In the past few weeks the future of Sino- Indian relations have been subject of intense debate and heightened speculation. First came the partial ban of Chinese telecom hardware in India and then came reports of Chinese incursions in disputed territories in Ladakh. So what does future hold for these two Asian giants? Is there a real possibility of a second India- China conflict as both scramble for captive resources across the globe to feed their burgeoning economies? Or will future bring increased synergies between the two countries held by a common interest; markets.
Strategic Challenges and historical baggage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past few decades China has undergone rapid militarization and continues to increase fiscal spending on defense which is expected to touch 14.9 % in 2009. Understandably, this has the Indians psyched out. And along with rise of China’s defense spending its sphere of influence has been on the rise in Nepal, Myanmar and in Sri Lanka, needless to mention Pakistan one of China’s closest allies in South Asia. The result; Indian sub-continent continues to remain as one of the most heavily militarized places on earth.
With 1962 defeat still fresh in the Indian establishment, it is caution and mistrust that underlines India’s approach to bilateral trade relations. Right from Chinese telecom hardware to Chinese capital in key infrastructure projects in India have aroused suspicion of New Delhi and efforts have been more on to isolate Chinese influence than engage. The latest being the partial ban on Chinese telecom vendors in India. And this is the latest of instances where choppy relations straddled with mutual mistrust has claimed its victim in Sino-Indian economic interests if the China backers in India are to be believed
Non-transparent expansionist China?
--------------------------------------------------
But given the geo-political balance of power vis-à-vis China some of these concerns may not be totally unfounded. In the last two decades China’s aggressive approach for a unique stand on global affairs has stood out… often as a sore thumb to the western powers…Be it Sudan, sub- Saharan Africa or North Korea and Myanmar… China’s posturing has only been in stark contrast. And this isn’t without a reason. The World Bank points out that China has over the years successfully created a parallel financial system centered around ‘fault lines’. Despite strong international reservations China has reached out to pariah regimes in Sudan, hosted Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe and rolled out red carpets for Myanmar’s Than’s Shwe . China has invested where the World Bank or IMF wouldn’t. Chinese investments have trebled in these regions. And China now has unprecedented access to some of world’s untapped resources of petroleum, precious metals and minerals and so on Asia and Africa.
But behind the aggressive posturing and jingoism is perhaps the reality of China’s fast growing market economy. And while China continues to be worlds biggest manufacturing hub its only future availability of cheap resources that will ensure its competitive edge (the fair assumption being that similar manufacturing destinations will gradually sprout as the world gets richer and as domestic demand in China goes up so will its need for energy and other resources)
And this isn’t without its implications. China’s economic success lies in the Chinese government’s ability to implement policies with practically no opposition whatsoever. Unlike us in India land acquisition hitches for industrial expansion or labour unrest were unheard in China till recent past. And it seems that most Chinese were willing (though we will never know for sure) to forego democratic rights for a bigger pie in economy. But with slowdown taking its toll much of China is reeling under over capacity and with plummeting exports, the ‘Chinese dream’ could well be set for a sudden awakening. Chinese planners understand this and the fact that China’s political stability to a large extent depends on how well its economy does. And China’s economic road ahead could well lead to India; the second to only itself in GDP growth.
Sino-Indian synergy: a myth or reality?
-------------------------------------------------------
And traffic on this economic road will and should not be one way and there are some instancesthat it wouldnt. Although not an Indian company technically Arcelor Mittal has acquired controlling stake in China Oriental has successfully tapped the world largest market for alloys. Similarly services sector like tourism and financial services is believed to be another growth area for Indian companies in China. And so far around 100 Indian companies have set up shop in China.
But bottlenecks persist. China’s pricing and accounting mechanism still lacks complete transparency and the Chinese government has done precious little to help address this. China is yet to completely honor bilateral trade pacts. And Sino- Indian trade deficit has only widened in China’s favor with numerous instances of dumping by ‘Chinese’ companies. I could go on but that’s not the purpose of this post. The lesson to be learnt is that constant constructive engagement can further the cause of businesses in India and China. And this should be the focus of all lobbying; to create a fair and level playing field for trade to flourish and prosperity to reign.
An acute embarrassment of my early years is that Baba Sehgal was the farthest I got as far as my musical evolution was concerned for a long time. Why… I even caught a live concert of his too. The only connect for a long time with Western classical were the cuckoo watches made by Ajanta…that played Beethoven’s Fur Elise in sporadic mechanical bursts…
But even for someone growing up in a place as obscure as Andamans ‘Michael Jackson’ did ring some musical bells. But I also remember often jumbling up Michael Jackson with Mike Tyson but on a different level it didn’t matter who they were as long I could in a motley gathering of ninth graders of Government Boys School Port Blair ramble off the names in the same breath.
One would occasionally rent out VHS cassette from Sun Shine video parlor (with a couple of MJ enthusiasts pitching with their pocket monies). And very soon a Saundra Pandian or a Sheikh Ansari could be found ‘moonwalking’ at a school function.
And this is perhaps made Michael Jackson un-cool for many of my generation. I went to college in Darjeeling; known for finer musical tastes. To my surprise I found MJ didn’t have too many takers. There were reasons; MJ didn’t represent a life style. With MJ’s music you couldn’t possibly dope like you could with Floyd, neither MJ was a poet like Morrison and worse MJ wore white socks over dark pants….Uncool. MJ was something that everyone knew and could talk about from the heartland to hinterland. There wasn’t any effort involved to understand his music, his lyrics often not cryptic enough, he used too many gadgets to create his numbers.
But he isn’t there, MJ is a collectible now. Between MJ and the elite niche of music world… is that almost everyone has a sense of nostalgia going with MJ’s music. MJ music is often that touched my generation first. We heard MJ and moved on to cultivate our genre of music and tastes. Now that he is gone… that void will remain. Michael Jackson is cool again. We will have our music...and there will be MJ...
But even for someone growing up in a place as obscure as Andamans ‘Michael Jackson’ did ring some musical bells. But I also remember often jumbling up Michael Jackson with Mike Tyson but on a different level it didn’t matter who they were as long I could in a motley gathering of ninth graders of Government Boys School Port Blair ramble off the names in the same breath.
One would occasionally rent out VHS cassette from Sun Shine video parlor (with a couple of MJ enthusiasts pitching with their pocket monies). And very soon a Saundra Pandian or a Sheikh Ansari could be found ‘moonwalking’ at a school function.
And this is perhaps made Michael Jackson un-cool for many of my generation. I went to college in Darjeeling; known for finer musical tastes. To my surprise I found MJ didn’t have too many takers. There were reasons; MJ didn’t represent a life style. With MJ’s music you couldn’t possibly dope like you could with Floyd, neither MJ was a poet like Morrison and worse MJ wore white socks over dark pants….Uncool. MJ was something that everyone knew and could talk about from the heartland to hinterland. There wasn’t any effort involved to understand his music, his lyrics often not cryptic enough, he used too many gadgets to create his numbers.
But he isn’t there, MJ is a collectible now. Between MJ and the elite niche of music world… is that almost everyone has a sense of nostalgia going with MJ’s music. MJ music is often that touched my generation first. We heard MJ and moved on to cultivate our genre of music and tastes. Now that he is gone… that void will remain. Michael Jackson is cool again. We will have our music...and there will be MJ...
Its been a while and there much to talk and write... so much has happened.. In the meantime i have walked some old patches....the lovely Sikkim.. the mountains... then the bustle of Bombay....I think ...I am reaching 'that' state of mind....Oh yes.. the Zen Master is finally getting engaged on the 10th of June....He is gonna become one of us...
This post is a simple post. As simple as any daft out there would understand. And this is about simple things in life. Simplicity, in all possible shapes sizes, it’s about simply making some money, simply being happy and simply living a good life.
My conversations with the Zen master for a while have almost become a thing of past, but not really. But the urgency or the inclination to go tell the world about them has. Also, Lately, I have tried played a rather simple game. Inspired by a recent TV ad I have started keeping note of accumulated tar in my lungs after every smoke. I wonder if it’s already a beaker full. Cigarettes can make you amazingly sick, make you feel asphyxiated and the remedy is again rather simple. Just smoke another one.
I happened to take a walk with the master last evening. The conversation veered on to doing something ‘meaningful’. And this a time when the master confided that most evenings is spent contemplating things (could elaborate) but end at watching one random vernacular flick after in anticipation of some skin show.
The Zen master sees no reason why he is for any reason doing better than east African pygmies or the Jarawas of Andamans, who quite unaware of the intense academic thought around them… go to their shanties with their own tribal worries…like the Zen master does
My earliest recollection of LK Advani is from the early 90’s, mainly because around that time my father started insisting that I read newspapers regularly. And Advani at that time was pretty much the firebrand leader that he is made out to be. BJP as a party was fast emerging as a serious challenger to Congress, which was the by and large the singular political entity as far ensuring a lasting government in India was concerned. The VP Singh government had collapsed owing to massive protests on reservation issue based on recommendations of Mandal Commissions and it was the BJP that pulled the plug on it by pulling out support.
But BJP kept growing. And this was mainly because the party had successfully managed to leverage its hardline hindutva stance to form a cohesive political force. It had widespread support in certain belts of central and North India which translated into votes and seats. But things changed in 1998 when BJP was for the first time looking to head the government. But ironically, as BJP formed government in 1998 and then in 1999, it was AB Vajpayee and not Advani who was the preferred choice for Prime Ministership. And it was mainly because Vajpayee was more acceptable a name. He was not perceived to be a radical though he led a party that was considered rightwing.
Evidently the BJP had realized that while its hardline stance had helped it to gain numbers in the parliament but the Hindutva agenda was simply not enough to attain and retain power. And LK Advani realizes this too. In 2004 the party led its campaign on the much hyped ‘India Shining’ theme but lost. But the idea has stayed on.
And since then BJP’s proposed Prime Minister LK Advani has consciously tried to stay clear of the hardline agenda. In his blog http://www.lkadvani.in/ , Advani not once refers to the Hindutva agenda, but goes on to write on developmental and policy issues. Clearly, at 81 he realizes that this is perhaps his last serious shot for the country’s top job; and the country has more to it than its religious identity.
So where does it leave BJP and LK Advani. Well as it appears in the middle of nowhere if you ask me. Signals from the Hinduvta brigade indicate that they consider BJP as a party that has failed to deliver. Even the head priest at the controversial Ram Mandir at Ayodhya in a recent interview alleged that the BJP has used the Ram temple rhetoric mainly to shore up its political fortunes and has since abandoned the cause.
On the other hand the party is miles away from endearing itself to the minorities, who continue to look to the Congress and more recently some regional parties like the Samajwadi party to forward their voice.
It’s a double whammy for the BJP. Its detractors continue to play the communal card against it and the party has not found any lasting solution to this. If it defends itself then it faces the danger of angering the hardliners, if it doesn’t it loses credibility as a party that’s above petty factionalism on religious and communal lines.
This also became clear during the Varun Gandhi episode. After initially distancing itself from Varun Gandhi’s statement party leaders are now falling over each other to come to Varun’s aid. But what’s working for them is the imposition of National Security Act against Varun Gandhi, which many feel was grossly unnecessary. But then politics in India is perhaps all about overdoing things. But this doesn’t absolve the BJP of sending confused signal to its electorate and this could prove fatal!!!
India’s betrayal of Burma’s democratic aspirations
by Nandita Haksar
Monday, 06 April 2009 14:21
Title: Rogue Agent: How India’s Military Intelligence Betrayed the Burmese Resistance
Author: Nandita HaksarPublisher and Year: New Delhi: Penguin Books India, 2009Price: Rs. 299
Reviewed by: Subir Bhaumik
The post-colonial Indian state has proven to possess an unfortunate knack for turning friends into enemies. Personally, I cannot see how this serves the very national interests that the defenders of the Indian state seek to protect. As a student of diplomacy and international relations and a close watcher of India’s ‘Look East Policy’, I cannot figure out how Indian interests will best be served if Burma fails to evolve into a democracy and if India does not back the forces of democracy instead of hobnobbing with the xenophobic generals who control the Pagoda-studded nation.
I am happy that my good friend Nandita Haksar raises this point so effectively in her book Rogue Agent. When she says that “Indian support to the Burmese generals and betrayal of the pro-democracy movement has not served Indian interests,” I could not agree more. In a seminar on India-Burma relations about six years back, I raised this point with some of the military generals who were attending the seminar in Delhi. Among them was retired Lieutenant General Ravi Sawhney, the man who headed Indian military intelligence during the so-called ‘Operation Leech’ and who let the “rogue agent” Lieutenant Colonel Grewal, get away with perfidy, betrayal and plain murder.
In Rogue Agent, Haksar paints a vivid picture of the betrayal of Arakanese and Karen rebels from Burma, who trusted in India only to be betrayed by Grewal. Today, 34 of those betrayed still remain in India’s penal system, over a decade after their wrongful arrest. Additionally, six of their leaders were killed in cold blood at the very onset of Grewal’s vicious U-turn.
I had told Sawhney and his military friends — “Sir, people like me and Nandita Haksar are fools, we talk of human rights. Forget us. You say you defend Indian national interests. Now Sir, how are Indian national interests served when your agent betrays and kills some key foreign assets like the Arakanese rebels of NUPA (National Union Party of Arakan). Because after ‘Operation Leech’, nobody, no foreign group, will ever believe India and will ever work for India.” The generals had no answer, they just promised to “get back” to me.
I am happy Haksar’s book raises this key point.
Forget human rights. It is the passion for people like Haksar and some media people like me, but that’s perhaps not relevant for the citizens of an emerging power like India, who sometimes argue that if the Chinese can be a big power without respecting human rights, why should India make so much noise about it.
But purely from India’s national interest point of view, is it good to use a friendly foreign insurgent group like NUPA for a decade and then just allow a greedy, corrupt scoundrel like Grewal to betray and kill them and severely weaken them. The answer is a resounding ‘No.’ Such a reversal of policy is how good friends are turned into deadly enemies. In this instance, an enemy who will refuse to give India the natural gas, off the Arakan coast, so coveted.
I have exposed Grewal before, in a Times of India article on the 15th of April 2001 and in multiple BBC stories. Haksar is right in saying that the assassinated Major Saw Tun stayed with me in Calcutta — he even showed me a video of how the Arakanese rebel navy operates. They would be our best bet against arms smugglers who attempt to import black market weaponry destined for insurgents in India’s northeast. NUPA indeed gave the Indian army huge help in Operation Golden Bird. Veteran intelligence officers like B B Nandy and Rajinder Khanna understood the value of NUPA, which is why they cultivated them.
Grewal was perhaps a lone, greedy, cunning and avaricious anomaly in the Indian military intelligence system, fleecing the Arakanese, as Haksar recounts, of tens of thousands of dollars. Perhaps he even fooled Indian authorities into believing he was trapping gunrunners. But nevertheless, the Indian military intelligence and the great Indian Army should have punished him once the truth was disclosed. Military intelligence, when it now looks for sources amongst the Burmese, draws a complete blank because no Burmese believes them after ‘Leech’. So, in the end, a scoundrel like Grewal has severely damaged Indian interests. This analysis holds true unless, as Haksar subtly hints at, other army generals as well also made money from Grewal’s foul deals.
Sadly, the media is full of army-controlled “media assets” which have provided stories supporting the official line on ‘Operation Leech’. Military Intelligence got its top media asset to write a cover story in Outlook magazine, blaming George Fernandes for supporting Burmese gunrunning and justifying ‘Operation Leech’. And CNN-IBN’s top investigative unit actually interviewed Grewal last year as “an expert on Northeast”. What kind of an expert, I ask? These media people, for reasons known only to them, help rehabilitate a scoundrel like Grewal – man who violated all the basics of humanity and who damaged Indian national interests vis-à-vis Burma. It is in fact he — and not the poor Arakanese who trusted India so much that they would even stake their lives for India — who deserves the punishment.
Grewal had his personal reasons to look good to all parties and make as much money as he could from the situation. But unless the Army metes out exemplary punishment to Grewal, it will only prompt future uniformed crooks that seek to undermine Indian interests and strike their own sweet deals.
I suppose this is the underlying purpose of Haksar’s book. She is a patriot. She and I make money the hard way and we defend India by saying the truth. We believe in a truly democratic India — and a truly democratic neighborhood with Burma included.
India, as we argue, cannot fall into the U.S. mold — democracy at home and support for autocracy abroad. The Burmese generals have done nothing to stop the flow of deadly drugs into India, they have done nothing to check the flow of huge consignments of Chinese weapons traveling through Burma and, significantly, they have not given India the gas from the Arakan gas fields.
India’s interests in Burma can only be served by a democratic regime and never by the generals, who will always serve Chinese interests first. So even as Haksar has exposed in greater detail the betrayal of the Burmese resistance by elements within Indian military intelligence, she has also built up a strong case for changing India’s Burma policy.
Former Indian army commander Lieutenant General H R S Kalkat once advocated that India’s Burma policy be left to the army. “We are soldiers, they (Burmese army) are soldiers, our blood is thicker than the blood of the bureaucrats and politicians,” were his exact words. However, diplomacy and politics is too important a matter to be left to generals, a lesson India needs to realize before it misses the bus in Burma.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
