O P I N I O N S

EDITORIALS

Rise of regional satraps
State leaders courted as Centre weakens
The British High Commissioner in India called on the Chief Minister of a state with which the UK has commercial and diaspora links. Such events have happened with an increasing frequency, and have not really been the cause for much comment. This could well have been yet another event, had it not been for the person that James Bevan met - Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.

Kingfisher caged
The key lies with stakeholders 
The regulator has suspended the licence of Kingfisher Airlines, owned by flamboyant liquor baron Vijay Mallya. There is no immediate recovery plan available. The winter flight schedule does not include slots for Kingfisher, which means it would remain grounded for quite some time. The worst sufferers are the employees who have not been paid salaries for the past some months.

US-Iran secret talks?
Showing signs of weariness
Despite denials by the US and Iran that there have been no secret negotiations between the two over the controversial nuclear programme of Tehran, something appears to be cooking involving the two countries. The New York Times report that the US and Iran have agreed “in principle” to hold one-on-one talks to end the Iranian nuclear crisis has come after the declaration by Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister in New Delhi that Iran is ready for a “peaceful settlement” of the nuclear issue provided the West recognises that Tehran has a right to a “peaceful nuclear programme” as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

• Thought for the Day

ARTICLE

Constitution defiled
Policy making is a serious business
by B. G. Verghese
In an extraordinary and most damning indictment of the Central and state governments, the Supreme Court recently complained that “nobody looks at Schedules V and VI of the Constitution and the result is Naxalism”. This was the result of what it termed oversight of constitutional provisions relating to the administration of scheduled areas and tribes of the country. A Bench led by Justice A.K. Patnaik observed that “urbanites are ruling the nation. Even several Union of India counsel are oblivious of these provisions”.

MIDDLE

Biking lessons
by Rajbir Deswal
I had never of thought cycling to be more than just paddling. When I began to learn balancing a bike, more than push-paddle it, my tutor had me look straight and not towards my feet. Next was to half-paddle the bike by having one leg put on the other paddle through the frame and thus going half-circle called the ‘kainchee-style’ — most recommended for beginners and short-statured people.

OPED

TRIBUNE SPECIAL
INDiA-CHINA WAR 50 years later Part 9
While India and China have reached a framework for settlement of the contentious border dispute, for which they went to war in 1962, differences in approach persist and a breakthrough eludes the talks between the two special representatives
Border dispute with China still far from settled
Ashok Tuteja
The scars of the 1962 conflict were too deep for India and historians acknowledge that the betrayal and defeat at the hands of China had largely hastened the demise of Jawaharlal Nehru. Since the 1980s, India and China have attempted to resolve the border dispute through diplomatic negotiations but a solution remains a distant dream. China often claims that with the exception of its territorial disputes with India and Bhutan, it has resolved all its other land border disputes. 

China’s new ambitions in Pakistan occupied Kashmir
Arun Joshi
Unlike the Line of Control or LoC with Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, there is no thrill on the Line of Actual Control with China in the Ladakh region of Jammu and Kashmir. There are simply cold realities that India suffered a humiliating defeat in 1962 war with China, and China occupied 38,000 sq kms of the Indian territory in the cold desert region of the state -- the only state in the country having borders with two countries, China and Pakistan.

EDITORIALS

Rise of regional satraps
State leaders courted as Centre weakens 

The British High Commissioner in India called on the Chief Minister of a state with which the UK has commercial and diaspora links. Such events have happened with an increasing frequency, and have not really been the cause for much comment. This could well have been yet another event, had it not been for the person that James Bevan met - Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi. After the 2002 post-Godhra riots, many governments, including that of the UK, and the European Union had cut off ties with Modi’s Gujarat. In fact, in the last decade, the three British High Commissioners posted to Delhi had maintained their distance from Modi. However, as they say, things change and realpolitik is what modern diplomacy is all about.

Regional leaders are increasingly being courted by international diplomats. There is a growing appreciation among them that in India at present and in the immediate future, regional satraps hold the key to policy and its implementation, and thus there have been aggressive efforts to woo them. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee received US Ambassador to India Nancy Powell soon after the Trinamool Congress snapped ties with UPA government. Banerjee is opposed to the recent reform initiatives initiated by the Central government, especially easing up on foreign direct investment. Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar has received delegations from many countries, including those of the US, China and Pakistan. Other chief ministers too have found diplomats knocking at their doors.

There is no doubt leaders of regional parties have had a disproportionately strong hold over the Central government, given the fractured nature of its mandate. It is, therefore, to be expected that trade delegations and diplomats will make aggressive efforts to court various players who can help improve trade relations. This would suck international governments into state politics and also expose them to criticism, both here and at home, as the British have found out. 

Kingfisher caged
The key lies with stakeholders 

The regulator has suspended the licence of Kingfisher Airlines, owned by flamboyant liquor baron Vijay Mallya. There is no immediate recovery plan available. The winter flight schedule does not include slots for Kingfisher, which means it would remain grounded for quite some time. The worst sufferers are the employees who have not been paid salaries for the past some months. To help the troubled Kingfisher, the government had recently allowed foreign airlines to buy up to 49 per cent stake in Indian carriers but the Kingfisher management has not been able to find a suitable buyer who can bring in cash.

India opened up its aviation sector to private airlines in 2005. From too little competition the sector soon saw an excess of it. As India was growing fast, airlines started low-cost services and irrationally cut fares to woo a growing middle class. Jet and Kingfisher launched rapid expansion plans, bought expensive new aircraft and started international flights. All went well until the 2008 sub-prime crisis ushered in a financial meltdown and recession in the developed world. While the number of international fliers declined, interest rates and fuel costs shot up. Some experts accuse Air India of lowering fares to beat competition from private airlines and retain its shrinking market share. The heavily subsidised Air India itself has been bailed out twice by the government.

Kingfisher began flying in 2005. An over-ambitious and reckless management took over Air Deccan at a hefty price and ordered the world’s biggest plane, the Airbus A380. It soon found itself in a rough weather, groaning under heavy debt and unable to pay to the employees, the banks, the tax department and the oil companies. The licence suspension is justified since passenger security could be at risk as engineers had been on strike. It is for the stakeholders -- the management, the employees and the financial institutions - to decide whether (and how) to revive the airline. The government can help only by ensuring a level-playing field for all operators.

US-Iran secret talks?
Showing signs of weariness 

Despite denials by the US and Iran that there have been no secret negotiations between the two over the controversial nuclear programme of Tehran, something appears to be cooking involving the two countries. The New York Times report that the US and Iran have agreed “in principle” to hold one-on-one talks to end the Iranian nuclear crisis has come after the declaration by Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister in New Delhi that Iran is ready for a “peaceful settlement” of the nuclear issue provided the West recognises that Tehran has a right to a “peaceful nuclear programme” as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The minister went a little further to state that it was “very easy” to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

The change in the rhetoric both from Washington DC and Tehran should be viewed against the backdrop of the emerging reality in the two countries that have been at daggers drawn for a long time. There is growing unrest in Iran over the way the government in Tehran has handled the dispute, leading to the country’s economy shaking from its very foundations. On the other hand, the US does not want Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, but it cannot afford to militarily engage Tehran. The US economic condition, a major issue in the campaign for the coming Presidential elections, does not allow the super power to go in for another military adventure after spending billions of dollars in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In Afghanistan, the US has achieved a limited objective: it has eliminated Al-Qaida founder Osama bin Laden by locating him in Pakistan, but the extremist Taliban movement remains as active as ever. After an unending long battle to throw the Taliban into the dustbin of history Washington has indirectly admitted that it cannot defeat the extremist movement. That is why the US has changed its Afghan strategy and is working on a solution which involves the Taliban as part of the ruling dispensation in Kabul. All this has, perhaps, resulted in the realisation in Washington DC that opening a new war front — in Iran — may lead to consequences unmanageable by the US.

Thought for the Day

Whoever is happy will make others happy too. — Anne Frank

ARTICLE

Constitution defiled
Policy making is a serious business
by B. G. Verghese

In an extraordinary and most damning indictment of the Central and state governments, the Supreme Court recently complained that “nobody looks at Schedules V and VI of the Constitution and the result is Naxalism”. This was the result of what it termed oversight of constitutional provisions relating to the administration of scheduled areas and tribes of the country. A Bench led by Justice A.K. Patnaik observed that “urbanites are ruling the nation. Even several Union of India counsel are oblivious of these provisions”.

Why and how does this rape of the Constitution happen? How has every single authority responsible for honouring and executing the Fifth Schedule — successive Prime Ministers, Governors, Home Ministers, Chief Ministers, Tribal Affairs Ministers, Law Ministers, legislators and concerned officials, not to speak of the legal community, the media, academia and social activists — with some marginal exceptions, so singularly and consistently failed to abide by their oaths of office and perform their constitutional duty by the vast majority of Tribal India. Some justice has been done to Sixth Schedule areas in the Northeast, but not to the far larger number of tribals living in Fifth Schedule areas, in nine other states of the Union.

Who cares? Some periodically weep copiously for the tribals but then wilfully obstruct much-needed development, employment, income generation and social upliftment that could transform their lives for the better. Very few know or ask why they have been so cruelly and callously robbed of their rights in gross violation of the social contract the Founding Fathers solemnly made with them when the Fifth Schedule was crafted.

The humbuggery and charlatanism officially practised by the Indian State and well-heeled “urbanites”, who rank among the highest and most powerful in the country’s governing order, is shameful, even criminal. None emerges unscathed. Much of the punditry piously aired officially and otherwise about stemming the rise and spread of Naxalism in tribal India is sheer self-serving piffle. But now, the Supreme Court has in remarkably mild terms proclaimed the unspeakable much like the little boy in Hans Andersen’s famous fairy tale. As a consequence of persistent acts of “constitutional oversight” by its keepers, the majestic cloak of protection and enablement provided them by the Fifth Schedule has been reduced to a little more than a miserable fig-leaf. If the court has found Union counsel to be in ignorance of the Fifth Schedule, who then is any wiser?

As a journalist of 60 years standing I do not recall any Prime Minister, Home/ Tribal Minister/Chief Minister, Governor, MP/MLA or any other concerned official or authority having ever raised his or her voice against the total disregard of this protective shield. The only exceptions have been some Commissioners for SC/STs, like the indefatigable B.D. Sharma, and a few social activists and administrators like B.N. Yugandhar and S.B. Munegaker of the Planning Commission whose reports categorically indicted the government for failing to observe constitutional proprieties vis-a-vis tribal India. Their findings were smartly pigeon-holed.

What is one to make of this flagrant “constitutional oversight”? If governments studiously violate the Constitution how can they tell the Naxals not to do so? What if “constitutional oversight” of fundamental rights, Presidential powers, federal principles, the judicial and electoral process and other key components of the Constitution were also to be consistently and deliberately subject to “constitutional oversight”? The result would be anarchy. But if tribal India is crushed by constitutional deceit, then does society just shrug its shoulders and say, so be it.

Since the Fifth Schedule seems not to have been read by most functionaries, one needs to explain its contents. The key element is the nomination of the Governor as the executive agent of the President, overriding the jurisdiction of state administrations, for the peace, tranquillity, development and good governance of Fifth Schedule areas — which exist in nine states, and curiously exclude Kerala, Karnataka and West Bengal, all of which have significant tribal populations.

Section 3 of the Fifth Schedule requires the Governor to make an annual report to the President regarding the administration of these areas “and the executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of directions to the State” in this regard. In view of the guarantee of tribal rights and customary law, Section 5 provides that “the Governor may by public notification direct that any particular Act of Parliament or the Legislature… shall apply to a Scheduled Area” either wholly or in part “subject to such exceptions and modifications as he may specify…”, even with retrospective effect. Thus, laws, rules and regulations considered good for Delhi or Raipur are not necessarily assumed to be good for Dantewada. Further, the Governor “may make regulations for the peace and good governance” of a Scheduled Area. He may in particular “prohibit or restrict the transfer of land” and regulate money-lending.

All such directions and regulations by the Governor shall be issued after consultation with the tribal advisory council and shall require Presidential approval. By a change of rules decades back, the Chief Minister started chairing the TAC, thus reducing the Governor to a rubber stamp. How this was done and its constitutionality is questionable. Still later, it was argued by some, and mutely accepted by the Government of India, that “Governor” in the Fifth Schedule, meant the “governor-in-council” acting on the advice of his council of ministers. This deliberate emasculation of the Fifth Schedule was finally raised in the President’s annual conference with Governors some years ago, whereupon the present Attorney-General gave a definitive ruling in writing stating that the Governor in Fifth Schedule matters enjoys executive powers and does not merely act as a Governor-in-Council as was the clear intent of the Constituent Assembly. Very few Governors know their duties under the fifth Schedule and fewer still have performed them. The TACs have been co-opted; the Governor has no instrumentality with which to execute his onerous and complex functions under the Fifth Schedule. Who cares?

A powerful law, the Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act (PESAA), was enacted in 1996 to empower gram sabhas. These have by and large been bypassed. Fifth Schedule districts are understaffed. Many officials do not know the tribal language. The administration is district headquarters-oriented and multiple departmental clearances are required under Section 52 (b) sub-section 2a, as amended in 1996 and again in 2003, or whatever. A poor illiterate tribal given to an oral tradition is expected to understand the gobbledegook that an urbane PhD would have difficulty in comprehending. No wonder that petty rent-seeking forest officials, liquor and minor forest produce contractors, and the police, where they exist, rule the roost.

We are told that Naxalism is the greatest internal security threat faced by India — and we are determined to solve it with more law enforcers, selective budgetary allocations and recruitment of bright young administrators but without restoration of the constitutional, legal, administrative and moral framework whose deliberate abrogation caused the problem to arise in the first place. Policy-making and political declarations have reached a level of monumental non-understanding and humbug at the highest levels, across parties. The Constitution is dead. Long live the Constitution!

MIDDLE

Biking lessons
by Rajbir Deswal

I had never of thought cycling to be more than just paddling. When I began to learn balancing a bike, more than push-paddle it, my tutor had me look straight and not towards my feet. Next was to half-paddle the bike by having one leg put on the other paddle through the frame and thus going half-circle called the ‘kainchee-style’ — most recommended for beginners and short-statured people. The horizontally tilted ‘S’-shaped frames of ladies by-cycles suited the learners. The tutor ran with you holding the bike once in a while letting you go all by yourself. This was thrilling, indeed.

“Buying a bike in Seattle should only be done in a youthful environment,” Sawan suggested when we decided to go to the Performance Bikes store located in the University of Washington area. Bikes are popular among the student community here and, therefore, sellers have to really do a good job with enough and brimming customer satisfaction. You ask less questions when the salesperson answers more. Well, he began with, “Is it for commuting or adventure or for just having a bike that you are buying one?”-good question. Back home in India I never gave it a thought as to what for was I wanting to have a bicycle.

Now began the tutorial: Your knees should not fully open in a straight line while your feet go paddling full circle. The handle has to be adjusted to your arms’ length to let them not strain and bend your back more than what is desirable. The upper arm of the frame has to be two-inches from the divide of your legs. Slim tyres are good for roads while hills and other tracks have broad ones. Wired brakes can be adjusted. Gears include speed variations up to 21 levels depending on the smooth surface or elevations and slopes. Helmets are airy enough. All traffic rules that apply to motorists apply to cyclists too. If you carry your bike on a public transport, follow a definite protocol. Bikes are foldable with collapsible wheels and can be safely put on the backseat of your car.

Well, having brought home a good Fuji bike, I could not wait any longer when I geared myself up and positioned appropriately before beginning to slide. Then sped up. Even matching up with cars’ speed. And there was an elevation. I changed the gear. Wow! It went up with almost no effort. Then came the valley-drop. I began to roll down. The jacket filled up with air began to flutter. The air whacked past the ears almost whistling a tune. I could hear some whisper in helmet inlets. And I was as if flying further downhill. I didn’t want to stop although I was constantly applying the brakes to contain speed. Arrived the junction and I was grounded as if having a jerk-free landing. O’ God! What a feel it was.

Being on a high, and allowing extending the same hype and tempo of thrill, I began to drive up. A couple of paddles and I began huffing. For changing gears, the bike has to be at least moving. But the steep had its own boiling point. Everything failed and I began to pant heavily. No end seemed to be in sight when I began also to feel a little insecure with speeding vehicles teasing me in my plight. I called Sawan, told him my location and requested for a bottle of water also to be brought along. In five minutes he was there. We folded the bike and began to drive uphill. Sawan was smiling on the steering wheel. “Papa don’t take pangas while in the US!” I chuckled a hum having a look at the bike lying on the back seat.

OPED

TRIBUNE SPECIAL


INDiA-CHINA WAR 50 years later Part 9
While India and China have reached a framework for settlement of the contentious border dispute, for which they went to war in 1962, differences in approach persist and a breakthrough eludes the talks between the two special representatives
Border dispute with China still far from settled
Ashok Tuteja

The scars of the 1962 conflict were too deep for India and historians acknowledge that the betrayal and defeat at the hands of China had largely hastened the demise of Jawaharlal Nehru.

Since the 1980s, India and China have attempted to resolve the border dispute through diplomatic negotiations but a solution remains a distant dream. China often claims that with the exception of its territorial disputes with India and Bhutan, it has resolved all its other land border disputes. It even claims to have given territorial concessions for resolving the disputes though it is debatable whether Beijing actually gave up territory or made any substantial concession to reach a border resolution agreement with any other country.

The McMahon Line boundary dispute is at the heart of relations between the two countries. The Chinese have made two major claims on what India deems its own territory. One claim, in the western sector, is on Aksai Chin in the northeastern section of Ladakh district in Jammu and Kashmir. The other claim is in the eastern sector over a region included in the British-designated North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA), which India renamed Arunachal Pradesh.

The first major agreement on maintaining peace and tranquillity along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the border areas was signed between the two countries in 1993. After more than thirty years of border tension and stalemate, high-level bilateral talks were held in New Delhi starting in February 1994 to foster "confidence-building measures" between the defence forces of India and China, and a new period of better relations began. In November 1995, the two sides dismantled the guard posts in close proximity to each other along the borderline in Wangdong area, making the situation in the border areas more stable. During President Jiang Zemin's visit to India at the end of November 1996, the two governments signed the Agreement on CBMs in the military field along the LAC, which was an important step for the building of mutual trust. These agreements provided an institutional framework for the maintenance of peace and tranquility in the border areas.

During the Indian Prime Minister's visit to China in June 2003 India and China signed a Memorandum on Expanding Border Trade, which added Nathula as another pass on the border for conducting border trade. The Indian side agreed to designate Changgu in Sikkim as the venue for border trade market, while the Chinese side agreed to designate Renqinggang of the Tibet Autonomous Region as the venue for border trade market.

A landmark understanding was reached between the two sides in April 2005 when they signed an agreement on political settlement of the boundary issue, setting guidelines and principles. In the agreement, they affirmed their readiness to seek a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution to the boundary issue through equal and friendly negotiations.

SUSTAINING THE DIALOGUE

However, they appear to have made only small gains in narrowing their differences over the alignment of the LAC along the 545-km long stretch in the former's central sector, covering the Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh boundaries with Tibet.

To accelerate and intensify the boundary negotiations, the two governments had in June 2003, during then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's visit to Beijing, appointed Special Representatives (SRs) on both sides to give a political push to these talks. The SRs have so far held some 15 rounds of meetings but have not yet reported much progress in their negotiations. Every time they meet, the SRs issue a joint statement, talking more about the atmospherics than any productive outcome.

According to Debasish Chaudhuri, Associate Fellow at the Institute of China Studies, the SRs mechanism obviously is a healthy sign, reflecting the seriousness of the two countries to resolve the border dispute. He, however, feels that the SRs need to be more candid in sharing their perceptions with the public at large.

India has all along maintained that China return to it more than 40,000 sq km of Indian territory, including Aksai Chin and the Shaksgam Valley in Jammu and Kashmir, which China annexed during the 1962 war. The Indian Parliament had, in fact, passed a resolution that Shaksgam Valley, which Pakistan transferred to China as part of the 1963 Sino-Pakistan boundary agreement, be transferred back to India.

A meaningful step in confidence building can be achieved only when both India and China implement various agreements between them in letter and spirit. It appears that at present China is happy with the status quo as it gives it huge tracts of territory at strategic heights in Jammu and Kashmir and a foothold in South Asia. If ever, the Chinese-decision makers perceive India's growing stature as intended to contain China either independently or in alliance with countries like the US and Japan, they rake up the boundary issue to pressurise and contain India. Everyone knows that Chinese incursions into India in the late 1950s were inter alia influenced by their displeasure over Indo-Soviet proximity and Sino-Soviet tensions.

However, one would be doing grave injustice to both India and China if only negatives are to be reflected in their relations. They have taken some path-breaking confidence building measures (CBMs) which have withstood the vagaries of both nature and time.

Srikanth Kondapalli, a China expert at the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), says the CBMs of 1993, 1996 and January 2012 have prevented a conflict between the two countries but not enhanced mutual trust. Both sides have stuck to their commitment and agreement of 1993 to maintain peace and tranquility along their border while developing friendly relations and strengthening cooperation in other fields. He acknowledges that the Sino-Indian border has been relatively peaceful unlike the India-Pakistan border.

Kondapalli is of the view that unresolved border issue triggers suspicions between India and China. However, there is no quick-fix solution for this since the border issue is not going to be resolved any time soon.

Three substantive steps

During the past decade, the two countries have taken at least three substantive steps to intensify efforts to resolve the border dispute. The first step was that India accepted Tibet as an autonomous region of China while China recognised Sikkim as a state of the Indian Union. The second step was an agreement on political parameters and guiding principles on the India-China border dispute and the third was the appointment of SRs.

Under the current circumstances, the two governments continue to work on the settlement of the border dispute while peace, stability and tranquility in border areas have remained unlike the Indo-Pak border. No armed conflicts or even skirmishes have happened although the media, particularly on the Indian side, has played up noises of China's incursions into India's territory. But even top Indian officials have gone on record to say that the over 4,000-km Sino-Indian border has been one of the most peaceful ones in the past decades.

China, for its part, still lays claim to most of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which it asserts is part of Tibet and since 2007 has referred to the area as "South Tibet." Similarly, while India has acknowledged China's sovereignty over Tibet, it has not changed its stance on the McMahon Line as the boundary.

A working mechanism

The two countries have also established a working mechanism for consultation and coordination on the boundary issue, which would study ways and means to conduct and strengthen exchanges and cooperation between military personnel and establishments of the two sides in the border areas.

However, the most significant CBM in India-China relations has been the burgeoning trade relationship between the two Asian giants. In fact, the trade relationship has been seen in both countries as a crucial driver of the overall bilateral ties.

The China experts believe that the SRs on the two sides are both sharp minds of the diplomatic arena. Let them take their time but they must remain focussed and expedite a solution. Putting contentious issues on the backburner in the interest of economic relations is a wise diplomatic move for both countries but let's not allow this strategy to outlive its utility.

Framework for settlement The three-stage process conceived to resolve the Sino-Indian boundary dispute involves I) Agreement in principle II) Laying out a framework for settlement III) Defining the boundary line India and China are presently at the  second stage of the process. In 2005, India and China agreed on the following political parameters and guiding principles: * The differences on the boundary question should not be allowed to affect the overall development of bilateral relations. * The two sides will resolve the boundary question through peaceful and friendly consultations, without use of force by any means. * The boundary settlement must be final, covering all sectors of the India-China boundary. * The two sides will give due consideration to each other's strategic and reasonable interests, and the principle of mutual and equal security. * Historical evidence, national sentiments, practical difficulties and reasonable concerns and sensitivities of both sides, and the actual state of border areas will be taken into account. * The two sides shall safeguard due interests of their settled populations in the border areas.

from war to dialogue 1988 Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi visits China, the first PM to China in 34 years. Both countries agree to set up a joint working group to settle the boundary issue. 1991 Chinese Premier Li Peng visits India and pledges to resolve the boundary question through friendly consultations. 1993 Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao visits China. Agreement on Border Peace and Tranquility signed and India-China Expert Group of Diplomatic and Military Officers to assist the work in Joint Working Group set up. 1995 India and China agree to pull back their troops on the Sumdorong Chu Valley in the eastern sector. 1996 Chinese President Jiang Zemin visits India. Agreement on Confidence Building Measures in the military field. 1997 India-China Joint Working Group exchanges instruments of ratification on CBMs. 1998 India officially announces talks with China on the reopening of the Ladakh-Kailash-Mansarovar route. 1999 China displays neutrality on the Kargil conflict. Agrees to establish a security mechanism with India. 2000 India and China initiate the first ever bilateral security dialogue on global and regional issues of mutual interest. Military exchanges resume. 2002 Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji visits India. 2003 Special Representative level talks for political resolution of boundary issue. 2005 Chinese premier Wen Jiabao visits India. Agreements on political parameters and guiding principals for settling boundary issue and on implementation of CBMs in the military field. Major liberalisation of air links between India and China. 2006 India and China re-open Nathu La Pass in Sikkim for trade after 44 years. 2007 China denies a visa to a government official from Arunachal Pradesh claiming that it is part of Chinese territory. 2009 Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visits China. Bilateral trade surpasses $50 billion and China becomes India's largest trading partner in goods. The same year China expresses "strong dissatisfaction" on Manmohan Singh's visit to the "disputed area" of Arunachal Pradesh. 2010 India cancels defence exchanges with China after top Indian army officer is denied a visa because he was posted in Jammu and Kashmir. 2012 Agreement on a working mechanism for consultation and coordination on boundary affairs. Chinese defence minister Gen Liang Guang Lie visits India

China’s new ambitions in Pakistan occupied Kashmir
Arun Joshi

Unlike the Line of Control or LoC with Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, there is no thrill on the Line of Actual Control with China in the Ladakh region of Jammu and Kashmir. There are simply cold realities that India suffered a humiliating defeat in 1962 war with China, and China occupied 38,000 sq kms of the Indian territory in the cold desert region of the state -- the only state in the country having borders with two countries, China and Pakistan.

The China- Pakistan nexus already has presented a worrying scenario for the Indian Army

If what happened 50 years ago is one reality, another equally chilling reality is that Chinese troops continue to intrude into Indian territory in the most dramatic style. Sometime their choppers violate Indian airspace and land on Indian territory and PLA troops demolish Indian bunkers, asserting in symbols that the area belongs to them. On other occasions, they walk deep into the Indian side, stop developmental works: holding out threats to the workers constructing roads or those engaged in construction of the irrigation project.

The Indian army tends to dismiss these intrusions as transgressions in a bid to suggest that it is a part of the game on the borders which the two sides play quite often. An interesting argument forwarded is that since the Indian media is free, these incidents get reported. The other side is having a controlled media, hence no report of “our going to their side ever appears”.

This may be a self-consolation for the Indian army that is deployed alongside the Indo-Tibetan Border Police along the 646-km long LAC, but the factor underlined by the Indian army, after the international media reported that 11,000 Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) men are in Gilgit- Baltistan , which essentially is part of undivided Jammu and Kashmir, is that the PLA presence in PoK is a “grave security threat to India.”

On the strategic map of the Indian Army commanders, a scenario for 2020 envisages wherein India is under attack from the two nuclear powered neighbours. “This is a real possibility”, according to former GOC-in-C, Northern Command, Lt Gen B S Jaswal. He had told this reporter in January 2010 that India should be prepared for all this.

The architecture of cooperation that exists between China and Pakistan is emerging as a major threat to India. This is a genuine concern as far as India is concerned because of the one major factor that China has changed its tune toward India’s assertion of its sovereignty in Jammu and Kashmir. It is no longer a position where Beijing would stay neutral vis-à-vis the Himalayan state.

The issue of stapled visas

Not only did it start issuing stapled visas to the residents of Jammu and Kashmir, underlining what it called the disputed status of the state -- an echo of the line that Pakistan has been airing all along. It runs contrary to the silence that China had maintained during the conflict of Kargil in 1999, when covert intrusion of Pakistan in the trans-Himalayan heights was pushed back by the Indian Army.

China had given its silent endorsement to the American and Indian assertions that the sanctity of the Line of Control had to be maintained at all costs. China also had refused to intervene on behalf of Pakistan or support its contention that it were the Kashmiri insurgents who were behind the intrusion and the war at the Himalayan heights.

This point was also underscored by an American think tank, Heritage Foundation. It had observed in its report: “China’s Indian Provocations Part of Broader Trend”. The report was released in 2010.

In the backdrop of the reports of the presence of 7,000 to 11,000 Chinese troops in the Pakistan’s Northern Areas and Gilgit–Baltistan, and Beijing’s denial of visa to Gen Jaswal, the report made a forceful plea to the Obama administration to “collaborate more closely with India on initiatives that strengthen economic development and democratic trends in the region and work with India to counter any Chinese moves that could potentially undermine such trends in order to ensure the peaceful, democratic development of South Asia.”

The report, written by Dean Cheng and Lisa Curtis, experts on China and South Asia respectively, also suggested that Washington should “cooperate with India respectively in matching increased Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean region.”

The two experts had also taken note of Beijing’s observations about the state, claiming parts with Pakistan as Pakistan’s Northern Areas, while the part with India as “Indian controlled Kashmir”.

Beijing’s latest stand on J&K is a shift in its position adopted during the Kargil conflict in 1999, when it had persuaded Islamabad to withdraw its troops from the Indian side of the Line of Control. It is a reference to then Beijing position that Pakistan should “respect sanctity of the LoC”.

“China may be returning to a position of reflexively supporting Pakistan on Kashmir. Since the 1999 Kargil border conflict between India and Pakistan, Beijing’s position on Kashmir seemed to be evolving toward a more neutral position,” the report said.

The Siachen link

Pakistan had committed a diplomatically audacious act that China should be involved in resolving the issue of Siachen glacier, the highest battle ground in the world. It was during the 12th round of talks between the defence secretaries in May 2011 that Pakistan had handed over a non-paper to the Indian delegation in which it was argued that since China is in control of Shaksgam Valley, originally part of Jammu and Kashmir, which Pakistan had ceded to China in 1963, so Beijing should be involved in the future talks on the glacier.

This suggestion was instantly rejected by the Indian delegation as absurd.

The Pakistani delegation was told in clear terms that such a suggestion was not only unacceptable but also can cast shadow on the future talks on the glacier.

“China has no standing on the glacier, Pakistan is playing a big mischief and has further reinforced our point that it is not sincere in its intentions,” a senior officer of the army told this writer. The China- Pakistan nexus already has presented a worrying scenario for the Indian Army.

The Northern Command chief, Lt Gen K.T. Parnaik, while talking of this nexus, said that the presence of “Chinese troops in Gilgit , Baltistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir was a worrying scenario for the Indian army.”

General Jaswal asserted, “As a military man, I say that we should not make any concessions because that could prove very costly as, given the Pakistani- China nexus, China can walk straight there. That’s unacceptable. And we should not concede that line, come what may.”

Now this view is finding an echo in the Indian Army circles which are reviewing the whole strategic puzzle that Siachen presents in the light of the “involve-China” argument of Pakistan.

Tomorrow: The Chinese Perspective
For earlier parts of the series on the 50th anniversary of the Sino-Indian war log on to www.tribuneindia.com