With China willing to discuss 'Dalai Lama’s future', Tibetan fate hangs in balance

When Modi was Chief Minister of Gujarat

My article With China willing to discuss 'Dalai Lama’s future', Tibetan fate hangs in balance appeared in Firstpost

Beijing has not called Dalai Lama a ‘separatist’ leader; instead, it has shown interest in discussing his ‘personal future’
With China willing to discuss 'Dalai Lama’s future', Tibetan fate hangs in balance

On May 24, Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed a public meeting in Mandi to support Bollywood actress and BJP candidate Kangana Ranaut. In the course of his speech, he mentioned Tibet, something he rarely does. According to a press release from the PMO, Modi asserted: “The Congress government was so timid that it was afraid to even mention the name of Dalai Lama Ji. I frequently engage in discussions with Dalai Lama Ji. He is a stalwart of our rich heritage. India is the land of Buddha, and the Modi government has been actively promoting this heritage.”
The ‘frequent discussions’ are not in the public domain; we only know that from time to time, a phone call is made from Delhi to Dharamsala on the Dalai Lama’s birthday.
This statement, however, raises the issue of Tibet, which seems to have been dormant for years.
The political head of Tibet’s government-in-exile, Penpa Tsering, recently visited the United States and Canada. Everywhere, the Sikyong conveyed the urgent situation in Tibet “highlighting China’s efforts to eradicate Tibet’s distinct culture and identity and assimilate the Tibetan people”.
During an encounter with the Tibetan Diaspora, Penpa Tsering noted that the priorities and policies of his government were to enhance the stability and efficiency of departments within the Central Tibetan Administration and implement the Dalai Lama’s Middle Way policy.
He admitted that he was in contact with Beijing; according to Firstpost, the Sikyong stated: “We have had back-channel engagement since last year. But we have no immediate expectations from it. It has to be a long-term one.” Penpa Tsering, however, insisted that the talks were “very informal”.
PTI quoted him, saying, “I have my interlocutor who deals with people in Beijing. Then there are other elements also trying to reach out to us.”
Beijing was quick to retort: “[We] will talk only with the representatives of the Dalai Lama and not the officials of the Tibetan government-in-exile.”
The positive side was that Beijing did not call the Dalai Lama a separatist and instead said it was ready to discuss his “personal future”.
This has been Beijing’s position for the past four decades: the discussions can only be about the Dalai Lama’s future.

The Future
This, however, raises the issue of the future of Tibet and the Tibetan people.
In the early 1980s, the Dalai Lama envisaged a Middle Path approach, probably based on the “One Country, Two Systems” slogan coined by Deng Xiaoping at the end of the 1970s.
The Tibetan leader elaborated his vision for the future in two documents, a Five-Point Peace Plan in 1987 in Washington, DC, and his Strasbourg Proposal in 1988.
The first of the five points was “transformation of the whole of Tibet into a zone of peace”, a concept certainly appealing for India; another point was “respect for the Tibetan people’s fundamental human rights and democratic freedoms”.
The ‘Zone of Peace’ would soon be dropped, and the riots in Lhasa in 1989 and the subsequent imposition of martial law demonstrated the limits of the second.
In his Strasbourg Proposal, the Dalai Lama spoke of “the whole of Tibet known as Cholka-Sum (U-Tsang, Kham and Amdo) should become a self-governing democratic political entity founded on law by agreement of the people for the common good and the protection of themselves and their environment, in association with the People’s Republic of China”.
This was before the events of Tiananmen Square; before June 1989, there were probably chances that China could join the concert of democratic nations and be a normal state.
Ten rounds of negotiations took place between the Dalai Lama’s representatives (the CTA’s representatives have always been banned in Beijing) between 2002 and 2010. This led nowhere.

China, a Great Power
Things have changed since then; China has become the second most important economic player in the world, while the situation within the Middle Kingdom has grimly deteriorated since 2012, at least in terms of individual liberty.
Today, after the recent events in Hong Kong and the military threats against the ‘renegade island’ (Taiwan), ‘One Country, Two Systems’ cannot be envisioned anymore. This makes the situation in Tibet (and in Xinjiang, the other Chinese colony) more precarious than ever.

Taiwan
In February, a Chinese writer living in exile, Yuan Hongbing, revealed that China planned to use the Kuomintang’s (KMT’s) influence in Taiwan’s legislature to boost its United Front strategy. Yuan said that the information came from a “princeling” (son of a Chinese revolutionary leader) whom Xi Jinping does not dare to challenge. According to Chinascope, a US website carrying information on the Mainland, “the CCP is not just using military intimidation to destabilise Taiwan; it is also using propaganda, the deployment of agents, and the expansion of the KMT’s legislative power to override the Taiwanese administration.”
Last week, Chinese military spokesperson senior Colonel Wu Qian told a press conference that China’s reunification is an irreversible trend in history and that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is ready to take resolute actions to counter any “Taiwan independence”.
Soon after Lai Ching-te took charge as Taiwan’s president on May 20, the Chinese military warned Taiwan that “independence” would mean “war” and Beijing would thwart any foreign interference in support of “separatist activities” in the democratic-ruled island.
The recent military drills that followed were more to ‘scare the chicken’ than a rehearsal, as an ‘influence’ takeover will certainly be less costly and risky for Beijing. Yuan added that “the CCP’s Taiwan policy has shifted from coercion and enticement to psychological warfare, aiming to demoralise Taiwanese.”

Deterioration in Hong Kong
Around the same time, the BBC reported that a court in Hong Kong “found 14 pro-democracy activists guilty of subversion in the largest use yet of a China-imposed National Security Law. They included former lawmakers Leung Kwok-hung and Helena Wong, journalist-turned-campaigner Gwyneth Ho, and ordinary Hong Kongers who joined the mass protests of 2019, such as nurse Winnie Yu”.
Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee took Beijing’s side and declared that his government will do its “utmost to prevent, suppress, and impose punishment” for any activities “endangering national security”.

Situation in Tibet
In Tibet, the situation is also rapidly deteriorating. A report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) noted, “Since 2016, the Chinese government has dramatically accelerated the relocation of rural villagers and herders in Tibet. The government says that these relocations—often to areas hundreds of kilometres away—are voluntary.” The Chinese rationale was to “improve people’s livelihoods and protect the ecological environment”.
Using over 1,000 official Chinese media articles between 2016 and 2023, as well as government publications and academic field studies, HRW said that China’s own media reports showed that participation in “whole-village relocation” programmes in Tibet is in fact compulsory. “In one case, 200 households out of 262 in the village did not initially want to relocate to a new location, which was nearly 1,000 kilometres away. In another village scheduled for relocation, all the residents except for a Chinese Communist Party activist initially disagreed with the plan to move the village,” said the report.
HRW could not find a single case where a village scheduled for relocation was able to avoid being moved.
What is left of the ‘genuine autonomy’ the Dalai Lama was dreaming of in the 1980s? Probably not much today.

Another Report

The Washington-based International Campaign for Tibet reported in May that the Buddhist Association of China (BAC), a non-political organisation, “is becoming a key instrument in the Chinese Communist Party’s strategy to assimilate and transform Tibetan Buddhism, particularly in relation to the search for and recognition of reincarnate lamas”.
When it speaks of the ‘sinification of Buddhism’, Beijing is obviously thinking of the succession of the Dalai Lama.
Since President Xi Jinping’s announcement of his intent to sinify all the religions in China, the BAC has been “mandated as the tool to implement campaigns that will contribute to its fruition, particularly in connection with Tibetan Buddhism”.
Founded in 1953, the BAC’s charter was amended in 2020 to include “Sinification of Buddhism in China”, one of its objectives in order to “support the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the socialist system, study and implement Xi Jinping’s Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, and adhere to the direction of the Sinification of Buddhism in China”.
During the recent Two Sessions held in Beijing in March 2024, Wang Huning, the Party’s chief ideologue, mentioned that the BAC “carried out 10 research and inspections in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Tibet-related counties in Sichuan Province on promoting the sinification of Tibetan Buddhism”.
In the present circumstances, hopes for a better tomorrow are presently limited.

One can only hope that when the Indian prime minister calls the Dalai Lama on July 6 to wish him on his 89th birthday, the Tibetan leader will be able to convince PM Modi that the fates of Tibet and India are intimately linked, in particular as far as the boundary between them is concerned.

How India and France are shaping a dynamic partnership in the changing global landscape

My article How India and France are shaping a dynamic partnership in the changing global landscape appeared in Firstpost

Here is the link... 

After 25 years of ‘partnership’ India and France have reached an unparalleled level of trust and proximity

Nobody, not even the best soothsayers or experts, can explain why the world is suddenly changing so quickly, but remember the prophesy once sung by Bob Dylan, it seems to become true, “For the times, they are a-changin'”.
A sign of the changing time, France has a new prime minister, 34 years of age of a different sexual orientation as the head of the government.
Who could have imagined this a few years ago?
Of course, in India is difficult to understand that such a young ‘inexperienced’ leader, could lead a country with multiple problems, but how old were Adi Shankara or Swami Vivekananda when they changed India in so much depth.
One can’t compare the new French leader to the two above mentioned spiritual giants, but one can hope that fresh blood will be good for France in these ‘changing’ times.

Macron back in India
In the meantime, the French President Emmanuel Macron will be Chief Guest for Republic Day.
I still remember his last State visit in March 2018; addressing a French gathering in Delhi, the President spoke of the Chinese hegemony in the region and said that France was ready to work with India on the oceans: “France is a power of the Indian and the Pacific Oceans; we are present at the Reunion, we are also there in French Polynesia and New Caledonia. And we are a maritime power, it is often forgotten but France is the second maritime power in the world. We have a strong navy, we have nuclear submarines equipped like few other powers in the world; a maritime surveillance capability through our own satellites and technologies; it is obvious we are a military and intelligence power ranking us among the first nations in the world.”
This language was surprising at that time, but one can measure how much the world has changed and particularly the great powers’ views on the Middle Kingdom in the post-Covid era (and post-Eastern Ladakh confrontation for India).
Many more countries have today realized that China can’t be left free to engulf the oceans around.

Twenty Five Years of Strategic Partnership
The 90’s saw a a tremendous boost in bilateral relations with the visits of President Chirac in January 1998 and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s trip to Paris later in the year (incidentally, the new French prime minister is Mr. Attal, with two ‘t’, though the French will not pronounce differently)..
The most striking feature of 1998’s visit was the setting up of a framework for a strategic partnership.
Using a de Gaulle-like language, Jacques Chirac saluted India, “a nation which has affirmed its personality on the world stage”. He said that he had come to show that “France wanted to accompany India in its potent march [towards the future].”
Chirac’s words were not mere political niceties.
When India conducted its nuclear tests in Pokhran in May, France was one of the few countries which did not condemn Delhi (or impose sanctions). This was greatly appreciated in Delhi and when Prime Minister Vajpayee returned Chirac’s visit in October, the new strategic dialogue could take its first concrete steps.
These events set in motion a closer collaboration.

The Deals
The French government has recently submitted a response to India's Rs 50,000 crore tender to purchase 26 Rafale Marine fighter jets for the Indian Navy; according to India Today: “India has initiated the USD 6 billion deal with France for the acquisition of 26 Rafale Marine aircraft, aiming to enhance the Indian Navy’s aircraft carrier capabilities.”
The purchase of three new Scorpene submarines is also in the pipeline.
These deals are expected to be soon finalized.

Reciprocal Collaboration
The collaboration between France and India is multiple and reciprocal. For example, the Paris Region of France is calling for more investments from India.
Valérie Pécresse, President of the Paris Region, recently met Reliance Industries Chairman Mukesh Ambani and Tata Sons chief N Chandrasekaran in Mumbai and asked the Indian entrepreneurs to invest in her region. Pécresse told media: “We are on a charm offensive to win hearts and minds of Indian students, tourists, investors and film makers.”
Today Indians represent fraction of the 50 million tourists visiting Paris; for example, figures say that the number of Australians and Chinese visiting the French capital is far higher than Indians.

Local Collaboration
The collaboration is today getting delocalized. France recently set up an exclusive pavilion at the third edition of the Tamil Nadu Global Investors Meet (GIM), a two-day event from January 7, whose objective was to foster economic ties with India. The Consulate of France in Puducherry and Chennai coordinated the French participation; France was a country partner for the event. The French Pavilion showcased many Paris-based companies including Michelin, Precia Molen, Valeo, Cryolar and Numeric among others.
A communiqué explained: “France is a major source of foreign direct investment for India with more than 1,000 French establishments already present in the country. Tamil Nadu, boasting the second largest economy in India with a Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) exceeding USD 300 billion, stands out as India's most industrialised state, housing over 130 Fortune 500 companies.”

Student Exchange: the Future
Last July 14, during his visit as guest of honour of France during the National Day, Prime Minister Modi among other announcements, mentioned bilateral cooperation, research and higher education. He announced that Paris has accepted to welcome in France 20,000 Indian students by 2025 and 30,000 by 2030.
A roadmap said that the cooperation will be centered on ‘a union of forces’; it will make “sciences, technologic innovation and university cooperation [the] vectors for progress and independence for our two countries”.
A chapter of the roadmap is dedicated to ‘human partnerships’.
France and India are “determined to develop their university bonds and encourage exchanges between students”.
To give a concrete shape to the project, Mumbai University (MU) has decided to join hands with a French university for dual degree program. Students will have to spend six to nine months in France at the University of Troyes on fellowship training as per the dual degree program.
According to a MU communiqué: “The combined expertise from both institutions may lead to potentially groundbreaking research outcomes in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Students enrolling with the Department of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology at MU for postgraduation (PG) will now get dual degree — jointly awarded by the MU and the University of Technology of Troyes in France.”

The Ideal Partners?
During Macron’s 2018 visit, Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke of “Five S”, Samman (respect); Samvad (dialogue); Sahayog (cooperation), Shanti (peace), and Samriddhi (prosperity). Paris certainly still agrees with this.
Today, most commentators converge to say that France and India are the ideal partners; in US-based The National Interest, Don McLain Gill wrote: “Among Western countries, France has often been the first to illustrate a mature understanding of India’s position on varied issues ranging from nuclear tests to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine War.”
Shishir Gupta said in The Hindustan Times: “PM Modi and Macron share a very close chemistry. They often talk to each other about major positions. …When Macron comes to India, the centerpiece will be Atmanirbhar Bharat.”
Gupta mentions the joint research and development of small modular nuclear reactors: “These are nuclear reactors that produce less than 300 megawatts. These reactors are fundamental to nuclear energy. They are also fundamental to the green hydrogen project.”

Joint Development
After 25 years of ‘partnership’ India and France have reached an unparalleled level of trust and proximity; this should translate into something not easy to do, even for European partners, i.e. joint developments in new fields of science or technology.
Already public sector giant Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has opened a new design and test facility at its Aero Engine Research and Development Centre (AERDC) in Bengaluru which will be used to test helicopter engines to be co-developed between the French firm Safran and HAL; the engine is to be fitted in the new 13-tonne Indian Multi-Role Helicopter (IMRH), which will replace the Russian Mi-17 helicopters.
In February 2023 HAL and Safran had announced a tie-up to produce the engine for the 13-ton helicopter; HAL will participate in the design, development and production of the core engine components. Safran already has a joint venture with HAL to manufacture engines for the advanced light helicopter (ALH), weighing 5.5 tonnes.
Apart from the dream to develop together an engine for the Indian jets, high-tech drones could be another field of future collaboration. Recently, the Indian Navy received its first indigenous medium-altitude long-endurance (MALE) drone, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) built by Adani Defence and Aerospace at its Hyderabad facility (with Israeli transfer of technology).
Why can’t Paris and Delhi decide to develop the drones of tomorrow? Not an easy proposal, but perhaps worth trying.

PM Modi in Paris: How Indo-French ties have evolved into an epitome of strategic, economic and cultural cooperation

My article  PM Modi in Paris: How Indo-French ties have evolved into an epitome of strategic, economic and cultural cooperation appeared in Firstpost

Here is the link...

In the present turbulent times, the stability of the relation between Delhi and Paris is important for the world

This year, France and India are celebrating 25 years of their strategic partnership. The visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi as the chief guest for the parade on the French National Day (Bastille Day) in Paris will be the culmination of this momentous year. It will also witness a host of new agreements between the two nations.
One could believe that Narendra Modi’s decision to purchase 36 Rafale planes ‘off-the-shelf’, during his April visit to Paris in April 2015, was the true beginning of the partnership; it is true that it was a quick, pragmatic and smart move. Delhi brought the IAF’s ‘critical operational necessity’ to the negotiating table while dropping the cumbersome Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft framework. But it was far from being the first bilateral deal in terms of defence.
A letter sent by HS Malik, India’s Ambassador to France to prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru in October 1953 testifies that 70 years ago, France and India were already special friends.
At that time, India purchased 71 Ouragans (known in India as ‘Toofanis’) from the French firm, Dassault.
Though at that time the question of the French settlements in India was not solved; (the de facto transfer of Pondicherry and the three other settlements Yanon, Mahe and Karikal took only place a year later on 1 November, 1954), some trust was obviously already present.
Addressing Nehru, the Indian ambassador wrote: “All of us in the Embassy who have been working on the implantation of the contract with the Defence Ministry for the supply of Ouragan aircraft were greatly relieved and delighted when we got the news that our four pilots with the four Ouragans had reached Palam safely. This flight from France to India has involved a great deal of organizational work for which much credit is due to the team of the Indian Air Force Officers.”
Malik continued: “I venture to bring to your notice the wonderful cooperation that we have received both from the French officers of the Ministry of Defence, from the Cabinet Minister downwards, and from the French industry. We signed the contract only last June. Already four planes have reached India; another 35 are being sent on October the 30th on the aircraft carrier Dixmude, and the remainder, 32 aircraft, will be dispatched in January 1954. I think you will agree that this is indeed prompt execution of the agreement as embodied in the contract between us and the French.”
Malik added: “Our pilots who came here to learn to fly this type of aircraft, which was new to them, won the admiration and respect of the French Air Force and, generally speaking, …in spite of the language handicap, [the pilots] have made friends and won the respect of the people among whom they have lived.” These words speak for themselves.

Old and stable relations
The selection of the Toofanis or the Rafales was a hallmark of the partnership between Delhi and Paris.
Historians usually consider the period between 1947 and 1962 as the first phase of Indo-French relations. Year 1962 was for France the year it constitutionally departed from the subcontinent and for India.
As early as January 1947, though the relations were not too cordial between France and India due to the colonial burden, the French government asked for a 10-year extension of the 1945 agreement permitting military air ferries to fly across India. Nehru, the interim prime minister noted: “Public opinion in India is very much against the use of force by the French Government against the people of Indochina and anything which we do to facilitate the use of this force is bound to be resented and vigorously criticized”, but on 16 July, 1947 an agreement on air services between India and France was signed.
Soon after, an interesting development occurred. Nehru, then interested in the programme ‘Atoms for Peace’, was “anxious to help in every way in developing atomic energy in India”. He decided to unofficially send Homi J Bhabha to enquire about the possibility of collaboration for the peaceful use of atomic energy: “In view of the fact that India possesses very large resources of minerals suitable for the generation of atomic power, India is destined to play an important part in research on atomic energy in cooperation with other countries.”
Homi Bhabha had extremely cordial contacts with Frédéric Joliot-Curie and Raoul Dautry, the first heads of the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), founded by de Gaulle in 1945.
The French armament sales during this first phase were relatively large despite the factors mentioned above.
On 22 September, 1962, General de Gaulle received Nehru in Paris. Nehru first congratulated him for the settlement of the Algerian crisis as well as the ratification of the cession of the French Establishments in India. De Gaulle replied that he was happy to see that India had dealt successfully with some of the issues the West had doubts about at the time of independence.
Though the Indian Air Force did not directly take part in the conflict with China, Toofanis, as well as 110 Mystère and 12 Alizée (of Bréguet Aviation), were in service in 1962. Further, 150 AMX 13 light tanks were sold to India after an agreement was signed in 1957 (remember the battle of Chushul in November 1962).
With Dassault, the collaboration continued uninterrupted and in the 1980s India acquired the Mirage 2000.
If president François Mitterrand laid the foundation of a solid friendship with India, the regular dialogue was institutionalised during president Jacques Chirac’s visit in early 1998 through a ‘strategic’ partnership. This is still the base of the present trusted relationship. As for cultural relations, they will go on regardless of who is at the helm of India or France.

Modi in Paris
To be invited as the chief guest at the Bastille Day Parade is a rare honour. French Ambassador in India, Emmanuel Lenain told India Today that the visit would have “maximum impact and maximum outcomes”.
Lenain mentioned “the leaps in defence cooperation, which would be visible at the special military parade. We’re going to have Indian troops marching on the Champs-Elysées at the beginning of Bastille Day, and we have Indian Rafale participating in the fly past.” The ambassador added: “We provide the best technology to India as a close partner and ally. We also provide maximum content of ‘Make in India’, so we have made a good offer. The decision is now really in the hands of Indian authorities.”
The cherry on the cake could be the signature for Rafale-M; the Indian Navy is believed to have expressed a preference for the French fighter plane for its new aircraft carrier.
The Indian Navy is also interested in additional Scorpene-class submarines (six Kalvari submarines were built by Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited with French transfer of technology), also in the pipeline, an Airbus deal to manufacture C-295 tactical transport aircraft in Gujarat.
But there is more, after the Indian prime minister managed to get Washington’s agreement for the transfer of jet engine technology; negotiations with Paris should materialise to co-develop a high-thrust engine for the country’s stealth fighter jet programme, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).
According to India Today: “France’s Safran is believed to have agreed to completely share its jet engine technology with India to help develop the high-thrust 110kN engine. Safran has already co-developed a helicopter engine for India’s homegrown chopper fleet, and has been negotiating over the fighter jet engine for long.”
It is interesting to note that in recent years, France has emerged as a winner over Russia in defence purchases by India; with the Ukraine war, this trend can only increase.
In another interview with ANI, Lenain explained: “We work in the spirit of partnership, French companies have been the pioneers for years for make in India and now we totally understood the philosophy of Aatmanirbhar Bharat and they really want to share best technologies and to develop jointly in future.”
India and France will also be working on a roadmap for renewed cooperation for the next 25 years, which might be extremely challenging for the planet.
Indeed, India and France have gone a long way during the last 70 years (and especially after 1998). But it is important to remember that when India conducted its nuclear tests in Pokhran in May 1998, France was one of the few countries which did not condemn Delhi (or impose sanctions). This was greatly appreciated in Delhi and when in October 1998 prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee returned president Jacques Chirac’s visit to India, the new strategic dialogue could take its first concrete steps.
These events set in motion a closer collaboration and the indeed present partnership owes much to these two leaders.
From the ‘friendship’ mentioned by General de Gaulle in 1962, the relationship has become a true strategic, economic and cultural partnership.
In the present turbulent times, the stability of the relationship between Delhi and Paris is important for the world.

PM Modi's Call to Dalai Lama is a Message to China on Succession IssueImportant

Important phone call in view of the situation in Tibet

My article PM Modi's Call to Dalai Lama is a Message to China on Succession Issue appeared in The Quint

Here is the link...

A message has been sent to China through this call ahead of the 12th round of Corps Commander level talks over LAC.

Late one evening in August 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had an unheralded meeting in Delhi, with the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan religious leader living in exile in India since March 1959. Apparently, the meeting did not go too well; the reason is unknown.
The fact remains that for centuries India and Tibet, have shared values, not only in the spiritual realm (Mt Kailash, the sacred mountain of the Hindus is in Tibet after all), but also political, having a peaceful common frontier (which unfortunately for India, become the Sino-Indian border in 1954), without forgetting extensive economic and trade connections with the entire Himalayan belt, from Demchok in Ladakh to Kibithu in NEFA (today Anjaw district of Arunachal Pradesh).
Post 2014, there was minimal institutional exchange between Dharamsala and Delhi, except for a discreet visit of the (‘Buddhist’) Foreign Secretary (Harsh Vardhan Singla) in July 2020.
It is why it came as a pleasant surprise when the Prime Minister tweeted on July 6: “Spoke on phone to His Holiness the @DalaiLama to convey greetings on his 86th birthday. We wish him a long and healthy life.”
This simple call, made public via Twitter, is significant for a number of reasons.
First, it comes after the February 2018 MEA Directive, Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale asked the Cabinet Secretary to issue a “classified circular advisory advising all Ministries/Departments of Government of India as well as State Governments not to accept any invitation or to participate in [n the 60th anniversary of the Dalai Lama's arrival in India].”
Delhi followed the old Nehruvian concept that by pleasing China, Beijing would reciprocate in kind. Remember that this was after the Doklam episode, when China tried to change the status quo at the trijunction Bhutan-Tibet-Sikkim.
Then the ‘Wuhan Consensus’ took place in April 2018; Xinhua then observed: “Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi reached broad consensus on the overarching, long-term and strategic issues of global and bilateral importance”.
The Modi Sarkar thought India could work with Xi Jinping.
It was followed by the ‘Chennai Connect’ in October 2019; the leaders of both countries announced that they would “prudently manage their differences and not allow differences on any issue to become dispute.”
On the final day of the two-day informal summit at the sea-side resort of Mamallapuram, it was decided to ‘consolidate strategic communication’.
Tibet and the Dalai Lama became dirty words, not to be pronounced by anybody in India.
Ironically, it is China who helped Delhi come out of its torpor; the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) advanced in several areas in Ladakh in May 2020, at a time when India was struggling with the Wuhan virus, widely acknowledged to have originated in the mega city, which had witnessed the ‘Consensus’ less than two years earlier.
It was a big shock for most of the ‘China experts’ in India, who for years banked on a great (not to say eternal) friendship with Communist China.
In a way, this phone call rebalances India’s China Policy (if there was ever one) at a time Beijing prepares for the post-Dalai Lama era by putting in place strict ‘regulations’ to be able to decide who will be the 15th Dalai Lama (preferably from a good Communist family).
Interestingly, Radio Free Asia (Chinese broadcast) recently reported: “Just as the CCP’s centennial celebration ceremony are about to start, the CCP imposed regulations on Tibetan Communist Party members for their religious behavior. [Since April] …all learning materials for Party members and cadres …need to adhere to atheist norms. …Party members and cadres should not believe in religion, to participate in religious activities, [they should] not spread or promote religion, [they should] not provide support for religious activities …without authorization [of the Party].”
Isn’t it amazing? The Party does not believe in religion, but simultaneously wants to select and impose its own Dalai Lama.
The phone call hopefully indicates that though India, a secular state will not intervene in the Dalai Lama’s succession; it will stand by the Tibetan leader’s decision.
Since China unnecessarily started a confrontation in Ladakh, one lakh Indian troops remain on vigil in the formidably harsh climate of the northern borders; the fact that the Prime Minister wished the Dalai Lama is certainly an important message across the Himalaya that the old relationship between Tibet and India is very much alive, specially before the 12th round of talks which is soon to take place between the Indian Commander of 14 Corps and his Chinese counterpart.
It is particularly significant as the PLA is trying its best to recruit more Tibetans in its ranks, to one day raise a Tibetan unit to match the Special Frontier Force (SFF), composed of Tibetan refugees in India; the SFF fought so well in August 2020, conquering the Kailash range, south of the Pangong Lake, for the Indian Army.
One can only hope that the initiative of the Prime Minister will be a first step to make the contacts between Dharamsala and Delhi more regular, in particular to jointly work for the preservation of the Buddhist tradition, another domain where atheist China is trying to lead the world.

How China lost a friend in Ladakh

My article How China lost a friend in Ladakh appeared in Mail Today/DailyO

Here is the link...

Post-Covid-19, China is facing great internal difficulties, why pick fights with most nations and particularly India?

During his visit to Nimu, near Leh (Ladakh), Prime Minister Narendra Modi interacted with the Indian troops facing the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) on the border; in his address, Modi stated: “Indians can go about their lives peacefully because they know that our Armed Forces are standing firm, protecting the nation.”
Connected or not with the visit, two days later, probably feeling that the wind was turning, the Chinese asked for talks. For Beijing, the situation had taken unexpected turns; the Communist leadership had not realised that Delhi could take retaliatory measures so fast.
Wang Yi, China’s clever Special Representative (SR) and Minister of Foreign Affairs, spoke on the phone for two hours with Ajit Doval, his Indian counterpart and National Security Advisor.

Status quo question
The two SRs agreed that maintenance of peace in the border areas was essential and “[the] two sides should not allow differences to become disputes.” It is China who created the ‘differences’, not India. The SRs also spoke of the necessity to ensure “at the earliest complete disengagement of the troops along the LAC and de-escalation from India-China border areas.”
Indian observers are doubtful that the so-called disengagement would be sincerely completed. Geo-strategist Brahma Chellaney, wrote in a newspaper column: “A full return to status quo ante as sought by India seems remote, thanks to India’s own mixed signals. By encroaching on additional areas behind the previous disengagement facade, China has armed itself with greater leverage to impose a revised status quo.”
India should study the classic Unrestricted Warfare written by Sr Col Qiao Lang and Wang Xiangsui some two decades ago; the Chinese officers advocated “Ten Thousand Methods Combined as One”; they believed “the war will be fought and won in a war beyond the battlefield; the struggle for victory will take place on a battlefield beyond the battlefield.” India needs to use new ‘methods’, such as banning 59 Chinese Apps or cancelling major infrastructure projects involving China.

Steps to be taken
Unfortunately, Delhi has lost an excellent occasion when the Dalai Lama turned 85 on July 6. It would have cost nothing for the Prime Minister to tweet his best wishes for good health and long life to the Tibetan leader; it did not happen. The Foreign Secretary, who is from Sikkim should also have paid his respects to the Dalai Lama. This would have sent a strong message to Beijing, that Tibet, is closer to India than to China.
Today, the only way to have a fair chance on the battlefield is to have ‘ten thousand’ such small messages sent to Beijing; otherwise, the battle is bound to be lost. This reminds me of the visit of Chinese President Jiang Zemin to the Swiss Parliament in 1999. He didn’t like the presence of pro-Tibet demonstrators ‘greeting’ him on his arrival. In a speech to the lawmakers, he said: “Switzerland has lost a good friend”. The Chinese President was so angry that during the following State banquet with the Swiss authorities, he refused to eat.
In a different context, the Prime Minister and the External Affair Minister should show their anger at Xi Jinping, and let him know, “you have lost a friend”. Ambitious generals in Chengdu’s Western Theater Commands sold the idea to Xi to place the PLA troops on the LAC in new positions, better located to destroy, if necessary, the new infrastructure built by India in East Ladakh; but in the process, Xi Jinping lost the trust built during the Wuhan Consensus in 2018 and the Chennai Connect in 2019. Both exercises were meant to build confidence at the highest level of the State, without being bothered by any protocol or a formal agenda. A few powerful statements would have an effect; it would put pressure on the Chinese President from within the Communist Party. By using more ‘ten thousand methods’, India could make sure that Xi’s actions are questioned by the Party’s elders; particularly during the forthcoming yearly summer conclave in the beach resort of Beihai.
Post-Covid-19, China is facing great internal difficulties, why pick fights with most nations and particularly India? There is no doubt that many in China are waiting for such an occasion to question Xi. A few points need to be noted in the current crisis in Ladakh, which is bound to last till the winter. Himalayan and Border studies must be developed in India. Most present studies remain in the philosophical domain, instead of the strategic, defence and historical field; for example, why don’t organisations such as the Indian Institute of Advanced Studies in Shimla and other such institutions, start such study programmes?

A lesson from history
Ultimately, the Historical Division in the Ministry of External Affairs should be reopened (it was closed by all-knowing mandarins in the 1990s). Similarly, a historical cell or directorate should be set up by the Department of Military Affairs headed by the Chief of Defence Staff. It would greatly help officers serving on the borders (for example officers of the 14 Corps negotiating with their Chinese counterparts) to have a wider understanding of the overall situation (something the Chinese have). It would have wide positive consequences for the preparedness of the Defence forces. It is a fact that it is part of modern warfare; the Chinese have understood this long ago.

India’s China agenda

My article India’s China Agenda appeared in the Edit Page of The Pioneer

Here is the link...

Compared to China, which is assertive and has undertaken innovative developments, India is definitively trailing. Preparation for any eventuality is the way forward to counter its rise

There is no doubt that 2019 has been a special year for China: Lavish events were organised to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In 1949, from the rostrum of the Tiananmen Square, Chairman Mao had announced, “China has arisen.” On October 1, 2019, Chinese President Xi Jinping was on the same wavelength as his predecessor when he said, “No force can ever shake the status of China or stop the Chinese people and the nation from marching forward.” On that day, Beijing displayed several futuristic military gadgets.
On December 29, the Global Times listed China’s advanced weaponry. It said, “the year 2019” has been a “year of harvest” for China’s military equipment as the country showcased a “massive selection” of the latest, advanced and powerful weapons that operate on land, sea and air. It is not only in the field of advanced armaments that Beijing has been “doing well” but in this domain, the progress is indicative of an assertive China and of the innovative developments undertaken by Beijing. Comparatively, India is definitively trailing. Even though the communist party’s newspaper observed, “These displays of China’s new weapons showed transparency in the country’s military development” and sent a message to the world that China was determined to “safeguard sovereignty and peace,” the fact remains that China is still preparing itself.
Last week, in the Port of Dalian in Liaoning Province, China launched the country’s 23rd Type 052D and the sixth Type 055 destroyer. Experts said “the ship was one of the world’s largest and most powerful destroyers” and was capable of leading a high sea fleet or becoming the “pillar in an aircraft carrier battle group”, said the Global Times.
A few days earlier, China had officially commissioned its first domestically-built aircraft carrier, the Shandong. The CNN reported, “China has officially commissioned its first domestically-built aircraft carrier, the Shandong, a significant step forward in Chinese President Xi Jinping’s ambitions for the country to field a world-class Navy.” Xi attended the commissioning ceremony in the southern province of Hainan where the carrier joined the Chinese Navy. In 2019, China launched the highest number of warships in the world: Nine destroyers, one comprehensive supply ship, one comprehensive landing ship, one amphibious assault ship, 12 light frigates with a total displacement of 200,000 tonnes, surpassing the US by far.
The Global Times quoted military experts as saying, “2019 will not be the end of China’s military equipment development. More weapons are expected in 2020 and beyond.” But there is another side to the coin. President Xi has been facing a rough sea at home. The fourth plenary session of the 19th Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee was held in Beijing from October 28 to 31. The members discussed the work report presented by Xi and adopted it “to uphold and improve the system of socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics and improve the party’s capacity for law-based governance and law-based exercising of state power.”
The communiqué mentions, the nation is facing “increasing challenges at home and abroad.” The gathering upheld the principle of “one country, two systems,” maintaining lasting prosperity and stability in Hong Kong and Macao, and “promoting the peaceful reunification of China.”
Despite the serious difficulties faced by China, India needs to be prepared to respond to its rise. But first, let’s talk about what India should not do. The two-day meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping at a resort in October in Mamallapuram was an occasion to talk about “civilisation.” But was it of any help?
As it is, during Nehruvian days, India was fond of this hazy concept. The dictionary thus defines the term as “an act or a process of civilising, as by bringing out of a savage, uneducated, or unrefined state, or of being civilised.” Already, in the 1950s, this great “idea” allowed the Indian leadership to “dream” of lofty principles such as peaceful co-existence, while China was quietly consolidating its presence on the Tibetan plateau and preparing for a war with India.
Today, India should look after its own interests and forget about vague idealistic concepts. It should learn from the Chinese leadership, which has always remained pragmatic and down-to-earth. Unfortunately, when India speaks about its past, it does so to avoid talking about the present. This is what may have happened between India and China during the two-day encounter at Mamallapuram. Though it is not known what went on for two-and-a-half hours during the one-to-one dinner composed of exotic Tamil dishes, very few concrete decisions seem to have been taken. The Indian foreign secretary affirmed that the “K” word was not pronounced. This is regrettable for the occasion was opportune to clarify the Indian position.
One positive outcome from the meeting was the decision to establish a high-level economic and trade dialogue mechanism “with the objective of achieving enhanced trade and commercial relations, as well as to better balance the trade between the two countries.” This can, hopefully, help rebalance the trade deficit — today in India’s disfavour.
An example of a positive pragmatic policy for India has been the creation of the post of Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). A day before the end of the year, the Government finally nominated Gen Bipin Rawat, outgoing Chief of Army Staff, as the first CDS “to drive the desperately-needed integration among the three services.”
But why did we have to wait for one day before the end of Gen Rawat’s tenure to see his name released? There was probably an intense lobbying from the babus to preserve their turf.  The history of modern India is a Mahabharata between the progressive forces, which want to change “eternal Bharat”, and the entrenched administration sticking to their privileges.
To win this battle would be the best way to counter China. As Rawat was handing over the baton to Gen MM Naravane, his successor, he was asked a question: Is the Army better prepared today to face the security challenges than when he took over? Gen Rawat replied, “Yes, we are better prepared.”
Preparation for any eventuality is the way forward to counter the rise of China. At the same time, India needs to continue investing in infrastructure, telecommunication systems, roads, airports and border areas while also providing a decent living and empowering frontier populations. In the future, Artificial Intelligence (AI), latest telecommunication means and new technologies should be indigenously developed if India does not want to be left behind. Only then will China respect India and will not be tempted to engage in an adventure like it did in 1962.
This is a tough agenda for 2020.

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

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

Here is the link...

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

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

What went unsaid between Modi and Xi

My article What went unsaid between Modi and Xi appeared in Mail Today and DailyO

Here is the link...

Everything that happened at Mamallapuram remains 'informal', including the decisions taken (if any).

When nations start speaking about their past, it is often because they prefer to avoid talking about the present. It could be the case with India and China in Mamallapuram, where Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping "in a friendly and relaxed atmosphere, held a candid and in-depth exchange of views on bilateral relations and major international and regional issues of common concern," according to Xinhua News Agency.

Nothing contentious
Incidentally, a Chinese report speaks of a 'relatively' relaxed atmosphere only. "Maintaining and developing good relations between the two countries is China's unwavering policy. Under the current international circumstances, the two countries shoulder increasingly important responsibilities in safeguarding global stability and promoting development," observed President Xi. This was probably an indirect jibe at the US President.
Interestingly, Xi spoke of 'national rejuvenation' for India and China, a term usually linked to the 'Chinese dream' to see the Middle Kingdom become the most powerful nation in the world. After the cultural tour given by PM Modi on the first day, China has perhaps realised that India too has a glorious past. Can the age-old "commercial linkages and people-to-people contacts in the past two millennia," solve the current contentious issues? Probably not; though it may help relax the atmosphere vitiated by the Pakistan Prime Minister's visit to China a few days earlier.
The Indian communiqué from the PMO said that the two leaders "evaluated the direction of bilateral relations in a positive light and discussed how India-China... interaction can be deepened to reflect the growing role of both countries on the global stage."
'XiMo', as observers termed the two leaders, agreed that the international situation is witnessing significant readjustment: "India and China share the common objective of working for a peaceful, secure and prosperous world in which all countries can pursue their development within a rules-based international order." Whether China always follows a 'rules-based' order in the South China Sea, trade or cyberspace is another issue.
The alphabets T, X, HK or even K or L (Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Kashmir, Ladakh) were apparently not on the table, though scores of Tibetans were 'preventively' arrested outside, as they planned to protest against the way China treats their countrymen.

Bilateral ties
The problem with 'unofficial' meets is that the talks are not minuted (hopefully they are recorded), no joint statement is issued, no joint press conference held and no memorandum of understanding signed. Everything remains 'informal', including the decisions taken (if any). The parties are not really bound by their words. This is the drawback.
The advantage is that things which could normally not be said during a state visit can be frankly stated, though without an official trace. How will historians be able to reconstitute the 'Chennai Connect' as the meet was termed, in 30 years? President Xi made some proposals, according to Xinhua. First, "China and India should be good neighbours who live in harmony and work together as good partners;" for him, the dragon and the elephant dancing together is "the only correct choice for the two countries". Then the two countries should "correctly view their differences, and never let the differences dim the overall situation of bilateral cooperation". China and India need to have a timely and effective strategic communication, enhance mutual understanding and cooperation. Xi also proposed that the two countries should improve their cultural and people-to-people exchanges and finally both nations should strengthen cooperation in international and regional affairs.
But while Xi speaks of the international system "with the United Nations as its core", Beijing still opposes India's entry in the UN Security Council. At the end, it was said, "The relevant departments of both sides [should] implement the results of the meeting so as to open up new prospects of China-India cooperation."

Delicate balance
Of course, both sides agreed that terrorism continues to pose a common threat to humanity, but this at a time the Chinese press praised Pakistan Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa, whose only objective in life is to 'retake' Kashmir from India.
One positive outcome is the decision to establish a high-level economic and trade dialogue mechanism "with the objective of achieving enhanced trade and commercial relations, as well as to better balance the trade between the two countries". This could hopefully help rebalance the trade deficit, today in India's disfavour; a manufacturing partnership was even suggested.
Regarding the border dispute, both parties reiterated that efforts should be made to arrive at a mutually agreed framework for a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable settlement; nothing new. However, the Indian communiqué speaks of the Political Parameters and Guiding Principles agreed by the two counties in 2005 and later rejected by China. Article VII stated that in reaching a boundary settlement, the two sides shall safeguard due interests of their settled populations in the border areas, which meant that areas like Tawang would no longer be claimed by China. Did Xi really agree to that?
The future only will tell us.

Prez Xi's Love for Guns & Glory

My article Prez Xi's Love for Guns & Glory appeared in Mail Today.

It also appeared in DailyO under the title 'Message for India in President Xi Jinping's love for guns and glory'
 
China is clearly getting ready in case of another showdown with India
 
“Observe calmly; secure our position; cope with affairs calmly; hide our capacities and bide our time; be good at maintaining a low profile; and never claim leadership,” such were the words of Deng Xiaoping, China’s Supreme Leader at the end of the 1970s.

Mao back in Vogue
Today’s People’s Leader, as President Xi Jinping calls himself, does not believe in these virtues; he thinks that ‘in the new era’, it is necessary to show the Middle Kingdom’s muscles …and more.
On the occasion of the 70th National Day of the People’s Republic of China, Xi returned to the ‘power coming from the barrel of the gun’ theory of his predecessor, Mao Zedong.
“No force can ever undermine China's status, or stop the Chinese people and nation from marching forward,” solemnly declared President Xi Jinping from the rostrum of Tiananmen Square.
Xi reminded the privileged who attended the function that “seventy years ago, Comrade Mao Zedong solemnly declared to the world that the PRC was founded and the Chinese people had stood up. This great event completely reversed China's miserable fate born from poverty and weakness and being bullied and humiliated over more than 100 years since the advent of modern times."
The Chinese State media was ecstatic as “China had reaffirmed its commitment to global peace and development”, and added: “we will continue to work with people from all countries to push for jointly building a community with a shared future for humanity.”
Neighbours, Japan, Korea and even India do not see it that way.
They witnessed 23 new weapons displayed, some of them seeming uncontrollable by the missile defence installed by Japan, South Korea or even the US.
Many watched in awe the DF-17 hypersonic ballistic missile (a hypersonic glide vehicle that can deliver both nuclear and conventional payloads) or the new-generation road-mobile DF-41, which made their debut in an official parade. Though one analyst said that it was “the ultimate show of insecurity and cold war thinking”, The South China Morning Post (SCMP) wrote: “For China it is a show of how its armed forces have been modernised.” The Hong Kong newspaper further pointed out: “Among them, the Dongfeng, or ‘East Wind’, series of missile systems drew the most attention,” it included not only the DF-17 and the DF-41, but also the DF-16 and DF-26 medium-range missiles.
Some 15,000 troops from 59 units, 47 belonging to the ground forces and a dozen airborne squadrons, participated in the display. Xi inspected 580 new weapon systems, almost all of them were ‘made in China’, proving that Beijing’s military industry is truly becoming self-sufficient. It is a lesson that India has hopefully noted a few days before the visit of the Chinese President in Mamalapuram.
Interestingly, the Jane’s Review mentioned that the parade showcased “a number of new land platforms that reflect growing needs within the People’s Liberation Army Ground Force (PLAGF) for improved mountain warfare capabilities;” the reputed publication noted that the show comes two years after Doklam: “Analysis conducted by Jane’s indicates that the PLA has since attempted to revise its military positions in the region to improve its readiness, while India has maintained a robust presence,”
further observing that China has built a number of all-weather roads through Tibet “but its primary armour assets capable of influencing the totality of the battlefield, such as the Type 99A2 and Type 96 main battle tanks, are too heavy to deploy and sustain in mountainous regions.”

Firepower in Show
A similar restriction applies to the PLA’s heavy artillery platforms, said Jane’s “this situation points to the need for lighter armoured vehicles that can provide direct and indirect fire support to PLAGF units operating in mountainous regions.”
ZTQ-15 lightweight tanks and the PLC-181 SPH vehicle-mounted howitzer, were paraded on Tiananmen Square: “The weight of those vehicles, which is not thought to exceed 35 tonnes for the ZTQ-15, means that these vehicles can be rapidly relocated using air or rail assets, if required.”
The ZTQ-105, a 105 mm gun and a 155 mm L52 gun for the PLC-181, have already been spotted in Tibet, they are “sufficient to counter all vehicles and forces that the Indian Army can currently deploy to the disputed territories at short notice.”
Incidentally, the PLA’s five theatre commanders appeared for the first time at the parade. General Zhao Zongqi, Western Theatre Command who looks after the Chinese forces facing India was present.

Notes for PM Modi
 China is clearly getting ready in case of another showdown with India.
Something else is not auguring well for the Mamalapuram meet: Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan will visit Beijing a few days before Xi arrives in South India, to brief the Chinese President about Kashmir and deliver a speech at the China-Pakistan business forum to try to ‘revive’ the stalled China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) projects.
In the meantime in Nepal the security in Kathmandu has greatly increased, partly to control the Tibetan refugees during the grand show on Tiananmen, but also in view of Xi’s probable visit later this month.

In these circumstances, one shouldn’t expect too much from the ‘informal’ Modi-Xi talks. The status of Gilgit-Baltistan will no doubt be at the center of the dialogue; it has implications for the border issue, the Shaksgam Valley ‘offered’ by Pakistan to China in 1963 and today occupied by China, entirely depends on the future status of the area.
Opening a couple of more Border Personnel Meeting (BPMs) in the Himalaya and possibly, a new landport between India and Tibet, could be positive advances.
Prime Minister Modi should not to be influenced by the show of might displayed on the Tiananmen Square, but should take a leaf from Deng’s moto, ‘observe calmly, bide your time…’.
It will be wiser for India than to show its muscles.

Of Allies, New & Forgotten

My article Of Allies, New & Forgotten was published by Mail Today.

The relations between World powers is getting more complicated, more difficult to comprehend, simply because they are often based on deep prejudices.
In an interview to media outlet Mir TV, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke of the US-Russia relations: “They are in fact deteriorating, getting worse by the hour.”
President Donald Trump had earlier called Russia an ally: he had affirmed that he and Putin discussed “forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit” to stop election hacking. But that was months ago.
Today all is not well! The relations between the West and Russia have reached an all-time low.
On the occasion of the commemoration of the 75th anniversary of D-Day, CNN asked: “Why wasn't Putin invited to D-Day event?”
Putin had been attending such functions in the past. In 2014, he had gone for the 70th anniversary of the landings of the Allies. When asked why he was not invited, Putin tried to cool down the situation: “Why do I have to be invited everywhere to some event? Am I a wedding general, or what? I have enough of my own business. This is not a problem at all.”
But the general impression was that President Trump had influenced his ‘allies’, first Emmanuel Macron of France not to invite Putin.
CCN said that there is a longstanding Russian grievance: “The perception that the Soviet population's massive sacrifices in World War II have been somehow overlooked in the West.”
Putting aside the Second Front in Normandy, Putin explained: “The first [front] was with us [the Soviets]. If you count the number of divisions, the strength of the Wehrmacht [the German army] who fought against Soviet troops on the Eastern Front, and the number of troops and equipment that fought on the Western Front from 1944 on, then everything will be clear.”
Sixteen heads of States and Governments were represented in Normandy; apart from Macron, Trump and Queen Elizabeth II, leaders from Slovakia, Canada, Poland, Luxembourg, Norway, Belgium, and others such as New Zealand's Governor-General and the German Chancellor were in attendance.
Russia should have been present, when the countries pledged: “We salute the surviving veterans of D-Day and we honour the memories of those who came before us. We will ensure that the sacrifices of the past are never in vain and never forgotten.”
Le Figaro said that the explanations given by the Elysée (French President’s Residence) were rather confused: “It is a choice which has been made,” the newspaper was told. Under US influence …or threat?
Though russophobia has been running high in Europe since a few years, The Figaro, like most of the French press was surprised.; the national daily quoted Jean de Gliniasty, former ambassador of France in Russia (2009-2013): “Explanations [from l’Elysée] are not convincing, this choice is incomprehensible.”
The former diplomat, a specialist in Russian issues at the Institute of International and Strategic Relations (Iris) noted that "instead of going to the West to celebrate the victory over Nazism, Putin will take care of the Chinese [president] in Moscow and St. Petersburg.”
That is the issue.
The Western nations’ ‘hatred’ of Putin will only push the Russians into the arms of the Chinese. While the Western leaders were on the windy beaches of Normandy, Vladimir Putin received President Xi Jinping in pomp in St Petersburg for the inauguration of the 23rd St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.
Xinhua reported: “Hailing the beautiful scenery and attractive art and culture, Xi said St. Petersburg has witnessed a lot of significant historical events.” He pointed to the “huge sacrifices for the victory of the world anti-Fascist war and important contributions, and is the pride of Russia and the Russian people.”
Xi also recalled that the October Revolution which played an important role in the birth of the Communist Party of China.
Perhaps more importantly for the world, the Chinese president observed: “Under the current circumstances, the two sides should deepen strategic coordination, not only to safeguard the interests of China and Russia, but also to defend basic international norms and justice as well as world peace, security and stability.” There might be few takers for these pledges, but Putin added: “The more complex and volatile the international situation is, the more Russia and China should consolidate and deepen political mutual trust, boost coordination and cooperation in international affairs, and safeguard international law and basic norms of international relations.”
The Russian president gave a vivid account of how the two good friends “drank a shot of vodka together and sliced sausages”.
The South China Morning Post commented: “[Putin’s] comments come at a time when Xi is edging closer to the authoritarian Russian leader as Beijing’s relations with the United States become increasingly fraught. Their increasingly tight-knit relations are also a result of Donald Trump’s aggressive and capricious foreign policy.”
In fact, Beijing is a far more authoritarian regime that Moscow; just look at the recent events in Hong Kong, China’s pressure on Taiwan, the happenings in the South China Sea, the tragic situation in Xinjiang or Beijing’s constant support to Pakistan.
Nobody in the West seems to grasp this aspect.
In this polarized atmosphere, Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in Bishkek, the Kyrgyz capital for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Summit. He met both the ‘good friends’.
Indeed it is an achievement for India’s foreign policy that the Indian Prime Minister managed to be positive with both; India’s Foreign Secretary even announced that Xi confirmed his visit to India later this year. Earlier, Prime Minister Modi had tweeted that his meeting with President Putin was ‘excellent’.
And in ten days time, Modi will receive Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State.
In today’s world, nobody can be excluded, even the so-called ‘bad guys’. The West will have to learn this lesson the hard way one day.

No Meddling with the Polls

Rafale replica in front of Chief of Air Staff's Residence

My article  No Meddling with the Polls appeared in Mail Today

Did the Russian government interfere in the 2016 US presidential election, siding with Donald Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton, the candidate of the Democratic Party?
On September 22, 2016, some members of the United States Congress complained of ‘foreign’ interference during the presidential elections; voices said that it could have ordered directly by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In May 2017, former FBI director Robert Mueller led a Special Counsel investigation; at the end, though he did not absolve President Trump of obstruction of justice, Mueller did not advise prosecution.
One could ask the same question in India: have the recently-conducted Legislative Elections suffered from ‘foreign’ influence?
Before answering this question, it is necessary to have an overall view of the seven-round process; the voter turnout has been very high (more than 67% after the fourth round). This is far more than the European elections held on May 26 and which prided itself for a record 50%. Practically, it means the people of India have chosen, something that Modi’s detractors do not accept.

Bad 'Time'ing'
Now to reply to the question: the answer is clearly ‘yes’, external forces have tried their best to influence the result of the elections.
Take the Time magazine, which published a cover story calling Prime Minister Narendra Modi the ‘Divider in Chief’.
The term ‘divider in chief’ was a reference to BJP’s ‘nationalist’ politics, which according to Aatish Taseer has led to the polarisation of the electorate; the author asked: “Can the World's Largest Democracy Endure Another Five Years of a Modi Government?”
Each one is free to have his own opinion, but in this particular case, it represented a foreign organization which blatantly used its reputation, to side with one party (their arguments was similar to the Congress’).
Incidentally, after the elections, probably realizing that it had gone overboard, the magazine carried an editorial with the headline “Modi Has United India Like No Prime Minister in Decades”. This time, it explained: “Narendra Modi personifies the aspirational working classes and can self-identify with his country's poorest citizens in a way that the Nehru-Gandhi political dynasty, who have led India for most of the 72 years since independence, simply cannot."

Guardians of the Souls?
But the harm was done.
If The Time reacted positively post-results, it is not the case of The Guardian which wrote that Narendra Modi's win is 'bad for India’s soul'. What language! And since when has the British newspaper become expert in ‘soul’ affairs?
You may say, it cannot be called ‘influencing’ as the editorial was written on the day of the results, but it certainly shows the deep bias, not to say contempt of the ‘foreign’ press against India. Let us be clear, it is India which is attacked (through her Prime Minister), when the editor writes: “Rather than transcend the faultlines of Indian society – religion, caste, region and language – Mr Modi’s style is to throw them into sharp relief. Mr Modi deployed with terrible effect false claims and partisan facts.”
An honest analysis of the results shows the opposite.
The editorial went on to compare Modi to Putin (incidentally, I don’t understand why leftist publications never call Xi Jinping, who keeps one million Muslims in concentration camps, an autocrat).
What is sad is that such views are common amongst foreign correspondents. Why this prejudice one could ask?
Simply because most of these ‘experts’ would like the Indian nation to fit their own western standards, forgetting that India, a civilization more than twice as old as Europe, is simply different; it is how they often lose their ‘western’ objectivity (to the great delight of the Indian ‘secularists’, India’s haters par excellence).
Can these journalists/experts change and open themselves to a deeper India which is basically tolerant and non-fanatic? It is doubtful.
They were delighted when one Party, day and night called Modi a ‘chor’; not understanding that this would not change the mind of the voters, who for the past five years, have seen that Modi has not got richer and did not offer plumb jobs or tickets to his family members; the voters are no fools.
But it is more serious.
By calling Modi a ‘chor’, it was implied that Modi or his party had made a lot of money, i.e. on the Rafale deal. Apart from the fact that the arguments in the electoral rallies, in the press or in the Supreme Court were constantly changing and often incoherent, the Congress never brought any proof that a government to government contract had been manipulated by the BJP to take advantage of it.
I was often told, “why do you bother, it is just an electoral gimmick; the attacks will stop the day the elections are over”. It was true, but as a democracy, it would be fair if India orders an enquiry to find out if one of the Rafale competitors took too much interest in the campaign.

Rafale Ruffled Feathers
The battle for the deal may be for the next one; a Request for Information (RFI) was issued on January 17, 2018 to procure 57 multi-role combat aircraft for India’s new aircraft carrier: “aircrafts are intended as day-and-night capable, all-weather, multi-role, deck-based combat aircraft which can be used for air defence, air-to-surface operations, buddy refuelling, reconnaissance.”
Some of the suppliers knew that Modi’s choice would be based on merit; this might have not been acceptable to them. By shooting down the Rafale deal, they might have hoped to promote their own planes for the next deal.
Could they have influenced one party, whose one-point campaign was “Down the Rafale”?
Only a proper enquiry would clarify if a foreign power has really tried to interfere in the elections.
In any case, even if the ‘foreign forces’ tried, it is obvious that they did not succeed in their bid, that is the greatness of Bharat.

Xi gets PLA war-ready, India must wake up

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

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