islands. Great tactic. Beijing’s policy remains, of course, the ‘peaceful rise of China’.
One cannot expect Indian politicians to understand the subtleties of the Art of War and Peace, but if they learn a bit from China, it would help India not to always be the loser. It is perhaps time for India to change gear if it wants to play its destined role amongst nations.

Li came, Li saw, Li won

My article Li came, Li saw, Li won - Bilateral Irritants Under The Hat appeared in The Statesman today.

Click here to read...

More Chinese Tourists in India?

Chinese Tourists were there

Before his first meeting with Dr. Manmohan Singh in  Durban, South Africa, President Xi Jinping declared that he and his team would continue with the previous administration’s friendly approach to India.
He mentioned boosting economic ties and cooperation on multilateral issues. He seemed keen to keep on the back-burner issues such as the border dispute, transboundary rivers and China's ongoing projects in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
He formulated five points for the Sino-Indian relations:

1. First, to maintain strategic communication and keep bilateral relations on the right track.
2. Second, we [China] should harness each other’s comparative strength and expand win-win cooperation in infrastructure, mutual investment and other areas.
3. Third, we should strengthen cultural ties and constantly increase mutual understanding and friendship between our peoples.
4. Fourth, we should expand coordination and collaboration in multilateral affairs to jointly safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of developing countries and tackle global challenges.
5. Fifth, we should accommodate each other’s core concerns and properly handle problems and differences existing between our two countries.

Interestingly, a month before the Depsang Plain incident, President Xi suggested: “The boundary question is a complex issue left over from history and solving the issue will not be easy. However, as long as we keep up our friendly consultation we can eventually arrive at a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable settlement. Pending the final settlement, the two sides should work together to maintain peace and tranquility in border areas and prevent the boundary question from affecting the all-round development in ties.”
Well, it was not to be.
At that time, it was thought that the 'mutual understanding and friendship between our peoples' would be synonymous of more Chinese tourists visiting India and vice-versa. Nothing on these lines was mentioned in the Joint Statement signed during Premier Li's visit in Delhi.
A couple of years back, Xinhua reported that while 550,000 Indian tourists visited China in 2010 (a 22 % growth from the previous year), only 100,000 Chinese tourists came to India. These figures were given by China National Tourist Office in New Delhi.
According to Chinese tour operators, high hotel price and lack of hygiene were among the factors that hinder more tourists.
Xinhua quoted Catherine Ho, deputy manager of GZL International Travel Service which had participated in 'India Outbound Travel Mart' for the past 10 years.  She explained that high price, language, food and hygiene were the hindering factors.
Ho particularly mentioned hygiene: "more than 60 percent of our Chinese guests who came to India experience diarrhea due to unhygienic food, therefore they had to be more carefully about what they eat and drink while more Chinese residences in Australia and South East make these destinations language and food problem free."
Then it is difficult to get tourist visa from China: "Recently it took more time to get visa, and sometimes applications was refused by Indian embassy in China saying that the applicant looked like business traveler rather than tourists," she told Xinhua.
The issue seemed to have been skipped during the recent visit of Premier Li Keqiang in India.
When one reads the article of The South China Morning Post posted below, it is perhaps better to go slow on the development of the tourist industry between India and China, in view of each side's serious recriminations against the other.
There is another angle to it, the security issue.
Last week, the Department of Security of the Central Tibetan Administration in Dharamsala said that one Penpa Tsering, 33, a former member of the People's Liberation Army, had been hatching a 'terror plot' to poison two Tibetan youths to 'spread chaos and terror in the Tibetan community.'
The communique of the Department says: "This latest exposure goes well beyond Chinese government’s aggressive intelligence gathering on His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Central Tibetan Administration and other exile based organisations to undermine the exile community.”
The 'spy' hailing from Nagchu prefecture in central Tibet would have confessed to Tibetan security officials that he was first recruited by Li Yuquan, a senior Chinese official posted in Tibet. Li was earlier Head of Public Security Bureau of Nagchu Prefecture, later he was transferred to Chamdo Prefecture.
Intelligence gathering by Chinese 'tourists' is certainly an issue to be considered.

Nanjing teenager exposed as perpetrator of Temple of Luxor graffiti attack
May 27, 2013
South China Morning Post
Mandy Zuo
Tourist from Nanjing carried out graffiti attack in Temple of Luxor, his parents confirm
A mainland tourist who defaced a sculpture at a 3,500-year-old Egyptian temple has been identified as a teenager from Nanjing, his embarrassed parents confirmed yesterday.
He had written "Ding Jinhao was here" on the artwork some years ago during a visit to the Temple of Luxor, the parents said in an apologetic interview with Nanjing's Modern Express newspaper on Saturday.
Ding's graffiti caused an online stir this week when a microblogger posted a photo of the message, citing it as an example of shameful behaviour by mainland tourists abroad. The post attracted a torrent of replies, including suggestions that the perpetrator be tracked down.
Some disclosed personal information about Ding, including his age and school, after searching his records online.
The website of his former primary school in Nanjing was attacked yesterday. It showed the same message that Ding had left in Egypt, and visitors to the site had to click the message before they could open the homepage.
Ding's parents told the Modern Express that it was their lack of education and supervision that led to his mischief.
They said the attack happened when their son, now in middle school, was little. They were with a tourist group and did not notice when he scrawled on the sculpture, the mother said.
"We have taken him sightseeing since he was little, and we often saw such graffiti. But we didn't realise we should have told him that this is wrong," she said. The mother also implored internet users not to hound her son.
Mainlanders are today the biggest drivers of global tourism, but their sheer numbers and a perception that they can be insensitive travellers have strained their reputation.
At a conference earlier this month to implement the newly passed Tourism Law, vice premier Wang Yang said some mainland tourists behaved poorly and hurt the nation's image.
The law, to come into force in October, says that tourists should "cherish tourist resources and abide by social morality while sightseeing," although it mentions no offences or penalties.
Mainland tourists made some 82 million international visits last year, according to the China Tourism Academy.

Himalayan blunder to Himalayan handshake

My article Himalayan blunder to Himalayan handshake appeared in the Edit Page of The Pioneer today.

Click here to read...

India should demand concrete gestures from China. Then we shall see whether Beijing is ready to match its words with deeds, and agrees to exchange the border maps pertaining to the Eastern and the Western sectors

I  am confused. Is Mr Li Keqiang, the new Chinese Premier, a sincere person or is he, like his illustrious predecessor Zhou Enlai, only a smooth-talker? Indeed, he speaks sweetly. In an Op-Ed in a national newspaper, he says: “China and India are destined to be together. They should work hand in hand if Asia is to become the anchor of world peace”. That sounds great. He also says: “We live in an age of change, but there are always certain things that are enduring, forever refreshing and attractive. India is such a nation, at once old and young. …[India and China] represent the two pillars of the civilisation of the East.” But when he states: “Today, the handshake across the Himalayas is even stronger”, is it really true after the border incident in Ladakh?
For Mr Li, the present problems are left-overs from ‘history’. One can’t deny this; for centuries the towering Himalayas, as the Chinese Premier calls the border, were ruled by the Dalai Lamas in Lhasa, and the Emperors of the Middle Kingdom had, except for very short periods, little say on the Roof of the World. For India, the ‘left-over of history’ is the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1950.
Stranger is when Mr Li speaks philosophy to stress the importance of making friends with neighbours: “Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you”, he says. Then why did he order his troops to plant their tents on Indian territory? Was he expecting India to do the same to China? Who is the real Mr Li? The one who nostalgically speaks of his student days when he visited India? Or the powerful leader of an authoritarian regime which has disputes with most of its neighbours?
Assuming that China had some grievances against India, why could these not be taken up at one of the scheduled bilateral meetings (External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid’s visit to Beijing or Mr Li’s present trip to India)? Visits to China by the Union Minister for Defence and the Indian Prime Minister are also planned for later this year. There were at least four occasions to solve pending issues, so why take the extreme step of setting up a camp on Indian territory, creating bitterness and distrust? The strangest thing is that Mr Li did not mention any serious grievance against India (at least publicly) during his stay in India.
One reason could be that one arm of China (the State Council) did not know what the other (the PLA) was planning. It is not easy to prove, but it remains a strong possibility with scary implications. Is this why Mr S Jaishankar, the Indian Ambassador to China, referred to the Chinese incursion in Ladakh as ‘very unusual’? This is a charitable way to explain the two faces of the Chinese leadership.
What does not help is that opposite the young and affable-looking Chinese Prime Minister is his shy Indian counterpart. Take the dams under construction on the Yarlung Tsangpo/Brahmaputra in Tibet. In his Joint Statement with Mr Li, Mr Manmohan Singh said: “It would be useful for the mandate of our Expert Level Mechanism to be expanded to include information sharing on upstream development projects on these rivers.” Why say “would be useful”, and not just that India demands a legal mechanism/agreement to access the upstream developments on the Brahmaputra. Small mercy, the Joint Statement does not utter the ‘One China’ policy or mention that “Tibet is an inseparable part of China”. In any case, it has been said ad nauseam.
Regarding the border, the Joint Statement suggests: “Pending the resolution of the boundary question, the two sides shall work together to maintain peace and tranquility in the border areas in line with the previous agreements.” What does “in line with the previous agreements” mean? As seen in the Depsang Plains in Ladakh, the Chinese are ready to break all existing agreements when it suits them. This is not unusual for China which often professes something and does something else.
In the Joint Statement, India and China reaffirm their opposition to weaponisation and an arms race in outer space. A week earlier, Reuters mentioned that China had launched a rocket into the space and that later the object re-entered the earth’s atmosphere. For Washington, DC, this was the first test for a new interceptor that could be used to destroy a satellite in orbit. Apparently, the Chinese rocket reached 10,000 km above Earth, the highest suborbital launch since 1976. Is this launch not contributing to the arms race in the outer space? Why get India to reaffirm its commitment when China simply does what it wants?
In the present circumstances, what can be done? The Prime Minster of India announced that the Special Representatives will soon meet to seek an “early agreement on a framework for a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable boundary settlement”. India should ask for concrete gestures from China; it is the only way for Mr Li to show that China is ready to match its words with its deeds. The first and most important action is for India and China to exchange maps of all sectors of their common border. It has apparently already been done in the Middle Sector (Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand); it should be done without prevarication in the Western and Eastern Sectors as well. It is the minimum that one can expect from ‘a friend and a partner’.
But a mere exchange of maps is not enough; the respective ground positions should be made public. Citizens are entitled to know what is happening on their nation’s borders. The Depsang incident has shown that even ‘experts’ lack basic knowledge of the situation on the ground. The blame should be squarely put on the Indian Government whose responsibility it is to inform the Indian public. It is high time that the Government of India publishes a White Paper on its border with China, as was done in the past by the Ministry of External Affairs (between 1959 and 1965, as many as 15 White Papers on the border issue were tabled in Parliament). A well-informed Indian public could eventually provide tremendous support to protect the borders against unwanted intrusions.
 Another meaningful gesture would be the re-opening of Demchok, the traditional pilgrimage route to Kailash. Though the Joint Statement says that China will provide greater facilitation to Indian pilgrims for the Gang Renpoche [‘Kang Rinpoche’ is wrongly spelt in the Statement] which is the Kailash-Manasarovar Yatra, the only route which make sense for a large number of Indian pilgrims is the Ladakh road via Demchok which would make the journey considerably shorter and more comfortable. Of course, like most of the places near the Tibetan border, Demchok is claimed by China (though occupied by India).
But if China’s Line of Actual Control perceptions could be put aside on this small area, it would create tremendous goodwill in India and make tens of thousands of pilgrims realise the dream of their life. Chinese leaders like to speak of China’s Dream; they should let Indians dream too. Let Demchok be re-opened, Mr Li! China’s image will receive a tremendous boost.

Two Clarifications

This pre-1914 map shows Tawang as part of Tibet

Related to my previous posting, I came to know that a 'clarification' on what Lobsang Sangay, the Tibetan 'Prime Minister' (Sikyong) said in Washington DC, has been issued by his Office on May 16.
It does not exactly answer my concerns about India's territorial integrity, however an interview with the Dalai Lama, exactly 10 years ago, for India Abroad (the US-based weekly from the Rediff.com Group) clarifies the issue from the Dalai Lama perspective.
I am posting both.

Clarification on Sikyong’s talk at Council on Foreign Relations
May 16, 2013
This is to clarify some misinterpretation about Sikyong Dr Lobsang Sangay’s talk on Tibet at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Washington on 8 May 2013, which was covered by AFP and other media. 
In his talk at CFR, the Sikyong was referring to the socialist system of China at the national level. The Middle-Way policy seeks genuine autonomy within the framework of the Chinese constitution which obviously requires restructuring of the existing system to include all the Tibetan areas under one single administration and implementation of Chinese laws.
Also in an Op-Ed by Nicholas Kristoff in the New York Times on 6 August 2008, His Holiness the Dalai Lama had stated that he can accept the socialist system of China if genuine autonomy is granted to Tibetans.
The Sikyong has consistently maintained that the occupation of Tibet and repression of Tibetans are the causes of protest through self-immolation by Tibetans.

Interview with the Dalai Lama (Dharamsala, May 15, 1993)
Extracts:

Claude: Does China agree with you on the geographical definition of Tibet? Or do they consider only the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR), excluding the eastern provinces of Amdo and Kham from the purview of the discussions?

His Holiness the Dalai Lama: Since the Chinese constitution provides the principle of autonomy for all the Tibetan ethnic people, we are trying to get similar rights for all Tibetans [from the TAR and other provinces]. I do not know [if they will accept], we shall see. We have always been concerned by ALL Tibetans, not only the ones residing in the TAR. If we were seeking separation [from China], then, of course, demanding the other territories [the provinces of Amdo and Kham] would be something difficult [for the Chinese to accept]. But as we have decided to remain within the People’s Republic of China, then, it is reasonable that all the ethnic Tibetans get the same rights. How can we make discrimination between Tibetans inside TAR and those outside?

Claude: What do you mean by “genuine autonomy” for Tibetans with the People’s Republic of China?

His Holiness the Dalai Lama: Foreign Affairs and defense will be carried by the Central government. In other words, Tibetans should have the final authority in all the matters that they can handle better. For example, for large scale factories, we might not be able to manage, so we will take Chinese expertise and help. Of course, for Foreign and Defense, which are themselves large subjects, we need the help of the Chinese.

Claude: Suppose tomorrow, the Chinese accept your formula and you leave with them defense matters. The next day, they plan a war against India. What will you do in such a case?

His Holiness the Dalai Lama: (Thinking deeply). As a Tibetan, it is impossible to think of shooting an Indian. In fact, once a few Indian journalists came here, they were seating where you are today and I explained to them the concept of “genuine autonomy”. I told them jokingly “it is unthinkable for a Tibetan to open fire towards India, so let the Chinese do that”. It was a joke (laughing). But in case such a serious situation develops, of course, I will try my best to cool down the conflict, first as a person devoted to peace and against violence, I will express myself and try [to solve the conflict].Then the best part of my life has been spent in India. India is also the home of our spirituality, the home of Buddhadharma. For me, the sino-indian relations are so important; conflict should be avoided at any cost. It is what I think.

Claude: Do you see any role for India to facilitate an acceptable solution between the Tibetans and Beijing?

His Holiness the Dalai Lama: Theoretically, morally India should do something, but how much India can do, I do not know.

Claude: You proposed to transform Tibet into a “zone of Ahimsa”. Will it not help solving many security problems for India?

His Holiness the Dalai Lama: Yes, certainly.

Let us hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst

Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo's visit in Delhi last week, did not get much media coverage in India.
The Indian National Security Advisor's counterpart in the border talks between India and China, however met Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh after attending the Third Meeting of Senior Representatives of National Security Affairs of BRICS countries.
According to Xinhua, "Dai conveyed to the Indian Prime Minister cordial greetings and good wishes from Chinese President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao, and delivered a letter from Communist Party of China General Secretary Xi Jinping."
China's new boss wrote that "China-India relations have maintained stable development in the past few years, which has brought about substantial benefits to the two countries and the two peoples." 
Xi Jinping added "the world has enough space for China and India to achieve common development, and the world also needs common development."
Nothing really new.
The CCP General Secretary (and Chairman of the Central Military Commission)  affirmed that "China will, as it has been doing, pay great importance to developing relations with India and expects to carry out close cooperation with India to create a brighter future of their bilateral relations." 
For Dai Bingguo in the past 10 years, "the two countries have efficiently controlled their disputes and differences and have pushed forward development of bilateral relations, while gradually finding a pragmatic way of maintaining friendly relationship of co- existence between them."
He said that in the next five to 10 years, China and India will see a strategically important period of opportunities to develop their relations.
Prime Minister Singh politely reciprocated: "New Delhi was keen of deepening India-China strategic cooperative partnership", he said.
All this is very nice, but China keeps preparing itself for any eventuality (so India hopefully does). According to China Military Online: 

China’s military exercises in 2012 continued to go back to its essence, namely upgrading the troop units’ combat power by adopting methods closest to the actual combat situations. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is exploring new combat-power generation modes through military exercises.

The PLA website says that "the level of informationization is impressive":

Many military exercises in 2012 showed that the command method and the level of the information-based weapons and equipment of the PLA are quite impressive.
The “integrated command information system” made its debut in early 2012. This self-developed command information system of China integrates various arms of the PLA’s services, namely the ground force, the navy, the air force and the second artillery force, links up command organs at various levels and the general headquarters/departments of the PLA, and connects command factors including support and information.
To better cultivate the habits of using the “integrated command information system”, many military exercises in 2012 even adopted an extreme method, namely paper-based maps were not allowed to be used for combat command.
The changes in 2012 were related to the PLA’s constant strengthening of its information-based construction for years. The powerful geographic information support system contains factors necessary for combat operations including measuring and mapping, meteorology and information. The levels of various types of information-based weapon platforms become higher and higher. The update and upgrade of the communication means make the command and control become more and more accurate.
China’s 'Beidou-II' satellite navigation system was officially enabled on December 27, 2012. The accuracy of this navigation and positioning system reaches less than 10 meters. The 'Beidou' system will greatly promote the PLA’s information-based construction. 

At the same time, Beijing's charm offensive continues. The Indian Defense Secretary Shashi Kant Sharma was well received in Beijing. 
He met General (Air Force) Xu Qiliang, Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission and member of the CCP Politburo.
Apparently, the encounter was extremely cordial.
Xu said: "China attaches great importance in developing military ties with India and hopes to increase mutual strategic trust, enhance friendly communication and deepen pragmatic cooperation in order to promote the strategic partnership for peace and prosperity and make a positive contribution to world and regional peace and stability."
Xu told Sharma that "the two countries have extensive common interests and developing friendly and mutually beneficial cooperation is in line with the common aspiration of the two peoples as well as global development", adding that China believes that the two countries have enough wisdom and ability to handle their relationship and are able to pave a healthy and stable development path for it. 
Sharma was happy.
Let us hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst.

Blowing hot and cold

My article Blowing hot and cold on the border talks with China and the Chinese claim of a 'piece' of Tawang district appeared in today's Edit Page of The Pioneer.
China has added a twist to the boundary talks with India by upping the ante on its claim to Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh. That claim has no basis in history. 
Click here to read.

India should be watchful

The rumor was so persistent that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had to reassure the Lok Sabha “Our government does not share the view that China plans to attack India,” adding that India’s borders with China “by and large remain peaceful”.
In recent weeks, several senior analysts have predicted a repeat of the 1962 conflict between India and China. The most prominent is Brahma Chellaney of the Centre for Policy Research who wrote: “China’s expanding axis of evil with Pakistan, including a new troop presence in PoK, heightens India’s vulnerability in Jammu and Kashmir, even as India has beefed up its defenses in Arunachal Pradesh.”
In the Parliament, it is the Samajwadi Party Chief Mulayam Singh Yadav who declared that he had information that China was making preparations to attack India and that Beijing had “marked out areas near the borders for this purpose”.
A few weeks earlier, a Senior IDSA Fellow Ali Ahmed had also put oil on the fire by publishing a Brief (‘A Consideration of Sino-Indian Conflict’) in which he spoke of hostilities “confined to a specific section of the border, limited in duration and amenable to a negotiated termination,” a Kargil-type situation.
The main common argument is that India is today not prepared for a war. This is an undisputable fact. A weekly magazine published a cover story arguing: “Fifty years after its only defeat, the Indian Army is still unprepared for a battle with its scheming adversary, China. Low on equipment and lacking in infrastructure, the bloated war machine is in urgent need of an overhaul.”
Though Defence Minister AK Antony affirmed that no infiltration had taken place across the LAC in Arunachal Pradesh, he admitted: "there have been instances of a few Tibetan herb collectors inadvertently crossing over into Indian territory in the last two years." It is common knowledge that the Chinese are masters at testing the ground by sending herders or herb collectors to scout areas that they ‘perceive’ as theirs.
Antony explained: "There is no commonly delineated Line of Actual Control (LAC) between India and China …in a few areas India and China have different perception of the LAC.”
The postponement of the Special Representatives’ talks which was conveniently attributed to the fact that the Dalai Lama was to address a Buddhist Conference in Delhi, was one more sign that Beijing is not interested to clarify these ‘differences of perceptions’.
When Antony mentioned his ministry’s decisions to deploy new radars: “the deployment of radars, including mountain radars, is based on various factors like operational requirement of IAF and security needs of the country”, it send shivers down the public’s spine.
Will 1962 repeat itself?
One can’t deny that it is the perfect time to attack India; in a few years she may be much better prepared.
Take the roads for example: in January 2008, during a visit to Itanagar and Tawang, the Prime Minister announced a Rs 24,000 crores package for the State. The priority was given to the roads (in particular, the construction of a Trans-Arunachal Highway).
With the road being enlarged between the plains of Assam and Tawang (en route to the Tibet border), one finds the messiest imaginable road site which has become the favorite topic of local jokes. It will definitively be different in five years time.
It is however difficult to share the analysts’ pessimism. One of the reasons is that China has its own problems to deal with.
First and foremost there will be a leadership change in 2012. President Hu Jintao, Premier Wen Jiabao and five others of the nine-member Standing Committee of the Politburo, will retire in October next year. China will then witness a period of transition, in other words, a time of instability which could last for a couple of years.
To decide to go to war (with India or any other nation), China needs a stable and strong established leadership or as in 1962, a leader with extraordinary charisma (Mao Zedong); it is not the case today. The main factions of the Communist Youth League Clique (led by Hu Jintao) and the Gang of Princelings (led by Xi Jinping) will have to fight it out to take an ascendant path and impose hard decisions.
Could a new Mao emerge from the Fifth Generation? It is doubtful.
There are other differences between 1962 and 2011: the then foolish Indian leadership did not dare to use the Air Force, it will not be the case today; a full squadron of Sukhoi-30 aircraft have now been deployed at Tezpur air base in Assam (another squadron has been brought to Chabua in Upper Assam). Further, the IAF is planning to open six Advanced Landing Grounds, as well as several helipads in areas close to the border. This may take some time, but the process has started.
Were India attacked today, it will not remain a localized conflict (as predicted by IDSA) like in 1962; any Chinese misadventure would trigger an ‘all-out’ conflict, and India would certainly not hesitate to attack the PLA infrastructure in the Nyingchi Prefecture, north of the McMahon line. Hopefully, the Chinese are aware of this.
It has been in the public domain that two new infantry divisions have been raised and that the Government is looking for a place in the Northeast to set up the headquarters of a Mountain Strike Corps.
Another crucial factor is the support of the local population in Arunachal and Ladakh. In 1962, some villages fully supported the invading Chinese troops. How else could the PLA have built a road from Bumla, the border pass, to Tawang in 18 days? It is not difficult to imagine the amount of accurate intelligence required for this feat.
None of the analysts have gone into the question “What will China gain from such a misadventure, apart from a hypothetical Asian supremacy?”
China perhaps cannot ‘take back’ Tawang militarily; the PLA could at the most occupy a few ‘disputed pockets’ like Samdorong Chu valley, north of Tawang or Demchok in Ladakh, but in the process, Beijing would lose India’s present goodwill and the international respect they earn through their ‘peaceful rise’ policy as well as their integration into  the world scene as a responsible State.
Further, it should not be difficult for India to instigate a 1959-type rebellion in Tibet and support it militarily; at least a civil disobedience could be organised. Let us not forget that an alien PLA has already to deal with a resentful local population on the Tibetan plateau. The recent immolations of monks and nuns in Eastern Tibet are a proof of this.
It is true that China has been rather aggressive on the border issue lately and that India is not fully ready to tackle the Dragon, but India has her own cards to play and hopefully, she will play them well.
The proposed launch of the Agni-V long range missile is one of these cards. It has already made Chinese policy makers ponder. The People's Daily stated that it reflects India's “intention of seeking regional balance of power”. The mouth piece of the Party quoted some Indian and scientists describing Agni-V as a ‘killer for a certain country’.
If Beijing wants again to ‘teach a lesson’ to India, it will indeed be a Himalayan task, and what will Beijing gain in the bargain?
Nevertheless, China can use more asymmetric types of warfare, cyber-warfare is one of them. While India continues to prepare the defence of her borders, she should remain watchful of her interests and not take for granted the profession of friendship by anybody.