The Naku La Incident

Map of Naku La area

As soon as China recovered from the dreaded Covid19, it started a new battle, an Information Warfare (IW) to change the way the world presently perceives the Middle Kingdom. In the process, Beijing found it sometimes necessary to show force, and the recent incident in Northern Sikkim and in Ladakh should be seen in this perspective.
Since the outbreak of the virus in December, the Communist regime discovered that it had not many friends on the planet. Even Vladimir Putin was targeted by Beijing asking the Russian authorities not to discriminate against Chinese citizens; reports had appeared of police raids in Moscow against people from China evading quarantine measures.

The IW counterattack
Soon Beijing decided to counterattack. Zhao Lijian, one of China’s sharp shooters and now a spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, alleged that the Americans were at the origin of the virus.
Another shot came from the Chinese Embassy in Australia who emailed local journalists, accusing them of “politicizing the coronavirus” by saying it originated in China “without any supporting facts.”
Financial Review journalist Michael Smith received an email from the Chinese embassy in Canberra, complaining that he had called the Covid-19, ‘China virus’. Smith asserted that Beijing “has pivoted its propaganda narrative, now insinuating that the virus originated in other countries.”
Later the Chinese ambassador in Australia threatened Canberra: “If you push for an inquiry into the Wuhan lab, we will stop buying your wine”.
The strong-arm technique is a bit gross, but it often works.
The symptoms of the Chinese aggressiveness were also seen on February 18 when Hou Yanqi the Chinese ambassador to Nepal, issued a statement criticizing an article published in the Nepali press: “The Kathmandu Post published an article which, with a picture of malicious intention, deliberately smeared the efforts of the Chinese government and people fighting against the new coronavirus pneumonia and even viciously attacked the political system of China.” The lady ambassador went a step further; she accused by name the chief editor of The Kathmandu Post, Anup Kaphle of being biased.
Examples could be multiplied.

Aggressiveness everywhere
China has not limited the ‘battle’ to the diplomatic field alone; the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has become aggressive on the ground too.
The recent ‘fights’ in Northern Sikkim and Ladakh are part of the same pattern.
It is a fact that in 2017, despite the conflict at the trijunction between India, Bhutan and China, the Northern Sikkim border was ‘settled’.
In these circumstances, it was rather surprising that Indian and Chinese soldiers recently exchanged blows south of Naku La (pass).
Quoting two senior officials on the condition of anonymity, The Hindustan Times explained: “Scores of Indian and Chinese soldiers were involved in a tense face-off along the India-China boundary in north Sikkim.” In the scuffle several jawans were injured: “Four Indian soldiers and seven Chinese troops suffered injuries during the confrontation that involved around 150 soldiers.”
The confrontation took place south of Naku La, the border pass in the sector and north of Muguthang, a place that China has tried to capture since some time (where incidentally a helicopter of the Indian Air Force had crashed at Dolma Samba), not far away in the same sector, two days before the ‘fight’).
Around the same time, worrying developments were reported from the Northern Ladakh.

The Northern Boundary of Sikkim
The boundary with Tibet (now China) in northern Sikkim can be roughly divided in two parts; the eastern part is delineated by 23 cairns which were erected by Claude White, the British Political Officer (PO) in Sikkim in 1905. Apart from one cairn, known as the ‘Finger’, there is no real difference of perception between India and China. The second part, the western part of Sikkim’s northern border has remained peaceful, as it follows the watershed and is of extremely difficult access (at least for India), with only one pass Chorten Nyima leading to Tibet.
Naku La and Muguthang, a few kilometers south of the pass, are between the western and eastern parts of the boundary.
It is here that Beijing is picking a fight.

Claude White’s Description
Claude White visited the area in 1902, he noted: “I proceeded first up the Naku Chu [river] to the Naku La [pass]. Near the top of the pass, on one I found the usual Tibetan wall, rather better built than is customary, running across the valley with a block-house on the east, and some smaller blockhouse on a ridge coming down from the east. The top of the pass is long, wet and swampy with several lakes. On the way up some very large mineral springs were met with, and sample bottles of each have been sent down to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. This water contains sulphuretted hydrogen, and apparently contains sulphur and iron in large quantities.”
The Chinese would like today to consider the wall as the border; it was built by the Tibetans to protect their pastures in the 19th century; a process often used in the Himalayan region. The wall was similar to a Mani wall (a stone wall with engraved mantras Om Mani Padme Hum); the wall was 5 feet in height and some 800 meters in length. Beijing seems to have decided that the wall was the customary border, neglecting the watershed principle to which they earlier adhered.
The problem for India is that the access to these places is extremely difficult; Muguthang for example is still not connected by road. For several years, the Chinese have tried to ‘realign’ the border; but their claims clearly violate the 1890 Treaty, based on the watershed principle, which they swear by.
If Beijing wanted to put pressure on India, the pass is a convenient acupuncture point and if India gives in, more puncture points will be activated in Ladakh, Barahoti (Uttarakhand), Asaphila (Arunachal Pradesh) and other remote places.
When in June 1902, White went to Northern Sikkim, he met some Tibetan representatives at a place called Gyagong and later at the Naku pass; according to the memoirs of Sir Francis Younghusband: “Mr. White told them that his orders were to lay down the boundary as shown in the Convention of 1890, which had been signed by the Chinese Amban on behalf of the Tibetans.”
The Tibetans did not accept a treaty concerning their country to which they were not a signatory; but Younghusband wrote: “White told them they could see for themselves if the water ran into the Sikkim Valley or into Tibet, and where the water parted into Sikkim and Tibet was the boundary.”
Since then, the top of Naku La (pass) has remained the border.
On July 5, 1905, White had suggested to the Secretary of the Foreign Department in Delhi to erect pillars to mark the border; inter alia, the PO observed: “The number of pillars required would be only ten — one on the Naku La, one on the Sebu La, and eight along the remaining northern boundary from near the Sebu La to Kangchung La,” he added: “There is no necessity for any pillars along the western portion, as it is an inaccessible ridge.”
Probably due to the difficult access, it was found unnecessary to erect a pillar at Naku La, but 23 cairns were built eastwards. The Chinese are today using this historical loophole to open a new front on the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

Why Now?
One could ask, while the issue has been simmering for a few years, why such renewed aggressiveness now? Why is China opening new fronts?
One, in the post-COVID-19 (for China at least), IW is central to the role Beijing wants to play in the world.
As a result, the PLA is bound to be more aggressive on the Indian borders as they may not get their ‘dues’ with the general crunch for funds in Beijing, as a result, their budget will probably be heavily curtailed.
They have to be assertive to be not ‘forgotten’ by the Communist leadership.
Further, it is important to understand that while the terrain is extremely hostile on the Indian side, particularly in the western part of this sector, on the Tibetan side, Kampa Dzong (county) is on a flat plateau; it is where heavy Chinese PLA deployment is now taking place.
According to the website China Defense Blog, the Chinese-made ZTQ-15 light tank is used by the 54th Heavy Armor Combined-Arms Brigade in the Tibet Military Area Command. The new tank is said to have arrived in Kampa Dzong; this could be a game changer.
Another example of Beijing’s new assertiveness: ahead of a crucial Nepal Communist Party meeting, Hou Yanqi, the Chinese ambassador in Kathmandu, held a series of meetings with senior Nepal Communist Party leaders; she blatantly interfered in the ongoing power battle within the ruling party.
Coincidentally, Nepal objected to the new Indian road leading to Lipulekh, the border with China. Kathmandu said that the road is on Nepali territory, forgetting that when Nepal and China signed a border agreement in 1961, a map showing the Kali river, the border, at the same location than on the Indian maps, was published. It is unfortunate, but the NCP leaders are today dictated to by Beijing about what to do or say.

All this together, does not augur well for the coming summer months.

A long hot summer is ahead on Himalayan heights

Gurudongmar in Northern Sikkim

My article A long hot summer is ahead on Himalayan heights appeared in The Asian Age/Deccan Chronicle

Here is the link...

It is a fact that in early 2017, everyone in New Delhi thought the Sikkim border was a settled issue.

A couple of months before the beginning of the Doklam episode in 2017, Luo Zhaohui, the Chinese ambassador in New Delhi, was invited to deliver a talk at a well-known think tank in the national capital. In the course of his speech, Luo mentioned some “early harvest”. When the moderator, a senior Indian diplomat, asked him what he meant by “early harvest”, Luo enigmatically said it was related to Sikkim. The knowledgeable audience did not really understand what he was trying to convey. It is a fact that in early 2017, everyone in New Delhi thought the Sikkim border was a settled issue.

But on June 16, the Doklam episode started; and we know what happened during the following 73 days.

The border in northern Sikkim nonetheless remained “undisputed”; and Hua Chunyin, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, kept reminding everyone about the importance of the 1890 treaty between the Manchus and British India and asserting the northern border was settled for good.

In these circumstances, it was rather surprising that Indian and Chinese soldiers exchanged blows south of Naku La (pass) in northern Sikkim last week. Defence expert Rahul Singh, writing in a national newspaper, said: “Scores of Indian and Chinese soldiers were involved in a tense face-off along the India-China boundary in north Sikkim.” In the scuffle several jawans were injured. The confrontation took place south of Naku La, the border pass in the sector and north of Muguthang, a place that China has tried to capture for some time.

One Army officer was quoted as saying: “Four Indian soldiers and seven Chinese troops suffered injuries during the confrontation that involved around 150 soldiers.” The incident is said to have later been resolved at the local commanders’ level.

It is true that such incidents took place previously too; one remembers that during the Doklam standoff, Indian and Chinese soldiers exchanged blows in the “Fingers” area, north of the Pangong Lake in Ladakh. One, however, thought that these types of confrontations were a thing of the past.

Wing Commander Mandeep Singh Hooda, the spokesman of the Army’s Eastern Command, oddly equated the two sides, saying: “Aggressive behaviour by the two sides resulted in minor injuries to troops. It was stone-throwing and arguments that ended in a fistfight.”

But can the behaviour of the Indian and Chinese troops be put at the same level? Naku La has been the accepted border pass since the beginning of the last century at least; it was previously never contested by China.

Let us look more closely at the issue.

The boundary with Tibet (now China) in northern Sikkim can be roughly divided in two parts -- the eastern part is delineated by 23 cairns that were built in 1905 by Claude White, the British political officer in Sikkim; there is no real difference of perception between India and China in this sector. The second part, the western part of Sikkim’s northern border, has remained peaceful as it follows the watershed and is of extremely difficult access (at least for India).

Naku La and Muguthang, a few kilometers south of the pass, are between the western and eastern parts of the boundary.

It is here that Beijing is picking a fight.

The Chinese say that a couple of kilometres south of Naku La, the Tibetans had built a wall to protect their pastures in the 19th century; a process often used in the Himalayan region. The wall was five feet high and some 800 meters in length. Now China is claiming the wall was the customary border, neglecting the watershed principle used elsewhere.

The problem for India is that access to these places is extremely difficult; Muguthang for example is still not connected by road. For several years, the Chinese have tried to “realign” the border; but their claims clearly violate the 1890 treaty, which they swear by, and are based on the watershed principle. However, when Beijing wants to put pressure on India, the pass is a convenient acupuncture point and if India gives up, more puncture points will be activated in Ladakh, Barahoti (Uttarakhand), Asaphila (Arunachal Pradesh) and other remote places.

While the terrain is extremely hostile on the Indian side, particularly in the western part of this sector, on the Tibetan side, Kampa Dzong (county) is on a flat plateau; it is where heavy Chinese PLA deployment is taking place.

According to the website China Defense Blog, the Chinese-made ZTQ-15 light tank is used by the 54th Heavy Armour Combined-Arms Brigade in the Tibet Military Area Command: “The new light tank was unveiled to the public during the Zhuhai Air Show in China in November 2016.”

Another specialised website armyrecognition.com said the Type 15 tank “was designed… as a lighter, mobile modern tank that can effectively operate in China’s plateaus, forests, and water-heavy regions in which heavier tanks have difficulties traversing”. The new tank is said to have arrived in Kampa Dzong; if true, this could be a game-changer.

One could ask, while the issue has been simmering for a few years, why such renewed aggressiveness now?

One of the reasons is that post-Covind-19, the PLA, which played a decisive role in controlling the pandemic, is keen to continue to have a visible role in the Middle Kingdom, even if its budget is bound to get serious cuts. To be aggressive in the South China Sea or in the Himalayas is a way to remind Beijing’s leaders that the PLA should not be forgotten.

Another motive is the coming meeting of the World Health Organisation. On May 22, India’s nominee is expected to be appointed chairperson of the WHO’s executive board, which is responsible for executing decisions and implementing policies of the organisation. India will replace Japan, which completes its one-year-term.

The Wion website explained: “It implies that the WHO director-general will have to get the chairperson -- India -- on board for all important decisions.”

One can understand the stakes for China, which wants to avoid any serious enquiry into the origin of the dreaded virus.

The Naku La incident is a way to tell New Delhi: “You behave, or we shall press other painful points.” Australia was similarly threatened by the Chinese ambassador in Canberra: “If you push for an inquiry into the Wuhan lab, we will stop buying your wine”.

It is a bit gross, but it often works.

One thing is sure: “Early Harvests” are not for tomorrow.

The Himalayan summer that lies ahead is bound to be a hot one.

When China consolidated its grip in Tibet

Photo taken in Gyantse probably at the end of the 1950s

I posting today extracts from the Monthly Report for October 1960 sent by the Political Officer (PO) in Sikkim (Apa Pant) to the Ministry of External Affairs in Delhi.
We can see that the Chinese are fast consolidating their presence on the plateau ("the programme of mass settlement of Chinese in Tibet has started. There are rumours in Lhasa that about 2.1/2 lakhs Chinese civilians are to be brought in and settled in Tibet in the very near future. Even at the moment the Chinese population both at Lhasa and Gyantse has increased considerably").
At the same time, communications to the Indian borders are built on war-footing, while the trade with India is progressively stopped.
Two years later, an armed conflict would erupt between India and China.
We know the outcome.
Nobody had seen the writing on the wall, though in November 1960, the PO wrote: "It has also been reported that roads have been constructed from Chusal to Bhutan border via Nagartse, Nalung, Talung and Ling. All these roads lead towards Tawang in NEFA."
Here is the report:

Gangtok (Sikkim)
November 5, 1960

Infrastructure and Migration
Except for reports that there have been sporadic dislocations of traffic on Lhasa-Chamdo-Sining-Sinkiang [Xining-Xinjiang] highway due to guerilla action of the Khampas and of resistance by isolated pockets on the Nepal-Tibet border region, the resistance of the rebels in the regions round about the big towns of Tibet appears to have been not considerable. Chinese cadres continue to pour into Tibet in increasing numbers.
The programme of mass settlement of Chinese in Tibet has started. There are rumours in Lhasa that about 2.1/2 lakhs [2,50,00] Chinese civilians are to be brought in and settled in Tibet in the very near future. Even at the moment the Chinese population both at Lhasa and Gyantse has increased considerably.
Women cadres have also been brought in.
Lhasa now looks like a Chinese city where the Tibetans form only an insignificant minority. The lamas have been taken out of the monasteries and put to work as labourers and the monasteries are being used as public offices by the Chinese.
The Ramoche Monastery in Lhasa is now the head quarters of the traffic police while the Kundeling Monastery which had been damaged in March 1959 struggle, is after repairs being utilised to house the Chinese cadres. The houses vacated by the Kashmiri Muslims have also been occupied by the Chinese cadres.
The Chinese now appear to be in complete control of the administration.
The members of the former Tibetan nobility are in concentration camps except for those who had cast their lot with the Chinese Communists prior to the March 1959 conflagration, who have been given official positions and can be seen moving about in motor vehicles in Lhasa.
The Tibetans in Lhasa are being made to adopt the Chinese dress – the close collar coat and trousers while the traditional Baku is being discarded.
This sartorial reform is being ushered on grounds that it is more economical on clothing material.
Tibetan children above the age of 12 are being sent in large numbers for education and training to China which is to last for a period of between 3 to 5 years.
Apart from the general education imparted these Tibetan children would be systematically indoctrinated. There are reports that the younger generations of Tibetans appear to be quite enthusiastic over the reforms introduced by the Chinese authorities and opportunities offered to them.

Construction all-around
2. There are reports of all round construction activities being carried on by the Chinese in Tibet which is one more evidence of the consolidation of their hold over Tibet. A steel factory is coming up at Dode – a place near Lhasa. Cement though of an inferior quality is being produced in substantial quantities locally and is being utilised in the construction of important buildings.
At the foot of the Potala a four storey building is going up which is to be used as a Radio Station. This Radio Station will have special services beamed towards NEFA, Bhutan, Nepal etc.
A new building for housing the Chinese Foreign Bureau office is going up at Gyantse. Apart from construction of these administrative buildings residential quarters for Chinese settlers are also being constructed.
Telegraph and Telephone lines have been installed between Tsechen and Gyantse and telephone Telegraph poles are also being installed on the new Gyantse-Lhasa road. It is expected that the telephone and telegraph links between Gyantse and Lhasa will be completed by the end of November 1960.
A large number of new schools have been opened all over Tibet, there are eight schools in Lhasa alone. While Tibetan is taught in the lower classes in these schools, Chinese is taught to the students in the higher classes.

Trade being Stopped
3. Trade which was formerly in the hands of Indian and Nepalese traders and Kashmiri Muslims is gradually being taken over by the Chinese who have by their restrictive policies and heavy taxation driven out the non-Chinese traders.
A large number of Kashmiri Muslims have already left Tibet or are on the way out. Many Nepalese traders are also closing their establishments in Lhasa.
Most of the Indian shops at Phari have already closed down while those at Yatung are also in the process of closing down and within a month or two there will be only just a couple of shops left there.
There are only three Nepali shops left in Gyantse which are also likely to be closed shortly. The position on Gartok side is also no better. Chinese authorities have opened a number of shops in the towns where Chinese goods are sold, and as they do not look favourably upon the Tibetans and Chinese cadres patronising private shops the private shops have very little business left to them. Salt, borax and wool trade has already been taken over by the Chinese authorities.
It is only a question of time before the entire trade becomes a State monopoly to be directed and controlled according to the plan policies of the Communist authorities.

Communication with Mainland and to the Indian Border
4. About 60 vehicles ply each way daily between Lhasa and the Chinese mainland. There are reports of considerable movement of troops on the new Lhasa-Gyantse road. All these troops appear to be fresh arrivals from the mainland.
About 10,000 of them have passed through Gyantse during the course of a few days. It is suspected that this movement is towards Bhutan.
Reports have been received that Chinese have constructed a road connecting Nyiru with Ramto and Ramto with Yatung, this road has also been connected to Khangma.
It has also been reported that roads have been constructed from Chusal to Bhutan border via Nagartse, Nalung, Talung and Ling. All these roads lead towards Tawang in NEFA.
Reports have also been received that the Chinese have also constructed an aerodrome near Talung from where aircraft can very easily cover Bhutan and Kameng Frontier Division of NEFA.
Reports from Bhutan however indicate that there is no immediate concentration of troops on Bhutan border and possibly the Chinese troops have been proceeding towards Guru which is two days journey from Rhamtoi and Rham me and that probably the Chinese are moving towards Toi.

The Situation in Gartok
5. It is reported that there were very few Indian traders in Gartok this year. The Chinese authorities are not issuing certificates to local Tibetans traders to enable them to go for trade to the Indian side of the border thus reducing their contacts with Indians. Although the Indian traders have been allowed this year to visit the interior they have been informed that from next year they would not be allowed to proceed beyond the recognised trade marts.
Even otherwise it has become impossible for traders to function there as the Chinese authorities have banned export of live-stock as beasts of burden to India and as the Tibetans are discouraged from transporting goods across the Indo-Tibetan border and as there is lack of adequate transport facilities on Indian side of the border.
The 3% export and import taxes imposed on the traders is being realised in kind as traders in Gartok side are not in possession of local Chinese currency.
The goods are under-valued for purpose of taxes realised in kind but are over-valued for purposes of imposing the export taxes thus both ways the traders are being penalised and squeezed out. Trade Agent Gartok could not visit Tashigang trade mart this year because Chinese authorities failed to provide transport facilities and it was not possible for him to visit the other trade marts as winter was already advanced and it was late for him to go there.
Thus the Chinese have succeeded in preventing him from discharging his functions effectively. During his stay at Gartok the Trade Agent brought up for discussion with the local Chinese authorities the question of settlement of debts owed by local Tibetans to Indian traders but no solution could be found as the Chinese authorities were not prepared to permit export of live-stock – the only commodity in which the Tibetans could make their payment nor was it possible for him to get restored to the Indian traders their goods which they had stored at Tharchen in the house of the Bhutanese Officer in the previous year, since the Chinese insisted that the Bhutanese officer should come there personally to hand over the goods and this was obviously not possible.

The Kashmiri Muslims
6. Most of the Kashmiri Muslims have already crossed over into India from Tibet. The Chinese, however, have not so far released the nine Kashmiri Muslims whom they still continue to hold in custody and have indicated that they would be dealt with as Chinese nationals.

Miscellaneous
7. The Panchen Lama accompanied by his parents and tutor Nbulchu Rimpoche proceeded to Peking to attend the [his] 11th anniversary celebration.

8. Floods in Gyantse this year have caused some damage to the [Indian Trade] Agency premises.

9. About 25 Russians have been seen in the month of September in Gyantse.

Chinese Trains are India's Bane

A Train to Yatung, near Sikkim?

My article Chinese Trains are India's Bane appeared in Mail Today on July 15.

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) walked into Lhasa, the Tibetan capital, in September 1951. Immediately, the generals leading the ‘Liberation of Tibet’ put their troops to work; they had to build motorable roads on two main axes, Lhasa-Sichuan and Lhasa-Qinghai, as well as on feeder roads towards India’s border, particularly the southern route, Lhasa-Gyantse-Yatung, near the Sikkim border. The PLA managed this feat in five years.


Challenge at Nyingchi
Since a few years, Beijing seems to be caught by a comparable frenzy, but this time, it is trains that China is planning to bring onto the Tibetan plateau; the Communist leadership noticed the success of the Qinghai-Lhasa railway which reached Lhasa in July 2006, for developing the plateau, as importantly, ‘stabilizing’ the restive Tibetan populations …and defending the borders against India.
On July 9, Xinhua announced: “The building of the Sichuan-Tibet railway is picking up steam, with construction work on nine new stations on the Lhasa-Nyingchi section in the Tibet autonomous region to begin soon.”
Let us not forget that Nyingchi prefecture faces Arunachal Pradesh.
The laying of track on the 435-kilometer line is the easiest part of the Sichuan-Tibet railway; Xinhua said that “trains travelling at 160 kilometres per hour are expected to begin running by 2021.
The news agency further explained that the Sichuan-Tibet railway was first proposed more than a century ago, “the idea was revived after the foundation of the People's Republic of China in 1949, but various hurdles prevented it from progressing.”
Today trains are already running on the section between Chengdu and Ya'an in Sichuan province.
The toughest and most strategic section (and worrying for India as it can bring troop reinforcement in a short time to any Himalayan front) is from Ya'an to Nyingchi, “one of the world's most challenging railway projects because it winds through the Sichuan Basin, Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau and Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, climbing from 600 meters above sea level to nearly 4,500 meters.”
Zhao Jian, a professor of rail transportation at Beijing Jiaotong University, told Xinhua: “It will go through complicated geological conditions fraught with avalanches, landslides, earthquakes, heat, karst caves and underground streams.”
According to Peng Qinghua, Sichuan’s Communist Party Secretary, “Bridges and tunnels will cover over 90 percent of the line, which means there will be nearly 800 km of tunnels and more than 100 km of bridges."  It is hard to believe. Can China succeed is another question.
In the meantime, China is building a railway line to Nepal which will reach Kathmandu in a few years.
The think tank The Third Pole questioned: “China-Nepal railway: fantasy or reality?” The reporter noted: “The world’s toughest rail route, from Kerung (or Kyirong) in Tibet to Kathmandu, is struggling to get off the ground amid growing fears of debt, earthquakes and benefits bypassing local communities

Track to Kathmandu
In Rasuwa Gadhi, the small village located at the Nepal-China border, 170 kilometres north of Kathmandu, Chinese workers are already busy building a bridge that will link the two countries. The article observed: “The border only opened after the devastating Nepal earthquake in 2015 led to China closing the badly damaged Kodari route. It is also where the new railway will enter Nepal from Tibet;” it further commented: “locals have dubbed the project kagat ko rail (paper railway) and sapana ko rail (dream railway).”
But as it is part of the Chinese Dream of the Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, dear to President Xi Jinping, it is bound to be implemented!
The Global Times, the Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece, asserted: “Most importantly, China's development has made it impossible for any force to make Nepal a pawn in strategic arrangements to counterbalance China's influence.” The tabloid points a finger at the US influence in the land-locked country: “China's development has provided Nepal with the potential of benefit sharing. The China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative has brought the country unprecedented opportunities by linking it to its surrounding areas and the world. Nepal will no longer be closed and poor, but will be an essential hub to connect East, South and Central Asia.”
This remains to be seen, but the train to Kathmandu is undoubtedly a tool to realize this dream-program.

After Tibet, Sikkim?
On the eastern front, a rail route linking Lijiang to Shangri-La, the tourist spot in Tibet (both are located in Yunnan Province), should start operating at the end of next year; the 139-kilometer Lijiang-Shangri-La line will link Kunming, capital of the province and Chengdu in Sichuan Province, via the Kunming-Dali rail line, allowing passengers to make round trips between Kunming and Shangri-La within one day.
An even-more worrying project for India is the railway line to Yatung, near the Sikkim border.
In 2017, a 'Tibet-South Asia' promotion meeting for travel agents was held in Lhasa; the theme was ‘crossing Himalaya, rambling paradise in the clouds’. What was the objective of the gathering?
Travel agencies made some recommendations for outbound ('out of Tibet') tourism products for Nepal …and other South Asian countries.
According to Qiao Zhifeng, director general of Yatung Tourism, the County has rich touristic resources. The train planned between Lhasa and Yatung would drastically increase this potential …and help India, said Qiao!
In July 2015, Ananth Krishnan wrote in The Daily Mail: “Local officials in Yatung say a line running to the India border could transform the currently paltry $15million border trade, which relies on a small border market in Yatung.”
The problem is that India has not been consulted.
In 2018, Yatung already received 1.2 lakh Chinese tourists, an increase of 43% over the previous year. Once the train comes, several lakhs of visitors will come within a short distance of the Indian border and let us not forget that the infrastructure in China is dual use, military and civilian.
What would happen in the case of a new Doklam incident?

Sikkim's political stability is crucial to India’s security

My article Sikkim's political stability is crucial to India’s security appeared in South Asia Monitor and IANS


Here is the link...

In terms of India’s security, Sikkim remains a trend-setter and a model; India can’t afford to have insecure and ‘unhappy’ borders, when the northern neighbour is always ready to change the status quo, writes Claude Arpi for South Asia Monitor

In the summer of 2017, the Doklam incident could have taken a dramatic turn for India (and China too!); fortunately, it ended well with the withdrawal of the Chinese and Indian armies from an area near the trijunction between Sikkim, Tibet and Bhutan. However, early 2018, several media reports mentioned fast-paced road construction activities in the area, particularly a 12-km-long stretch from Yatung, in Chumbi Valley, to Doklam, being built by China.
 “The black-topping of the road, which according to sources, has been underway since the middle of September 2017, means that the Doklam plateau will see an increasing deployment of PLA in days to come,” News18 reported.
A crucial factor in India’s favour has been the strategic and political stability of the border state of Sikkim. For several reasons, it is vital for India’s security that it remains so. First, Denjong or the Valley of Rice, as Sikkim is traditionally known, is a prosperous state; that the charismatic Chief Minister Pawan Kumar Chamling has become the longest serving Indian Chief Minister in 2018 is a clear sign of its stability.

Sikkim is also India’s first organic state, showing the way to other progressive states in the country. On October 12, 2018, Sikkim won the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's (FAO) Future Policy Award 2018 for being the world's first 100 percent organic state. The citation said, “Sikkim is the first organic state in the world. All of its farmland is certified organic… Embedded in its design are socio-economic aspects such as consumption and market expansion, cultural aspects as well as health, education, rural development and sustainable tourism.” This makes Sikkim particularly special.
In terms of India’s security, Sikkim remains a trend-setter and a model; India can’t afford to have insecure and ‘unhappy’ borders, when the northern neighbour is always ready to change the status quo. Another welcome change has been the disenclavement of the state.

On September 24, 2018, Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated an aerodrome at Pakyong, near Gangtok, Sikkim’s capital. The airport has been constructed at a cost of some Rs 600 crore, the first commercial flight from Pakyong taking off on October 4 with SpiceJet operating a 78-seater Bombardier Q400 flights to and from Delhi, Kolkata and Guwahati. Recently, an Antonov AN-32 transport aircraft of the Indian Air Force landed for the first time at Pakyong. It will be a game-changer for the Indian Army.
The way for India to strengthen its Himalayan boundary lies perhaps in Sikkim. When one reaches Gangtok, the first thing one realizes is that Sikkim is spotlessly clean and the environment well-protected. This is particularly striking when coming from a state where plastic and garbage litter every public place. It is a truly refreshing and uplifting experience to see clean forests, streams and villages. Driving up from West Bengal, Sikkim seems like paradise.
This brings the possibility of developing eco-tourism, which could bring rich dividends. But that is probably not enough. It is also necessary to empower the local population. Chamling has recently decided to institute a universal basic income for each of Sikkim’s 610,577 citizens. If the scheme is a success, Sikkim will become India’s most progressive state.

Though Sikkim is today stable, large sections of society feel they have been victim to historical injustices in the past. After the merger with India in 1975, some communities were excluded from tribal status. A two-day summit, organised by EIECOS (Eleven Indigenous Ethnic Communities of Sikkim), in May 2018 in Gangtok demanded that all communities with a Sikkim Subject’s Card should be given ‘tribal’ status and Sikkim be declared a tribal state, like other north-eastern states. Three years after Sikkim joined India in a quasi-unanimous referendum, some communities were unfortunately left out, while Scheduled Tribe recognition was granted to others.
While inaugurating the Sikkim Summit for Tribal Status 2018, Chamling said: “We embraced India as a country on the condition of never compromising our uniqueness as Sikkimese people, protected by the Indian Constitution.”
With fast-paced developments taking place on India’s borders, the pressure is going to greatly increase. For the local population to remain steadfast, a small gesture such as granting tribal status to Sikkim would go a long way to make the people of Sikkim happier and, therefore, more prepared to support the defence of India’s borders.
This is valid for other Himalayan states which too have their long-pending demands which are often ignored by Delhi. It is true for Ladakh, for Arunachal Pradesh, and also for Himachal and Uttarakhand. India needs to satisfy the basic aspirations of the local populations and give them the freedom to develop according to their own genius.
A visit to Nathu la, the border pass between India and China, makes one realize the strategic importance of Sikkim which has the potential to keep peace between the two Asian giants despite recurrent tensions. It witnesses BPMs (Border Personnel Meetings) between the Indian and Chinese Army, in a ‘hut’ built for the purpose, several times a year. It symbolizes the decision taken at the highest levels in India and China to resolve localised border issues around a table.
The Himalayan people may not represent a large or politically influential section of the Indian population, but the country’s security depends on them. Let us hope that Sikkim can remain a model of stability and lean environment, as well as a beacon for other Indian states. It is the need of the hour.

Tibet and the 'Larger Issues'

Discussing 'larger issues'
Zhou Enlai, Panchen Lama, Mao, Dalai Lama, Liu Shaoqi (October 1954)

Recently the Dalai Lama made some remarks on Jawaharlal Nehru and the Partition of India.
Without going into the (unnecessary) controversy, it is interesting to see the views of the first Prime Minister of Independent India on what he called the ‘Tibetan émigrés’ in the early 1950s, three months after signing (without informing the Tibetans), The Agreement on trade and intercourse between Tibet Region of China and India (infamously remembered as the ‘Panchsheel Agreement’.
In a note dictated on June 18, 1954, Nehru answers some of the questions raised by BK Kapur, the Political Officer (PO) in Sikkim (from March 1952 to March 1955).
The PO was looking after Tibet (including Western Tibet till the Ladakh border), Bhutan and Sikkim).
The note gives some hints on Nehru’s policy vis-a-vis the Tibetans (‘Naturally, the Tibetans have our sympathy. But that sympathy does not take us far’).
It is addressed to the Secretary General of the Ministry of External Affairs (NR Pillai), the Foreign Secretary (RK Nehru) and Joint Secretary (TN Kaul). It is available in the Nehru Papers (Nehru Memorial Museum and Library)
Nehru’s note brings first and foremost the ‘larger issues’ which four years earlier, decided the Prime Minister to ‘drop’ a Tibet ‘verging independence’ (in Nehru’s own words), for the sake of a friendship with China.
These ‘larger issues’, the local officials (Harishwar Dayal before Kapur in Gangtok, Sumul Sinha in Lhasa or Maj SM Krishnatry in Gyantse) ‘could’ not understand them, at least according to the Prime Minister.
But one could ask: did Nehru understand that, with the arrival of the People’s Liberation Army on the plateau, India was in the process of losing its peaceful border with Tibet.
It has to be noted that June 1954 corresponds to the first Chinese intrusions in Barahoti in today’s Chamoli district to Uttarakhand.
This obsessive concern for ‘wider issues’ will lead India to an utter disaster in October 1962, when China attacked India in NEFA and Ladakh; India was not ready to defend its borders.
“Mr Kapur has not fully appreciated this wider policy of ours”, said Nehru, though more than 60 years later, it is clear that officers like Kapur had grasp a far truer image of China than the corridors of South Block.
Nehru commented “I do not like Mr Kapur talking about Chinese communists, although they are communists. He should talk about the Chinese Government.”
Unfortunately, Mao’s government was ‘Communist’ and proud to be; India paid dear to realize this.

The Note
The various questions raised in these notes and in Mr Kapur's letter an important not only in themselves, but because they are concerned with much larger issues. Indeed, they are concerned with our wider policy towards China and our general world policy.

2- Naturally, the Tibetans have our sympathy. But that sympathy does not take us far and cannot be allowed to interfere with a realistic understanding of the situation and of our policy. I have an impression that Mr Kapur has not fully appreciated this wider policy of ours. It is necessary, therefore, that he and others concerned should understand it and should realise that this policy is the only one which might be helpful to the Tibetans, not in the measure perhaps that they desire, but to some extent. Any other policy of encouraging the Tibetans to oppose Chinese over lordship over Tibet would be raising false hopes in the Tibetans which we cannot fulfil and is likely to react unfavorably on the Tibetans. It would, of course, be opposed to the principles we have laid down in our recent Agreement with China.

3- Mr Kapur talks that the Chinese Government is not likely to be influenced by considerations of non-interference, etc. At the same time he hints that we should also not be influenced by any such considerations, except in so far as that we should not do anything which might create obvious difficulties for us. That is neither a moral nor a practical proposition.

4- No country can ultimately rely upon the permanent goodwill or bona fides of another country, even though they might be in close friendship with each other. It is conceivable that the Western Atlantic alliance may not function as it was intended to and there might be ill will between the countries concerned. It is not inconceivable that China and the Soviet Union may not continue to be as friendly as they are now. Certainly it is conceivable that our relations with China might worsen, though there is no immediate likelihood of that. Therefore, we have always to keep in mind the possibly of a change and not be taken unawares. Adequate precautions have to be taken. If we come to an agreement with China in regard to Tibet, that is not a permanent guarantee, but that itself is one major step to help us in the present and in the foreseeable future in various ways. If there is an agreement at Geneva about the problems of Indo-China and Korea, that La no guarantee about the future, but it is certainly a big step forward to lessen tension which enables the countries concerned to think more objectively and peacefully and perhaps find a surer basis for peace. In spite of that agreement they will not give up their suspicions or their preparations, but other factors will also come into the picture. At present an objective and realistic understanding is made almost impossible by emotional responses. The Russians and the Chinese are full of charges against ‘Western Imperialism’ and aggression and all that. The Americans and others can only think in terms of Communist aggression and villainy, of international communism trying to dominate over the world and so on. All this prevents intelligent thought. If we wish to discuss these matters helpfully, we must avoid certain terms which create powerful reactions in the mind, such as imperialists, communists and the like. I do not like Mr Kapur talking about Chinese communists, although they are communists. He should talk about the Chinese Government. In the same way, I do not like people talking about the Iron Curtain. The mere mention of these words confuses thought and shows that we are not considering a matter objectively.

5- Of course, both the Soviet Union and China are expansive. They are expansive for evils other than communism, although communism may be made a tool for the purpose. Chinese expansionism has been evident during various periods of Asian history for a thousand years or so. We arc perhaps facing a new period of such expansionism. Let us consider that and fashion our policy to prevent it coming in the way of our interests or other interests that we consider important.

6-I can quite understand that many people in Tibet have been disappointed at the agreement between us in China over Tibet. This must be partly because of the colour put on it by the Chinese in Tibet. That agreement, however, was quite inevitable. It was a recognition of a certain factual situation which we could not possibly change. We have, in fact, at least got some advantage out of that agreement in other respects. If we had not had that agreement, the position would have been no better for us in Tibet and a little worse for the Tibetans. It certainly would have been worse for us from a wider point of view.

7- We must remember that our so-called interests in Tibet derive largely from our inheriting certain British interests to which they succeeded in establishing in the days of British expansionism. We became the inheritors of British imperialism to a slight extent. We were popular with the ruling classes of Tibet at this stage because they thought we would come in the way of Chinese expansionism. We could not do so in Tibet and we could not possibly hang on to privileges which had no meaning in the present state of affairs.

8- Mr Kapur says something about our not throwing cold water on various movements in Tibet against the Chinese though we should not associate ourselves with them, that we should allow them to simmer and not die out. Let us be clear about this. Whatever happens in Tibet proper is beyond our reach. We can neither help nor hinder it. The question is what we do in our own territory. Do we encourage this or not? It is clear that we cannot encourage it. Al best we can tolerate it, provided it is not too obvious or aggressive. A very delicate balance will have to be kept up.

9- Kalimpong is and has been a nest of intrigues and spies. It is not only a centre of Tibetan émigrés, but also of Communists (Chinese). Also of Americans, White Russians and many others. We tolerate all these persons and we can tolerate also the Tibetans of various kinds and views. But if any of these indulge in aggressive activities which might lead to violence, then obviously we cannot tolerate them. I am sure that the Tibetan émigrés in Kalimpong, etc, are in close touch with the Americans, White Russians, etc, and are being encouraged by them with money and in other ways. In fact, I heard that there was a question of their collecting arms also. All this seems to me childish and totally unrealistic.

10- Even one of the major and much advertised efforts of the Americans to bring down the People's Government of China through Formosa is now recognised to be futile. Is it then in the slightest degree conceivable that some petty violent effort organised by Tibetans and others on our border would produce results in Tibet? This can only be thought of in terms of some aggressive Americans as a diversion from their larger world policy or in case a big war occurs. From the Tibetan point of view, it can only prove harmful. There is not the least chance in the world of China leaving Tibet or being driven out of Tibet unless China is defeated in war. Of that there appears to be no chance. Therefore, these adventurous tactics beyond the borders of Tibet have no meaning and call only embarrass and prove harmful. We need not come in the way if they are peaceful and unobtrusive but I quite agree with SG [Secretary General] that we should explain our policy and the world situation to the people from Tibet so that they may not misunderstand us. It is clear that if they indulge in any aggressive action and the Chinese Government complains to us, we shall have no alternative left but to take some steps against them, at any rate to curb them. We shall certainly not hand them over to the Chinese State, because they have a right of asylum in our country and we can give them the fullest assurance about this. At the same time we cannot permit our territory to be used as a base of operations against the Chinese.

11- The real argument in favour of Tibetan freedom or autonomy is the nature of the country. It is most inhospitable to others, it cannot maintain large numbers of foreigners and the like. If the Tibetans are stout enough to keep up a spirit of freedom, they will maintain a large measure of autonomy and the Chinese will not interfere. If the Tibetans actively rebel, they will be ruthlessly put down by the Chinese and even their autonomy will go. They are between the Soviet Union and China and one or other of these two Powers will have a dominating political influence there. We in India cannot exercise it for geographical as well as other reasons. As a friendly Power to China we can be helpful occasionally hi the diplomatic field.

12- The brother of the Dalai Lama [Gyalo Thondup], whom I met some years ago, is obviously connected with various under-ground activities. Some time back we warned our officers not to get entangled in them. That warning should be given again. That does not mean that we should be unfriendly to him. It simply means that we should be friendly and frank and should explain the limitations of the position.

13- We must remember that Tibet has been cut off from the world for a long time and, socially speaking, is very backward and feudal. Changes are bound to come there to the disadvantage of the small ruling class and the big monasteries. Religion may continue to be a powerful force to hold the Tibetans together, but social forces are also powerful. Thus far the Chinese have been careful not to interfere with social customs, religion, etc.
So far as I know, they have not even interfered with the land system which is feudal. I can very well understand these feudal chiefs being annoyed with the new order. We can hardly stand up as defenders of feudalism.

14- I want to make one thing perfectly clear, and this should be made clear to the Tibetans who are in India, that there is no question of our handing them over to the Chinese. They have every right to live in India or to seek asylum in India and we shall respect that.

15- As regards the Tibetan Mission in Kalimpong, we need not take any step about it and so far as we are concerned, they can continue for the present, but I rather doubt If they will be allowed to continue by the Chinese authorities. We must make sure, however, that the Tibetan Mission, as the Joint Secretary says, is not used as a cover for something else.

16- As regards the Dalai Lama's treasure which is now in Gangtok, I do not see the point of transferring it to Calcutta or elsewhere. First of all we have no direct knowledge of the Dalai Lama's wishes. Secondly, so long as it is in India, it does not much matter whether it is in Gangtok or in Calcutta. It is under our control. If adequate guards are not there, we should make arrangements for proper protection. Any attempt to move it will probably get some kind of publicity. It Is far better to allow this matter to lie low. If at any time the Chinese claim it, then we shall have to consider what we should do about it. For the present, our view should he that it is a private treasure of the Dalai Lama and it is for the Dalai Lama to dispose of it.

17- Our policy thus should be an observance, in letter and spirit of our agreement with China in regard to Tibet, at the same time we continue our friendly feelings for Tibet and her people and make it clear that our traditional friendship with them continues. This, however, cannot lead us to any course of action which is against our agreement with China and which we think will be harmful even to Tibet and her people. For the rest, we have to be vigilant and wide awake.

18- SG suggests a holiday camp for soldiers at Kalimpong. This is not a bad idea and it might be investigated.

19- Our general position as contained in this note should be explained to Mr Kapur.

20- Mr Mullik [Bhota Nath Mullik, Director, Intelligence Bureau between 1950 and 1964], should also be made to understand it. I shall be seeing him also. We have to be very careful about our activities in Kalimpong because of the espionage and counter-espionage that is continually going on there.

The Beauties of Sikkim

My article The Beauties of Sikkim appeared in Rediff.com

Here is the link...

'The Himalayan people may not represent a large or politically influential section of the population, but India's security depends on them.'
'Let us hope Sikkim remains a beacon of stability,' says Claude Arpi after a recent visit to the picturesque north eastern state.

A hundred years ago, a young French lady described thus her visit to North Sikkim: “Perched on a mountain slope, a humble monastery dominates the villagers dwellings. I visited it the day after my arrival, but finding nothing of interest in the temple, I was about to leave when a shadow darkened the luminous space of the wide-open door: a lama stood on the threshold.”
The narration continued: “I say ‘a lama’, but the man did not wear the regular monastic garb, neither was he dressed as a layman. His costume consisted of a white skirt down to his feet, a garnet-coloured waistcoat, Chinese in shape, and through the wide armholes, the voluminous sleeves of a yellow shirt were seen. A rosary made of some grey substance and coral beads hung around his neck, his pierced ears were adorned with large gold rings studded with turquoises and his long, thick, braided hair touched his heels.”
The lady was the famous French explorer Alexandra David-Neel, who would make Tibet and Buddhism known to the world through her tens of millions of books sold and enumerable lectures all over the world.
When she wrote the above lines, she had just met her future guru, the Gomchen of Lachen: “This strange person looked at me without speaking, and as at that time I knew but little of the Tibetan language, I did not dare to begin a conversation. I only saluted him and went out.”
When she returned to the travellers' bungalow, she asked: “Who was this lama?” One of her attendants told her: “He is a great gomchen (great meditator). He has spent years alone, in a cave high up in the mountains. Demons obey him and he works miracles. They say he can kill men at a distance and fly through the air.”
A couple of years after this encounter, she decided to live for three years (between 1913 and 1916) in total seclusion at an altitude above 10,000 feet to learn the esoteric form of Buddhism practiced in Tibet and the Himalaya.
The French lady, a few years later would be the first foreign woman to reach Lhasa. The next 50 years of her life would be consecrated to tell the world, particularly in her best seller, With Mystics and Magicians in Tibet, what she learnt from the Gomchen of Lachen.
A century later, the ‘magic’ encountered by Alexandra continues to permeate the mountainous State and the small village.

The Beauties of North Sikkim
Her three-year tough apprenticeship was in my mind when I arrived in Sikkim; for me, a visit to North Sikkim was a must.
The two main villages are Lachung and Lachen.
Lachung, the ‘small pass’ is in fact higher in altitude than Lachen (2,900m asl vs 2,750m); it is a large and prosperous village.
If one continues (the next day) to the north is Yumthang, the ‘Valley of Flowers’, with its myriad rhododendrons of different colours and beyond at ‘Zero Point’, one experiences the snow-covered Tibetan plateau at some 15,300 feet.
Further north is a ‘restricted’ area under the control of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police and the Army. Incidentally, it is the only area where the boundary with China is emborned with a series of cairns (it is unfortunately not the case in Southern Sikkim, an area which witnessed a stand-off for 73-days with China last year).
In order to preserve the pristine natural beauty of these northern reaches, plastic bottles, if you are caught with a bottle of mineral water, there is a fine of Rs 2,000.
Lachen, the ‘big pass’, though built in an extremely narrow valley has developed at a fast pace during the recent years.
I could not visit the Gomchen’s cave due to the bad road between Lachen and the village of Thangdu where his abode was located. Hopefully this will be remedied soon.
Towards the north is the lake of Gurudongmar.
Legend say that Guru Rinpoche (also known as Guru Padmasambhava) dwelt in seven sacred and hidden lands; most of these places are in Tibet and Bhutan, but locals believe that Guru Rinpoche visited Sikkim in the 8th century, he then blessed this often-frozen lake near the Tibetan border, which became ‘Gurudongmar Tso’, the ‘lake of the red-face Guru’.
Some say that the Great Guru manifested at the lake in the form of Gurudongmar or Gurudrakpo, one of the main aspects that the tantric master to establish Buddhism in Tibet and the Himalayan region. Gurudramar, the red-face deity of Guru Rinpoche, is one of the main protecting deities of several important monasteries in Sikkim, including in Lachen and Pemayangtse; in the 13th century, the ancestors of Sikkim’s ruling Namgyal dynasty were instructed by the deity to go southwards to ‘Payul Demjong’, the ‘hidden valley of grains’, as Sikkim was traditionally known. A visit to Gurudongmar, three hours from Lachen by road is a must.

A stable state
Something else touched me when I reached Gangtok: Sikkim is clean and the environment is well-protected. This is particularly striking when one comes from a State where plastic and garbage litters each and every public place; it is a truly refreshing experience to see clean forests, streams and villages.
Driving in from West Bengal, Sikkim seems the paradise.
Sikkim is indeed a stable and prosperous State; the fact that the charismatic Chief Minister Pawan Chamling has recently become the longest serving Indian Chief Minister, is a clear sign of the continuity. Sikkim is also the first Organic State in India, showing the way to other smaller progressive States.
At a time this State is so crucial to India’s security, it remains a trend setter and a model. India can’t afford to have insecure and ‘unhappy’ borders, when the northern neighbour is always ready to change the status quo.
Another welcome change is the forthcoming disenclavement of the State. A couple of weeks ago, the Pakyong Airport formally obtained a license to operate commercial flights, thus enabling Sikkim to be connected with the rest of the country by air. Union Aviation Minister Suresh Prabhu tweeted: "The Pakyong Airport at Sikkim got a license today for scheduled operations. It's an engineering marvel at a height of more than 4,500 ft in a tough terrain.”
The need of the hour is the strengthening of the Indian Himalayan border States; the issue has even become more urgent after the Doklam episode.
Sikkim could be a role model for other States.

Nathu-la, the border with China
Another must visit is Nathu-la, the border pass between India and China; it is a special place for many reasons. Several times a year, it witnesses BPMs (Border Personnel Meetings) between the Indian and Chinese Army in a ‘hut’ built for the purpose. It symbolizes the decision taken at the highest level of the Indian and Chinese States to solve the border issues around a table.
Nathu-la is also the entry point for the Kailash Yatra organized every year by the Ministry of External Affairs (it was unfortunately cancelled in 2017 due the Doklam episode). Several batches of Indian pilgrims will go again on pilgrimage to the Holy Mountain this year.
Nathu-la is also one point where the Sikkimese and Tibetan traders meet during several months. Pre-Doklam, the border exchanges had reached a peak; more than 80 crores for the financial year; it is hoped that business will reach new heights in 2018.
Traditionally (till 1962), it is via Nathu-la (and also Jelep-la further south) that most of the trade with Tibet was conducted.
A strange episode came back to mind: in the early 1950s. India started feeding the Chinese troops who had just started occupying the plateau. John Lall, a former Diwan of Sikkim was posted in Gangtok when the supply of rice took place; he could witness the long caravan of mules leaving in the direction of Nathu-la.
Lall remembered: “This could, and indeed should, have been made the occasion for a settlement of the major problems with China as a prelude to the altogether unprecedented help requested from the Government of India. It simply did not occur to anyone in Delhi, and which caution as I advised was brushed aside. “
The mules of yesterday have been replaced by the long convoy of Indian tourists wanting selfies near the BPM hut.

Empowering the local populations
Ultimately, Sikkim needs to remain stable’.
One possibility is ‘development’, particularly eco-tourism which can bring rich dividends. But it is probably not enough. It is also necessary to empower the local populations.
China has recently decided to ‘empower’ the Tibetan populations living on the border; Xi Jinping’s ‘border’ doctrine is: "govern the nation by governing the borders, govern the borders by first stabilizing Tibet, ensure social harmony and stability in Tibet, and strengthen the development of border regions.”
China tries to kill two birds at the same time; it uses border tourism as a way to tackle poverty ...and to protect the country’s borders (by buying the local population over to China's side).
With the fast developments taking place on India’s borders and the arrival of a railway line in Yatung in Chumbi Valley, the pressure is going to greatly increase for the local population to remain steadfast.
The Himalayan people may not represent a large or politically influential section of the population, but India’s security depends on them.
Let us hope that Sikkim can remain a beacon of stability and cleanliness.
Incidentally, there is hardly any crime against women in Sikkim, another sign of a progressive society.

Importance of Sikkim as a border State

Magnificent Kanchenjunga

My article Importance of Sikkim as a border State appeared in the Edit Page of The Pioneer

Here is the link...

The Himalayan people may not represent a large or politically influential section of the population, but India’s security depends on them. It is, therefore, essential to empower local residents

Sikkim is a special State and this for many reasons. First, Denjong or the Valley of Rice, as Sikkim is traditionally known, is today a stable and prosperous State; the fact that the charismatic Chief Minister Pawan Kumar Chamling has recently become the longest serving Indian Chief Minister, is a clear sign of the continuity. Sikkim is also the first organic State in India, showing the way to other smaller progressive States.
At a time this State is so crucial to India’s security, it remains a trend-setter and a model. India can’t afford to have unsecure and ‘unhappy’ borders, when the northern neighbour is always ready to change the status quo.
Another welcome change is the forthcoming disenclavement of the State. Last week, the Pakyong Airport formally obtained a license to operate commercial flights, thus enabling Sikkim to be connected with the rest of the country by air. Union Aviation Minister Suresh Prabhu tweeted: “The Pakyong Airport at Sikkim got a license today for scheduled operations. It’s an engineering marvel at a height of more than 4,500 ft in a tough terrain.”
The need of the hour is the strengthening of the Indian Himalayan border States; the issue has even become more urgent after the Doklam episode. How to do that?
One possibility is ‘development’, particularly eco-tourism, which can bring rich dividends. But it is probably not enough. It is also necessary to empower the local populations.
One issue which has not been understood properly in India is why the Chinese decided to call for a cease-fire hardly a month after their first attack on India in October 1962. The internal struggle within the Chinese Communist Party between 1959 and 1962 can’t be overlooked, but the Tibet factor gives the rationale why China suddenly decided to put a halt to its advance at a time it was winning on all fronts. The obvious reason was not the winter, but the political instability on the Tibetan plateau.
During a speech at the summer station of Beidaihe in August 1962, Mao delivered a diatribe against the 10th Panchen Lama, who in a 70,000-character petition, had described the unstable situation in Tibet due to harsh communist actions. The young Lama, who had been made Chairman of the Preparatory Committee for the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) after the Dalai Lama left for India, had dared to criticise the policies of the party in Tibet.
The Tibetan instability greatly influenced the smooth running of the supply lines to the Indian front; it became a major issue impeding longer military operations against India as discontent was brewing on the Roof of the World.
The petition was sent by the Panchen Lama to Zhou Enlai and Xi Zhongxun (President Xi Jinping’s father) in April 1962. The Chinese Premier requested Xi Senior to read and study the Panchen Lama’s petition. For his courage, the Panchen Lama spent 14 years in jail.
It is probably why China has recently decided to ‘empower’ its Himalayan populations; Xi Jinping’s doctrine is known to all: “Govern the nation by governing the borders, govern the borders by first stabilizing Tibet, ensure social harmony and stability in Tibet, and strengthen the development of border regions.”
The official top priority is a poverty alleviation campaign in Tibet “to make the border villages prosperous and well-off.”
Beijing has, however, a second objective that is to build-up the border defenses against India.
China kills two birds at the same time; tourism is the best way to tackle poverty ...and to protect the country’s borders (by buying the local population over to China’s side).
Recently, Che Dalha (alias Qizhala), the head of the TAR Government, visited Zhayul, north of the McMahon line in the Lohit Valley. Walong, which witnessed the famous battle in November 1962, is located some 50 km south in the same valley; there, the 11 Infantry Brigade and in particular the 6 Kumaon of the Indian Army managed to stop the Chinese advances; they had to pay a high price for it …so did the Chinese.
While inspecting a Hero Memorial Park, he told the villagers that the masses should deeply cherish the memory of the Chinese soldiers who died in 1962 as well as the ‘heroes’ who fought the Tibetan resistance in the late 1950s the revolutionary martyrs.
But China does not only pay homage to its martyrs, it fast-track builds tens of ‘model’ villages along the border in order to literarily bring lakhs of tourists, at a time India lives under an antiquated Inner Line Permit system.
India needs to satisfy the basic aspirations of the local population and give them the freedom to develop according to their own genius. This is something China may be unable to do.
In connection with the local population’s aspiration, an important Summit was recently held in Gangtok. Though Sikkim is today stable, large sections of the society feel that they have been victim to historical injustices in the past.
After the merger in 1975, some communities were excluded from the tribal status. The Summit demanded that all communities having a Sikkim Subject’s Card should be given ‘tribal’ status and the State be declared a tribal State, like other North-Eastern States where only the tribals occupy the Assembly seats and governance is kept in the hands of indigenous people.
The two-day summit was organised by the EIECOS (Eleven indigenous ethnic communities of Sikkim), a formerly registered association, the Sikkim Commission for Backward Classes and the Social Justice Empowerment and Welfare Department.
Three years after the State joined India in a quasi-unanimous referendum, some communities were unfortunately left out when Scheduled Tribe recognition was granted to others.
According to IANS, during the Summit, Pawan Chamling made “a strong pitch for granting of Scheduled Tribe status …an issue which has been lying unresolved for over 40 years.”
While inaugurating the Sikkim Summit for Tribal Status 2018, Chamling said: “We embraced India as a country on the condition of never compromising our uniqueness as Sikkimese people protected by the Indian Constitution.”
With fast developments taking place on India’s borders and the arrival of a railway line in Yatung in Chumbi Valley, the pressure is going to greatly increase for the local population to remain steadfast, a small gesture such as granting Tribal status to Sikkim, would go a long way to make the people of Sikkim ‘happier’ and, therefore, more prepared to support the defence of India’s borders. This is also valid for other Himalayan States which too have their long-pending demands, which are often ignored by Big Brother in Delhi. It is true for Ladakh, for Arunachal Pradesh, but for Himachal and Uttarakhand too.
The Himalayan people may not represent a large or politically influential section of the population, but India’s security depends on them.

So, who has a Cold War mindset?

Chinese map of Sikkim showing the trijunction at Batang La
It is what the joint Survey of 1956 had confirmed

My article So, who has a Cold War mindset? appeared on Thursday in the Edit Page of The Pioneer

Here is the link...

It is ironical that while it is the Middle Kingdom which is getting ready for another stand-off, it loudly objects to New Delhi protecting its side of the border

China has difficulties to digest the Doklam episode for which Beijing (or at least the People's Liberation Army) was fully responsible. Senior Colonel Wu Qian, spokesperson of the Ministry of Nation Defense (MND), in his regular monthly Press conference spoke in a derogatory manner: “I have noticed many China-related remarks made by this Indian general lately.” ‘This general’ is the Chief of Army Staff, General Bipin Rawat, who had just said India needed to shift its focus to the northern border. A logical and normal statement after last year’s confrontation at the tri-junction between Sikkim, Tibet and Bhutan?
Col Wu continued: “I would like to stress that Donglang [Doklam] is China’s territory and the remarks from the Indian side also shows that illegal border crossing of the Indian troops is a clear fact. We hope that the Indian side will draw lessons from the incident.”He also spoke of India’s ‘Cold War mentality’.
A look at the facts: In 2012, the Governments of India and China had reached an agreement that the location of the tri-junction would be finalised in consultation with the concerned countries. On June 30, 2017, the Ministry of External Affairs issued a statement: “Any attempt, therefore, to unilaterally determine tri-junction points is in violation of this understanding.” The finalisation of the boundary was to take place during the Special Representatives’ talks.
In June-July 1956, a tour of the Sikkim-Bhutan-Tibet frontier from the tri-junction area was conducted by the Ministry of External Affairs, the Survey of India, along with Bhutanese officials. The location of the boundary was reconfirmed on the watershed principle, but also on the basis of the reports of the local inhabitants: “The Bhutan-Tibet frontier starts in the vicinity of Batang La and runs along the La Hen Chum ridge via Sinchu La and then along the Amo Chu upto Chilim Chon.” The description continues till the Chomo Lhari, in North-West Bhutan.
Interestingly, the factors which weighed in favour of the confirmation of this boundary were, firstly, “[in] the west of Amo Chu, the published Chinese maps themselves appeared to include the Doklam pastures (south of Batang La and Sinchu La line) in Bhutan; and secondly, the east of Amo Chu, the Bhutanese had strong claims over the pastures of the Langmarpo valley (south of Tendji ridge).”
Why did China need to suddenly change the status quo and start building a road on the Bhutanese territory?
It was apparently the initiative of a Chinese General, with the knowledge of President Xi Jinping (who was probably not briefed on the details of the operation and its implications).
In an informed piece, The Indian Express recently questioned: “Who in the Chinese hierarchy ordered the extension of the track in Dolam from the point it had been constructed up to in 2003, to the Jampheri ridge?”
According to the newspaper, the road construction was ordered by General Zhao Zongqi, commander of the Western Theatre Command facing India; Zhao had, for two decades, served in Tibet.
The Indian Express said: “Even before the face-off in Doklam, Chinese border troops had been telling Indian soldiers in daily interactions at multiple points on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) that General Zhao had walked each of these tracks with military patrols over 20 years, and had been rarely confronted by the Indians. As the Indian deployment has increased over the past decade, General Zhao is unwilling to accept the challenge to Chinese claims. Not only in Doklam, but also at other places on the LAC.”
It might partly be speculation, but there is no doubt today about the involvement of General Zhao, who probably had forgotten to read the agreement arrived at by the Indian and Chinese diplomats in 2012 about the status quo at the tri-junction. Amongst other things, it shows that China does not always speak with one voice.
While the PLA talks of a Cold War mindset, pointing a finger at India, China is not ready to restart the usual Border Personnel Meetings (BPM) along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). Only two BPMs took place on the occasion of the Republic Day, both in Ladakh region (in DBO and Chushul area). Why was no BPM held in Bumla, Kibithu in Arunachal and Nathu-la in Sikkim?
Why has the Indian drone, which accidentally fell in the Chumbi Valley, not yet been returned? Why has information on the flow of the Sutlej and Pareechu rivers in Himachal and the Yarlung Tsangpo/Brahmaputra still not been shared with India?
The Central Water Commission recently raised serious concerns over the Pareechu and even sought the Ministry of External Affair’s help: “We wrote to the Ministry. China stopped sharing information about the tributary’s flow last year. They said that the water monitoring site across the border is damaged,” AK Gupta, the Commission’s regional director told The Hindustan Times.
On New Year’s Eve, President Xi Jinping delivered an 11-minute televised speech to extend his greetings to all Chinese and… friends all over the world. Xi said that Beijing is dedicated to safeguarding peace. “China will act as a builder of world peace, a contributor to global development and an upholder of the international order.”
Will this translate in peace on the border in 2018? Probably not! Soon after, the PLA intruded in Tuting sector of the Siang Valley of Arunachal Pradesh. The irony is that while China itself is getting ready for another standoff, Beijing loudly objects to Delhi protecting its side of the border.
The China Daily recently reported: “Investment in infrastructure in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) is helping to lift 628 villages along the border out of poverty.” The Chinese newspaper further asserted: “After getting access to electricity and the construction of new roads, tea farmers and herdsmen in a village some 200 kilometres southwest of Lhasa in Tsona county founded a cooperative that provides skill training and job opportunities for villagers.”
Lepo, the first Tibetan village north on the McMahon Line in the Tawang sector, is said to have received several thousands of visitors last year and to have adequate lodging facilities.
China also admitted: “Starting last year, more than 100 million yuan (Rs 99.4 crore) has been invested in infrastructure in villages of less than 100 families as a part of a broader construction project to build model villages in the border area.”
There are many such examples on the Tibetan side of the McMahon Line.
In the meantime, it is refreshing that the new Indian Ambassador in China, Gautam Bambawale told The Global Times: Our interaction must be based on equality and mutual benefit. Also, in the India-China border areas, especially at some sensitive points, it is important not to change the status quo. We need to be clear about this.”
It is indeed China which did not respect its engagements. Year 2018 may not be serene despite the peaceful vows of President Xi.

The Middle Kingdom’s strategic miscalculation

My article The Middle Kingdom’s strategic miscalculation appeared yesterday in the Edit page of The Pioneer.

Here is the link...

Though one can only rejoice about the disengagement in Doklam, one should not forget issues that are extremely disturbing: It is China's non-respect of agreements and international rules
On August 28, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) issued a statement: The Doklam confrontation was over, both the Indian and Chinese troops had agreed to withdraw. Later in the afternoon, the MEA clarified further: “India has always maintained that it is only through diplomatic channels that differences on such matters can be addressed. Our principled position is that agreements and understandings reached on boundary issues must be scrupulously respected.”
This was a reference to the 2012 agreement between India and China to not change the status quo. Delhi explained once more its position: “India’s policy remains guided by the belief that peace and tranquility in the border areas is an essential pre-requisite for further development of our bilateral relationship.”
Despite the agreement, Beijing’s propaganda continued. Answering a question fromPTI, on whether the disengagement is mutual, Hua Chunying, the Chinese spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, affirmed: “China will make adjustments based on actual situation.”
On whether the issue had amicably been settled, she answered: “The settlement of issue shows sincerity and attitude of China as major country; will continue develop friendly relations with India.” She, however, urged “India to earnestly abide by historical conventions and international law. … China will continue to uphold sovereignty and territorial integrity in accordance with historical conventions.”
Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, had told off Mao Zedong in 1959, “China can’t ever be wrong.” Nearly 60 years later, this has not changed. Many observers, however, feel that the important outcome is that the tension has been diffused. Though the shadow of a war has receded, there is no doubt that Bhutan is at the heart of China’s strategic miscalculation.
Beijing has never admitted (or accepted) that Thimphu could have a special relation with Delhi. This is not new. Soon after the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) entered Lhasa in September 1951, Beijing started threatening the Land of the Dragon. A recently declassified Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) report dating from February 1953 describes in detail how the Chinese tried to frighten the peaceful Buddhist kingdom. The CIA noted: “(during) the latter part of November 1952, the Chinese communists stationed some two thousand Sino-Tibetan troops along the northern border of Bhutan.”
The CIA continued: “These troops were stationed in groups, numbering approximately 200 each, in the various passes between Bhutan and Tibet, from the pass lying between the Haa Valley and Yatung as far east as the pass between Punakha and Tibet.”
A footnote explained the geographical position of the Chinese troops: “According to available maps, a route extends from Haa Dzong to Chumbi. (It) shows two routes from Punakha to Tibet, the more direct via Gasa Dzong, and a longer routevia Wangdu Phodrang and Byakar Dzong.”
Hardly a year after the PLA’s entry in Lhasa, the Chinese troops were already positioned to bully Bhutan; communist China could not accept the special relation India had with the Kingdom. The information received by the CIA is usually quite accurate; the latitude and longitude of the passes are even given: “Detachments were stationed in the passes between the Paro Valley (and Chumbi)” It speaks of roads from Paro Dzong extending west to Haa Dzong and thence to Chumbi, and east to Tashi Chho Dzong and Phari Dzong, and between Tashi Chho Dzong and the Dochen Plateau (north of Phari), as well as at intermediate passes.”
Note that Beijing was not as yet aware of the tri-junction where the present confrontation took place. The CIA noted that in the opinion of Bhutanese circles, “the disposition of these troops on the border was for the purpose of intimidating Bhutan, and not a preparation for the invasion of that country.”
The Royal Government reacted by sending a letter of protest to the Chinese while accelerating the training of Bhutanese soldiers.
As a result of the Chinese bullying, Bhutan became “actively engaged in training Bhutanese citizens in the art of modern warfare. Recruits are taught to handle and fire the British Lee-Enfield caliber .303 rifle and the British .45-caliber Sten gun. …By so trainings large percentage of the population, the Bhutanese hope eventually to have an Army modeled after the one in Switzerland.”
Another aspect of the Chinese ‘calculation’ in 1952/53, is provided by the CIA analysts: “It may also be anticipated by the Communists in Tibet that the presence of these troops along the border may influence the Bhutanese to export to Tibet more rice, butter, meat and other foodstuffs.” During the first months of Tibet’s occupation, the PLA was starving and Beijing badly needed India …and Bhutan to supply foodstuff (mainly rice) to the occupying forces.
One could say that it is a miracle that despite the tremendous pressure from the north, Bhutan has remained an independent nation, still striving for ‘happiness’. Sixty five years later, seeing that intimidation did not work, China stepped onto Bhutan’s territory while trying to make the world believe that it is India which ‘miscalculated’. Hopefully today, the Bhutanese are grateful to India to have come to their rescue.
Another issue remains extremely disturbing, it is China’s non-respect of agreements, international rules and normal behaviour, whether it is for the supply of data for the Sutlej or the Yarlung Tsangpo, the Kailash Yatra, the implementations of border agreements or in the South China Sea (SCS): For years, China vociferously screamed that from time immemorial the sea belonged to the Middle Kingdom. When the issue was examined by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague, it ruled differently.
The court said that China had no legal basis to claim any historic right to the natural resources in most of the areas of the SCS. It also ruled that such rights must not exceed what’s permitted by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Further, there was no evidence China had historically controlled the waters or its resources exclusively. The court maintained it had jurisdiction to consider historic rights and maritime entitlements.
The ruling was a terrible blow for the land (and sea) grabbing Middle Kingdom. Of course, this did not stop Beijing to continue with its claims and the reclamation of several islands.
An Indian scholar, Namrata Goswami, pointed out in The Diplomat: “China has strategically preferred to act in ways that go contrary to its signed commitments in the framework agreements. …why does China sign ‘guiding principles’ and ‘framework agreements’ with countries with which it has territorial disputes and then violates the commitment to the status quo enshrined therein? …the pattern in these three cases reflects China’s inability to meet its ‘framework agreement’ commitments, thereby throwing in doubt its seriousness as a reliable negotiator.”
Though one can only rejoice about the disengagement in Doklham, one should not forget these issues which remain alive. More than ever, India should be on its guard.

For the CIA Batang La is the Trijunction

Enlargement of the CIA map below (1965)

Yesterday the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs' spokesperson Hua Chunying continued to rant about India's presence in Bhutan near the trijunction Tibet-Sikkim-Bhutan. Commenting on Home Minister Rajnath Singh's declaration that a solution to the standoff in Western Bhutan was in view, she said:"We hope that India can match its words with actions and immediately withdraw its troops and equipment that have encroached into Chinese territory."
She was speaking of an area which is Bhutanese territory.
But this did not stop Hua to reiterate that India should withdraw its troops: “the prerequisite and basis for resolving the incident is that India immediately and unconditionally withdraws its trespassing border troops and equipment to the Indian side of the boundary.”
She accused the Indian troops of having “illegally crossed the delimited boundary which has been recognized and abided by for nearly 130 years by both China and India. …The Dong Lang (Doklam) area is undisputed Chinese territory, noting that India's intrusion into Chinese territory under the pretext of China's road building lacks legal grounds and India's arguments are simply untenable,” said Hua who concluded: “if China feels that India's infrastructure construction in border areas threatens Chinese security, China can openly send troops to Indian territory to stop it.”
She further warned that if India's absurd logic is tolerated, international norms will be undermined.
High-pitched rhetoric is only to hide the fact that Beijing blundered in trying to unilaterally change the status quo and put Bhutan and India in front of a fait-accompli.
The area is not Chinese and has never been Chinese territory.
For decades Bhutan and India have patrolled this area (see my article The Truth from the Dragon's Mouth).
Interestingly, a map published by the CIA in 1965 shows clearly the reality the situation on the ground: Batang La is the trijunction.
The report which contained the map was released by the US agency in 2003. China never protested.