Ayan talagang katibayan nanadya na talaga CHINA ,,, ultimo super power na India tinatalo ....
nagtayo na ng mga baracks sa border at teritoryo na ng India .....
April 30, 2013
Chaitra Krushnapaksha 5, Kaliyug Varsha 5115
Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid’s upcoming visit to China on May 9, has come under criticism as China has pitched one more tent near the face-off site in Depsang Valley, taking to five the number of such structures erected after the incursion on April 15 and denting the Government’s assessment that the standoff was a localised affair and would be resolved soon.
In fact, post prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s statement over the issue, External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid too claimed that the tension will likely have been resolved even before he leaves for Beijing to prepare for Chinese Premier Li Keqiang’s upcoming visit to India. Hope, as has been famously said, isn’t a strategy, and the Indian leaders’ pronouncements only highlights the sense that they are in public denial or skirting the issue.
According to media reports, however, in the latest incursion, the Chinese troops have put up five tents so far, which suggests that they – and the military leadership under whose orders the troops on the ground are acting – are not making any effort to resolve the issue but are actively escalating it.
These media reports also inform that the Chinese troops are also waving banners establishing Chinese territorial rights to the area. “You are in (the) Chinese side,” proclaim these banners, which are evidently directed at the Indian troops that have set up camp nearby to keep watch on the Chinese soldiers.
The Indian Government’s response to the crisis so far has been one of restraint in the face of public dares from the Opposition to stand up for India’s territorial integrity. On Monday, Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav, who served as Defence Minister, called the UPA Government an assortment of colourful names to draw attention to its placidity in the face of the grave Chinese provocation. His characterisation of China – not Pakistan – as India’s real enemy may have been overly simplistic, and made with political calculations in mind.
And yet the perception that the UPA Government has been less than robust in protecting national interests, and not just vis-a-vis China, is of course more widely shared.
Evidently, the Indian Army has provided the political leadership with a range of options that are open to it if the Chinese don’t leave the site anytime soon. Presumably these options would involve cutting off the supply lines to these troops, which would put a cap on the number of days they can hold out here. More extreme options – of forcibly evicting the 30-or-so Chinese troops – would also have been considered, perhaps as part of a scenario-building exercise to draw up contingency plans. But that would truly be the option of the last resort, given the very real risk of a heightened conflict that it comes with.
In fact, there is a very little percentage for the Indian side in being drawn by the nose into a border conflict with a much stronger China. After all, it was an adventurist ‘forward policy’ that Jawharlal Nehru embraced that led to the 1962 war. At that time too, Nehru was at the receiving end in Parliament by the Opposition for his Government’s naive “bhai-bhai” approach to China despite ample evidence that that brotherly sentiment was not reciprocated. And although both countries have come a long way away from 1962, the irony of today’s situation is that it is the Chinese troops that are testing Indian resolve with their own unstated “forward policy’.
But having considered all of the options that the Army put on the table, the political leadership appears to have opted to go out of its way to signal to the Chinese that they are keen to avoid an escalation in the level of tension. Key interlocutors, including national security advisor Shivshankar Menon, who knows a thing or two about dealing with the Chinese and has invested much effort in building up goodwill in Beijing, are also counselling restraint.
According to the Times of India’s report, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops numbering over 30 have also been spotted using one light Humvee-like four-wheel vehicle, one six-wheel troop carrying vehicle and one heavy eight-wheel truck between the face-off site with Indian troops and their tents 500 metres to the east. They also have two sniffer-guard dogs suitable for the 16,300-feet altitude.
Although the Chinese troops have not engaged in offensive manoeuvres so far, but their staying put questions the assessment of the PMO and the MEA that the intrusion was a localised affair: result of overzealousness on the part of a local commander. If that was indeed the case, the springing of a new tent showed that the Chinese leadership was yet to rein in a rogue commander in the Chinese ranks.
In fact, an Indian official was quoted as saying, “We are restricting our troops from Ladakh Scouts and ITBP to just about 50 to 60 at the site to prevent any escalation. If they increase their force-levels, we will have to do the same,”.
The Indian government has been trying hard to play it down the issue as a ‘localised problem” — without any larger politico-strategic message – which had erupted due to a differing perception of where exactly the Line of Actual Control lies.
Perhaps this incursion was intended by the new Chinese leadership to signal Chinese frustration at the lack of progress in the talks on the border dispute despite years of negotiations. If that is the case, then it reflects raw power, not wisdom, and this actually makes it harder for the Indian Government to make any concession, even if it is on a reciprocal basis.
Meanwhile in Ladakh, in order to resolve the issue of incursion by Chinese troops into Indian territory, India and China on Tuesday held their third flag meeting in Chushul but the stand-off between the two sides continues as no major breakthrough was achieved in the meet.
http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/161...territory.html
