Indian Defence Review

India’s Default

As to the cries of the Tibetans against the Chinese aggression, El Salvador sponsored a resolution at the UN but it is said that India and UK prevented any date. More significantly, former Ambassador R S Kalha wrote in his book ‘The Dynamics of Preventive Diplomacy’ that during the period of the Korean conflict, several ‘neutral’ countries were active in trying to promote peace on the Korean peninsula. One of the countries that was most active was India. Indian diplomats were active on both sides, often travelling to Beijing, Moscow, Washington and New York in order to promote a peaceful settlement.

It is said that India did not take the Chinese intervention in Tibet seriously and refused to take up the Tibetan cause in the UN, since it wished to play a greater role on the world stage, particularly in defusing the tension on the Korean peninsula. On November 18, 1950, the US Ambassador at New Delhi reported to the US Secretary of State that the then Secretary General of the External Affairs Ministry Sir Girija Shankar Bajpai told him that India wished to delay “action” on the Tibetan demarches to the UN due to its “efforts” in achieving a ceasefire in Korea.

Similarly, the British were informed that the “timing of the Tibetan appeal needed careful consideration. Korea was obviously of first importance.” Apparently, Nehru’s vision was coloured not only with the Chinese hoodwinking him but also his ambition for a Nobel Peace Prize that looked closer by giving preference to the Korean Peninsula over the Chinese invasion in Tibet. Ironically, India was also supplying rice to the PLA terrorising the Tibetans in TAR while Nehru actively campaigned for China’s entry into the UN. That Nehru had no strategic sense was again demonstrated when he stopped his own army in pushing fleeing Pakistani marauders out of POK in 1948 and gave Pakistan a border with China, which the former never had.

Genocide in Tibet

Since invading Tibet, China has unleashed a systematic cultural genocide in Tibet. The six million Tibetan population has been overwhelmed by the 7.5 million Han Chinese as part of a well-planned demographic invasion. China is systematically attacking the Tibetan language, literature, heritage and culture in a bid to destroy it into extinction. Tibetan language has been replaced by Chinese in TAR. Once China succeeds in destroying the Tibetan language, the ancient treasure scripted over centuries will automatically come to naught.

Deliberate and systematic disappearance of bilingual billboards, license plates, road signs, name plates, official banners and storefronts in TAR are part of the same cultural genocide. All these blatant measures were adopted despite the Chinese Constitution guaranteeing ethnic groups the right to give priority to their own language in education and daily use. The CCP has also now adopted a harsh stance against Tibetan monasteries.

In January 2014, there was news of three Buddhist monasteries (Dron-na, Tarmoe and Rabten) forced to shut down in Driru County, Kham Region of Eastern Tibet in TAR, where monks have been forced to vacate – all under the garb of CCP “patriotic re-education” campaign, even issuing orders for the Chinese flag to be put atop private homes. There have also reports of closed monasteries turned into prisons. These are but some news items that have filtered out because the Chinese government has enforced a total clampdown on media and communications in TAR lest full details of the cultural genocide gets revealed.

During 2013, Jamphel Yeshi’s self-immolation fiery protest in India during the BRICS Summit against Chinese genocide in Tibet was captured in full, horrifying detail by the press and sparked visceral reactions around the globe. This was unlike similar incidents in Tibetan areas of China, where most of the 30 earlier immolations had occurred. The TIME magazine noted, “This summit will be forever in the shadow of something far simpler and more elemental: the image of one man on fire,” while questioning how India could sink so low as to invoke a colonial-era law against Tibetans to keep them effectively under house arrest.

Forbes magazine stated, “It was a considerably poorer and weaker India” that ever truly challenged China in the name of liberal democratic values…This unyielding resolve to uphold rights will seem almost foreign to anyone acquainted with the state of free expression in today’s India. Only last year, India imposed cuts on a Bollywood movie that displayed a stray ‘Free Tibet’ flag for a fleeting moment….New Delhi’s cowardice when it comes to defending democratic values should trouble all those in the West who champion India because it is a democracy.”

It is only during President Xi Jinping’s visit to India last year that Tibetan protesters could protest outside Hyderabad house in New Delhi. Lobsang Sangay, Prime Minister of the Tibetan Government-in-exile in Dharamshala has testified to the US Congressional Committee on the human rights situation in the Tibetan areas of China. He blames the Chinese refusal to accept the reality of the ground situation in the Tibetan areas for the continuing unrest, adding, “The actions of Tibetans who pour gasoline over themselves are clear indications of their desperation and frustration and of the urgency of the situation inside Tibet.”

China had recently offered rewards of up to 300,000 RMB ($48,000) for tip-offs on overseas terrorist organisations and their members’ activities inside China, the spreading of religious extremism, terror related propaganda, those producing, selling and owning weapons, activities that help terrorists cross national borders and terror activities via the internet. This strategy is titled “People’s War Against Terrorism”. That new definition has implications for Tibet.

China has repeatedly denounced the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader, as a “splittist,” arguing that his talk of a “middle way” and increased Tibetan autonomy is merely code for outright Tibetan independence. Chinese authorities have vowed to crack down on officials within Tibet that “…follow the 14th Dalai Lama to split the country, break ethnic unity, participate in illegal organizations and activities, and spread reactionary opinions.” In 2014, the International Campaign for Tibet had warned, “The counter-terrorism drive in Tibet has a particular political dimension, involving training of police in Buddhist monasteries, the characterisation of religious teachings by the Dalai Lama as incitement to ‘hatred’ and ‘extremist action’ and the implication that Tibetan self-immolations can be characterised as ‘terrorism.”

The Sino-Indian Equation

While Sardar Patel had warned Nehru about Chinese irredentism and communist imperialism being different from the expansionism or imperialism of Western powers and Chinese ideological expansion concealed behind racial, national or historical claims, China apparently feels her aggression is warranted because under the Tianxia (天下; “Under Heaven”) concept, Chinese perceive all territories under the sun belonging to them. Hence the ambiguity and deceit, and the ‘Doctrine of Pre-emption and Surprise’ encompassing surprise, deception and shock – plus the façade of peace homilies. That is why China has been providing tacit support to Pakistan’s anti-India jihadist groups in India; ‘Shashou Jian (Assassin’s Mace) incapacitating India from within through insurgencies and terrorism. It is also well understood that Chinese aggression of Tibet and Aksai Chin has been tempered because of the presence of minerals and natural resources like water, including possible thorium reserves.

It is important for Chinese scholars, strategists and more importantly, the Chinese government to understand that Pakistan has no claim on the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, being an aggressor and imposter. Unlike Tibet, Kashmir was legally ceded to India. What led to the then Maharaja of Kashmir Hari Singh to cede the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India is contained in his letter dated October 26, 1947, to Lord Mountbatten, clearly describing the blatant aggression by Pakistan. Also acknowledging the aggression by Pakistan, Lord Mounbatten accepted this Instrument of Accession.

The complaint made by India to the UN on January 01, 1948, too conveyed Pakistan’s aggression to the international community. On February 05, 1948, Sheikh Abdullah addressed the UNSC asking for the world body to force Pakistan to vacate its troops from Jammu and Kashmir. Most significantly, the UN Resolution of August 13, 1948, clearly stated that Pakistan should vacate the state of Jammu and Kashmir, conveying indirectly that Pakistan had been consistently lying on the question of whether or not her troops were involved in the aggression of Jammu and Kashmir.

Still more importantly, it is when the Pakistani Prime Minister conceded that Pakistani troops were indeed involved, the UN asked Pakistan to vacate Jammu and Kashmir. The Resolution on Assurance adopted by UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) 1948 further endorsed this fact. China should realise that Pakistan had absolutely no legal authority for leasing out the Shaksgam Valley to China in 1963 and same goes for Pakistan’s move to lease out the Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) area.

Chinese claims in the North East Frontier Agency (NEFA) in Arunachal Pradesh were initially limited to the Tawang Monastery on grounds that Tibetans come to pray at the ancient Tawang Monastery. So what about the enclaves of Minsar (Men ser), near Lake Mansarovar (Ma pham) which are for annual pilgrimage for all Indians and Bhutanese enclave Tconsists of Darchen (Dar chen) Labrang near Mount Kailash (Gangs rin po che, Ti se) again used by Bhutanese and Indians for periodic pilgrimage – both these enclaves being under illegal occupation of China?

Incidentally, Mount Kailash is the abode of an Indian God as per ancient mythology. Why China proposed the alternative route to Mansarovar via Nathu La is to bury any future discussion on about the Minsar and Tconsists of Darchen enclaves despite the fact that devotees attach great significance to the traditional routes of pilgrimage. Indian authorities need to keep this in mind while negotiating a settlement on the Sino-Indian border.

China wants India to recognise the ‘One China’ policy. But why then China does not accept ‘One India’ by recognising the legal accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India on October 26, 1947? It would make Chinese occupation of the Shaksgam Valley and Aksai Chin illegal but that can be negotiated between the special representatives of both countries negotiating the border. Last year, the Indian Foreign Minister had stated, “When they (China) raised with us the issue of Tibet and Taiwan, we shared their sensibilities. So, we want they should understand and appreciate our sensibilities regarding Arunachal Pradesh.” Our NSA too conveyed to Beijing that Chinese activities in POK will affect the resolution of the Kashmir issue. Recently, the media has indicated continued Chinese obduracy with respect to Arunachal Pradesh. In that case, there will be no reason why India should abide by ‘One China’ policy.