If a people's morality is driven is entirely by an ethic of "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" , then why all the pretenses about human rights, democratic values, aspirations of freedom and so forth?
Raghavan's ethics too is driven entirely by a lust for real-estate--of Kashmir for example, never mind what the people who call that ground home, want. Henry Kissinger could not have offered more lofty ideals for Indian intelligentsia to reach for. cm At 11:52 PM +0530 4/11/08, Sankar Ray wrote: > think Dr Srinath Raghavan's piece in EPW >well-argued. He is one of the best scholars on >defence/border issues in the Himalayas. Rather >Nevile Maxwell's India's China War today seems >one-sided and inadequately researched. > >Pasted below is the EPW piece. > >Sankar Ray > > > >The Case for Restraint on Tibet > >By Srinath Raghavan 5 Apr 08 >(http://epw.org.in/epw//uploads/articles/12103.pdf) > >For more than five decades, India has seen Tibet >as part of China. If it were to now believe >otherwise, this would be idle posturing. Worse, >such a position by the government of India could >jeopardise the chances of a settlement of the >long-standing India-China dispute. > >The recent events in Tibet have occasioned much >speculation and controversy in India. The Indian >government responded by curbing a proposed march >to Tibet by émigrés. New Delhi also issued a >measured statement, > >reaffirming that Tibet was a region of China and >expressing hope that all concerned would resolve >the crisis by dialogue. The government's >restraint, however, has ignited a fusillade of >denunciation. Senior leaders of the Bharatiya >Janata Party have described the violence in >Tibet as "genocide", and have asked the >government to raise the matter at the United >Nations. Some commentators in the media, too, >have disparaged the government for failing to >take a robust stand. India, it is suggested, >should shed its timidity, and at the very least >back the Dalai Lama's call > >for Tibetan "autonomy". > >Leaving aside the merits and the drawbacks of >the Dalai Lama's political agenda, there are >good pragmatic reasons for India to stick to its >present policy. For a start, treating Tibet as >an "open question" is likely to boomerang on >India. New Delhi has its own share of thorny >issues, not least Kashmir. Interestingly, even >as critics were demanding a robust policy >towards Tibet, the Organisation for Islamic >Countries described Kashmir as a burning problem >and called for its resolution in accordance with >UN resolutions. The Indian government has >responded that Kashmir is an internal issue; but >it is acutely aware of the need to sidestep such >calls. In this regard, we should note that since >the early 1990s China has opposed the >internationalization of the Kashmir dispute - a >position that accords with India's interests. If >India were to intrude on Tibet in any manner, >Beijing could easily shift its position on >Kashmir. It is unwise to fire a blunderbuss from >an exposed picquet. > >Furthermore, does the political issue of Tibet >(as opposed to the moral one) have any real >traction on Indian public opinion or indeed the >political parties? Evidently not. Despite the >vicissitudes of Sino-Indian relations, no Indian >government has ever sought to extend political >support to the Dalai Lama. Back in 1954, India >concluded > >a treaty with China, recognising Tibet as "a >region of China". As the then foreign secretary >explained, this was "a concession only to >realism". Successive governments have adhered to >this stand. The BJP might now strike an activist >pose, but as foreign minister in the Janata >Party government, Vajpayee stated in Parliament >that "We regard Tibet as a region of China". In >2003, the BJP-led government inked an agreement, >affirming Tibet as part of China. This >long-standing policy stems from a realistic >recognition that India has no leverage on Tibet. >It is idle to pretend otherwise. > >The most important argument for circumspection >relates to the ongoing negotiations on the >boundary dispute with China, a problem that has >marred Sino-Indian relations for 50 years. From >a historical perspective, it is clear that >China's sensitivities on Tibet have cast a >baleful shadow on the boundary issue. When >Jawaharlal Nehru signed the agreement in 1954, >he knew that the Tibetans would be disappointed. >Nevertheless, he declined to support separatist >movements within Tibet. When the Dalai Lama >visited India in late 1956, he sought Nehru's >permission to stay on. Nehru, however, convinced >him to return to Tibet and to arrive at an >understanding with the Chinese authorities. >Nevertheless, China believed that India was >conniving at the activities of Tibetan rebels, >mainly because of their conspicuous presence in >border towns like Kalimpong. > > > >In March 1959, following an uprising in Tibet, >the Indian government decided to give refuge to >the Dalai Lama. Then, as now, some opposition >parties - notably the BJP's precursor, the Jan >Sangh - clamoured for a tougher stance towards >China and championed Tibet's political case. >Beijing took a grim view of these developments >in India. > > > >Tibet and Border Dispute > >In retrospect, it was unfortunate that the >latent boundary dispute came to the fore at the >same time. In exchanges with > >China, the Indian government claimed the McMahon >Line as the eastern boundary. This Line had been >drawn in a tripartite conference between Indian, >Chinese and Tibetan representatives in Simla in >1914. China had subsequently repudiated the >Line. But in 1959, New Delhi argued that it was >valid because Tibet had possessed "treaty-making >powers" at the time of the Simla conference. >This argument, of course, could be used to >bolster Tibet's case for independence. The >confluence of these events in early 1959 led the >Chinese mistakenly to believe that India was >plotting to detach Tibet from China. > >Thus, in May 1959 the Chinese premier, Zhou >Enlai, told ambassadors of communist bloc >countries that India sought to > >make Tibet a "buffer" state: "This is the centre >of the China-India dispute". Later, during >discussions with Nehru in April 1960, Zhou >observed that there was a link between India's >territorial claims and its position on the >Tibetan rebellion. By the summer of 1962, Zhou >was explicitly telling the Indian chargé >d'affaires that New Delhi was colluding with the >CIA in arming Tibetan rebels against China. >Earlier that year India had set in motion the >so-called forward policy, whereby small bodies >of troops were stationed in areas claimed but >unoccupied by China. > >Beijing linked the forward policy with India's >perceived efforts to make Tibet an independent >state. The evidence now > >emerging from Chinese archives shows that this >misperception was a crucial factor in China's >decision to go to war in 1962. China's mistrust >on this count has only increased with the >passage of time. There is, for one thing, the >self-styled "Tibetan government-in-exile" based >in India. Established in the early 1960s, the >government- in-exile has ramified into a >sizeable body.. The Indian government has not >recognised the government-in-exile and has >averred that it would not allow the organization >to undertake political activities. But the >Chinese are sceptical of India's disavowals. > > > >As premier Wen Jiabao recently stated, Tibet >remains a "sensitive" issue in China's >relationship with India. Hence, as part of any >satisfactory solution to the boundary dispute, >India will have to reassure China adequately >that it has no designs on Tibet. The latest >round of boundary negotiations, which began with >the appointment of political representatives in >2003, has reached an important stage. India and >China are reported to have exchanged proposals >for an overall settlement, encompassing all >three sectors of the boundary. Beijing's recent >statements, stressing its claims to Tawang, >indicate that bargaining has begun in earnest. >It is naïve to expect China to drop its claims >on Arunachal Pradesh at this stage. Has India >forsaken its claims to Aksai Chin? Both sides >will only relinquish them when a deal is struck. >To be sure, India cannot give up any populated >areas; but short of this there is room for >compromise. > >China, too, can accommodate India's interests in >the Ladakh sector. Reaching such an accord will >take time.But it is imperative at this stage not >to stoke China's concerns over Tibet, and so >scuttle the negotiations. It bears emphasising >that both sides have taken nearly five decades >to get to this point. Irresponsible posturing on >Tibet will only queer the pitch. > >Srinath Raghavan ([EMAIL PROTECTED] >academy.mod.uk) is with the defence studies >department, King's College, > >University of London, London. > > > >Check out the all-new face of Yahoo! India. ><http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_frontpage_1/*http://in.yahoo.com/?wm=n/> >Click here. > >__._,_.___ ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WaterWatch/message/7057;_ylc=X3oDMTM0MDJxMzNpBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDI2MDkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MjkxNzcxBG1zZ0lkAzcwNTcEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMjA4MDc2MTgxBHRwY0lkAzcwNTc->Messages > >in this topic (1) ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WaterWatch/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwOWk4YjgwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDI2MDkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MjkxNzcxBG1zZ0lkAzcwNTcEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMjA4MDc2MTgx?act=reply&messageNum=7057>Reply > >(via web post) | ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WaterWatch/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcnM2aXFpBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDI2MDkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MjkxNzcxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTIwODA3NjE4MQ-->Start > >a new topic ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WaterWatch/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJlc2dhbTNsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDI2MDkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MjkxNzcxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21zZ3MEc3RpbWUDMTIwODA3NjE4MQ-->Messages > >| ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WaterWatch/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZXJlZnI1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDI2MDkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MjkxNzcxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2ZpbGVzBHN0aW1lAzEyMDgwNzYxODE->Files > >| ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WaterWatch/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbmFwOWw0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDI2MDkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MjkxNzcxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Bob3QEc3RpbWUDMTIwODA3NjE4MQ-->Photos > >| ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WaterWatch/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaThxMzlzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDI2MDkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MjkxNzcxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2xpbmtzBHN0aW1lAzEyMDgwNzYxODE->Links > >| ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WaterWatch/database;_ylc=X3oDMTJjM20yMWt0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDI2MDkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MjkxNzcxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2RiBHN0aW1lAzEyMDgwNzYxODE->Database > >| ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WaterWatch/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNmlhcGJwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDI2MDkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MjkxNzcxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3BvbGxzBHN0aW1lAzEyMDgwNzYxODE->Polls > >| ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WaterWatch/calendar;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbHR1ZzYyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDI2MDkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MjkxNzcxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2NhbARzdGltZQMxMjA4MDc2MTgx>Calendar ><http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkazRoajBiBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzk1NDI2MDkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MjkxNzcxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjA4MDc2MTgx> ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WaterWatch/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdWhxaGdmBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzk1NDI2MDkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MjkxNzcxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3N0bmdzBHN0aW1lAzEyMDgwNzYxODE->Change > >settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) >Change settings via email: ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Delivery: Digest>Switch delivery to Daily Digest >| ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Delivery Format: Traditional>Switch format to >Traditional ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WaterWatch;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZ3JrZ2tsBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzk1NDI2MDkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MjkxNzcxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2hwZgRzdGltZQMxMjA4MDc2MTgx>Visit > >Your Group | <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> >Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Unsubscribe > > >Recent Activity > > > > 4 ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WaterWatch/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdnBuMmM3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDI2MDkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MjkxNzcxBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyMDgwNzYxODE->New > >Members > > ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WaterWatch;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaTNzNHE2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzk1NDI2MDkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MjkxNzcxBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTIwODA3NjE4MQ--> > > Visit Your Group > >Yahoo! Finance > ><'"http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13okleteg/M=493064.12016257.12445664.8674578/D=groups/S=1705291771:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1208083381/L=/B=8AN8DNFJq24-/J=1208076181345778/A=4507179/R=0/SIG=12de4rskk/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=50284/*http://finance.yahoo.com/persona>It's > >Now Personal > >Guides, news, > >advice & more. > >Y! Messenger > ><'"http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13olb3rf7/M=493064.12016274.12445679.8674578/D=groups/S=1705291771:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1208083381/L=/B=8QN8DNFJq24-/J=1208076181345778/A=3848577/R=0/SIG=12e714ic8/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=42403/*http://messenger.yahoo.com/feat_>Instant > >smiles > >Share photos while > >you IM friends. > >Popular Y! Groups > ><http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13o5nj2j3/M=493064.12016306.12445698.8674578/D=groups/S=1705291771:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1208083381/L=/B=8gN8DNFJq24-/J=1208076181345778/A=4763761/R=0/SIG=11ou7otip/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/bestofyahoogroups/>Is > >your group one? > >Check it out and > >see. > > > >. > > > __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
