Sino-Pak axis!
rajinder puri
24 Aug 2013
[India should not wait for Pakistan’s demands to give its reaction. It should take the initiative and state clearly its own minimum demands. At the appropriate stage the same can be done with Beijing. If the response from either Beijing or Islamabad, or from both, is negative India should abandon efforts for a settlement ~]
More than one reputed security analyst has made alarming predictions that the spate of recent border violations by both China and Pakistan signifies a complicit strategy and design leading to major conflagration. It is of course theoretically possible that China could be helping Pakistan to grab Kashmir by extending logistic support through a twin-pronged attack.
However, that seems unlikely. Creating the extreme situation of war may not be the real objective of Beijing and Islamabad . More likely serious pressure is being exerted on New Delhi before the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan are scheduled to meet in the last week of September. That might explain the dual policy of simultaneously brandishing both carrot and stick being pursued equally by China and Pakistan . Perhaps military pressure is being used to achieve diplomatic gains. Therefore, while making all military and diplomatic preparations for confronting the worst India should also formulate a clear policy about protecting its core interests in the event of meaningful peace talks. What might be our core interests with Pakistan and China for a stable peace? Consider both nations in that order.
It is reasonable to believe that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif does genuinely want peace in order to stabilize his tenure. But he is facing severe constraints that need to be understood. He cannot ignore the wishes of the army. He cannot ignore the anti-India sentiment nurtured over the years by fundamentalist forces. He has to achieve peace by showing tangible Pakistani gain. That is why he harps on the compelling need for a Kashmir solution. Kashmir remains the core issue and the key to defusing domestic opposition to a final Indo-Pak settlement.
Pakistani public opinion needs to be dispassionately assessed. People believe that Kashmir is unsettled territory in which Pakistan has a genuine claim. It cannot be denied that New Delhi’s past follies and historical events have created a confused situation that does encourage such Pakistani sentiment.
When the princely states were given the option of joining India, Pakistan or remaining independent by the British in 1947, Kashmir was a Muslim majority state ruled by a Hindu Maharaja. The state had contiguous borders with both India and Pakistan. That is why Maharaja Hari Singh, Dr. Karan Singh’s father, wanted independence. That move was feasible but it was pre-empted by Pakistani raiders backed by the Pakistan army with tacit encouragement of the British to invade Kashmir.
Whitehall at that point of time had its own strategic calculations to support Partition that would ensure the permanent division of the subcontinent. Kashmir as a permanent bone of contention between India and Pakistan served that purpose. This was accomplished by British Generals who led both the Indian and Pakistani armies. That is why a junior Major Brown belonging to the state’s border scouts could bypass the army high command of both nations to arbitrarily declare that Gilgit was part of Pakistan.
The confusion was compounded by Nehru approaching the UN for intervention instead of driving out the raiders which was militarily achievable. Confusion was further compounded by India accepting the UN Resolution on a Kashmir plebiscite. Things deteriorated beyond repair by India foolishly opposing for decades the plebiscite instead of insisting on implementation of its preconditions that virtually crippled Pakistan’s prospects.
Thereby India became embedded in public consciousness across the world as being guilty and defensive on Kashmir while Pakistan was perceived as the wronged party representing Kashmiri sentiment. The army help extended by India to create Bangladesh further inflamed anti-Indian sentiment in Pakistan. With all these factors Pakistani public opinion will not reconcile itself to peace with India without evening the score. It is futile to discuss the merits or demerits of such thinking. This feeling exists. And for any realistic attempt to stabilize relations with Pakistan, New Delhi will have to address this problem if it at all desires peace.
What can India do?
Obviously New Delhi must formulate an explicit policy to resolve the Kashmir dispute. Credible opinion surveys have established that the people of Jammu , Ladakh and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) are content to remain as they are. Only, both sides desire soft borders and free movement of people across two sides of the border. The real dispute pertains only to the Valley. Here the vast majority want independence. A few prefer India . Even less want to merge with Pakistan. It is in relation to the Valley that New Delhi must formulate a mutually acceptable formula for settlement.
After its complex history clearly the only credible and honourable solution would be for the people of the Valley to decide their own fate. Indeed, while accepting the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir to India, Nehru had added the caveat that it would be “in accordance with the wishes of the people”. However since then and now much has changed.
Therefore, the Indian government must insist that the offer of self-determination to people in the Valley must be accompanied by a clear acceptance in principle that India, Pakistan and the Valley, whatever is its fate, become over a period of time part of a South Asian Union having joint defence and common market with free movement of goods and people across all borders. The entire process may be phased over a specified time-frame to culminate eventually in joint defence between the armies of India and Pakistan.
Thereby the security of both nations would be safeguarded. If Pakistan does not accept in principle this perfectly reasonable proposal, it may be concluded that its government’s motives are suspect.
As for China, it followed up its several recent encroachments in Ladakh with an advance into Arunachal Pradesh. It is likely Beijing really seeks legitimate access between Xingjian and Tibet which it can obtain only through Aksai Chin in Ladakh.
In 1960 Zhou Enlai had suggested Beijing accepting legitimacy of the McMahon Line in the east in exchange for Aksai Chin ceded to China in the west. There is no question of entertaining any Chinese claim over the people of either Arunachal or Ladakh who are firmly with India . India should be prepared to consider a long lease to China for the narrow passage required to connect Xingjian to Tibet in return for Beijing renouncing its claims on Arunachal. After all, Beijing had given a written assurance to India in 2005 that in settling border disputes no settled populations would be disturbed. Beijing is now brazenly reneging on its written assurance by laying claim to Arunachal Pradesh.
These proposals, that have been voiced before, are repeated prior to the projected meeting between Mr. Nawaz Sharif and Mr Manmohan Singh in New York next month. India should not wait for Pakistan’s demands to give its reaction. It should take the initiative and state clearly its own minimum demands. At the appropriate stage the same can be done with Beijing . If the response from either Beijing or Islamabad, or from both, is negative India should abandon efforts for a settlement. It can then pursue other effective options to deal with either nation, or if required with both nations. It would be premature to dwell on these options at this stage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED PLEASE :
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/the-chinese-game-plan/
The Chinese Game Plan
19 Aug , 2013
With the opening of two fronts against New Delhi, Beijing will, in collusion with Islamabad, repeat ‘1962’ in the near future on an enlarged scale.
As a tactical ploy for the past several years, Beijing and Islamabad have been dishing out sermons on friendship.China has used its lobby successfully in India to promote the concept that the two nations, instead of being at loggerheads with each other, should join hands to make the twenty-first century theirs.
The twin objective was to concentrate on the American forces; firstly, with the help of Pakistan to ensure the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan and secondly,that India does not shake hands decisively with the US thereby tilting the balance of power in favour of democracy.
Similarly, Pakistan, more or less a colony of China, went out of its way to promote friendship with India, using the oft employed ploy of the ‘twenty-first century belonging to Asia’. The refrain was that instead of fighting with each other Pakistan, China and India should join hands to evict American imperialism from Asia. Pakistan deployed its journalists on Indian channels at times bending backwards to placate Indian sentiments.
Simultaneously, they effectively activatedPakistan’s peace constituency in Indiathat is much larger than the one that exists in Islamabad to gain major traction.The continuous ranting of Pakistan being a bigger victim of terrorism and putting a temporary leash on Hafiz Sayeed did help to pull the wool over a large number of Indian eyes.
The aim of the China and Pakistan combine was to first employ jihadi forces in Afghanistan under the guidance of the Pakistan Army to evict the Western forces. Therefore, it was imperative to offer a fig leaf in the guise of friendship that retains calm on the Indian front. It was merely a tactical withdrawal to concentrate all available resources against the Americans in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile under China’s guidance, India’s Track II crowd was enticed to sign, seal and deliver Siachen to Pakistan as the glacier is of great strategic importance to the Chinese. In the so-called Track-II diplomacy, India walked straight into the trap!
At the same time, to gain credibility with thinking Indians, both Pakistan and China desisted from aggravating the situation on the borders. However, the so-called misguided elements that left Kashmir for PoK were sent back duly trained in jihad on the pretext of temporary surrender; the real game being to wait for an opportune moment to engineer a home-grown rebellion. All along, the pot was kept intelligently boiling but on slow fire. The ‘peace’ witnessed in Kashmir for many years was not due to any extraordinary Indian capabilities; it was because Pakistan was preoccupied with the ongoing war in Afghanistan pursuing its own strategic interests and that of China.
Undoubtedly, these were high priority military objectives.
As usual, on account of collective incompetence, the establishment at Delhi fell for this ruse. It was the conduct of ‘psychological warfare’ under Chinese supervision at its finest. Executed with finesse, the phase of temporary tactical withdrawal put New Delhi completely off guard. Pakistan believes it has defeated two super powers in Afghanistan – the Soviet Union with the help of the US and the latter, with the help of China. Defeating India with a little help from China should, therefore, be a cakewalk.
The gloves are finally off with America’s ‘cut and run’ from Afghanistan. With the exit of the West, China and Pakistan are now confident that large areas of Afghanistan will be under their thumb. In due course, Indian footprint in Afghanistan will be wiped out.
In the second phase currently underway, India’s borders have come alive with China and Pakistan mounting intense pressure simultaneously. The PLA intruded 19 km across the LAC into Indian territory and dismantled existing structures. To add insult to injury, on the arrival of the Defence Minister Antony at Shanghai, Beijing issued a demeaning statement against New Delhi. Incursions into Indian territories continue while Chinese innocently claim they are patrolling on their side of the LAC.
For all the insults the Chinese continue to heap on India, they were rewarded by New Delhi rolling out the red carpet for Li, withdrawing troops from own territory in Despang, and sending the NSA, Foreign Minister and the Defence Minster in succession to pay respects as though Beijing were an ‘imperial Durbar’.
In spite of being insulted on landing at Beijing, the Defence Minister announced the enhancement of military-to-military cooperation between the two nations! To be subservient appears to be a persistent trait of the Indian leadership. It is simply amazing that New Delhi should offer military-to-military cooperation to China – a country that is at loggerheads with it all the while laying claim to 90,000 sq.km. of Indian territory.
Pakistan has gone into overdrive, beheading Indian soldiers inside Indian territory. In a raid in the Poonch sector, its Battle Action Team massacred five Indian soldiers. The timing and intelligence of the adversary appear to be flawless as this killing has taken place at a time when the Maratha battalion was taking over from the exiting Bihar Regiment – a time when the units are not on a high state of alert.
China excels in long-term strategic thinking; its shared ethnicity with the people of the North-East India enables its spies to blend in easily with the people in the North-East region. However, China is limited by language and facial features to mess with the Indian heartland and proxy Pakistan, with no such limitations intermingles with ease within India. Pakistan, in coordination with China, has now put pressure on the border. At the same time, it has helped instigate, with renewed vigour, ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Kishtwar and Doda. This move is similar to that of Kashmiri Pundits ultimately being dislodged from the Valley while New Delhi continued to indulge in despicable vote-bank politics.
As it was with China, the Pakistan Army claimed that it was not responsible for any incident on the borders. Meanwhile, the sloppy response from the Delhi Durbar has emboldened Pakistan High Commission to raise questions on internal matters concerning India. With the withdrawal of US forces from the region, the jihad factory will be idle. Pakistan can implode due to this situation of high unemployment. Therefore, to redirect the destructive energy of this force towards India to achieve foreign policy objectives and avoid implosion would be an imperative for Pakistan.
Pakistani journalists appearing on Indian electronic media in the second phase changed their tune from soothing ruffled feathers earlier to declaring ‘a fight to the finish’ for the independence of Kashmir and vacating Siachen. On monitoring comments in the social media, the chant from, “India and China should join hands to make the twenty-first century belong to South Asia” has shifted to “India, whether it likes it or not, has to live with China and Pakistan, now that the Americans are running away. It has no choice but to join us!”
The second phase by China and Pakistan will continue for some time to further weaken Indian borders and inject communal disharmony through covert operations till sufficient demoralization sets in, American withdrawal is complete and a large swathe of Afghanistan’s territory is controlled by the Pakistan Army with the help of its jihadi forces.
In the final phase, the Chinese game plan is to repeat a much larger version of “1962” by imposing a two-front war on India once the Western forces are out of Afghanistan. Many in the Indian military, the government and a few analysts erroneously believe that China will opt for a limited attack in Ladakh.
In the current globalised century, waging war attracts severe economic penalties on a nation with the long-term debilitating consequences. Therefore, the prize has to justify the cost-benefit-ratio. In what may be termed as a repeat of 1962, the China-Pakistan combine will impose war on India at a time of their choosing which may be sooner than one can imagine.
China will go for the jugular by landing its airborne divisions and choking the 200-km long Siliguri Corridor that is merely 28 km to 60 km wide. On one side, we have Nepal, which is now almost a colony of China. On the other side, Bhutan is under pressure from Beijing to toe its line.
This implies that the entire North-East region may be cut off from the Indian mainland. Apart from this region adding to flank protection as far as Tibet is concerned, China will gain direct access to Bangladesh and easier access to Myanmar.
Simultaneously, Pakistan will attack the Western front to unhook Jammu and Kashmir from India after creating sufficient internal turmoil to soften the target. China has always supported and will readily accept Jammu and Kashmir to be part of Pakistan. In the event of Pakistani success, China can hive off large chunks of territory in Ladakh to suit its strategic interests. Besides, the key advantage to China will be securing the flanks of alternative supply route from Gwaddar to Xingjian Province. This two-front war will also guarantee China’s position as the undisputed leader in Asia substantially reducing the preeminence of the USA.
In order to deter the China-Pakistan combine from inflicting war, India will need to rapidly equip its Army and the Air Force with deep offensive capabilities and phenomenal maneuverability even as it builds up a blue-water navy.
Indian intelligence agencies should gear up to support separatist forces inside Tibet and Pakistan. In addition, Indian foreign policy must decisively leverage the influence of democracies in Asia and the West, particularly the USA.
The coming years will witness the territorial integrity of the nation coming under severe stress due to threats posed by the Great Chinese Game.
Bharat Verma A former Cavalry Officer is Editor, IDR, frequently appears on television as a commentator and is author of the books, Under Fire, Fault Lines and Indian Armed Forces.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/edit/a-non-event-indeed.html
Edit
A non-event, indeed!
24 August 2013
[New Delhi downplays Chinese provocations]
The initial solidarity that one feels for our jawans, when watching a recently put out video of Indian soldiers purportedly physically removing Chinese troops squatting deep within Indian territory in Arunachal Pradesh, is quickly replaced by an overwhelming sense of helplessness, and then anger. For, as these brave men fight to uphold India's territorial integrity, an inept Government at the Centre does not even care to take a stand on the matter, forget about standing its ground. And so it is that the Ministry of External Affairs has dubbed the latest instance of Chinese incursion into Indian territory a “non-event”.Galling as it is, such a response from the feckless Congress-led UPA regime is only to be expected.
Even during the incursion into Depsang valley in April, which led to a protracted 20-day-long stand-off between Indian and Chinese troops, New Delhi was reluctant to put its foot down even as Beijing walked all over us. A ‘diplomatic solution' was supposedly scripted, but the fact is that the Chinese backed out only after the Indian Army took down its observation tower in Chumar, as the former had demanded.
In the months since then, there have been several such intrusions, or ‘incidents', as the Government prefers to call them, across the Line of Actual Control. At least half-a-dozen of them have been reported in the Chumar sector alone; most recently, the Chumar post was also vandalised by Chinese troops.
In Northern Ladakh, PLA troops have repeatedly prevented Indian soldiers from patrolling what is considered to be the Indian side of the border. In the last week of July, Patrol Tiranga moved from the Trade Junction area towards two posts in the higher reaches of the Line of Actual Control, but was stopped by the PLA. In fact, out of 21 such patrols that have been launched by Indian troops in recent months, only two could be completed.
The ‘incident' in Arunachal Pradesh, wherein PLA troops occupied the remote Plamplam post near the administrative centre at Chaglagam for at least three days, from August 11 to August 13, must be viewed against this backdrop of constant provocation. It is nobody's case that it be treated at par with the incursion in April. As both the Government and the Army have pointed out, in areas as remote and almost uninhabited as Plamplam, it is common for patrol parties travelling for several days at a stretch to pitch overnight tents.
Having said that, there can be no justification for the manner in which the Government has bent over backwards to cover for the Chinese. It has even justified their actions by parroting Beijing's line on how the LAC is patrolled according to individual ‘perceptions' — which it now seems may be as wide as 20km to 30km even. The basic problem here is that the Centre has no strategy for responding to such provocations. China knows this and is, therefore, constantly pushing the limits to see how far it can go.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should revisit the border incursion of 1987 in Arunachal Pradesh's Sumdorong Chu valley and learn how the Government of the day gave the military a free hand, so that our jawans successfully stared down the enemy. He must also listen to experts who see a clear and dangerous pattern in Beijing’s recent provocations.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://chellaney.net/2013/08/23/cheek-turners-as-leaders/
Cheek-turners as leaders
Brahma ChellaneyAugust 23, 2013
George Washington famously said, “If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace—one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity—it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.”
India, however, has stomached not just insults but also acts of cross-border aggression by Pakistan while continuing to sing peace to its tormentor, a smaller state by every yardstick. No amount of terror has convinced India to change course—not even the Pakistani-scripted attacks on symbols of Indian power, including Parliament, Red Fort, stock exchange, national capital, business capital and IT capital.
Each act of aggression has been greeted with inaction and stoic tolerance. For a succession of prime ministers, every new attack has effectively been more water under the bridge. Manmohan Singh—the weakest and most clueless of them—has put even the internationally unprecedented Mumbai terrorist siege behind him by delinking dialogue from terrorism and resuming cricketing ties.
If anyone questions this approach of turning the other cheek to every Pakistani (or Chinese) attack, government propagandists retort, “Do you want war?” This mirrors the classic argument of appeasers that the only alternative to appeasement is all-out war.
As the proverbial extremists, appeasers are able to see only the extreme ends of the policy spectrum: Propitiation and open warfare.
The appeasers thus have presented India with a false choice: Either persevere with pusillanimity or risk a full-fledged war. This false choice, in which the only alternative to appeasement is military conflict, is an immoral and immoderate line of argument designed to snuff out any legitimate debate on rational options. There are a hundred different options between these two extremities that India must explore and pursue. Indeed, only a policy approach that avoids the extremes of abject appeasement and thoughtless provocation can have merit.
The appeasers also argue that neighbours cannot be changed. So, as Singh has said blithely, “a stable, peaceful, and prosperous Pakistan” is in India’s “own interest.” But political maps are never carved in stone, as the breaking away of South Sudan, East Timor and Eritrea has shown. Didn’t Indira Gandhi change political geography in 1971? In fact, the most-profound global events in recent history have been the disintegration of several states, including the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Even if India cannot change its neighbours, it must seek to change their behaviour so that it conforms to international norms.
Yet India has shied away from employing even non-coercive options to discipline a wayward Pakistan, which is waging low-intensity unconventional warfare.Rather than squeeze Pakistan economically and diplomatically, India is doing just the opposite.
Similarly, India has stepped up its propitiation of China, in spite of facing a Sino-Pak pincer offensive centred on Jammu and Kashmir: Chinese incursions into Ladakh have increased in parallel with Pakistani ceasefire violations. Still, Singh is determined to meet his Pakistan counterpart in New York and later pay obeisance to an increasingly combative China on yet another trip to Beijing.
By going with an outstretched hand to adversaries still engaged in hostile actions, India repeatedly has got the short end of the stick. Nothing better illustrates India’s clap-when-given-a-slap approach than the way it portrayed the 19-km Chinese encroachment in April-May as a mere “acne” and tried to cover up the Pakistan Army’s role in the recent Indian soldiers’ killing.
A hawk is defined in the U.S. as someone who seeks the use of force pre-emptively against another country. But in India—reflecting the ascendancy of cheek-turners and the country’s consequent descent as an exceptionally soft state—a hawk has come to signify someone who merely advises against turning the other cheek to a recalcitrant or renegade neighbour.
An easy way for Indian diplomacy to make the transition from timidity to prudence is to start spotlighting plain facts on cross-border aggression. Yet the Indian political class is so busy feathering its own nests that it is willing to even twist facts about how soldiers were martyred and suppress figures showing a rising pattern of Chinese incursions.
How does one explain that leaders, while shrewd and calculating in political life, have pursued a fundamentally naïve foreign policy that has shrunk India’s regional strategic space and brought its security under siege?
The answer lies in one word: Corruption.
Untrammelled corruption has spawned a political class too compromised to safeguard national interests.Appeasement thus thrives, with the ministry of external affairs effectively being turned into the ministry of external appeasement.
India’s reputation as weak-kneed indeed has become the single most important factor inviting aggression, spurring a vicious circle.
Brahma Chellaney is a geostrategist and author.
(c) India Today, 2013.
