INDIA-US TANGO: PART-TIME LOVERS!

INDIA-US TANGO: PART-TIME LOVERS!

BY DR. A. ADITYANJEE

The third India-US strategic dialogue finished this month in Washington, DC generating a multi-dimensional array of bilateral cooperation agreements, favorable atmospherics and genuine mutual understanding. Described in the heady days of of former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, as the natural allies, the relationship has had its checkered course. The optics of bilateral relationship have never been so good!

Historically, India’s episodic romance with the USA started even before it got her truncated independence from the British imperialism in 1947. Indian freedom fighters started the Gadhar movement based in the USA during colonial times. The members of India’s constituent assembly did incorporate some features of the US constitution while framing the Indian constitution while adopting a quasi-federal set-up. Despite adopting a Westminster style of parliamentary democracy, the framers of Indian constitution, opted for an indirectly elected President chosen by an electoral college, more akin to the US presidential elections.

Traditionally, a proponent of non-alignment, India had close ties with the former Soviet Union and now with Russia. India’s ties with the US soured during the Cold War era owing to the US strategic myopia and intransigence when John Foster Dulles described non-alignment as “immoral”. US lost an opportunity to engage India in the fifties and sixties by invoking the cold-war calculus. India as a nation cherishes her strategic autonomy and independence. The consternation in the US strategic community about India not awarding US companies the $12 billion MMRFA contract was understandable. Indo-US civil nuclear energy deal is still having trouble getting started simply because India still remembers the Bhopal gas tragedy. India, under any government will not be a junior partner in any strategic or military alliance with any super-power, be it the now defunct Soviet Union, Russia, US or China. An “argumentative India” can never accept and identify with “You are either with us or against us” mentality. India has never shied away from bluntly speaking the inconvenient truths to the Government of the US on so many occasions and that rankles the US state department officials! There are no zero-sum games in international geopolitical discourse. Balancing China is the main reason for US strategic pivot to the Asia. Despite having serous concerns about China’s hegemonic ambitions and actions in Asia, India will not gang against China by allying with the US.

The future of India-US relationship is good, indeed, excellent as long as we do not have high hopes for the moon. We, the two nations and two peoples, are extremely fascinated by each other’s popular culture. Indian students are the largest contingent in the US universities, so are the Indian doctors in US healthcare industry. The number of American students in Indian universities is steadily increasing while Indian owned high tech companies invest monies and produce jobs in the local US economy. People to people contacts are an important driving force behind the bilateral relationship while business to business contacts (CEO forum) are increasing. Variously dubbed as natural allies, frineds or strategic partners, the two nations are forging a long road to mutual understanding, international peace and prosperity.

We do share some strategic goals but not all. Our tactical relationship will continue to have ups and downs. Despite sharing democratic and pluralistic values, our strategic goals are at variance with each others owing to different geographies. Whether it is the issue of Af-Pak or Iran, whether it is NPT or CTBT, whether it is FMCT or MTCR, we do not see eye to eye with each other. The US has concerns about Iran’s proliferation activities, India for decades was dismayed to see US, benevolently ignoring Pakistan’s clandestine nuclear program abetted by China and funded by Saudi Arabia, while the US itself continued to shower dollars on Pakistan's military-intelligence-terrorism establishment without batting an eyelid. While India has border issues with China, India votes along with China and other BASIC group of countries on the issue of climate change and global warming. While President Obama virtually conceded G2 partner status to China in the beginning of his administration India was gravely alarmed. India, now, shares US concerns about China’s neo-colonial stance to deny access to sea lanes in the South China Sea. Let us have a mature strategic relationship with mutual understanding without throwing “hissy fits” whenever India chooses to vote against US position in the UN general assembly or any other international forum. In the words of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, India has to be pro-India and not pro-US, not pro-Russia and not pro-China!

Here one remembers the famous pop number by Stevie Wonder from his 1985 album “In Square Circle”. India and the US are destined to be part-time lovers. Nothing more, nothing less. The sooner both countries realize it, the better it would be for the geopolitics.

Dr. Adityanjee is  the President of the Council for Strategic Affairs, New Delhi, India and can be contacted at the following Email: Adityancsa@gmail.com

Partitioning The UK?

by Dr. A. Adityanjee http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=12341

History In Making:  Francis Fukuyama, that naïve American thinker in 1989 in his infamous essay predicted the end of History and followed up the same thesis in his book in 1992. He was so humbled by the geopolitical tsunamis that have followed in the last two decades witnessing two major wars in the Persian gulf and the Af-Pak region; break-up of Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, divorce of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, toppling of some Arab Despots in South-West Asia; and emergence of new nations like Eritrea, Kosovo, Macedonia, and South Sudan.  History was, indeed, made in 1947 when the Imperial British Government abdicated its legal responsibility to control a murderous call for “direct action” and hurriedly partitioned the Colonized India into the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. History would be made indeed, in a sudden twist of fate, if the UK gets partitioned in 2014.  Following a referendum, an independent Scotland, in all probability, may separate from the Westminster government charting its own future course within the European Union (EU) as an independent nation. On May 25th 2012 Scottish politicians, celebrities and activists in Edinburgh urged a million Scots to sign a declaration of independence that would put “Scotland’s future “in Scotland’s hands.” The Scottish Refrendum: Now it is certain that a referendum on the issue of independence will be held in Scotland in 2014.  Although Scottish public currently is 57% opposed to the idea of Scottish independence, nationalism is very potent spirit that changes the public opinion in a matter of days. The Scottish National Party (SNP) is in power currently in Holyrood, Edinburgh and the Scottish First Minister (Chief Minister), Alex Salmond is strongly spearheading the Scottish independence campaign. He articulates  cogently: “An independent Scotland can be a beacon for progressive opinion south of the border and further afield, addressing policy challenges in ways that reflect the universal values of fairness and capable of being considered, adapted and implemented according to the circumstances and wishes within the other jurisdiction of these islands and beyond”.  UK Prime Minister David Cameron has vowed to “fight with everything I have to keep out United Kingdom together”. He further states: “To me, this is not some issue of policy or strategy or calculation - it matters head, heart and soul. Out shared home is under threat and everyone who cares about needs to speak out”. For the next two and half years a sustained debate on divorce, harsh rhetoric generated from both the sides and rekindled nationalistic fervor in Scotland may eventually swamp the status quo. The mainstream UK politicians from the three large parties (Tories, Labor and Liberal-democrats) have tried to scare the hell out of Scottish voters.  They would allow only two options in the referendum; keep the status quo or have total independence in the 2014 referendum. Alex Salmond and the SNP have demanded a third option of home rule also that would entail maximum devolution of powers under the UK (so-called Devo Max, Devo plus or independence-lite option). In 2011, the UK treasury said the level of public spending per head in Scotland was 1624 pounds higher than in England. The debt to the UK tax-payers for bailing out the Royal Bank of Scotland was 26 billion pounds. Inherent is the implicit threat that with total independence comes the fiscal responsibility.  The differences between the two sides are indeed very real and as Salmond highlights: “The problem with Scotland’s current constitutional settlement is that we can not innovate as much as we would like. Policy choices made in Westminster-by parties whose democratic mandate in Scotland is negligible—are constraining policy choices made in Scotland, for which there is an unequivocal mandate.” Scottish Social Attitudes Survey done in 2009 found that 61 % of Scots trusted the Scottish government to act in Scotland’s interest versus 25% who trusted the British government.   Those who argue that Scotland would be too small to go it alone forget that with a population of 5.2 million, an independent Scotland would be comparable to other European mini-states, e.g. Croatia 4.41 million, Denmark 5.5 million, Estonia 1.34 million, Finland 5.3 million, Macedonia 2.04 million, Norway 4.7 million, Ireland 4.6 million, Kosovo 2.4 million, Latvia 2.24 million, Lithuania 3.26 million, Slovenia 2.03 million and Slovakia 5.5 million. It will certainly be larger in population than tiny Montenegro with a population of less than one million (626000). Scotland would have anywhere from 81% to 90% control over the North Sea Oil and 8% share of UK’s assets and liabilities. UK’s national debt of 1.1 trillion pounds and the 8% share of Scotland (in proportion to Scottish population) would come to 88 billion pounds of debt independent Scotland will have to cope with. North Sea Oil has so far generated 250 billion pounds revenue for the UK central government. Despite decline in yield 6% per year, further pumping of crude would generate further 54 billion pounds in the six years to 2016/17. International Significance: Any divorce and demise of the UK, as we currently know it, will have real international geopolitical consequences. Mr. Salmond highlights the implications when he states: “Scotland as an independent nation would play an active and responsible role in the international community, contributing on issues where it could, but without delusions of grandeur. I find it inconceivable, for instance, that an independent Scotland would ever have participated in the invasion of Iraq.” Perhaps, the European Union would be over-eager to embrace an independent Scotland because of highly ambivalent relationship with UK. Following the World War II, the UK, one of the major colonial powers, was forced to give up its colonial possessions owing to changed geo-political circumstances and its fiscal inability to project power internationally. With a deeply contracted economy, a bankrupt Britain was unable to overextend its forces. It started decolonization process reluctantly and slowly. Liberation of Scotland from the UK would be an ultimate exercise in decolonization since the time original Scottish parliament (Estates of Scotland) was dissolved in 1707 under pressure by the Act of Union 1707 to form a Parliament of the Great Britain. Establishment of an Independent Scotland would unleash the genie of a chain reaction leading ultimately to dissolution of the UK. After independence of Ireland from the UK in 1922, Northern Ireland was retained as a province of the UK. Independent Scotland will act as catalyst to spearhead the drive for re-unification of the eight counties of the Northern Ireland with the rest of Ireland and lead to a united republic of Ireland. In this context one recalls the correspondence and contacts between the Irish freedom fighter Hugo de Valera and MK Gandhi in the early part of the 20th century. Both these wise men appreciated the predicament of their respective countries and provided moral support for the idea of total independence from Britain. Since the end of WWII, UK has had a disproportionate influence on international affairs. Some of this was achieved by a Machiavellian “special relationship” with the reigning super-power, US earning it the nick-name “America’s poodle”. The fact that it was a former colonial power and continued to have a permanent seat on the United Nations’ Security Council helped UK wield undue geo-political influence that was not commensurate with its economic, mercantile and military power or so-called comprehensive national power.  The fact that the UK chose to exercise its soft power judiciously by using British Council scholarships for academics and civil servants from the former colonies served British geo-political interests very well. UK used its higher education system, especially Cambridge and Oxford Universities to continue to impart its footprint on the psyche of newly minted mandarins from the former colonies who liked to be perceived as “British trained” or “UK returned”. UK cleverly continued to hang on to the former colonial possessions by stitching them together in the glue of the Commonwealth. However, after the possible secession of Scotland in 2014 and after the eventual dissolution of the UK, perhaps a tiny England may not be able to hold on to its seat on P5 in the UNSC. This would also have bearing on the remaining 14 British overseas territories (or colonies still under possession of the UK), e.g. Falklands, Bermuda, Jersey Island, Montserrat, Cayman Island, Isle of Man, British Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, Diego Garcia, St. Lucia etc. Will Falkland be still under English control in 2015 is a question English policy establishment needs to ponder over! UK: Rip 2014 may well be the watershed year that would lead to eventual independence of three new European countries historically colonized by the Imperial England, namely Scotland, Wales and the Duchy of Cornwall. If and when that happens, the United Kingdom will be allowed to fade away into geo-political oblivion. Perhaps, at that juncture, a diminished England may choose to republicanize the nation, frame a new written constitution that it currently lacks, have a codified bill of rights, abolish the hereditary House of the Lords, retire the anachronistic Windsors (the English royal family) permanently and award them an annual “privy purse” as compensation just like India did! Such a roadmap may ultimately lead to a tiny England joining the USA as the 51st state just like Hawaii in order to maintain that “special relationship”. Geo-Political Implications for India: As the former colonial power, the UK had immense influence on the history of India that still has its impact. Partitioning India and consequent creation of a congenitally antagonistic state of Pakistan was a clever, Machiavellian geo-political ploy by the UK to have her strategic influence in the subcontinent while playing footsie with Pakistan. UK has sided with Pakistan historically on almost every issue of significance to India, starting with the accession of the former princely state of the Jammu and Kashmir. UK continues to meddle in the J& K affairs and inserts itself into every opportunity. UK was the fountainhead of encouragement to the Khalistani separatist movement along with US and Canada while being in bed with Pakistan on this issue. Khalistani separatist leader Jagjeet Singh Chohan was based in London for years under the benevolent patronage of the British Crown. Tamil separatists are traditionally based in UK with their anti-Srilanka activities but also anti-India activities. UK used the state visit of her Queen to humble India by demanding separate state addresses by the British monarch in both Chennai Rajbhavan and Chandigarh Rajbhavan besides a state address in Rashtrapati Bhavan in New Delhi! This would have been a very clear violation of the diplomatic protocol and India’s sovereignty. UK still has thousands of stolen artifacts from India in its museums, art galleries and private art collections. Unlike the Greeks who have made formal demand for return of the Elgin marbles from London, the Government of India has not had the courage to legally demand repatriation of plundered arts and archeological treasures. Nor did Government of India hold the British Empire and its mandarins responsible for genocide of Indians during the Great famine of Bengal in the 1940s. Unlike Israel which has pursued the former Nazis tenaciously wherever they fled to; Government of India abdicated her national responsibility in bringing the former colonial masters to justice. Perhaps, there will be window of opportunity to get all the stolen treasures repatriated from English museums after the dissolution of the UK. A thoroughly weakened and emasculated England would not be able to justify continuing to hoard stolen Indian treasures and cultural artifacts. Lastly, a fragmented England would not be able to play its Pro-Pakistan game on the issue of J&K. Engaging Scotland: India must keenly watch the events leading to the Scottish referendum of 2014 and engage the Scottish political elite in advance so that India as an emerging super-power is not left out of policy options. India needs to use the principle of reciprocity in international relations. India must not forget the lessons of history. India has to resolve the outstanding issues left over from the history with the UK or its successor state. India needs to be pro-active instead of reactive in her policy formulations. India needs to shape the geopolitical events by exercising her smart power. Here is a golden opportunity for India to address and correct some of the injustices that were heaped on her in the past. Unfortunately, India is going through a political and economic turmoil with national (parliamentary) elections scheduled for 2014. Another uncertain electoral outcome may plunge the country further deep into political as well as policy paralysis. Therefore, time is ripe now for the mandarins in the MEA to start formulating contingency plans, should an independent Scotland become a geopolitical reality in 2014. Starting with a Strategic Partnership Agreement, an extradition treaty and a Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty, the bilateral focus should be on tighter economic relationship with Scotland. North Sea oil could be imported from Scotland for the hydrocarbon needs of an energy starved India. The Tatas (who currently own the British luxury Jaguar Land Rover brand) should consider relocating their car production plants from England to up north in Scotland. The Mahindras should consider building their new SUV production plans in Scotland. Indian business houses should invest in newly independent Scotland when that reality emerges.  As a nation formerly colonized by UK, almost all Indians would experience an exhilarating feeling of schadenfreude at the independence of Scotland and possible disintegration of the UK as we know it. India should act as a de factomidwife in the birth of the new nation of independent Scotland. Just like India gave her voice for the cause of decolonization of Africa, it must provide moral, material and diplomatic support for the idea of Scottish independence from the UK because it is the right thing to do. Government of India should be the first country to formally recognize an independent Scotland as and when it formally secedes from the UK. Indian civil society needs to engage with the Scottish civil society in harboring a new geopolitical reality. The naysayers had predicted breakdown of India after the British left in 1947.  Despite being a “functioning anarchy” and having a “Hindu Rate of Growth”, India survives while the UK faces imminent partition, fragmentation and demise of the union. The same Nattering Nabobs of Negativism have lampooned an independent Scotland to be a “Skintland” with capital “Edinborrow”. They will be proven wrong once again! Methinks that the juggernaut of independent Scotland is too strong to be stopped.  Demise of the UK is just round the corner!

14-Jun-2012

TALES FROM THE DRAGON KINGDOM: THE PRINCELINGS AND THE “SHE DRAGON”

TALES FROM THE DRAGON KINGDOM:

THE PRINCELINGS AND THE “SHE DRAGON”

DR. ADITYANJEE

Email: Adityancsa@gmail.com

2012 is the Year of the Dragon, the most favorable and revered sign in the 12-year Chinese zodiac.  Everyone in the Dragon Kingdom is presumably a descendent of the mythical Dragon. A lot of Chinese couples will plan birth of their progeny in the year of the Dragon. Apparently, a son born in the year of Dragon is endowed with intelligence, enterprise and self-control. The Dragon Kingdom will face "bigger challenges" in this year of the Dragon, including slowing down of the economy, burgeoning social unrest and the issue of succession. Transition of the 5^th generation of leaders of the Royal Dragonese Party will take place in the end of 2012 during the 18^th annual congress. When Hu Jintao became the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, the ubiquitous question was “Who is Hu?” The pertinent question in the year of the Dragon would be “Who is She?” 

Because when the “Who Dragon” steps down, the “She Dragon” will become the General Secretary in the CCP meeting at the end of year of the Dragon. Since 2008, the “She Dragon” has been groomed as the vice-President” and the vice-chairman of the Central Military Commission and the eventual successor to Hu Jintao. We are told that Xi JinPing, a 58 years old “Princeling” (son of one of the revolutionary hero General Xi Zhongxun) is “redder than the red” because he dedicated himself to the Marxist theory from early days in order to prosper in the communist party.  Princeling Xi reportedly joined the Communist party when his own illustrious father was in prison during the era of cultural revolution. An ethnic Han, and a native of Shaanxi Province, he was born on June 1^st 1953. He graduated from the School of Humanities and Social Sciences of the prestigious Tsinghua University, majoring in Marxist theory and ideological education. With an on-the-job postgraduate education, he has a doctorate degree, LLD. He joined the Chinese Communist Party in January 1974. Described as “extremely ambitious” and pragmatic, from the beginning Xi has focused his eyes on the “ultimate prize”. Married twice, he has one daughter. He does not drink, does not smoke and is not influenced by money and is the “Mr. Clean” of the Dragon Kingdom. Xi JinPing will eventually become the President of the Peoples' Republic of China in 2013. Most likely, Hu Jintao will remain as the Chairman of the Central Military Commission for a few years more before passing the ultimate baton to Xi.

Over a period of time, Chinese Communist Party has tried to inculcate internal party democracy while maintaining the supremacy of the Communist Party in the nation. One of the reasons is that most of the elderly leaders do not want to spend time in prison during the wars of succession that were the norm during the cultural revolution and again during the 1987-1989 period.  Therefore, orderly, pre-determined transition of leaders has been planned from the time when the 3^rd generation leaders took over. Instead of having a “supreme leader” like Mao or Deng, the leadership is collectively shared by the troika of General Secretary/President/Chairman of the Central Military Commission, the Speaker of the Parliament and the Prime Minister. The generation next is groomed for a period of four years under the tutelage of the reigning leadership. This gives each generation of new communist leaders eight years in executive office besides the four years in training, thereby ensuring continuity with transition. It is during the second four year of their term that the new leadership acquires “wings” and therefore feels “strong” enough to take bold and independent decisions with international ramifications. Each generation of leadership has enunciated their own grandiose theories starting from Mao (Marxist Leninist theory with Mao Ze Dong thought), Deng (Socialism with Chinese Characteristics), Jiang Zemin (The Theory of Three represents) and Hu (Peaceful Rise of China and Harmonious  Development). It is not clear as to what ideological theory Xi will enunciate once he is formally anointed as the supreme leader of the middle kingdom.

Like their counterparts in the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea, Chinese Communist party has encouraged dynastic succession across generations albeit with a difference. No single dynasty is encouraged. The children of the revolutionary heroes, called the “Princelings” control various ministries and party departments collectively and enjoy enormous privileges and power. Most of them were born during the civil war in the Yanan city in Shaanxi province in northwest China. This elite, exclusive and secret club is also called ” the Children of Yanan” who meet at least once a year to deliberate on China's state of affairs while plotting their stronghold on the party and the nation. 

Xi reportedly has a strong belief that the Princelings are the true heirs of the revolutionary legacy of their parents’ generation and have the right to rule China. The Princelings had helped create the notorious Red Guards. Unlike his two predecessors, Xi JingPing has much stronger ties with the PLA. Any hopes of democratic reforms should be given up because of this sense of entitlement. The fact that his current wife is a celebrity folk singer and he was influenced by Buddhist philosophy during his earlier years are not the only redeeming facts. He may be more of an internationalist because he sent his only daughter to study at Harvard under a pseudonym. His sister is supposed to have lived in Canada and one of his brothers lived in the Hong Kong colony during the British rule. He will remain a cautious hyper-nationalist as reflected in his outbursts in Mexico in 2009 when under piling international pressure on China he stated: “Some foreigners with full bellies and nothing better to do engage in finger-pointing at us”. He was recently present with the diplomatic hoi polloi rubbing shoulders with the likes of Henry Kissinger on the 40th anniversary of Richard Nixon’s historic visit to China in 1972.  His international profile is being carefully crafted by arranging a US trip soon in February in the year of the Dragon.

Despite this seemingly “orderly transition”; factional fights continue. Xi was able to outsmart Hu Jintao and emerged as the front-runner to succeed Hu in the party congress in October 2007, overshadowing Hu’s protégé Li Keqiang. Perhaps, the 2012 succession drama will eventually bring mass purgings of Hu’s  protégés  under the garb of trials for corruption. Hu versus Zemin (Shanghai Clique) rivalry continues in the Chinese Communist party and with the departure of Hu Jintao, Jiang Zemin faction will exercise indirect powers through the Princeling Xi. Consequently, China will not be able to resolve bilateral and multi-lateral territorial disputes with its neighbors including India owing to the factional power struggles that will unfold mysteriously. During the recently concluded bilateral talks of special representatives, Chinese foreign ministry stated: "We believe the peaceful development of China and India is an opportunity for both sides and the whole world. With the joint efforts of the two sides, 2012 will be a year of greater and better exchanges and cooperation between China and India. The year 2012 will become a year of cooperation and development."  Pragmatically, there is unlikely to be any major initiative expected to resolve the boundary dispute under the first four years of Xi JingPing’s despite the recent signing of agreement on the establishment of a working mechanism on consultation and coordination on India-China boundary affairs.

WE FOCUS ON STRATEGIC ISSUES PERTAINING TO INDIA'S RISE AS A GLOBAL SUPER-POWER.

MILITARY BASES WITH “CHINESE CHARACTERISTICS” BY DR. ADITYANJEE

December 2011 was the epochal month during which the Chinese neo-imperialistic ambitions were  un-peeled very predictably like the layers of an onion. It started with a Chinese military delegation, headed by the Chinese Defense Minister General Liang Guanglie quietly visiting the Seychelles on December 1^st 2011. He signed a bilateral  agreement to set up a Chinese naval base in the Seychelles for counter-piracy operations. This was followed by Hu Jintao’s December 6^th pronouncement; while addressing the PLA Navy (PLAN) he said that PLAN should make “extended preparations for warfare in order to make greater contributions to safeguard national security”. The statement was immediately denounced by the US that demanded more transparency on Chinese intentions.  Chinese claimed misinterpretation of the original statement. Apparently, there is no equivalent word for transparency in Mandarin. Concept of transparency is “Greek” to the Chinese  political & military establishment. Ridiculing the Western criticism, one Chinese analyst Mao Xiaogang made a bellicose statement: ”It is common to see some irresponsible hype and smears around the world aimed at China’s military development, especially the so-called transparency matter. China’s announcement at such an opportune moment is transparent enough”.

The “outing” of the Chinese naval base by the Indian press on December 12^th  forced  China to issue a “non-denial” denial. China acknowledged the establishment of a “supply and recuperation facility” in the Seychelles. The Seychelles comprises of 115 islands and is the smallest African country with a population of 85,000 and an army of only 500. The Seychelles government acknowledged the establishment of  a  Chinese naval base ostensibly to crack down on piracy. The Chinese Ministry of Defense tried to  sanitize this  in a statement: “According to escort needs and the needs of other long-range missions, China will consider seeking supply facilities at appropriate harbors in the Seychelles or other countries”. China acknowledged that it already has “re-supply facilities” at harbors in Dijbouti, Oman & Yemen since 2008 when China sent its first naval convoy to Gulf of Aden apparently in an anti-piracy measure. 

China repeatedly stressed that this move did not equate to establishing overseas military bases. China has used a fig-leaf of anti-piracy operations to cover the nakedness its strategic ambitions. It is not going to stop at the Seychelles alone. China plans to establish military bases in other countries also. Despite Chinese insistence that China would not station its troops abroad, we see a pattern of China expressing commercial or economic interests in a territory (land, sea, air, space) as Chinese asset, sending PLA soldiers there to safeguard its commercial interests and claiming sovereignty subsequently.  Professor Shen Dingli from Fudan University has openly advocated the need for China to establish military bases overseas. 

Analogous to  the Japanese euphemism of “comfort women” for Korean sex slaves during the World War II, China calls its military bases as “supply and recuperation facilities”. Of Course, Chinese overseas military bases are very different from the US or  Russian military bases because they are indeed part of “extended preparations for warfare in order to make greater contributions to safeguard national security”. Per Chinese rhetoric these supply facilities will never be used for aggression because they have the essential “Chinese characteristic” of serving the Chinese core interests of safeguarding the “divine” Chinese Ocean sovereignty in the Indian Ocean!

String of Pearls is not fervent imagination of delirious minds of hypercritical analysts. It is a long-term strategy that is sequentially unfolding. The façade of trade-oriented commercial ports will be replaced by loud, vociferous and triumphant announcements of China’s core interests requiring conversion to naval bases. There was no “objective evidence” that the China’s first aircraft carrier when purchased in 1998 from Ukraine  would be deployed as a naval asset. China had deceptively and fraudulently claimed  that it would be converted into a floating casino!  Currently the Chinese aircraft carrier is undergoing sea trials. So  much for the “so-called transparency issues”. Although  China has rejected Pakistani exhortations to “please develop a naval base at the Gwadar port”; that is bound to happen in next few years. Chinese “peace and harmony”  rhetoric and its strategic actions are always diametrically opposite.  The predictable pattern is that of initial stonewalling, hostile denials, indignant & abusive comments followed by gradual  but late triumphant proclamations of  Chinese core interests demanding strong action against the enemies.

Pursuing modernization, China has become de facto number two naval power. The PLA navy’s goal is to have a “Thousand Ships Navy”. This  stated “TSN” Goal is to further Chinese hegemony in the Indo-Pacific region and exploit the mineral & hydrocarbon wealth in the international seabeds. China has already signed an agreement with the UN backed International Seabed Authority to gain exclusive rights to explore poly-metallic sulfide ore deposits in 10,000 square-kilometers of international seabed in Indian Ocean for the next 15 years. China will use its naval base in the Seychelles to claim sovereignty over the Indian Ocean using this contract as the legal basis. If Chinese creeping pattern of expanding its sovereign territory is genuinely understood, it would not be surprising if in the year 2112, China claims the entire Indian Ocean as its sovereign territory and may rename it as  “South Tibet Sea” analogous to China’s characterization of Arunachal Pradesh as Southern Tibet.

China is a rising hegemon that is no longer ashamed of asserting its imperialistic ambitions.  China’s list of core interests is rapidly expanding.   Assertion of China’s Ocean sovereignty as a new core interest issue has been vociferously advocated in last few years. China has disputes with the ASEAN countries about the ownership various atolls and islands and their hydrocarbon and mineral potential. It refuses to deal with these claims in multi-lateral fora and wants to bully the smaller countries bilaterally. China also warned India against exploring hydrocarbon drilling in collaboration with Vietnam in South China Sea. China’s blockade of Taiwan strait in 1996 and raining missiles across the strait is an indicator of Chinese strategic response pattern.  In a  belligerent article published in the Beijing Daily, Mao Xiaogang articulates this: The PLA Navy will forever act in accordance with its duty in regard to China’s Ocean sovereignty and interests with no fear and flinch upon any interference and will ensure the safety of national interests by virtue of its own distinct views and powerful strength”.

Historically, India never shared land border with the middle kingdom till 1949. In ancient and medieval times, Indo-Tibetan border was very porous and was part of the great Indic religious civilization. While Tibetan Buddhist monks and lamas visited northern India for spiritual enlightenment in the Land of Buddha,  Hindus never needed Chinese visa for pilgrimage to Mouth Kailash & Man Sarovar Lake.  Tibet once was under the suzerainty of the Dogra Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir whose official title included the “Deshaadhipati of Tibet”. Since the Chinese occupation and annexation of Tibet in the nineteen fifties, entire Tibet has become a vast Chinese military garrison. 

Indo-Tibetan Border has been heavily fortified and militarized by China. China has built permanent military-cum-civilian infrastructure in the so-called Autonomous Tibetan Region (ATR) which should be aptly called China-Occupied Tibet (COT).  While India foolishly chose to leave Indo-Tibetan border undeveloped in both eastern and western sectors to “deter” aggression, China has constructed military barracks and motorable roads that can move tanks and heavy armored vehicles along the entire Into-Tibetan border. All this so-called civilian infrastructure development in the occupied Tibet has military applications. China has built five air ports along the Indo-Tibetan borders.  The Beijing-Lhasa rail-road connects the Chinese heartland with the Occupied Tibet and has military significance besides being a tourist attraction. In the event of hostilities, this rail-road would not be carrying tourists or the western war correspondents. China further plans to extend this Beijing-Lhasa rail-road into Nepal and indeed very close to Indian borders. PLA routinely conducts high altitude military exercises  in the occupied Tibet. There are frequent incursions of the PLA soldiers inside Indian territory across the Line of Actual Control (LAC) with repeated damage to Indian civilian & military infra-structure in both Eastern and Western sectors. 

Since Pakistan ceded part of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir to China in 1961, it has built the Korrakoram highway to facilitate Chinese access to warm water port of Karachi. Though China has denied it consistently, PLA has at least 10,000 troops stationed in the Pak-Occupied Kashmir (POK) in the northern territories. These developments amount to China de facto establishing an army base in the POK. Presence of Chinese troops in POK indeed poses a military and security threat to India as POK is an illegally occupied territory by Pakistan.

India is going through internal political turmoil, uncertainty and leadership crisis that is not conducive to long-term strategic planning. India’s current political leadership has been in deep slumber and has been totally unresponsive to China’s persistent and purposeful hegemonic behavior in India’s sphere of influence. A situation has developed whereby India is forced to react to Chinese aggressive postures by adopting an ostrich like approach. India has either denied strategic significance to Chinese moves or tried to minimize the significance by buying the Chinese fibs for explanation. The Prime Minister denied last year the possibility of China attacking India under any conceivable circumstance. Ministry of External affairs has become an excellent spokesperson for mouthing Chinese core interests. Indian Defense Ministry has repeated denied about the Chinese incursions into Indian territory. This defeatist mindset was amply demonstrated by yet another Pavlovian denial of geo-political reality that India and China are strategic adversaries by Shiv Shankar Menon, the NSA, who claimed that such determinism is “misplaced”.  

Admittedly, in the bilateral and multilateral diplomatic dances with the Dragon, India’s political leadership and bureaucratic mandarins may be forced to indulge in verbal hyper-gymnastics;  India’s security establishment & non-governmental strategic community must not allow the repetition of the strategic blindness India suffered from in the nineteen fifties and sixties.  Owing to India’s vulnerabilities and current strategic weakness, the Government of India continues to appease China while secretly hoping that the numerous strategic threats posed by an aggressive and expansionist China will somehow disappear. Some strategic experts have rightly cautioned that the carefully choreographed Dragonese Dance may culminate in a full-fledged attack on India while India’s political leadership and Defense Ministry establishment are doing their level best to purposefully humiliate India’s Chief of Army and thereby demoralize the Indian soldiers. The public display of the “dirty linen” about the Army chief’s date of birth issue by the Indian defense ministry will embolden China to strike at India, yet again, at an opportune moment just like in 1962.

For the last several years the Indian Defense Ministry has been in a persistent vegetative state leading to strategic asymmetry with China. Future Governments of India will have to rectify this inertia and take corrective measures to increase India’s comprehensive national power.  The self-induced coma of the Indian defense establishment needs emergency interventions on “war footings”. Future Governments of India will have to make tough decisions and increase the budgetary allocation for the defense sector by many-folds. Military modernization must be accelerated despite the pernicious and ever-hanging issue of corruption in defense procurements. India must leapfrog the military preparedness and indigenous weapons design and production. We do need long-term strategic planning and prepare the nation for the multi-dimensional strategic challenges posed by China in the Indian Ocean, in the POK, on the Indo-Tibetan border, in Myanmar, in South China Sea, in the Indo-Pacific  region, in the air, in the field of long-range ballistic missiles, in cyberspace, and in militarization of the space. 

WE FOCUS ON STRATEGIC ISSUES PERTAINING TO INDIA'S RISE AS A GLOBAL SUPER-POWER.