A further exchange with a friend on another list. "A" wrote:
As regards the factual situation - Is it the case that what the Chinese govt says is true? Is the present situation due to any stupid jingoist posturing by the Modi govt? My response: As we're all aware, India and China - or India and Tibet, under Chinese occupation, if one so likes, have a longstanding border dispute. The 1962 war, just disastrous from the Indian point of view, was an outcome. India swears by the McMahon Line. China simply trashes it as an "imperialist legacy". There is no agreed border between the two (pretty much asymmetric) neighbours. What we have, instead, post-1962, a unilaterally drawn Line of Actual Control (LAC). Things are admittedly quite tricky. Given these facts, the (apparently empty) public boast by the Indian Chief of Army Staff (see, e.g.: < http://indianexpress.com/article/india/indian-army-prepared-for-a-two-and-a-half-front-war-army-chief-general-bipin-rawat-4694292/ >), quite unprovoked by the other side - at that given point of time, was nothing short of an invitation to public embarassment, even if not disaster. Of course, it's not all because of Bipin Rawat. The Modi regime's foreign policy clearly lacks in balance and finesse. It has evidently left the larger and much stronger - both economically and militarily, immediate neighbour less than amused. The situation, from the Indian point of view, is, in any case, difficult. (And, has become even more so with, the highly unpredictable, Trump assuming power in the US.) Calls for careful handling and quiet, skilful diplomacy. Instead the Modi regime opts to play to the domestic gallery. "Is it the case that what the Chinese govt says is true?" For very obvious reasons, I'm in no position to comment on that. We can, at best, access the public statements given out by the two contending sides. But, that was not my point, either. My point was that the (present, and significantly aggravated, round of) war of words was triggered off by the (eminently avoidable) public boast by the Indian CoAS. (See: < http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2017/06/29/after-army-chief-says-india-ready-for-war-china-says-learn-hi_a_23008184/ > and < https://satyavijayi.com/indian-army-chief-asks-china-pakistan-limits-not-mess-indian-army/ >.) The Indian Defence Minister has not helped either. (See: < http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/not-the-1962-india-anymore-jaitleys-response-to-china/articleshow/59387725.cms >.) These have come on top of the Modi regime's general conduct of foreign policy. It is noteworthy that with little, if at all any, qualms over "democracy", "human rights" etc. China had actually (readily) welcomed Modi's assumption of the post of the Indian Prime Minister. (Ref.: "The opposition to the BJP hold this view (that Modi's political career has been stained with his authoritarian rule in Gujarat and actions during the 2002 riots) out of the need for partisan competition, while as for Western critics, their attack on Modi is out of ideological concerns, because ***Modi's governance style and philosophy are very close to Chinese practices*** [emphasis added]." at <http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/861112.shtml>.) (Modi, as the Gujarat CM, had visited both China and Russia, while being debarred by the US.) Now, that story is well over. On 5 July 2017 at 11:22, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote: > [Asked about remarks by official Chinese media and think-tanks that the > conflict can lead to a “war” if not handled properly, the ambassador said > in an interview to PTI: “There has been talk about this option, that > option. It is up to your government policy (whether to exercise military > option).” The Chinese government is very clear that it wants peaceful > resolution at current state of the situation for which withdrawal of Indian > troops from the area is a “pre-condition”, he asserted. However, he made it > clear that there was no scope for a “compromise” on the issue. > “The first priority is that the Indian troops unconditionally pull back to > the Indian side of the boundary. That is the precondition for any > meaningful dialogue between China and India,” he said. China and India have > been engaged in a standoff in the Dokalam area near the Bhutan trijunction > for the past 19 days after a Chinese Army’s construction party came to > build a road.] > > http://indianexpress.com/article/india/china-envoy- > talks-tough-situation-grave-no-compromise-india-must-pull-back-4736043/ > > China envoy talks tough: Situation grave, no compromise, India must pull > back > “The first priority is that the Indian troops unconditionally pull back to > the Indian side of the boundary. That is the precondition for any > meaningful dialogue between China and India,” China’s Ambassador to India > Luo Zhaohui said. > > By: PTI Written by Priyanka Tikoo | New Delhi | > Updated: July 5, 2017 10:00 am > > The Chinese government is very clear that it wants peaceful resolution at > current state of the situation for which withdrawal of Indian troops from > the area is a “pre-condition”, he asserted. > > CHINA ON Tuesday said there was no scope for a “compromise” in the > military standoff with India in the Sikkim section, and put the onus on New > Delhi to resolve the “grave” situation. In unusually blunt remarks, China’s > Ambassador to India Luo Zhaohui said “the ball is in India’s court” and it > was for the Indian government to decide what options could be on the table > to resolve the standoff. > > Asked about remarks by official Chinese media and think-tanks that the > conflict can lead to a “war” if not handled properly, the ambassador said > in an interview to PTI: “There has been talk about this option, that > option. It is up to your government policy (whether to exercise military > option).” The Chinese government is very clear that it wants peaceful > resolution at current state of the situation for which withdrawal of Indian > troops from the area is a “pre-condition”, he asserted. However, he made it > clear that there was no scope for a “compromise” on the issue. > > “The first priority is that the Indian troops unconditionally pull back to > the Indian side of the boundary. That is the precondition for any > meaningful dialogue between China and India,” he said. China and India have > been engaged in a standoff in the Dokalam area near the Bhutan trijunction > for the past 19 days after a Chinese Army’s construction party came to > build a road. > > Doka La is the Indian name for the region which Bhutan recognises as > Dokalam, while China claims it as part of its Donglang region. China and > Bhutan are engaged in talks over the resolution of the area. Bhutan, > however, has no diplomatic ties with China and it is supported militarily > and diplomatically by India. > > “The situation is grave and made me deeply worried. It is the first time > that Indian troops have crossed the mutually recognised boundary and > trespassed into China’s territory, triggering a close range faceoff between > Chinese and Indian border troops. Now 19 days have passed, but the > situation still has not eased,” Luo said. > > He also asserted that India has no right to interfere with the > China-Bhutan boundary talks, nor is it entitled to make territorial claims > on behalf of Bhutan. > > On the standoff, the Ministry of External Affairs had said India was > “deeply concerned at the recent Chinese actions and has conveyed to the > Chinese government that such construction would represent a significant > change of status quo with serious security implications for India”. > > “As for the so called ‘security concerns’ of the Indian side, India has > crossed a delimited boundary into other country’s territory in the name of > security concerns, no matter what kind of activities it conducts there, > which will not be acceptable to any sovereign state… India cannot encroach > upon the territory of other countries on the ground of its ‘security > concerns’. Otherwise, the world would be in chaos,” the Chinese envoy added. > > He also asserted that “it is critical that India shall withdraw its troops > immediately to minimise the negative impact. It serves the interests of the > two sides.” > > He noted that the current standoff was of a different nature from the > previous frictions between the two countries, and said it was the first > time that such a severe situation has occurred at the Sikkim section of the > China-India boundary. > > > > > -- > Peace Is Doable > > > -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
