India objects to Sino-Pak road and rail link

Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by ganesh177, Jul 30, 2010.

  1. ganesh177

    ganesh177 Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    295
    Location:
    Pune, Incredible India
    India objects to Sino-Pak road and rail link
    By Our Correspondent
    Friday, 30 Jul, 2010

    NEW DELHI: India has protested to China over a China-Pakistan highway, saying the Karakoram transit passes through a part of territory in Jammu and Kashmir which is ‘illegally occupied’ by Pakistan, Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna told parliament on Thursday. (IMG:style_emoticons/PDFEmotionIconsv10/swear.gif)

    “India has clearly conveyed to China its consistent position that Pakistan was in illegal occupation of parts of Jammu and Kashmir since 1947 following reports that China was building a rail line and highway in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir,” the United News of India quoted Mr Krishna as telling the Rajya Sabha.

    Mr Krishna’s written statement came in response to questions by deputies. He said that India had conveyed its concern to China and asked it to cease such activities.

    China was regarding Kashmir as a bilateral matter to be settled between India and Pakistan, Mr Krishna said while answering the questions.

    He said the government had seen reports to the effect that China was seeking to build a railway line and highway projects in Pakistani Kashmir, New Delhi’s name for Azad Kashmir, and it had taken up the issue with them.

    The government would keep a constant vigil on all developments having a bearing on India’s national interest and take all necessary measures to safeguard it, UNI quoted the minister as saying.

    Answering a related question, Mr Krishna said India had taken up the reports of China building a dam on the upper reaches of Tsangpo/ Brahmaputra, known as Tsangpo in Tibet, with China during his visit to Beijing in April.

    China had conveyed that it always had shown a responsible attitude towards trans-border rivers. The Chinese foreign minister had also clarified that the planned construction at Zangmu was that of a small power project and it would not store water or regulate the volume of water.

    It, therefore, would not have any adverse impact on downstream flows, he added.

    Mr Krishna said the two countries had established an expert-level mechanism to discuss cooperation on all issues regarding trans-bor-der rivers and it had held four meetings between September 2007 and April 2010.

    http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect...dia-objects-to-sinopak-road-and-rail-link-070

    What has this protesting achieved so far all these years ? Did chinese backed off from any of the project ?
    Why dont we just do something tit for tat, starting with lifting article 370 and changing the face of kashmir.
     
  2.  
  3. prateikf

    prateikf Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    41
    what else can India other than protesting? that very old man krishna is out of his mind. he was so badly insulted in pakistan. India is just a toothless and a paper tiger of which not even bangladesh is afraid of. we can never forget how the bangladeshi rifles brutally tortured and killed 16 of our jawans a few years back. that time also our govt. just protested.
     
  4. 171K

    171K Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2010
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    18
    x2 quoted for the truth & harsh reality
     
  5. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,272
    Likes Received:
    11,275
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Last time India protested, Zardari didnt get a nuke deal that he thought was an ink away. What more can any country do if two sovereign countries make any deal which may no be in our best interest. Protests and diplomatic pressure is all that you can do.
     
  6. prateikf

    prateikf Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    41
    zardari did get the nuke deal from china. India could do a lot more than just protesting. Take kargil why did we not cross the LOC? when the pakis could cross the LOC why couldnt we? take 26/11 why did we not take decisive action against pak? why are we still talking to that nation? why cant we respond in a similar manner to the firing by paki soldiers which always kills our troops?
     
  7. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,519
    Likes Received:
    1,544
    since the planned rail way or highway is to be built on Pak and Chinese territories then the decision is within their sovereignty. don't see on what ground the protest was raised.

    Ind calls that part 'illegally' occupied by Pak. Or Pak regards Ind-controlled J&K as being 'illegally' held by Ind. exactly reflects it's a bilateral dispute to which China is irrelevant.
     
  8. Rage

    Rage DFI TEAM Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,407
    Likes Received:
    967
    That very fact entitles us right to place our 'dispute'.

    An international conduit is an attempt to legitimize one's hold over the area.

    Btw, Pakistan does not consider Kashmir as 'it's'. Its standard position, thus far, has been to let Kashmiris decide their fate. This goes against that very premise.

    Not to mention, this, in addition, to Pakistan's other transgressions: Including giving a slice of Kashmir away to China - in what was a clear, blatant violation of int'l law, sovereignty issues and territorial right to claim. That was never Pakistan's to "give" in the first place. It has eroded its position- perpetually.

    China- by virtue of the fact that it occupies a portion of Kashmir- is party to this dispute. It will be seen as an attempt to help legitimize Pakisthan's claim over Kashmir.

    But coming to the ground realities of realpolitik, there is little any of the three nations can do to each others' 'internal' matters. We can, however, get Zardari & co to indefinitely stall this project- just as the Gawadar port project has been successively delayed- for years now.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2010
  9. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,543
    Location:
    Somewhere
    A right move by the Government of India.

    Technically, the road and rail link will go through.

    However, India is registering the fact that J&K (Occupied) is a part of India.

    Important to state so for other Nations to register that J&K is India's.
     
  10. sandeepdg

    sandeepdg Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,333
    Likes Received:
    216
    Location:
    Gurgaon/Noida
    We have every right to protest, though it might hardly achieve anything !! Since, technically POK is not the sovereign territory of Pakistan and is disputed, so any construction by the Chinese of infrastructure that connects this region to them is a violation of international laws.
     
  11. thakur_ritesh

    thakur_ritesh Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,434
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Location:
    Land of the GODS - "Dev Bhomi".
    sovereignty is the exact question, where is it? PoK (pakistan occupied kashmir) is a disputed territory and a part of india occupied by pakistan. last time we raised our concerns with china, they backed off from building dams in PoK and i am sure better sense will prevail on part of china yet again.
     
  12. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,543
    Location:
    Somewhere
    @Ohimalaya,

    How come Pakistan gave away Shaksgam to China?

    It was an illegal move if POK was 'disputed'?

    So, Pakistan can be highhanded and India lumps it?
     
  13. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,519
    Likes Received:
    1,544
    your stance is well respected and the word 'REALPOLITIK' has said it all.

    "Let Kashimiris decide their fate" or terms like 'POK" or "IOK" sounds a good 'negotiating position or tact' but it virtually blocks any meaningful settlement of the dispute. The way out, in my opinion is to realistically nego. and perpetuate a border (i.e. splitting Kashimir). Of course there're many other factors that prevent both leaderships from making the 'decisive move' (they need such a dispute).

    As for that alleged cession of 'part of Kashmir' from Pak to China, in any border nego. there're always trade-offs. Gives and takes are common, needless to mention no 'official demarcation' for some borders or uninhabitated areas. Of course there's always a veneer of jingoism - "we will never give up an inch of 'our' land". But sooner or later the leaderships will come to their senses to make 'unpopular' choices.
     
  14. Rage

    Rage DFI TEAM Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,407
    Likes Received:
    967
    ohi,

    The biggest reason why I believe leaders will refrain from arriving at a common position is that they consider it an 'erosion of their credibility'. I mean, how does it look when you've been banging the town bell for years over the 'intractability' of your position and the integrity it entails, only to see your position negated by a one-off compromise.

    Any arrival at such a consensus will, in my opinion, require years of build-up. For it will require the public to be meandered away from their initial positions. This is especially true in India and Pakisthan.

    We can debate the de jure consequences of this ad infinitum, and we have the best case. But de facto, we realize that a considerable change in the status-quo is highly unlikely.

    In India and Pakistan's case, there is also the need to ensure control over water-sources, for the upper-riparian country can often put the other to a considerable disadvantage.

    In India's case, there is the added urgency of lebensraum. Any ceding of territory now, however minuscule, will be seen as terrible on account of the population density, and the future value it entails. In that respect, China has a little more 'comfortable' position, which is why we believe it should be a little more magnanimous in ceding territory, that was never it's to 'have' in the first place.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2010

Share This Page