*Rather a lot of blather here. Goes on and on and on, and the quality varies. However, it's of great interest to see that self-appointed Indian military strategy experts pound their chests just like American pyjamahideen bloggers.
*This is also an interesting spectrum of pretty much every aspect of popular Indian attitudes toward China – every aspect, that is, that fears and resents China and really likes artillery batallions. Got a real storm in an Oolong teacup here.
*By the way, patriotic Indians who are all freaked out about Chinese Communist armed aggression in 1962 are free to go comment on THAT GUY'S WEBSITE, and not this one. And wild-eyed Chinese hacker-patriots, that goes DOUBLE for you guys.
From: Ram Narayan
Dear Bruce Sterling:
Last month I stirred up a hornet’s nest when I threw open for discussion online an article and comments by retired IAS officer B S Raghavan suggesting that India make peace with China by ceding territory.
Editor S V Raju of FREEDOM FIRST, a monthly print magazine, founded by Minoo Masani, which reflects "the liberal position," has, in its March 2010 issue, reproduced a summarized version of the discussion on pages 15-22.
Here it is.
Ram Narayanan
FREEDOM FIRST, MONTHLY NO. 513, MARCH 2010
Should India Make Up With China NOW?
Ram Narayanan
My online dispatch of February 9, 2010 titled provocatively, “Should India make up with China NOW by surrendering territory or later when China will take it forcefully?” has produced interesting feedback from former diplomats, high ranking retired military officers, foreign policy experts and other knowledgeable observers of the India-China scene. Here is a selection of the online debate, for Freedom First readers, limited by space constraints.
Should India make up with China NOW by surrendering territory that the latter is asking for, instead of waiting for a time when China will take it forcefully? Or is India ready or getting prepared seriously to protect its territorial integrity?Mr. B. S. Raghavan a retired IAS officer, who has has held high positions in the Government of India wrote an article in the Business Line of July 6, 2009. The introductory and concluding paragraphs in his article say it all.
“ —The vista stretching before India and China, if only they join hands and march in step, is unparalleled in its grandeur...There can be no match to the combined synergy of two oldest civilisations, accounting for more than one-third of the human race, with cultural links going back to the time China came under the spell of Buddhism…”
**
“The President/Prime Minister of the People’s Republic of China and the Prime Minister of Indiacan solve the problem in a single sitting by keeping the big picture before them, by sweeping away the clutter of the past, and by mustering a statesmanlike spirit and a long range vision.”
The full article is available at http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/07/06/stories/2009070650390900.htm
In response, Col. Hariharan had the following questions:
1. What is the hurry to give away Tawang, and take what? The territory we are already holding? An undemarcated border? How about consulting the people who populate the disputed areas before we hand them over to the Chinese? Is it not germane in settling national strategic issues, rather than the honchos of India and China deciding over a cup of tea?
2. Is China ready for a link up with India and abandoning its global ambitions, even if we are?
3. To my mind the phalanx of India-Russia-China-Japan B. S. Raghavan speaks of in his article ignores historical realities of relationships of these nations.
Moreover, how does one bring about this when Europe and America watch such a global development with a wary eye?
Mr. B. S. Raghavan replied : “A very important point to note in the People’s Daily article is that in its reference to the need for give-and-take in settling the border dispute, it has not gone into specifics or preconditions – that is, it has not rubbed in its claim for Arunachal Pradesh nor its rejection of the “illegal” McMahon Line. In other words, it seems to have left some room for manoeuvre… It is very easy at such junctures to indulge in jingoism to win the applause of the multitudes and very difficult, and of course unpopular, to keep one’s head and work for a win-win solution. Greatness of a nation or a people lies in the statesmanship it can summon in sensitive situations. I wish somebody would impress this on our policy makers."
When I responded to this with the question: Since China is unlikely to agree to any sort of settlement short of surrendering Tawang, is India ready for that? Mr. Raghavan answered that “India should be mentally prepared for some territorial sacrifice to buy peace and harmony. I don’t take a cynical view of China as some brainwashed jingoists do…”
My own view is that it would be unwise for India to purchase peace by surrendering territory that is now part of India.
Having visited China four times during my career as a marketing consultant and having dealt with the Chinese both at the professional and government levels pretty extensively, I have a fair knowledge of how the Chinese think of themselves. They will not brook any country coming in the way of their pre-determined objective of becoming the number one superpower in this century and keeping that position. America they are prepared to tolerate for some time till they take over, but if India at any time starts making faster progress than China - woe to the Indians. Remember Munich? No attempt to appease the Chinese by territorial concession will satisfy the dragon. Therefore, India needs to be prepared to defend its territorial integrity by building up its armed forces to the requisite extent that will ward off any conceivable Chinese threat. Fortunately, it’s possible for India to upgrade the quality of its armed forces far above China’s, because unlike China, India has access to the world’s best weapons systems and weapons technology.
There were over 70 responses to the question. Space constraints prevent all 70 being published. Less than half of those who participated in this on-line debate find mention. Also there have been many repetitions which have been edited. If you wish to read the full text please write to me at [email protected]
Retired Lieutenant-General J. F. R. Jacob, the Chief of Staff of the Indian Army’s Eastern Command that vanquished the Pakistani army in the war of 1971: “The Chinese want the whole of the Tawang tract upto and beyond Senge, that is well south of our main defences south of the Se La Ridge. If given to them, they will have easy access to the plains of Assam as also to Tashigong in Bhutan, which we are committed to defend ,… and thence to the plains. Walong which they also want is in our territory some 70 miles inside. Possession is 90 % of the law...We should not talk anymore, but continue to hold our territory. If we are strong they dare not do anything.
Retired Major General Afsir Karim: The solution is a status quo. Aksai Chin cannot be taken back and Arunachal Pradesh or any part cannot be bartered. I believe China will be willing, provided some other conditions not directly related to the border dispute, are met. These conditions have to be discussed in a comprehensive dialogue held at the highest level. Preparedness to meet any armed aggression is a must even if an agreement is reached with China, but jingoism has no place in this process.
Arvind K Mathur, an Indian American Military History buff: There is an old saying in the military “ battles are lost in the minds of generals, not on the battle field”. Ask an Indian farmer if he will give up his land…Why do these analysts believe that India is incapable of defending herself against China? .. .I reject the idea that the Chinese will let us live in peace if we let them have the land that they look for. Note that this land is not important to them they just want it. So its not that if we give it to them they will say thank you and go about their business - no they will now be emboldened and ask for something else, may be the entire Indian Ocean.
Retired Admiral Arun Prakash, till recently India’s Chief of Naval Staff: Does no one remember history and the wages of appeasement? …Chamberlain’s f amous declaration on return from Munich in 1938, “ It is peace for our times....” will go down as the most pathetic last words ever.... Let there be no doubt that China is a hegemon which wants to give India another knock to ensure that we know our (Number 2) place in Asia. Give away Tawang today and they will demand Arunachal & Ladakh tomorrow. Given visionary & resolute leadership India can stand up to China and make them back off.
Arvind Virmani, author of, “From Unipolar to Tripolar World: Multipolar Transition Paradox, 2009": One simple question needs to be answered first: Is there any China sponsored global or continental (Asia wide) organisation (economic, social or security related) to which India was invited to be a full fledged founder member? I am not aware of any!
Retired Major General E. D’Souza, PVSM: I faced the Chinese in 1965 at Natu La. To me it is abundantly clear that we would be totally out of our minds to do so. I am convinced that we must stand fast and quietly go on girding our loins as we are now doing. (Freedom First readers will recall his many articles on the subject the last of which was in the January 2010 issue)
Madhav Nalapat, Professor of Geopolitics & UNESCO Peace Chair at the Manipal Academy of Higher Education: The Chinese are not interested in Tawang, but are using that to ensure Indian compliance on the “Dalai Issue” — the matter that is their deepest concern. Should we make concessions on that, they will agree to the status quo. So our friends are being needlessly generous, when they say that India should give away territory. Generally, that is a bad idea, including when the Obama team wants India to surrender Kashmir.
Mohan Guruswamy, China expert and author of the well acclaimed recently published book “Chasing the Dragon”: Will India Catch-up with China?”: No strategically minded India will allow the Chinese sub Himalayan space so near the Brahmaputra valley. The Himalayas are our natural boundary and China must remain on the other side of it.
Lawrence Prabhakar, Professor of Political Science, Madras Christian College and Strategic Affairs Analyst: Let me critique the propositions and outline why it is untenable in the strategic sense:
(a) By what measure do you sue for peace; is it on concrete power profile terms that is reciprocal of mutual sharing and giving up of territory for a concrete long-lasting political settlement or is it merely the angst from a bully power; By the way what does China give up? (b) In the recent history of China “settling its border and boundary disputes” there is not a single instance in which “Peaceful China” has reciprocated on territorial settlements including its strategic partner Russia. By the way Strategic Partner Russia is quite wary of China although it enjoys a flourishing commercial relationship with China. Russian officials recently have expressed much concern about China’s military and strategic modernization and Chinese designs on Siberia. The Russian-Chinese friendship or strategic partnership is evident as long as powerful USA lasts.
…Please remember no authoritarian power in the ancient or contemporary period would ever prefer peace when it is on the ascendant; Peace among democracies is possible and workable when they trade on strong economic salients.
…once India succumbs, then ASEAN would be a simple pushover on the South China Sea disputes; that leaves a jittery Japan that either stiffens up with its “normal” military power exercising its nuclear and missile options. It also exposes Russia into new strategic uncertainties. China then expands to an assertion with the Euro-Atlantic power with the demand that they share a duopoly – an uneasy one; with nuclear deterrence and space warfare on the anvil, China would simply sweep the Asian landmass with no deterrent power until it reaches the Greater Middle East and the Eurasian landmass. These are some heady geopolitical shifts that can be anticipated.
Let me state, China would not attack India as long as India has the conventional, land-air and naval forces in formidable order of battle and of course keeping a robust nuclear posture that is offensive. This includes a robust thermonuclear deterrent – one that is tested and deployed. Nuclear Deterrence and that too with an offensive accent alone can deter China.
Even if we go by the formula of reciprocity and exchange, as pointed out by Mr. B. S. Raghavan, what worked with Russia would not work with India and China since there is steep power asymmetry. As world-class practitioner of power, China goes by the principle of power peers and not power asymmetry.
Paresh Patel, President and CEO of a software company with offices in the US and in India: India gave back gained land to Pakistan after the war of 1971... did it help forge peace?
Pramitpal Chaudhuri, Prominent journalist and Foreign Editor, Hindustan Times: The basic flaw in Mr Raghavan’s thesis is that it assumes that it is only the border dispute that is getting in the way of a Sino-Indian rapprochement. Having met dozens of Chinese officials, journalists, diplomats and foreign policy analysts over the years I think it is safe to say that China has not the slightest interest in partnering with India on the geopolitical front...President Narayanan when he met Jiang Zemin told us how he was bluntly told by the Chinese leader, “we are your superior in everything except software; that surprised us; but I think it is only because of your knowledge of English.”...I’ve also noticed that the Chinese rarely mention the border dispute. They see it as an Indian obsession and have always said “let’s ignore the border and move on to other things.” The only gesture they would appreciate would be for India to hand over the Dalai Lama in a cage. This doesn’t mean India and China cannot and should not work out a modus vivendi. but India would have to earn China’s respect, most notably on the economic front, before Beijing would be interested in treating India as a geopolitical partner. A Chinese business student told his Indian hosts on a recent visit, “Your capital is no better than a second tier Chinese city.” For his government, India is no better than a second tier country.
Retired Col. Rakesh Prasad Chaturvedi: Our forward postures in Arunachal have deterred ingress. And if it was not for our indifferent political masters, we would have a far better infrastructure there, to match Chinese preparation in Tibet. Unfortunately our administrators and policy makers don’t come through as a cogent strong willed lot. Tibet has all but been given away on the logic Mr Raghavan is now propunding. And to what effect?
Sreeram Chaulia, Associate Professor of World Politics at the O. P. Jindal Global University in Sonipat, Haryana: I’m afraid Raghavan is building castles in the air by assuming China can just walk in and take Tawang without costs. What he should be talking about and we all should pay attention to is whether our nuclear arsenal meets the shifting definition of a credible deterrent. Brahma Chellaney has been correctly arguing that this is the most critical defence we have in the light of the growing military gap with China. It is pointless to debate the inevitability of losing Tawang when it is not actually inevitable … Scholars like John Garver have shown through elaborate research that Pakistan is China’s all weather partner which Beijing will never ever sacrifice, least of all for friendship with an India that shelters the Tibetan movement.
Sumeet Chhibber, an independent analyst in the US:. Have the Chinese indicated that the border dispute boils down to the ownership of Tawang? No!
Retired Brig. Suresh Nair is an infantry man who has intimate knowledge of India’s armed forces’ capabilities against China and the terrain on the borders: Land and territories in my view are not major consideraions for China in its attitude to India. China has enough territory even for its huge population, grabbing another few sq. kms. will not give it any major gains. If it was so why did they withdraw in ‘62?
Taiwan now and Hongkong earlier were different, it was a question of ideology and principles. So what are the Chinese up to as far as India is concerned? A million dollar question, which eludes the right explanation.. So whether India ’concedes’ territory or not, in my opinion, will make no difference to the relationship as we have to see the grand strategy behind the Chinese moves. Territory is just a pressure point to be applied at their convenience.
As long as the mighty Himalayas lie between India and China (God made geography but once), it will never be a cakewalk for the Chinese, if India is prepared to slog it out. They can line up the entire PLA but the gates are small in the mighty mountains and entry will be restricted. Of course that is just a simplistic way (in lighter vein) of putting it. The Chinese are well aware of that too and being the wise men from the land of Sun Tzu they are unlikely to get into any tangle which they are not sure of.
T. V. Parasuram, veteran journalist and retired Indian Express and Press Trust of India Special Correspondent in Washington DC and former Indian Army Observer with 26 Div.: When a foreign potentate visited China, according to custom, he would give a present to the Emperor and receive a gift in return. However, the way the Chinese historian wrote about it and filed it in secret archives was that the foreign ruler “paid a tribute” to the Chinese emperor and the son of heaven in return gave the visitor a gift. By using the word “tribute” the Chinese rulers secretly claimed the territory of the visitor as part of the Chinese empire – a claim to be enforced when China became stronger and the territory of the ruler who thought he was giving and receiving gifts in Beijing. Unlike India which historically has been multilingual, multicultural and multi-religious, the Chinese believe that their way is not only superior but also the only one for a “civilized person” to live by.
Vijendran Rao, a retired senior scientist who has lived through the freedom movement and the aftermath of independence: The current joke going the round here is ‘What Russia could not achieve with Communism, China will achieve with Capitalism - in strangling the West’. China knows how to use your own innovations to devour you.
Dinesh, a technology entrepreneur in the US: I continue to say that India needs to do what’s in India’s long term interests and only thing India needs to worry about is self interest, nothing more nothing less. If ceding some territory which the British annexed long time ago and handed over to us, and we neglect that territory and its habitants, do we really have a moral right to keep it? Shri Raghavan has provided a workable solution and if the Chinese agree to that (which may be quite a difficult task), I think the rest will fall in line - Japan, Russia, ASEAN, US or Europe. Pakistan does not even count, really. I personally am convinced that a friendly China is in our interest economically, strategically, and in all which ways; as it is a neighbouring power with many thousand kms. of border with us. US, Japan, Europe and Russia are distant powers, who will leave India any time they feel like. We need to create an Asian Century or association with China like what Charles DeGaulle created with Germany in the form of EU and now peace prevails for 65 years in that fighting piece of land for the first time in its known history. Finally if India and China can get together all others will fall in line. .
Ted Raman, who describes himself as an “ardent Silicon Valley Indophile”: I like Shri Raghavan’s pragmatic idea; a) India, as it is, cannot deal effectively even with Pak; b) India has no friends to count if trouble starts with China or Pak. It has even less friends now than 20 years ago and after 20 years will have even less. China will see to it that its proxy Pak will dog India, and get what it wants without moving a finger; c) I have talked to some army folks about Arunachal. The people there are referred to as Chini even by Indians. And they don’t care if they are with India. India cannot take care of its own, as it is; d) Pak ceded territory to China 50 years ago has benefitted tremendously; e) If India acts now, it has a chance to save the western front; f) India is sinking billions in arms, without an end to the tunnel. At this rate there is no catching up even with Pak; g) On the other hand a deal with Beijing would normalise the eastern front. We have done this to Bangladesh; even ceded territory. In addition, making peace with China will kill two birds: One, it will ensure an era of peace in the East. Two, It will make Pak cool its behaviour.
Retired Vice Admiral Premvir Das, a former Director General Defence Planning Staff: The presumption that India should hand over territory, read Tawang, (the Chinese already hold everything else) before the Chinese take it over forcibly is so utterly defeatist! It assumes that we will not be able to beat the Chinese when even much poorly equipped Vietnam did this so easily back in 1978.
C. V. Ranganathan is a former ambassador of India to China: I am perhaps in a minority of one who believes that while the border question is very important to solve it is not very urgent given the impasse in negotiations. Secondly those who believe that China will take what it wants by force at a future date are Indo pessimists who grossly underestimate the capabilities of our armed forces. 2010 is not 1962.
Retired Major General Sheru Thapliyal: 1.We have no coherent and well thought out China policy in place. 2.Our politicians and foreign policy establishment are still traumatised by ‘62 war while the armed forces have got over it. 3.Chinese have only contempt for the weak. 4.If you wish to realise your potential of becoming an Asian power, you have to stand up to the Chinese. 5.We need to go proactive. We need to ask the Chinese to vacate Aksai Chin. Our claim line there should be the international border which was handed over to us by the British.
A. Madhavan is a retired career diplomat of India: My belief is that a nation which is at odds with a stronger neighbouring nation should not begin by indicating a mindset hinting at the offer of concessions beforehand to sue for peace and abiding harmony. To do so would only aggravate the disparity between the two countries, inviting the hawks in the other country to press for more concessions. China wants to foreclose the rise of India as an Asian rival and will continue to try and ’encircle’ India by tightening geopolitical bonds with our neighbours, mainly Pakistan, Nepal and Myanmar, with Sri Lanka, Bhutan and others also helping in their own way. Third, the link-up of Russia, China, Japan and India as a kind or New World League of Guardians is like the ’dream team’ which cricket fans like to conjure up. There are too many friction areas among and between these countries to be smoothed out in a grand alliance of Guardians for Eternal Peace. The US may be the sole superpower in a declining phase, but it can last a century or more. I think the border problem remains insoluble because neither India nor China can begin by making any territorial concession that cuts into the claim that each has made, citing dubious historical validation. India has inherited the British Raj, China the Chin empire and later acquisitions, including Tibet.
Dr. M. M. Reddy is Professor of Pediatrics at UCSD School of Medicine in the US: Let me make a brief comment on the suggestion that China can easily defeat India and forcibly take what it wants. So long as Pak has nukes and a population of 170 million, no power on earth can physically occupy any major portion of their country without incurring unacceptable damage. If it is not possible for USA and India to contemplate direct military action, how these guys imagine that the Chinese could think of it even in their stupidest moments to take on a politically conscious nation of 1 billion people with about half of them being well educated middle class., with world class industrial complex, having nukes and missiles that can reach Beijing and Shanghai, with full support from every civilized nation on earth. I believe that if a war between India and China were to break out, India must derecognise Chinese sovereignty over the entire autonomous region of Tibet and recognise the Tibetan Government in exile so that the conflict should be seen by the civilized world as a war of conflicting ideologies and not as a war with conflicting territorial claims. In this scenario, His Holiness, the Dalai Lama’s appeal to boycott Chinese goods will translate into economic and diplomatic nightmare for the Chinese communists.
Saro Timiri is an IT professional in the US: Japan is a great power aspirant herself. She joined Britain/France in the first world war in the hope of annexing German territories in East Asia as spoils of war. When the US posed a power challenge in the Pacific, she did not hesitate to take the initiative on Dec. 7, 1941. While Hiroshima/Nagasaki temporarily ended the military route for great power, by no means has it been discarded completely. The economic route to great power was pursued to keep Japan as an active player in the world stage as well as build up the resources required for a future military resurgence. Given that intent and their current close ties to the US, Japan is hardly compelled to join any India-China “phalanx”. Even if the India-China team comes to be, China has invested far too much in Pakistan over the past 35 years (since Pokhran 1974) to just pull out the tent pegs and leave. As any great power would and should, China – even in a partnership – would continue to maintain atleast one hedge (Pakistan) against its new partner (India).
There is one silent/unmentioned assumption in Mr Raghavan’s proposal - that the US will not do anything to prevent the formation of a team that will challenge it for top spot in a decade or two. Seriously?
Sharad Bailur is a retired banker and communications specialist in India. He is on the editorial board of Freedom First. He occasionally writes for magazines and journals in India and abroad: Interesting construct. Unfortunately I expect India would prefer to go on the basis of whatever experience it has had of China and of the knowledge it has of its mindset. Our experience between 1951 and 1962 was not good despite our perpetual hand of friendship and of “Panchsheel”. I am fairly convinced that China is not interested in territorial gains. But there are a number of things that must be addressed: China has great power mentality. It will only accept India as a vassal or subsidiary, not as an equal friendly partner. Besides we are in no position to demand that kind of equality. In its quest for economic super-powerdom, China is tying up resources all over the world. India is nowhere in the contention. Besides, it will be in competition. Why should China tolerate a competitor? While it is very well for us to say what a wonderful phalanx of super powers we shall be, have we asked China what it thinks of the idea? China might in fact wish to ally with the US given a choice! The issue of territorial concessions pales in comparison with the strategic issues involved. The Chinese would look upon India as little more than a large neighbourhood dog that is friendly and wags its tail even when India has surrendered the whole of Arunachal, Aksai Chin and whatever else it demands. One does not form equal partnerships with neighbourhood dogs even if they are big, friendly and nice.
Sunil Erraballi is a Silicon Valley entrepreneur: I agree with you – this idea (territory for peace) is very dangerous. India is no tin pot country for China to walk in. India also has nuclear arms and unlike in 1962 it will use its air force in an event of a Chinese attack. In addition to building up its defenses, India needs to focus on its economy and continue to unshackle it from the corrupt bureaucracy and reduce the huge infrastructure deficit. In addition education should be given a very high priority – it will help the economy and India will be more productive with an educated populace.
V. V. Raman is Emeritus Professor of Physics and Humanities at a US university: India will be (perhaps) the first nation to cede its territory voluntarily to a foreign power for fear of being overcome, although Indians have done that in earlier centuries to the Moguls, the Portuguese, the French, and the British: always to “buy peace and security,” but in fact out of a sense of a national sense of impotence. Whoever makes such suggestions is either naive about China’s long-range hegemonic intentions or surreptitiously/unconsciously colluding with the Chinese, and makes the whole proposition sound so sweet: Become part of a two-winged global power that will dominate the world. I feel sorry that China’s overwhelming power has reduced some Indians to this state of willingness to surrender to that growing giant that is seeking every chance to dilute India’s power and prestige in the free world.
Sumit Das Gupta is a computer science specialist: I am aghast at the notion that a learned scholar believes that China will drop its belligerent tone just by getting Arunachal Pradesh from India. If we succumb so easily, it will then lay claim to Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, the Darjeeling area, etc. If anyone thinks that China will accommodate India in a power sharing agreement is naive at best and dangerous at worst. If China is truly well-meaning, will it back off and let Tibet go its own way? Why not demand to see this latter event occur as proof of intent before anyone in power in India contemplates the idea of forfeiting land, that is real, for peace that at best may be ephemeral.
C. M. A. Nayar is an electrical engineer who splits his time between India and France. He is very knowledgeable on strategic issues: I feel it will be necessary to answer the following questions before we can come to a logical conclusion.
1. Will China continue to remain as one Nation in the coming two decades. Will there be political instability in China if and when the Communist Party loses grip on the Nation. In such a situation, will Tibet, Xinjiang and a part of Yunnan province remain as part of China? If not, the whole border situation could change from India’s point of view? In my view, the Communist Party will lose grip on the nation within a decade. Early indications will start coming out during the transition of Power from Hu Jintao in 2013. China calls its system of government as the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat“ but in reality it is a “Dictatorship of the Elites”. Li Jinping ( 6th rank in Politburo) and Xi Kequiang (7th in rank in Politburo) who are the main contenders to succeed Hu Jintao may not get the Presidency and the Power may go into the hands of a hard core Communist (probably with Military background) for a short period marking the beginning of a totally repressive regime as also the beginning of the disintegration of China . Tibet, Xinjiang and part of Yunnan could become independent and a major part of the remaining China will continue to be China . In this situation, India will not have any land border with China. Even in the present situation where India has a very long land border with China, I do not think there will be a war between India and China on this issue. However, India has to be militarily ready to face any eventualities. In this bizarre world, only the strong are respected!
2. Has any Head of the Government in India (for that matter even the Parliament) the power to transfer Indian territory to another country? My Answer: The government does not have the power to transfer any Indian territory to another country. All that the government can do is to make border shifts at points where the border was not really defined. It is my understanding that plebiscite is not possible under the Indian Constitution. Plebiscite was an interim measure accepted at the instance of the British for carving out Pakistan from India. I do not think we have the right to go for a plebiscite even in disputed Kashmir now.
3. Can China and India be two nations with complementary interests? Irrespective of all the probable internal problems, China will continue to be an economic power house. China’s domestic growth will be very good but its exports will decline considerably. China’s competitiveness in export depends on four major elements: low labour cost, subsidized energy cost, very low bank interest and export incentives. China will be compelled to withdraw the subsidies on energy cost and bank interest due to domestic pressure. USA and Europe will also introduce protectionist policies for saving their own economies. Under these circumstances, India could have an opportunity for increasing trade with China. India, however, will have to ensure that the trade balance will remain even and India does not become a dumping ground for Chinese products. In my view India and China will always remain two competing adversaries .
4. Can USA be a reliable ally for India in its quest to achieve international stature ? History shows that USA has never been a reliable ally to any one. This is basically because USA is bothered only about its own self-interest (this is true with most of the nations) and USA will dump any one, once the utility to USA is over. India, therefore, has to be very careful in her relations with USA. Russia has always been more useful to us in many difficult situations. India will have a lot of opportunities to work together with Russia for mutual benefit .
In conclusion I would say:
1. India will have to have an independent policy for relations with other nations mainly to protect her own interest. The old concept of Power Blocs will not be good. In any case, being part of a Power Bloc with China or USA will be dangerous for India. India, China and USA will be three nations which will decide the destiny of the world in future along with EU.
2. India cannot afford to make a settlement with China on the border issue by abandoning our right to any part in our possession now . There is no urgency to settle the border issue with China now. However we should be militarily ready to face any eventualities.
3. China will be a competitor to India in every field and this competition should be put in a healthy background.
And, finally, some constructive, practical suggestions from Robinder Sachdev on how to sort out the India-China imbroglio:
Robinder Sachdev is president of Imagindia Institute, an independent think tank dedicated to promoting the imagination and public diplomacy of India across cultures.
His thoughts: In response to your question, I am toying with an idea of the next version of Panchsheel (it may have nothing in common with the earlier paradigm, apart from the fact that this is also based on 5 points).
a. India accepts status quo on the North West with China
b. China accepts status quo on the North East with India
c. India reiterates its official line on Tibet
d. China commits to status quo and realism on Tibet (i.e. the Dalai Lama and Tibetans have a home in India now, and their mutual discussions may proceed as between two parties, with no political interference by India)
e. China and India set up an “Indo-China Bureau on Innovations for Development”. The bureau will be significantly funded, and housed with proper infrastructure in Beijing and Delhi. The bureau will function like a mix between a think tank, social entrepreneur, incubation center, and investment bankers to actively and urgently focus on innovations and solutions for creating jobs, poverty alleviation, energy security, and food security. The bureau has to have real teeth, and be structured like a semi-private enterprise, and top talent from both countries drawn to work in it. The annual review meeting of the Bureau will be chaired jointly by the Prime Ministers of both countries, and held by rotation in Beijing in Delhi annually.
These may be the next Panchsheel of China-India relations. simultaneously, apart from mutuality of China-India relations, in parallel, India makes three key strategic thrusts:
a. One, to deepen, stabilize and mature its relationship with Russia;
b. Two, push for peace, stability and economic development of South Asian neighbours; and,
c. Three, push for economic diplomacy in a broader South East Asia (including pushing Indian business to invest in viable infrastructure, mineral resources, education, healthcare, and such projects in these countries)
MR. RAM NARAYANAN is an American of Indian heritage who promotes US-India friendship and cooperation as a 100 percent not-for-profit labour of love, via his website http://www.usindiafriendship.net/ . His mailing list of 18,000 plus focuses on India, US-India relations and the security aspects of this relationship.
__________________________________
