The Rediff Special/Claude Arpi If someone asked me what is the greatest scam since Independence, I would have some difficulty answering. I might initially consider the 'Jeep case' involving Krishna Menon, or the smoking guns of Bofors. But in the end, the one that I find the most stupid, and perhaps the most harmful to India's interests in the long run, is the confiscation of history by government babus under the Public Records Act. These rules vaguely state that "unclassified public records more than 30 years old should be made available to any bona fide research scholar, but subject to such exceptions and restrictions as may be prescribed". Because of the last part of the sentence, the people of India are today not able to know about their recent history. One of the main casualties is the 1962 war with China. As a sad result of this policy, the Chinese version of history is often prevalent, even in India. A few weeks after the debacle of October-November 1962, Lieutenant General J N Chaudhuri constituted a committee to study the causes of the 'Himalayan blunder'. An Anglo-Indian general called Henderson Brooks was requested to go through the official records and prepare a report on the war. Sometime in 1963, the general presented his study to Nehru and a couple of his ministers. The report was immediately classified 'Top Secret'. One can understand that at that time the prime minister did not want the report made to be public, as he may have had to take responsibility for the unpreparedness of the army and, most probably, resign. The tragedy is not that the report was 'classified' in 1963, but that it continues to remain classified today. Forty years later, nobody has still seen the report. That is, except for one person: a British foreign correspondent named Neville Maxwell. The rumour is that a senior minister passed on the report to him. Nine years after the war, when Henry Kissinger made a secret trip to Beijing to prepare President Nixon's visit to China in February 1972, he stayed five days in China and had a series of 10 crucial meetings with Zhou Enlai, the Chinese premier. The transcripts of these talks, which were recently 'declassified' by the US administration, are mind-opening, particularly in the above context. Here are some of Kissinger's remarks to Zhou Enlai: "I read the book by Maxwell that the prime minister recommended to me last time, and it is our view, certainly at the White House, that the Indians are applying the same tactics to that situation as they did to you." Kissinger refers to Maxwell's book India's China War, which shows India as an aggressive nation that bullied China during the 1962 war. Later in the discussion, the Chinese premier comes back to Maxwell's book: "We [the Chinese] understand best the traditions of India. After having read the book of Maxwell you also believe it [that bullying others] is the traditional policy of India." It is amazing that Maxwell, thanks to the Government of India's propensity for secrecy, is the only person who has managed to see the Henderson Brooks report. Maxwell stated himself in the Economic & Political Weekly in 2001: "The report includes no surprises and its publication would be of little significance, but for the fact that so many in India still cling to the soothing fantasy of a 1962 Chinese 'aggression'." Yes, the theory put forward by the Chinese and Maxwell is that the war was only due to Nehru's aggressive policy and China had no other choice but to launch a 'pre-emptive attack' on October 20 on the slopes of Tagla ridge. Not only did India lose the Aksai Chin and other territories in Kashmir in the 1950s, but India became the bully, the 'expansionist' nation. One can only be sad that 40 years after the event, the Government of India is still adding water to the Chinese half-baked history mill by continuing to hide what is most probably a quite insignificant report. The burial of the Henderson Brooks report, however, raises several other questions. When one reads Indian newspapers, one gets the impression that the people of India (or at least the journalists of India) are greatly interested in history. For the past few years, not a day has passed without one comment or another on the history textbooks that have been revised by the NCERT; or the HRD minister who is supposedly spending his time 'rewriting' Indian history, or adding colour to historical facts. But tell me, what is wrong in 'rewriting' history books when it is necessary? The great son of India, Gautama Buddha, once told his disciples: 'As the wise test gold by burning, cutting and rubbing it on a piece of touchstone, so are you to accept my words only after examining them and not merely out of regard for me." As long as there is new information, new inputs or documents, history needs to be researched and researched again, in the Buddha's fashion. Is it not in the interest of a nation to know her past? The great misfortune in the case of the 1962 war is that there is no will from the government's side to give the means to those inclined to do this research to obtain a truer picture of the past. Personally, I faced a similar problem when I tried to research my two pet subjects: Tibet and Kashmir. Going through the painful exercise of trying to access some documents at the time of the Chinese invasion of Tibet (1950) was a nightmare. At the National Archives of India, I was told that all documents for the NEFA area (which included Tibet and Bhutan) were 'classified' after 1913 and nobody could access them. For 'Gilgit area' [read Kashmir], the date is 1923. This colonial terminology gives an indication of the backwardness of the historical studies in India. Have not the British left India 55 years ago? What about the famous 'Nehru's Papers'? They are kept in the Nehru Library by a private trust, chaired by the leader of the opposition, and you have to obtain her consent to see them. In any case, you cannot see them, as they are 'restricted'. Only 'official' historians are able to study them. The very helpful staff can only tell you: "Sorry, sir, this is the rule." India must be the only nation where the prime minister's official papers belong to his family and not the state! In my case it was even more stupid because most of the political files regarding Tibet from 1914 till as late as 1952-53 were freely available for researchers in the India Office Library and Records in London. The moral of the story: go to London to study Indian history. Different reasons are given as to why historical documents should not be 'declassified'. The most current and irrelevant argument is that these old documents are of a 'sensitive' nature and their circulation may jeopardize India's security. I believe that some years ago, a 'group of secretaries', the most dreaded order of the babu species, stopped the publication of the report of the 1965 war because: "it gave information about certain aspects of command and control." Luckily, a Good Samaritan managed to get hold of a copy and post it on an Internet site. But something is even more incongruous. While the Government of India is holding the Henderson Brooks report close to its chest, a very historic international conference was held in Cuba recently. Many will remember that the week the Chinese troops entered in the Northeast and in Ladakh, humanity was coming very close to its first nuclear war. This was the Cold War's climax: the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union in Cuba over the installation of ballistic missiles targeting American cities threatened to degenerate into World War III. To commemorate the stupendous events of the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban government, with the National Security Archive of George Washington University, organized a conference titled "The October Crisis: Political Perspectives 40 Years Later". Some of the veterans who participated in those historic days were invited to discuss the conflict between Khrushchev and Kennedy. During the last session of the conference, the participants, including Cuban president Fidel Castro and former US secretary of defence Robert McNamara discussed some newly declassified documents. The documents show that the Soviet nuclear-armed tactical weapons in Cuba stayed there after the missiles were withdrawn, and may even have been intended for Cuban custody. "Documents released today included verbatim Soviet records of the contentious meetings between top Soviet leader Anastas Mikoyan and top Cuban leaders, including Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, during Mikoyan's trip to Cuba in early November; Soviet orders first preparing the tactical weapons for training the Cubans and then, on November 20, ordering their withdrawal; and a prophetic summary of the crisis written by the British ambassador to Cuba, who predicted that the crisis could ultimately rebound to the benefit of the Castro regime and the long-term survival of Communism in Cuba," said a press release. Some may think that Cuba is a totalitarian banana republic, but Fidel Castro did organise the conference and participate in it. We cannot dream of such a debate in India today. Why? I have no answer. We have in Delhi many universities, policy centres, think-tanks, a host of retired 'thinking' generals (as if the serving generals are not able to think). Why can't any of them take up the challenge and open a debate on what really happened in 1962? Many fields of research have remained untouched. To give a few examples: When was Aksai Chin really occupied? Why did the government react so late? The relation between the 1959 uprising in Lhasa and the 1962 war (one very symptomatic fact is that the Chinese followed the same route as the Dalai Lama took when he escaped to India in 1959) as well as the Panchen Lama's petition against the party in 1962; The importance of the split between Moscow and Beijing, which came into the open in October 1962; and Moscow's sudden change of stance vis-�-vis India in the midst of the conflict; The relation between the Cuban crisis and the 1962 Indo-China war; When did China prepare the 1962 operations and what were her real motivations; The internal political factors in China and Mao Zedong's own motivations (he was facing strong opposition from within the Communist Party after his disastrous Great Leap Forward and was sidelined); The reasons for the sudden unilateral withdrawal by the Chinese; The role of the Indian Communists during the war; The non-intervention of President Ayub Khan. The recently 'declassified' documents available in the Russian, Cuban, and East European archives, as well as the already available materials collected by organizations such as the National Security Archives or the Cold War International History Project of the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington, DC, could certainly be of great help. But is India interested? This seems to be the main problem. If the media and the public had made the same amount of noise for the Henderson Brooks report and other archival materials to be released as they have done for the so-called 'rewritten' textbooks, we would have had a truer picture of 1962 war history today. No harm in hoping! (Claude Arpi, author of The Fate Of Tibet (HarAnand), which has also been translated into French, writes regularly for rediff.com)

source:rediff.com

The Rediff Special/Dr Michael E Marti "We are getting out of touch with realities in a modern world; we are living in our own creation and we have been shaken out of it." These words spoken by Nehru in 1962 expressed his shock and disbelief at the Chinese invasion of India's northeastern border. Yet, on the 40th anniversary of the border clash, these words seem more prophetic than descriptive. India is still smarting from the humiliation of its defeat. After more than a generation, public opinion, fanned by its leadership, still feels a need to reclaim its honour, its lost territory. For India, the issue has not been resolved as a matter of fact or policy. But what India failed to recognize at the time and has yet to come to terms with is that 1962 was more than a territorial dispute; it signalled the beginning of a war for dominance in Asia. Like many of the colonial states that gained their independence in the 20th century, China did not accept the "artificial" boundaries imposed by the Western imperialists, which in the case of India was the British Raj. With independence in 1949, China initiated territorial negotiations with all of its neighbours, and in south Asia this included Pakistan, Nepal, Burma, and India. Its purpose was not only to establish defensible orders, but to reclaim the "lost territories" of the empire. India had not taken China seriously. Nehru could not believe that one fellow Socialist would attack another; and in any event, he felt secure behind the impregnable wall of ice that is the Himalayas. Both proved to be tragic miscalculations of China's determination and military capabilities. Nehru tried to engage China in a prolonged strategy of diplomatic foot-dragging, while on the ground Indian troops moved to outflank Chinese positions. Frustrated by India's duplicity, China took direct action. China's aggression was encouraged by its perception of India as a "weak" target. After all, Nehru had taken no action in 1951 when China invaded and occupied Tibet, eliminating the traditional buffer between the two; and, except to grant asylum to the Dalai Lama, he, again, did nothing in 1959, when China ruthlessly put down the uprising in Tibet. Then there was Nehru's doctrine of Panchshila (Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence). The basis of the 1954 Sino-Indian treaty over Tibet, it was taken by the Chinese as a statement of Indian pacifism. As conceived by Nehru, Panchshila was based upon mutual respect among nations, peaceful coexistence, and non-interference in the internal affairs of others. He had offered it to the Afro-Asian Solidarity Movement and Non-Aligned Movement at the Bandung Conference in 1955 as the guiding philosophy for an emerging Third World power bloc, an alternative to Moscow and Washington. It was also at this conference that Nehru introduced the newly independent Chinese leaders to the world. He assumed that as former colonies they shared a sense of solidarity, as expressed in the phrase 'Hindi-Chini bhai bhai' (Indians and Chinese are brothers). But much to China's chagrin, Nehru and India, as heir apparent to the British Empire in Asia, assumed the mantle of leadership of the movement. Mao was infuriated. His sense of cultural superiority and unquestioned revolutionary credentials dictated that China was the rightful leader. This made the subsequent border issue more than territorial; it was an opportunity to assert China's pre-eminence as an Asian power and to humiliate India. Unfortunately, Nehru never understood this aspect of the equation. He was dedicated to the ideals of brotherhood and solidarity among Third World nations, while China was dedicated to a vision of itself as the hegemon of Asia. In the intervening years, China has taken every opportunity to contain India. It supports Pakistan economically and militarily. Not only has India fought three wars with Pakistan since Partition, it also maintains one million men in arms on the border. All of which drains India's resources, politically and economically. China has also encroached on India's traditional spheres of influence in Nepal, Bhutan, and Burma, by establishing trade and military relations; and China has increased its presence in the Indian Ocean with bases in Burma and Pakistan, challenging India in its own backyard. Philosophically, economically, and politically, China has outpaced India because it has remained true to its goal of becoming a rich and powerful nation. It has been willing to sacrifice ideology and put aside or find a temporary fix to any problem that could interfere with that goal. China has scrapped communist ideology and socialist economics in favour of nationalism and capitalism. It has put the issues of Taiwan and the South China Sea islands on the back burner, despite its hardline rhetoric. And it has been opportunistic about its alliances, siding with either Moscow or Washington as necessity dictated. All of which has been done in the name of economic development. Ironically, China has even co-opted Nehru's Panchshila and resurrected the spirit of Bandung as the basis for its new world order in Asia. The Five Principles, however, are now based on multi-lateralism, mutual co-operation, economic development, and security. This time the goal is to replace the bilateral alliances of the Cold War era with multilateral arrangements based on economic and security co-operation. China is creating a new power bloc with itself as the head and India as the odd man out. India, on the other hand, has been "living in its own creation", a state defined by internal turmoil, external threats, and a stagnating economy. It has been unable or unwilling to make the hard choices that have characterized China's ascendancy. It cannot find a way to either put off or come to terms with Pakistan. It has been unable to make a significant shift away from its socialist economy, despite various attempts since 1991. And even in the case of its border dispute with China, which has offered to exchange territory to settle the issue, India remains frozen in time, unable to accept anything that does not redeem its honour. Of course, as a democracy, India must answer to the will of the people. But responsible leadership shapes, moulds, and educates public opinion to forge a consensus on national priorities. It does not pander to nationalist or communal emotionalism for its own benefit. The border war of 1962 was more than a loss of territory for India. It marked the beginning of an undeclared war for pre-eminence in Asia; and India is losing. Asia, and the West, needs a strong and democratic India to be the alternative to an authoritarian, expansionist China. But to fulfil that role, India must "get in touch with the realities in a modern world and shake itself out of the world of its own creation". (Dr Marti, author of China and the Legacy of Deng Xiaoping (Brassey's, Washington, DC, 2002), is a historian specializing in Chinese national security and foreign policy. He was a senior fellow at the Centre for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs, Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defence University, and an assistant country director for China, Taiwan, and Mongolia in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defence for International Security Affairs/Asian and Pacific. Dr Marti has a PhD in Chinese history from George Washington University and is a graduate of the National War College. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not represent the views of the Department of Defence or the United States Government.)

http://m.rediff.com/news/indochin.htm

Gold Prices in US$ per tray ounce 01-3147

Char Dham adjudged ‘Most Innovative and Unique Tourism Project’ by Ministry of Tourism

SIKKIM ALSO BAGS ‘BEST STATE AWARD FOR COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM’ AND ‘BEST STATE AWARD IN CAMPAIGN CLEAN INDIA’
GANGTOK, 29 Feb [IPR]: Sikkim has bagged the Most Innovative and Unique Tourism Project Award 2010-11 for the vision and construction of world class Pilgrimage cum Cultural Tourism Complex (Siddesvara Dham) at Solophok, Namchi in South Sikkim. The award was presented by the President of India, Pratibha Devi Singh Patil, to Chief Minister Pawan Chamling at a befitting function organized at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi, today.
Sikkim also bagged the Best State Award for Comprehensive Development of Tourism 2010-11 for the initiative taken by the State government in the development of tourism infrastructure and for the overall development of tourism in the state.
Further, Sikkim also bagged the Best State in Campaign Clean India 2010-11 award for the state government’s initiatives in maintaining a clean and green Sikkim, efficient garbage management and disposal, health and hygiene, green mission and maintaining the environment and biodiversity of the state. The Ministry of Tourism, Government of India has launched the Campaign Clean India and Sikkim was declared the Best State for its efforts in keeping its tourist destination neat and clean and for the overall cleanliness of the state.
It may be mentioned that the National Tourism Awards are sponsored by the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India.( Source:Sikkimnow)

Source: Ace Equity

Chart: Fed Funds rate (%)

Source: Bloomberg

Is the 1970s Gold Run back?
3rd March 2012

We often create stories to make sense of what is going on around us and look at history to find reasoning that provides the substance to base our thesis on. In doing so,we often find historical events, which seem close proximations and follow them as a guide, unless proved wrong by the recent unfolding. And in financial markets,ths process could be really painful.

In gold markets, we're also comparing the current bull run to that of 1970 s expecting the same result. But there is a cautionary remark - as gold hits set a new peak at $1920/oune- is gold poised for a similar tumble, the way it did in the 80s-tumbled after peaking at $850/ ounce. This has become a thesis and market experts would battle against any view as it threatens their sense of meaning. They tend to ignore the subtle difference that underlies the current movements. They believe that history repeats itself and the recent patterns will mimise its historical past in terms of duration as well as price magnitude.

By the logic, let's see where we are in the current bull run as compared to that of 70s.

Chart: 1970s and today (gold price comparison) (in $/ troy ounce)

*Rebased to 100
Source: Bloomberg

The 70s bull run began in 1971 when U.S president Rrichard Nixon shut the gold window; ending the direct convertibility of U.S dollar to gold at $35 an ounce.In effect, he took the whole world off the vestiges of the gold standard, which completed a duration of 9 years till gold price peaked in 1980.

The current run, starting in 1999 when prices bottoned totals a dupation of 12 years, Surpassing the earlier bull run. Does this make irrelevant? No! Looking at price history, however, it seems the rally started in 1971.

The bull market probably began before than that-perhaps even before 1961-when buying pressure was suchthat the London Gold pool was introduced to stabilise the gold prices. However ther were no visible gain as the official gold price remained at $35 an ounce,even with the on going dollar printing. So from a duration perspective,ther is no logical comparison.

Let's get the price magnitude in the picture. Gold began at $35 an ounce in 1970's. By the time it reached $ 850 level, it had gone up almost 25 times. Gold began the current bull market at $250 an ounce. A 25-fold increase will give us a target of $6250. It suggests a three - fold increase, from the high set in 2011. Then how do people suggest that gold has peaked based on historical comparisons?

No one can predict prices based on such parameters because the markets, economies and policy making at the broad level are very different during both the periods to even attempt such baseless comparisons, studying what has hppened in the past does not tell what will happen in future, but it helps set our expectations as to what is possible and reasonable. It also prevents us from being surprised when markets dont do the obvious. It is better to learn from the past, and one should not overlook, while appreciating the similarities, the subtle differences among the different time periods.

source: equitymaster.com

Dhaka 'keen' on Sikkim power projects Thu, Mar 1st, 2012 12:29 pm BdST

New Delhi, Mar 1 (bdnews24.com)—Bangladesh is keen to take part in power projects in northeastern Indian states of Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura, Mizoram and Sikkim, its envoy has said. Tariq A Karim, Bangladesh's high commissioner to India, on Thursday said that Dhaka and New Delhi were exploring ways to boost cooperation in the power sector. He said that Bangladesh was eager to take part in hydro-electric projects in Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim as well as gas-based thermal power projects in Tripura.

Ground-and-air war games, China in mind

bySUJAN DUTTA Source: The Telegraph

A soldier participates in the India-Indonesia military exercise Garuda Shakti now on in Vairangte, Mizoram. This exercise is unrelated to that being conducted by the army and air force across the eastern and northeastern states New Delhi, March 1: The air force and the army are conducting an exercise across the eastern and northeastern states to test defences and special operations in the event of hostilities with China. This is the largest exercise of its kind. “This time we are focused on the Brahmaputra Valley, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram to exercise our entire capabilities in all roles in conjunction with the army to disrupt enemy intrusion and take the battle to the adversary,” Air Marshal M. Matheswaran, senior air staff officer of the Shillong-headquartered Eastern Air Command, told The Telegraph. Codenamed “Pralay”, the exercise was designed by the Calcutta-headquartered Eastern Army Commander, Lt General Bikram Singh, and the Eastern Air Commander, Air Marshal S. Varthaman. The exercise area is spread over the eight northeastern states and Bengal but action is mostly concentrated along the Brahmaputra Valley and Arunachal. The air force has also deployed its assets from other commands to the east and northeast for the exercise, which is expected to conclude on March 3. “Pralay” began on February 29 but the mobilisation for it started on February 20. More than 70 aircraft — including the airborne warning and control system (AWACS) planes, Sukhoi 30MKi, MiG-29, MiG-27 and Mirage 2000 combat planes — have been deployed. This is the first time that the Israeli Phalcon AWACS are being tested in a simulated combat environment on such a scale. AWACS are designed to detect, acquire and designate targets for other fighter aircraft. Mid-air refuellers have also been deployed to practise long-range strike missions. “Drills that will help us validate joint operational directives in the valleys and the hills are being emphasised,” Matheswaran said. The air force spokesperson, Wing Commander Gerard Galway, said the eastern command holds an annual exercise. But the deployment of assets from the western and central air commands to the east shows that the scale this time is much larger. The war-gamed scenario is of a short but intense conflict. Matheswaran said the AFNET — the air force’s own optic-fibre cable grid — was being used for voice, data and visual communication. “This exercise is bringing out the net-centric capabilities that we are developing,” he said. The exercise would culminate by concentrating on a few unspecified areas in Assam and Arunachal. The army’s 33, 3 and 4 Corps, headquartered in Sukna (north Bengal), Tezpur (Assam) and Rangapahar (Nagaland), are in the loop for the exercise. The 33 and 4 Corps have dual responsibilities for counter-insurgency and the China front. In an unrelated exercise, platoons of the Indonesian and Indian armies are practising at the Counter-Insurgency and Jungle Warfare School in Vairante, Mizoram. “Exercise Garuda Shakti” is the first joint platoon-level training programme for the two armies. In an outdoor drill named “Chakravyuh”, the platoons practised busting an insurgent hideout in Mizoram’s Lushai Hills early on Thursday after a nightlong march. “They are very sincere, devoted, well-prepared and eager to learn,” the school’s commandant, Major General A.K. Sen, said of the Indonesian troops as they “slithered” from the Indian Air Force’s Mi-17 helicopters, flown from the Kumbhirgram airbase in Silchar, Assam. The training and attack drills were coordinated in two mixed platoons (of around 30 soldiers each) of Kostrad (the Indonesian army’s strategic reserve command) and Indian infantry troops. The exercise ends tomorrow. China talks India and China today agreed to soon start a maritime cooperation dialogue to prevent incidents between their growing naval forces. The suggestion had come from the Chinese. S.M. Krishna and Yang Jiechi met today for the first foreign minister-level annual dialogue, their discussions focusing on confidence-building measures and strengthening the Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) forum. In another first, the Chinese embassy here issued a detailed statement on Yang’s meetings with Krishna, Vice-President Hamid Ansari and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The Chinese mission generally avoids engaging with much of the Indian media, which Beijing believes to be biased against China. However, it would seem Beijing has eventually recognised the importance of the media in shaping public perceptions of India-China ties. Foreign ministry spokesperson Syed Akbaruddin today said China had agreed to allow Zee TV to broadcast in China.

ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY ARCHIS MOHAN

The Chinese army is not unpredictable like the Pakistani army

Source: Rediff.com

By Col John Taylor ( Retd)

1962 will not be allowed to happen again.
Take the word of an old war veteran for it, says Colonel John Taylor (retd), even as there is talk that China may strike at India this year and try to grab some territory.
The visit to India by China's special representative on the boundary negotiations, State Councilor Dai Bingguo, in January raised a lot of hope and expectations on both sides; as he has made a strong call for both countries to put aside their differences and seize 'a golden period to grow China-India relations.'
If the two Asian giants are able to solve their differences, it will indeed change the economical, political and military scenario in the entire South East.
However the sincerity of the present Chinese regime remains questionable .The 'Principles of Panchsheel' that had been burning bright in the 1950s, got doused in the 1960s and from time to time are rekindled occasionally.
Though China is once again concentrating on rebuilding her armed forces (befitting of a superpower), yet she realises that India is a regional economic power to reckon with and that its armed forces are no 'pushovers'.
During my 30 years of service, I have come face to face with the Chinese army on four different occasions.
Firstly, in Ladakh (1970-1971), in the Partapur Sector, which houses the Siachen Glacier and the Karakoram Pass. Secondly in NEFA, Arunachal Pradesh (1973-1974). The third time, as a battalion commander in Sikkim (1980-1981), holding positions astride the Younghusband route, and for the fourth time as deputy commander of a brigade in Katau, North Sikkim (1988-1991).

While walking to Chungtash, we had to cross the river Shyok 63 times!

article

In recent times, a number of reports have appeared in the media about 'Chinese intrusions' into Indian territory. Many may not believe this, but these so-called intrusions have been going on since a very long time! By personal experience, I first saw it in 1970!
I was posted in Chungtash (meaning 'Big Stone' in Yarkandi) which lies below the Karakoram Pass and connects Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) with Leh. It is an ancient route used by traders from Yarkand and Tashkand, who traded gold for Indian silk and spices.
Daulat Beg was a very wealthy merchant whose grave still exists and lies in DBO (means the place where Daulat Beg was buried). As one treks from Panamik (famous for its hot Sulphur springs) towards Chungtash, one has to traverse through a valley flanked on either sides by large mountains.
The River Shyok meanders along on its journey to join the river Indus and on into Pakistan. While walking to Chungtash, we had to cross the river Shyok 63 times (during our march of 23 full days)!! The waters are ice cold and if adequate precautions are not taken, frost bite is an immediate reality.
After climbing and gaining altitude, suddenly we arrived onto a vast flat plain -- a complete contrast to the steep mountains we had been negotiating the past so many days! The flat terrain extended to as far as our eyes could see.
There were no landmarks whatsoever. Its vastness was however interspersed at regular intervals with remains of camels, yaks and other beasts used by traders' caravans.
There was no need to do any map reading now. We just followed the piles of animal skeletons and we knew that we were on the correct route.

n abandoned IAF helicopter was a grim reminder of the 1962 war

In this same area we also saw a lone, abandoned IAF helicopter which was a grim reminder of the 1962 war. Today India has built an 'advanced landing ground' in this location.
It was here that I saw the famous Kasturi Mrig(musk deer) for the very first time. Unlike the border with Pakistan, there are no boundary pillars to mark the International Border between India and Tibet (now China).
As our patrol approached it, the musk deer trotted away to the Chinese side (just outside of our rifle range), turned around and looked at us as if to say, 'Catch me if you can!'
It would immediately change loyalties when a Chinese patrol would appear and run towards our Indian side and play safe! It was also here that I first saw a Chinese soldier.
As a young officer with just about six years of service, I was provided with a detailed map on which the boundary had been marked along with Chinese troop deployments (there were just a few). The map did not have just one boundary. It had many:
a. The McMohan Line (prepared by and named after the first British Surveyor General of India).
b. The Tibetan Boundary (as per documents left by the British army).
c.The 1962 Indo-Chinese Dispute Line.
d.The Indian Claim Line.
e.The Chinese Claim Line
In all fairness to the Chinese army, they came till only the areas they claimed as theirs. The Chinese army is not unpredictable like the Pakistani army. There are no 'ceasefire violations'. That doesn't help matters because the Indian Army has to protect its borders in the interest of the country.

'Even God has been kind to the Chinese. Their part of the terrain is less hostile'

In Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan has already gifted vast areas to China. This has enabled China to build roads, airfields and allied infrastructure. China can maintain its troops by road.
Even God has been kind to them. Their part of the terrain is less hostile and more conducive to construction of infrastructure.
The terrain on our side of Tibet is more treacherous, difficult to negotiate and the weather is very hostile. This obviously gives rise to many disadvantages.
In many areas of Ladakh, our troops are still maintained by air and it is not possible to build the required infrastructures. Bad weather can disrupt the best of plans. Sometimes one feels that the weather is the bigger villain than the enemy!
In NEFA (Arunachal Pradesh) the Chinese claim that their territory is till Tawang. In 1962 they marched till Bomdilla and went back. We have very well fortified defences here and a well rehearsed withdrawal plan which ensures the enemy will be given a bloody nose.
The Chinese only keep making noises and patrol the area (sometimes into remote parts of Indian territory), but return on seeing the Indian Army's presence. A lot of flag meetings at the highest levels take place here.

'There were repeated requests for the Bappi Lahiri hit, Jimmy Jimmy, Aaja Aaja, Aaja!'

In Sikkim there are many positions where we are in close proximity to the Chinese troops. Nathu La is one such place. Tourists come here to witness the weekly exchange of 'Dak'. Traders also go across and a fair amount of trading is done via this route.
Chinese soldiers love Indian cigarettes. Whenever the 'political commissar' was not present or not looking, the Chinese soldiers would ask for cigarettes. In the 1970s and 1980s the Panama brand of cigarettes was an all time favourite.
They also enjoyed listening to Indian film songs (which were played over the loud speaker) and there were repeated requests for the famous Bappi Lahiri hit, Jimmy Jimmy, Aaja Aaja, Aaja!
Positions are well demarcated in Sikkim, and there is no chance of any major or minor intrusion. Tibetans seeking asylum are not uncommon. At one stage, China used to claim the whole of Sikkim as theirs.
After many rounds of talks and concessions made on both sides, matters were settled and they no longer make such claims.
Talking about intrusions, I will recount a rather embarrassing Indian intrusion in Sikkim, sometime in the early 1980s which made headlines in the media. Both India and China would patrol the border on their respective sides. This was nick named as 'Billi (cat) Patrol.'
Each patrol would walk along the well demarcated border, fully armed and in full strength (20 to 30 soldiers).
The weather in this part of Sikkim has a strange, almost weird pattern. The skies are clear at night. Later a misty fog comes creeping up from the base of the mountains, shrouding visibility to such an extent that by morning you cannot see beyond 5 to 10 yards.
On very few occasions do we have clear weather during the daytime. As soon as noon approaches, from 12:00 pm till 04:00 pm as per a daily schedule, it begins to thunder and flashes of lightning light up the skies in jagged patterns. The noise is frightening.
Nobody moves out at this time. Lightning has claimed many a life, both human and animals. Sometimes the mist and fog persists for days!

The Indian soldiers had taken a wrong turn and landed in Chinese territory!

On one such occasion an Indian Army patrol was out on a routine patrol and found the going tough because of the fog. When the fog lifted after a few days, they realised they were lost, and asked for help over the radio.
They followed the instructions, "Continue for 3 kms till you reach a lake. Follow the track down for another 2 kms till you come to a school building. Spend the night there and vehicles will pick you up by 08:00 am."
The very relieved patrol followed the instructions. They came to the lake, found the school. It was late at night, totally exhausted, they fell asleep.
Early in the morning, they were rudely awakened. They were surrounded by Chinese soldiers! While negotiating the fog they had taken some wrong turn and had landed in Chinese territory!
The terrain is very similar on both sides. The yak herdsmen are also similar. After hectic diplomatic negotiations our soldiers were returned.
Intrusions can sometimes be by accident, and sometimes deliberate!

1962 will not be allowed to happen again

Print this
article

More

It is heartening to hear that on January 17, 2012, India and China have agreed to set up a working mechanism to deal with important border issues to ensure peace along their borders.
Today the electronic and print media are proactive and are always 'Breaking News'. There are a lot of implications and complications when they report and talk about border intrusion.
Whipping up emotions doesn't help. Escalating the situation helps neither side.
The Indian Army swears by the doctrine, 'Not an inch of Indian soil will be given to the enemy'. The Indian Army knows its job and how to do it.
All it needs is an order -- and nobody, just nobody will get away with even the slightest intrusion.
The latest acquisition of sophisticated aircraft and other military hardware will also go a long way in keeping any enemy at bay, both physically and psychologically.
Always remember, that the Indian Army has a glorious tradition of bravery and valour, even when the chips are stacked against it. It will not allow any neighbour to change that. We are well prepared and ready.
1962 will not be allowed to happen again. Take the word of an old war veteran for it.

Colonel John Taylor (retd) fought in the 1965 India-Pakistan War and the 1971 India-Pakistan War. He was part of the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka in the late 1980s. He served the Indian Army for 30 years.

Data source: Rediff.com *As of December 2011

Truck rentals up 2.5-3% in Feb: IFTRT

source: The Hindubusinessline   

Share

?

New Delhi, March 2: 

The open market truck rentals in February went up by 2.5-3 per cent against January on the back of higher cargo flow from manufacturing sector and arrival of fresh vegetables and fruits. 

New 2G spectrum auction 

Thomas K. Thomas

   

Share

1

A river sutra, without links

by Bharat Dogra

source: The Hindu   

Share

1

There are less disruptive and cheaper alternatives than connecting rivers to reduce the misery of floods and droughts.

On February 27 while giving the go-ahead to the controversial project of inter-linking of rivers, the Supreme Court specifically mentioned the benefits — flood control and drought moderation As plans for inter-basin transfers of water across vast distances, from surplus to deficit areas, appear to have got a lot of attraction for a country exposed all too often to droughts and floods, these need to be seriously evaluated and debated. As such while large-scale transfers of water can be expensive, we should also explore whether there are cheaper and better alternatives.

The idea of inter-basin transfers is based on the assumption that certain surplus (flood-prone) and deficit (drought-prone) areas exist so that water is readily available without any objection to transfer from the former to the latter. But in practice, people in so-called surplus areas do not agree that they have spare water which can be transferred to other, faraway areas.

At a time when there are problems relating to the sharing of waters, transfer of water across distant areas can easily aggravate these tensions. This should be avoided.

Issue of climate change

Any neat division between “deficit” and “surplus” areas becomes more of a problem in these times of climate change when erratic weather patterns are more frequently seen. Some time ago we had a curious situation when arid, deficit parts of western India (including Rajasthan) had excess rain and experienced floods while flood-prone parts of eastern India (including Assam) had drought-like conditions. If billions had already been spent to create an infra-structure from transferring surplus water from east to west, just imagine what a difficult situation would have arisen at the time of such erratic weather.

So the basic conditions of problem-free transfer of water from the country's “surplus” to “deficit” areas simply do not exist. The tensions are likely to be much greater when inter-basin transfers also involve neighbouring countries, a reality that cannot be avoided in the existing geography of national-level links as many rivers pass through other countries. As soon as the grand looking river-linking plans are transferred from paper to reality, we enter the real world of shifting rivers bringing enormous siltloads, landslides, hills, plateaus, seismic belts, gorges, ravines, bends and curves which make the task of large-scale transfer of water difficult, enormously expensive, energy-intensive and hazardous. If rivers had been created by engineers and not by nature, they would have flowed along predictable straight paths to suit our needs. But rivers do not generally like to abide by the wishes and commands of engineers. Even when the might of modern technology forces them to do so, they sometimes seek revenge in very destructive ways — breaking free and causing floods.

Of course no one has had the time and inclination to explore how the bio-diversity flourishing in a particular river system will react when it is linked to another river. But the problems faced by the vast majority who are adversely affected by dams and displacements of this gigantic river-linking project have to be faced surely and squarely.

This brings us to the question of whether safer, less disruptive and cheaper alternatives are available for reducing the distress of floods and droughts. Evidence suggests that even villages which experience very low rainfall, as in the desert areas of Rajasthan, have evolved a range of local methods of water conservation and collection which, if followed up carefully, take them towards water self-sufficiency to a large extent. It is true that in modern times there is pressure leading to the breakdown or inadequacy of some of these self-reliant systems. Nevertheless it can be said that a combination of traditional water-collection/conservation practices and other drought-proofing methods — which also use modern technology — still provides the best available answer (also the cheapest one) to water scarcity in drought-prone areas.

In the case of flood-prone areas we should not ignore the resilience of local communities where people learnt from early childhood how to cope with rising rivers. Their ability has been adversely affected by increasing drainage obstruction created by thoughtless “development” works because of which floods sometimes become more fierce, creating prolonged water logging. So what people really need is a good drainage plan — so that flood water clears quickly — combined with a package of livelihood, health, education and other support suited to the needs of flood-prone areas and communities. This will work out much cheaper and more effective than all the dams, diversions and embankments put together. So the question of what people of drought-prone areas and flood-prone areas really need should be taken in consultation with them. Do they want huge water diversions and transfers with all their dams and displacements, or do they prefer more funds for trusted, small-scale local solutions?

(The writer is a freelance journalist writing on development issues.)