Apologies to Abhishek, or Abhishek_, for this long-delayed reply. Two draft replies got destroyed, largely because the intricacies of sub-continental history would probably fail to register with most participants, including, sadly, many of the sub-continental contributors. However, what is attempted is a series of specific responses against some specific questions and comments, and a generic section which, it is hoped, will tie up loose ends.
Joe, why do you think GOI is hesitating from negotiations. From what you have expressed here, looks like giving up some hard-to-defend land, fortifying the easy to defend areas and resolving the border issue once and for all is a win-win
Could it be that at this point if GOI gives up land, it would look like bowing to Chinese pressure. Maybe the govt. wants to achieve a relative parity with PRC and then negotiate as equals? Although that may take years/decades
Let us start with your speculation. If the government wants to achieve a relative country-to-country parity with PRC, then it is stupid; the most conservative estimates show that until 2050 and beyond, the PRC will outstrip India significantly, in economic and growth terms. It is expected that this economic growth will also show itself in military terms, with greater military expenditure, with greater R&D, and with consequently greater desire to be seen on the world stage as a powerful nation.
The answer lies in the inability of the bureaucracy to suggest unpleasant alternatives, as it has been taught to seek to express the wishes of the politicians in charge, rather than to seek the most effective solution.
The answer also lies in the complete disability of the politicians to unite and come to a consensus with regard to this issue, first, because of the nature of parliamentary democracy, that rarely permits a consensus to be built, second, because of the divided vision of the country that the politicians have. I shall return to this at greater length later.
@ Joe,
You put forth a very clear view of what ails the Great Indian Democracy and I thoroughly agree with you. But you are talking about the domestic political scenario and frankly IMHO, present a view of an era gone by - the infamous 'license raj' - prevalent upto the early 90's. The reason I bring up the economic policies and relate that to the domestic politics is because after opening up our economy, there has been a sea change in the perceptions of the electorate and who they tend to vote for. Remember BJP being unceremoniously kicked out despite their "Shining India" slogan? But that would be out of scope in terms of what we are discussing here.
What we are discussing is the response or policies of our foreign ministry, which fortunately seem to be immune from the tribulations of our domestic politics.
Actually, both are equally fair and logical points at which to start the discussion. As you have articulated a view which, for the purposes of this discussion, discounts the old ways of doing things, the license-raj, for instance, let us by all means start from the following section.
Case in point - the unanimous support to the GoI from all parties during the Kargil conflict and post 26/11, after Pokhran-II or the stapled visa issue for Kashmiris and now Arunachalis. This kind of unanimous coming together, leaving local/domestic policies aside - albeit for a short duration of time, is a cause for celebration. These decisions arrived through consensus - almost always unanimous - are more stronger and lasting than a decision taken by a single party. That was what I was trying to say.
I would love to hear your views about how and why in your opinion the ordeal of our domestic politics would affect formulation of our foreign policies.
First, foreign policy does not depend immediately upon popular opinion. To be reflected in foreign policy, popular opinion has to work its way upwards, into the consciousness of the political classes.
Agreed, this cycle has become shorter and shorter in recent times, with increasing vulgarisation of the media, as they try to reflect popular opinion, or what they want to purvey as public opinion, in as up to date a manner as they think appropriate.
Still, there are brakes. Existing treaties and international laws, for instance, of the sort treated with scant disdain by some of those writing here:
As for "The Qing had no authority to hand over suzerainty; suzerainty ceased with their abdication of power and did not transfer to the successor regime in law"
You see, the problem is not Qing to hand over, the successor simply took over what belonged to former dynasty
I have no idea what kind of law you refer to. We China has followed that for thousand of years.
The legitimacy, in those dynasties, is called heaven-given, in modern time, basically just took over what was Chinese territory from the former ruling dynasty.
I really find that your reasoning is really twisted and laughable. You whole country India took over what British left and we never see India say anything about their ruling power is gone after British left.
He is wrong as usual with regard to history and historical or constitutional matters. India was constituted by British statute, as was Pakistan; these were successor states, not by violent overthrown but by constitutional provision.
And, as it happens, the power of the Government of India and of the Government of Pakistan that was constitutionally transferred was over British India, which was directly administered by the British, and thus transferred. It was specifically mentioned by these laws that the treaties between the British Crown and the princes of India ceased with this transfer of power, and the princes were therefore in principle free and independent, sovereign powers again with their suzerain, the British Crown, removed. It was for that reason that the Crown persuaded them to join with either India or Pakistan; if any prince were to refuse, there was nothing much to be done, except to do what China did when the PRC took over from the Kuomintang regime: annex forcibly those portions that did not yield to suasion. So Pakistan in a Baluch principality and in Kashmir, and India in three principalities.
The system of international law depends on acceptance of the principles that have been evolved over the years by all concerned, and it cannot flourish under this kind of shotgun approach. Nor under this kind of basic lack of knowledge.
Sorry Joe for using you as a bludgeon, but it made it easier to state my view. Hope you don't mind getting the crossfire.
on that note, what did you think of interpretation of what you wrote. The reasons you gave for the borders not having been settle, are also good reasons for India to try and settle them. Please be frank.
As I have tried to explain in my previous comment addressed to gubbi, it has to do with the method and style of functioning of our bureaucracy, their lack of direction from their political masters, and the deep cleavage in politics regarding the concept of the Indian nation that prevails. Please read on.
So much for neutral discussion. The sides are forming again.
I do not understand this remark. Why do you think the sides are forming again? Could you be a little more specific? Has there been a change in attitudes? Have those who always favour their own national point of view drifted from that position? Have those who try to seek objective truth stopped doing that, and started playing to the nationalist gallery? What is the change that you perceive?
In addition, a question: do you think that to support a post when it favours your national point of view, but to stand aloof when the same person posts against your national point of view, constitutes a bi-partisan approaching? Does this behaviour not come under your definition of sides being formed, even before they are formed?
In conclusion, readers may please remember the circumstances under which our country emerged. Other countries have emerged with minorities; they have held together because of a shared sense of belonging to a common culture, or sharing a language, or a religion, or even a tribal affiliation. Switzerland is sui generis, otherwise by and large, this is what we observe. There have been exceptions, especially in Africa, where countries have been created which do not meet any criterion. But we can say that countries which are formed seek to satisfy one or more of these criteria.
So did India. Unfortunately, even during the independence struggle, there were disagreements of a fundamental nature. A religious chauvinist, Savarkar, formulated what he called a Two Nation Theory, stating that persons owing loyalty to a religion with links outside India could not be considered citizens of India. This formulation was taken up by the Muslim League, in its fear of being swamped by a huge majority of those belonging to other religions.
As a result of the inability of the politicians of that time to come to an understanding on the issue of adequate safeguards for the minorities, British India was divided.
The section that became India was initially ruled by a party whose conception and visualisation of India was a One Nation. This concept considered that all residents of India were Indians, irrespective of any identifying factors such as religion, ethnicity, language, culture, any factor whatsoever. Its main opposition over the years was a party with some beliefs similar to Savarkar's.
Effectively both behave the same way.
The Congress, of the One Nation theory, are already accused of giving away huge sections of the country during partition, and of having betrayed their own basic vision of the country.
The BJP and Sangh Parivar, in pushing the Congress against the wall, have painted themselves into a corner, and are forced to shout all the more loudly against separating any part of the country, just to remind voters that the Congress had broken the country, just to tell everyone that they, on the other hand, will never break the country.
When an irresistible force meets an immovable object...............................
