As PoK rises in revolt against Pakistan, China continues infra-building in Shaksgam Valley

My article As PoK rises in revolt against Pakistan, China continues infra-building in Shaksgam Valley appeared in Firstpost

The new infrastructure could give a tremendous advantage to China in case of a new conflict with India in the region

Today, we are living in a world where everything can be seen from the sky, which often makes human intelligence (humint) irrelevant.
The latest case is a road illegally built by China in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). While in the old days, it would have taken months or years to discover the road passing close to India’s Siachen Glacier, satellite imagery of the new road was splashed over the Indian and foreign media.
The road, located in the Shaksgam Valley, branches out from an extension of Highway G219 (also known as the Aksai Chin road) and “disappears into mountains at a place approximately 50 km north of India’s northernmost point, Indira Col in Siachen Glacier,” according to India Today.
The construction that passes through Aghil Pass (India’s frontier with Xinjiang before 1947), was first flagged on X (formerly Twitter) by ‘Nature Desai’, an observer of the Indo-Tibetan boundary.
Tom Hussain, a Pakistani journalist who writes for The South China Morning Post, gave the Chinese motivation: “Pakistan is looking to develop new overland border crossings with China that would potentially boost the allies’ military interoperability against Indian forces in Ladakh and the rest of Kashmir.”
The Hong Kong newspaper asserted that the Gilgit-Baltistan region, today under Pakistan’s control, had proposed a new transit and trade route linking Xinjiang to Kashmir “[which] will increase Beijing and Islamabad’s military interoperability against Indian forces in the region”.
The spokesperson of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) immediately asserted: “Shaksgam Valley is a part of the territory of India. We have never accepted the so-called China-Pakistan Boundary Agreement of 1963, through which Pakistan unlawfully attempted to cede the area to China. …We have registered our protest with the Chinese side against illegal attempts to alter facts on the ground. We further reserve the right to take necessary measures to safeguard our interests.”
It is, however, necessary to understand the history behind the Shaksgam Valley.

The Role of Western Powers
When China invaded northern India in October or November 1962, Delhi had no alternative but to ask for the help of Western nations, particularly the United States and Great Britain. At first, the United States seemed only too happy to offer support, thus gaining leverage over India, which until then had been ‘non-aligned’; this ‘neutrality’ often meant an alignment with Moscow, while Pakistan, a member of the SEATO and the Baghdad Pacts, always sided with the West.
When, at the end of November 1962, Washington realised that north India was in danger of being invaded by Chinese troops, it immediately declared its support for Delhi, but instead of helping India, London and Washington chose instead to try to settle the Kashmir dispute between their Pakistani ally and India.
On November 22, Averall Harriman, the American Under-Secretary of State, and Duncan Sandys, the British Commonwealth Secretary, visited the two capitals of the subcontinent to persuade the enemy brothers that it was time to bury the hatchet and find a solution to their fifteen-year-old dispute. Harriman and Sandys eventually signed a joint communiqué and asked the two countries to resume negotiations.
Although India, in an extremely weak position, had some doubts about the possibility of obtaining positive results from negotiations conducted in such particular circumstances, Nehru accepted.
On December 22, 1962, Nehru wrote to the Chief Ministers of the provinces: “I shall briefly refer to Indo-Pakistan problems, notably Kashmir. In another four days’ time, Sardar Swaran Singh will lead a delegation to Rawalpindi to discuss these problems. We realise that this is not a good time to have such a conference because the Pakistani press and leading politicians have vitiated the atmosphere with wild abuse and attacks on India. Nevertheless, we have agreed to go and to try our best to arrive at some reasonable settlement. It is clear, however, that we cannot agree to anything that is against our basic principles and ultimately injures the cause of Indo-Pakistan friendship.”
In the end, the two delegations held a series of six meetings, but nothing much came out of them. The first negotiations took place in Rawalpindi, where Swaran Singh and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the two foreign ministers, confined themselves to a historical presentation of the problem and a reiteration of their respective points of view.

Derailing Talks
But soon the negotiations went off on a tangent: the Pakistan government announced that it had reached an agreement in principle with China on its northern border problem (with Xinjiang). Hardly a month after the end of the Sino-Indian war, Pakistan was prepared to give China a piece of India’s territory (as per the August 1948 UN Resolutions).
Advertisement
What a slap in the face for India!
This agreement between China and Pakistan was obviously meant to derail the Kashmir talks.
It is indeed surprising that Pakistan, an ally of the United States and the Western world, should have chosen this moment to make the announcement. It was yet another proof that Pakistan expected nothing from the talks with Delhi, even though they had been initiated by their mentor, the US; at the same time, the support expected by India from the US for India’s northern borders had gone in smoke.
Nehru remained optimistic all the same, or perhaps, like the ostrich, preferred not to see anything. In a letter to the Chief Ministers, he remarked: “The talks have produced no results as far as our problems are concerned, except that they have reduced, to a small extent, the barriers of fear and mistrust that make it difficult to approach these problems.”
Negotiations continued, without tangible results, between 16 and 19 January in Delhi and 8 and 11 February in Karachi. Pakistan was only interested in a plebiscite for Kashmir, but India insisted on prior demilitarisation of the regions occupied by Pakistan.

The Treaty Discussed
On February 25, 1963, the government was asked in Parliament if the Note of Protest sent by Delhi to Pakistan regarding the Sino-Pakistan border treaty drew any response; if yes, what it said; and if the text of the agreement was available.
Dinesh Singh, the Deputy Minister in the MEA, answered: (a) No formal reply has been received to our protest note so far. (b) Does not arise. (c) No Sir.
At that time, Delhi did not even have a copy of the agreement.
Later, on the same day, Harish Chandra Mathur of the Congress asked again about the government’s reaction. Nehru answered: “The Government of India’s reaction is obviously unfavourable.” That was all.

The Treaty Cedes India’s Territory
China and Pakistan signed the agreement on March 2, 1963, by Bhutto and Chen Yi, the foreign ministers of the two countries. According to the two parties, this agreement was intended to promote “the development of good neighbourly relations and friendly relations and the safeguarding of peace in Asia and the world.”
In Article 1, it was acknowledged that the border had never been formally demarcated, and that the two countries wanted to draw it on the basis of “the traditional and customary border.”
As the Pakistani and Chinese maps did not match exactly, it was decided that the topographical features on the ground would be decisive.
It should be noted that in its description of the border, the agreement mentions the Karakoram Pass as the eastern end of the border. In practice, this seems to mean that the Siachen Glacier was occupied by Pakistan at the time. This was, of course, not the case. In fact, the Siachen glacier, long unexplored, has never been occupied by Pakistan, and it was only in 1984 that India took control of it.

Article 6
More interesting is Article 6, in which Pakistan and China agreed that after the settlement of the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India, “the sovereign authority concerned will reopen negotiations on the boundary with the Chinese Government so as to sign a formal boundary treaty to replace the present agreement.”
It means that even if the 1963 agreement was considered ‘legal’, which it is not, China is today building a road on a territory that is only temporarily with China. It is clearly a provocation in retaliation for India refusing to budge in Depsang and Demchok in Ladakh.
It remains that the new infrastructure could give a tremendous advantage to China in case of a new conflict with India in the region.
After maps of the new roads were published, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar reasserted that Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is part of India; he also mentioned the resolution of the Indian Parliament, which states that PoK is part of the country, and observed, “So, what will happen in the future? Very difficult to tell. But, I always tell people one thing, today PoK is in the consciousness once again of the people of India.”
In the meantime, the people of Gilgit-Baltistan have started revolting against the Pakistani state. The game is certainly not over.

Tail End: India will soon have the occasion to protest again; Pakistan and China plan to ‘realign’ the Karakoram Highway to avoid Attabad Lake, which is prone to landslides.

Claude Arpi | Why Pak politicians need to study Kashmir history

My article Claude Arpi | Why Pak politicians need to study Kashmir history appeared in Asian Age and Deccan Chronicle

Pakistan’s politicians started crying foul over J&K's status, saying that the Indian government’s decision had “no legal value”.

On December 11, 2023, India’s Supreme Court upheld the August 2019 abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, which revoked Jammu and Kashmir’s special status and bifurcated the state into two Union territories of Ladakh and Jammu & Kashmir. Pakistan’s politicians immediately started crying foul, saying that the Indian government’s decision had “no legal value”.
Jalil Abbas Jilani, a minister in the country’s caretaker government, said that “Kashmiris have an inalienable right to self-determination in accordance with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions.” Mr Jilani, like most of his colleagues, has probably never read the relevant UN resolutions: we shall soon come to that.
The Pakistani media too believed that this was a “grave injustice” and an “unjust verdict”. On December 12, Dawn said that it was an attempt to rewrite history: “The court’s decision may strengthen India’s stranglehold over Kashmir, but it cannot extinguish the Kashmiris’ strong desire for freedom and dignity.”

So let us speak about history.
While working on the Nehru papers a few years ago, I came across a “Top Secret” note written in the early 1950s by Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai, then secretary-general of the ministry of external affairs and Commonwealth affairs. It was entitled “Background to the Kashmir Issue: Facts of the Case”; and it made fascinating reading.
It starts by a historical dateline: “Invasion of the state by tribesmen and Pakistan nationals through or from Pakistan territory on October 20, 1947; the ruler’s offer of accession of the state to India supported by the National Conference, a predominantly Muslim though non-communal political organisation, on October 26, 1947; acceptance of the accession by the British Governor-General of India on October 27, 1947, under this accession, the state became an integral part of India; expression of a wish by Lord Mountbatten in a separate letter to the ruler the fulfilment of which was to take place at a future date when law and order had been restored and the soil of the state cleared of the invader, the people of the state were given the right to decide whether they should remain in India or not.”
The note also mentioned the invasion of the state by Pakistan regular forces on May 8, 1948; the conditions were clear and in two parts: first the Pakistani troops or irregulars should withdraw from the Indian territory that they occupied and later a plebiscite could be envisaged.
Commenting on the entry of Pakistanis on Indian territory, the note said: “One of the grounds for this [Pakistani] military operation, as disclosed by Pakistan’s foreign minister himself, was a recommendation of the commander-in-chief of Pakistan [a British national] that an easy victory for the Indian Army was almost certain to arouse the anger of the invading tribesmen [raiders] against Pakistan.”
The note also observed: “Pakistan, not content with assisting the invader, has itself become an invader and its army is still occupying a large part of the soil of Kashmir, thus committing a continuing breach of international law.”
Pakistani politicians (and many others) often quote the UN resolutions; very few have read them. The UN resolutions of January 17, 1948, August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949 (UNCIP Resolutions) made it amply clear that “Pakistan cannot claim to exercise sovereignty in respect of J&K”.
In 2019, the abrogation of Article 370 by the Indian government had triggered a lot of comments from Indian as well as foreign journalists. Most of the scribes were ill-informed about the legality of the issue; while the Indian press dealt with the subject rather decently, it was not so with the foreign press. Why this perennial misinformation or disinformation?
The Government of India is probably to be blamed; the external affairs ministry should have long ago “educated” the media by giving a full historical briefing on all facets of the issue.

But there is yet more: the case of Gilgit.
An interesting announcement appeared in the 1948 London Gazette mentioning that the King “has been graciously pleased… to give orders for… appointments to the Most Exalted Order of the British Empire…” The list included “Brown, Major (acting) William Alexander, Special List (ex-Indian Army)”. Who was this officer?
Maj. Brown is infamous for illegally “offering” Gilgit to Pakistan in 1947.
The British paramountcy had lapsed on August 1, 1947, and Gilgit reverted to the Maharaja’s control. Lt. Col. Roger Bacon, the British political agent, handed his charge to Brig. Ghansara Singh, the new governor appointed by Maharaja Hari Singh. Maj. Brown remained in charge of the Gilgit Scouts.
Despite Hari Singh having signed the Instrument of Accession and joined India, Maj. Brown refused to acknowledge the orders of the Maharaja under the pretext that some leaders of the Frontier Districts Province (Gilgit-Baltistan) wanted to join Pakistan.
On November 1, 1947, probably under order from the British generals, he handed over the entire area to Pakistan.
At the time, the entire hierarchy of the Indian and Pakistan Army was still British. In Pakistan, Sir Frank Messervy was commander-in-chief of the Pakistan Army in 1947-48 and Sir Douglas Gracey served in 1948-51; while in India, the commander-in-chief was Sir Robert Lockhart (1947-48) and later Sir Roy Bucher (1948). It is only in June 1948 that Gen. K.M. Cariappa took over. Let us not forget that Sir Claude Auchinleck (later elevated to Field-Marshal) served as the supreme commander (India and Pakistan) from August to November 1947.
Who can believe that all these senior generals were kept in the dark by a junior officer like Maj. Brown?
It is obvious that Maj. Brown’s British bosses were aware of his “gift” to Pakistan. The fact that he was appointed to the OBE is further proof. The King does not usually appoint “deserters” or “rebels” to the august order.
Amazingly, six years ago, the British Parliament passed a resolution that confirmed Gilgit-Baltistan was part of Jammu and Kashmir. The motion was tabled on March 23, 2017 by Bob Blackman of the Conservative Party. It reads: “Gilgit-Baltistan is a legal and constitutional part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, India, which is illegally occupied by Pakistan since 1947, and where people are denied their fundamental rights, including the right of freedom of expression.”
It incidentally also means that the agreement signed on March 2, 1963 between Pakistan and China about the Shaksgam Valley of the Gilgit Agency being transferred to China is also legally invalid. In 2024, Beijing should plainly be told this and Pakistani politicians should learn their history.

The US primarily looks after its own interests: Can Washington be a good ally?

Taken for a ride...

My article The US primarily looks after its own interests: Can Washington be a good ally? appeared in Firstpost

There is no reason why India should blindly follow America in a military adventure in Taiwan or elsewhere

Here is the link...

A question has been going around in the strategic circles in the recent weeks: should India enter into a military alliance with the US and will the US be a good ally?
Quoting several experts, The Scroll.in noted: “India may eventually help the United States militarily in a security contingency involving China, in some form, to protect its own interests.”
The Indian digital news publication also cites other views, for example an article of Ashley Tellis in The Foreign Affairs magazine in which the US strategist argues that the US policy “of courting India as a partner is a ‘bad bet’ because New Delhi will not follow Washington’s lead in confronting China during a regional crisis.”
There is indeed some truth in the argument as there no reason why India should blindly follow Washington in a military adventure in Taiwan or elsewhere.
The Scroll.in mentions “a long discussion in foreign policy circles: what exactly should a US-India relationship look like in the age of Great Power rivalry between Washington and Beijing?”
It notes that the US “has increasingly supported India when it comes to defence, hoping that Delhi will reciprocate with military help in case of a confrontation with China.”
While Tellis rightly considers that Delhi would maintain its strategic autonomy in case Washington engages in the Taiwan Strait, other experts believe that even if Delhi does sign a mutual defence arrangement with Washington, India is “still a good bet for Washington.” They argue that Delhi may eventually come around to helping the United States militarily. Just wishful thinking!
The ‘experts’ quote in particular from a US News & World Report which says that “real-time intelligence shared by the United States military helped India stall a Chinese incursion in Arunachal Pradesh in December 2022.”
This refers to the confrontation in Yangtse, east of Bumla in the Tawang sector.
Not only it is difficult to confirm what exact help the Indian Army received from the US at the time of (or before) the confrontation, but there is no doubt that the credit should go to the Indian Army who was fully prepared and hence was able to push the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) back behind their lines in the Yangtze sub-sector; it is indeed only due to the alertness of the local commanders and the bravery of the Jat and Sikh Light Infantry troops posted in the area.
Of course, the US experts usually only take American interests into consideration. This is not new, as we shall see.

The Case of 1962 War
When China invaded Northern India in 1962, India had apparently no other recourse but to appeal to Western nations, particularly to the United States, for support. Washington was only too happy to offer help, thus gaining some leverage over a formerly 'non-aligned' India.
It is true that during the Cold War, India, in its 'neutrality', often sided with Moscow while Pakistan was deliberately on the West’s side. The US even had a mutual defence pact with Pakistan, itself part of SEATO and the Baghdad Pact, whose objectives were to stem the advance of communism in Asia.
When Chinese troops invaded northern India, it was logical for the US to immediately come to India's assistance, especially after the two panicky letters sent on November 19, 1962 by the Indian Prime Minister to President Kennedy begging for American assistance.
A few days later (coinciding with the ceasefire announced by China on the two Himalayan fronts), Britain and the United States decided to use the opportunity: with India in a position of weakness the Kashmiri dispute between Pakistan, (the West’s ally) and India (who was now begging for their support), could finally be settled.
Averell Harriman, the US Under Secretary of State, and Duncan Sandys, the British Commonwealth Secretary, visited the Pakistani and India capitals in order to persuade the ‘fraternal enemies’ that it was time to bury the hatchet and find a solution to the then fifteen-year-old Kashmir question. Harriman and Sandys even signed a joint communiqué and asked the two countries to resume negotiations. This was the answer to Nehru’s appeal for support against China.
Although India had doubts about the possibility of obtaining positive results from negotiations conducted under such circumstances, it had no choice but to accept the Western offer.
On December 22, 1962, Nehru wrote to the Chief Ministers: "I must speak to you briefly about the Indo-Pakistani question, especially Kashmir. In four days' time, Sardar Swaran Singh, will lead a delegation to Pakistan. We realise that this is not the right time to have a conference like this, as the Pakistani press has vitiated the atmosphere with insults and attacks on India. Nevertheless, we have agreed to go and we will do our best to reach a reasonable solution. It is clear, however, that we do not want an agreement that will be against our basic principles.”
The two delegations eventually had a series of six meetings, from which nothing was achieved. The first round took place in Rawalpindi: Swaran Singh and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the Pakistani Foreign Minister, limited themselves to a historical presentation of the problem and the reiteration of their respective points of view.
During the discussions India reaffirmed its position that Kashmir was an integral part of India. This was in accordance with international law and democratic norms, but this being said, India was ready to explore all possibilities to resolve the issue, as it wanted to live in peace with Pakistan.
Where was the support against China in all this?
But worse was to come, just before the talks began, the Pakistani government announced that it had reached an in-principle agreement with China on the Kashmir-Xinjiang issue. Pakistan was ready to give China a piece of territory (Shaksgam Valley, east of the Karakoram Pass) that India considered its own. What a slap in the face for India just one month after the end of the Sino-Indian war!
Many believe that the agreement on the China-Kashmir border was announced by Pakistan as a way of derailing the talks. It is indeed surprising that Pakistan, an ally of the US and the Western world, chose this moment to make the announcement. It was an indication that Pakistan had no expectations from the talks with Delhi, even though they were initiated by the US.
Nehru was still optimistic, or perhaps, like the ostrich, preferred not to see anything. In a letter to the Chief Ministers, he remarked: “The talks have not yielded any result as far as our problems are concerned, except that they have reduced, to a small extent, the barriers of fear and mistrust which make it difficult to approach these problems.”
Negotiations continued, without tangible results, between 16 and 19 January in Delhi and 8 and 11 February in Karachi. Pakistan wanted a plebiscite, but India insisted on prior demilitarisation of the areas occupied by Pakistan.
Talks were held in Calcutta between 12 and 14 March. India proposed some readjustments to the Line of Control, but this was rejected by Pakistan.
During the fifth round of talks held in Karachi between 22 and 25 April, India protested that Pakistan had ceded part of Kashmiri territory to China.
Since Pakistan had chosen to invite a new player into the game, none other than India's enemy No. 1 (China), there was no chance of finding a negotiated solution to the Kashmir issue.
At the end, India did not get much military support from the US to face China and additionally lost part of its territory in Shaksgam Valley to China.

The Withdrawal from Kabul (2021)
Another example shows that the US primarily looks after its own interests: it is the American evacuation from Afghanistan on August 15, 2021.
Not being informed of the US plans, the allies of the US were left to manage by themselves in Kabul, though an official US report says: “Once the evacuation had been initiated, President Biden repeatedly gave clear direction to prioritize force protection, relying on the advice of his senior military officials on how best to proceed on operational decisions. As Secretary Blinken testified on September 14, 2021, “Because of that [earlier] planning [for a wide range of contingencies], we were able to draw down our Embassy and move our remaining personnel to the airport within 48 hours.”
But the allies were left behind.
Perhaps less ambitious but more interesting for India and the US are the joint exercises between the two Armies, i.e. the 18th edition of Indo - US joint training exercise ‘YUDH ABHYAS 22’ conducted in Uttarakhand in November 2022 with the aim of exchanging best practices, Tactics, Techniques and Procedures between the Armies of the two nations.
It is a very concrete way for both armies to know each other better and share the best respective practices.
And of course, exercises such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), a strategic security dialogue between Australia, India, Japan and the US should continue as it does not engage India into unwanted alliance or treaties’ obligations, while at the same time puts pressure on China.

Why it is the right time to reclaim Gilgit-Baltistan

Gilgit Scouts (1947)

My article Why it is the right time to reclaim Gilgit-Baltistan appeared in Mail Today/DailyO

Here is the link...

The India-China border is 4,056 km and not 3,488 km, as China would like to believe.

Recently, I came across an interesting announcement published in the 1948 London Gazette which mentioned that the King "has been graciously pleased… to give orders for… appointments to the Most Exalted Order of the British Empire…" The list included "Brown, Major (acting) William Alexander, Special List (ex-Indian Army)."
Who was he? What was this 'special list'? Brown is infamous for illegally 'offering' Gilgit to Pakistan in 1947.
As we debate the question of nationalities after the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019, was passed by Parliament it raises several questions, including the question of the nationality of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan.

But first, a little bit of history.
In 1935, the viceroy prevailed upon Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir, "in the interests of the security of the British empire" to lease the Gilgit Agency as well as the hill-states Hunza, Nagar, Yasin and Ishkoman for 60 years to the British. Thereafter, Gilgit was administered by the political department, with a political officer reporting to the viceroy. In 2017, an article, When the British poured scorn over Gilgit, explained the background of the 1947 rebellion: "A carefully chosen force capable of rapid movement in the mountainous territory controlled by British officers, the Gilgit Scouts, provided the muscle to the administration."
The British Paramountcy lapsed on August 1, 1947, and Gilgit reverted to the Maharaja's control. Lt Col Roger Bacon, the British political agent, handed his charge to Brig Ghansara Singh, the new governor appointed by the Maharaja. Maj Brown remained in-charge of the Gilgit Scouts.
After the brutal tribal invasion organised and supported by Pakistan, on October 26, 1947, Singh decided to sign an Instrument of Accession and joined India. However, Maj Brown refused to acknowledge the orders of the Maharaja, under the pretext that some leaders of the Frontier Districts Province (Gilgit-Baltistan) wanted to join Pakistan. He took upon himself to hand over the entire area to Pakistan on November 1, 1947.
The article said: "The bloodless coup d'etat was planned by Brown to the last detail under the code name 'Datta Khel', which was also joined by a rebellious section of the J&K 6th Infantry under Mirza Hassan Khan."In his memoirs, Gilgit Rebellion: The Major who Mutinied over the Partition of India, Brown described his encounter with Pakistan PM Liaquat Ali Khan: "Colonel Bacon, Colonel Iskander Mirza, and I were called into the ante-room. The Pakistan Premier was seated at a desk, poring over a large-scale map of Kashmir and Central Asia. …Mr Liaquat Ali Khan started by congratulating me and thanking me for all I had done in preserving peace in the Gilgit Agency."

Liaquat the infamous
Liaquat then said: "Brown, give me your ideas [for Gilgit] from a military point of view." The major explained in detail his plans to defend the area by reorganising the Scouts. "Right" said the Premier: "That disposes of the military angle." There is no doubt about the illegality of the mutiny, but were the British Headquarters informed? At the time, the entire Pakistani Army hierarchy was British. So, the answer can only be that Maj Brown's British bosses were aware of his 'gift' to Pakistan. The fact that he was appointed to the OBE is a further proof. The
King usually does not appoint 'deserters' or 'rebels' to the august Order.
Even today, it has serious implications for India. The UN resolutions of January 17, 1948, and August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949, (UNCIP Resolutions) made it clear that "Pakistan cannot claim to exercise sovereignty in respect of J&K." In 1963, a secret note from the MEA clarified further that according to the term of the UN Resolutions, "Pakistan cannot purport to exercise even 'actual control' over the defence of these areas."

Let's confront China
It means that the agreement signed on March 2, 1963, between Pakistan and China about the Shaksgam Valley of the Gilgit Agency being transferred to China is legally invalid.
Another logical result is that inhabitants of the area, if they want to move to India, should be entitled to Indian citizenship. Amazingly, two years ago, the British Parliament passed a resolution confirming Gilgit-Baltistan was part of Jammu and Kashmir.
The motion was tabled on March 23, 2017, by Bob Blackman of the Conservative Party. It reads: "Gilgit-Baltistan is a legal and constitutional part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, India, which is illegally occupied by Pakistan since 1947, and where people are denied their fundamental rights including the right of freedom of expression."
One can only hope that Ajit Doval, the Indian interlocutor of Wang Yi, the new Chinese special representative, will point out these historical facts, which means that the India-China border is 4,056 km and not 3,488 km, as China would like to believe. The new maps recently released by the government of India showing the Leh district of Ladakh including the districts of Gilgit, Gilgit Wazarat, Chilhas and Tribal Territory of 1947, make this clear.

How Rafale verdict proved to be a win for India

My article How Rafale verdict proved to be a win for India appeared in The Mail Today/Daily O

Here is the link...

India is the only country where so many hurdles can be put in defence deals - it took only three months for Egypt to buy 24 Rafales in 2015.

The second week of November 2019 will be a marquee event in the annals of the Indian judiciary. Several important, long-pending issues were decided by the Supreme Court of India led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi (retd).
On November 9, the Supreme Court (SC) delivered a final settlement on the 70-year-old Ayodhya dispute in an important turning point for the nation. The judgment on the Rafale deal also has immense implications for the country's future, hopefully, creating a precedent and putting an end to politicians needlessly playing with the preparedness of the armed forces.Hurdles cast aside
"The Supreme Court has categorically rejected the review petitions filed subsequently against the order on merits bringing to a close an exercise of vilification and casting doubts on the defence acquisition process which has an adverse impact on the morale of the security forces," said a communiqué from the ministry of defence (MoD).

The judgment on the Rafale deal will hopefully put an end to politicians needlessly playing with the preparedness of the armed forces. (Photo: Reuters)
"It does appear that the endeavour of the petitioners is to construe themselves as an appellate authority to determine each aspect of the contract and call upon the court to do the same," the communiqué read, citing the court.
The court also said that one cannot compare apples and oranges, meaning only a simpleton can compare what is not comparable (moreover the choice of fighter planes is highly technical and tactical). Apart from the 'victory of truth', the judgment is, first and foremost, a victory for the Indian Air Force (IAF). After the Balakot airstrikes, then Indian Air Force Chief BS Dhanoa, while analysing the outcome of the operations, asserted that the results would have been further tilted in India's favour if the Rafale jets had been inducted in time: "We had technology on our side, and we could launch precision stand of weapons with great accuracy," he said.
"In the proposed induction of the Rafale and S-400 surface-to-air missile system, in the next two-four years, once again the technological balance will shift in our favour," he added.
Unfortunately, many politicians do not look at the country's interests today. In this context, let us take a look at the history of the 'deal'.
While the initial request for information (RFI) for 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) was issued in 2001, the Request for Proposal (RFP) asking interested parties to come forward, was only publicised in 2007; then the 'complications' started. Only in January 2012, after a five-year competitive process, was Dassault selected to supply 126 planes to the Indian Air Force (IAF). This took 11 years, but the saga was far from over. Of the 126, 18 planes were to be manufactured by Dassault in France, while the remaining 108 planes were to be built in India by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), under a Transfer of Technology (ToT) agreement; an impossible task.

New precedent set
Then, Modi sarkar decided to immediately get 36 fighter planes. Now, the court has clearly shown that L'Affaire Rafale only benefitted a few disgruntled politicians seeking political mileage during the Lok Sabha campaign. Without the court's intervention, each and every defence deal would have continued to be twisted for the personal gains of a few individuals. It is a fact that unfounded allegations managed to stall the entire defence procurement for the IAF. In January 2018, the MoD issued an RFI to procure 57 MCRA for India's new aircraft carrier: "Intended as day-and-night capable, all-weather, multi-role, deck-based combat aircraft which can be used for air defence, airto-surface operations, buddy refuelling, reconnaissance." This was put in hibernation due to the 'case'.
In April 2018, a new RFI for the purchase of 114 new jets was notified. Under the proposal, 18 jets would come in 'a flyaway condition. The rest were to be produced in India under the new 'strategic partnership' policy, ie, a joint venture between the selected foreign aviation major and its Indian partners. This was frozen pending litigation.

Focus on defence
To make things worse, the IAF needs to decommission its MiG 21s and MiG 27s fighter aircraft (purchased from Russia in the 1960s) by 2024. "The planes will be phased out on completion of their Total Technical Life (TTL) by 2024," the MoD said. However, the usual (non-political) 'delays' for procuring replacements, left India no choice but to extend the TTL of the MiG-21s by upgrading their turbofan engines, radars or avionics. This process cannot be extended forever.
Let us not forget that presently the IAF has only 31 flight squadrons as against its requirement of 42 to face two fronts. With the phasing out of the MiGs, it will be left with only 15-16 flight squadrons.
Undoubtedly, India is the only country in the world where so many hurdles can be put, often for fallacious reasons, in the defence procurement process - it took only three months for Egypt to buy 24 Rafales in 2015.
The 36 Rafales could have become a precedent to question each and every defence acquisition — by going to court. Now the air has been cleared. Ultimately, it is India's defence preparedness and the IAF which suffered; the SC verdict has rectified this, though the culprits have not been punished. Because who was laughing in the end?
China and Pakistan.

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

The Shaksgam Valley 'donated' to China in 1963

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


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

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

The Archives of Leh

My article The Archives of Leh appeared in the Edit Page of The Pioneer.


Here is the link...

It is perhaps not too late to put the history of India in its proper perspective and undo the blunders committed in the 1950s and 1960s

As an aftermath of the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, the former State of Jammu & Kashmir has been reorganised into the new Union Territories (UT) of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. The latter consists of two districts: Kargil and Leh. Subsequently, new maps have been prepared by the Surveyor-General of India showing the geographical outline of the new UTs; it is a welcome move by the Government to educate the people of India and the media (and hopefully, the biased foreign Press).
Interestingly, the Leh district of Ladakh includes the districts of Gilgit, Gilgit Wazarat, Chilhas and Tribal Territory of 1947, in addition to the known areas of Leh and, of course, the Aksai Chin, illegally occupied by China since the mid-1950s.
For several reasons, it is important that these maps have been updated. First there was often a discrepancy in the length of the Indo-China border on some Indian websites. Was the length 4,056 or 3,488 km?  The first figure is the only valid one as Gilgit-Baltistan (formerly the Gilgit agency) is legally a part of India. The Indo-China boundary starts at the trijunction of Afghanistan, Gilgit-Baltistan and Xinjiang to reach the Karakoram Pass and further runs through the Karakoram and Karatagh passes and along the Kunlun in the north, and through Lanak La and across the western part of the Pangong Lake and then along the ridge parallel to the Indus, before crossing the Indus south-east of Demchok. Hopefully the wrong figures will now be rectified.
The fact that large parts of Ladakh are today occupied by China explain Beijing’s aggressive stance. Speaking of the creation of the two UTs, Geng Shuang, a spokesman of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs told the media: “China deplores and firmly opposes this. This is unlawful and void and this is not effective in any way and will not change the fact that the area is under Chinese actual control.” He urged India to “earnestly respect Chinese territorial sovereignty and uphold peace and tranquility in the border areas.”
The Indian Ministry of External Affairs did not leave the unwarranted attack unanswered: “We do not expect other countries, including China, to comment on matters that are internal to India, just as India refrains from commenting on the internal issues of other countries,” declared India’s Ministry for External Affairs spokesman. Referring to the Shaksgam Valley, he pointed out that China “illegally” acquired Indian territories from Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir through the 1963 China-Pakistan Boundary Agreement. That infamous pact was signed by Pakistan’s Minister of External Affairs and his Chinese counterpart. The new maps will irritate China no end, as it virtually opens another sector along the Indo-Chinese disputed boundary.

Map of the 1987 Survey of the areas 'donated' to China

A secret note prepared by the historical division of the Ministry of External Affairs mentioned that “any such agreement will be ab initio illegal and invalid and will not bind India in any respect.” The note observed that the preamble states that the parties have agreed to formally delimit and demarcate the boundary between Xinjiang and the contiguous areas of Pakistan, the defence of which was under  the actual control of Karachi; Pakistan based its right on the fact that these areas were under her “actual control.” However,  the Indian note explained: “Under international law, the right of entering into treaties and agreements is an attribute of sovereignty. Furthermore, a sovereign cannot presume to exercise sovereign functions in respect of territory other than its own. Having regard to the UN resolutions of January 17, 1948, August 13, 1948 and January 5, 1949 (UNCIP Resolutions) it is clear that Pakistan cannot (and does not) claim to exercise sovereignty in respect of Jammu and Kashmir.”
Very few, even in India, realise the importance of this point. On March 5, 1963, speaking about China during a Calling Attention Motion in the Lok Sabha, the Prime Minister said: “In spite of its professions that it has never involved itself in the dispute over Kashmir or its absurd claim that the boundary negotiations have promoted friendship between the Chinese and Pakistani people and are in the interests of Asia and world peace, it is directly interfering in Indo-Pakistan relations. By doing this, China is seeking to exploit differences between India and Pakistan on the Kashmir question to further its own expansionist policy.”
Of course, since then, China has become Pakistan’s Iron brother, but the motivations have remained the same. Today’s publication of proper maps should only be a first step.
The logical follow-up should be to repatriate all the archives pertaining to Ladakh and the Gilgit Wazarat, to Leh, where a place should be dedicated to their preservation; it is crucial as the history of large chunks of the border with China lies in these records.
During the negotiations of “the Officials of India and China” in 1960, the Indian side noted: “A systematic settlement of revenue for the whole of Ladakh up to the traditional alignment was made during the time of Mehta Mangal who was Wazir or Governor between 1860 and 1865; and this settlement was revised during the period of his successor Johnson (1870-1881) and Radha Kishen Kaul (1882). The lists of villages in both the Revenue Assessment Report of 1902 and the Settlement Report of 1908 mentioned 108 villages, including Tanktse, Demchok, Chushul and Minsar... The Preliminary Report of Ladakh Settlement of 1908 made clear that these areas were part of Ladakh.”
The Indian side submitted a large quantity of such documents. These records will show that India exercised control over the various frontier areas and collected revenues from the border villages till Independence.
These records should be kept in Leh; it should also include the history of the Gilgit Wazarat and other territories now shown under the Ladakh district and how Shaksgam Valley was illegally offered to Communist China.
This would greatly help the project of the Ministry of Defence to write the history of India’s borders, the project for which was recently announced: “The work will cover various aspects of borders, including tracing its making; making and unmaking and shifting of borders; role of security forces; role of borderland people encompassing their ethnicity, culture and socio-economic aspects of their lives.”
It is perhaps not too late to put the history of India in its proper perspective and undo the blunders committed in the 1950s and 1960s.

The IAF hero awarded the Maha Vir Chakra Twice

Wing Commander Jag Mohan 'Jaggi' Nath receives his second Maha Vir Chakra
from President Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

The second part of my interview with Wing Commander 'Jaggi' Nath The IAF hero awarded the Maha Vir Chakra Twice was published in Rediff.com

Here is the link...

Claude Arpi reveals how Wing Commander Jag Mohan Nath won a second Maha Vir Chakra in the 1965 War.

The Indian Air Force is in the news for the exploits of the anonymous Mirage-2000 pilots who conducted a raid on a terror camp in Pakistan.
The shooting down and subsequent three-day captivity of Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, who, with his Mig-21 Bison shot down a Pakistani F-16, also got a lot of coverage.
It is perhaps the right time to salute the feats of the first Indian military officer to be twice awarded the Maha Vir Chakra, India's second highest honour for gallantry.
After describing his sorties over Tibet in the first segment of an exclusive interview conducted at his Juhu, north west Mumbai home, Wing Commander Jag Mohan 'Jaggi' Nath describes to Claude Arpi his daylight missions over Pakistan during the 1965 War.
Wing Commander 'Jaggi' Nath reveals the background of the operation which led to his second MVC. Some explanations have been added in italics.

With Dr Zakir Hussain, then India's vice-president.

It started after Pakistan had already failed with Operation Gibraltar (external link) in August 1965 in Kashmir (Operation Gibraltar was the codename given to Pakistan's plan to infiltrate into and take control over Kashmir by starting a rebellion against India's rule), then Pakistan decided to start Operation Grand Slam,(external link) (a plan drawn up by the Pakistan army, in May 1965, to attack the vital Akhnur bridge in Jammu. The bridge was not only the lifeline of an entire infantry division posted in Jammu and Kashmir, but could also be used to threaten Jammu, the vital logistical hub for the Indian forces).
"The Pakistanis were given us a beating; the Indian tanks, though very close to Sialkot, were stopped. After Operation Gibraltar, I used to make daily sorties to see how the Pakistan forces were ositioned."
"The cameras we were using were so good we could read the number plates! We could see human beings, like with the U2 cameras (used by the Americans). Our cameras were really high resolution cameras.'
The soon--to-be-90 wing commander digresses for a moment: "Of course, the Americans could use their U2 or the SR71 (The Lockheed SR-71 'Blackbird' is a long-range, Mach 3+ strategic reconnaissance aircraft that was operated by the US air force). Can you imagine it was a plane faster than a bullet? It was an amazing plane."
"We had landed into problems in Akhnur; the Pakistanis tanks were coming in and giving us problems. I knew what was happening because I had daily runs; the problem in our army is that they are restricted by the orders of the government. The army chief (General J N Chaudhuri) had to get clearances (for a move); (in the air force), we did not have these problems."

To explain the issue, Wing Commander Nath shows me a picture of the then air chief -- later the Marshal of the Indian Air Force -- Arjan Singh with his arm around his shoulder. "He told me, 'You are my foster son'. I told him, 'If it was not for you, I would not be alive today'."
Wing Commander Nath refers to an Indian mole at air headquarters in Delhi. "One plane got shot down because of a compromise in security. Pakistan had prior notice of our plane flying over Pakistan on April 10, 1959."
In another interview, the wing commander recounted: 'In the IAF there was a mole, that too at a very senior level in the form of an officer in the Western Air Command who controlled all the flight movements of ours. He'd give Pakistanis all they wanted and that is how when our reconnaissance plane went over Pakistan on the morning of April 10, 1959, the pilot found the PAF Sabres actually waiting and obviously bombed him.
'When we found out, the officer, a Group Captain, was thrown out. This event helped us become tighter and more secretive.'

Wing Commander Jag Mohan Nath
receives his second Maha Vir Chakra

At that time, Arjan Singh had just taken over as acting Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief (AOC-in-C) of the Western Air Command in Delhi.
After having explained why in 1965, he was getting his orders directly from Arjan Singh, the then chief of air staff, Wing Commander Nath returns to the operation. "All the requirements came from the army. Every time something would take place, Arjan Singh would say, 'Send reconnaissance, send reconnaissance'."
"Arjan Singh had given me a code name, 'Professor' and would directly assign to me missions."
"During the 1965 War, like in 1962, the sorties that we did every day gave us the entire picture (of the enemy's forces)."
"Every day, we would get a briefing and do sorties. We had a complete picture how the war was proceeding."
"I had a clear picture of what was going wrong anywhere on any front."

You were providing the information to whom? To B N Mallik, the Intelligence Bureau director, to the air chief?

The information was going directly to the army chief; in 1965, it was General J N Chaudhury.
While the operations were going on, the army chief used to send his requirements to the air force; (for example) how the Pakistanis were moving or if they were not.
It would have been difficult (to take decisions) without knowing what was going on the other side of the border, how the Pakistanis were progressing.
There was no other way to get this information, but from the records of the reconnaissance planes.
Pakistani foreign minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and the army chief had planned Operation Gibraltar; (at the beginning) they finished off so many of our Vampires that we had no option but to bring our air force (in the war).
It was the time Nur Khan was brought in. (Air Marshal Malik Nur Khan was the commander-in-chief of the Pakistan air force. During the war with India in 1965, Nur Khan was credited with temporarily turning the tide of the war in Pakistan's favour, at least in the first 24 hours).

With Yashwantrao B Chavan, India's defence minister

In Pathankot, the top brass of the army and air force was there, they said: "We want a reconnaissance from the north, from Lahore and then Sargodha (in Pakistan Punjab), to the south."
Do you understand that I had to operate in day time? I could not do reconnaissance and take pictures at night. I had to fly low to avoid the radar and my target was 15 to 20 miles.
Usually, I used to build up my speed, convert into height, go at 12,000 feet (to take the picture)and was staggering around.
I had 5 to 10 minutes at the most. Later, I would come back (to India).
It was not enough time for the radar to activate anything. For so many years, I did this particular exercise.
But I could not do this for this particular reconnaissance for the second front the army wanted to open.
I told them: "How can I fly for 30, 35 or 40 minutes doing this business?" If I had broken it into small (shorter) sorties, this would be alright, but it was not what I was asked for.
When I finally did it and as I was heading back towards India, I told my navigator, "We go back to India now, we have taken the picture."
I got a warning on my tail radar. The tail radar of the Camberra picks things 15 miles away. You know exactly where the other plane is going to shoot you down.
The navigator said "Sir, I saw a black spot (in the radar)." I told him, "Never mind, if it comes closer, some 5 miles away, call me up."
I thought it would be from this distance that they would launch their missile.
Starfighters needed 5 to 10 seconds to log into the heat source and then shoot its missile. With less time than this, it has no time (to adjust the target).
It means that I have been on the move and not remained steady for more than 10 or 15 seconds.
And suddenly another spot (on the radar), and then another one; total four planes (behind us)!
I don't have any time to think. I improvised, I started barrel rolls. You do loop like this (demonstrates with gesture) it is called a barrel roll.

(A barrel roll is an aerial maneuver in which an airplane makes a complete rotation on both its longitudinal and lateral axes, causing it to follow a helical path, approximately maintaining its original direction. It is sometimes described as a combination of a loop and a roll).

That way I headed towards India.
I was caught by Indian radar. My friend Wing Commander (Krishna) Dandapani (Commanding Officer of the 203 Signal Unit in Amritsar) was not even informed, as the orders had been given to me at such a short notice.
Dandapani was on his toes; he said: 'Five airplanes are coming". He thought they were all Pakistani planes.
Remember that I been in the air for some 30 minutes already. So, Dandapani sees five planes coming and suddenly four going away.
He thought there was still one Pakistani plane. The Pakistani was me.
And then, my navigator tells me: "There is another airplane coming".
I said: "But we are in our country".
So I started doing a curve, I didn't need to do barrel turns; the difference between a fighter plane and a Canberra is the latter can do tighter turns while fighter planes have to do larger turns.
It was difficult to shoot me down while turning. So they missed me and overshot (our plane). At that time, they saw the Indian marking.
They called the airfield and told them: "This airplane is ours, how can we shoot him down?"
The control tower in Pathankot confirmed: "Yes, it is our plane; he has taken off from Pathankot and has to land there". They had just realised.
With all these exercises, I run out of bloody fuel. My gauge said 'zero' and I had no other option but to land in Pathankot.
The air control said: "No, you can't land, there are planes landing in a row from Akhnur (front)."
I said "I will land between two of them".
And as I landed one of my engines copped out.
Can you imagine such a flight!
And the information which came out of it was so vital!

'Jaggi' Nath on top of a PR Canberra with various other members
of 106 Squadron (Courtesy Bharat Rakshak)

The army (authorities) could find a place called Barki to launch a counter-attack (Barki is a village that lies south-east of Lahore near the border with Punjab, India, and is connected with Lahore by the bridge over the Ichogil canal).
Later, the Indian Army withdrew by itself and the Pakistanis reinforced the place.

(The Battle of Burki (or Barki) was fought by Indian infantry and Pakistani armour in the 1965 War. The battle resulted in an Indian victory after the army captured the town on September 11, 1965. After the capture of Burki, the Indian advance continued towards Dograi, a town in the immediate vicinity of Lahore. No attempt was made to capture Lahore.)

But my flight gave them the information exactly where to go.
One particular flight gave them (the Indian Army) so much information.
You were awarded the Maha Vir Chakra for the second time for that?
The first MVC was awarded on January 1, 1962.
Though the war had not started, the reconnaissance had started, and the bar (the second MVC) was granted in September 1965.
I was the first officer of the armed forces to be awarded the MVC twice.
In 1965, General Sparrow got a bar and then four bars were given in 1971. (Major General Rajinder Singh, MVC**, nicknamed 'Sparrow' was awarded the MVC for his role during the War of 1947 and for displaying gallantry in the War of 1965).

I feel two Maha Vir Chakras should be equal to one Param Vir Chakra. It is not a joke to have two MVCs, but the government does not agree.

The Citation for the Bar to the MVC

Sqn Ldr Jag Mohan Nath, Award Date: September 1, 1965
During the Indo-Pak War 1965, Sqn Ldr Nath was again the Flight Commander with the Strategic Photo Reconnaissance Squadron flying the Canberra aircraft.
He led his unit several times over the hostile territory to obtain vital information about the enemy.
The unescorted missions, which were in the nature of reconnaissance, entailed flying long distances over the enemy territory and well-defended airfields and installations during day light.
Sqn Ldr Nath was fully aware of the risk he was running on each of these missions. Still, he chose to undertake the risky missions himself.
It was after great persuasion that he allowed his colleagues to do some risky assignments. The information gathered by him during his missions proved vitally important to Indian air effort.
The missions enabled our Air Force to attack vital enemy targets and this adversely affected enemy's war effort. Sqn Ldr Nath was awarded Bar to Mahavir Chakra for displaying courage, determination and devotion to duty.

I am grateful to Jagan Pillarisetti of www.Bharat-Rakshak.com for his suggestions/clarifications.

Diverting the Indus ... or the Yarlung Tsangpo to Xinjiang

In January 2015, I wrote on this blog about the proposal of diverting the Indus towards Xinjiang.
Nobody took it seriously.
Now a new proposal has emerged: to divert the Yarlung Tsangpo to Xinjiang.
According to The Global Times: “Scholars mull project to divert water from Tibet to arid Xinjiang”.
The Party's newspaper adds: “Policy-makers have left plan stranded citing unfeasibility”.
The tabloid explains: “Around 20 scholars met outside Urumqi in Northwest China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region over the last weekend of July, and discussed the feasibility of diverting water from the heights of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau to Xinjiang's lowland plains, one of the attendees revealed.”
Ren Qunluo, professor at the Xinjiang University of Finance and Economics is quoted as saying: “Water from rivers such as the Yarlung Zangbo River can help turn the vast deserts and arid lands into oasis and farmlands, alleviate population pressure in the east, as well as reduce flood risks in the counties through which the river travels downstream,"
Ren told The Global Times: “Xinjiang has 1.1 million square kilometers of plains, equal in size to all the plains in the country's east. But less than 70,000 square kilometers are arable due to a shortage of water. If all these plains are greened, another China will have been created."
The same old story.
China is obsessed with these diversion schemes (and it conveniently comes at a time of the confrontation with India at the trijunction Bhutan-Tibet-Sikkim).
Incidentally, the Indian journalists 'invited' by the Ministry if Foreign Affairs in Beijing should have asked more details about the new scheme.
The mouthpiece of the Party continues: “”The dream of massive water diversions from soaking-wet Southwest China to the thirsty north has been on the minds of engineers and scholars for decades. But some say this dream could be a nightmare of environmental damage, and these concerns mean the plateau-to-plain project has never been approved.”
India and Bangladesh are not mentioned in the scheme.
The Global Times makes three points.

• Experts want the government to reconsider diverting water from Tibet to parched northern regions
• They claim the project will help stimulate the world economy and create a "second China" in the region's arid plains
• Disagreements remain strong due to the huge cost and possible environmental damage

However the report says: "[The] pro-diversion experts are now trying to rally support for the idea."
Information Warfare is going on...  full swing.

Here is my old post of January 2015.

On Christmas Day, The New York Times reported: “Within a few days, water that has traveled more than 800 miles for two weeks in one of the world’s most ambitious, and controversial, engineering projects is expected to begin flowing through Beijing faucets.”
The objective of the scheme is to bring water from upper reaches of the Han River, a tributary of the Yangtze, through the central route of the South-to-North Water Diversion project, the second of three routes planned to transfer water from China’s wet south to the dry north. Once fully functional, the Central Diversion is expected to provide a third of the capital’s water needs.
The project is estimated at 80 billion U.S. dollars, says Xinhua, adding: “The completion of the water scheme marked major progress in the nation's enormous south-to-north water diversion project, the largest of its kind in the world.”
The official news agency boasts: “It is another engineering achievement by the Chinese,” quoting the Beijing-Hangzhou Grand Canal, the world's longest man-made river, opened in the 13th century for transporting grain.
The pro and the cons of the present project will continue to be debated in the months and years to come; in the meanwhile, some researchers in China have thought of another smaller ‘pilot’ project: to divert the Indus river towards Xinjiang. A detailed report on the scheme is posted by a blogger on the website ScienceNet.cn.
Beijing will argue that this new project is merely the product of the fertile brain of some freelance scientists, and that it has ‘nothing to do with the government’.

You may ask, what is this ScienceNet.cn? According to Wikipedia: “ScienceNet.cn is a science virtual community and science blog,” launched by Science Times Media Group (STMG) and supported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Engineering, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China “with the mission of establishing a global Chinese science community.”

Since January 2007, more than 5,000 scientists and graduate students have posted their papers on ScienceNet. The editorial board of ScienceNet says that it has been ranking first among Chinese science websites.
The blogger quotes Chinese researchers who argue that the other planned 'diversions' require extremely complicated construction plans, large investments, long building periods and face a lot of engineering problems due to the complexity of the issues involved (I would add, and 'displacing millions of people'). It makes these projects difficult to undertake, while a small-scale, with low investment and a quickly realizable scheme, could be an ideal pilot project.
The ‘researchers’ propose to add a South Western segment to the Western Diversion Route (not yet started), which is the third part of the South-to-North Water Diversion project. It would involve the diversion of the waters from the Indus river in Western Tibet (before it enters Ladakh) towards the Tarim Basin in Xinjiang. According to the authors, the scheme would meet the requirements of a ‘pilot’ scheme.
In a summary, the ‘scientists’ explain that the water diversion project referred to in their paper could be called “the South Western section of Western Route Project”; water could be taken from the Tibetan Plateau in the West and brought by gravity to the Tarim Basin in Xinjiang. The text describes the preliminary survey of the South Western part of the Western Route Project. The size of the diversion program and a brief description of China’s northwest after the transfer of the Indus’ water, are given. The main conclusion is that the diversion will help maintaining long-term stability in Xinjiang. The paper explains why and suggests deepening the research before an early implementation of the South Western section.
According to the ‘researchers’, the diversion of the Indus could bring ten benefits to China:

• It could increase the total amount of water resources in the Tarim Basin, which is located in the hinterland of Taklimakan Desert and suffers from important sand dune mobility. In this highly arid region, which receives low precipitations, water is extremely valuable
• The diversion could increase the local hydropower capacity. Water would flow from the high Qinghai-Tibet plateau, at an elevation of over 3,000 [in fact 4,000] meters and at the receiving end, water would be at only 1,500 meters above sea level.
• Once this section is completed, the water could create an oasis in the desert. The Western section would transform an entire region into an oasis; it would further bring a great return on the investment.
• Once the project is fully implemented, the total amount of water resources locally available could greatly increase; it could provide a substantial increase in the amount of hydroelectric power; the desert could become an oasis, it could improve the ecological environment, which in turn could promote local economic development of the region and the living standards of the local people.
• According to some scientific hypotheses, the water brought by the diversion could also increase precipitations in the region.
• The research says that the new oasis could in turn ‘curb global warming’ [sic]. If the global warming argument is indeed correct, say the ‘scientists’, the South Western section could increase the rainfall in China; this countermeasure could help curb global warming for the entire humanity; this is why the diversion project must be able to get the global support and backing of most countries [what about India?]. China can then get a substantial increase in the local precipitation; the desert in northwest [Xinjiang] would disappear; the desert would become an oasis which would be able to grow food and have power plants; humans would be able to reduce the need for fossil fuels; after additional diversion oasis would absorb large amounts of greenhouse gases each year, thus it would achieve the goal of curbing global warming.

What an argument! But that is not all:

• It could contribute to China’s food and energy security. After the diversion, the desert turned-oasis could increase the country's arable land for China to contribute to the world food security.
• The western development could make a significant contribution by reducing regional disparities. China's population distribution is unbalanced; the development gap between China and western regions and other regions is too large; it has been extremely detrimental to the country's development.

And now the cherry on the cake:

• The diversion could strengthen China's actual control of Aksai Chin, and help to resolve the territorial dispute. Sino-Indian border has not been formally delimited in the Aksai Chin and Pangong Lake areas; there are some territorial disputes [with India]. The water diversion project, through Aksai Chin, could help the actual control of this region; the implementation of the project could also help to resolve the territorial dispute [with India].
• Finally, the project could promote national unity and maintain long-term stability of Xinjiang. This, according to the authors, is the main benefit of the South Western section: the long-term stability of Xinjiang.

This ‘easy’ pilot project does not, of course, take into account what the neighbours (including China’s all-weather friend, Pakistan) would have to say.
That may not make the pilot project so simple after all!
The question is, while Beijing is very quick to remove internet content which contests its rule, why is such a crazy and highly objectionable project allowed to be posted on a semi-governmental website?
Similarly, the website of the Yellow River Conservancy Commission of China’s Ministry of Water Resources has a 50-page report on the diversion of the Brahmaputra, and though Beijing denies any bad intention, the project remains on the ‘official’ website.
How can we trust China?

Some of my previous posts on the subject

• Why China needs to divert the Brahmaputra
• The Diversion of the Brahmaputra on the cards again (2013)
• Again diverting the Brahmaputra (2013)
• The 'feasibility' of diverting the Brahmaputra (2014)
• The mad diversion plan

A World War over some sheeps and a few yaks?

Yaks by Wang Yiguang, a famous modern Chinese painter

As I mentioned in my last post, ‘differences of perceptions’ on the Tibet-Sikkim-Bhutan and the Sikkim-Tibet borders are not new.
China used fully these differences during the Indo-Pakistan conflict of 1965, threatening to interfere in the War and opening a new front in Sikkim.
This has been well-documented in the Notes, Memoranda and Letters Exchanged between the Government of India and China (known as White Papers on China) published by the Ministry of External Affairs in Delhi.
Today, I post an extract of White Paper No. XII (pertaining to January 1965 to February 1966). The Note relates to an incident which took place in Delhi on September 24, 1965.
Atal Bihari Vajpayee, then a Member of Parliament took a herd of 800 goats to the Chinese Embassy in Delhi to send a message to Beijing: is it worth starting a war over some pastures in the Himalaya or because some herds had crossed an unmarked line?

Here is the Note given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing to the Embassy of India in China on September 26, 1965.
Let us hope that the Chinese missives are less rude today.
I wish I could find a cartoon (by Shankar for example) of the ‘incident’.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China presents its compliments to the Indian Embassy in China and has the honour to state as follows:

In the afternoon of September 24, 1965, a mob of Indian hooligans went to the gate of the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi to make provocation led by Indian officials and Congress leaders and driving a flock of sheep before them.
They made a huge din, yelling that China had ‘invented absurd pretexts for threatening and intimidating India’ that ‘China wants to start a world war over some sheep and a few yaks’, and so on and so forth.
This ugly farce was wholly instigated and staged by the Indian Government. The Chinese Government hereby lodges a strong protest with the Indian Government.
The Indian Government will definitely not succeed in its attempt, by staging this ugly anti-Chinese farce, to cover up its crimes of aggression against China and the wretched picture of its troops fleeing in panic from the Chinese side of the China-Sikkim boundary.
For a number of years you have flatly denied that Indian troops had intruded into Chinese territory across the China-Sikkim boundary and built military works for aggression there.
Yet within a few days of our demand for the dismantling of the military works for aggression within a specified time-limit, the Indian troops who had intruded into the Chinese side of the China-Sikkim boundary could not but flee helter-skelter under the surveillance of Chinese troops, leaving behind numerous evidence of their crime, thus suddenly exploding the falsehood which you had so painstakingly concocted over these years.
How can you succeed in hiding your shame?
It was clearly because you knew yourselves to be in the wrong that you could not but hastily withdraw all your troops who had intruded to the Chinese side of the China-Sikkim boundary and demolish some of your aggressive military works there.
But then you felt it to be too great a loss of face, so you cast aspersions on China alleging that China wanted to start a war merely for some sheep and a few yaks. Actually, you knew full well that this was a deliberate lie. Otherwise, why did you withdraw all your intruding troops before the time-limit set by us was up?
You must return every single one of the border inhabitants and livestock you kidnapped and seized from Chinese territory across the China-Sikkim border.
But the issue between China and India is absolutely not limited to a matter of some sheep and yaks. Are your subversive activities in Tibet only a matter of some sheep and yaks?
Is your occupation of 92,000 and more square kms of Chinese territory [mainly NEFA, today’s Arunachal Pradesh] along the three sectors of the Sino-Indian border a matter of some sheep and yaks?
No. All Indian intrusions, harassments and armed provocations against China are major questions involving China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and these accounts will have to be settled.
The distinction between aggression and anti-aggression can never be blotted out. The whole world now sees that it was India which launched a war of aggression against Pakistan, thus endangering peace in Asia and the world, and that it was China and other justice-upholding countries which by their firm anti-aggressive stand punctured your aggressive arrogance. It is understandable that you are feeling very much ill at ease.
But you will never succeed in your attempt to coerce China into abandoning her just stand by concocting the lie about China wanting to start a world war. The Indian Government should know that it cannot do what it likes to its neighbouring countries even with the backing of the U.S. imperialists and the modern revisionists. In staging a few forlorn and unseemly anti-Chinese demonstrations you have your undivulgeable motive - to seek reward from the imperialist and modern revisionists. But the Chinese Government must remind the Indian Government that there is a limit to everything, and that the exceeding of such a limit will not be tolerated.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Indian Embassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

Yaks by Wang Yiguang

India Answers
On October 1, the Indian Government answered the allegations by sending Note to the Embassy of China in India.
It is a reply to two Chinese communications; one dated September 24 about Tibetans taking refuge with their yaks in India and the above.
It also mentions China's 'ultimatum' to India. 
The ministry says:

In the two notes under reply the Chinese Government has again belaboured the trumped-up and farcical allegations which have formed the terms of its impertinent ultimatum to India. The Government of India have already repudiated each and every one of these allegations. As regards the so-called military structures, which the Chinese had made into a casus belli, the Government of India and the entire world are amused by the Chinese Government's statement that these have since been demolished by Indian troops while ‘withdrawing’ within the time-limit set by the Chinese Government. The fact was that there were no Indian troops in Tibetan territory to be withdrawn and that there were no Indian military structures in Tibet to be destroyed. The Chinese Government had, indeed, admitted this indirectly by its refusal to allow an independent observer to go to the border and also by rejecting its own proposal for joint inspection when the Government of India accepted it.
Both the 'construction' and the 'demolition' of military structures by Indian troops were a Chinese myth-a myth which has now exploded in the face of its own authors.

The Note continues:

About the four Tibetan inhabitants allegedly kidnapped by Indian troops, an adequate reply has been given in the Indian notes of September 17 and 21. Like other Tibetan refugees these four people had come into India on their own volition and without our permission and taken refuge in India. They are free to go back to Tibet at any time if they desire to do so. A propos the 800 sheep and 59 yaks the Government of India have already given a reply in the clearest terms possible. We know nothing of the yaks and as regards the sheep it is up to the two herdsmen concerned to take them to Tibet if and when they choose to go back to their homeland.

Then it comes to the incident in front of the Chinese Embassy in Delhi.
The Indian Note remarks:

In its note of September 26, China has protested against the peaceful demonstration which was held near the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi on September 24 when some of the citizens of Delhi took in procession about 800 sheeps. The Government of India had nothing to do with this demonstration. It was a spontaneous, peaceful and good-humoured expression of the resentment of the citizens of Delhi against the Chinese ultimatum and the threat of war against India on trumped-up and trivial issues. In India, as the Chinese Government is, no doubt, aware, citizens have the right of peaceful assembly and of peaceful demonstration. There is no reason for the Government of China to protest against this. The demonstration was not only peaceful but the demonstrators kept themselves more than 50 yards away from the gate of the Embassy building.

It further adds that full security protection was provided to the Chinese Embassy:

This peaceful demonstration by a number of private citizens of Delhi was entirely in conformity with the laws of India and with the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Indian citizens under the Constitution. The Chinese Government has absolutely no right to interfere in the internal affairs of India. The protest is, therefore, rejected as completely unwarranted.

The rest of the Note deals with the inflow of Tibetan refugees in India, a topic very sensitive for Beijing in the 1960s … and today too.
South Block says:

The Chinese Government appears to have been embarrassed by the statement in the Indian note that there are not four but thousands of Tibetans who have left their homeland and taken refuge in India. But that is a fact, though not a creditable one for the Chinese regime in Tibet. The Chinese note has stated that these thousands of Tibetan refugees are a debt which India owes to China. On the contrary, it is a debt which China owes to the people of Tibet for making it impossible for them to live in freedom and dignity in their own motherland. It is interesting that a mention has been made in the Chinese note to His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

These remarks were bound to upset China further.
However, Delhi continues to give its views on the matter:

In March, 1959, when the Dalai Lama fled from Lhasa, following the Chinese invasion of Tibet, and took asylum in India, the Chinese Government had stated that His Holiness was ‘abducted to India by Tibetan rebels’ and kept under duress by the Indian authorities.

At that time, India still speaks about an ‘invasion’, a term which is not used anymore today.
The Note recounts the sequence of events:

However, on December 17, 1964, the State Council of China, while dismissing the Dalai Lama from his posts as the Chairman and member of the Preparatory Committee for the autonomous region of Tibet, described His Holiness as having ‘staged a traitorous armed counter revolutionary rebellion against the country in 1959’ and to have fled abroad. Now the Chinese Government has changed its tune once again and has alleged that the Dalai Lama and others were enticed or coerced to go to India.

Using strong words, Delhi points out: “The falsehoods propagated by the Chinese Government do not even possess the virtue of consistency. The Chinese Government ought to be aware that rebellions do not take place under enticement or coercion.”
And says: “Where there is oppression, there is rebellion. It is futile to blame India for the troubles in Tibet and for large number of Tibetans being forced to leave their hearths and homes for refuge in other countries.”


The entire White Paper is available on my website.