B.RAMAN
( To be read in continuation of my article of June 29,2010, titled “ Hu Proposes, PLA Disposes” at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers39%5Cpaper3896.html
A new breed of analysts with military background has been seeking to influence strategic analysis in China in a direction that justifies Beijing’s military assertiveness in matters impinging upon its core interests. Whereas a growing number of analysts with no military background has been advising caution in following a policy of enhanced assertiveness lest it add to the fears of China in its neighbourhood thereby benefiting the US, a small, but articulate group of analysts who had served in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and who continue to retain their links with the PLA after their retirement, has been not only justifying the new assertiveness, but even calling for more of it in order to maintain China’s national self-respect.
2.Prominent among them is Maj.Gen. (retd) Luo Yuan, a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) and Deputy Secretary-General of the Society of China Military Sciences, which is a supposedly non-governmental think-tank with close links to the PLA.
The Society set up on November 24,2003, an International Military Branch , which was described by the Party-controlled “People’s Daily” as follows: “The branch, consisting of experts and scholars from institutes specializing in international military security, foreign military study, scientific research units and military colleges, is a component part of the China Military Science Society. The establishment marks a new phase of the development of the PLA research in foreign military affairs, contributing a great deal to the system of military sciences with Chinese characteristics.”
3. Research scholars from the International Military Branch of the Society not only write regularly in the Chinese media and appear on State-controlled TV channels to discuss strategic matters, but also brief the media on military-related matters during sessions of the Party Central Committee and the National People’s Congress. Their views tend to be more forthright than those of civilian analysts and more combative.
4.The forthright and combative nature of their views and analyses often gives rise to the question as to whether they speak with the approval of the party and the Government. Their views and the language in which they express them are often so different from the more nuanced articulation of serving and retired diplomats that they create an impression as if the PLA and the Foreign Office are not on the same page in matters relating to Chinese policies with regard to its core interests.
5.These analysts have become particularly active in advocating a more robust response by China ever since the US and the South Korean navies started holding a series of joint exercises in the vicinity of the Yellow Sea following the alleged sinking of a South Korean naval vessel by the North Korean Navy in March last. In an article titled “America is Engaging in Gunboat Diplomacy Against China. Unilateral Confrontation and Showing Off of Hard Power", which was carried by the “People’s Daily” online on August 13 last, Major General Luo wrote:
”The United States is never willing to communicate and consult with other countries, let alone think from others' point of views. Since Obama came into power, he has claimed to have broken clearly with former President Bush's unilateralist policies and pursued "smart power" diplomacy. However, judging from the United States and South Korea's insistence on holding joint military drills around the waters of the Korean Peninsula, we see neither multilateral security cooperation nor the display of smart power. What we see is only unilateral confrontation and showing off of hard power. The Chinese are peace-loving people, and China is now taking a peaceful development road different from when the imperialist powers rose. We do not want to be against any country, but we are not fearful if other countries ignore our solemn positions and core interests. A country must have the dignity and its army must have deterrence power. China adheres to the principle "We will not attack unless we are attacked, and we must retaliate only if we are attacked," which is definitely not a joke to the Chinese people and the army. Doesn’t the United States proclaim itself to be the most democratic country? Then, they should know in the 21st century, they ought to learn to respect others and listen to the public opinions of other countries, using wisdom but not gunboats to solve problems.”
6. In another article carried by the party-controlled “Global Times” on December 14, Major-Gen Luo made hawkish observations which should be of concern to countries such as India, Vietnam, Japan and the Philippines which have unresolved territorial disputes with China. He wrote: “Just being rich is not enough to make China a strong nation. A powerful army is also needed. The future society should be not only extremely abundant in material riches, but also have a very healthy legal system, and a prevailing toughness and militaristic spirit. I told some foreign friends that I won't deny it when you call us hawkish because we are soldiers. If soldiers don't talk about war, who will? "If all soldiers become dovish, what is the point for ordinary people to pay so much money to keep the army? Why don't we save the money to improve the livelihood of people and change the name of the army to the Peace Association. A militaristic spirit is not meant to provoke war, but to shore up defences and prevent others from starting wars. The neighbouring area is not peaceful, and we have outside threats. The motherland is not unified yet and separatist forces are still posing threats to us. China has been dreaming of becoming a powerful nation for generations and the dream would finally be fulfilled in the next two generations. China's gross domestic product is close to the second in the world, but we have not even solved the issue of national unification, and we have not recovered the land looted by our neighbours, so how can we boast of being a strong nation?" Luo said the educational system should promote a sense of fearless confidence and revolutionary heroism as part of the curriculum.
7.In an editorial titled “The meaning of PLA General’s tirade” carried on August 14, the “Taipei Times” wrote: “ Luo has come to prominence over the past decade as one of the leading beaters of the war drum, threatening both the US and Taiwan’s leaders over their perceived lack of respect for the Middle Kingdom. He lashed out in February after Washington announced its latest arms package for Taiwan, urging his government to take diplomatic, military and economic measures to punish the US, including dumping US Treasury bonds. He also defended the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) outsized budget increases in recent years as necessary because of the “threat in the Taiwan Strait.”In November last year, the General, who works at the Academy of Military Sciences in Beijing, slammed President Ma Ying-jeou , accusing him of promoting a policy of “peaceful secession”. Luo had been one of the more prominent proponents back in 2004 of Beijing’s drive to enact its “Anti-Secession” Law. While academics and analysts repeatedly note that Luo and others like him do not officially speak for either the PLA or Beijing, the fact that Luo’s latest outburst was published in the PLA’s official mouthpiece speaks for itself.”
8.It added : “China’s Central Military Commission does use military officials, both serving and retired, to float ideas and suggestions, as a means of testing reactions and as a way to let the more rabid vent some steam. However, if Luo were not voicing ideas backed by Beijing, wouldn’t he be at risk of the same kind of treatment meted out to writers, bloggers and others who dare to speak out of turn? Luo’s status as a retired PLA General would not even protect him if Beijing were unhappy with his comments. Look at the travails of retired PLA surgeon Jiang Yanyong , who first alerted the world to Beijing’s cover-up of the SARS outbreak in 2003. Hailed as a hero both in China and around the world for speaking out, his willingness to speak his mind got him into trouble just a year later when he pressed for a review of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. Neither his age nor prestige could save him from detention and house arrest. Luo has been hectoring the US and its allies for too long to think that his comments do not represent the mainstream view both in the PLA and at Zhongnanhai. We would be unwise to dismiss him out of hand.”
9. Two books on the Army published in the beginning of this year have added to the welter of voices calling for a strong and robust Army, which can uphold China’s prestige. In a book titled “The China Dream”, Senior Colonel Liu Mingfu has said that China should build the world’s strongest military. He added :"China's big goal in the 21st century is to become the world's No 1, top power." In another book, Colonel Dai Xu wrote: "I'm very pessimistic about the future. China is largely surrounded by hostile or wary countries beholden to the US. I believe that China cannot escape the calamity of war and this calamity may come in the not-too-distant future, at most in 10 to 20 years."
10. At the same time, it is apparent that there are other PLA officers who do not feel comfortable with the hawkish talk indulged in by officers like Luo. An article carried by the “China Daily” on March 4 quoted an unnamed PLA officer as saying as follows: "China has all the necessary sophisticated weapons, but we cannot compare with the US in terms of quantity. Personally, I do not agree with big talks by some scholars, (which) could only misdirect China's national image. We should do more, but speak less."
11. One should take note of the debate on the pros and cons of a militaristic approach to policy-making going on in the community of military analysts in China. This indicates that there are elements in the PLA which feel that there is no need for China to feel apologetic about its policy of military assertiveness. In their view, this assertiveness has two objectives---- to regain territory lost (according to them ) by China in the past in order to complete the process of national unification and to establish China’s pre-eminence as a military power, which would not hesitate to use its newly-acquired military strength should it become necessary.
12. The political leadership, while maintaining a distance from this debate, has not been discouraging such expression of hawkish views. Does this indicate a possible weakening of political control over the PLA? Not necessarily. However, it definitely indicates increasing expectations from certain sections in the PLA that their views on strategic policy-making deserve greater attention----particularly in matters relating to China’s national unification, which these officers see as still incomplete. (23-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
CONGRESS (I): DEMONISATION OF THE RSS
B.RAMAN
The exercise initiated by Mrs.Sonia Gandhi, the President of the Congress (I), and her cohorts at the just concluded 83rd plenary of the Congress (I) to have the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) projected and demonised as a Hindu terrorist organisation comparable to the Nazi groups of World War II vintage and the more recent Islamic terrorist organisations speaks of the mental confusion that prevails at the senior levels of her party. It also highlights the total bankruptcy of thinking and the total indifference to sensitive issues that have become the defining characteristics of the party under her leadership in recent months.
2. It is a fact that some members of the Hindu community had during the last three or four years taken to acts of reprisal terrorism against the Muslim community at Malegaon, Hyderabad and Ajmer. It also seems to be a fact that the Hindus suspected to have been involved in these acts of reprisal terrorism were ideologically close to some of the Hindutva groups, including the RSS. The suspected role of some regional office-bearers of the RSS in motivating those Hindus, who had taken to anti-Muslim terrorism, is presently under investigation.
3. But there has been no evidence so far that the RSS as an organisation had any role in encouraging acts of reprisal against the Muslims or in motivating those who had taken to terrorism. The RSS and its leaders seem to have been as much surprised and embarrassed by the activities of these Hindu elements as other sections of the Hindu society.In the past, there had been instances of some Hindus indulging in acts of sporadic violence against Muslims in moments of public anger, but there were no instances of any Hindu or group of Hindus taking to deliberately planned acts of anti-Muslim terrorism.
4.Such deliberate and pre-planned acts of terrorism by elements in the Hindu community, including one or two officers of the armed forces, have been a recent phenomenon triggered off by a growing anger in sections of the Hindu community over what they perceived as inaction or inadequate action of the Congress (I) controlled Governments in dealing with acts of terrorism by some members of the Indian Muslim community and by Pakistani jihadi organisations sponsored by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
5. These acts of reprisal terrorism by some members of the Hindu community called for two pronged action by the Government. Firstly, the arrest and prosecution of those involved. Secondly, action to address the causes of anger in the Hindu community . Instead of doing so, the Congress (I), by launching an unwise and virulent campaign against the RSS, is going to add to the anger in the Hindu community, large sections of which look upon the RSS as an organisation which has been serving the cause of Hinduism in the land of its origin through its religious, social, cultural and humanitarian work.
6. The Hindus are in an overwhelming majority in this country and they have a right to have organisations such as the RSS to preserve the heritage of their religion and to protect and nourish their religious roots. By demonising the RSS as a terrorist and Nazi-like organisation, the Congress (I) under the leadership of Mrs.Sonia Gandhi seeks to insult millions of Hindus in this country who serve the cause of the RSS and discredit their heritage in the eyes of the rest of the world.
7. The anti-RSS campaign of the Congress (I) will not only add to the already existing anger in sections of the Hindu community,but will also play into the hands of the jihadi terrorists by facilitating their objective of aggravating the divide between the Hindu and Muslim communities. Before this campaign starts further damaging the relations between the two communities, the Congress (I) should stop its demonisation of the RSS, which would prove counter-productive. ( 22-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
The exercise initiated by Mrs.Sonia Gandhi, the President of the Congress (I), and her cohorts at the just concluded 83rd plenary of the Congress (I) to have the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) projected and demonised as a Hindu terrorist organisation comparable to the Nazi groups of World War II vintage and the more recent Islamic terrorist organisations speaks of the mental confusion that prevails at the senior levels of her party. It also highlights the total bankruptcy of thinking and the total indifference to sensitive issues that have become the defining characteristics of the party under her leadership in recent months.
2. It is a fact that some members of the Hindu community had during the last three or four years taken to acts of reprisal terrorism against the Muslim community at Malegaon, Hyderabad and Ajmer. It also seems to be a fact that the Hindus suspected to have been involved in these acts of reprisal terrorism were ideologically close to some of the Hindutva groups, including the RSS. The suspected role of some regional office-bearers of the RSS in motivating those Hindus, who had taken to anti-Muslim terrorism, is presently under investigation.
3. But there has been no evidence so far that the RSS as an organisation had any role in encouraging acts of reprisal against the Muslims or in motivating those who had taken to terrorism. The RSS and its leaders seem to have been as much surprised and embarrassed by the activities of these Hindu elements as other sections of the Hindu society.In the past, there had been instances of some Hindus indulging in acts of sporadic violence against Muslims in moments of public anger, but there were no instances of any Hindu or group of Hindus taking to deliberately planned acts of anti-Muslim terrorism.
4.Such deliberate and pre-planned acts of terrorism by elements in the Hindu community, including one or two officers of the armed forces, have been a recent phenomenon triggered off by a growing anger in sections of the Hindu community over what they perceived as inaction or inadequate action of the Congress (I) controlled Governments in dealing with acts of terrorism by some members of the Indian Muslim community and by Pakistani jihadi organisations sponsored by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
5. These acts of reprisal terrorism by some members of the Hindu community called for two pronged action by the Government. Firstly, the arrest and prosecution of those involved. Secondly, action to address the causes of anger in the Hindu community . Instead of doing so, the Congress (I), by launching an unwise and virulent campaign against the RSS, is going to add to the anger in the Hindu community, large sections of which look upon the RSS as an organisation which has been serving the cause of Hinduism in the land of its origin through its religious, social, cultural and humanitarian work.
6. The Hindus are in an overwhelming majority in this country and they have a right to have organisations such as the RSS to preserve the heritage of their religion and to protect and nourish their religious roots. By demonising the RSS as a terrorist and Nazi-like organisation, the Congress (I) under the leadership of Mrs.Sonia Gandhi seeks to insult millions of Hindus in this country who serve the cause of the RSS and discredit their heritage in the eyes of the rest of the world.
7. The anti-RSS campaign of the Congress (I) will not only add to the already existing anger in sections of the Hindu community,but will also play into the hands of the jihadi terrorists by facilitating their objective of aggravating the divide between the Hindu and Muslim communities. Before this campaign starts further damaging the relations between the two communities, the Congress (I) should stop its demonisation of the RSS, which would prove counter-productive. ( 22-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
THE 2G SPECTRUM SCAM: A DIVERSIONARY TACTICS
B.RAMAN
Mrs.Sonia Gandhi, the President of the Congress (I), and Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh have been living in a make-believe world of their own totally cut off from reality. This became apparent from their speeches at the just concluded 83rd plenary session of the Congress (I).
2. The reality is the plethora of serious corruption cases that have come to the fore one after the other for more than a year now--- in the Government of India as well as in the State of Maharashtra. These cases demanded prompt action for their investigation and prosecution of those involved in the cases----either at the political level or at the level of bureaucrats or both. Instead of initiating prompt action in a manner that would satisfy the public, attempts have been made to drag their feet in order to avoid having to take action while pretending to act. Instead of acting against the wrong-doers through the investigative agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), these agencies were kept away from the wrong-doers in a blatant manner in an attempt to protect them from the legal consequences of their wrong-doing.
3.Whenever the CBI takes up a case of suspected corruption for preliminary enquiry or investigation, it is expected to initiate three steps immediately after taking cognizance of the complaint---firstly, seize documents that could have a bearing on the enquiry or investigation to prevent their being tampered with or destroyed; secondly, identify and freeze bank accounts that could be connected with the wrong-doing in order to prevent the money-trail from being destroyed; and thirdly, seize the passports and other travel documents of the suspects under enquiry or investigation in order to prevent them from fleeing the country. Arrests follow later for custodial interrogation before prosecution.
4.None of these steps was taken----particularly in the case relating to the so-called 2G spectrum scam in the Ministry of Telecommunications in which the principal suspect is A.Raja, who had to resign as Minister following the submission of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India drawing attention to the massive irregularities allegedly committed by him during his tenure as the Minister. He allegedly committed these irregularities not clandestinely, but blatantly in a manner that was widely known in the Ministry.
5. No attempt seems to have been made for months by senior officials of the Prime Minister’s Office and the Cabinet Secretariat to prevent Raja from misusing his office and, if they did not succeed in doing so, to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to his misdeeds and seek his intervention. If they had not done so, it was dereliction of duty of a serious nature on their part. On the contrary, if they had done so, but if the Prime Minister had not acted on their caution, it was dereliction of duty by the Prime Minister for which he cannot escape responsibility.
6. There have been derelictions of duty at various levels----political and bureaucratic--- probably going up to the Prime Minister. The question is not just whether Dr.Manmohan Singh is an honest man of tremendous integrity. The question is whether Dr.Manmohan Singh was effective as the head of the Cabinet and the Government in rooting out such instances of corruption. There was a colossal failure of leadership by the Prime Minister who showed poor reflexes in dealing with the allegations and in failing to act against Raja and others involved.
7. A CBI enquiry---even if it be under the supervision of the Supreme Court---- can only go into the criminal ramifications of the case. It cannot go into the administrative and policy ramifications. Nor can it identify leadership deficiencies at various levels, which made this scam possible. Only a comprehensive enquiry by a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) into the various aspects of the scam---- political, administrative and criminal--- can throw light on what happened, how it happened, who were the dramatis personae and how it remained undetected. Only a JPC can identify and zero in on lapses at the Cabinet level.
8. By opposing such a comprehensive enquiry by a JPC, the Prime Minister and Sonia Gandhi are apparently trying to keep the enquiry confined to the criminal aspects of the case without going into the other aspects which could create embarrassment for the Government in general and the Prime Minister in particular.
9. In their speeches at the Congress plenary, Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh have used diversionary tactics by announcing a series of measures for preventing corruption in future without explaining what they intended doing to deal with the corruption that has already taken place and to punish those responsible so that there is a deterrent effect on future temptations. The Prime Minister’s offer to subject himself to questioning by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the Parliament is part of this diversionary tactics. The Prime Minister is yet to explain to the people why he is so doggedly opposing a JPC. The fact that past JPCs did not produce results is no excuse for not having one to enquire into the 2G spectrum scam.
10. Sonia Gandhi and the Prime Minister seem to be calculating that if they continue to stonewall the demand for a JPC and avoid a comprehensive enquiry, there could be a backlash against the opposition and public memory will start forgetting the scams. This should not be allowed to happen. (21-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and , presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Mrs.Sonia Gandhi, the President of the Congress (I), and Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh have been living in a make-believe world of their own totally cut off from reality. This became apparent from their speeches at the just concluded 83rd plenary session of the Congress (I).
2. The reality is the plethora of serious corruption cases that have come to the fore one after the other for more than a year now--- in the Government of India as well as in the State of Maharashtra. These cases demanded prompt action for their investigation and prosecution of those involved in the cases----either at the political level or at the level of bureaucrats or both. Instead of initiating prompt action in a manner that would satisfy the public, attempts have been made to drag their feet in order to avoid having to take action while pretending to act. Instead of acting against the wrong-doers through the investigative agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), these agencies were kept away from the wrong-doers in a blatant manner in an attempt to protect them from the legal consequences of their wrong-doing.
3.Whenever the CBI takes up a case of suspected corruption for preliminary enquiry or investigation, it is expected to initiate three steps immediately after taking cognizance of the complaint---firstly, seize documents that could have a bearing on the enquiry or investigation to prevent their being tampered with or destroyed; secondly, identify and freeze bank accounts that could be connected with the wrong-doing in order to prevent the money-trail from being destroyed; and thirdly, seize the passports and other travel documents of the suspects under enquiry or investigation in order to prevent them from fleeing the country. Arrests follow later for custodial interrogation before prosecution.
4.None of these steps was taken----particularly in the case relating to the so-called 2G spectrum scam in the Ministry of Telecommunications in which the principal suspect is A.Raja, who had to resign as Minister following the submission of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India drawing attention to the massive irregularities allegedly committed by him during his tenure as the Minister. He allegedly committed these irregularities not clandestinely, but blatantly in a manner that was widely known in the Ministry.
5. No attempt seems to have been made for months by senior officials of the Prime Minister’s Office and the Cabinet Secretariat to prevent Raja from misusing his office and, if they did not succeed in doing so, to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to his misdeeds and seek his intervention. If they had not done so, it was dereliction of duty of a serious nature on their part. On the contrary, if they had done so, but if the Prime Minister had not acted on their caution, it was dereliction of duty by the Prime Minister for which he cannot escape responsibility.
6. There have been derelictions of duty at various levels----political and bureaucratic--- probably going up to the Prime Minister. The question is not just whether Dr.Manmohan Singh is an honest man of tremendous integrity. The question is whether Dr.Manmohan Singh was effective as the head of the Cabinet and the Government in rooting out such instances of corruption. There was a colossal failure of leadership by the Prime Minister who showed poor reflexes in dealing with the allegations and in failing to act against Raja and others involved.
7. A CBI enquiry---even if it be under the supervision of the Supreme Court---- can only go into the criminal ramifications of the case. It cannot go into the administrative and policy ramifications. Nor can it identify leadership deficiencies at various levels, which made this scam possible. Only a comprehensive enquiry by a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) into the various aspects of the scam---- political, administrative and criminal--- can throw light on what happened, how it happened, who were the dramatis personae and how it remained undetected. Only a JPC can identify and zero in on lapses at the Cabinet level.
8. By opposing such a comprehensive enquiry by a JPC, the Prime Minister and Sonia Gandhi are apparently trying to keep the enquiry confined to the criminal aspects of the case without going into the other aspects which could create embarrassment for the Government in general and the Prime Minister in particular.
9. In their speeches at the Congress plenary, Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh have used diversionary tactics by announcing a series of measures for preventing corruption in future without explaining what they intended doing to deal with the corruption that has already taken place and to punish those responsible so that there is a deterrent effect on future temptations. The Prime Minister’s offer to subject himself to questioning by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the Parliament is part of this diversionary tactics. The Prime Minister is yet to explain to the people why he is so doggedly opposing a JPC. The fact that past JPCs did not produce results is no excuse for not having one to enquire into the 2G spectrum scam.
10. Sonia Gandhi and the Prime Minister seem to be calculating that if they continue to stonewall the demand for a JPC and avoid a comprehensive enquiry, there could be a backlash against the opposition and public memory will start forgetting the scams. This should not be allowed to happen. (21-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and , presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Monday, December 20, 2010
WEN JIABAO: PAKISTAN, A VALUABLE ASSET FOR CHINA
B.RAMAN
Prime Minister Wen Jiabao of China visited Pakistan from December 17 to 19,2010, after having completed a three-day visit to India from December 15 to 17. During his stay in Pakistan, he inaugurated a one-year celebration of the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Wen and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani jointly inaugurated on December 18 the Pakistan-China Friendship Center, which is a Chinese-aided cultural complex built in Islamabad by China to promote exchanges among students, media and academic circles from the two countries. Wen had laid the foundation for the center during his earlier visit to Pakistan in April 2005.
2.There were three important events during the visit. The first in order of significance was a joint courtesy call on him on December 18 by Gen.Khalid Shameem Wynne, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Gen.Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, the Chief of the Army Staff, Admiral Noman Bashir, the Chief of the Naval Staff, and Air Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman, the Chief of the Air Staff. According to the Xinhua news agency, during his meeting with the heads of the Pakistani Armed Forces, Wen called for enhanced military exchanges and cooperation between China and Pakistan so as to cement the bilateral strategic partnership of cooperation. He said: “The Pakistani military is a steadfast supporter and vindicator of the China-Pakistan friendship, and has played an important role in consolidating and developing their strategic partnership of cooperation."He applauded the close exchanges between the two militaries in the areas of anti-terrorism and disaster relief, and hoped to further enhance the military links to contribute to the development of bilateral ties.
3. According to the Xinhua, the Pakistani military chiefs described China as an all-weather strategic partner of Pakistan and said the bilateral friendship had withstood severe challenges. The Pakistani military was ready to work jointly with China to play a positive role in developing their strategic partnership of cooperation. According to well-informed Pakistani sources, the initiative for the joint courtesy call came from the Pakistani military leaders. The meeting underlined the important role which the Pakistani Armed Forces have been playing in the development of Pakistan’s strategic partnership with China. Reports from Islamabad indicate that no Chinese military officer of comparable seniority and importance was present with Wen when he received the heads of the Pakistani Armed Forces to reassure them of China’s continued support for Pakistan.
4. The second in order of significance was Wen’s discussions with President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani. Xinhua quoted Wen as telling Gilani on December 17 as follows: "China and Pakistan were, are and will always be good neighbors, good friends, good partners and good brothers. China appreciates the strong support Pakistan has long been offering on issues concerning China's core interests, and will continue backing Pakistan's efforts in defending national sovereignty, maintaining social stability and achieving independent and sustainable economic development.” Noting that Pakistan has made huge sacrifices for and important contributions to the global counterterrorism campaign, Wen said his country is ready to work together with Pakistan to promote regional peace and stability. Speaking at a banquet hosted by Zardari, Wen said: “For decades, the two countries have been treating each other with sincerity and supporting each other on all international fora. Our friendship is a valuable asset.”
5.The third in order of significance was Wen’s address to a joint session of the two Houses of the Pakistan Parliament on December 19 before he left for China. In his address, Wen underlined the importance of China’s relations with Pakistan in the context of China’s policies in the region. He said inter alia: “To cement and advance the all-weather strategic partnership of cooperation between China and Pakistan is our common strategic choice. It serves the fundamental interests of both countries and peoples and contributes to peace, stability and development of the region and beyond. The two neighboring countries are brothers for ever. China-Pakistan friendship is full of vigor and vitality, like a lush tree with deep roots and thick foliage. China-Pakistan relationship is strong and solid, like a rock standing firm despite the passage of time. Pakistan has sacrificed greatly and made great efforts in the fight against terrorism. It is a reality ... and the international community should respect Pakistan’s efforts.” Recalling Pakistan's consistent and full support to China in the past at some crucial junctures and on various issues, including issues concerning Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang, Wen said that China received valuable help from Pakistan.
6. Talking to the media after Wen’s address to the Parliament, Pakistan’s Interior Minister Rehman Malik described it as a strong message to the enemies of Pakistan. He said that Wen’s address reflected the emotional attachment of the people and Government of China with the Government and the people of Pakistan and added: “The Premier’s speech must have rung alarm bells to the enemies of Pakistan, which cast covetous eyes on its peace, stability, progress and prosperity. It’s a strong message to the enemies (of Pakistan).”
7. Following are the salient points of the joint statement issued by Gilani and Wen at the end of their talks:
* “China-Pakistan relationship has gone beyond the bilateral scope, with broader regional and international influence.”
* “The Pakistani side stressed that the friendship with China is the cornerstone of Pakistan’s foreign policy.”
* “The Chinese side reiterated its respect for Pakistan’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. The Pakistan side reiterated its adherence to the one-China policy.”
* “The two sides agreed to focus on strengthening infrastructure, energy and agricultural cooperation. The Chinese side is willing to upgrade the Karakoram Highway. An energy cooperation mechanism has been established to promote co-operation in the development of conventional energy, renewable energy and civilian nuclear cooperation.”
* The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China has decided to open branches in Islamabad and Karachi.
* The two sides have decided to strengthen the implementation of the framework agreement on co-operation between the China National Space Administration and the Pakistan Space and Atmosphere Research Commission.
* “China believes that in the fight against terrorism, Pakistan has made great efforts and sacrifices. It reaffirmed its respect for Pakistan’s efforts to develop and implement its own national conditions under its anti-terrorism strategy. Pakistan reiterated its firm determination to combat terrorism.”
* “China believes that Pakistan is an important country in the region, which should play an important role for the maintenance of regional peace, security and stability. The two countries support the unity and the territorial integrity of Afghanistan. “
8. Wen’s visit came at a time when the Pakistani economy is going through a difficult period due to the recent floods and when Pakistan has been under increasing criticism from the US for not doing enough in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Apart from highlighting the growing strategic partnership between the two countries and their military-military relationship, Wen missed no opportunity to underline China’s economic solidarity with Pakistan and its appreciation of Islamabad’s contribution to the fight against terrorism. He was reported to have promised to Pakistan low-interest loans amounting to US $ one billion for various projects and export credits amounting to US $ 300 million.
9. There has been some confusion regarding the total economic benefits to Pakistan as a result of the Wen visit. The “Global Times” of China estimated the total value of the various agreements signed as about US $ 10 billion, but the Pakistani media, briefed by Pakistani officials, has given the figure as US $ 35 billion. After going through the welter of confusing reports from Pakistan on the economic benefits to Pakistan, one can assess as follows:
* Immediately after the floods, China had pledged US $ 250 million as grants as flood relief. Wen has pledged another US $ 400 million as low-interest loans for the reconstruction of the flood-ravaged infrastructure.
* Among the infrastructure reconstruction projects to be given priority is the repair, upgradation and recommissioning of the Karakoram Highway from Xinjiang. The National Highway Authority (NHA) of Pakistan and the China Road and Bridge Corporation (CRBC) signed an agreement for the reconstruction/rehabilitation of a portion of the Karakoram Highway (KKH) which had been damaged at a cost of $275 million. NHA Chairman Altaf Ahmed Chaudhry and CRBC President Wen Gang signed the agreement on behalf of their respective organisations. While talking to reporters, Chaudhry said that heavy landsliding at Attaabad on the Karakoram Highway had blocked the flow of the River Hunza, which resulted in the formation of a lake at the site. The lake submerged a 25 kilometre-long section of KKH, resulting in suspension of traffic and all other activities in the area. The CRBC was already engaged in widening and rehabilitation of the Raikot-Khunjerab section of the KKH. Following a survey, the CRBC has said that a section of the road could be reclaimed by bringing down the water level in the lake by 30 metres. A new alignment will have to be made for the rest of the portion. Chaudhry said that a 17-kilometer-long road will be constructed on a new alignment while a 7 kilometre-long section will be rehabilitated. The project will be completed in two years. He said the project includes construction of two tunnels having a length of 4,485 metres and 1,225 metres. He added that seven large and two bridges and 70 culverts will also be built. ( From the “Daily Times” of Lahore)
* According to a list of Chinese-aided projects handed out to journalists by Pakistani officials, the biggest deal to receive Chinese assistance would be worth $6.5 billion to develop wind and solar power. There was no specific reference to the Chinese assistance for the construction of three more nuclear power stations. The Chinese proposal in this regard is still to be approved by the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group. Despite this, the Chinese suppliers of the new power stations are going ahead with their preparatory work such as preparation of designs.
* Pakistani officials told their media that Pakistan and China have agreed in principle to constitute a consortium for seeking a soft loan from international institutions for laying a railway line between the two countries through the Khunjerab Pass. It is not clear why China is not providing the funds for this as it has done in the case of the railway lines being constructed by it in Myanmar. China had strongly opposed in the Asian Development Bank a proposal for a soft loan for some Indian hydel power stations in Arunachal Pradesh. India should strongly oppose any proposal for financial assistance to the proposed railway line from any international or regional institution.
* There was no reference during Wen’s visit to the Pakistani proposal for the construction of oil/gas pipelines from the Chinese-constructed Gwadar port to Xinjiang. The Chinese continue to be hesitant to make fresh commitments in Balochistan due to the security problems in the area.
10. The relatives of 350 Pakistani nationals languishing in jails in China held a demonstration in Peshawar on December 18 to demand the release of their relatives by the Chinese authorities. They have been arrested and jailed by the Chinese authorities for illegally entering Xinjiang and for indulging in narcotics smuggling. Many of those arrested for narcotics smuggling have been sentenced to death by Chinese courts. (21-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Prime Minister Wen Jiabao of China visited Pakistan from December 17 to 19,2010, after having completed a three-day visit to India from December 15 to 17. During his stay in Pakistan, he inaugurated a one-year celebration of the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Wen and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani jointly inaugurated on December 18 the Pakistan-China Friendship Center, which is a Chinese-aided cultural complex built in Islamabad by China to promote exchanges among students, media and academic circles from the two countries. Wen had laid the foundation for the center during his earlier visit to Pakistan in April 2005.
2.There were three important events during the visit. The first in order of significance was a joint courtesy call on him on December 18 by Gen.Khalid Shameem Wynne, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Gen.Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, the Chief of the Army Staff, Admiral Noman Bashir, the Chief of the Naval Staff, and Air Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman, the Chief of the Air Staff. According to the Xinhua news agency, during his meeting with the heads of the Pakistani Armed Forces, Wen called for enhanced military exchanges and cooperation between China and Pakistan so as to cement the bilateral strategic partnership of cooperation. He said: “The Pakistani military is a steadfast supporter and vindicator of the China-Pakistan friendship, and has played an important role in consolidating and developing their strategic partnership of cooperation."He applauded the close exchanges between the two militaries in the areas of anti-terrorism and disaster relief, and hoped to further enhance the military links to contribute to the development of bilateral ties.
3. According to the Xinhua, the Pakistani military chiefs described China as an all-weather strategic partner of Pakistan and said the bilateral friendship had withstood severe challenges. The Pakistani military was ready to work jointly with China to play a positive role in developing their strategic partnership of cooperation. According to well-informed Pakistani sources, the initiative for the joint courtesy call came from the Pakistani military leaders. The meeting underlined the important role which the Pakistani Armed Forces have been playing in the development of Pakistan’s strategic partnership with China. Reports from Islamabad indicate that no Chinese military officer of comparable seniority and importance was present with Wen when he received the heads of the Pakistani Armed Forces to reassure them of China’s continued support for Pakistan.
4. The second in order of significance was Wen’s discussions with President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani. Xinhua quoted Wen as telling Gilani on December 17 as follows: "China and Pakistan were, are and will always be good neighbors, good friends, good partners and good brothers. China appreciates the strong support Pakistan has long been offering on issues concerning China's core interests, and will continue backing Pakistan's efforts in defending national sovereignty, maintaining social stability and achieving independent and sustainable economic development.” Noting that Pakistan has made huge sacrifices for and important contributions to the global counterterrorism campaign, Wen said his country is ready to work together with Pakistan to promote regional peace and stability. Speaking at a banquet hosted by Zardari, Wen said: “For decades, the two countries have been treating each other with sincerity and supporting each other on all international fora. Our friendship is a valuable asset.”
5.The third in order of significance was Wen’s address to a joint session of the two Houses of the Pakistan Parliament on December 19 before he left for China. In his address, Wen underlined the importance of China’s relations with Pakistan in the context of China’s policies in the region. He said inter alia: “To cement and advance the all-weather strategic partnership of cooperation between China and Pakistan is our common strategic choice. It serves the fundamental interests of both countries and peoples and contributes to peace, stability and development of the region and beyond. The two neighboring countries are brothers for ever. China-Pakistan friendship is full of vigor and vitality, like a lush tree with deep roots and thick foliage. China-Pakistan relationship is strong and solid, like a rock standing firm despite the passage of time. Pakistan has sacrificed greatly and made great efforts in the fight against terrorism. It is a reality ... and the international community should respect Pakistan’s efforts.” Recalling Pakistan's consistent and full support to China in the past at some crucial junctures and on various issues, including issues concerning Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang, Wen said that China received valuable help from Pakistan.
6. Talking to the media after Wen’s address to the Parliament, Pakistan’s Interior Minister Rehman Malik described it as a strong message to the enemies of Pakistan. He said that Wen’s address reflected the emotional attachment of the people and Government of China with the Government and the people of Pakistan and added: “The Premier’s speech must have rung alarm bells to the enemies of Pakistan, which cast covetous eyes on its peace, stability, progress and prosperity. It’s a strong message to the enemies (of Pakistan).”
7. Following are the salient points of the joint statement issued by Gilani and Wen at the end of their talks:
* “China-Pakistan relationship has gone beyond the bilateral scope, with broader regional and international influence.”
* “The Pakistani side stressed that the friendship with China is the cornerstone of Pakistan’s foreign policy.”
* “The Chinese side reiterated its respect for Pakistan’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. The Pakistan side reiterated its adherence to the one-China policy.”
* “The two sides agreed to focus on strengthening infrastructure, energy and agricultural cooperation. The Chinese side is willing to upgrade the Karakoram Highway. An energy cooperation mechanism has been established to promote co-operation in the development of conventional energy, renewable energy and civilian nuclear cooperation.”
* The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China has decided to open branches in Islamabad and Karachi.
* The two sides have decided to strengthen the implementation of the framework agreement on co-operation between the China National Space Administration and the Pakistan Space and Atmosphere Research Commission.
* “China believes that in the fight against terrorism, Pakistan has made great efforts and sacrifices. It reaffirmed its respect for Pakistan’s efforts to develop and implement its own national conditions under its anti-terrorism strategy. Pakistan reiterated its firm determination to combat terrorism.”
* “China believes that Pakistan is an important country in the region, which should play an important role for the maintenance of regional peace, security and stability. The two countries support the unity and the territorial integrity of Afghanistan. “
8. Wen’s visit came at a time when the Pakistani economy is going through a difficult period due to the recent floods and when Pakistan has been under increasing criticism from the US for not doing enough in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Apart from highlighting the growing strategic partnership between the two countries and their military-military relationship, Wen missed no opportunity to underline China’s economic solidarity with Pakistan and its appreciation of Islamabad’s contribution to the fight against terrorism. He was reported to have promised to Pakistan low-interest loans amounting to US $ one billion for various projects and export credits amounting to US $ 300 million.
9. There has been some confusion regarding the total economic benefits to Pakistan as a result of the Wen visit. The “Global Times” of China estimated the total value of the various agreements signed as about US $ 10 billion, but the Pakistani media, briefed by Pakistani officials, has given the figure as US $ 35 billion. After going through the welter of confusing reports from Pakistan on the economic benefits to Pakistan, one can assess as follows:
* Immediately after the floods, China had pledged US $ 250 million as grants as flood relief. Wen has pledged another US $ 400 million as low-interest loans for the reconstruction of the flood-ravaged infrastructure.
* Among the infrastructure reconstruction projects to be given priority is the repair, upgradation and recommissioning of the Karakoram Highway from Xinjiang. The National Highway Authority (NHA) of Pakistan and the China Road and Bridge Corporation (CRBC) signed an agreement for the reconstruction/rehabilitation of a portion of the Karakoram Highway (KKH) which had been damaged at a cost of $275 million. NHA Chairman Altaf Ahmed Chaudhry and CRBC President Wen Gang signed the agreement on behalf of their respective organisations. While talking to reporters, Chaudhry said that heavy landsliding at Attaabad on the Karakoram Highway had blocked the flow of the River Hunza, which resulted in the formation of a lake at the site. The lake submerged a 25 kilometre-long section of KKH, resulting in suspension of traffic and all other activities in the area. The CRBC was already engaged in widening and rehabilitation of the Raikot-Khunjerab section of the KKH. Following a survey, the CRBC has said that a section of the road could be reclaimed by bringing down the water level in the lake by 30 metres. A new alignment will have to be made for the rest of the portion. Chaudhry said that a 17-kilometer-long road will be constructed on a new alignment while a 7 kilometre-long section will be rehabilitated. The project will be completed in two years. He said the project includes construction of two tunnels having a length of 4,485 metres and 1,225 metres. He added that seven large and two bridges and 70 culverts will also be built. ( From the “Daily Times” of Lahore)
* According to a list of Chinese-aided projects handed out to journalists by Pakistani officials, the biggest deal to receive Chinese assistance would be worth $6.5 billion to develop wind and solar power. There was no specific reference to the Chinese assistance for the construction of three more nuclear power stations. The Chinese proposal in this regard is still to be approved by the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group. Despite this, the Chinese suppliers of the new power stations are going ahead with their preparatory work such as preparation of designs.
* Pakistani officials told their media that Pakistan and China have agreed in principle to constitute a consortium for seeking a soft loan from international institutions for laying a railway line between the two countries through the Khunjerab Pass. It is not clear why China is not providing the funds for this as it has done in the case of the railway lines being constructed by it in Myanmar. China had strongly opposed in the Asian Development Bank a proposal for a soft loan for some Indian hydel power stations in Arunachal Pradesh. India should strongly oppose any proposal for financial assistance to the proposed railway line from any international or regional institution.
* There was no reference during Wen’s visit to the Pakistani proposal for the construction of oil/gas pipelines from the Chinese-constructed Gwadar port to Xinjiang. The Chinese continue to be hesitant to make fresh commitments in Balochistan due to the security problems in the area.
10. The relatives of 350 Pakistani nationals languishing in jails in China held a demonstration in Peshawar on December 18 to demand the release of their relatives by the Chinese authorities. They have been arrested and jailed by the Chinese authorities for illegally entering Xinjiang and for indulging in narcotics smuggling. Many of those arrested for narcotics smuggling have been sentenced to death by Chinese courts. (21-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Sunday, December 19, 2010
TALKS ON WESTERN SECTOR OF BORDER: CHINA SEEKS TO BRING IN PAKISTAN AS AN INTERESTED PARTY
B.RAMAN
In an article of August 28,2010, titled "Dealing with Chinese Machinations on J & K" (http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers41%5Cpaper4004.html ), I had stated as follows: “By questioning the legitimacy of India's sovereignty over J&K, the Chinese may be creating a future option for themselves of questioning India's locus standi to negotiate with them on the future of the Indian territory in the Ladakh area occupied by them in the past. They could use this option in future if their relations with India deteriorate.” The text of the article is annexed for easy reference.
2.Since January, 2010, there have been references by Chinese officials and media to the length of the Sino-Indian border as about 2000 kms. The People's Daily had reported on January 7: "China and India share a nearly 2,000-km border and disputed areas cover about 125,000 sq km on both sides."The "2000-km-long" boundary was mentioned in the “China Daily” in August 2009 in a report on the 13th round of boundary talks between the two sides. After the 14th round of the border talks held at Beijing on November 29 and 30,2010, by Shiv Shankar Menon, India’s National Security Adviser, and Dai Bingguo, the Chinese State Councillor,there were three important commentaries on the talks in the Chinese media----by the Party-controlled “Global Times”, by Zhou Gang, a former Chinese Ambassador to India, in the “Beijing Review” and by Cheng Ruisheng, another former Chinese Ambassador to India, in an interview to the Chinese TV (CCTV).
3. “The Global Times” commentary said that the Chinese Government’s position was that both countries “will take into consideration each other’s concerns, and work toward an equitable and justified settlement of border issues that is acceptable to both sides.” However, it quoted Zhao Gancheng, a leading Chinese strategist, as saying “Indian activities near the border” and “remarks made by senior Indian officials who played up the China threat” had “harmed the chances” of reaching a quick resolution. It did not make any reference to the length of the Sino-Indian border.
4. However, the comments of the two former Chinese Ambassadors to India made specific references to the length of the border. Zhou Gang was quoted as saying: “The Sino-Indian border stretches for about 2,000 km, and the two countries have never officially mapped it out. For a long time, the two sides abided by a traditional customary line based on their respective administrative regions.” Cheng Ruisheng was quoted as saying: “China and India share roughly a 2,000 kilometer border which has never been formally delineated.”
5. In subsequent reports as curtain raisers to the just concluded visit of Prime Minister Wen Jiabao to New Delhi from December 15 to 17,2010, sections of the Chinese media specified the approximate length of the Sino-Indian border as about 2000 kms. A Xinhua report from Beijing disseminated before the departure of Wen to India described the Sino-Indian border as nearly 2,000-km long. Xinhua’s reference was reportedly based on an official briefing by the Assistant Foreign Minister of China, Hu Zhengyue to the Beijing press corps on December 13. On December 14, in an interview with the Indian Ambassador to China, S. Jaishankar, the “Global Times” asked about the reported tensions on the border. In response, Jaishankar said, “The reality contradicts any alarmist depiction of the situation on the border, whether in India or in China. We have a long common border of 3,488 km.” In publishing the interview the “Global Times” chose to add the following comments: “There is no settled length of the common border. The Chinese Government often refers to the border length as being ‘about 2,000 km.”
6. India has always been estimating the approximate length of the Sino-Indian border as about 3,500 kms in all the three sectors---Eastern, middle and Western--- taken together. While it is about 2000 kms in the Eastern and the middle sectors taken together, it is another about 1500 kms long in the Western sector in Jammu & Kashmir. China, which had never openly questioned the Indian estimate of the length of the common border before, is now unilaterally seeking to exclude from consideration during the border talks the dispute between India and China over the Chinese occupation of a large territory in the Ladakh sector of J&K. In fact, it is seeking to question India’s locus standi to discuss with China the border in the J&K area in view of Pakistan’s claims to this area. It is trying to bring in Pakistan as an interested party in so far as the border talks regarding the Western sector are concerned. It wants to change the format of the border talks in order to keep it confined bilaterally to the Eastern and middle sectors and expand it to a trilateral issue involving India, China and Pakistan in the Western sector. The exclusion of the border in the J&K sector from its estimate of the total length of the border is another indication that it does not recognize India’s claims of sovereignty over J&K.
7. This has come in the wake of its decision to stop issuing regular visas to Indian citizens residing in J&K and to issue them only stapled visas. It is apparent that this is part of a well thought-out policy of unilaterally changing the ground rules of the border talks. It had earlier allegedly changed the ground rules in the Eastern sector by going back on a prior understanding with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that the border should be demarcated in such a manner as not to affect populated areas. It is now going back on its previous stand in the Western sector by seeking to challenge India’s locus standi in view of its dispute with Pakistan.
8. Even at the risk of a further delay in the exercise to solve the border dispute, India should not agree to any change in the ground rules which would restrict the border talks only to the Eastern and middle sectors and exclude the Western sector on the ground that India has a dispute over this area with Pakistan. ( 20-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and, Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE
(MY ARTICLE OF AUGUST 28,2010)
Dealing with Chinese Machinations on J & K
By B. Raman
The international community treats Jammu & Kashmir as a de facto----but not de jure --- part of India. Similarly, it treats Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK) and Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) as de facto---- but not de jure---parts of Pakistan. In pursuance of this policy, other countries honour the Indian passports held by the residents of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) and issue them normal visas on those passports when they want to travel. Similarly, they honour the Pakistani passports held by the residents of POK and GB and issue them visas on those passports.
2. China used to follow a similar policy till last year. It has now modified that policy in a significant manner. While it does not question the validity of the Indian passports held by the residents of J&K, it has stopped issuing visas on those passports.It has not debarred them from traveling to China, but they are allowed to travel only on the basis of a plain paper visa which is stapled to their Indian passport. The entry and exit stamps of the Chinese immigration are affixed on the plan paper visa and not on their Indian passport.
3. While doing so, Beijing has not changed its visa issue policy in respect of Pakistani residents of POK and GB. It is believed they are still issued visas on their Pakistani passports. Moreover, ignoring Indian protests, it is going ahead with its project to assist Pakistan in the upgradation of the Karakoram Highway which runs across GB and in the construction of hydel power and irrigation projects in GB. It has also agreed to participate in a feasibility study for the construction of a railway line to Xinjiang through GB. It has not yet agreed to assist Pakistan in the construction of an oil/gas pipeline from Gwadar to Xinjiang through GB.
4.The modifications in the Chinese policy have the following implications:
* Firstly, China has started treating POK and GB as de facto and de jure parts of Pakistan. It does not recognise Indian claims to these territories.
* Secondly, it has diluted its past acceptance of J&K as a de facto part of India. This would give satisfaction to Pakistan, which projects J&K as Pakistani territory under the illegal occupation of India. This would also lend support to the Pakistani contention that it has a political, diplomatic and moral right to support the so-called freedom struggle in J&K.
* Thirdly, by questioning the legitimacy of India's sovereignty over J&K, the Chinese may be creating a future option for themselves of questioning India's locus standi to negotiate with them on the future of the Indian territory in the Ladakh area occupied by them in the past. They could use this option in future if their relations with India deteriorate.\
5. The modification in the Chinese position on J & K and its active involvement in infrastructure and other development projects in POK and GB have coincided with indicators of active Pakistani assistance to China in quelling the revolt of the Uighurs in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region which has a common border with GB. These indicators include an increase in the number of Chinese intelligence officers posted in Pakistan to keep a watch on the Uighur community living in Pakistan, Pakistani intensification of the surveillance of the members of the Uighur community and restrictions on their travel in Pakistan, rounding up of members of the Uighur community living in Pakistan who are accused by the Chinese of being members of the Eastern Turkestan lslamic Movement and their being handed over to the Chinese authorities without following the due process of law, intensification of the intelligence exchange and the recent joint counter-terrorism exercise, which was, in effect, a joint counter-Uighur exercise.
6. In the Chinese perception, their ability to pacify Xinjiang would depend on continued co-operation from Pakistan and strengthening Pakistan's control over POK and GB. Their modification of their policy relating to J&K is as a quid pro quo to Pakistan playing the role of their frontline ally in the fight against the Uighur freedom fighters represented by the Munich-based World Uighur Congress and Uighur jihadis belonging to the Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement. The Chinese decision to modify their policy even at the risk of its coming in the way of their developing relations with India is indicative of their serious concerns relating to Xinjiang. The need to pacify Xinjiang has assumed primacy in Chinese policy-making over the importance of misunderstanding-free relations with India.
7.India woke up to the changes in the Chinese policy last year when it noticed that the Chinese had stopped issuing regular visas to residents of J&K and have started issuing plain paper visas. There has been a further jolt to the Government of India in this matter by the reported disinclination of the Chinese to issue a visa to Lt. Gen. R. S. Jaswal, chief of the Northern Command of the Indian Army, to make an official visit to China as part of the high-level military exchanges agreed to by the two countries. The reasons for which they expressed their disinclination are not clear. Some reports say that it was because the Northern Command is responsible for external security in the J&K area along the Line of Control and the international border and they consider J&K to be a disputed territory. Some other reports attribute the Chinese disinclination to the fact that Lt. Gen. Jaswal was perceived to be a hawk who believed that China posed a military threat to India. There are still other reports claiming that Lt. Gen. Jaswal is actually a Kashmiri native and hence the Chinese objection to him. One does not know whether this is factually correct.
8. Whatever be the reason, the Chinese disinclination to issue a visa to him has to be strongly opposed by the Government of India. New Delhi has done well to suspend military-military exchanges till this issue is settled to the satisfaction of India without allowing it to affect the other aspects of the developing relations with China and come in the way of the on-going border talks. India's response has been limited to the military-military relationship.
9. The issue has tactical and strategic aspects. The tactical aspect relates to our response to the non-issue of a visa to Lt. Gen. Jaswal. We have reacted in adequate measure.
10. The strategic aspect relates to the following:
* How are we going to counter the Chinese attempts to question the legitimacy of our sovereignty over J&K and to re-open the entire issue?
* How are we going to counter the repeated Chinese actions in ignoring our protests and concerns relating to their involvement in the POK and GB?
11. Our response at the strategic level cannot remain confined to the suspension of military exchanges. It has to go beyond that. We had recognised Tibet as an integral part of China. We have shown good faith in adhering to that position. China has not shown good faith on the issue of J&K being an integral part of India. The time has come for us to re-examine our position in matters relating to Tibet. We have to make it clear to Beijing that our continued adherence to our present position on Tibet would depend on its respecting our sensitivities in matters relating to J&K, POK and GB. If it does not respect our core interests in relation to J &K, POK and GB, it cannot expect us to continue to respect its core interests relating to Tibet.
12. As a starter in the re-examination of our Tibetan policy, we should make evident the seriousness of our unhappiness with Beijing on this issue by immediately associating His Holiness the Dalai Lama with the project for the revival of the Nalanda University.
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
In an article of August 28,2010, titled "Dealing with Chinese Machinations on J & K" (http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers41%5Cpaper4004.html ), I had stated as follows: “By questioning the legitimacy of India's sovereignty over J&K, the Chinese may be creating a future option for themselves of questioning India's locus standi to negotiate with them on the future of the Indian territory in the Ladakh area occupied by them in the past. They could use this option in future if their relations with India deteriorate.” The text of the article is annexed for easy reference.
2.Since January, 2010, there have been references by Chinese officials and media to the length of the Sino-Indian border as about 2000 kms. The People's Daily had reported on January 7: "China and India share a nearly 2,000-km border and disputed areas cover about 125,000 sq km on both sides."The "2000-km-long" boundary was mentioned in the “China Daily” in August 2009 in a report on the 13th round of boundary talks between the two sides. After the 14th round of the border talks held at Beijing on November 29 and 30,2010, by Shiv Shankar Menon, India’s National Security Adviser, and Dai Bingguo, the Chinese State Councillor,there were three important commentaries on the talks in the Chinese media----by the Party-controlled “Global Times”, by Zhou Gang, a former Chinese Ambassador to India, in the “Beijing Review” and by Cheng Ruisheng, another former Chinese Ambassador to India, in an interview to the Chinese TV (CCTV).
3. “The Global Times” commentary said that the Chinese Government’s position was that both countries “will take into consideration each other’s concerns, and work toward an equitable and justified settlement of border issues that is acceptable to both sides.” However, it quoted Zhao Gancheng, a leading Chinese strategist, as saying “Indian activities near the border” and “remarks made by senior Indian officials who played up the China threat” had “harmed the chances” of reaching a quick resolution. It did not make any reference to the length of the Sino-Indian border.
4. However, the comments of the two former Chinese Ambassadors to India made specific references to the length of the border. Zhou Gang was quoted as saying: “The Sino-Indian border stretches for about 2,000 km, and the two countries have never officially mapped it out. For a long time, the two sides abided by a traditional customary line based on their respective administrative regions.” Cheng Ruisheng was quoted as saying: “China and India share roughly a 2,000 kilometer border which has never been formally delineated.”
5. In subsequent reports as curtain raisers to the just concluded visit of Prime Minister Wen Jiabao to New Delhi from December 15 to 17,2010, sections of the Chinese media specified the approximate length of the Sino-Indian border as about 2000 kms. A Xinhua report from Beijing disseminated before the departure of Wen to India described the Sino-Indian border as nearly 2,000-km long. Xinhua’s reference was reportedly based on an official briefing by the Assistant Foreign Minister of China, Hu Zhengyue to the Beijing press corps on December 13. On December 14, in an interview with the Indian Ambassador to China, S. Jaishankar, the “Global Times” asked about the reported tensions on the border. In response, Jaishankar said, “The reality contradicts any alarmist depiction of the situation on the border, whether in India or in China. We have a long common border of 3,488 km.” In publishing the interview the “Global Times” chose to add the following comments: “There is no settled length of the common border. The Chinese Government often refers to the border length as being ‘about 2,000 km.”
6. India has always been estimating the approximate length of the Sino-Indian border as about 3,500 kms in all the three sectors---Eastern, middle and Western--- taken together. While it is about 2000 kms in the Eastern and the middle sectors taken together, it is another about 1500 kms long in the Western sector in Jammu & Kashmir. China, which had never openly questioned the Indian estimate of the length of the common border before, is now unilaterally seeking to exclude from consideration during the border talks the dispute between India and China over the Chinese occupation of a large territory in the Ladakh sector of J&K. In fact, it is seeking to question India’s locus standi to discuss with China the border in the J&K area in view of Pakistan’s claims to this area. It is trying to bring in Pakistan as an interested party in so far as the border talks regarding the Western sector are concerned. It wants to change the format of the border talks in order to keep it confined bilaterally to the Eastern and middle sectors and expand it to a trilateral issue involving India, China and Pakistan in the Western sector. The exclusion of the border in the J&K sector from its estimate of the total length of the border is another indication that it does not recognize India’s claims of sovereignty over J&K.
7. This has come in the wake of its decision to stop issuing regular visas to Indian citizens residing in J&K and to issue them only stapled visas. It is apparent that this is part of a well thought-out policy of unilaterally changing the ground rules of the border talks. It had earlier allegedly changed the ground rules in the Eastern sector by going back on a prior understanding with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that the border should be demarcated in such a manner as not to affect populated areas. It is now going back on its previous stand in the Western sector by seeking to challenge India’s locus standi in view of its dispute with Pakistan.
8. Even at the risk of a further delay in the exercise to solve the border dispute, India should not agree to any change in the ground rules which would restrict the border talks only to the Eastern and middle sectors and exclude the Western sector on the ground that India has a dispute over this area with Pakistan. ( 20-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and, Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE
(MY ARTICLE OF AUGUST 28,2010)
Dealing with Chinese Machinations on J & K
By B. Raman
The international community treats Jammu & Kashmir as a de facto----but not de jure --- part of India. Similarly, it treats Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK) and Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) as de facto---- but not de jure---parts of Pakistan. In pursuance of this policy, other countries honour the Indian passports held by the residents of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) and issue them normal visas on those passports when they want to travel. Similarly, they honour the Pakistani passports held by the residents of POK and GB and issue them visas on those passports.
2. China used to follow a similar policy till last year. It has now modified that policy in a significant manner. While it does not question the validity of the Indian passports held by the residents of J&K, it has stopped issuing visas on those passports.It has not debarred them from traveling to China, but they are allowed to travel only on the basis of a plain paper visa which is stapled to their Indian passport. The entry and exit stamps of the Chinese immigration are affixed on the plan paper visa and not on their Indian passport.
3. While doing so, Beijing has not changed its visa issue policy in respect of Pakistani residents of POK and GB. It is believed they are still issued visas on their Pakistani passports. Moreover, ignoring Indian protests, it is going ahead with its project to assist Pakistan in the upgradation of the Karakoram Highway which runs across GB and in the construction of hydel power and irrigation projects in GB. It has also agreed to participate in a feasibility study for the construction of a railway line to Xinjiang through GB. It has not yet agreed to assist Pakistan in the construction of an oil/gas pipeline from Gwadar to Xinjiang through GB.
4.The modifications in the Chinese policy have the following implications:
* Firstly, China has started treating POK and GB as de facto and de jure parts of Pakistan. It does not recognise Indian claims to these territories.
* Secondly, it has diluted its past acceptance of J&K as a de facto part of India. This would give satisfaction to Pakistan, which projects J&K as Pakistani territory under the illegal occupation of India. This would also lend support to the Pakistani contention that it has a political, diplomatic and moral right to support the so-called freedom struggle in J&K.
* Thirdly, by questioning the legitimacy of India's sovereignty over J&K, the Chinese may be creating a future option for themselves of questioning India's locus standi to negotiate with them on the future of the Indian territory in the Ladakh area occupied by them in the past. They could use this option in future if their relations with India deteriorate.\
5. The modification in the Chinese position on J & K and its active involvement in infrastructure and other development projects in POK and GB have coincided with indicators of active Pakistani assistance to China in quelling the revolt of the Uighurs in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region which has a common border with GB. These indicators include an increase in the number of Chinese intelligence officers posted in Pakistan to keep a watch on the Uighur community living in Pakistan, Pakistani intensification of the surveillance of the members of the Uighur community and restrictions on their travel in Pakistan, rounding up of members of the Uighur community living in Pakistan who are accused by the Chinese of being members of the Eastern Turkestan lslamic Movement and their being handed over to the Chinese authorities without following the due process of law, intensification of the intelligence exchange and the recent joint counter-terrorism exercise, which was, in effect, a joint counter-Uighur exercise.
6. In the Chinese perception, their ability to pacify Xinjiang would depend on continued co-operation from Pakistan and strengthening Pakistan's control over POK and GB. Their modification of their policy relating to J&K is as a quid pro quo to Pakistan playing the role of their frontline ally in the fight against the Uighur freedom fighters represented by the Munich-based World Uighur Congress and Uighur jihadis belonging to the Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement. The Chinese decision to modify their policy even at the risk of its coming in the way of their developing relations with India is indicative of their serious concerns relating to Xinjiang. The need to pacify Xinjiang has assumed primacy in Chinese policy-making over the importance of misunderstanding-free relations with India.
7.India woke up to the changes in the Chinese policy last year when it noticed that the Chinese had stopped issuing regular visas to residents of J&K and have started issuing plain paper visas. There has been a further jolt to the Government of India in this matter by the reported disinclination of the Chinese to issue a visa to Lt. Gen. R. S. Jaswal, chief of the Northern Command of the Indian Army, to make an official visit to China as part of the high-level military exchanges agreed to by the two countries. The reasons for which they expressed their disinclination are not clear. Some reports say that it was because the Northern Command is responsible for external security in the J&K area along the Line of Control and the international border and they consider J&K to be a disputed territory. Some other reports attribute the Chinese disinclination to the fact that Lt. Gen. Jaswal was perceived to be a hawk who believed that China posed a military threat to India. There are still other reports claiming that Lt. Gen. Jaswal is actually a Kashmiri native and hence the Chinese objection to him. One does not know whether this is factually correct.
8. Whatever be the reason, the Chinese disinclination to issue a visa to him has to be strongly opposed by the Government of India. New Delhi has done well to suspend military-military exchanges till this issue is settled to the satisfaction of India without allowing it to affect the other aspects of the developing relations with China and come in the way of the on-going border talks. India's response has been limited to the military-military relationship.
9. The issue has tactical and strategic aspects. The tactical aspect relates to our response to the non-issue of a visa to Lt. Gen. Jaswal. We have reacted in adequate measure.
10. The strategic aspect relates to the following:
* How are we going to counter the Chinese attempts to question the legitimacy of our sovereignty over J&K and to re-open the entire issue?
* How are we going to counter the repeated Chinese actions in ignoring our protests and concerns relating to their involvement in the POK and GB?
11. Our response at the strategic level cannot remain confined to the suspension of military exchanges. It has to go beyond that. We had recognised Tibet as an integral part of China. We have shown good faith in adhering to that position. China has not shown good faith on the issue of J&K being an integral part of India. The time has come for us to re-examine our position in matters relating to Tibet. We have to make it clear to Beijing that our continued adherence to our present position on Tibet would depend on its respecting our sensitivities in matters relating to J&K, POK and GB. If it does not respect our core interests in relation to J &K, POK and GB, it cannot expect us to continue to respect its core interests relating to Tibet.
12. As a starter in the re-examination of our Tibetan policy, we should make evident the seriousness of our unhappiness with Beijing on this issue by immediately associating His Holiness the Dalai Lama with the project for the revival of the Nalanda University.
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Saturday, December 18, 2010
WEN: FOCUS ON PAKISTAN & CHINA AS MILITARY ALLIES
B.RAMAN
During the current visit of Prime Minister Wen Jiabao of China to Pakistan, the focus has been on projecting China and Pakistan as military allies helping each other in defending their national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
2.The Chinese Government controlled Xinhua news agency quoted Wen as telling Pakistani Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani on December 17 as follows: "China and Pakistan were, are and will always be good neighbors, good friends, good partners and good brothers.China appreciates the strong support Pakistan has long been offering on issues concerning China's core interests, and will continue backing Pakistan's efforts in defending national sovereignty, maintaining social stability and achieving independent and sustainable economic development.” Noting that Pakistan has made huge sacrifice for and important contributions to the global counterterrorism campaign, Wen said his country is ready to work together with Pakistan to promote regional peace and stability.
3. During a meeting with Gen.Khalid Shameem Wynne, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Gen.Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, Chief of the Army Staff, Admiral Noman Bashir, Chief of the Naval Staff, and Air Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman, Chief of the Air Staff, at Islamabad on December 18, Wen , according to the Xinhua, called for enhanced military exchanges and cooperation between China and Pakistan so as to cement the bilateral strategic partnership of cooperation. He said: " The Pakistani military is a steadfast supporter and vindicator of the China-Pakistan friendship, and has played an important role in consolidating and developing their strategic partnership of cooperation."He applauded the close exchanges between the two militaries in the areas of anti-terrorism and disaster relief, and hoped to further enhance the military links to contribute to the development of bilateral ties.
4. According to the Xinhua, the Pakistani military chiefs who called on Wen described China as an all-weather strategic partner of Pakistan and said the bilateral friendship had withstood severe challenges. The Pakistani military was ready to work jointly with China to play a positive role in developing their strategic partnership of cooperation. ( 19-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate, Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-Mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
During the current visit of Prime Minister Wen Jiabao of China to Pakistan, the focus has been on projecting China and Pakistan as military allies helping each other in defending their national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
2.The Chinese Government controlled Xinhua news agency quoted Wen as telling Pakistani Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani on December 17 as follows: "China and Pakistan were, are and will always be good neighbors, good friends, good partners and good brothers.China appreciates the strong support Pakistan has long been offering on issues concerning China's core interests, and will continue backing Pakistan's efforts in defending national sovereignty, maintaining social stability and achieving independent and sustainable economic development.” Noting that Pakistan has made huge sacrifice for and important contributions to the global counterterrorism campaign, Wen said his country is ready to work together with Pakistan to promote regional peace and stability.
3. During a meeting with Gen.Khalid Shameem Wynne, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Gen.Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, Chief of the Army Staff, Admiral Noman Bashir, Chief of the Naval Staff, and Air Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman, Chief of the Air Staff, at Islamabad on December 18, Wen , according to the Xinhua, called for enhanced military exchanges and cooperation between China and Pakistan so as to cement the bilateral strategic partnership of cooperation. He said: " The Pakistani military is a steadfast supporter and vindicator of the China-Pakistan friendship, and has played an important role in consolidating and developing their strategic partnership of cooperation."He applauded the close exchanges between the two militaries in the areas of anti-terrorism and disaster relief, and hoped to further enhance the military links to contribute to the development of bilateral ties.
4. According to the Xinhua, the Pakistani military chiefs who called on Wen described China as an all-weather strategic partner of Pakistan and said the bilateral friendship had withstood severe challenges. The Pakistani military was ready to work jointly with China to play a positive role in developing their strategic partnership of cooperation. ( 19-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate, Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-Mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
RAHUL GANDHI & WIKILEAKS
B.RAMAN
An unnecessary political controversy has been created over a diplomatic cable from the US Embassy in New Delhi to the US State Department in Washington DC summarising, inter alia, a discussion on terrorism in India which the US Ambassador Timothy Roemer reportedly had with Rahul Gandhi, the General Secretary of the Congress (I), at a lunch hosted by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in July last year. It is one of the cables leaked out by WikiLeaks.
2. A careful reading and analysis of Rahul Gandhi's observations as reported in the cable would indicate that the theme of the discussions was about the relative threat faced by India from the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), a Pakistani organisation, and indigenous extremist elements belonging to the Hindu as well as Muslim communities. My reading is that Rahul Gandhi had said that the indigenous elements----whether the Indian Muslims who have taken to terrorism or some Hindu elements taking to terrorism--- cause him greater concern than the LET.
3. This is what I have been saying since the Indian Mujahideen (IM) made its appearance in 2007 and since some Hindu elements, angered by what they perceived as the soft policy of the Congress(I) controlled Governments towards Muslim terrorists, took to reprisal terrorism against the Muslims and their places of worship. I have been saying that while we can be ruthless without any qualms of conscience against the LET and other Pakistani jihadi organisations, we cannot be so against our own citizens who take to terrorism---whether they are Hindus or Muslims. We have to be more nuanced in dealing with our indigenous terrorist elements without adding to the anger in the two communities against each other. The LET has been active in India for over 17 years. We are used to dealing with it with no holds barred. The new indigenous elements----Indian Muslims and Hindus--- are of recent origin and it is going to be more difficult to deal with them--- unless we pay attention to the anger in the two communities----- the anger in the Muslim community over perceptions of unfair policies towards their community and the anger in the Hindu community over perceptions of softness towards the Muslim terrorists.
4. I, therefore, do not take serious objection to the views of Rahul Gandhi. However, I wonder whether it was wise on his part to have discussed this with the US Ambassador lest his views be misinterpreted as has happened now following the leak of the cable. (19-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
An unnecessary political controversy has been created over a diplomatic cable from the US Embassy in New Delhi to the US State Department in Washington DC summarising, inter alia, a discussion on terrorism in India which the US Ambassador Timothy Roemer reportedly had with Rahul Gandhi, the General Secretary of the Congress (I), at a lunch hosted by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in July last year. It is one of the cables leaked out by WikiLeaks.
2. A careful reading and analysis of Rahul Gandhi's observations as reported in the cable would indicate that the theme of the discussions was about the relative threat faced by India from the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), a Pakistani organisation, and indigenous extremist elements belonging to the Hindu as well as Muslim communities. My reading is that Rahul Gandhi had said that the indigenous elements----whether the Indian Muslims who have taken to terrorism or some Hindu elements taking to terrorism--- cause him greater concern than the LET.
3. This is what I have been saying since the Indian Mujahideen (IM) made its appearance in 2007 and since some Hindu elements, angered by what they perceived as the soft policy of the Congress(I) controlled Governments towards Muslim terrorists, took to reprisal terrorism against the Muslims and their places of worship. I have been saying that while we can be ruthless without any qualms of conscience against the LET and other Pakistani jihadi organisations, we cannot be so against our own citizens who take to terrorism---whether they are Hindus or Muslims. We have to be more nuanced in dealing with our indigenous terrorist elements without adding to the anger in the two communities against each other. The LET has been active in India for over 17 years. We are used to dealing with it with no holds barred. The new indigenous elements----Indian Muslims and Hindus--- are of recent origin and it is going to be more difficult to deal with them--- unless we pay attention to the anger in the two communities----- the anger in the Muslim community over perceptions of unfair policies towards their community and the anger in the Hindu community over perceptions of softness towards the Muslim terrorists.
4. I, therefore, do not take serious objection to the views of Rahul Gandhi. However, I wonder whether it was wise on his part to have discussed this with the US Ambassador lest his views be misinterpreted as has happened now following the leak of the cable. (19-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)