BanglaBhoot
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2007
- Messages
- 8,839
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
Grovelling before China
G. Parthasarathy
The Pioneer June 15, 2007
A friend of mine from a neighbouring country recently remarked: "India is behaving like a regional bully." My friend was alluding to comments about our policies towards Sri Lanka by National Security Adviser MK Narayanan. When I asked him what he felt were the characteristics he had observed that led to him labelling us as a "bully", he said, "Like all bullies, India growls at its smaller neighbours like Sri Lanka and grovels before its large neighbour, China."
My friend was outraged by Mr Narayanan's response to a question on Sri Lanka's arms purchases from Pakistan or China. The NSA had responded: "We are the big power in the region. Let us make this very clear. We strongly believe that whatever requirements the Sri Lankan Government has, they should come to us. And we will give them what we think is necessary. We do not favour their going to China, Pakistan or any other country. We will not provide the Sri Lankan Government with offensive capability. That is our position".
Mr Narayanan's statement is untenable, apart from being undiplomatic. Under what treaty obligations, bilateral or international, is Sri Lanka required to acquire weapons exclusively from India? If we are the 'big power' in the region, which demands our neighbours must follow this newly enunciated 'Narayanan Doctrine' on arms acquisitions, has he forgotten that our own IPKF was compelled to use offensive helicopter gun ships and tanks to deal with the LTTE? What right have we to ask Sri Lanka not to use similar offensive capabilities, when the LTTE is much better equipped today than earlier? Finally, why should Sri Lanka undermine the effectiveness of its armed forces by buying weapons exclusively from us, if it can get better weapons from elsewhere?
It has taken us years to persuade even anti-Indian parties like the JVP that we stand fully committed to Sri Lanka's unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Sri Lanka is a neighbour with whom we enjoy extremely good relations. Mr Narayanan's comments have provoked outrage and anti-Indian sentiments in Sri Lanka. The Pakistanis have proclaimed that these comments are yet another manifestation of India's "hegemonistic" designs. By making unwarranted comments labelled as "growling" by outsiders, we have eroded our capability to influence Sri Lanka on the need for credible devolution of powers to the Tamils.
In contrast to our "growling" at Sri Lanka, how have we approached our relations with China recently? On the eve of President Hu Jintao's visit to India, China's Ambassador to India Sun Yuxi proclaimed: "In our position the whole State of Arunachal Pradesh is Chinese territory. And Tawang is one of the places in it. We are claiming all of that. That is our position." New Delhi developed cold feet and avoided a formal protest.
China has subsequently reiterated these claims by denying a visa to an IAS official from Arunachal Pradesh, claiming that since he belongs to part of China, he does not need a visa to accompany over 100 of his colleagues being sent to China on an official "training" visit. China had earlier refused to issue visas to then Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Gegong Apang and to the Speaker of the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly.
China now appears to believe that it can afford to be more aggressive and tough in its postures on the border and other issues of concern to India. Article VII of the April 2005 'Agreement on Political Parameters and Guiding Principles' to resolve the border issue states: "In reaching a border settlement the two sides shall safeguard populations in border areas." But when meeting Mr Pranab Mukherjee in Berlin on June 6, China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi stated that "mere presence" in populated areas would not affect China's claims on the Sino-Indian border. China was thus repudiating the provisions of Article VII of the 2005 Agreement on guidelines the Special Representatives would observe in addressing the border issue, though its apologists would claim that this was merely China's interpretation of that Agreement.
The lone Lok Sabha member from Arunachal Pradesh, Mr Kiren Rijiju, says that New Delhi's weak response is alarming people in that State. Mr Rijiju avers that Arunachal Pradesh is the only State in the North-East where there are no separatist movements and people proudly proclaim that they are Indian. He adds that when the Chinese repeat their territorial claims and New Delhi fails to respond, people start doubting the latter's determination to protect the country's territorial integrity.
Even as Mr Narayanan was meeting his counterpart Dai Bingguo in the border talks this January, the Dalai Lama, speaking in Tripura, endorsed India's claim to the whole of Arunachal Pradesh, including Tawang. This punctures China's claims to Tawang, made on the grounds that it was responding to Tibetan sentiments about their spiritual and cultural links with the monastery town. Surely, the Mandarins in Beijing, who show scant regard for Tibet's cultural and spiritual heritage, cannot claim to be more concerned about Tibetan sentiments than the Dalai Lama!
China has recently taken positions on Pakistan-sponsored terrorism that have serious implications. When Lashkar-e-Tayyeba changed its name to Jamat-ud Dawa, the US moved the UN Security Council to declare Jamat-ud Dawa as an international terrorist organisation under UN Security Council Resolution 1373. China has blocked passage of this resolution. Besides, Beijing does not accept the widely endorsed position that incidents of violence in Jammu & Kashmir are acts of terrorism. China's assistance to Pakistan's nuclear, missile and conventional build up continues unabated. One, therefore, wonders how our Prime Minister could honestly tell President Hu Jintao that the people of India regard China as their "greatest neighbour".
New Delhi has to respond firmly to China's strategic containment of India. We should invite Ministers from Taiwan and establish joint mechanisms to promote economic ties with Taiwan, in line with the policies followed by many South-East and East Asian countries. New Delhi should also facilitate wider publicity for the Dalai Lama's views on the Sino-Indian border. Strategic ties with Vietnam should be strengthened with military supplies, including Brahmos and Prithvi missiles and a Plutonium Research Reactor.
Finally, the India-Russia-China triangular cooperation has to be complemented by strengthening the proposed US-Japan-India partnership. China respects power and firmness. It has contempt for actions perceived by others as Indian "grovelling" while dealing with a powerful neighbour.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columni...thy/parthasarathy142.txt&writer=parthasarathy
G. Parthasarathy
The Pioneer June 15, 2007
A friend of mine from a neighbouring country recently remarked: "India is behaving like a regional bully." My friend was alluding to comments about our policies towards Sri Lanka by National Security Adviser MK Narayanan. When I asked him what he felt were the characteristics he had observed that led to him labelling us as a "bully", he said, "Like all bullies, India growls at its smaller neighbours like Sri Lanka and grovels before its large neighbour, China."
My friend was outraged by Mr Narayanan's response to a question on Sri Lanka's arms purchases from Pakistan or China. The NSA had responded: "We are the big power in the region. Let us make this very clear. We strongly believe that whatever requirements the Sri Lankan Government has, they should come to us. And we will give them what we think is necessary. We do not favour their going to China, Pakistan or any other country. We will not provide the Sri Lankan Government with offensive capability. That is our position".
Mr Narayanan's statement is untenable, apart from being undiplomatic. Under what treaty obligations, bilateral or international, is Sri Lanka required to acquire weapons exclusively from India? If we are the 'big power' in the region, which demands our neighbours must follow this newly enunciated 'Narayanan Doctrine' on arms acquisitions, has he forgotten that our own IPKF was compelled to use offensive helicopter gun ships and tanks to deal with the LTTE? What right have we to ask Sri Lanka not to use similar offensive capabilities, when the LTTE is much better equipped today than earlier? Finally, why should Sri Lanka undermine the effectiveness of its armed forces by buying weapons exclusively from us, if it can get better weapons from elsewhere?
It has taken us years to persuade even anti-Indian parties like the JVP that we stand fully committed to Sri Lanka's unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Sri Lanka is a neighbour with whom we enjoy extremely good relations. Mr Narayanan's comments have provoked outrage and anti-Indian sentiments in Sri Lanka. The Pakistanis have proclaimed that these comments are yet another manifestation of India's "hegemonistic" designs. By making unwarranted comments labelled as "growling" by outsiders, we have eroded our capability to influence Sri Lanka on the need for credible devolution of powers to the Tamils.
In contrast to our "growling" at Sri Lanka, how have we approached our relations with China recently? On the eve of President Hu Jintao's visit to India, China's Ambassador to India Sun Yuxi proclaimed: "In our position the whole State of Arunachal Pradesh is Chinese territory. And Tawang is one of the places in it. We are claiming all of that. That is our position." New Delhi developed cold feet and avoided a formal protest.
China has subsequently reiterated these claims by denying a visa to an IAS official from Arunachal Pradesh, claiming that since he belongs to part of China, he does not need a visa to accompany over 100 of his colleagues being sent to China on an official "training" visit. China had earlier refused to issue visas to then Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Gegong Apang and to the Speaker of the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly.
China now appears to believe that it can afford to be more aggressive and tough in its postures on the border and other issues of concern to India. Article VII of the April 2005 'Agreement on Political Parameters and Guiding Principles' to resolve the border issue states: "In reaching a border settlement the two sides shall safeguard populations in border areas." But when meeting Mr Pranab Mukherjee in Berlin on June 6, China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi stated that "mere presence" in populated areas would not affect China's claims on the Sino-Indian border. China was thus repudiating the provisions of Article VII of the 2005 Agreement on guidelines the Special Representatives would observe in addressing the border issue, though its apologists would claim that this was merely China's interpretation of that Agreement.
The lone Lok Sabha member from Arunachal Pradesh, Mr Kiren Rijiju, says that New Delhi's weak response is alarming people in that State. Mr Rijiju avers that Arunachal Pradesh is the only State in the North-East where there are no separatist movements and people proudly proclaim that they are Indian. He adds that when the Chinese repeat their territorial claims and New Delhi fails to respond, people start doubting the latter's determination to protect the country's territorial integrity.
Even as Mr Narayanan was meeting his counterpart Dai Bingguo in the border talks this January, the Dalai Lama, speaking in Tripura, endorsed India's claim to the whole of Arunachal Pradesh, including Tawang. This punctures China's claims to Tawang, made on the grounds that it was responding to Tibetan sentiments about their spiritual and cultural links with the monastery town. Surely, the Mandarins in Beijing, who show scant regard for Tibet's cultural and spiritual heritage, cannot claim to be more concerned about Tibetan sentiments than the Dalai Lama!
China has recently taken positions on Pakistan-sponsored terrorism that have serious implications. When Lashkar-e-Tayyeba changed its name to Jamat-ud Dawa, the US moved the UN Security Council to declare Jamat-ud Dawa as an international terrorist organisation under UN Security Council Resolution 1373. China has blocked passage of this resolution. Besides, Beijing does not accept the widely endorsed position that incidents of violence in Jammu & Kashmir are acts of terrorism. China's assistance to Pakistan's nuclear, missile and conventional build up continues unabated. One, therefore, wonders how our Prime Minister could honestly tell President Hu Jintao that the people of India regard China as their "greatest neighbour".
New Delhi has to respond firmly to China's strategic containment of India. We should invite Ministers from Taiwan and establish joint mechanisms to promote economic ties with Taiwan, in line with the policies followed by many South-East and East Asian countries. New Delhi should also facilitate wider publicity for the Dalai Lama's views on the Sino-Indian border. Strategic ties with Vietnam should be strengthened with military supplies, including Brahmos and Prithvi missiles and a Plutonium Research Reactor.
Finally, the India-Russia-China triangular cooperation has to be complemented by strengthening the proposed US-Japan-India partnership. China respects power and firmness. It has contempt for actions perceived by others as Indian "grovelling" while dealing with a powerful neighbour.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columni...thy/parthasarathy142.txt&writer=parthasarathy