tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4704148890264843595.post2182267208163577681..comments2024-03-27T03:46:07.097-07:00Comments on Raman's strategic analysis: INDIA-CHINA: THE FROZEN VISION OF 1962B.RAMANhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12278000644746170031noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4704148890264843595.post-28476590479719741422009-09-14T05:14:28.069-07:002009-09-14T05:14:28.069-07:00Mr Raman, I have always admired your analyses, whi...Mr Raman, I have always admired your analyses, which are rooted in your intimate association with shaping and writing on matters of India's strategic interest. Like you, I too am concerned about the shrill jingoism in the Indian media (and the Chinese media) on the border dispute. <br /><br /><br />But I read your earlier post just now - where you argue that one way for India and China to break the impasse would be to explore "the possibility of a 'status quo plus' solution under which China will recognise the status quo in Arunachal Pradesh in return for India accommodating some of the Chinese interests in Tawang."<br /><br />You recommend this because "China wants a face-saving formula by India handing over at least Tawang to it". In other words, for China to 'save face' (even though it does not have a representative governement, and is not answerable to its people), India should "accommodate" some Chinese interest in Tawant - even though you yourself acknowledge that no Indian government will be able to sell to the Indian people and the parliament any concession that would involve population transfer. <br /><br />It sounds to me that your recommendation amounts to a wholesale surrender of the Indian position - ostensibly so that the Chinese government can "save face". <br /><br />I'm a reasonable man, Mr Raman, but this strikes me as wholly unreasonable. I don't agree that sending you vituperative mails is justifiable response, but I respectfully disagree with your proposition. I trust that being a well-informed man with superior analytical skills, you will do a bit of self-reflection to understand why your earlier post was not well-received.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10328106277255069143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4704148890264843595.post-13397997573346324502009-09-13T21:54:06.146-07:002009-09-13T21:54:06.146-07:00We are not mired in any time warp Mr. Raman.
The ...We are not mired in any time warp Mr. Raman.<br /><br />The same electorate which is praised for its vision during the elections finds itself criticized when it comes to a neighbour that has attacked us and continues to indulge in shenanigans as listed by the readers above me.<br /><br /><br />How is China's civil society related to China's unsuccessful yet brief endeavour to prevent the banning of Jamaat Ud Dawa? How is their society related to providing Pakistan with missile technology thereby escalating an arms race in a region already besotted with the paranoia of a nuclear war? How is their civil society related to them providing a safe haven for insurgent militia leaders from the North-East? How is it related to the venom that is constantly spewed in Global Times editorials with respect to India? (You did mention that the political and bureaucratic structure is positive on relations. Well, Global Times as you yourself pointed out is a sister publication of the party's official mouthpiece). What does the civil society have to do with China's displeasure over our media reportage? This question is perhaps the more befuddling one. Mr. Raman, India, is a democracy with a vibrant free press. The press will report what it sees. It's all the more surprising that the Chinese civil society is angered by our media reportage. After all, how would they know what a free press contributes to civil society? And if they don't, then why should WE make up for their lack of familiarity with what is an essential tenet of most democracies across the world.<br /><br /><br />Comparing Taiwan to Indian is NAIVE. Firstly, it were the KMT cadres who were killed as a part of an squabble with the CCP in what was an INTERNAL power struggle for control of Mainland China; secondly, Taiwan is not in the same position as India due to factors that you had delineated earlier(each of which on their own merit should be sufficient to turn your argument on its head); thirdly, their dispute is premised on the China's hasty application of the 'One China' policy; fourthly, China and Taiwan are similar culturally, and do not have the cultural barrier which marks our relations with much of east and south-east asia. Asking the Indian citizens to overlook/ignore/overcome these barriers without any positive overtures from the other side is the sme thinking that created the 1962 imbroglio.<br /><br />As far as Japan goes, the comparison is almost ludicrous. The regime which carried out the reprehensible acts of genocide that were the primary cause of Chinese hostility is NO LONGER THERE. It has been purged to say the least and it took a new Japanese constitution to ensure a pacifist Japan. <br /><br />Is the CCP a relic of the past? Has it been purged of jingoistic sentiments? Has China been 'reconstructed' like Japan? The answer to these questions is in the negative.<br /><br />Disappointing analysis from a blog that usually provides enriching insights into strategic security issues.Wallyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01379459596361974502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4704148890264843595.post-72359298490653741042009-09-13T14:11:26.062-07:002009-09-13T14:11:26.062-07:00India should change its attitude to China just as ...India should change its attitude to China just as China should change its attitude to India.<br /><br />The reason why a lot of Indians are reminded of 1962 is because a lot of recent Chinese actions are reminiscent of 1962, not because those Indians are old and retired :-)<br /><br />When you repeatedly get struck in the back that is where you tend to look.<br /><br />As you yourself conclude, the nature of China's problem with India differ from those it has with other regional powers like Japan and Australia.<br /><br />Chinese attitudes towards India are governed by a desire to suppress or slow India's emergence as a strong regional power. There is nothing demonic about that. Its a understandable desire. <br /><br />If a lot of analysts are urging the Indian government to stand up to the Chinese they are not 'demonizing' the Chinese. I know the word 'demonizing' is in vogue but it is totally out of context here. Indeed, I could well turn around and say you are 'demonizing' the analysts because they are urging the Indian government to maintain the territorial integrity of the country.<br /><br />The analysts are urging the government to do what they think will maintain peace - which is a readiness to go to war!<br /><br />India and China may or may not be able to solve their border dispute peacefully but war is NOT an option. That is the message we need to send to the Chinese, not in words but through our actions.<br /><br />The politicians and bureaucrats need to go figure out how to do that.Vijainder K Thakurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08354186592585940999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4704148890264843595.post-44734225894964582892009-09-13T08:52:31.340-07:002009-09-13T08:52:31.340-07:00Govindaa.. Gooovinda!
I understand that some sort...Govindaa.. Gooovinda!<br /><br />I understand that some sort of strategic thinking is needed (I am not an expert, not even a follower of foreign affairs, just a common man) in dealing with China, not just blind hatred that doesnt profit us.<br /><br />But, here is a country that <br />a)constantly claims part of our territory as its, <br />b)that constantly supplies arms to our sworn enemy who lives only to destroy us, <br />c)destabilises our neighbour Nepal to set up dummy Prime Minister who listens only to them, <br />d)supplies arms and money to separatists in the North-East and naxalites in our country <br />e)makes deals with rogue nations and supplies huge quantities of arms to them that result in vaste genocides<br />f)doesnt censure its own people when they publicly make plans to virtually split our nation into 30 small countries.<br /><br />To claim it as part of a solution is, as I said before, <br />Govindaa.. Gooovinda!Gandaragolakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02364773312144169635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4704148890264843595.post-13450201525751266752009-09-13T08:18:37.373-07:002009-09-13T08:18:37.373-07:00Mr.Raman, You are right in thinking that unnecessa...Mr.Raman, You are right in thinking that unnecessary conflicts should be avoided. But you need to keep in mind that it is China that is the root cause for all the problems with China. Was Tibet a part of China? If they argue that Tibet was under China's rule for some time in the distant past, then even Indian kings ruled Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, parts of Malaysia, Indonesia and many places in South East Asia. Can we claim them now?<br /><br />After occupying Tibet China further occupied Indian territory in J&K and Northeast. We trusted the Chinese once and they stabbed us in the back. India was one of the first countries to recognize China and establish full diplomatic relations with them, we considered them as a partner, and even when China illegally occupied Tibet we kept quiet. The gift we got in return was invasion and secret arming of Pakistan and northeast militants. You may argue that even we support Tibetan dissidents but you must understand that Tibet is under illegal occupation by China unlike India's northeast which has been part of India always. <br /><br />All Western countries support China because they all depend on China economically. Australia's Kevin Rudd supported China and in return China arm twisted Australian steel companies and arrested their employees. <br /><br />China may have legitimate interests in Indian ocean because its ships pass through the Indian ocean, but they cannot claim to be an Indian ocean power. There is no need for India to advocate the inclusion of China in Indian ocean groups. <br /><br />You are saying that India's civil society is the main impediment to relations with China. You must understand that India stays together as a nation only because of India's patriotic civil society. India got independence not because of bureaucrats who were willing to serve under the British but because of India's civil society. <br /><br />If India's political and bureaucratic leadership had prevented China from becoming our neighbor or at least forced them to agree on the Indo-Tibetan border, we would not have been in a position of confrontation with China today. India's civil society is a civil society, we are not warmongering barbarians. But we still believe in something called self-respect.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207455451211247794noreply@blogger.com