New Age Islam
Mon Oct 26 2020, 05:32 PM

Current Affairs ( 12 Aug 2009, NewAgeIslam.Com)

CHINA’ S GRAND STRATEGY TO SPLIT INDIA

Try to break India into 30 parts, Chinese official think tank tells govt

By Manoj Joshi in New Delhi

 

THE GLOVES, it seems are off. After years of masking its attitude with declarations of friendship, China’s hostility has become clear.

An article published by a think- tank with close ties to the Chinese military has declared that it is in China’s interest to encourage the breakup of India into 20 or 30 “ national” units, much in the way of Europe.

This happened on the very day, last Saturday, when representatives of the two countries — National Security Adviser M. K. Narayanan and Chinese State Councillor Dai Bingguo — were meeting in New Delhi to resolve the Sino- Indian boundary dispute.

 

According to D. S. Rajan, director of the Chennai Centre for China Studies, the article, written by one Zhan Lue, has suggested that the Chinese grand strategy be directed towards the break- up of India.

 

Zhan’s is not a scholarly analysis which could argue that the Indian federation, which came up only in 1947 after the partition of British India, would collapse because of its own inner contradictions.

 

Zhan believes that the “so- called' Indian nation cannot be considered as one having existed in history. Hence, he suggests an active policy: “If China takes a little action, the so- called Great Indian Federation can be broken up.” The analysis is pseudo Marxism- Leninism and cynical pragmatism that characterises Chinese official thought. So ethnic groups like the Assamese, Tamils, Kashmiris and Nagas become “nationalities” with whom China can make common cause to bring about a break-up that would modernise India which today is essentially a “Hindu religious state”.

 

In the process China would recover southern Tibet aka Arunachal Pradesh. The project could also encourage Bangladesh to assimilate West Bengal, or create a rump protectorate. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) would no doubt love that.

 

How much credence can you put in a think-tank article? When it comes to China, a great deal, say analysts. That’s because almost everything that comes out has the approval of the authorities. Analysts suggest Zhan Lee could be a pseudonym of a senior Chinese Communist Party functionary.

 

The article has been reproduced in several strategic and military websites in China. According to Rajan, “The authoritative host site is located in Beijing and is the new edition of one which so far represented the China International Institute for Strategic Studies (CIISS).”

 

India’s ministry of external affairs spokesman Vishnu Prakash issued a rejoinder on Tuesday evening noting, “The article in question appears to be an expression of individual opinion and does not accord with the officially stated position of Beijing on India-China relations conveyed to us on several occasions, including at the highest level, most recently by the State Councillor Dai Bingguo during his visit to India last week.” The CIISS has in recent years been coming up with articles that talked tough with India. On Tuesday, its lead article was on how India planned to spend $150 billion to militarily equip itself to confront China.

 

There were separate items on Indian plans to acquire Sukhoi 30 MKI fighters and T-90S tanks. Taunting India as a lackey earlier of the USSR and now the US, the article noted that “India has been hoping to expand its hegemony” through various means.

 

In April last year, Zhan wrote an article, ‘A Warning to the Indian Government: Don’t Be Evil!’, which accused India of adopting the “same old path of confrontation with China” that had led to war in 1962 by reinforcing its troops in Arunachal Pradesh. At the time Indian officials had pointed out that the CIISS was always headed by a senior party functionary and “several senior members from the Chinese Communist Party are known to write under aliases on its website.” They had suspected that Zhan was a senior party member writing under a pseudonym.

 

Many Indian analysts believe that the hard-line statements are coming from institutions close to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). But, an editorial in June in Global Times, a sister publication of People’s Daily, was equally harsh in reacting to a news report that India was planning to beef up its forces in Arunachal Pradesh.

 

The editorial noted that proud of its “advanced political system”, India feels superior to China. However, it faces a disappointing domestic situation “which is unstable compared with China’s”. An online poll conducted by the paper at the time bluntly asked the question as to how China should deal with India’s separatist forces. Some 37.83 suggested open support, 43 per cent said covert support and only 15 per cent said China should not get involved. This means that some 80 per cent were advocating covert or overt support for separatists.

 

Taken together, the Zhan Lue articles and the Global Times editorials suggest serious undercurrents of anti- Indianism in China.

 

What has created this shift? In part, this could reflect Chinese insecurities unleashed by the Tibetan revolt on the eve of the Olympics last year.

Though New Delhi ensured that there were no incidents in the passage of the Olympic flame through India, Beijing felt that New Delhi had a hand in orchestrating the international uproar that followed its brutal crackdown in Tibet.

The uprising in Tibet was a surprise to China because Beijing believed that development and prosperity would have eliminated separatist feelings there. But, the incidents changed their minds and as a result of that, some in China are undoubtedly arguing that the best way of safeguarding Tibet is to destabilise the country which has the greatest potential to embarrass them.

 

In the past, China has supported separatism and insurgencies in India. Thuingaleng Muivah, the leader of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak- Muivah), spent several years in China and many Naga insurgents were trained and armed there.

However, since the mid- 1980s there is no evidence of any Chinese military assistance to the Nagas. Beijing never did give the Maoists anything but verbal support.

 

As for Jammu & Kashmir, its policies have been quite even-handed and China’s official line is that it will accept whatever India and Pakistan decide. There have been claims that Ulfa leader Paresh Barua is in China, but little evidence that China extends any official support for the outfit.

 

Alarmingly and coincidentally, on Monday, India’s Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta warned that India cannot match the Chinese, that “in military terms, both conventional and non- conventional, we have neither the capability nor the intention to match China, force by force.” India would be hard- put to cope with any Chinese decision to support the numerous separatist forces in the country. It has always been apparent that coping with China will be one of the biggest challenges India confronts. Only through diplomacy and our own inherent strength will we be able to postpone any direct confrontation indefinitely.

 

Beijing’s hostile intentions revealed

Think tank says India should be broken up into many nations like the Assamese, Tamils, Kashmiris and Nagas become “nationalities” with whom China can make common cause to bring about a break-up that would modernise India which today is essentially a “Hindu religious state”.

 

In the process China would recover southern Tibet aka Arunachal Pradesh. The project could also encourage Bangladesh to assimilate West Bengal, or create a rump protectorate. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) would no doubt love that.

 

How much credence can you put in a think-tank article? When it comes to China, a great deal, say analysts. That’s because almost everything that comes out has the approval of the authorities. Analysts suggest Zhan Lee could be a pseudonym of a senior Chinese Communist Party functionary.

 

The article has been reproduced in several strategic and military websites in China. According to Rajan, “The authoritative host site is located in Beijing and is the new edition of one which so far represented the China International Institute for Strategic Studies (CIISS).”

 

India’s ministry of external affairs spokesman Vishnu Prakash issued a rejoinder on Tuesday evening noting, “The article in question appears to be an expression of individual opinion and does not accord with the officially stated position of Beijing on India-China relations conveyed to us on several occasions, including at the highest level, most recently by the State Councillor Dai Bingguo during his visit to India last week.” The CIISS has in recent years been coming up with articles that talked tough with India. On Tuesday, its lead article was on how India planned to spend $150 billion to militarily equip itself to confront China.

 

There were separate items on Indian plans to acquire Sukhoi 30 MKI fighters and T-90S tanks. Taunting India as a lackey earlier of the USSR and now the US, the article noted that “India has been hoping to expand its hegemony” through various means.

 

In April last year, Zhan wrote an article, ‘A Warning to the Indian Government: Don’t Be Evil!’, which accused India of adopting the “same old path of confrontation with China” that had led to war in 1962 by reinforcing its troops in Arunachal Pradesh. At the time Indian officials had pointed out that the CIISS was always headed by a senior party functionary and “several senior members from the Chinese Communist Party are known to write under aliases on its website.” They had suspected that Zhan was a senior party member writing under a pseudonym.

 

Many Indian analysts believe that the hardline statements are coming from institutions close to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). But, an editorial in June in Global Times, a sister publication of People’s Daily, was equally harsh in reacting to a news report that India was planning to beef up its forces in Arunachal Pradesh.

 

The editorial noted that proud of its “advanced political system”, India feels superior to China. However, it faces a disappointing domestic situation “which is unstable compared with China’s”. An online poll conducted by the paper at the time bluntly asked the question as to how China should deal with India’s separatist forces. Some 37.83 suggested open support, 43 per cent said covert support and only 15 per cent said China should not get involved. This means that some 80 per cent were advocating covert or overt support for separatists.

 

Taken together, the Zhan Lue articles and the Global Times editorials suggest serious undercurrents of anti- Indianism in China.

 

What has created this shift? In part, this could reflect Chinese insecurities unleashed by the Tibetan revolt on the eve of the Olympics last year.

Though New Delhi ensured that there were no incidents in the passage of the Olympic flame through India, Beijing felt that New Delhi had a hand in orchestrating the international uproar that followed its brutal crackdown in Tibet.

 

The uprising in Tibet was a surprise to China because Beijing believed that development and prosperity would have eliminated separatist feelings there. But, the incidents changed their minds and as a result of that, some in China are undoubtedly arguing that the best way of safeguarding Tibet is to destabilise the country which has the greatest potential to embarrass them.

 

In the past, China has supported separatism and insurgencies in India. Thuingaleng Muivah, the leader of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak- Muivah), spent several years in China and many Naga insurgents were trained and armed there.

However, since the mid- 1980s there is no evidence of any Chinese military assistance to the Nagas. Beijing never did give the Maoists anything but verbal support.

 

As for Jammu & Kashmir, its policies have been quite even-handed and China’s official line is that it will accept whatever India and Pakistan decide. There have been claims that Ulfa leader Paresh Barua is in China, but little evidence that China extends any official support for the outfit.

 

Alarmingly and coincidentally, on Monday, India’s Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta warned that India cannot match the Chinese, that “in military terms, both conventional and non- conventional, we have neither the capability nor the intention to match China, force by force.” India would be hard- put to cope with any Chinese decision to support the numerous separatist forces in the country. It has always been apparent that coping with China will be one of the biggest challenges India confronts. Only through diplomacy and our own inherent strength will we be able to postpone any direct confrontation indefinitely.

Source: Mail Today

--------- 

Chinese outburst is a reflection of the rising instability within

by P. Stobdan

 

THE RECENT outburst against India by a Chinese think tank, the China International Institute for Strategic Studies, through its article — “If China takes a little action, the so- called Great Indian Federation can be broken up” by Zhan Lue, www.iiss.cn, on August 8 — is nothing but a reflection of Beijing’s frustration over rising domestic instability such as ethnic tensions and separatist movements that have exploded China’s much trumpeted myth of “harmony” and “One World, One Dream”. Before China contemplates over splitting India, it should remember that democracies do not break up. Instead, they become more solid in due course of time. It is the communist regimes which have been prone to disintegration.

 

No one knows better than the Chinese themselves of the fate of the Soviet Union and other authoritarian/ communist nations.

The Chinese should know that India has transformed itself, over the decades, into a modernising, emerging power.

 

The greatness and sophistication of India’s achievements and the worldwide recognition of it essentially stemmed from the contemporary relevance of Hindu civilisation. It’s vast plurality and tradition of tolerance has particularly found compatibility with modernity and liberal democracy. That is why India gains more acceptability than China internationally.

Despite all odds, India survived as a single entity, and lived up to a functional democracy for over half- a- century.

An insecure China is still afraid of opening up that it has rely on oppressive methods to survive is a glaring fact.

China continues to seat on a powder keg with simmering tensions in Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and host of other minorities regions which have been contesting Beijing’s right to control over them for decades.

 

The recent ethnic violence in Xinjiang, which left at least 197 Han Chinese and ethnic Uighurs dead, was the worst since the end of the Cultural Revolution. And it came after a year when violence in Tibet in March 2008 exposed China’s internal vulnerabilities.

 

The tense relations between the Han Chinese and the ethnic minorities — particularly the Uighurs and the Tibetans — are historical and China for decades kept these under wraps using brutal methods and by killing their identities, culture, language. For years, Beijing demonised them as terrorists.

 

Chinese officials had said the country is facing a “life- and- death struggle” in Tibet and southern Xinjiang.

 

They frequently called for “steely” measures to smash the “three evil forces” and admitted that the war against separatists and terrorists would be long- term and arduous.

 

While the Chinese will use their strike- hard method against multiple- group uprisings, but it is becoming harder now to prevent these movements becoming more potent with international forces rallying behind.

China’s traditional practice of killing domestic issues through international support, especially from the Muslim states, may be getting dated now. Sympathy for the Tibetans and Uyghur’s is growing even among the Muslim countries.

 

It is visibly clear that ethnic tensions and nationalist movements among minorities are going to worsen significantly in the future.

 

Break- up of Tibet and Xinjiang is only a matter of time with increasing rejection for Chinese domination. China’s inability to manage its society is more acute than ever. Its society is reeling under social, spiritual and moral bankruptcy because of its policies.

 

With China increasingly getting economically defused, it is inevitable that warlordism would once again be revived in its coastal provinces that would pave the way for China’s disintegration. History has proved this before.

 

Beijing should know that oppression and colonisation would themselves eventually become incitement to separatism and not a step to harmony. They should recognise that India had long back adopted the path of integration unlike China’s path of colonisation and assimilation which will definitely lead to disintegration.

 

Frustration among Chinese intelligentsia has been visible with international community increasingly started comparing India with China — both as rising future powers — something the Chinese are finding hard to digest. They are frustrated that India is capturing world attention. They like to brag about India’s superior political culture, its vibrant democracy, something that China cannot afford. The Chinese are also envious about India’s growing proximity with the US and the importance it is getting from the western world. The traditional strategy China adopted to contain India through Pakistan and others are no longer getting sustainable and, in fact, in many cases they may be bouncing back on China.

 

The Chinese should know that much of the hype about the rise of China may explode sooner than ever and time will prove that the Indian nation has more resilience to withstand pressures.

The author is a senior security analyst at the IDSA

Source: Mail Today

----------

 

Sino- Indian talks in a stalemate over Arunachal

By Mail Today Bureau in New Delhi

 

THERE is something strange going on in the Sino- Indian dialogue being conducted by the special representatives of the two countries — state councillor Dai Bingguo of China and national security adviser M. K. Narayanan.

 

The joint declaration issued in Beijing after Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s visit in 2003 was specific, “The two sides agreed to each appoint a special representative to explore from the political perspective of the overall bilateral relationship the framework of a boundary settlement.” After the 13th round of talks that took place last Friday and Saturday in New Delhi, it was reported that both sides would press ahead with the boundary negotiations. But the statement that “ the two sides exchanged in- depth views on the further development of China- India strategic cooperative partnership, as well as regional, international and global issues of mutual interest”, seemed to suggest that the border issue had been sidelined. This strategic cooperation is a side- show to the boundary agreement, which is being trotted as the main fare.

 

The high- point came in 2005 following the visit of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to India when both countries agreed to a common set of guidelines and parameters for a boundary settlement.

Article IV of the guidelines that “the two sides will give due consideration to each other’s strategic and reasonable interests” suggested India would be willing to give up its claim on Aksai Chin.

Article VII which noted that “the two sides shall safeguard due interests of their settled populations in the border areas” indicated that China would agree to leave the eastern boundary along the existing Line of Actual Control (LAC).

 

Indian sources said the talks are now stalemated with the Chinese insisting that India make “substantive adjustments” in the eastern boundary, which means Arunachal Pradesh.

 

In 1960 and in the early 1980s, the Chinese side, through their premiers — Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping — had offered a package deal through which the two sides would trade claims. In other words, China would accept the McMahon Line in the east, in exchange for India broadly accepting the existing Line of Actual Control in the West thus conceding its claim on Aksai Chin to China.

Source: Mail Today

URL of this page:http://www.newageislam.com/current-affairs/china’-s-grand-strategy-to-split-india/d/1642

 

Loading..

Loading..