Skip to content

Archive

Tag: time

By Mohan Guruswamy. November 3, 2009. The short answer to whether India and China will always be rivals is YES. But rivals need not be enemies and neighbors need not get fratricidal. If there are two large and rising powers in a region, rivalry is inevitable. France and Germany or Brazil and Argentina come readily to mind. A hundred and fifty years ago France and Britain were bitter adversaries. The rise of Teutonic nationalism and of Nazism united the two countries against a common enemy. The “end of history” with the triumph of liberal democracy has largely blunted Franco-German rivalry by entwining them economically, while the advent of the European Union has made the borders seamless. The ratification of the Treaty of Tlatelolco of 1967 by Argentina in 1994, making all of Latin America and the Caribbean a nuclear free zone, has more or less eliminated any vestigial military fears Argentina and Brazil may have had. On the other hand go to a Brazil-Argentina soccer match or to a France-England rugby game and you will wonder if things have changed at all? Rivalries, it seems, are forever!

The situation between India and China is not very different. Nationalism arrived in both countries at about the same time in the early 1900’s with the advent of Sun Yat Sen in China and MK Gandhi in India. This was after centuries of foreign rule over the Han and Hindu ethnic majorities. After decades of turbulence both countries emerged as “free nations” with entirely different systems in the waning 1940’s. Mao Zedong and Jawaharlal Nehru were leaders with entirely different personalities and world views. Mao’s ruthless instincts were honed as the leader of the Communists in a bloody civil war. On the other side Jawaharlal’s were finessed under the tutelage of Mahatma Gandhi into that of a somewhat naïve and dreamy idealist. The isolation of the two countries that the British had so assiduously nurtured by supporting an independent Tibet was rudely shattered by its annexation by China in 1951. This and the handing over of Xinjiang by the then USSR to the new PRC made the Han and the Hindu neighbors for the first time in history.

Since 1954 the legacy of a disputed border has flared up into a bitter row. Both countries are guilty of misinterpreting history to further their claims. India’s claim of the barren and wind swept Aksai Chin plateau rests on an arbitrary extension of the border in 1939 to the present claim line first suggested by WH Johnson in 1865. Johnson was a discontented official of the Survey of India who made his fortune by vastly extending the Kashmir Maharaja’s domain on the map. The 1939 extension was done to create a buffer between Xinjiang, which had turned into a Soviet protectorate, and British India.

On the other side in China the obsequious courtiers of the Qing (Manchu) dynasty were not averse to some cartographic conquests of their own.  Ge Jianxiong, a well respected history professor at China’s prestigious Fudan University, has written that “the notions of Greater China were based entirely on one-sided views of Qing court records that were written for the courts self-aggrandizement.” Ge has also written criticizing those who feel that the more they exaggerate the territory the more “patriotic” they are. The present Dalai Lama lent weight to this by formally staking a claim over Tawang to the newly independent India in 1947. Such is the stuff that wars are made off and the two countries are in a military face-off since 1962.

To be fair to the Chinese they have at several times offered a package deal of settling by foregoing each others un-historic and unsubstantiated claims in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh. India’s leadership has balked at this lest it be accused by the opposition of the day of selling out. Only in recent days a new wisdom seemed to creeping into South Block, but the Chinese have suddenly turned recalcitrant. They now seem to suggest that the package deal is no longer on offer?

As if this were not enough there are other issues that color each other perceptions. The voracious appetite for Tiger parts in China is one. The rise of China, which was the dominant event of the last two decades, is now being threatened by a slowing down economy, and it is locked into an irretrievable reverse hock to the vastly indebted USA. India on the other hand has begun to experience heady growth rates since the turn of the century, giving rise to a new giddiness about its place in the world. The Chinese don’t care too much for this. This is the stuff of competition. But not war. For both sides, as the song goes, are now endowed with the mushroom shaped cloud! And so we will have to be content playing rivals.

Mohan Guruswamy

Email: mohanguru@gmail.commailto:mohanguru@gmail.com

November 3, 2009

  • Share/Bookmark

Ramtanu Maitra and Susan Maitra

Sunday, January 29, 2006

Continuing terrorist actions and violent demonstrations over the last five decades have turned India’s Northeast into a dangerous place. Large-scale introduction of narcotics and arms from neighboring Myanmar (Burma) and China has made this strategically crucial area a potential theater of violent secessionist movements.

Imbued with the British ideology of encouraging ethnic, sub-ethnic, religious, and linguistic identities—as opposed to the identity of a citizen of a sovereign nation-state—both New Delhi and the residents of Northeast India are marching recklessly along the very path prescribed by the British Raj in 1862, when he laid down the law of apartheid to isolate “the tribals.” While it is not clear how long this fateful road is, there is little doubt what awaits them at the end.


British mindset at work


Since India’s independence in 1947, Northeast India has been split up into smaller and smaller states and autonomous regions. The divisions were made to accommodate the wishes of tribes and ethnic groups which want to assert their sub-national identity and obtain an area where the diktat of their little coterie is recognized. New Delhi has yet to comprehend that its policy of accepting and institutionalizing the superficial identities of these ethnic, linguistic, and tribal groups has ensured more irrational demands for even smaller states. It has also virtually eliminated any plan to make these areas economically powerful, and the people scientifically and technologically advanced.


A situation has now arisen in which New Delhi’s promised carrot of economic development evokes little enthusiasm in the Northeast. Money from New Delhi for “development” serves to appease the “greed” of a handful and to maintain the status quo. On the other hand, fresh separatist movements bring the area closer to the precipice.

Assam has been cut up into many states since Britain’s exit. The autonomous regions of Karbi Anglong, Bodo Autonomous Region, and Meghalaya were all part of pre-independence Assam. Citing the influx of Bengali Muslims since the 1947 formation of East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh in 1971, the locals demand the ouster of these “foreigners” from their soil. Two violent movements in Assam, the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) and the Bodo Security Force (BdSF), are now practically demanding “ethnic cleansing” in their respective areas.

To fund their movements, both the ULFA and the BdSF have been trafficking heroin and other narcotics, and indulging in killing sprees against other ethnic groups and against Delhi’s law-and-order machinery. Both these groups have also developed close links with other major guerrilla-terrorist groups operating in the area, including the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Muivah) and the People’s Liberation Army in Manipur. continue reading…

  • Share/Bookmark

By Ramtanu Maitra Jul 23, 2005

Fresh from its perceived success in Kyrgyzstan, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an American non-governmental organization, has a new mission in Nepal, where King Gyanendra has assumed autocratic powers.
According to reports from South Asia, this was disclosed to Nepalese politicians by US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Christina Rocca during her recent visit to Nepal. Although the entry of the Washington-based NED is officially to help stabilize and promote democracy in Nepal, its past record makes some in India wonder what the consequences will be for India’s turbulent northeast and for India’s relations with China.

Beijing has even more reason to concern itself with the NED’s presence in Nepal, next door to sensitive Tibet. The NED makes no bones of its concerns about Uighur Chinese, and is known to have earlier funded anti-China forces in Tibet.roadmap

India is by no means wholly ill-disposed toward the NED. In fact, the American outfit has some strong promoters there. During the 2000 visit to India by president Bill Clinton, a proposal was made to jointly set up an Asian center for democracy. The Asian Center for Democratic Governance is to be based in New Delhi, and jointly set up by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and the NED. continue reading…

  • Share/Bookmark

Dec 13, 2003

By Ramtanu Maitra

The volley of peace initiatives between New Delhi and Islamabad during October and November has puzzled many political analysts around the world. Two questions are asked most: Are these proposals for real? And why now?

The sequence of events is as follows. The first salvo was actually fired in May, by Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee before his three-nation tour of Germany, France and Russia. Vajpayee said that India wanted to start talks with Pakistan “as soon as possible”, but also made it clear that for a meaningful dialogue, cross-border terrorism should end and the terror infrastructure be dismantled. 225px-Vajpayee

Then, on October 22, Indian External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha offered a 12-point peace package to Pakistan. One of the proposals was the immediate resumption of sporting contacts, namely, cricket. The others are equally practical: more road, rail and ferry connections between the two nuclear-armed states and a bus route between the two halves of disputed Kashmir; fresh talks on air links; cooperation between coastguard forces to reduce unnecessary arrests of fishermen; and more diplomats in each other’s capitals.

Without responding to this proposal, one way or the other, a week later, Pakistan made a counter-proposal of 13 items. Soft proposals such as the restoration of sporting ties in all fields, including cricket, were endorsed without any hitch. But changes were sought in the case of some confidence-building measures. For instance, on India’s proposal for a Muzaffarabad-Srinagar bus link in Kashmir, Pakistan Foreign Secretary Riaz A Khokar told a press conference: “We welcome the start of a bus service between Muzaffarabad and Srinagar, but since Kashmir is a disputed territory, checkposts in the area must be manned by UN forces and people of both sides must carry UN documents.”

On November 23, Pakistani Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, in his address to the nation on completion of the first year of his government, announced a unilateral ceasefire along the Line of Control (LoC) that divides the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) between India and Pakistan, beginning with the holy Muslim day of Eid (November 26). Formally, India has welcomed this response, but has, at the same time, urged Pakistan to stop cross-border infiltration to make the ceasefire worthwhile. In a statement, the Ministry of External Affairs said that the government of India had earlier proposed a ceasefire along the actual ground position line in Siachen in the high altitude northern section of the LoC.

In addition to the ceasefire along the LoC, Jamali also expressed his willingness to start a bus service between Srinagar – the summer capital of the Indian part of J&K – and Muzaffarabad, the capital of the Pakistani part of J&K; to start a ferry service from the Pakistani port of Karachi to the Indian port of Mumbai; to revive air links between the two countries; and to open the Khokhrapar-Munabao railroad route, between the province of Sindh in Pakistan and the Indian state of Rajasthan, which was closed following the 1965 India-Pakistan war. All these proposals, except the ceasefire proposal, were among the 12 peace proposals offered to Pakistan by Sinha on October 22.

Then, on November 24, Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf announced that Pakistan would permit the restoration of flights to India and permit Indian airliners to fly over its landmass. Vajpayee reciprocated the gesture on December 1. continue reading…

  • Share/Bookmark