On behalf of Special Frontier Force (#SpecialFrontierForce), Establishment No. 22 (#Establishment22), and Vikas Regiment I acknowledge the role of Dr. Henry Alfred Kissinger as that of #WholeVillain, WholeVillain, and Whole Villain in the history of the US-TIBET relations. I ask my readers to give special attention to some of the aspects of US-TIBET relations. These are:
1. From 1911 to 1950, for about 39-years, Tibet was an independent, sovereign nation. However, Tibet chose a political policy called ‘Isolationism’ and limited its interactions with foreign powers. Tibet had diplomatic relations with a few of its immediate neighbors like India, Nepal, and China. For Tibet had no formal diplomatic relationships with the United States, their relations always existed under the shadow of US-India relations. It should not be of any surprise for both India, and Tibet face a common external enemy.
2. People’s Republic of China as a national entity came into existence on October 01, 1949 following the Communist October Revolution that seized political power in China after defeating the nationalists or KUOMINTANG who fled mainland China to establish Republic of China popularly known as Taiwan.
3. The security threat posed by People’s Republic of China is the driving force that still shapes the US-India-Tibet relations. After Communist China’s illegal invasion and military occupation of Tibet since 1950s, the history of the US-India-Tibet relations is shaped entirely with the sole purpose of resisting China’s military occupation of Tibet.
4. During the long course of 66-years, the US-India-Tibet relations are primarily based on the principles on which the United States declared its independence from its rule by Great Britain. In the words used by US President Eisenhower, the US-India-Tibet relations represent a “Crusade for Peace through Freedom” in Occupied Tibet.
5. I am a witness to the history of US-India-Tibet relations on account of my affiliation with a military organization called Special Frontier Force (#SpecialFrontierForce) or Establishment No. 22 (#Establishment22) or Vikas Regiment. I have no particular need to cite any government documents to support my statements. However, I have to acknowledge the vastly superior intelligence capabilities of People’s Republic of China which gave it a clear insight about the US-India-Tibet relations. China expressed its displeasure by attacking India along its Himalayan Frontier during October-November 1962. The US-India-Tibet relations survived and in this article I give special recognition to diabolic actions of Dr. Henry Alfred Kissinger, PhD from 1968 to 1977 with emphasis on his illegal/unconstitutional actions during 1969 to 1972.
Dr. Henry Kissinger is given due credit for initiating diplomatic relations between the United States and People’s Republic of China. I am asking my readers to recognize the faces of those Chinese leaders and the military dictator of Pakistan whom he befriended. Dr. Kissinger was appointed Assistant National Security Affairs in December 1968 and worked as National Security Adviser from 1969. During the years 1969 to September 1973, Kissinger had no constitutional power or authority to meet or engage foreign leaders and set the direction for the US foreign policy.
“TELL ME THE NAMES OF YOUR FRIENDS, I’LL TELL WHO YOU ARE.”
Dr Henry Alfred Kissinger PhD who served as National Security Adviser from 1969 to 1975 selected People’s Republic of China’s Communist Party leaders Mao Zedong and Zhou En-Lai to befriend China and to begin trade and commerce relations between these two countries.
#WHOLEVILLAIN – WHOLEVILLAIN – WHOLE VILLAIN – HISTORY OF THE US-TIBET RELATIONS: DR HENRY ALFRED KISSINGER IN HIS BOOK “ON CHINA” FAILED TO ACCOUNT FOR HIS DIABOLIC, VILLAINOUS ACTIONS THAT RECKLESSLY UNDERMINED HISTORY OF THE US-INDIA-TIBET RELATIONS.
The Crusade for Peace through Freedom in Occupied Tibet:
I ask my readers to explore the history of the US-India-Tibet relations formulated on the principles of Freedom and Democracy from 1949 by 33rd US President Harry S Truman (1949-1952). Dwight David Eisenhower, 34th President of the US (1953-1961) continued President Truman’s foreign policy of containing Communism. John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 35th President of the US (1961-1963) and Lyndon Baines Johnson, 36th President of the US (1963-1969) continued to checkmate Communist Cold War strategy. To gain a correct historical perspective, I have to mention that Richard Milhous Nixon served as Vice President (1953-1956, & 1957-1960) under President Eisenhower and was intimately involved in implementing President Eisenhower’s policy of containing Communism in Southeast Asia. I am pleased to share some of these photo images that help me to recapitulate the historical ties between the United States, India, and Tibet. Because of the “SILENCE and SECRECY” imposed by Cold War Era, the connections between these three nations are often misunderstood.
THE HISTORY OF THE US-INDIA-TIBET RELATIONS. The US President Eisenhower with the US Secretary of State. The Crusade for Peace through Freedom in Occupied Tibet.
AMERICA’S 1971 OPENING TO PEKING (BEIJING):
#WHOLEVILLAIN AUGUST 10, 1971
Dr. Henry Alfred Kissinger takes credit for the relations between the United States and Communist China that he had helped to shape following his secret visit to Peking (Beijing) during 1971. Dr. Kissinger published the book, “On China” on May 17, 2011 and most recently this book got reviewed by N. Narasimhan, the former Chief of India’s External Intelligence Agency. I am publishing the guest column that has appeared in Southasiaanalysis.org paper dated 31 December, 2011. Both Dr. Kissinger and N. Narasimhan fail to address a fundamental question about the legitimacy of the actions taken during 1971-72 that paved the way for normalization of U.S. – China relationship. Dr. Kissinger’s mischief began with his appointment as Assistant for National Security Affairs in December 1968. While working on behalf of National Security Council, Dr. Kissinger conducted secret negotiations with Heads of State and Prime Ministers without participation of Mr. William P. Rogers, the Secretary of State. Dr. Kissinger was sworn in as Secretary of State on September 22, 1973. Dr. Kissinger had grossly misused his position as an adviser and his actions during 1971-1973 prior to his appointment as Secretary of State were illegal and unconstitutional. The United States Constitution demands that the U.S. Administration is held fully accountable for all of its actions, and the U.S. Congress acts on behalf of the people to demand that public accountability. The actions of Dr. Kissinger during 1971-72 were a clear violation of trust placed in the office of the Secretary of State. For Constitution is the source of Power, it has provisions to check the use of power. The abuse of power is accomplished by separation of powers. A system of checks and balances limits the power of each branch of the Government and permits the Law of the Constitution to be applied when its officials usurp powers not granted by the Constitution or otherwise act unconstitutionally. Dr. Kissinger was not vested with powers to conduct secret diplomatic negotiations with officials of foreign governments while he was at National Security Council.
THE LIVING TIBETAN SPIRITS:
I speak on behalf of the Living Tibetan Spirits, the spirits of the young Tibetan men who live in my consciousness. Myself, and the Living Tibetan Spirits feel dismayed by Dr. Kissinger’s book “On China”, and its review by the former chief of India’s External Intelligence Agency. Both of them fail to speak about the United States-Tibet relations that established the multinational defense pact or alliance called Establishment Number. 22 (1962) and later named as Special Frontier Force (1966) to secure Freedom, Liberty, and Democracy in the occupied Land of Tibet. There was a basic and fundamental understanding between the people of Tibet and the United States to defend the Freedom of Tibet. Dr. Kissinger has caused a breach of trust between these two parties which have agreed to work together to defend the rights of Tibetan people to regain their lost freedom. The ideological rift between the US and Communist China is as wide as it was during 1949. The US-India-Tibet Relations survived the test of times and there is hope for a better future. There is hope for victory in the ‘Crusade for Peace through Freedom in Occupied Tibet’.
Rudra N. Rebbapragada,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.
Service Number: MS-8466/MR-03277K; Rank: Major; Branch: Army Medical Corps/Short Service Regular Commission/Direct Permanent Commission (1969-1984);
Medical Officer, South Column, Operation Eagle (1971-72),
Headquarters Establishment No. 22 C/O 56 APO (1971-74),
Directorate General of Security,
Office of Inspector General Special Frontier Force,
East Block V, Level IV, R. K. Puram,
New Delhi – 110 022
Dr.Henry Kissinger’s Book “ON CHINA” – An Indian Perspective
Guest Column: By N. Narasimhan 31/12/2011
“ Relations Between Great Powers cannot b sustained by inertia, commerce or mere sentiments” Aaron Freidburg in New Republic, August 4, 2011.
That this Book is unique in many ways is quite obvious. Not just because of the Statistics. that Dr.Kissinger has counted having made about 50 trips to Beijing and the sheer mental and physical stamina on display. Hypothetically, someone can beat that in numerical terms. Or can conceivably even carry out missions of comparable importance in future. But there is not even a “ghostly” chance of any one replicating the meetings he has had with Mao, Deng, and the successor Chairmen of CPC/CMC/PRC; or the meticulous manner he has kept a record of these and shared them with the world.
For good or bad, this review will be understandably in the nature of lessons to be learnt, in the light of where we are now, our system and other deficiencies, and that have contributed calling for remedial action with urgency, to safeguard long and continually being neglected vital national interests.
India – China Border Dispute and War:
The India – China border war of 1962 has been covered here more in the perspective of a major illustration of Dr.K’s basic thesis on China’s “exceptionalism” and “singularity”, as characteristic style of statecraft distilled in which principles of “deterrent co-existence”, and “offensive-deterrence”(being defined as “luring in the opponents and then dealing them a sharp and stunning blow”) are important components.
Parenthetically, the India – China Border War has also been given dubious pride of place, as a dramatic opening prop for the Prologue with which Dr.K has begun the book ! Not being a critical element to his main purpose of the Book, in Dr.K’s broad brush treatment of the history and actual developments preceding the October – November 1962 Chinese attack on India, the facts are smudgy and a number of crucial issues have been glossed over. In fact, there are arguably many historic inaccuracies.
The Chinese Attack was a well planned meticulous attack
This Book has done yeoman service to the Indian cause by conclusively demonstrating that the Chinese attack was a well planned and meticulously executed “malice aforethought”, which was personally handled by Mao himself. The quotes attributed to Mao in this Section almost all have been sourced from an article by one John K.Garver.
Some of Dr.K’s assessments of Chinese working and decision-making style described in this Section, which get repeated often in different forms, throughout the Book are worth reproduction for ready perusal.
“It was not yet an order for military confrontation; rather a kind of alert to prepare a strategic plan. As such, it triggered the familiar Chinese style of dealing with strategic decisions: thorough analysis; careful preparation; attention to psychological and political factors; quest for surprise; and rapid conclusion“.
(Page 188, Chapter 7 – from an account of Mao’s meeting with Chinese Military Commanders in 1962)
Dr.K goes on to mention two specific points which demonstrated the comprehensive way in which Chinese policy was being planned. The Chinese leaders were concerned that the U.S might use the Sino – Indian conflict they were preparing for to unleash Taiwan against the Mainland. Also the U.S may start some mischief in Indo – China, in the developments of the then current edition of the Vietnam War, and use it for an American attack on Southern China through Laos.
They used a simple subterfuge to obtain quick reassurance on the first point. At the routine Ambassador level meetings then under way at far away Warsaw, they got the U.S. Representative to deny any American intention of armed action in Taiwan by making a false allegation that the U.S. had amassed troops for this purpose, and getting it refuted by him. Remarkable in itself, Dr.K also highlights this to additionally emphasize the difference between a comprehensive approach to policy making (Chinese model) and a segmented one (by others).
Then Chinese Ambassador Wang Bingnan at Warsaw had claimed in his Memoirs that this information played a very “big role” in Beijing’s final decision to proceed with the operations in the Himalayas. (Page-189, Chapter -7).
The role of the Soviet Union, Khrushchev and the Cuban missile crisis finds a mention in this Section, with references to Soviet flip-flops. But Dr.K does not make a specific point that the then raging Sino – Soviet ideological war may have played any significant role in the Chinese decisions and actions leading to the 1962 war – the point (the cruciality of the Soviet/Russian factor and role) he has made in every other of the three major comparable international conflicts/crises he has elaborated on, namely, the Korean war, the Taiwan Straits crises and the third Vietnam war (“We touched the Tiger’s buttocks”), to exemplify China’s use of armed action as a policy tool in its international relations. (Page-340, Chapter-13).
It needs to be noted though that Dr.K has graphically/gleefully, but briefly, described, in different places, caustic /acerbic exchanges between the Chinese and Soviet leaders and their publications, to show China’s irritation and indignation at different aspects of Indo-Soviet relations. But not as significant factor in China launching the Border War.
The so-called 1961 “Indian Forward Policy/Nehru’s Forward Policy” gets mention, as occasion to quote Mao epigrammatically telling the Central Military Commission (CMC) and top leaders, “a person sleeping in comfortable bed is not easily roused by someone else’s snoring”. (Page 187, Chapter 7). (What or whom, did he have in mind in this allusion?!)
Tibet, Tripartite Agreement and Neville Maxwell’s Thesis”
Neville Maxwell who had made much of this “Forward Policy” as the main reason for “India’s China War”, in his eponymous Book sponsored by the PRC, (he was a State guest in Beijing writing the Book) gets a small foot note reference (Serial # 7, Page-545, Notes), in the early tracing of the history of the Simla Tripartite negotiations leading to the McMahon Line Agreement (1914), to quote the Emperor’s then Representatives in Calcutta, Lu Hsing – Chi on the Middle Kingdom’s positive attitude to the Simla Meeting; “We must exert muscles to the utmost during this Conference”, (Page-186, Chapter 7)
Dr.K, however fails to note that the main reason for the then Chinese Central Government’s refusal to fully “sign” the Tripartite Agreement was their non acceptance of the border between “Inner” (Sichuan and Yunnan provinces) and “Outer” (present Autonomous Region area) Tibet, and not the India – Tibet segment of the Line, while he elaborates on the significance/ difference in Diplomatic Practice between “initialling” and “signing” an International Agreement.
Though mentioning Tibet in the context of the evolution the McMahon Line aspect of the border dispute, Dr.K briefly refers to HH the Dalai Lama (DL) taking asylum in India in 1959 in this Section, only to the extent of China beginning “to treat the issue of demarcation line increasingly in strategic terms”, not as a significant trigger for the Border War China launched three and a half years later. (Page 187, Chapter 7).
There is an amazing passage of brutal frankness, in a book replete with breath-taking dialogue scripts, on the 1959 Tibetan Revolt and the D.L’s escape – a verbatim record of a macabre exchange between Mao and Khrushchev during the latter’s visit to Beijing in October, 1959, that has to be highlighted . (Page-171, Chapter-6)
Three Mao quotes given by Dr.K in this Section on India – China 1962 War are worth reproducing, as they unambiguously establish the “malice aforethought” of Mao to unleash the War on India, as supplementary Diplomacy, with meticulous preparedness.
(i)“You (perhaps referring Nehru) wave a gun, and I will wave a gun. We will stand face to face and can each practice our courage.” Mao defined it as policy of “armed coexistence” (to the CMC – page 188, Chapter-7).
(ii) “Lack of forbearance in small matters upsets great plans. We must pay attention to the situation”. (to the CMC – Page 188, Chapter-7)
(iii) “We fought a war with old Chiang (Kai-shek). We fought a war with Japan, and with America. With none of these did we fear. And in each case we won. Now the Indians want to fight a war with us. Naturally, we don’t have fear. We cannot give ground, once we give ground it would be tantamount to letting them seize a big piece of land equivalent to Fujian province……Since Nehru sticks his head out and insists on us fighting him, for us not to fight with him would not be friendly enough. Courtesy emphasizes reciprocity”.(In early October 1962 – “to assembled Chinese leaders to announce the final decision, which was for war” – Page 190, Chapter-7)
Other Aspects of Indian Interest
It is somewhat disappointing for the Indian observer that Dr.K. had not found time and space to cover China – Pakistan relations despite their having been found to be crucial in U.S – China bilateral talks, and had apparently been dealt with as such at top leadership meetings, from two important perspectives, namely, nuclear/missile proliferation and international terrorism, during the Clinton and George W.Bush, Presidencies.(On Terrorism, Dr.K evocatively describes China as an “agnostic bystander” – till America’s “9/11”)
However, all that he has to say on the bilateral, collusive violations of international agreements and commitments on nuclear and missile non proliferation areas by the two “rogue” friends of the U.S. is :–
“Finally, the experience with the “Private” proliferation network of apparently friendly Pakistan with North Korea, Libya, and Iran demonstrates the vast consequences to the international order of the spread of nuclear weapons, even when the proliferating country does not meet the formal criteria of a rogue state.” (Page-496 – Chapter-18).
The following passage from Huang Hua’s harangue to Brzezinski in the segment relating to the third Vietnam War (page 352, Chapter 13) has something India can ponder over, in the light of its so far ineffective responses to Pakistan’s long persisting Low Intensity War strategy, to expose the fallacious perceptions it is based on.
“As for the argument that the Soviet Union would not dare to use conventional arms for fear of nuclear attack from the West, this is only wishful thinking. To base a strategic stance on this thinking is not only dangerous but also unreliable”. (citation # 15, page 352, Chapter 13 and page 555 of Notes ).
The suggestion is that India needs to drastically change the ambiance of bilateral equations in Subcontinent, and gain “strategic space and strategic autonomy”, by appropriate actions and responses to periodic provocations by Pakistan, so that its “all weather friend” China, as ever pragmatic, finds it prudent to read the wisdom of the above quote to its permanently parasitic neighbour – with two small changes, inserting “India” in place of “Soviet Union” and “you” in place of “the West”, as highlighted in passage above.
Four major Historic Occurrences in US-China Relations: Principled?
These figure repeatedly in the context of the four major historic occurrences, marking the evolution of U.S – China bilateral relations, post October 1949, namely; the triangle of U.S – Soviet Union – China, Cold War era and beyond, the tortuous negotiations over Taiwan, the Korean and Vietnam wars, as well as the domestic convulsions engineered by Mao in revolutionary zeal.
Behind the facade of fiery militancy bordering on nuclear war mongering/of “principled” ideological firmness/political toughness/historic Civilizational patience, drawing inspiration from Confucius, Sun Tzu, and so on, the PRC leadership is capable of extreme elasticity and pliability, surpassing the marvels witnessed in the fantastic physical contortions of the famed Chinese Circus Gymnasts.
The only principle of their “Principled stand” is pragmatic achievement of the desired goal, by hook or crook, which may be battle for survival against, or keeping at bay, the Polar Bear time and again, checkmate the U.S. Imperialism in Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Southeast Asia, and of late, the East Pacific, or determined pursuit of pulling the country out of backwardness, poverty, towards economic domination of the world.
It looks like the hoary Middle Kingdom Statecraft culture held the concept of “consistency” at arm’s length and use of the ideograph to depict this. Or that it had been banned along the way by Emperor Chin Shi Huang Di, with the writings of Confucius and other Chinese wise men.
Dr.K’s dramatic, ‘blow – by – blow’ account of how the Chinese Leadership desperately sought to settle the crisis precipitated by Fang Lizhi, (China’s Andrei Sakhrov sans the Noble and perhaps the Hydrogen bomb), suddenly seeking refuge in the US Embassy in Beijing with his wife on June 4 1989, fearing the worst to his safety following the Tiananmen (TAM) crack down, is a vivid, “no-holds-barred” play out of most of the above “Chinese characteristics” (pages 428-432, Chapter 15). It is also the high point of the trust Chinese Leaders had in Dr.K and his (brain) power to deliver them from the most awkward of situations (they were many) when he specially undertook this mission (November 1989) as a non official. The passage “At this point Deng got up from his seat and unscrewed the phones between his seat and mine as a symbol that he wanted to talk privately” (page 430) and what followed to a happy, face-saving package deal end, epitomizes the quintessential spirit and substance of Dr.K’s Book, on himself, China, and all in between. Point to note:- When the chips are down, there is no scale to measure the depth of a Chinese climb down.
The Chinese Leadership of all generations practices with consummate success all verbal and physical feints, duplicity, outright lies, wrapped in deliberate studied ambiguity, grandstanding calls for World Revolutions against Imperialism, Revisionism, Hegemonism, Brinkmanship in readiness to risk nuclear war annihilation, as a tool of blackmail, and so on, to achieve well planned, meticulously executed, long-range objectives of domination, even from an intrinsically weak position – Wei Qi style.
The “Chinese characteristics”- the world should take note of:
The known history of the 1962 India-China Border War, and the “unknown” developments in this area of the past three decades since the resumption of the dialogue between the two countries, post the 1962 War hiatus, (dealt with in detail elsewhere in this Paper), are the close-to-home, hurtful, demonstration of these “Chinese Characteristics”.
Most of the time they have succeeded in pulling the wool over the eyes of “friends” as well as “foes” at the given point of time. (many times the same entity is simultaneously invested with both the roles and dealt with).
PRC’s ‘cohort’-ing with impunity with “rogue”countries and their discredited leaders, shunned by most the world at a given point of time, like those of Sudan, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Somalia, Cambodia, Myanmar and many despots of later America, inter alias for crass material benefits like access to oil and other commodities, or for diplomatic purposes, uniquely sets them apart as unafraid of isolation or widespread unpopularity. Eventually they have the last laugh.
There have been, inevitably, a few misfires and failures, in this approach, and the PRC has taken the tumble, at times grievous hurt, on the chin, and continued to march forward.
Now the Chinese involvement with Col. Gaddafi in Libya and the temporary set-back in their oil fortunes there are the latest illustration. Their cozy relationship with Bangladesh after a short interregnum, despite their support to the hilt to Pakistani suppression in the East, prior to and during 1981 war, is another classic of adroit, nimble footwork, turning 180 degrees, sans any qualms.
All along, the Chinese Leadership has demonstrated extraordinary capacity to mobilize resources, man power, material and what have you, on a stupendous scale, and concentrate these to tackle the tasks on hand, be it the Korean War, Taiwan Straits crises, border show downs with the Soviets in Siberia, or the ill-conceived, force-marching of the country to instant economic Utopia, through the Great Leap Forward steroid administration, the Societal Purification and perpetual Revolution sought in the GPCR and dazzling achievements in putting up modern Infrastructure show pieces or disconcerting cyber attacks on strategic assets of countries all over the world with uncanny ease which can poise them to the role of Hitler of the future e-universe.
Aggressive Postures of Chinese Diplomacy:
To illustrate (one of many) the confidence and aggressive facet of Chinese diplomacy, even when in a hole of relative weakness, Dr.K cites detailed accounts of meetings of not only Deng, but also of second tier leaders like Foreign Minister Huang Hua, where they passionately hector his successor NSA, Zbig. Brzezinski, on the wrong line of policy and approach, in their view, adopted by the U.S towards the Soviet Union, (in the backdrop of the 3rd Vietnam War) which, inter alias allowed the Soviets various concessions in areas of trade and technology, instead of putting military pressure on it, that would rebound to haunt the U.S. through competition and challenge in future (Page 351- 353 Chapter 13).
It is ironic that, now, the shoe is on the other foot. The accommodative policy adopted by the U.S towards China in the past two decades, 1990-2010, in trade and technology transfer areas, have made China a major challenge to U.S, while the Soviet Union had withered away.
Throughout the Book Dr.K gives invaluable insights into the PRC and CPC inner working, and thought – cum – decision-making processes at the highest levels from extensively researched authentic records, mostly of U.S provenance, but also plenty of Chinese and Soviet origin. It is felt that China watching scholars and diplomats will reap adequate dividends if they strive to access similar archival records of Albania, under Enver Hoxha / Mehmet Shehu the only country which PRC/CPC had kept close relations with during its decades of “revolutionary” isolation, including the domestically turbulent GPCR years, when it strove to be the center / leader of World Revolution and Communist Orthodoxy. In particular, significant keys to the mystery of Lin Piao’s death and the rise and fall of the Gang of Four may be available here.
“Insistent Posture” of the Chinese:
The most important take for me personally from Dr.K’s Book, in dealing with China is the phrase “Insistent Posture” (IP). This occurs obscurely (Page 508) in the last brilliant Chapter-18, “The New Millennium”, in the context of Dr.K comprehensively analyzing a December, 2010 seminal, authoritative Statement on PRC Foreign Policy by State Councillor Dai Bingguo in its multifaceted aspects. It has apparently been used by the “Triumphalist” school in the ongoing “The National Destiny Debate”, exemplified by two very popular, “deeply nationalistic” Books, “China is Unhappy”, a 2009 collection of essays, and “China Dream” a 2010 publication by PLA Senior Colonel Liu Mingfu, both of which advocate that China should stand up and follow aggressive measures “to become the number one in the world”. One ostensible purpose of Dai Bingguo is to distance the PRC leadership from this popular, almost militarist posture, carry conviction with and reassure the world about the bonafides of the Official policy, namely, “peaceful rise” – since revised to “peaceful development” – and “harmonious world”. (Pages 504 onwards, Chapter-18).
All the above three offerings have been expertly summarized and analyzed by Dr.K, with appreciable objectivity and thoroughness, as well as realism of an American strategic thinker. Hence, one should refrain from seeking to gild the lily, as it were, but recommend that this Chapter should be read in full, along with the succeeding, equally brilliant, “Epilogue”, where, after drawing parallel from the developments leading to World War-I, with the help of a U.K. diplomatic study, “The Crowe Memorandum”, he weighs in, ever so gently, in favour of a non-confrontationist development of U.S – China relations, in future, in the face of real, strong, inevitable challenges.
I have plumbed that “Insistent Posture” should be the watch word hereafter which should guide India’s approach to all aspects of bilateral relations with the PRC.
Obiter on India – China relations The Indian Public Should be taken into Confidence:
The nitty-gritty of the post Nehru era India – China border dispute negotiations have been marked by near total secrecy. This has been plainly proven to be purposeless, self-defeating, counterproductive, and arguably much worse. This has given rise to lot of unhealthy speculation about various proposals proffered by either side.
One of these is a “swap”, attributed to different Chinese Leaders including Mao, Chou, Deng, at different points of time. In essence this amounted to a Chinese offer that they would allow India to keep the disputed area in the Eastern sector, in return for India’s acceptance of the Chinese claims in the Western (Ladakh) sector.
Dr.K’s Book refers to this Swap in suitably authentic tone, as having been offered by Chou Enlai, and its non acceptance by India, without however any specific official level citation at this point (page 187, Chapter 7). Other references allude to this subject else were in the Book in general terms, basing on the secondary source, Mr John Garver.
Ambassador C.V.Ranganathan Book, “India and China, The Way Ahead”, second edition, 2004, (herein after referred to as “CVR – ICWA”), gives strong credence to this thesis, with a detailed narrative of the 1979 talks in Beijing between Deng and the visiting then Indian External Affairs Minister, Mr. Vajpayee, wherein the Swap had figured (Pages 166 – 168, CVR – ICWA). No documentary authority has however been cited. The narrative also shies away from authoritatively spelling out details of the Swap. It however avers that India rejected the PRC proposals on Constitutional legal, technical grounds, again without citing any authority.
“CVR – ICWA” nevertheless speculates that difficulties envisaged in “selling” any line of territorial compromise to the Indian public to settle the Border issue would be electoral hot potato. Does this mean that India just kept mum without any response, beyond, “Sorry we cannot accept this for domestic political reasons”?. Or they discussed their problems with their counterparts, in whatever fashion, but had chosen to hide it from the Indian public?
Whichever way, even if essentially correct, this premise is a totally fallacious, escapist, if not a “cop-out”, showing poor appreciation and judgement of the dynamics of India’s domestic polity.
India’s relations with the PRC is one area which can be safely postulated as extrinsic to, and fairly well insulated from the vagaries of domestic electoral politics, which can be safely kept that way unless violently mishandled.
Whatever the assessed obstacles, these will not go away with time, but only assume more dangerous dimensions, eventually bringing greater grief to the country, through the tactics of “seeping aggression” being successfully pursued by the PRC, through more frequent, enlarging, and growingly emphatic references to their claims to Tawang and “South Tibet”, which had not been seen till recently.
Recently, there was an article in Chinese media in which the author discussed in detail the relative merits of China handing over to India areas claimed by it in the Eastern Sector (Arunachal Pradesh), in return for India agreeing to China’s retention of the area under its occupation in the Ladakh Sector (Aksai Chin).
Probably for the first time, this author claimed at length that Chairman Mao had himself convincingly advanced in detail (obviously before his death) the strategic advantages of China retaining Aksai Chin, compared to lesser purchase in keeping Arunachal Pradesh. This seemed to indicate the existence of an ongoing debate, or its recrudescence, on the subject within China and a serious attempt being made by some section of the leadership to gain wider acceptance among the country’s population for this move, in the face of internal opposition.
This clearly calls for India to have a goal and a strategy to take advantage of such debates in China by appropriate, adroit modifications in negotiating positions / postures.
India Should produce a White paper on Border Negotiations:
In view of these developments, it is time that Government of India sets all speculation on this at rest without further delay, with an authentic, comprehensive report on Border negotiations held so far since 1963-1964, on the lines of the White Papers published prior to 1963 events. Simultaneously, Government of India should make public every aspect of what all has transpired in bilateral negotiations between the two countries covering all subjects, beyond the Border Dispute too.
The paradox and contrast with Government of India in keeping its “Aam Admi”( general public ) in total darkness on momentous external relations issues affecting national security, thereby denying itself the strength and support of the masses, needs to be taken note of and corrected.
Issue of River Waters:
There is a special urgency to do this immediately in respect of negotiations on the exploitation of waters of international rivers flowing out of Tibet for which both the Governments have constituted the “India – China Expert Level Mechanism on Trans – Border Rivers” which holds annual meetings.
The potential long-term adverse effects of the River Waters issue are much more damaging to the future of the Nation and its population, than even the dispute over Border territorial claims, whose (mis) handling over the years has proved dangerous enough to National security. The absence so far of any meaningful detailed disclosures on this subject, covering Government of India’s attitude and actions, if any, as well as PRC’s responses, if any, evoke an eerie, nightmarish feeling of replay of the Border dispute tragedy of the 1954 – 1962 vintage.
In the absence of more detailed information, the PM’s recent statement on the River Waters, in the current Parliament Session, gives the impression that Government of India may be following a wrong course of action intending to domestically down play the problems with the PRC, in the misplaced assessment that this is either necessary, or will lead to maintaining over all, friction – free, “friendly” relations with the PRC. If so, there has been a culpable failure to learn the lessons from the tragic experiences of Mr.Nehru which led to his refusal to a January, 7 1963 oral message of Chou Enlai requesting to meet personally and discuss the six (Non-Aligned Movement) nation Colombo proposals, with the observation “matters are gone too far and the people of India could not be persuaded to accept Chinese ‘bluff and nonsense’ any more”. (Pages 99 – 101 of India’s CDA in Beijing, Dr.P.K.Banerjee Memoirs of the Chinese Invasion of India).
White papers published by Government of India on the 1962 War graphically show the background for Mr.Nehru’s above frustration. That it is fatal to second guess PRC’s intentions and meanings from their cleverly ambiguous statements, especially from a self-induced, preconceived naive mind-set, resulting in make-believe or wishful interpretations of what one wants to see and hear, rather than nailing the PRC in writing on what they had specifically intended or wanted say.
Two letters exchanged between the two Prime Ministers, one of Mr Nehru dated May, 22, 1959 where he sought it interpret Chou Enlai on having accepted the McMahon Line during his visit to India in January, 1957 (letter written after a lapse of two years after the visit!) and Chou Enlai’s flat contradiction of the same in his reply dated September, 8, 1959 are prime examples of the failure to adopt the methodology of “Insistent Posture” (refer Para 73).
An extract of Diplomatic Note dated 31 May 1962 by the Chinese Foreign Ministry to the Indian Embassy in Beijing at Appendix – II is another shining illustration of the dangers of the preconceived mind-set in dealing with the PRC (Page-142, CVR – ICWA).
There was no Dr.K in the 1950s to wise up the world with experience to share in dealing with latter-day Middle Kingdom Mandarins who have carried the same Imperial DNA for millennia, mutated for good measure with dyed – in – the wool , Marxist – Leninist Revolutionary ambitions.
Government of India will be well advised even now to go over with fine tooth comb what all have been officially exchanged with the PRC, on the subject of River Waters, what replies the PRC had given in writing, including the record of exchanges at annual meetings of Experts. ( hopefully they are comprehensive.
The Concept of “Line of Actual Control”:
The Line of Actual Control (LAC) is a crucial concept, which unfortunately has remained only that, for decades now, in India – China Border negotiations. The PRC has successfully evaded giving any meaningful idea of their version of this LAC, in spite of undertaking to do so in solemn bilateral undertakings in Agreements signed by Heads of States and Governments of the two countries periodically. Absence “Insistent Posture” on Government of India’s part, the PRC has merrily gotten away without giving any concrete description of the LAC, so that they can draw it any time in future South of Tawang and tell Government of India that they have never said anything contradictory before officially and they cannot be proven wrong. And they will get Neville Maxwells of 21st century (perhaps some Indians too!) to paint them as paragons of all Celestial virtues, attributed to Confucius, Sun Tzu etc.
Singularity and Exceptionalism:
Dr.K devotes time and space in the Book to highlight China’s “Singularity” and “Exceptionalism”. One salient aspect emphasized is the great influence of China’s ancient Civilizational history, Culture, and writings of Philosophers like Confucius, Sun Tzu as the bedrock and guiding force throughout the many millennia, to the cataclysmic contemporary developments of 20th/21st Century, and the strength and sustenance Mao and his successors had drawn from this, to the extent of even using the same ancient elliptical, allegoric, epigrammatic, vague circumlocutory verbiage to hide and fudge, so as to thrive and succeed.
India too has a great History:
India has also been blessed with ancient history and civilization and great philosophers and thinkers whose teachings had served generations of Rulers and the Ruled for millennia. Except that in Indian case there seems to be a disastrous break in the past couple of centuries under British colonialism, and contemporary Rulers seem unaware of and unwilling to draw strength, sustenance and guidance from their Heritage, in meaningful, practical ways.
This is an important point to ponder over while learning from the successful Chinese experience, so rivetingly told in the Book by the master practitioner of International Diplomacy.
Another noteworthy/mentionable fact is that the PRC has been most successful in educating and sensitizing the entire country without significant distinction among populations in rural and urban areas, on the major aspects of its Foreign Policies and external relations with important countries at any given point of time, (dealt with in the Book), both in broad strategic long-term perspective and nuances, as well as immediate tactical moves, as situations develop, so as to be able to demonstrate massive support on the street, especially when it concerns countries like Japan, Soviet Union, Vietnam and the U.S.
Even allowing for the differences in the systems of government, control over media etc., this gulf is a major, self-inflicted failure which is regrettably and totally unjustified.
(The writer is a former chief of India’s External Intelligence Agency)