Dragon's teeth

[ajtr]

Indo-China cold war hots up​

FRIDAY, 17 SEPTEMBER 2010 00:00
India has apparently lost its cold war with China, or at least the current phase of it. What is disturbing to India is not only China's superior military power and stronger economy, but also China's intrusion into what was once regarded as India's backyard.

The development has rendered the so-called Indira doctrine ineffective or obsolete. The doctrine, formulated during the Indira Gandhi premiership, made it clear to regional countries that they should seek help from within the region — meaning India — before they approached any outside power. In terms of the doctrine, India opposed the presence of superpowers in the Indian Ocean which it regarded as its backyard. Small countries in the region were punished for defying the doctrine. It happened to Sri Lanka in the early 1980s. India armed, trained and financed the Sri Lanka's separatist rebellion. In the late 1980s Nepal tried to defy the doctrine and was punished. New Delhi economically suffocated the land-locked Himalayan nation by closing down almost all the trade routes.

Today India may be much stronger than what it was three decades ago. But its power is confined within its borders. In contrast, China has been increasing its soft and hard power and making its presence felt in South Asia and also throughout the world in so subtle a manner that India could do almost nothing except make belated remarks. Recent statements made by Indian leaders resemble the screams of a man who suddenly wakes up from his slumber under a tree and finds his belongings are gone.

Their statements, like a fiery storm, however, had blown away the cloth of diplomacy that had kept the disputes between the two countries covered. The disputes are now in the open.

The soft-spoken and usually philosophical Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was furious last week. The fire in his remarks made the rest of the world to stop and take note of what he said.

Though the remarks came against the backdrop of China's refusal to grant a visa to a top Indian military commander to visit Beijing, the real problem is more complex. It involves unresolved border issues — eg: Arunachel Pradesh — which led to a war between the two countries in 1962. It also involves Kashmir, the presence of Dalai Lama in India and New Delhi's perception that China is increasing its assertive presence in India's backyard.

India suspects China is interfering in Kashmir. A little known fact about Kashmir is that it is shared by not only India and Pakistan but also China. Kashmir's Aksai Chin region is with China. Though India has been making occasional noises about what it calls Chinese occupation of Kashmir, Pakistan goes along with China's claim of sovereignty over Aksai Chin. There is strong suspicion in New Delhi that not only Pakistan, but China also is stoking up trouble in Indian-administered Kashmir.

China last year started issuing a different kind of visas to the people of Kashmir, sending a strong message to India that Beijing did not recognize India's sovereignty over the disputed region. China's explanation to India in refusing the visa to the Indian military officer is that he was not welcome because of his role in Kashmir.

Premier Singh's remarks came days after India fired off a strongly-worded demarche — a diplomatic note — to China, saying it was calling off the defence exercises and exchange programmes between the two countries.

China responded to the Indian anger with cool diplomacy pointing to the thriving trade between the two countries and claiming that Beijing was committed to the Pancha-Sheela principles that define China's relations with India.

Singh charged that China was seeking to expand its influence in South Asia and gain a "foothold" in the region.

"China would like to have a foothold in South Asia and we have to reflect on this reality. We have to be aware of this," Singh said.

He said China's leadership would change in two years and there was a new assertiveness among the Chinese. "It is difficult to tell which way it will go. So it's important to be prepared," he said.

Hidden in Singh's statement is India's disappointment over its failure to check effectively China's intrusion into South Asia and the Indian Ocean region. India was a mere onlooker when China built ports in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Myanmar. Except for Pakistan, India has friendly relations with all its neighbours. But today China weighs heavier on the diplomatic scales of India's neighbours. China has become Sri Lanka's biggest aid giver. China's harbour project in Hambantota has raised the eyebrows of Indian defence analysts. However much both Sri Lanka and China insist that the harbour project is essentially a commercial venture and has no military intentions, these analysts say India could not prevent Sri Lanka from allowing China to have a strong foothold in Hambantota from which Beijing can, if it wants to or if the needs arises, control a vast area of the Indian Ocean extending up to Antarctica.

Myanmar has become a virtual Chinese protectorate. Last month, China and Myanmar conducted a series of naval exercises close to Indian waters, prompting India to put its naval troops on alert.

Premier Singh's statement is not the sole protest. Opposing China's assertiveness has become India's official policy. This week, India's Defence Minister A.K. Anthony addressing a combined commanders' conference in Delhi, said India could not ignore the fact that Beijing was fast improving its military and physical infrastructure on the border. He called on Indian military leaders to keep abreast of the military modernisation drive in the neighbourhood to ensure that the Indian armed forces held an edge in the region.

India's sudden awakening to the growing Chinese power has moved it to seek new strategic allies. It has found one such ally in Japan. In recent weeks, Japan and China have been trading charges and counter charges over the arrest of a Chinese fishing captain off some disputed islands in the East China Sea after his boat collided with Japanese coast guard craft. The uninhabited but believed-to-be oil-rich islands, known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, are controlled by Japan, but are also claimed by China and Taiwan. The incident has raised tempers in both countries.

When Japan's Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada held talks with his Indian counterpart S.M. Krishna in New Delhi last month, they shared concern over Beijing's growing military power and its military build-up in India's neighbourhood.

The Indian Express newspaper quoted sources as saying that the two sides had expressed "similar language" in describing Chinese actions.

India is also seeking to strengthen its defence relations with the United States. During the George W. Bush administration, the two countries had struck a strong bond in the fight against their common enemy — Islamic terrorism. The relations between them improved with the signing of a civilian nuclear deal and enhanced defence cooperation. But under President Barack Obama, the speed with which the relations improved has slowed down a little. This was largely because of the Obama administration's pressure on India to find a speedy solution to the Kashmiri problem. However, the visit of Obama to India in November, analysts say, will give the necessary impetus for relations between them to reach the level that was seen during the Bush era.

Of course, the rise of China's military power is a concern for the US as well. According to Indian media reports, US Pacific Forces' commander Admiral Robert Willard on a visit to India referred to China's 'naval assertiveness', which he said had 'complicated matters'.

Though Admiral Willard did not elaborate, he was probably referring to the US concern over the growing Chinese presence in South Asia, Central Asia and the Pacific. One reason why the US is unwilling to leave Afghanistan is its fear that the vacuum created by its departure would be filled by China. According to the latest Globalfirepower.com rankings, China is second only to the United States in terms of military power. India occupies the fourth place after Russia.

These moves and diplomatic contacts may indicate informal alliance formation. The problem with these informal alliance formations is that no bloc has advantage over the other, especially in view of the nuclear capabilities of the major players. The nuclear deterrent works and will avert a major war. China certainly knows this and quietly spreads its power far and wide, reaching even Africa and Latin America.

 

[ajtr]

Let facts speak for themselves​

India can expect no respite from Chinese strategic pressure, but to adroitly manage its relationship with Beijing, it must let facts speak for themselves, says Brahma Chellaney


THE Prime Minister has underscored concerns over the perceptible hardening in China's stance towards India. With its defence spending having grown almost twice as fast as its GDP, China is now beginning to take the gloves off, confident that it has acquired the necessary muscle. Rising power is emboldening Beijing to pursue a more muscular foreign policy not just against India, but also in the region extending from the South China Sea to Northeast Asia.
This has been exemplified by several developments — from China's inclusion of the South China Sea in its 'core' national interests, an action that makes its claims to the disputed islands non-negotiable, to its bellicose reaction to the South Korean-US joint anti-submarine exercises in the Sea of Japan. And just the way China has staked its claim to India's Arunachal Pradesh, it has asserted its sovereignty over Japan's Senkaku Islands, which were part of Japanese territory all along, even during the US occupation of Japan.
Little surprise then that China's neighbours are increasingly uneasy about the implications of its growing power. Beijing aspires to shape a Sino-centric Asia, but its actions hardly make it a good candidate for Asian leadership. Leadership can come not from brute force, but from other states' consent or tacit acceptance.
China's belligerence, significantly, poses a greater threat for India than for any other Asian nation for several reasons. One, China is mounting both direct military intimidation (as underlined by the abnormally high level of continuing cross-border incursions) and proxy threats against India, including by shoring by its longstanding strategic nexus with Pakistan. Two, the largest real estate China covets is in India. Arunachal is almost three times bigger than Taiwan. Three, India has no formal security alliance with any other power and thus must depend on its own defence capabilities. And four, by seeking to badger India on multiple fronts, China is signalling that its real, long-term contest is more with India than with the US. The countries around India have become battlegrounds for China's moves to encircle India. By assiduously courting these countries as proxies in its geopolitical competition with India, China has managed to make deep inroads into India's strategic backyard — from Sri Lanka to Bangladesh, and Nepal to Burma.
Yet, the world knows more about China's moves in the South China Sea and East Asia than its actions against India. At international conferences, even some experts on Asia are surprised when told simple facts, such as China's increasingly assertive claim to an entire Indian state and its cross-border military incursions.
It is now a year since the Indian government put a lid even on the domestic press coverage of the Himalayan border situation. It was in September 2009 that senior government figures, from the PM down, spoke out against the strident Indian media reporting on Chinese border incursions. Since then, sources of information have dried up and newspapers and television networks have carried little news. It is not that the Chinese crossborder forays have ended or even moderated. It is just that Indian media organisations have little information to report, even though the incidence of Chinese incursions remains high.
SUPPRESSING news on the border situation serves no interests other than China's. It suits the Chinese agenda that the border situation is kept under wraps. Even in the pre-1962 period, India had made the same mistake by playing down China's aggressive moves along the border. In fact, there are important parallels between the pre-1962 situation and the one now. Border talks have regressed, Chinese claims on Indian territories are becoming publicly assertive and their cross-border incursions are common. In fact, commentaries in military journals suggest that some in China believe that a swift, 1962-style victory in a border war with India is attainable to cut to size a peer rival.
Take another example. It was in June that the Chinese notified their refusal to allow the Indian northern army command chief to visit Beijing. But the Indian side leaked this notification to the press only in late August. It is still unclear what has been India's response to the snub. Beijing has said flatly that it "has received no word that India has stopped military exchanges between the two countries".
In the midst of such developments, the Indian external affairs minister gratuitously reiterated on August 21 that Tibet is "part of China". That the Tibet issue remains at the core of the India-China divide is being underlined by Beijing itself by laying claim to additional Indian territories on the basis of alleged Tibetan ecclesial or tutelary links to them, not any professed Han connection. There is absolutely no need for India to periodically renew its commitment to a 'one China' policy when China not only declines to reciprocally make a 'one India' pledge, but also mocks at India's territorial integrity openly. Little thought has been given that by bringing India's Tibet stance in complete alignment with China's, New Delhi has undercut its own leverage while boosting China's.
Without contributing to the rising tensions with China, India has to gently allow facts to speak for themselves — whether on the border situation, Tibet's centrality or China's overt refusal to accept the territorial status quo. Facts indeed are an anathema even to schoolyard bullies. By not hiding its intent to further redraw the frontiers, Beijing only highlights the futility of political negotiations. After all, a major redrawing of frontiers has never happened at the negotiating table in world history.
India should learn how Vietnam has managed to turn the diplomatic tables on China by not shying away from spotlighting the latter's aggressive designs. In the process, China stood isolated at the last Asean Regional Forum meeting.
A stable equation with China is more likely to be realised if India puts premium on leveraged diplomacy and avoids a trans-Himalayan military imbalance. More broadly, China's trajectory will depend on how its neighbours and distant countries like the US manage its growing power. Such management — independently and in partnership — will determine if Chinese power does not slide into arrogance.

 

[SHASH2K2]

Let facts speak for themselves​

India can expect no respite from Chinese strategic pressure, but to adroitly manage its relationship with Beijing, it must let facts speak for themselves, says Brahma Chellaney


THE Prime Minister has underscored concerns over the perceptible hardening in China's stance towards India. With its defence spending having grown almost twice as fast as its GDP, China is now beginning to take the gloves off, confident that it has acquired the necessary muscle. Rising power is emboldening Beijing to pursue a more muscular foreign policy not just against India, but also in the region extending from the South China Sea to Northeast Asia.
This has been exemplified by several developments — from China's inclusion of the South China Sea in its 'core' national interests, an action that makes its claims to the disputed islands non-negotiable, to its bellicose reaction to the South Korean-US joint anti-submarine exercises in the Sea of Japan. And just the way China has staked its claim to India's Arunachal Pradesh, it has asserted its sovereignty over Japan's Senkaku Islands, which were part of Japanese territory all along, even during the US occupation of Japan.
Little surprise then that China's neighbours are increasingly uneasy about the implications of its growing power. Beijing aspires to shape a Sino-centric Asia, but its actions hardly make it a good candidate for Asian leadership. Leadership can come not from brute force, but from other states' consent or tacit acceptance.
China's belligerence, significantly, poses a greater threat for India than for any other Asian nation for several reasons. One, China is mounting both direct military intimidation (as underlined by the abnormally high level of continuing cross-border incursions) and proxy threats against India, including by shoring by its longstanding strategic nexus with Pakistan. Two, the largest real estate China covets is in India. Arunachal is almost three times bigger than Taiwan. Three, India has no formal security alliance with any other power and thus must depend on its own defence capabilities. And four, by seeking to badger India on multiple fronts, China is signalling that its real, long-term contest is more with India than with the US. The countries around India have become battlegrounds for China's moves to encircle India. By assiduously courting these countries as proxies in its geopolitical competition with India, China has managed to make deep inroads into India's strategic backyard — from Sri Lanka to Bangladesh, and Nepal to Burma.
Yet, the world knows more about China's moves in the South China Sea and East Asia than its actions against India. At international conferences, even some experts on Asia are surprised when told simple facts, such as China's increasingly assertive claim to an entire Indian state and its cross-border military incursions.
It is now a year since the Indian government put a lid even on the domestic press coverage of the Himalayan border situation. It was in September 2009 that senior government figures, from the PM down, spoke out against the strident Indian media reporting on Chinese border incursions. Since then, sources of information have dried up and newspapers and television networks have carried little news. It is not that the Chinese crossborder forays have ended or even moderated. It is just that Indian media organisations have little information to report, even though the incidence of Chinese incursions remains high.
SUPPRESSING news on the border situation serves no interests other than China's. It suits the Chinese agenda that the border situation is kept under wraps. Even in the pre-1962 period, India had made the same mistake by playing down China's aggressive moves along the border. In fact, there are important parallels between the pre-1962 situation and the one now. Border talks have regressed, Chinese claims on Indian territories are becoming publicly assertive and their cross-border incursions are common. In fact, commentaries in military journals suggest that some in China believe that a swift, 1962-style victory in a border war with India is attainable to cut to size a peer rival.
Take another example. It was in June that the Chinese notified their refusal to allow the Indian northern army command chief to visit Beijing. But the Indian side leaked this notification to the press only in late August. It is still unclear what has been India's response to the snub. Beijing has said flatly that it "has received no word that India has stopped military exchanges between the two countries".
In the midst of such developments, the Indian external affairs minister gratuitously reiterated on August 21 that Tibet is "part of China". That the Tibet issue remains at the core of the India-China divide is being underlined by Beijing itself by laying claim to additional Indian territories on the basis of alleged Tibetan ecclesial or tutelary links to them, not any professed Han connection. There is absolutely no need for India to periodically renew its commitment to a 'one China' policy when China not only declines to reciprocally make a 'one India' pledge, but also mocks at India's territorial integrity openly. Little thought has been given that by bringing India's Tibet stance in complete alignment with China's, New Delhi has undercut its own leverage while boosting China's.
Without contributing to the rising tensions with China, India has to gently allow facts to speak for themselves — whether on the border situation, Tibet's centrality or China's overt refusal to accept the territorial status quo. Facts indeed are an anathema even to schoolyard bullies. By not hiding its intent to further redraw the frontiers, Beijing only highlights the futility of political negotiations. After all, a major redrawing of frontiers has never happened at the negotiating table in world history.
India should learn how Vietnam has managed to turn the diplomatic tables on China by not shying away from spotlighting the latter's aggressive designs. In the process, China stood isolated at the last Asean Regional Forum meeting.
A stable equation with China is more likely to be realised if India puts premium on leveraged diplomacy and avoids a trans-Himalayan military imbalance. More broadly, China's trajectory will depend on how its neighbours and distant countries like the US manage its growing power. Such management — independently and in partnership — will determine if Chinese power does not slide into arrogance.

Only thing I can say after reading this is that I am ashamed . Day is not very far away when congress will sell entire country just to be in power. pathetic.

 

[EagleOne]

:thinking:
how can china wage a war at present...
well we need to drag this issue by some strong opposition and be sure that does not lead to war until 3-5 years

 

[SHASH2K2]

If we look at recent India china economic summit. It was almost a repeat of Hindi chini bhai bhai though it was not said but given praises were sung for each other its almost same . I am pretty sure we will have another 1962 under power hungry Congress government which hides facts even from its own citizens. We should all be ready for another 1962 .

 

[ajtr]

Only thing I can say after reading this is that I am ashamed . Day is not very far away when congress will sell entire country just to be in power. pathetic.

Why ashamed....just coz your elites are selling you across the Himalayas and Atlantic.But this has always been the case with Indian history.it were always the elites in power/opposition who sold india and meek population always accepted its new foreign rulers.

 

[SHASH2K2]

Why ashamed....just coz your elites are selling you across the Himalayas and Atlantic.But this has always been the case with Indian history.it were always the elites in power/opposition who sold india and meek population always accepted its new foreign rulers.

Congress is not a foreign ruler they are selected by our own people so I am ashamed at our choice as well. May be its our fate that we will be destroyed by our own.

 

[pankaj nema]

Let China ATTACK today. There Is nothing to worry. China is NOT DOING a favour to India by not attacking us.
If India was so weak BOTH CHINA AND PAKISTAN WOULD HAVE TAKEN WHAT THEY WANT

 

[ajtr]

Congress is not a foreign ruler they are selected by our own people so I am ashamed at our choice as well. May be its our fate that we will be destroyed by our own.

congress is one of the political elites.

 

[ajtr]

Let China ATTACK today. There Is nothing to worry. China is NOT DOING a favour to India by not attacking us.
If India was so weak BOTH CHINA AND PAKISTAN WOULD HAVE TAKEN WHAT THEY WANT

They both have taken watever they wanted.Is there anything else left to be given????

 

[pankaj nema]

They both have taken watever they wanted.Is there anything else left to be given????

Pakistan could not take kashmir .The MUCH maligned cease fire of 1948 was our STRATEGY otherwise the British and Americans would have intervened in Pakistan's Favour

The cease fire gave us control on the rivers AND yet it gave a part of kashmir to pakistan .So Pakistan cant complain.Pakistan got Something BUT NOT WHAT THEY WANTED

 

[ajtr]

Pakistan could not take kashmir .The MUCH maligned cease fire of 1948 was our STRATEGY otherwise the British and Americans would have intervened in Pakistan's Favour

The cease fire gave us control on the rivers AND yet it gave a part of kashmir to pakistan .So Pakistan cant complain.Pakistan got Something BUT NOT WHAT THEY WANTED

Pakistan has taken what it wanted the whole of western india and blocked india's access to central asia.It has also taken POK which gave it direct connectivity to china by KKH.And regarding rivers originating in india do check the map indus originates in china and if india does any hanky-panky with pak rivers then expect china to block major indian rivers like ganges etc...They ve alread done this with brahamputra without a whimper from GOI.

 

[pankaj nema]

Pakistan has taken what it wanted the whole of western india and blocked india's access to central asia.It has also taken POK which gave it direct connectivity to china by KKH.And regarding rivers originating in india do check the map indus originates in china and if india does any hanky-panky with pak rivers then expect china to block major indian rivers like ganges etc...They ve alread done this with brahamputra without a whimper from GOI.

IF by this arguement you mean that Partition was a mistake then I AND MOST INDIANS would totally dis agree.

Central Asia is just a hype .If Central Asia has oil and gas then GULF countries have much more .Central asian oil and
gas is exported to western Europe USING Russian company Gazprom's Pipelines

Central Asia is connnected to India via Iran We have built a port called Chabhar in Iran for making GWADAR irrelevant.
Pakistanis give too much importance to themselves by saying They hold the access to Central Asia.

3 out 5 central asian countries are in poverty and turmoil. Kazakhistan is giving us Uranium .It is not A BIG EXPORT market FOR US

India's North east is so rich in rivers that China will gain nothing by blocking Brahma putra.

We will take all the available water AND BANGLADESH will suffer

 

[ajtr]

India-China Power Game in Nepal and the Consequences​

Pramod Jaiswal

September 16, 2010
A month after the visit to Nepal by Shyam Saran as special envoy of the Indian Prime Minister, a delegation of 21 senior Chinese leaders led by He Yong, vice-premier and secretary at the secretariat of the 17th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, arrived in Kathmandu on September 11, 2010 on a six-day visit.

This is the highest-level Chinese delegation to visit Nepal since the beginning of the peace process. The visit also coincided with news about a controversial audio tape purportedly containing a conversation between Krishna Bahadur Mahara, International Bureau Chief of the Unified CPN-Maoist, and an unknown Chinese, in which Mahara is heard asking for 500 million rupees to buy off 50 lawmakers required to form the government under Prachanda's leadership. This tape brought China into the internal political debate of Nepal for the first time. As of now, it is not known whether the tape is genuine or not. If it is genuine, then it indicates a serious shift in China's policy towards Nepal. It can be seen as the beginning of Chinese interference in Nepal's internal affairs.

The Chinese have always adopted a pro-establishment policy towards Nepal. Experts emphasize that Nepal-China relations are based on the Five Principles, or Panchsheel, according to which China will not intervene in Nepal's domestic politics and Nepal will respect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity with respect to Tibet and Taiwan.

But the controversial audio tape violates the principle that China will not intervene in Nepal's domestic politics. It also indicates that China seems to have adopted a proactive policy towards Nepal. China had always gained good faith in the Nepalese mind by pointing at Indian interference in Nepal's internal affairs. The current visit of the Chinese delegation, coming close on the heels of the audio tape controversy, also indicates that China may involve itself more actively in Nepalese affairs and serve as a check on interference in Nepal's internal matters by any other external powers (read India).

These events are also taking place at a time when there is a souring of relations between China and India due to the denial of visa to the Indian Army's Chief of Northern Command Lt. Gen. B. S. Jaswal. There is also tension between India and China on the issue of stapled visas being issued to Kashmiris, the Chinese claim on Arunachal Pradesh, the issue of Dalai Lama, and so on. Thus, one can argue that China is taking such actions in Nepal to confront and counter-balance India and will continue to act similarly in other countries in India's neighbourhood.

The Maoists have always looked towards China for help and support. But China had made it clear to them so far that it could help only if they are in government because of their pro-establishment policy. But in the past few months, it seems that the Maoist have been able to convince the Chinese that they would not come to power until Indian interference continues in Nepal. This may explain the new Chinese behaviour.

China has always been worried about chronic political instability in Nepal and the possibility of external powers using Nepal against its strategic interests. China viewed the monarchy as the most stable, credible and dependable partner and the mainstream political parties as pro-India. The King always played the 'China card' effectively to counter Indian influence. Chinese security interests, which have been China's prime concern in Nepal, were also served by the King in the past. The King wielded tremendous power as the Commander-in-Chief of the army.

After Nepal became a republic, China lost its most reliable partner (Monarchy). It realized that it has to choose between two major political forces in Nepal, i.e., the democratic parties, which were mostly pro-India, and the Maoists, a large party with anti-India and anti-US sentiments.

While the Chinese were looking for a durable and dependable force in Nepal, the Maoists, looking for support from a strong power in the neighbourhood, approached China for help. The Maoists looked at China with sympathy due to their ideological affinities. Significantly, the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-Maoist) promised in its election manifesto to set up eight new national highways linking Nepal to China. Interestingly, China did not support the Maoist party until they emerged as the single largest party in the Constituent Assembly election of April 2008. In fact, China was the only country to supply arms to King Gyanendra to suppress the Maoist insurgents when India, the US and the UK had refused to provide any such help.

China also found it expedient to cultivate the Maoists because of the growing tensions in Tibet, particularly after the March 2008 uprising. China wanted to curb the underground activities of some 20,000 Tibetan refugees settled in Nepal. As is well-known, Nepal is the most easily accessible entry point to Tibet and it has the second largest Tibetan refugee community in the world. China has traditionally alleged that international forces are conducting operations against China, through Tibetans based in Nepal. In this context, China was deeply concerned when six Nepalese Parliamentarians visited Dalai Lama in Dharamsala in February 2009. Only after this did China start establishing good relations with other political parties like the Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML) and the Madhesi People's Rights Forum apart from the CPN-Maoist.

It is well-known that even though Maoist leaders are posing themselves as anti-Indian, most are aware that at the end of the day they will have to deal with India, and that they cannot wish away the geographical, historical, cultural and socio-economic linkages between the two countries. It is almost certain that they will temper their policies towards India once they come to power. However, for the moment, the Indian policy of preventing Maoists from coming to power and the Maoist counter-tactic of mobilising popular opinion on the basis of growing anti-India sentiments in Nepal, seem to be pushing the Himalayan country deeper into uncertainty, which will not serve the interests of either country.

Interestingly, China and India have been competing for influence along the Nepal-China border. Soon after India provided development assistance of Rs. 100 million for the remote hill region of Mustang, China responded with financial assistance worth Rs. 10 million for construction of a library, science laboratory and school building with computers in Chhoser village (adjoining Jhongwasen district of Tibet) in the same region to counter Indian influence. The ambassadors of both countries have visited the area. China is also opening China Study Centres in Nepal along the Indo-Nepal border. Out of a total of eleven China Study Centres that China has built in Nepal so far, seven are along the Indo-Nepal border.

In response to the Chinese attempt to extend the railway link from Tibet till the Nepalese border, India is also planning to extend its rail links to Nepal along the border. India has announced assistance worth Rs. 10.88 billion for the expansion of railway service in five places along the India-Nepal border. The first phase of expansion is scheduled to start from Birjung of Nepal which is about 350 kilometres south of Tatopani, the place to be connected by China through railways. The power-game between China and India is thus slowly unfolding in Nepal.

In this context, the controversial audio tape incident has had its effect. It has benefited the anti-Maoist forces the most. The leak seems to have stopped the Madhesi parties from supporting Prachanda's candidature as PM in the seventh round of voting. At a time when the Nepalese media was in overdrive to nail the Indian Embassy for its alleged intervention in Nepalese politics, the tape controversy has successfully diverted popular attention towards China.

Whether the audio tape is genuine or fake, it will affect the contour of Nepalese politics in the days to come. If China decides to play a proactive role in Nepal, it will definitely have serious implications for India's security. The win-win situation for both India and China lies in respecting the 'buffer-status of Nepal' between them. This will also ensure political stability in Nepal and will serve the security interests of both nations.

 

[ajtr]

IF by this arguement you mean that Partition was a mistake then I AND MOST INDIANS would totally dis agree.

Central Asia is just a hype .If Central Asia has oil and gas then GULF countries have much more .Central asian oil and
gas is exported to western Europe USING Russian company Gazprom's Pipelines

Central Asia is connnected to India via Iran We have built a port called Chabhar in Iran for making GWADAR irrelevant.
Pakistanis give too much importance to themselves by saying They hold the access to Central Asia.

3 out 5 central asian countries are in poverty and turmoil. Kazakhistan is giving us Uranium .It is not A BIG EXPORT market FOR US

India's North east is so rich in rivers that China will gain nothing by blocking Brahma putra.

We will take all the available water AND BANGLADESH will suffer

Broader Geopolitical strategic outlook sire not the inward looking outlook.

 

[pankaj nema]

The Chinese AND PAKISTANI joint threat is here to stay .We HAVE TO face them.
But Panic, fear ,irrationality will not work.

Just cool headed determination and focus will do the job.
At least We should thank our enemies.

We are COMPLACENT by nature. But our enemies are constantly and regularly reminding us of the threat that we face
In recent years we had begun to ASSUME That China is no more a threat.
The Chinese Themselves removed our doubts.

 

[ajtr]

There is full-fledge oil/gas competition going on between china-india....kinda another cold war getting hot up due to economic competition.

1.India loses to China on Myanmar gas
2. Waiting for neighbourhood gas by Sudha Mahalingam: Himal South Asian (Feb, 2007)
3. China secures Myanmar energy route by Sudha Ramachandran: Asia Times Online (April 3, 2009)
4. India Loses to China in Africa-to-Kazakhstan-to-Venezuela Oil by Rakteem Katakey and John Duce: Bloomberg (July 30, 2010)

 

[ajtr]

The Chinese AND PAKISTANI joint threat is here to stay .We HAVE TO face them.
But Panic, fear ,irrationality will not work.

Just cool headed determination and focus will do the job.
At least We should thank our enemies.

We are COMPLACENT by nature. But our enemies are constantly and regularly reminding us of the threat that we face
In recent years we had begun to ASSUME That China is no more a threat.
The Chinese Themselves removed our doubts.

Complacency is in indian genes.

 

[pankaj nema]

There is competition for oil fields .But fortunately India is close to GULF and Iran which are STILL The largest reserves of oil and gas.

China on the contrary wants to diversify its supply very badly .China fears That Mallacca Strait is India' s back yard.

If Myanmar and central Asia are Neigh bours of china they will supply oil and gas to china via direct Pipelines

There are other oil fields also where Investments can be made.And A country does NOT SHIP its supplies from far away places .The oil and gas is sold to earn profits. An oil field is an investment for profits.

Due to increase in global investment TOTAL production of oil and gas will increase thus bringing down prices.

We need affordable energy .We need not buy every oil field available And Neither WE CAN OUT BID CHINA

 

[Agantrope]

There is full-fledge oil/gas competition going on between china-india....kinda another cold war getting hot up due to economic competition.

1.India loses to China on Myanmar gas
2. Waiting for neighbourhood gas by Sudha Mahalingam: Himal South Asian (Feb, 2007)
3. China secures Myanmar energy route by Sudha Ramachandran: Asia Times Online (April 3, 2009)
4. India Loses to China in Africa-to-Kazakhstan-to-Venezuela Oil by Rakteem Katakey and John Duce: Bloomberg (July 30, 2010)

Indian policy makers are not that aggressive than chinese counterpart. China is running a parallel IMF for African countries. If there 2 shops we obviously go to the shop who provides the cheap and beneficial goods. India is nowhere near the china in terms of diplomacy and assertiveness as well as belligerence.