India’s tense ties with China

[third eye]

A well written article, brings out the nexus of the Commies in India with " outsiders'. The ' Mir jaffers" are within.

DAWN.COM | Columnists | India?s tense ties with China

The portrait of Stalin was prominently displayed at the parade celebrating Beijing’s 60th anniversary. One of the world’s most tyrannical rulers, his picture still takes the pride of place in the office of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) politburo in Kolkata.

Therefore, it was not surprising that CPI-M secretary-general Prakash Karat underplayed China’s recent intrusions and attributed Indian criticism to the ‘strategic alliance’ between India and America. Those who remain sentimental about Beijing are confusing China with the communism that represented the cleansing of thought, reformist ideals and the passion of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Such people themselves have drifted away from the ideology of the true left. If they had any spark of intellectual honesty left in them, they would have tried to rescue communism from China and not use this ideology to justify their conquests.

Both the Communist Party of India and the CPI-M, which claim to represent the left, still have the same reverence for Beijing as they did when the Chinese undertook the Long March under the leadership of Mao Zedong. Then the goal was to build an agrarian economy from below. Capitalism, which the country has now adopted for development, did not fit into the scheme the Chinese were pursuing at that time. Out of capitalism grew the idea of superiority in arms. This is not the China of Mao Zedong’s dreams.

The way China is behaving towards India today invokes memories of the run-up to what happened in 1962. The forcible building at that time of the infamous Aksai-Chin Road and the murders of India’s border patrol men is a sad chapter in the history of India-China relations and something one hoped had been buried. But the recent incursions by Chinese soldiers into Arunachal Pradesh have been accompanied by boasts that they can take over the whole area in a couple of days.

This is hardly a manifestation of the Hindi-Chini bhai bhai equation. I thought China occupied in 1962 all the territory it claimed and declared a unilateral ceasefire. It did not even agree to the Colombo proposals which suggested the withdrawal of 12.5km from the positions the two sides held. India, even though the victim, complied with the proposals.

Over the years, talks between the two countries have not resulted in any firm borders either on the Ladakh or Arunachal side. But the middle sector, including Sikkim, has been recognised by China. Why has it now intruded into Sikkim and left its evidence in the shape of large red Chinese characters painted on rocks? This definitely indicates a change in Beijing’s thinking.

No sovereign country can take this kind of behaviour lying down. Nor can India condone China’s claim that Arunachal belongs to it. Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of India and New Delhi has made it clear more than once.

The latest irritation has come in the shape of visas granted to people originating from Kashmir. Instead of the standard type, the visa has been attached to a separate piece of paper stapled on to the passport. This is designed to convey that China can lay down the law and get away with it as well. The result has been that students who were given the new type of visa could not go to universities of their choice in China because India did not recognise the visa given to them.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh continues to pursue a relationship of peace and goodwill despite these provocations. I concede that China is far ahead of us in military prowess. They have more conventional weapons as well as nuclear devices.

Yet, India is not the same as it was in 1962. It is economically an emerging giant.

It may not have allocated as much money to defence as the dangers on its borders warrant. Jawaharlal Nehru also made the same mistake. He wanted to develop the country instead of having a large military arsenal. But if the desire is to articulate that power comes from the barrel of the gun, New Delhi may also be forced to reorder its priorities. Perhaps India should take a leaf out of Vietnam’s book. Here is a small country that has also suffered a border dispute with China but stood its ground and refused to kowtow.

Probably, there is something in what Nehru said in 1962 that the clash between China and India is a clash between two ideologies, two cultures and two different ways of viewing the world. One is the democratic with a live-and-let-live philosophy and the other represents authoritarianism and is without a free press, free judiciary or free vote.

We are not on weak ground, but what I cannot understand is the series of statements by the service chiefs one after another declaring that India could not take on China. The outgoing naval chief, Adm Suresh Mehta, said the country had neither the capability nor the intention to match China’s force. The new air chief, P.V. Naik, says the strength of India’s air force is one-third that of China’s. If we are ill-equipped in military strength, the chiefs can communicate this to the government, which is the right authority to take care of any inadequacies. Otherwise they not only demoralise the people, they also misguide the government.

India has a dearth of expertise where China is concerned. India by now should have encouraged the development of scores, if not hundreds, of experts capable of dissecting and analysing every Chinese move. Both Russia and Japan have, over the years, amassed sufficient information to help them deal with Beijing. India can learn from them. Force, however strong, cannot and should not have the last word.

The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.

 

[Nemesis]

Absurd article. Can you people stop the crap about the CPI supporting China over India? It is an absurd suggestion. It didn't happen in 62, it certainly won't happen in 2009. This kind of crap gets published in capitalist newspapers to undermine leftist movements. By the way, China isn't communist anymore.

 

[Merilion]

A well written article, brings out the nexus of the Commies in India with " outsiders'. The ' Mir jaffers" are within.

DAWN.COM | Columnists | India?s tense ties with China

The portrait of Stalin was prominently displayed at the parade celebrating Beijing’s 60th anniversary.

The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.

Sigh, the very first sentence of the article is not true already. And the writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.

 

[Nemesis]

By the way, if certain members here are so interested in looking at the (non existent) relationship between the PRC and the Communist Party in India. Perhaps they would be interested to know that the majority funding for fascists organizations like the RSS/VHP comes from American and British citizens of Indian origin.

I wonder what made these NRIs so interested in India- i mean they did forsake India for another country - and now they spend their hard earned dollars and pounds in funding these fools, is it pan hindu nationalism?

 

[EjazR]

Absurd article. Can you people stop the crap about the CPI supporting China over India? It is an absurd suggestion. It didn't happen in 62, it certainly won't happen in 2009. This kind of crap gets published in capitalist newspapers to undermine leftist movements. By the way, China isn't communist anymore.

CPI as a whole supporting China is certainly absurd but there is no doubt that China would like to see itself as the only "power" in Asia. Infact CPI and CPC don't even share the same ideology anymore.


This article probably better reflects India China ties

The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : Coping with rising China

There is no reason to assume that India’s rapidly rising neighbour, set to become the world’s largest economy in the next two decades, will not play the normal game of nations. But the current hawkishness and jingoism in sections of the media and strategic circles in India is without basis and uncalled for, argues a veteran strategic affairs specialist.

In the last few weeks a number of accounts have appeared in our media of ‘incidents’ on the Indo-China Line of Actual Control (LoAC) that portrayed China as exerting military pressure on India. There were also reports of China objecting to the Asian Development Bank loan to a development project in Arunachal Pradesh on the ground that it is a disputed territory and issuing stapled instead of stamped visas for travellers, of Kashmiri residence to China.

Very hawkish articles appeared in the media on both sides. In China, an analyst repeated the argument of the 1960s that India cannot stay united. In India, the ghosts of 1962 were resurrected and there were predictions that there was likely to be a Chinese attack on India by 2012. The retiring Naval Chief’s sober assessment that militarily India is not in a position to catch up with China on equality of forces and equipment in the conventional sense and therefore India should consider technological solutions to cope up with, and not confront a rising China, was misinterpreted as defeatist sentiment in certain media and strategic circles.

It is no doubt significant that while all this tension generation is in the media of the two countries the two governments have sought to reduce the tension and discourage the hype in the media. Some political parties, ex-service officers, and strategists have drawn totally inapt comparisons with 1962. I am one of the few surviving senior citizen civil servants who were in the Ministry of Defence at that time. I functioned as a member of the Joint Intelligence Committee from November 1962 till December 1964.

Year 2009 is not 1962. In 1962, China was isolated from the international system. It was conducting a ‘Hate America’ campaign annually and also denouncing the Soviet leadership as revisionists and capitalist roaders. The Chinese attack on India was launched to coincide with the Cuban missile crisis to make sure that the two superpowers would be preoccupied with each other and not be able to apply pressure on China. The Chinese also promptly withdrew from the Arunachal Pradesh territory they occupied back to the McMahon line.

At that time under the advice of American Ambassador J.K. Galbraith the Indian leadership did not use the Air Force for fear of superior Chinese retaliatory capability. The truth, which we did not know at that time, was that the Chinese Air Force was totally grounded as the Soviets had denied them spares and aviation fuel — not because of the attack on India but because of the ongoing ideological dispute. The debacle in Sela-Bomdila happened not because the Indian Army was outgunned and outmanned but because the divisional commander did not fight and attempted to withdraw from a well entrenched position due to sheer panic. There are books on the ‘unfought war’ by people who were there at that time. Since then the Indian Army has faced the Chinese under valiant leadership and acquitted itself very creditably.

China of today is not the Maoist country that argued that power grew out of the barrel of a gun and that even if 300 million Chinese perished in a nuclear war 300 million would survive to build a glorious civilisation. Times have changed since the ideology of countryside surrounding the cities was advanced during the Cultural Revolution. ‘Dig tunnels deep and store grain everywhere’ was the Maoist slogan in preparation for a nuclear war. China of the 1960s was an isolated country and today it is one of the largest trading nations of the world. Those who build skyscrapers and Three Gorges dam will not be thinking of war in the same way Mao did. China is energy-import dependent and its energy transit lanes through the Indian Ocean and Malacca Straits are very vulnerable

China has a much greater stake in Taiwan than it has in Arunachal Pradesh, which it totally vacated after occupying large sections of it in 1962. It has not risked a war on Taiwan over the last 60 years. It has been extraordinarily patient about it since it understands the risks involved in using force on Taiwan recovery. There was a time (the whole of the 1950s and 1960s) when U.S. aircraft and warships would violate Chinese airspace and Chinese territorial waters regularly. China issued the relevant 437th and 593rd serious warnings to the United States. That continued until it allied itself with the U.S. in 1971 faced with the perceived Soviet nuclear threat. Ideology did not stand in the way.

There are valuable lessons for India in China’s patience and purposive response, untrammelled by ideological baggage or the overburden of memory. When Henry Kissinger started his secret trip to make up with Beijing, he told the doubters that the Chinese were pragmatists.

China is a rising power and is most likely to overtake the U.S. as the country with highest GDP in the next couple of decades. It wants to be the dominant power of Asia in the immediate future and that will mean an unequal relationship with other major Asian powers. The only nation that is perceived to have the potential to challenge China, not in the short run but over the longer period, is India — with a comparable population, a similar civilisational heritage, and the advantage of a younger age profile. While a meaningful challenge from India to China is not likely to come for at least a couple decades, India is in a position to play the role of a balancer in the ongoing rivalry between China and the U.S.

Chinese policies towards India have subtle elements of sophisticated coercion to attempt to prevent a closer partnership developing between India and the U.S. China may also have plans to shape a final settlement of the Tibetan issue on the passing of the present Dalai Lama. The pressure on Arunachal and procrastination in finalising the border may be a part of a long-term strategy to compel India to accept a post-Dalai Lama dispensation in Tibet and bring the matter to a closure.

China asserts that it will be rising peacefully. There is no disputing that peaceful rise is in its interest. But that does not preclude the normal practices in the game of nations of pressure, influence, and dominance — economically, politically and even militarily but without recourse to the actual use of force. That has happened all through history and there is no reason to assume that China will not practise the normal game of nations.

India has to learn to cope with this challenge without getting hysterical. Nor should it hamper in any way the growing trade relations between the two countries. There is, in fact, a good case to develop mutual dependencies in a globalised world, with due care to ensure that the dependency does not become unfavourably one-sided against our interest. The most effective way of doing it is to step up our economic growth to 10 per cent by exploiting all available favourable factors in the international economic and political system, as China is doing; develop rapidly our border infrastructure; augment our military capability without delays; and attempt to develop stakes for all major powers in our growth and security.

While doing all this, there is no need to indulge in jingoistic rhetoric. There can be firmness in dealing with the LoAC or other issues where there are attempts at exploiting unequal advantages in situations. India has arrived at a stage in international politics when it has to demonstrate maturity in playing the game of nations.

(The author, a retired civil servant, is an internationally known strategic affairs specialist and commentator.)

 

[third eye]

By the way, if certain members here are so interested in looking at the (non existent) relationship between the PRC and the Communist Party in India. Perhaps they would be interested to know that the majority funding for fascists organizations like the RSS/VHP comes from American and British citizens of Indian origin.

I wonder what made these NRIs so interested in India- i mean they did forsake India for another country - and now they spend their hard earned dollars and pounds in funding these fools, is it pan hindu nationalism?

They possibly feel the best way to contain the Commies is to prop up those who are sworn to uphold India before all else.

 

[Nemesis]

Yup, sworn to uphold India by keeping the minorities under subjugation. India apparently means Hindu Rasthra. Gee thanks Third Eye.

 

[baker]

Absurd article. Can you people stop the crap about the CPI supporting China over India? It is an absurd suggestion. It didn't happen in 62, it certainly won't happen in 2009. This kind of crap gets published in capitalist newspapers to undermine leftist movements. By the way, China isn't communist anymore.

but what is wriiten in
Communist Party of India (Marxist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[EjazR]

Extreme Religious/ethnic nationalism of any kind is bane to society wether it be Muslim, Hindu, or any other religion. As these kind of groups get radicalised more and more, they easily turn to violence. Hitler's Germany is good example of ethnic/religious nationalism taking control of a country. Sure big business will love it, no more hurdles but society as a whole will be dead.

Its not surprising that many of these extremist groups hold Hitler in high regard

 

[Nemesis]

but what is wriiten in
Communist Party of India (Marxist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is hardly a source. It can be edited by anyone with an internet connection.

 

[baker]

Wikipedia is hardly a source. It can be edited by anyone with an internet connection.

ofcourse i agree with u..............

u know . am living in a place where cpim has its roots......
AFAIK these guys never oppose the their statements that made during 62 war....

 

[indiatech]

Communism in india will find its natural death with due time. Communism doesn't match our attitude and instincts at all. Wheather maoist or marxist or leninist or whatever.

 

[baker]

Communism in india will find its natural death with due time. Communism doesn't match our attitude and instincts at all. Wheather maoist or marxist or leninist or whatever.

communisum should not end in india..........
but communitst leaders in india should change their attitude....
like their opposing towards indian millitary ties with usa

 

[PeacefulIndian]

Communism in india will find its natural death with due time. Communism doesn't match our attitude and instincts at all. Wheather maoist or marxist or leninist or whatever.

Sooner the better. May the process be started by their recent whitewash in General Elections. My blood starts boiling whenever I hear their regressive strategies & outdated agenda.

 

[agastya]

The sacking of VS Achuthanandan from the CPM politburo yesterday wasn’t the first time the octogenarian chief minister of Kerala had been punished by his party for indiscipline. Nor was it the first time that the veteran comrade had decided to stand his ground in the face of opposition from the party leadership.

In the matter of sticking to his guns, VS had started early — at least as early as 1962.

In that year, he took a line that can today be called “pro-India”, but which the communist leadership then decided was “anti-party” — a crime for which he was demoted in the organisation’s hierarchy.

In 1962, as the Indian army fought Chinese aggression in the Himalayas, the undivided CPI supported China, putting ideology above nation. The government threw several communist leaders in prison. VS, then 39 and a central committee member, was put in Thiruvananthapuram central jail.

To blunt the campaign accusing the comrades of being Chinese agents, VS mooted the idea — in a routine weekly party meeting in jail — of donating blood for the jawans, and contributing money from the sale of prison rations saved by inmates to the defence kitty of the government.

O J Joseph, convener of the party’s jail committee and a latter-day member of the Rajya Sabha, rejected the proposal.

In the next meeting, Achuthanandan tried again. He argued hard and lobbied harder, and the meeting ended in a scuffle among the two groups led by Achuthanandan and Joseph.

One of the comrades, K Anirudhan, who later became a communist MP, informed the jail warden about the scuffle, and the news leaked to the media. Bengal communist Jyoti Basu then got in touch with E M S Namboodiripad, who asked K P R Gopalan, widely known as KPR, to probe the incident. As the row escalated, Achuthanandan dropped the plan to donate blood to t
known as KPR, to probe the incident. As the row escalated, Achuthanandan dropped the plan to donate blood to the army. During China war, comrades cracked down on VS for saying let’s give blood to jawans