What went unsaid between Modi and Xi

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

Here is the link...

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

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

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

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

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

China’s weak spot

My article China’s weak spot appeared in the Edit Page of The Pioneer.


Here is the link...

The nation is mighty but also fragile because it has not been able to take the masses and the world along. Xi’s dream of a new era will remain if people are not granted some freedoms

China is a mighty country. We have seen it on October 1 on Tiananmen Square.
On the occasion of the 70th Anniversary of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), President Xi Jinping was on the same wavelength as his predecessor Mao Zedong 70 years ago, when he announced the foundation of the PRC; the morale of the parade was ‘power comes from the barrel of the gun’: “No force can ever undermine China's status, or stop the Chinese people and nation from marching forward,” said President Xi Jinping from the rostrum of Tiananmen Square.
Xi reminded that those who watched the function that “seventy years ago, Comrade Mao Zedong solemnly declared to the world that the PRC was founded and the Chinese people had stood up. This great event completely reversed China's miserable fate born from poverty and weakness and being bullied and humiliated."
The Chinese State media was ecstatic as “China had reaffirmed its commitment to global peace and development”, and added: “we will continue to work with people from all countries to push for jointly building a community with a shared future for humanity.”
Many doubted as they watched in awe the DF-17 hypersonic ballistic missile (a hypersonic glide vehicle that can deliver both nuclear and conventional payloads) or the new-generation road-mobile DF-41, which made their debut in an official parade.
Some 15,000 troops from 59 units, 47 belonging to the ground forces and a dozen airborne squadrons, participated in the display. Xi inspected 580 new weapon systems, almost all of them were ‘made in China’, proving that Beijing’s military industry is truly becoming self-sufficient. It is a lesson that India has hopefully noted a few days before the visit of the Chinese President in Mahabalipuram.
However a backlash to China’s might has started to manifest.
A few days before the parade in Beijing, a telling incident took place in France; it showed that it is not only China’s neighbours and the United States which have difficulties to accept China’s so-called peaceful rise.
It looked innocuous but at the start of French Ligue One’s football match between Olympique Lyonnais (OL) and Nantes, an entire wing of the Gerland stadium in Lyon displayed a tifo, a gigantic graphic display organized by thousands (or tifosis).
A Tibetan flag? Why? Simply because China is the club’s second shareholder and the OL management had decided to rescheduled the match to 13:30 hrs …for a broadcast in China (matches usually take place at 17:30 or 21:00 hrs). China is simply mighty.
The supporters, known as the ‘Bad Gones’ (‘Gones’ is the OL supporters’ nickname) wrote on their Facebook page: “At the kick-off, we deployed a tifo representing the Tibetan flag accompanied by a Free Tibet banner. Beyond the crypto-politic aspect of this tifo, our objective was to remind everyone that the spectators and supporters are also actors of the match and respect is due to them, as much as to a few hundred thousand viewers at the other end of the planet.” The message to Beijing continued: “these Tibetan flags can piss off the League and its new shareholders which are under the control of the Chinese State, but we will be delighted to renew the experience…”
It is perhaps a sign of what the Financial Review calls a dangerous decade ahead ‘as China's rise falters’: “Economists, defence planners and security strategists have begun testing the consensus around China's inevitable rise and have come up with some surprising predictions.”
ANI said it in different words: “China exhibits Cold War mentality with huge military parade”, adding: “China regularly likes to point the finger at the US for harbouring a ‘Cold War mentality’, but nothing speaks of militaristic ambitions and martial glory as a large military parade. And no military spectacle comes close to the size of the event held in Tiananmen Square on October 1.”
It is not only the Gaulish tribes which are revolting against the Chinese hegemonic mindset, in Hong Kong, lakhs of young people refused to slip under the yoke of Beijing. The former British colony has witnessed defiant protesters for several weeks; interestingly, the Hong Kongers took their campaign against Beijing to their Stadium, booing the Chinese national anthem before the city's soccer team lost to Iran in its first home qualifier for the 2022 World Cup.
The EU recently issued a statement: “The escalation of violence and continuing unrest in Hong Kong, including the use of live ammunition, resulting in critical injuries to at least one person, are deeply troubling. The European Union maintains its position that restraint, de-escalation and dialogue are the only way forward,” it further observed: “Fundamental freedoms, including the right of assembly of Hong Kongers must continue to be upheld and the possibility to hold peaceful demonstrations must be ensured. These rights must be exercised peacefully.”
It is clear that the World will not accept another Tiananmen massacre.
Though the regime in Beijing praised “Foreign officials and experts [who] applauded a speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping, as Beijing reaffirmed its commitment to world peace and development,” one can’t forget that Communism killed millions of its own citizens during the past 70 years.
A French book (‘The Black Book of Communism’) calculated that more than 94 million were killed by the different Communist governments around the world since 1917. The statistics of victims include deaths through executions, man-made hunger, famine, war, deportations and forced labour. In China alone, 65 millions died, while the Soviet Union accounted for 20 millions in Cambodia and North Korea for 2 million each. The list is long.
In the meantime, the propaganda machine of the Communist regime in Beijing works full steam. Beijing published a White Paper entitled ‘Seeking Happiness for People: 70 Years of Progress on Human Rights in China’.
One of the chapters is on the “Splendid History of China’s Human Rights Protection.”
The restive population of the Western Muslim province of Xinjiang or the Tibetans, whose religious freedom has been ruthlessly stifled, will tell you another story.
All this should be kept in mind when President Xi Jinping arrives in South India to ‘informally’ meet Prime Minister Modi; China is mighty and innovative, but China is fragile, simply because it is unable to take the masses and the world along. Xi’s Dream of a new era will remain a dream, as long as the Middle Kingdom does not allow a minimum freedom to its own people.

Kashmir is Indian. Is Tibet really Chinese?

Let the Tibetan and Chinese flags fly over Lhasa

My article Kashmir is Indian. Is Tibet really Chinese? appeared in the Edit Page of The Pioneer.

Here is the link...
 
Comrades in the Middle Kingdom must learn from their history and be prepared. New Delhi can be ‘neutral' but also side with the Tibetans, especially if Beijing continues to side with Pakistan’s terrorist activities
In April 2015, President Xi Jinping paid his first State visit to Pakistan.
The friendship between the two nations was ‘higher than mountains, deeper than oceans, sweeter than honey, and stronger than steel,” said the billboards in Chinese and English in Islamabad.
The Washington Post remarked: “Xi arrived in Islamabad bearing real gifts: an eye-popping $46 billion worth of planned energy and infrastructure investment to boost Pakistan's flagging economy.”
It sounded like a Chinese Dream for Islamabad!
Beijing had decided to open a China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which would link up Xi’s pet project, the two New Silks Roads (also known as ‘One Belt, One Road’); through the Karakoram Highway, the Chinese-sponsored port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea would connect to the Xinjiang province in China’s Far West and Central Asia …and later Middle East, Africa and Europe.
The ‘corridor’ would have railways, roads, optical fiber cables, dams (to produce the necessary electricity), pipelines!
Pakistan was China’s perfect docile ‘partner’; it was geographically ideally positioned with an access to the sea in the South and to Central Asia in the North.
It was of course before Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s August 15 speech. From the ramparts of the Red Fort, he asserted: “The people of Balochistan, the people of Gilgit, the people of POK have thanked me in such a manner, from places that I have never been and never had a chance to meet, they have sent wishes to the people of India and thanked us... I am grateful to them.”
During the previous weeks, Pakistan had been trying hard to bring the Kashmir issue on the world scene, by sponsoring an uprising in the Valley.
Now China realizes that their CPEC project might not go as smoothly as planned.
In less than a week, Beijing had twice to deny Islamabad’s claim that it backed Pakistan’s views on Kashmir. Beijing even asked India and Pakistan “to engage in dialogue to properly resolve disputes, including the Kashmir left over from history.”
The Pakistani press had earlier reported that Yu Boren, the Chinese Consul General in Lahore had said: “In case of any [foreign] aggression our country will extend its full support to Pakistan.” Yu had apparently stated that “the aspirations of the Kashmiris’ should be taken into account in resolving the Kashmir issue”.
Clearly, Beijing does not know how to react to the new situation.
Several Chinese experts claimed there was "no evidence to prove Pakistan is behind the Uri attack" and that “irrational decisions [from Delhi’s side] would complicate India's relations with Pakistan.”
When Home Minister Rajnath Singh announced that the 3,323 km Indo-Pakistan border would be completely sealed by December 2018, Hu Zhiyong, a scholar at the Institute of International Relations of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences told India Today: “[India’s] decision reflects its Cold War mentality, and would only cause deeper hatred among residents living in Indian and Pakistan-controlled Kashmir.”
In the meantime, Beijing remains opposed to India’s entry in the Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) and is not moving an inch towards supporting Delhi on the listing of Masood Azhar, the Jaish-e-Mohammed chief as a ‘terrorist’ in the UN.
In these circumstances, it would be good to remind China of the case of Tibet. While Beijing regularly threatens Delhi that if the activities of the Tibetan refugees are not roped in by Delhi, despite its declared ‘neutral’ stance, China itself fully sides with Pakistan on Kashmir.
Delhi could also be ‘neutral’ but side with the Tibetans.
In 2012, when Beijing began issuing stapled visas for Kashmir residents, China wanted to make a point: Beijing does not recognize J&K as an integral part of India. A visa was denied to Lt Gen BS Jaswal, Northern Command boss, to attend a preplanned defense meeting in Beijing. The Chinese Embassy stated that the General was serving in the ‘sensitive location of Jammu and Kashmir’ and ‘people from this part of the world come with a different kind of visa’.
If Beijing continues to play with the ‘Kashmir’ issue, Delhi could easily play the Tibet card.
Four years ago, BJP leader Yashwant Sinha stated during the Zero Hour in the Lok Sabha that China has been carrying out the 'grossest' violations of human rights in Tibet over the last 60 years. The former External Affairs Minister said that Tibetans were disturbed by "excessive use of military force, religious restrictions, disappearances and detentions, removal of nomads and degradation of ecological system in the region under Chinese rule."
Take Article 370 of the Indian Constitution; India could ask for a similar clause to be applied to Tibet; the Tibetan issue, according to the aspiration of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people, would be solved.
Article 370 mentions that except for Defence, Foreign Affairs, Finance and Communications, the Indian Parliament needs the State Government's concurrence for applying most of the other laws.
Today a citizen of J&K lives under a separate set of laws, including those related to citizenship, ownership of property, and fundamental rights.
When the Dalai Lama asks for 'genuine' autonomy for Tibet, he does not ask for more than that. Can you imagine Tibet with its own Constitution?
J&K has its own flag, Tibet had its own flag too.
Dharamsala would be delighted.
Further in J&K, Indian citizens from other States cannot purchase land or property, can you imagine the consequences of a similar clause for Tibet?
If people from Han nationality were not allowed to acquire properties on the Roof of the World or start business ventures in Lhasa or other large cities (in Nyingchi prefecture, north of the McMahon Line in particular), tensions and resentment would immediately diminish greatly.
People of J&K have their own 'citizenship' in the form of a State-subjectship with its own privileges; for example, a non-State-subject can't study in a university in Kashmir.
Imagine Tibet with its own Legislative Assembly or local Parliament (not a fake one as today in Tibet, but an elected one) …and federal laws from Beijing would have to be ratified by elected legislators in Lhasa!
One need to remember however that there are basic differences between Tibet and Kashmir. Tibet has for centuries managed its own affairs, Tibet was an independent State before 1950 with Representatives of India, Nepal, Bhutan and China operating from Lhasa.
Kashmir has always been part of the Indian subcontinent and Kashmiriyat remains an important aspect of Indian civilization. It is not the case of Tibet, where the language, script, religion and culture have their own identity, entirely different from the Chinese.
The comrades in Beijing should learn their history and be prepared for Delhi raising sooner or later the Tibetan issue, especially if Beijing continues to side with the terrorist activities of its ‘all-weather friend’.

President Xi Jinping Comes Calling-On

One of the most important event of the year 2014 has been the State visit of President Xi Jinping to India in September.
My article President Xi Jinping Comes Calling-On, published in The Indian Defense Review (Issue Vol. 29.4 Oct-Dec 2014), is reproduced below.
As I concluded, it was a mixed bag.

Here is the link to the web edition of the Indian Defence Review...

All started well when President Xi Jinping of China landed at the Sardar Vallabhbhai International Airport at Ahmedabad on September 17. He and Peng Liyuan, his beautiful wife (and renowned former Opera singer) had a taste of Modiland. They seemed to enjoy the dynamism and culture of Gujarat as well as its delicacies on the banks of a clean Sabarmati river.
Both India and China wanted to show the world that the two most populated countries of the planet can work together harmoniously. Modi Sarkar had done its homework by sending National Security Adviser, Ajit Doval to Beijing. After meeting President Xi, Doval told the Indian media that the bilateral relations were poised for an ‘orbital jump’. A good sound bite indeed!
The day he arrived, President Xi wrote an op-ed in The Hindu: “As the two engines of the Asian economy, we need to become cooperation partners spearheading growth. I believe that the combination of China’s energy plus India’s wisdom will release massive potential.”
The bar seemed to have been placed very high.

Was Ambassador Wei Wei sacked?
In Ahmedabad, everything went as scripted, though nobody noticed an extraordinary event which occurred a few days before the President’s arrival. Wei Wei, the Chinese Ambassador to India was suddenly transferred (or sacked?) and replaced by Le Yucheng from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
To replace the chief emissary a few days before his Head of State arrives for such a crucial visit must be a first in the annals of diplomatic history. What was behind this abrupt move? Although it may never be known, this happened at a time when speculations were rife about the fate of the Chinese Ambassador to Iceland who ‘disappeared’ somewhere in China. He was apparently too close to the Japanese. There is probably no link between the two but Wei Wei’s sudden ‘departure’ is rather strange.

The Border Issue
The second issue which did not go according to the planned programme was the sudden deterioration of the situation on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Chumar in Southern Ladakh. Differences in ‘perception’ about where the LAC lay were known to exist, particularly in this area but as Xi arrived in Ahmedabad, more than one thousand five hundred Chinese troops belonging to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the People’s Armed Police Force (PAPF) crossed the LAC and stood a few metres away from the Indian jawans. The situation has never been so tense for years. Why this show of force at a time Xi Jinping, who is also Chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC), was trying to instill trust in the bilateral relations? Was there a better way to sabotage the Presidential visit?
Selling the Chinese Dream
President Xi’s visit to India was the last leg of a four-nation journey. The visit to Pakistani was called off due to internal turmoil there. The Chumar intrusions were all the more surprising after Xi had gone around selling “The China Dream”.
He had announced the tenor of visit in his The Hindu op-ed, when he wrote, “As two important forces in a world that moves towards multi-polarity, we need to become global partners having strategic coordination. According to Prime Minister Modi, China and India are ‘two bodies, one spirit’. I appreciate this comment. Despite their distinctive features, the ‘Chinese Dragon’ and the ‘Indian Elephant’ both cherish peace, equity and justice. We need to work together to carry forward the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence (Panchsheel) and make the international order more fair and reasonable.” He concluded, “I look forward to an in-depth exchange of views with Indian leaders…and to injecting new vitality to our strategic and cooperative partnership for peace and prosperity.” It is also clear that President Xi was keen to sell the ‘China Dream’, an important component of which appears to be that China is a peaceful and reliable neighbour.
If this was the case, then why to blatantly cross the LAC on the second day of the visit? This has remained unexplained in the unfolding of the events. In Sri Lanka too, Xi spoke of “The Dream” and in an article in The Daily News, Xi affirmed, “Let Us Become Partners in Pursuit of Our Dreams.” In the recent months, whenever he got a chance, Xi spoke of “The Dream”. For example, at the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA), he said, “The Chinese people, in their pursuit of the Chinese dream of great national renewal, stand ready to support and help other people in Asia to realise their own great dreams.” So, why send 1,500 soldiers across the LAC in Southern Ladakh?

The Border Issue
Many observers said that Xi wanted to press some ‘acupuncture’ points on the border, to make his Indian interlocutors aware that the issue is still pending. The border issue is indeed not a new one, it is ‘left-over from history’, as Chinese leaders say. In The Hindu, President Xi had however asserted, “Progress has been made in the negotiations on the boundary question, and the two sides have worked together to maintain peace and tranquility in the border area.” It is true that there is a historical background.
In April 1960, the Chinese Premier Zhou En-lai had spent a week in Delhi to discuss with Prime Minister Nehru “certain differences relating to the border areas which have arisen.” The Joint Communique issued on April 26, 1960, had stated, “The two Prime Ministers had several long frank and friendly talks between themselves.”
It was decided that Chinese and Indian officials would “meet and examine, check and study all historical documents, records, accounts, maps and other material relevant to the boundary question, on which each side relied in support of its stand, and draw up a report for submission to the two Governments.” Five rounds of extensive discussions took place during the following months, with no progress. For the past 54 years, nothing seems to have changed, though as Xi arrived, the situation suddenly took a turn for the worse.

Did Something Go Wrong?
Last year, at the time of the Depsang incident, it was believed that Chinese intrusions could be due to the unfortunate initiatives of some local PLA commanders. I was then told, “It cannot be. PLA generals are a disciplined lot and Chairman Xi is fully in command.”
This time, the same thought again came to my mind. Were some very senior PLA generals unhappy about the thaw between India and China? Or perhaps disturbed about Xi’s fight against corruption? And does it mean that Xi Jinping, the Chairman of the CMC, does not have full control over his Generals? Is it possible that China was speaking with different voices?
An indication that everything may not be rosy for Xi is General Fan Changlong’s visit to Tibet. The General is the Senior Vice Chairman of the CMC and a Member of the Politburo of Communist Party of China. On August 17, The Tibet Daily carried an article saying that General Fan had come for an investigation tour to Qinghai and Tibet. The newspaper reported that Fan “emphasized that the entire army and the armed police must further implement the spirit of the series of important talks by Xi Jinping, must stick to the goal of strengthening the army in this new situation, concentrate on developing skills of war…”
However the main emphasis of his visit (only very briefly reported in the Chinese press in English) was that, “the entire army and the armed police must resolutely implement the strategic deployment by the Central Party and Xi Jinping, staunchly endorse the investigation of the case filed against Zhou Yongkang and the right decision made by the Central Party after carrying out investigation on Xu Caihou.”
Why come to Tibet, just to tell the officers posted on the Plateau to, “…be in unanimity with the Central Party in your thoughts and actions and obey the orders given by the Central Party and the CMC?” while opposing Zhou Yongkang.
The unusual part of the semi-clandestine visit was that Fan was accompanied by no less than three Military Region (MR) Commanders, Lt. General Liu Yuejun, Lanzhou MR, Lt. Gen. Zhao Zongqi, Jinan MR and General Li Shiming, Chengdu MR. What the Commander of Jinan MR was doing there is not clear, though having been earlier posted in Tibetan Military District, Zhao certainly understands the ground reality on the plateau. The point is that this trip to the “Roof of the World” was important enough to bring along three MR Commanders.
Fan admonished the officers posted in Tibet, “make full efforts to correct and control all the inappropriate activities around you, fight corruption, punish corruption severely, always maintain the characteristic, objective and the inherent quality of the people’s party. The leaders among the cadres must build the pillar of a strong ideological line and spread the glorious tradition of our party and our army.”
It means that there are probably senior followers of Zhou Yongkang in Tibet, and they may not be easy for Xi to control. Interestingly, Chinese media reports did not mention which units General Fan visited, how long he stayed in Tibet, where he went. The semi-clandestine visit could be another indication that something is not well in the Middle Kingdom.
A month earlier, China Military Online had reported that Xu Qiliang, the second CMC Vice Chairman had inspected some garrisons in Xinjiang and Tibet, “General Xu Qiliang visited the officers and men in frontier areas, and held talks with the leaders of the units garrisoning in Hotan [near the Aksai Chin], Ngari [near Demchok] and Lhasa areas,” said The Tibet Daily. Xu Qiliang also paid a visit to Shenxianwan (North of the Karakoram Pass and the Depsang Plains) at the altitude of 5,380 metres and the Khurnak Fort (opposite the Indian troops posted on the Panggong tso) where he inspected a squadron of speed boats and inquired “about the soldiers’ work, study and life.”
What is the significance of these visits? It is difficult to give a definitive answer, except that the seniormost Chinese generals are aware of the situation on the Indian front. For India, the question mainly revolves around the exchange of maps of the LAC. Coming out of the meeting with Xi, the Indian Prime Minister suggested, “…a clarification of LAC would greatly contribute to our efforts to maintain peace and tranquility. I have requested President Xi to resume the stalled process of clarifying the LAC.” Xi answered about finding an agreement on the border, but nothing about the LAC. It is telling.
 ‘Exchange of maps’ of the contentious LAC was also not mentioned in the Joint Statement and Xinhua just said that both sides “agreed to properly manage and control the border disputes between the two nations, maintain peace and security in the border regions, and find a solution at an early date.” This does not augur well for the future.

Meetings of the Chief of Staff
A couple of days after his return from India, President Xi Jinping met with the PLA’s Chiefs of Staff in Beijing. He stressed again the loyalty of the senior officers, “Headquarters of PLA forces must have absolute loyalty and firm faith in the Communist Party of China, guarantee a smooth chain of command and make sure all decisions from the central leadership are fully implemented”, he said. Since this came soon after the Delhi visit, the Indian press emphasized only his words about a regional war, “All PLA forces should improve their combat readiness and sharpen their ability to win a regional war in the age of information technology.” But this is not a new doctrine as it has been expounded in detail in successive White Papers published by the Chinese Ministry of Defence.
Perhaps more interesting is one of the latest statements, “Military commanders should have a better understanding of international and domestic security situations as well as the latest military development.” It signifies that some commanders needed to be briefed about the international situation and the relations with the neighbours. A statement issued by the Ministry also said, “All PLA forces should follow the instructions of President Xi and update their operations to meet new goals and missions set by the CMC.” Once again, does it mean that some officers do not follow the instructions of Chairman Xi? Could some commanders have taken initiatives on their own when their Supreme Commander was on a diplomatic trip? It is difficult to be affirmative but certainly a possibility to envisage.

Purging General Xu Caihou’s friends
And then the heads started rolling! On October 01 this year, The South China Morning Post reported that two generals close to General Xu Caihou – Major General Gao Guanghui and Major General Xu Yuanlin, “…have been moved from their posts, possibly for failing to pledge allegiance to Xi Jinping.” What does ‘fail to pledge allegiance’ signify?
It is difficult to say for certain but a Hong Kong paper elaborated, “The fate of two major generals linked to a high-ranking PLA officer under investigation for corruption is in doubt amidst a reshuffle of personnel that suggests that disloyal officers are being purged.” For us in India, the most interesting case is that of Major General Xu Yuanlin who was, till recently, posted in the political department of the Lanzhou Military Command (MR). Nobody seems to know his whereabouts. Just three months ago, he had succeeded Lt. Gen. Fan Changmi as Head of Ideological Education for Lanzhou MR.
On conditions of anonymity, a retired PLA Colonel told The South China Morning Post that for Xu and Gao had been forced in to retirement to assist the investigation of Xu Caihou or they may be undergoing shuanggui themselves, as many senior officers promoted by Xu Caihou. Shuanggui is an internal disciplinary process for party members suspected of corruption.
The same Colonel stated, “But I don’t think all senior military officials promoted during Xu’s era will be kicked out. Some were elevated on account of their personal capabilities but I think Xu and Gao were purged for refusing to show allegiance to President Xi Jinping.”
Another possibility is that the leadership has decided to “kill a few chickens to scare some monkeys.” It is a well-known strategy leaders go after ‘lower’ cadres/officers in order to control more powerful leaders. In this case, the monkey is probably Zhou Yongkang, the former security czar and previously member of the Standing Committee of the Politburo.

Promotions and Demotions
In the meantime, China is slowly but surely tightening her grip on Tibet. The latest sign is the ‘elevation’ of the status of the Political Commissar of the Tibet Armed Police. On October 07, The Global Times announced, “China’s Central Military Commission upgraded the political status of the Political Commissar of the Armed Police Corps of the Tibet Autonomous Region, indicating the central government’s determination to safeguard regional stability.”
Major General Tang Xiao, the Political Commissar of the Tibet Armed Police Corps, under the People’s Armed Police (PAP), will now enjoy enhanced powers and status. He will be treated on par with the Head of a Corps-sized military body i.e. he will gain one star and don the rank of Lieutenant General. The Tibet Corps itself will not be upgraded.
The Global Times explains to its readers, “Under the dual leadership of the State Council and the Central Military Commission, the Chinese People’s Armed Police is composed of internal security forces and various police forces, including border security, firefighting and security guard units.” Niu Zhizhong, Chief of Staff of the PAP announced Tang’s promotion at a press conference on October 03. Niu said that ‘better treatment’ for the Head of the Armed Police in Tibet “is a major decision made by Central Military Commission based on the special environment and strategic position of the Tibet Armed Police.” The objective of Tang’s promotion is to better safeguard regional stability.
With the October 3 announcement, Tao Xiao now has official military rank and receives regular military salary. Nothing has been said about the PAP Commander in Tibet, Maj. Gen. Song Baoshan. Why to promote the Political Commissar only? It sounds like a demotion for Song.

Changing Role of the Border Forces
Another indication that the Chumar incident is rather strange is the current propaganda in the Chinese press that the PLA/PAPF were disengaging from the border issue to concentrate on the law and order situation (terrorism) in Xinjiang Military District. On October 10, the China Daily mentioned the changing role of the border defense forces, “The Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps is altering its focus from frontier defense to maintaining social stability as China builds good relations with its neighbors to the West, according to Cheng Jiazhu, Deputy Commander of the Corps.”
While celebrating the Corps’ 60th anniversary on October 10, the Chinese newspaper explained, “Founded in 1954, the Corps took on the mission of guarding border areas. Now, it has 176 regiments in 14 divisions scattered throughout Xinjiang’s 14 prefectures and cities. … In pursuit of its initial mission to provide border security, regiments of the Corps settled in the most remote and wild places of the country. It was to fulfill the mission of consolidating border defense, while avoiding commingling resources with locals.” It probably signifies that some of the border forces will be diverted to law and order duties as ‘China builds good relations with her neighbors.’
The incident at Chumar is all the more incomprehensible under these circumstances except if the PLA/PAP knew that it was a short-term operation to frighten some Indian monkeys. If that was intended, the Chumar operation was clearly a failure, as India could react quickly and amass more than 1,000 jawans in a few hours in the newly ‘disputed’ area.

Conclusions
At the Indian Council of World Affairs, the Chinese President hoped that China and India would be the ‘express trains’ driving regional development as well as the ‘twin anchors’ of regional peace. “When China and India join hands for cooperation, it will benefit not only the two countries but also entire Asia and the world at large,” he said adding that, “Nothing is more imperative than to deliver a more comfortable, more secure and happier life to the people.”
Once again, the President’s words do not tally with the situation on the ground, though the issue came to a close on September 30, when the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a press release, “The two sides have reached a consensus on properly resolving the recent stand-off between the frontier defense troops at the border of the two countries. On September 30, the frontier defense troops of the two countries completed simultaneous withdrawal according to the steps formulated by the two sides and restored peace and tranquility in the area.”
The Chinese Foreign Ministry stated that both sides understood that friendly cooperation conformed with their common interests and peaceful and tranquil borders are important for the growth of bilateral relations, but sometimes, there is a gap between the words and the deeds, especially, if there is disagreement amongst the senior officers and if all the generals do not follow the ‘instructions’ of Chairman Xi. This seems to be a serious problem in the Middle Kingdom.
Indeed, Xi Jinping’s visit to India is a mixed bag.

Modi’s Vietnam outreach marks India’s new assertive foreign policy

My article Modi’s Vietnam outreach marks India’s new assertive foreign policy appeared in NitiCentral.

Here is the link...

Modi was clear about the ‘aligned’ policy when his Government decided to sell to Vietnam Brahmos short range cruise missiles (co-developed with Russia), a long-standing demand from Hanoi. The Congress Government had been hesitant, hiding behind reservations by Russia.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has invented a new concept in Foreign Policy, ‘Assertive Alignment’.
Take Vietnam for example.
At the end of the meeting with the visiting Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung, Modi asserted: “Our defence cooperation with Vietnam is among our most important ones. India remains committed to the modernisation of Vietnam’s defence and security forces. This will include expansion of our training programme, which is already very substantial, joint-exercises and cooperation in defence equipment.”
Modi was clear about the ‘aligned’ policy when his Government decided to sell to Vietnam Brahmos short range cruise missiles (co-developed with Russia), a long-standing demand from Hanoi. The Congress Government had been hesitant, hiding behind reservations by Russia. Modi was not shy to tweet: “My Government has promptly and purposefully intensified our engagement in Asia Pacific region, which is critical to India’s future.”
India is also likely to coach Vietnam Air Force pilots in flying Sukhoi SU-30 fighter planes. Quoting a source, The Times of India asserted: “The training would be on the pattern of the ‘underwater combat training’ already underway for Vietnamese sailors at the Navy’s submarine school in Visakhapatnam since October 2013.”
Perhaps touchier for Beijing, the two countries will also work on joint oil exploration in the South China Sea, a region disputed by China.
This comes after Narendra Modi’s visit to the United States where he reiterated that Washington was India’s ‘natural’ ally.
We have come a long way from the Krishna Menon days and his obsession with the American ‘imperialists’.
After their dinner at the White House, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Barack Obama issued a vision statement and wrote a joint editorial whose theme was ‘chalein saath saath’ (‘forward together we go’).
The joint editorial published on The Washington Post, while invoking Swami Vivekananda and Martin Luther King Jr., emphasised: “India and the United States are bound by common values and mutual interests.”
It speaks of India and the US building ‘a transformative relationship’, again far from the often aggressive stance of Nehru towards the United States.
Two days after Modi had left the US, Phil Reiner, senior director for India in the National Security Council at the White House declared that Modi’s meeting with President Barack Obama had ‘re-energised’ the strategic relationship between the world’s two largest democracies: “I would say that the assessment on our part is that the PMs visit was extraordinarily successful. It has provided a boost in terms of the vision and focus that we have for our bilateral relations,” he stated.
Narendra Modi also met some of the US top business leaders who promised to invest in India. In a survey, the US-India Business Council (USIBC) found that US businesses were ready to commit $42 billion over the next two-three years. IANS reported that what added to the investor confidence was Prime Minister Modi being very conversant with the business ‘nuts and bolts’.
The Prime Minister’s visit to Japan too was a special one. Modi’s first bilateral meet outside the subcontinent was also an ‘aligned’ exercise.
Interestingly, there was a cultural and spiritual dimension to the visit.
Whether it is Swami Vivekananda, Rabindranath Tagore or Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, many great Indians have been associated with Japan in the past and became admirers of Land of the Rising Sun.
Then, Modi reiterated his alignment with some of India’s neighbours, Nepal and Bhutan. Regarding Modi’s visit to Thimbu, The Times of India reported that Modi has “stepped up a charm offensive with neighbours to try to check China’s influence in the region.”
Before leaving, the PMO had released a statement putting the visit in perspective: “Bound by common interests and shared prosperity, India and Bhutan enjoy a unique and special relationship, which has been forged by ties of geography, history and culture. Therefore, Bhutan as the destination for my first visit abroad as Prime Minister is a natural choice. Relations with Bhutan will be a key foreign policy priority of my Government.”
All these moves demonstrate a more pro-active and ‘aligned’ foreign policy. Even with less ‘aligned’ nations, assertive engagement has been the motto.
When President Xi Jinping and his wife Peng Liyuan, landed in Ahmedabad on September 17, they had a taste of Modi’s hospitality first hand, a flavour of the friendly culture of Gujarat (as well as its delicacies) on the banks of a clean Sabarmati river.
Both India and China wanted to show the world that the two most populated countries of the planet can live harmoniously together.
Of course, the next day, the Chumar incident took place and Modi’s India had to remind the Chinese President of its position on the LAC. Whether the incident was the outcome of differences within the PLA or not, Delhi remained firm on the ground, while ‘engaging’ China.
It is perhaps time for historians to have a deeper look at India’s non-aligned policy.
Officially, the Non-Aligned movement came into being during the Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, under the Chairmanship of the Yugoslav president, Josip Broz Tito in September 1961 in Belgrade.
It seems that the term ‘non-alignment’ was coined by VK Krishna Menon, the Indian (Communist) Representative to the UN during a speech in New York in 1952. Menon could obviously not have been ‘non-aligned’.
However, it is probably in Bandung in 1955, that Nehru firmly decided to go for the policy of ‘non-alignment’. The conference of Asian and African states, hosted by Indonesian president Sukarno brought together several ‘Third Word’ leaders and the Machiavellian Zhou Enlai. With most participants heavily tilting towards Soviet Union, the conference adopted a ‘declaration on promotion of world peace and cooperation’ and a collective pledge to remain ‘neutral’ in the Cold War.
Nehru was greatly influenced by his ‘friend’ Zhou Enlai, the Chinese Premier who also swore by the Five Principles (Panchsheel), which became the ideological foundation stone of the Movement. The principles such as ‘Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity’ or ‘Mutual non-interference in domestic affairs’ were music to the ears of the Chinese Premier, who thus could keep at bay those who were tempted to come to Tibet’s defence. Four years earlier, the Roof of the World had been invaded by a neo-imperialist China; it was indeed a very clever move on the part of Zhou!
The end of the non-alignment came on November 19, 1962 when a panicky Indian Prime Minister shot two missives to the US President imploring him to help his country.
Modi’s new Indian assertive foreign policy, ‘aligned’ with friends as well as less friendly countries, is refreshing. We are living in an interdependent world, and ‘non-alignment’, apart from the fact that it never served India’s interests, is not suited to the 21st century; ‘alignment’ and ‘engagement’ are.

Xi in India: a thorny route at home?

There are two ways to look at an event, especially a State visit by a foreign dignitary: it can be described as a resounding success, a game-changer, or it can be seen as a missed opportunity, a failure.
President Xi Jinping’s visit to India was a bit of both.
Before his arrival at Ahmedabad, the Chinese president Xi wrote an op-ed in The Hindu: “As the two engines of the Asian economy, we need to become cooperation partners spearheading growth. I believe that the combination of China’s energy plus India’s wisdom will release massive potential.”
Unfortunately, things did not go as scripted.
First an extraordinary event, (a real scoop not noticed by the India media) occurred a day before the President’s arrival: Wei Wei, the Chinese Ambassador to India was suddenly transferred. He was replaced by Le Yucheng, earlier posted in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing.
To change the ambassador a few days before his Head of State arrives in the country must be a first in diplomatic annals.
What was behind this abrupt move? We may never know, though it happened at a time when speculations are rife about the fate of the Chinese Ambassador to Iceland, who apparently was too close to the Japanese; he has ‘disappeared’ somewhere in China.
There is probably no link between the 2 issues, but Wei Wei’s sudden ‘departure’ is rather strange.
The second issue which did not go according to the planned program is the worsening of the situation in Southern Ladakh.
Everyone knows that there are different ‘perceptions’ about where the Line of Actual Control (LAC) lies, particularly in this area; but as Xi arrived in Ahmedabad, hundreds of Chinese troops from the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and the People's Armed Police Force crossed the LAC and stood a few meters away from the Indian jawans.
Why this show of force when Xi Jinping, who is also Chairman of the Central Military Commission was trying to do business in India? Was there a better way to sabotage the presidential visit?
Last year, at the time of the Depsang incident, I wrote that Chinese intrusions were probably due to the unfortunate initiatives of some local PLA commanders; I was then told: "It can't be. The PLA's generals are a disciplined lot and Chairman Xi is fully in command."
This came back to my mind when I read in The Business Standard, Shrikant Kondapalli, the JNU professor and expert on China affairs asserting: "this could be a message given by the Chinese troops to its President, Xi Jinping, that no fruitful discussion on the boundary issue be held with the Indian leadership during his official trip."
Were some very senior PLA generals unhappy about the thaw between India and China? Or perhaps disturbed about Xi’s fight against corruption?
What is strange is that Chumur, located north of Himachal Pradesh, has historically never been claimed by Tibet (and consequently, by China). It is a totally new claim with no serious basis. The intrusions in Chumur are pure land-grabbing by China; you can call it, ‘expansionism’.
Does it mean that Xi Jinping, the Chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC) does not have full control over his generals?
An indication that everything may not be rosy for Xi is the recent visit of General Fan Changlong, the CMC’s Senior Vice Chairman to Tibet.
On August 17, Xinhua reported that General Fan, who had come “to inspect the forces stationed on the snow-covered plateau, the loyal soldiers defending the frontiers,” asked the troops “to thoroughly study and implement President Xi’s series of important speeches about the situation in the Party” (read the corruption cases against former security tsar Zhou Yongkang and others ‘tigers’).
The South China Morning Post later reported that: “proceedings [against Zhou] could start as early as next month. …These will pave the way for a possible public hearing for Zhou, who could become the highest-ranking party official to face trial.”
While in Lhasa, General Fang pointed out that combat training is an important task for the preparation for military struggle; it is the basic starting point. Interestingly, Chinese media reports did not mention which units he visited, how long he stayed in Tibet, where he went.
But it appears that he was accompanied by no less than three Military Region (MR) Commanders, Lt. Gen. Liu Yuejun, Lanzhou MR, Lt. Gen. Zhao Zongqi, Jinan MR and General Li Shiming, Chengdu MR.
What was the Commander of Jinan MR doing around is not clear, though having been earlier posted in Tibetan Military District, Zhao certainly understands the ground reality.
Xinhua reported that General Fan told the army to firmly obey the command of President Xi Jinping and the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee.
Are they not always obeying Chairman Xi? This could be an indication that something is rotten in the Middle Kingdom.
A month earlier, China Military Online had reported that Xu Qiliang, the second CMC’s vice chairman had inspected some garrisons in Xinjiang and Tibet: " General Xu Qiliang visited the officers and men in frontier areas, and held talks with the leaders of the units garrisoning in Hotan [near the Aksai Chin],Ngari [near Demchok] and Lhasa areas.”
Xu Qiliang also paid a visit to Shenxianwan (north of the Karakoram Pass and the Depsang Plains) at the altitude of 5,380 meters and the Khurnak Fort (opposite the Indian troops posted on the Panggong tso) where he inspected a speed-boats squadron and inquired “about the soldiers’ work, study and life.”
What is the signification of these visits? It is difficult to give a definitive answer, except that the senior-most generals are aware of the situation on the Indian front.
But regarding the recurring intrusions, Narendra Modi has enunciated the response: “I also suggested that clarification of Line of Actual Control would greatly contribute to our efforts to maintain peace and tranquility and requested President Xi to resume the stalled process of clarifying the LAC. We should also seek an early settlement of the boundary question.”
In military jargon: 'let us exchange the bloody LAC maps'.
When he answered, Xi spoke of border agreement only, not about the LAC. It is telling.
‘Exchange of maps’ was not mentioned in the Joint Statement too.
As mentioned in a previous column, the choice of Nathu-la, located far from the Kailash-Mansarovar area, in place of Demchok in Ladakh, which is the natural port of entry for the pilgrimage, also demonstrates that the PLA/PAP are not keen to normalize the situation on the Ladakh border.
Apart from that, everything went smoothly and hopefully we shall soon travel at high speed in Chinese bullet trains (though I still think the French TGVs are safer and more comfortable).
Back in China, Xi might have some homework to do.

Xi Jinping must engage Dalai Lama on Tibet

Xi Jinping (then Vice-President) in Tibet in 2011

My article Xi Jinping must engage Dalai Lama on Tibet was published by NitiCentral on September 17.

The same publication also quoted me in another article.

Dalai Lama on Xi Jinping – Open-Minded and realistic

While Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping are still discussing and writing the script for India-China ties ahead, exiled Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, hailing Xi Jinping as “open-minded” and “realistic”, advised him:

India is a vast country with a huge population. Different parts of the country speak different languages, yet there is a sense of oneness among Indians. Democracy is practised strongly in the country and there is a free media. The Chinese president should learn these values from Indians.

The 79-year-old Buddhist monk, who has been living in exile since 1959, further added:

Actually the Tibetan problem (is) also (a) problem of India. Before 1950, you see the whole northern border, really peaceful, no single soldier. So India’s problem.

Author of several books on Tibet and Sino-Indian relations, Claude Arpi, in his article ‘Xi Jinping must engage Dalai Lama on Tibet’, opines:

India can’t contemplate with indifference what is happening in Tibet. If the Tibet issue is not solved to the satisfaction of all, it is doubtful if the India-China relations can one day be normal. One solution could be that a senior trusted member of Xi’s entourage meets the Dalai Lama and starts earnest negotiations for a genuine autonomy of the Roof of the World.

Earlier this month, the 14th Dalai Lama told a German newspaper that he should be the last Tibetan spiritual leader, ending a centuries-old religious tradition from his Himalayan homeland. In conversation with Niti Central, Claude Arpi explains why Dalai Lama doesn’t want a successor:

Panchen Lama is the highest ranking Lama after the Dalai Lama. China asserts it is Gyancain Norbu, while the 14th Dalai Lama asserted it was Gedhun Choekyi Nyima. So, there are two Panchen Lama in Tibet. Dalai Lama is worried that China might do the same with the spiritual post of Dalai Lama and use it for their political interest in Tibet. So Dalai Lama wants to abdicate this tradition and instead wants democracy for the people of Tibet. This is a wise decision and it might put Chinese Government in a difficult situation because China doesn’t believe in democracy.
While China sees Dalai Lama as a separatist seeking an independent Tibet, the Dalai Lama says he only seeks more autonomy for Tibet.

Here is the article Xi Jinping must engage Dalai Lama on Tibet

Beijing is not ready to recognise the basic historical fact that Tibet was independent before its so-called liberation.

President Xi Jinping of China will land on Wednesday in Ahmedabad, the first leg of his stay in India. Both India and China take the visit seriously. The Modi Sarkar did its homework by sending India’s National Security Adviser, Ajit Doval to Beijing.
Designated ‘Special Envoy of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’, Doval briefly met the Chinese President who told him: “Our cooperation not only helps each other’s development but also benefits Asia and the world at large.”
A larger issue however remains unsolved between China and India — Tibet. Let us not forget that Tibet represents nearly 25 per cent of the land mass of the People’s Republic of China. For centuries, the Roof of the World has been a physical and political buffer between India and China.
It changed when Tibet was invaded (‘liberated’ according to Mao) in the Fall of 1950. India lost a good peaceful neighbour and thereafter has had to deal with an aggressive and ‘expansionist’ one — Communist China.
Over the years, Marxist dogmatism has slowly disappeared from the Middle Kingdom, though Beijing continues to be allergic to what it terms ‘Western values’, such as democracy or rule of law. But even in the new situation, Tibet remains a tangibly prickly issue between the two giant Asian nations.
It is visible when one looks at a map of the Himalayas: China still claims more than 80,000 square kilometres of Indian Territory in the North-East alone. Why this claim? Just because Beijing refuses to acknowledge the McMahon line which separates India and Tibet, and this, simply because the 1914 Agreement delineating the border was signed by the then Government of independent Tibet with India’s Foreign Secretary (Sir Henry McMahon). Beijing is not ready to recognise the basic historical fact that Tibet was independent before its so-called liberation.
Last month, a group of SAARC journalists, invited to Tibet, came back pleading Beijing’s cause. They argued that Beijing had started negotiating with the Dalai Lama for his future status. This was immediately denied by the Dalai Lama’s exiled administration, which clarified that the Tibetan leader was not interested to talk about his personal status, but was only preoccupied by the fate of 6 million of his countrymen.
Today, the situation in Tibet is very serious.
Wu Yingjie, the Tibetan Autonomous Region’s Deputy Secretary who received the Indian journalists in Lhasa, spent several months in Nagchu prefecture last year for a mass-line campaign, a scheme dear to Xi Jinping. ‘Mass-line’ means that senior cadres should spend months with the ‘masses’ and convince them of the greatness of the Party and its deep love for the masses.
Wu was however unable to convert the Tibetans.
Radio Free Asia (RFA), quoting a local source, recently reported:
“Chinese police have doubled the number of checkpoints on a road leading to Tibet’s restive Driru county—where residents have resisted forced displays of loyalty to Beijing for about a year—and are beating travelers who show annoyance at being stopped and searched.”
One of the measures put in place after Wu’s stay in Driru was an increase in the number of checkpoints (to 8) on the 270-km stretch between Driru town and Nagchu, the headquarters of prefecture.
RFA’s source said that this has slowed travel time and added to other hardships endured by local people:
“In the past, this distance could be covered in about four hours. Now it takes about seven hours to cover the same distance.”
So much for the mass-line!
At the same time, Orwellian ‘nets in the sky and traps on the ground’ have been set up in the TAR. All phone calls and Internet traffic are closely monitored.
Even more tragic, a few weeks ago, Chinese police opened fire to disperse hundreds of Tibetans protesting the detention of a respected village leader in Sichuan province, seriously wounding nearly a dozen people and killing five.
The New York Times reported:
“The accounts described a flaring of tensions in a mountainous area of Sichuan Province that has long been in turmoil over the Chinese government’s rule.”
On the ground, the Tibetan issue is far from settled.
With the presence in India of the Dalai Lama and more than one lakh of his followers, as well as the unresolved border dispute, Tibet reminds the major ‘unsettled’ bilateral issue. And this is not new.
At the time of the Colombo Conference in January 1950, Harishwar Dayal, the Political Officer in Sikkim responsible for Tibet, Sikkim and Bhutan was asked by Nehru to give his opinion on the future relations between India and Tibet. His memorandum was in response to a note prepared by the Indian Ambassador in China, KM Panikkar’s (unfortunately for India, during the following years, a blind Nehru followed an even blinder Panikkar).
Panikkar stated:
i. China will invade Tibet. Invasion is not difficult. Tibet has no chance of successful resistance and will be overrun.
ii. We have no legal right to intervene.
iii. Political intervention would also be futile. To incite the Tibetans to resist would serve no useful purpose.
iv. The wisest course for us to take is to … be strictly neutral when the war comes and to resume diplomatic relations with China as soon as possible.
Harishwar Dayal did not agree with this position. The ICS officer explained the legal position:
“India has acted as if Tibet were a sovereign State to the extent of being capable of making treaties and entering into relations with other powers.”
He logically added:
“If, therefore, China is the unconditional suzerain of Tibet, then it follows that Tibet had no right to make treaties with India, at least without Chinese participation or consent and accordingly all our agreements with Tibet, including the Simla convention of 1914 which defined the boundary (the Mac Mahon line) are invalid.”
Dayal also explained that if there were no legal obligation on the part of India to defend Tibet, if Tibet was attacked, as there was no treaty of mutual defence, there is a moral angle to the issue.
Panikkar had also argued that India should cease to regard Tibet as a buffer State; to this, Dayal answered:
“A country is most secure when no other country can easily invade it. … But the advantages of insularity have been largely neutralized by the development of air power. The next most effective guarantee of safety is to have a belt of friendly small States between a country and its most powerful neighbours.”
His conclusion, written 10 months before the invasion of Tibet:
“The absorption of Tibet into Communist China is not, therefore, a matter which we can contemplate with indifference or even equanimity.”
Sixty-four years later, the situation remains the same. India can’t contemplate with indifference what is happening in Tibet. If the Tibet issue is not solved to the satisfaction of all, it is doubtful if the India-China relations can one day be normal.
One solution could be that a senior trusted member of Xi’s entourage meets the Dalai Lama and starts earnest negotiations for a genuine autonomy of the Roof of the World.
Can Narendra Modi suggest this approach to President Xi Jinping?

Confusing our frenemy with a genuine friend

The top Communist leadership in Tibet visited India in July 2006
to 'inaugurate' the Nathu-la border post
Beijing is again betting on Nathu-la

My article Confusing our frenemy with a genuine friend appeared on Thursday in the Edit page of The Pioneer.


Here is the link...

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s plans to open the Nathu la route for the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra is hardly a goodwill gesture. It offers few benefits to Indian pilgrims and only furthers Beijing’s expansionist plans

New Delhi is getting ready to receive Chinese President Xi Jinping on his maiden trip to India. It will, no doubt, be a significant visit, especially after Prime Minister Narendra Modi journeyed to Japan and met with old friend Shinzo Abe. Many looked at the Tokyo trip as a preparation for the Chinese President’s Delhi visit. The Global Times even threatened that India was getting close to Japan “at its own peril”. But ultimately, both India and China, keeping their own interests in mind, will probably find a consensus on economic and other issues, while some confidence building measures may be taken by the two neighbours.
The Press Trust of India has already reported about a ‘political gesture’ from Beijing. It said that the Chinese President may announce the opening of a new route, via Nathu la in Sikkim, for Indian pilgrims to go on the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra. The question is: Will this be a boon or a bane for India? According to PTI, the proposal has been under serious consideration in Beijing since Mr Modi, during his first meeting with President Xi in Brazil in July, asked Beijing to propose an alternative to the Lipulekh pass (in Pittoragarh district of Uttarakhand) for the yatra. Either Demchok in Ladakh or Shipki-la in Himachal Pradesh was expected to be the new port. It made sense in terms of access and comfort.
The present Ministry of External Affairs’ yatra through the Lipulekh-Purang route, also one of the traditional trade routes to Tibet, is often damaged by floods and subsequently the pilgrimage has to be canceled. Depending on the weather, every year the scheme accommodates a maximum of 1,000 pilgrims in 18 batches (selected through a lottery system); the pilgrimage involves a 22-day arduous journey. It appears that the Chinese have now decided to open Nathu la border point in Sikkim. PTI says: “The new route, though longer, takes pilgrims from Nathu La to Shigatse… [and] from there the pilgrims could comfortably travel to Mansarovar and Kailash using well laid out highway.”
It is obviously Beijing’s rationale, not New Delhi’s interest, though PTI adds: “It would be part of the big gesture of friendship not only to strike chord with Mr Modi but also the people at large, specially the Hindus and Buddhists considering its religious importance.” But is it a gesture of friendship or a decision driven by self-interest?
The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has announced that lodging and boarding facilities for pilgrims have been improved with new hotels and additional beds with additional investments; Beijing further asserts: “Indians pilgrimage to Tibet is an important content of bilateral relations.” There is no doubt that China is interested in Sikkim (and Nathu-la), though despite the great hopes generated in 2006, when Nathu la was opened to petty trade between Yatung and Gangtok, business has been stagnating (partly due to the restricted list of items allowed to be traded).
More recently, on the occasion of the opening of the new railway sector Lhasa-Shigatse, Mr Yang Yulin, deputy director of Tibet’s railway office, announced that during the 13th Five Year Plan (2016 to 2020), the construction of a railway connecting Shigatse with Kyirong in northern Nepal and with Yatung, in the Chumbi Valley (near Nathu la) will start. Kyirong is obviously the logical extension of the line as China has extensively invested in this landport to make it the main link between Tibet and Kathmandu, (and economically invade Nepal). But why Yatung, near the Nathu la pass? Has Beijing consulted New Delhi on this or is it a unilateral decision? China is now going a step further. It is ready to let the yatris use Nathu la, as a second port of entry into Tibet.
A few months ago, Mr Wang Chunhuan, a professor at the Tibetan Academy of Social Sciences in Lhasa told The Global Times that the railway network in Tibet will play the role of a continental bridge in South Asia and promote economic and cultural exchanges with the subcontinent. For China, the Yatung-Nathu la-Gangtok route could become a trade gate to South Asia. But why should pilgrims take this extremely long route to visit the holy sites of western Tibet? One has just to look at a map to see it does not make much sense.
But there is more to the new railway development; the train has indeed another purpose. Beijing hopes that it will boost President Xi’s pet project, the New Silk Road, which he is bound to bring on the table with Mr Modi.
In September 2013 already, during a visit to Kazakhstan, the Chinese President spoke of the New Silk Road. A month later, during the Association of South East Asian Nations meet, he added a 21st century Maritime Silk Road plan. For Beijing, there are various ideological and economic reasons for re-opening these terrestrial and maritime routes. According to Xinhua, President Xi’s proposal of ‘one belt and one road’ brought “a new connotation for the old Silk Road, and new vibrancy for the cooperation among pan-Asia, Asia and Europe.” Beijing believes that the new strategy will help reproduce the spirit of the old route while promoting economic cooperation, cultural exchanges and friendly relationships. It may not be fully true, though it will certainly boost China’s energy prospects in Central Asia.
In New Delhi, Mr Xi is bound to play on India’s cultural fibre: Ages ago, Buddhism transited through this route. But while Beijing speaks of a link between the New Silk Road and South Asia, the Chinese leadership has systematically refused to re-open the old Tibet trade routes, such as Demchok in Ladakh, Kibithoo and Tuting in Arunachal Pradesh and the Mana pass in Uttarakhand. During Mr Modi’s recent visit to Jammu & Kashmir, the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council presented a memorandum to him, requesting the re-opening of the Demchok road as an alternative route to the Kailash  Mansarovar: “Demchok in Ladakh provides the easiest and the safest access to Kailash Mansarovar. From here, pilgrims can approach the holy mountain and the sacred lake in two days. This would also give the much needed fillip to the local economy.”
But it appears that Beijing has once again vetoed the project. Why then try to entice India into a New Silk Road project, when all the passes to Tibet and Xinjiang (the main traditional pass was the Karakoram pass, near the disputed Depsang plains) remain closed?
The logical step should be to progressively re-open the Himalayan passes to trade and human exchanges (and, why not to tourism?). Once the Himalayan belt has recovered its vitality, India may think of participating in projects such as the New Silk Road. For the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra, opening Shipki-la (already opened for petty trade) or Demchok will be a much shorter route and the pilgrims will travel in far greater comfort.

India-China relations can't be normal till Tibet issue is resolved

My article 'India-China relations can't be normal till Tibet issue is resolved' appeared on Rediff.com.

'Tibet remains a prickly issue between the giant Asian nations. China still claims more than 80,000 sq kilometres of Indian territory in the Northeast. Why?'
'Just because Beijing refuses to acknowledge the McMahon line which separates India and Tibet, and this, simply because the 1914 Agreement delineating the border was signed by the then government of independent Tibet with India's then foreign secretary (Sir Henry McMahon),' says Claude Arpi.

President Xi Jinping of China will be in New Delhi next week; both India and China take the visit seriously. The Modi Sarkar did its homework by sending National Security Adviser Ajit Doval to Beijing.
For the occasion, Doval was designated 'Special Envoy of Prime Minister Narendra Modi'; this allowed the NSA to briefly meet the Chinese president.
According to Xinhua, Doval told Xi that India believes Xi's State visit will 'deepen the two countries' understanding, friendship and trust, and inject new vitality to bilateral cooperation.'
The Chinese news agency affirmed that Xi told Doval that the latter's visit showed the importance that Modi and the Indian government attached to the Chinese president's trip which could send a positive signal to the world: 'Our cooperation not only helps each other's development, but also benefits Asia and the world at large,' Xi said.
However, there is a (geographically and strategically) larger issue which remains unsolved between China and India: that is Tibet and the Dalai Lama. This seems logical as Tibet represents nearly 25 per cent of the land mass of the People's Republic of China and for centuries, the Roof of the World has been a physical and political buffer between India and China.
It changed when Tibet was invaded ('liberated,' according to Mao Zedong) in the Fall of 1950. India lost a good peaceful neighbour and thereafter has had to deal with an aggressive and 'expansionist' one, Communist China.
Over the years, Marxist dogmatism has slowly disappeared from the Middle Kingdom, though Beijing continues to be allergic to what it terms 'Western values', such as democracy or rule of law.
But even in the new situation, Tibet remains a tangible prickly issue between the giant Asian nations.
It is visible when one looks at a map of the Himalayas: China still claims more than 80,000 sq kilometres of Indian territory in the Northeast. Why this claim? Just because Beijing refuses to acknowledge the McMahon line which separates India and Tibet, and this, simply because the 1914 Agreement delineating the border was signed by the then government of independent Tibet with India's then foreign secretary (Sir Henry McMahon).
Beijing is not ready to recognise the basic historical fact that Tibet was independent before its so-called liberation.

Click here to continue reading...